POLITICAL POLICY

OBAMA'S DITHERING AFGHAN DEBACLE: "PLEASE HELP ME GENERAL DAVE, I'VE FALLEN AND I CAN'T GET UP"

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:03:00 +0000

Now that General Stanley McChrystal has been relieved of his command as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan due to his honest, frank, but unprofessional, remarks to a Rolling Stone magazine reporter regarding the Obama administration’s management of the Afghanistan war, President Obama has turned to General David Petraeus, General McChrystal’s boss, for help to take over command of the Afghanistan war.

An interesting choice for the President given his past disrespectful and insulting treatment of General Petraeus when he served in the Senate. When General Petraeus was the top commander in Iraq leading the implementation of President George W. Bush’s 2007 Iraq surge, then Senator Barack Obama from Illinois was quite critical and disrespectful of General Petraeus’ efforts in Iraq saying “the surge has not worked”. In fact, the Obama administration entire leadership said as much. Vice-President Joe Biden said “I believe the president's strategy (surge) is not a solution. I believe it's a tragic mistake”. And then Senator Hillary Clinton, in a response to General Petraeus' report before Congress, fundamentally called General Petraeus a “liar” by saying she had to “suspend disbelief” (see video). Of course let us not forget that other great progressive/socialist patriot Senate Majority leader Harry Reid’s encouragement for our military’s effort in Afghanistan when he said, “the war is lost”!

Of course, they were all quick to take credit for the Bush-Petraeus surge success after the fact. Suddenly it's a success of the Obama administration according to Joe Biden. Interesting, and galling, how these progressive/socialist military geniuses running our White House insult the American public, the military and former President Bush by claiming credit for a military strategy that they collectively ridiculed. Blame Bush for everything from not enough half & half for the White House morning coffee to the economy, but have the insolence to co-opt credit for his successes without any shame whatsoever. The "Chicago-Way" thug politics has settled in nicely in D.C.

Obama, Biden, Reid and Hillary Clinton, these titans of military strategy, now have come pleading to General Petraeus to bail them out for their mismanagement and incompetent handling of the Afghanistan war since they took office. You see they haven’t paid much attention to the Afghanistan effort over the last eighteen months since they have been very busy during that period.

Busy enacting socialist legislation to take away individual freedoms such as nationalizing the health, banking, financial services and automotive industries, passing laws to dictate executive compensation, providing terrorists with Miranda rights, suing Arizona over obeying the immigration rule of law, and basically bankrupting the country into a socialist welfare state. Yes, they have been regular beavers when it comes to dismantling the fabric of America, which has distracted them from that little skirmish over in Afghanistan that involves fighting terrorism abroad to keep us safe on our shores. Well, at least the shores that will remain after this administration’s blundering of the Gulf oil spill.

Maybe all for the better since we don’t want this administration to get their incompetent progressive/socialist hands into very much, especially when it comes to military defense policies. This is certainly not an area that democrats have ever expressed much in the way of interest, resolve, knowledge and capability. Typically your run of the mill progressive/socialist, such as Obama et alia, have disdain for the military and use them as a political football when it serves their purposes, right Ma'am, excuse me, "Senator" (hopefully not for long) Boxer. Beyond that, they don’t see the “what’s in it for me” to support our military strategically, financially or respectfully to protect American interests (unless, of course, when they wish to take credit for something they had nothing to do with like the Bush-Petraeus surge success). Remember, according to President Obama, America isn’t exactly very exceptional anyway.

Well, the progressive/socialist Obama administration crew has recently found another “WIIFM” moment. Now they need General David Petraeus, the general they mocked, ridiculed, character assassinated and generally insulted about the Iraq surge, and then took credit for it's success, to bail them out of their incompetent prosecution of the Afghanistan war.

Mr. Obama, in the parlance of Texas hold 'em you are holding a 1-7, the worst hand, and General Petraeus, your third commander in Afghanistan, is holding Ace-Ace. So Mr. President you might do well to start paying some attention to the Afghan war, listen to General David Petraeus and give one of your handy-dandy teleprompted speeches that undoes your pathetic dithering, “aid-the-enemy” West Point speech about military troop drawdown starting in July, 2011. Because, Mr. President, you are running out of Daves.

OBAMA'S TOUGH IMMIGRATION POLICY: "SIGNS IN THE DIRT"

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:43:00 +0000

Mr. Obama has really stepped up his administration’s policy on protecting Americans from the crimes associated with illegal immigration. What has President Obama done besides pitting state against state with the California boycott of Arizona, showcasing his "crack" Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano and Attorney-General Eric Holder's ignorance of the Arizona illegal immigration legislation and threatening to sue Arizona for merely enforcing the federal law? He put up a real, scary sign in the Arizona desert, just 30 miles from Phoenix, which says, “Travel Caution: Smuggling and Illegal Immigration May Be Encountered In This Area”.

Aside from insulting the people of Arizona, intimidating tourism and frustrating the economy of Arizona, this is how Mr. Obama shows how he is making the Arizona-Mexico border safe? A sign? Instead of Mr. Obama defending the rule of law and endeavoring to protect American citizens and it's economy, he slaps them in the face with lawsuits simply because they expect the federal law to be supported by our President and then insults us by shoving a sign in the dirt.

This, as with his do nothing policy with the Gulf oil spill, is how our “all talk, do nothing” President solves problems--signs and lawyers. Perhaps Mr. Obama should finally put some of his Justice dept. lawyers to work and stick them in the Arizona desert with a sign. In fact, maybe he should actually do something helpful for America and choose between sticking himself in the Arizona dirt or in the Gulf oil leak.

Now that would be change we could all believe in!

PAT TOOMEY FOR U.S. SENATE: "PENNSYLVANIANS FOR PAT"

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:56:00 +0000

Political Policy is proud to endorse Pat Toomey as the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania. Pat Toomey has both the political and business experience to bring practical, common sense leadership to Washington on behalf of all Pennsylvanians. Pat rebukes the progressive/socialist agendas of Obama, Pelosi, Reid embraced by his opponent Joe Sestak; agendas designed to reduce America’s exceptionalism, dignity, freedoms and strength.

Pat’s guiding principles of limited government, lower taxes, reduced spending, a strong national defense and traditional family values will put America back on the path to be, as President Ronald Reagan described, “ … a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere."

Pat Toomey’s Background
Pat Toomey is the President, and CEO, of the “Club for Growth”. The “Club for Growth” is a national network of thousands of pro-growth Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. The “Club for Growth” works to promote public policies that encourage a high growth economy and a swift return to America's founding principles primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity.

Before joining the “Club for Growth”, Pat served as a member of the United States House of Representatives, from Pennsylvania’s 15th congressional district, for three terms, from January 1999 through January 2005. Pat Toomey distinguished himself as one of Congress’ leading advocates for limited government and personal freedom. He led Republican efforts to expand the Bush tax cuts of 2001; to reduce wasteful spending; and to block the vast expansion of Medicare in 2003. He served on the Budget Committee, the Financial Services Committee, and the Small Business Committee.

Prior to his service in Congress, Pat co-founded, owned, and operated four very successful, original-concept restaurants in Allentown and Lancaster, Pennsylvania. His first career was in investment banking from 1984 through 1991. He developed and managed a $21 billion trading operation for Morgan Grenfell Finance, Inc. in New York, supervising sales and trading operations in New York, London, and Tokyo.

Pat attended La Salle Academy in Providence, RI and graduated from Harvard University, cum laude, with a degree in government.

Pat Toomey On The Issues

Jobs and the Economy
The government should be making it less expensive and easier for businesses to hire people. It can do this by cutting taxes and decreasing regulation. For example, if we rescind the stimulus and cut both employees’ and employers’ payroll taxes instead, every worker would see an immediate increase in their take home pay and it would be less expensive for businesses to hire new workers.

If we eliminated the tax on capital gains and lowered the tax on businesses, it would make U.S. companies more competitive, and lead to major job growth.

Taxes
When people work hard, they have a right to enjoy the money they have earned. But when the government imposes an unnecessarily heavy burden on our paychecks, our businesses, our investments, and our goods and services, it impinges upon our economic freedom. If government cuts taxes, people will have a natural incentive to work more, produce more, and invest more. That is why keeping taxes low is so important to growing our economy, creating jobs, and increasing the standard of living for all Americans.

Pat supports lower marginal income tax rates for all Americans, cutting the tax on capital gains investment, and cutting income taxes on American businesses - which suffer from the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. As a Congressman, Pat never voted for a tax increase and fought for lower taxes for all Americans. In the Senate, he will fight for the lower taxes that are integral to our economic freedom and the economic prosperity this country deserves.

Spending
Washington politicians are on a dangerous spending spree. A combination of wasteful pork projects, multiple bailouts, the so-called stimulus, and new government programs have pushed the deficit for 2009 to a record-breaking $1.6 trillion dollars and the ten-year deficit to $9 trillion dollars. Pat has long been a strong proponent of putting policies in place to make sure our representatives and senators can’t spend taxpayer dollars haphazardly.

When he was in Congress, he voted against spending taxpayer dollars on pork-barrel earmarks and pushed for laws that would curb how much politicians are allowed to spend. Because of his strong record of standing up for taxpayers, Pat received the highest score of any Pennsylvania member of Congress from Citizens Against Government Waste. When Pat is elected to the Senate, he will continue to push for these and other policies that save taxpayer dollars and erase the deficit.

Bailouts
America is in danger of becoming a bailout nation. First, Congress bailed out the Wall Street companies, then homeowners who borrowed too much, and then the auto industry. Altogether, the American people have been placed on the hook for several trillion dollars.

Bailouts reward companies that took too many risks and acted irresponsibly simply because they are large and hold sway in Washington. At the same time, the bailouts punish those businesses and individuals who worked hard, acted responsibly, and succeeded. In other words, bailouts encourage failure and discourage success.

Health Care
Over the past couple of decades, health insurance premiums have increased much faster than the general rate of inflation. But many politicians in Washington are pushing for a government-run healthcare system that does not make health care any cheaper, will push many people out of their private coverage, limits patient choice, restricts access to life-saving procedures, and puts government bureaucrats in charge of our health care.

Instead of giving the government more power, Pat believes the best way to lower the cost of health care is by giving choices and power to patients. One way to do that is to encourage the growth of personally owned and controlled health care. We can start by giving individuals who buy their own health insurance the same tax benefits that employers enjoy when they buy health insurance for their employees. This will make it much easier for millions of Americans to buy their own health insurance plan.

National Security
Pat believes that our country must have the strongest defensive capabilities in the world. We should not hesitate to take action in defense of our freedom and our American way of life. But we must also make sure that American military action is guided first and foremost by the country’s national interest. As a Congressman, Pat always voted to fund our most important defense systems, including the strategic missile defense program to protect our country from the threat of a missile attack.

Part of our national security must also include a comprehensive program to protect our nation’s soldiers and veterans and ensure their continued well-being. As a senator, Pat will fight to make sure our soldiers have the equipment they need to be victorious and our veterans have the care they deserve when they come home.

Family and Marriage
Pat is pro-life and believes that children should be welcomed into the world and protected by its laws. Pat also believes the tradition of marriage is sacred and is best defined as between a man and a woman. As a Congressman, Pat voted to protect the institution of marriage in many ways.

For example, Pat voted to reduce the tax penalty on married couples and will support similar policies as a U.S. senator. Throughout his time in Congress, Pat voted for legislation to protect innocent life, strengthen marriage, and protect the traditional values upon which this country was founded.

Pennsylvanians for Pat
Pennsylvanians are aligned around Pat Toomey’s agenda to reinvigorate America’s greatness. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey on June 4 of Likely Voters in Pennsylvania shows Pat Toomey with 45% support, while his opponent Joe Sestak earns 38%. Pat Toomey holds similar leads among both male and female voters. Voters not affiliated with either party strongly prefer Pat Toomey.

Also, according to the poll, 56% of all Pennsylvania voters favor repeal of the ObamaCare bill that Sestak voted for as a member of the House. Pat Toomey was a strong advocate against the progressive/socialist ObamaCare bill that Joe Sestak voted for in Congress.

Sestak’s Progressive/Socialist Agenda
Even though he has couched himself as an “independent”, Pat’s opponent Joe Sestak, while in Congress, has been a staunch supporter of the Obama, Pelosi, Reid progressive/socialist agenda. Perhaps Mr. Sestak is too embarrassed to admit it, but he has voted for their agendas 100% of the time with, as Jennifer Rubin of "Commentary" writes, no daylight between them. In fact, in the following exchange between Joe Sestak and David Gregory on “Meet The Press” on May 23, Joe Sestak is ashamed to admit his allegiance to the Obama agenda.

David Gregory: Congressman, you sound like the ultimate outsider. The only problem is, you are a congressman . . . you voted for TARP, for the bailout, you voted for the President’s stimulus plan, you voted for the President’s health care plan, exactly which establishment are you not part of that you’re running against?

Sestak: You know, I have 31 years in the navy; when I came to Washington, I was kind of taken aback. That kind of accountability that I learned from my actions in the U.S. Navy, seemed to be absent down here in Washington D.C. .

David Gregory: But Congressman, the question I asked you, you have supported all the major elements of the Obama agenda, and yet, in that sound bite, you were running as an outsider. Are you not part of the establishment that you are railing against?

Sestak: Oh, I did vote for those because they were needed. But as John F. Kennedy once said: “Sometimes the Party asks too much . . .”

David Gregory: Which element of the Obama agenda that was his priority did you stand up to?

Sestak: Oh, I honestly think that this President has done great, good things, but I don’t think we’ve gone far enough in terms of helping small business.

Sestak the ultimate outsider? “…this President has done great, good things?”. I submit that Mr. Sestak is the ultimate Obama insider. Mr. Sestak sounds as though the Obama progressive/socialist agenda has not gone far enough in it’s attempt to systematically dismantle America’s greatness. Come November Pennsylvanians should not give Mr. Sestak the opportunity to deliver on his attitude.

SestakGate: The “Chicago-Arkansas Way”
Joe Sestak admitted in an interview with Larry Kane on February 18 that he was bribed by being offered a federal job by the so-called “ethical” Obama administration in exchange for dropping his challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania's Senate democratic primary. Sestak was bribed by the Obama administration in June and July of 2009, and the corrupt Obama administration finally admitted as much by announcing that former President Bill Clinton offered Joe Sestak an unpaid job in the Obama administration if Sestak dropped his Senate campaign and remained in the House of Representatives.

Not that federal laws are of much importance to Sestak’s favored Obama administration (since they ignore immigration laws and the entire constitution), but federal statute 18 USC 600 expressly prohibits “… promises of employment in connection with any general or special election to office.” The Obama-Sestak bribe is an impeachable presidential offense.

Of course the Obama administration is doing it’s best to cover it’s “Chicago way” political dirty tricks, but Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking GOP member of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, and all the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller over “SestakGate”. They have urged the FBI Director to investigate “collusion” and possible obstruction of justice involving the White House, former President Bill Clinton, and Joe Sestak’s brother, who was consulted during the drafting of the self-serving White House report that cleared Obama officials and Bill Clinton of any wrongdoing.

The head of the Justice dept., Obama’s private lawyer (and apparently not America’s) Attorney-General Eric Holder has refused to uphold his office and has already turned down a request from Rep. Darrell Issa to investigate SestakGate. Holder has not yet responded to the letter from all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, but the answer is expected to be the same, i.e., “go away”. In the letter the GOP lawmakers write the following about SestakGate,

“Despite the seriousness of these allegations, we are disappointed that the Justice Department has denied any request to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate this matter. That’s why we’re calling on the FBI to look into the allegations. Admissions that the White House intentionally sought to manipulate the outcome of a Democratic Senate primary strike at the heart of our democracy. Only a full criminal investigation can restore integrity to our election process.”

Sestak not only covered up the Obama bribe until prompted in the Kane interview, but also refused to answer questions as to, in fact, what job he was offered in the Obama bribe. Please view the attached video wherein Sestak sidesteps all questions on the matter in his best Obama “Chicago way” style.

Pennsylvanians must ask themselves this question, “Is Joe Sestak and his radical progressive/socialist, Obama Chicago-way unethical politics what they want in a U.S. Senator?”

Pennsylvanians must also ask themselves another question, “Do they want dignity, ethics and American values in a U.S. Senator who will help restore America, as President Ronald Reagan once described as, “ … a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere."

The first question is rhetorical. The second question has a solution and that solution is Pat Toomey.

CARLY FIORINA FOR U.S. SENATE: "KO" BOXER NOW

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:00:00 +0000

Political Policy is proud to endorse Carly Fiorina as the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in California. Carly Fiorina has an extremely interesting background, both professionally and personally. It all adds up to someone who will be a breath of senatorial fresh air who will breathe new life into the once Golden state and restore its aura of greatness.

CARLY’s BACKGROUND
While Carly Fiorina is perhaps best known as the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hewlett-Packard Company (HP), what is not as well known is Carly worked her way through undergraduate and graduate school. A self-made woman, she started her business career as a secretary and went on to become the first, and to date, the only woman to lead a Fortune 20 company. Carly’s uncommon record of hard work and success includes more than 20 years at AT&T and Lucent Technologies, where she led the largest-of-its-time IPO of Lucent and became President of its largest business.

During her tenure, HP’s revenues doubled, from $44 billion to $88 billion, with improved profitability in every product category. Today, HP is the largest technology company in the world. As the Chairman of the Fiorina Foundation, chair of The One Woman Initiative – A Fund for Women’s Empowerment and a founding partner with The African Leadership Academy, Carly believes in giving back. She is also a board member of Freedom House, Vital Voices, the National Symphony Orchestra and Ford’s Theatre and serves as a trustee for MIT.

Carly is the quintessential self-starter. She helped put herself through school, doing the books at a local hair salon while she earned her undergraduate degree from Stanford and taught undergraduates in order to pay for an MBA from the University of Maryland. Her Masters of Science in Business from MIT was the result of years of hard work at AT&T – they thought enough about her promising future to send her there.

Carly Fiorina is living proof that the traits needed for personal and professional success come from within ourselves given the opportunity. As the U.S. Senator representing California, Carly will serve in the Senate to create the environment and the opportunities for all Americans to succeed.

CARLY ON THE ISSUES
Creating Jobs
"Small businesses and entrepreneurs are the economic engines that will lead us through these difficult times."

Restoring Fiscal Accountability
"When we know where our money is being spent, it'll be a whole lot easier to get people focused on saving money."

California's Water Crisis
"Bringing relief to California farmers in the Central Valley is one of my highest priorities."

Focusing Health Care
"Health care reform should be focused on keeping decisions about care between doctors and patients."

Reducing the Deficit
"Tax, spend and borrow is not a governing philosophy, it's a cycle of dependency."

Energy and the Environment
"Our focus must be to find efficiencies in the energy production sector and invest in innovation."

Immigration
"Illegal immigration undermines our security." Carly Fiorina said she supports the new immigration law in Arizona and blasted the federal government for not fixing the nation’s immigration system.

“I support the Arizona law. The people of Arizona did what they felt they had to do, absent the federal government's decision to do its job.” This is the federal government's job. It's President Obama's job. It's Janet Napolitano's job. And Barbara Boxer, as our senator, instead of standing up and challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law, she ought to be standing on the president's desk and saying, ‘Do your job.’ Why is it that we are prepared to allow the federal government to be unaccountable and to not do its' job?”

Protecting America
"Government's first and foremost priority is to protect its citizens. That means defending our nation from threats of all kinds, both domestic and foreign."

Carly Fiorina is the self-starter, common sense, passionate and caring leader Californians and Americans need in Washington to put the country back on track toward economic and fiscal responsibility, job creation, preserving American freedoms and liberties and protecting America’s homeland and sovereignty.

SUPPORT CARLY AND “KO” BARBARA BOXER’S DANGEROUS AGENDAS
Carly Fiorina has opened up a 15-point lead point lead on her challengers and, according to CQ Politics, will be the likely GOP nominee to face and defeat California incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer. Barbara Boxer is one of the most dangerous Obama-like progressive/socialists in Congress. Political Policy has posted commentary on how Barbara Boxer has been both disrespectful to our military leaders and has shown her true racist colors.

Barbara Boxer is prima facie evidence of the Obama-like progressive/socialist policymakers in Congress who have voted to systematically bankrupt America, inhibit economic and job growth, compromise American defenses from terrorism and infringe upon American freedoms, liberties and opportunities. When Barbara Boxer isn’t doing the above, she is laboring in the Senate expending precious taxpayer dollars to enact a cap and trade (translation “tax”) bill that, according to the Heritage Foundation, will cause “significant economic costs in terms of lost income, lost jobs, and higher energy prices, among other detrimental effects”. According to the Heritage Foundation’s analysis, the following is a summary of what Barbara Boxer’s disastrous cap and "tax" bill would cause between it’s proposed enactment and the year 2035, as adjusted for inflation:

Inflation-adjusted losses to gross domestic product (GDP) of $9.9 trillion
More than $4.6 trillion in higher energy taxes
Job losses exceeding 2.5 million for some years
Annual family-of-four energy costs rising by $1,000, including a gasoline price increase of more than $1.20 per gallon
Annual family-of-four energy costs plus increased cost of goods and services totaling more than $3,000
Average GDP loss per family of four above $4,500 per year;
Family-of-four net worth dropping by more than $40,000; and
The family of four's share of the national debt rising by an additional $27,000.

While Barbara Boxer’s cap and "tax" bill will increase energy costs and cost jobs for all Americans, it will create billions for her friends at General Electric. If her bill passes GE stands to make billions since her cap and "tax" bill will force the airlines industry and the military to purchase more expensive “green” engines made by GE.

EVEN THE LOS ANGLES TIMES REFUSES TO ENDORSE BARBARA BOXER. The Los Angeles Times’ opinion of Barbara Boxer is as follows, “On the Democratic side, we find that we're no fans of incumbent Barbara Boxer. She displays less intellectual firepower or leadership than she could.”

Carly issues the same concerns about Barbara Boxer's intellectual prowess and priorities when she states in her campaign ad, “Terrorism kills, and Barbara Boxer is worried about the weather”.

In the attached video, Carly says she believes that all Americans have the wisdom and should have the freedom to choose their path in life, versus those who support the Obama administration such as Barbara Boxer who believe government should make that final determination. It is now up to Californians to vote for which path they choose.

YOUR VOTE FOR CARLY FIORINA ON JUNE 8 IS THE FIRST STEP TO PUT CALIFORNIA AND AMERICA BACK ON TRACK. THE FIRST STEP TO RID CALIFORNIA AND AMERICA OF THE DANGEROUS AND HARMFUL AGENDAS PUT FORTH BY THE BARBARA BOXERS IN CONGRESS.

MEXICO'S JOURNALIST KILLING FIELDS: CALDERON'S HYPOCRISY ON HUMAN RIGHTS

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 12:00:00 +0000

President Obama brought Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón into America’s House to preach and lecture Americans on our indiscretions when it comes to human rights and nondiscrimination in the wake of Arizona’s immigration law SB1070. And, of course, President Obama, our fearless leader and defender of America, sat by idly as his “guest” ripped into American values. Mr. Obama must have been too busy thinking how much fun he was going to have at the taxpayer-funded White House state dinner later that evening in honor of the America-bashing Calderón. No surprise here.

But as I was listening to Calderón chastise us in America’s White House and Capitol I was wondering if President Calderón was actually auditioning a stand-up comedy routine for “America’s Got Talent”. He certainly had a world stage to show his wares. Let’s be honest, given Mexico’s abysmal record on crime, drug trafficking and the Mexican constitution’s horrid rendering of illegal immigrants, President Calderón couldn’t possibly be serious as he pontificates on human rights. No one in their right mind could possibly take him serious. Well, perhaps some folks not quite in their "right" mind could possibly take him serious. Are you there left-wing media?

Even so, I was also wondering why the Obama regime-controlled “polluted media” didn't seem to do much critical reporting on the Calderón joke fest. This is very odd given the treatment of journalists and freedom of speech in Mexico. Yes, journalists! Not only are illegals persecuted in Mexico, but also Mexican journalists. In fact on May 18, 2010, the day before Felipe “the joke machine” Calderón was to deliver his stand-up routine in D.C. in front of his inviters and favorite audience, Barack Obama and the progressive/socialist democratic party in Congress, the “Committee to Protect Journalist (CPJ) issued a statement to Presidents Obama and Calderón calling on them to advocate for reforms that will strengthen federal accountability in crimes against freedom of expression in Mexico.

The CPJ statement said,

“The level of violence against journalists in Mexico has become an international concern and must be included as part of bilateral discussions,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “While it is up to the Mexican government to address this problem, President Obama should make clear that the U.S. has deep concern about the situation and considers it a priority. Since Calderón took office in December 2006, 20 journalists have been killed in Mexico, at least five in direct reprisal for their work. The situation has been particularly alarming in those areas where powerful drug cartels fight for dominance. The dangerous climate is fostered by a culture of impunity in which 90 percent of deadly anti-press crimes go unsolved, CPJ research shows. Four journalists have been killed so far in 2010. Victims include reporter Valentín Valdés Espinosa, who was found dead on January 8, in Saltillo, northern Mexico. A reporter with the newspaper Zócalo de Saltillo, Valdés had covered a Mexican army raid in which a leader of the Gulf drug cartel was arrested. In addition to journalists’ killings, six reporters have gone missing since December 2006. In its special report “The Disappeared,” released in September 2008, CPJ said the tally was nearly unprecedented worldwide. The spike in disappearances may reflect the involvement of local government officials, CPJ reported. Journalists had investigated government corruption and organized crime before they were killed or went missing, according to CPJ research. In April, CPJ released its annual Impunity Index, a list of countries in which journalists are killed regularly and governments fail to solve the crimes. Mexico is among the 10 worst countries in the world with terms of impunity, CPJ found.”

Good Lord, even al jazeera is covering Mexican atrocities on journalists. al jazeera’s Rhodri Davies did coverage investigating missing and murdered persons in Mexico working in the media. Davis reports that,

“Mike O'Connor, a consultant in Mexico for the Committee to Protect Journalists, believes that members of the media can come under greater threat than the average Mexican because of the journalistic work they do. He says there are varied reasons: because journalists are investigating local criminal groups, or governments; reporters refuse to collaborate with criminals or officials; or, corrupt reporters displease those people they are collaborating with. However, O'Connor stressed that unlike most Western nations, journalism in Mexico is not considered a sacred institution and has little public defence, especially in the provinces.”

Curiously, however, during Mr. Calderón’s visit, not a whimper on the mistreatment and dangers journalists face each day in Calderón’s “humane” Mexico from the Obama regime-controlled media. Not from Keith Olbergirl, “Rabid” Maddow, Chris “Tingle” Matthews or any of the other Obama kool-aid media. Very curious indeed.

Nontheless, the next time Mr. Obama wants to bring someone to America to speak at OUR Rose Garden and OUR Capitol Hill on human rights, I suggest he not sully and insult our hallowed grounds with the likes of hypocritical human rights offenders such as Felipe Calderón just to curry political favor with his Hispanic base. Mr. Obama, a word to the wise, America does not take very kindly to such affronts.

I am wondering one more thing. I’m wondering if President Calderón is available for weddings, bar mitzvahs and roasts.

MEMORIAL DAY TRIBUTE

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Mon, 31 May 2010 04:01:00 +0000

A tribute to the brave men and women who sacrificed their lives for our great country. They will never be forgotten.

MEXICO PRESIDENT FELIPE CALDERON: DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sun, 30 May 2010 11:01:00 +0000

President Obama invited “kidnapping king” Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón to Washington, D.C. permitting him to parade himself at the White House Rose Garden and at a joint session of Congress to lecture and attack Americans on how SB1070, Arizona’s immigration law will, as he puts it, "… opens the door to intolerance, hate and discrimination." After President Obama allowed President Calderón to have his way attacking America, he then treated him to a taxpayer-funded White House state dinner. You see this is how you are feted at an Obama White House state dinner--YOU ATTACK AMERICA!!!

Mr. Calderón takes umbrage to an immigration law enacted by a U.S. state to enforce the federal law. A law which only requires appropriate immigration documents and STRICTLY PROHIBITS racial profiling. A law that was designed almost specifically to cater to the sensitivities of illegal immigrants. Well let us take a look at how “sensitive” the Mexican law is for illegals that President Calderón supports and how “tolerant, loving and nondiscriminatory” the treatment is of illegals in Mexico that President Calderón requires from America.

The following is a summary of the Mexican constitution on the treatment of foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens, as reported by the “Center for Security Policy, April 2006”. This report was authored by Dr. Michael Waller, the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication Professional Experience at the Institute for World Politics, and is entitled “Mexico’s Glass House, How the Mexican constitution treats foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens”.

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.

Now that is a very “tolerant, loving and nondiscriminatory” Mexican constitution when it comes to treating illegals, don’t you think? I can see why President Obama invited a foreign leader such as President Calderón to lecture Americans on the “empathetic” treatment of illegal immigrants. PERHAPS NOT ONLY DID PRESIDENT OBAMA NOT READ THE ARIZONA LAW, HE MOST LIKELY HAS NOT READ THE MEXICAN CONSTITUTION!

As Tim Padgett of TIME writes,

“Once Calderón has had his say, however, let's hope that President Obama and congressional leaders give him a little piece of their minds before they toast him at Wednesday's White House state dinner. After all, blaming the U.S.for Mexico's flaws is a time-honored Mexican presidential tradition, even for Calderón. He suggested to Reuters last week that criticism of his handling of Mexico's crises was simply a result of flawed public "perception." But on the two biggest issues facing U.S.-Mexico relations, drugs and immigration,Calderón's failings are as much reality as America's are.”

Mr. Padgett gets the message out to President Calderón loud and clear—“do as you say, not as you do.”

MORE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ATTACKS ON AMERICA: "EARLY AND OFTEN"

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sat, 29 May 2010 17:42:00 +0000

While President Obama took care of attacking America and Arizona at home with his joint insults in the Rose Garden with his pal Mexican President Felipe Calderon, his minions were taking the administration’s “Attack on America” tour to China. Michael Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, in a two day delegation meeting on human rights with China in Beijing, admitted that he proactively apologized “early and often” for Arizona immigration law SB1070, and characterized the law,

"as an example of a trouble spot Americans need to work on. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society."

So who is Michael Posner and why would he state such inanity? Before receiving his appointment to the State department, Posner just happened to be the founding Executive Director of a group called “Human Rights First”. HRF is an organization that, according to its website, has "... earned a reputation for leadership in the areas of refugee protection, advancing a rights-based approach to national security, challenging crimes against humanity, and combating discrimination." Translation: OPEN AMERICAN BORDERS

What Posner and “Human Rights First” actually is was well documented by Mark Tapscott in the Washington Examiner. It is an Obama-like attack America group that fits very nicely into the hate-America Obama administration,

“Like President Obama, Posner is a product of the New Left generation that came to prominence in the Sixties and has since dominated the campuses and nonprofit activism. Their perspectives have also shaped many of the major narratives of Hollywood and the mainstream media. Posner spent many years as executive director of Human Rights First from its founding in 1978 and later as its president, in the process building a prototypical leftist nonprofit that
never misses an opportunity to bash the U.S. human rights record. Typical was the Posner-led "Stop the Torture" effort that saw only Abu Ghraib, with nary a word about the horrors practiced daily by regimes like Castro's Cuba, Iran's Imanutjob, or the North Korean butcher, Kim Jong Il.”

Michelle Malkin characterizes Posner’s “Human Rights First” as a “Blame America First” group. A group that represents the textbook State Department mindset of pandering to the worst America-bashers without hesitation or shame. Discover the Networks describes Posner’s “Human Rights First” as open-borders proponent for illegal immigration,

“HRF is an open borders group that opposes government efforts to control illegal immigration and strengthen American national security. In the 1980s, Posner worked with the late Arthur Helton to gain asylum for 2,000 Haitian immigrants who had stormed U.S. shores in 1982. (Helton established the Forced Migration Project for Soros’s OSI). There was subsequently a dramatic rise in Haitian gang-related crime in the 1980s.”

Posner’s attack on America then comes as no surprise since his resume is “fit for purpose” for the Obama administration’s attitudinal disdain for America. Posner's attacks on America’s Grand Canyon state takes on new hate-American heights from the Obama administration. Posner criticizes the Arizona immigration law, which ONLY requires adherence to the U.S. federal law, to a Chinese delegation that harbors one of the worst human rights practices on the planet. One can only think that this hate-America presidential administration will leave no quarter when it comes to attacking America. This must be the case since Posner obviously feels very comfortable attacking America to the Chinese, a nation that advances the following human rights violations as reported by Human Rights Watch’s 2008 “Summary of China Rights Developments”,

“the Chinese government continues to deny or restrict its citizens’ fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. The government’s extensive police and state security apparatus continues to impose multiple layers of controls on civil society activists, critics, and protesters. Those layers include professional and administrative measures, limitations on foreign travel and domestic movement, monitoring (covert or overt) of internet and phone communications, abduction and confinement incommunicado, and unofficial house arrests. A variety of vaguely defined crimes including “inciting subversion,” “leaking state secrets,” and “disrupting social order” provide the government with wide legal remit to stifle
critics.”

A very "patriotic"comparison of human rights violations between China and the U.S. that Posner brought to the table, don't you think?--China’s total infringement on human rights and Arizona enforcing U.S. federal law.

One wonders what will be the next insipid insult to America from the hate-America Obama administration. Hillary Clinton saying that U.S. tax policy is abhorrent and should be more like socialist Brazil? Oh wait, she already did say that.

OBAMA/CALDERON "ATTACK ON ARIZONA" EQUIPO DE LA ETIQUETA TOUR

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sat, 29 May 2010 14:00:00 +0000

President Obama and his regime took a broad brush in 2009 travelling the world preaching his scornful attacks on America with his “Apologize for America” tour. Now President Obama is focusing on trashing individual states and he has stepped up his strategic attacks on his country by enlisting help from corrupt foreign leaders. On May 19, 2010,on the White House Rose Garden grounds no less, America’s President stood next to his tag-team immigration partner- in-crime Mexican President Felipe Calderón and in a no holds barred exhibition shamelessly attacked Arizona’s immigration law SB1070.

SB1070 is a constitutional and, according to a Rasmussen poll, immensely popular law enacted by the Arizona state legislature to, well, do President Obama’s job. The startling incongruity of witnessing these two so-called leaders lecture Americans on a law that is designed to enforce U.S. immigration law, which they ignore, was a remarkable sight. As they spewed their irresponsible rhetoric, I was waiting for the White House roses to wilt in shame.

To cloak his blatant disregard for American sovereignty our President has gone on the offensive. He has, to use his favorite word, the “audacity” to castigate Arizona in concert with his Mexican counterpart Calderón, who has contributed to Arizona’s immigration plight.

THE PRESIDENT HAS THE TEMERITY TO STAND SIDE-BY-SIDE ON HALLOWED WHITE HOUSE GROUNDS AND ATTACK ARIZONA AND PERMIT CALDERON, A FOREIGN SOCIALIST LEADER WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COUNTLESS DEATHS, COST AND CRIME IN OUR GREAT AND BEAUTIFUL STATE OF ARIZONA, TO DO THE SAME. THEN HE PERMITTED THIS DISGRACEFUL PARADE OF ATTACKS ON AMERICA BY CALDERÓN TO CONTINUE IN THE SACRED HALLS OF CONGRESS. IS THERE ANY QUESTION NOW AS TO OBAMA’S AND THE PROGRESSIVE/SOCIALISTS DISDAIN FOR AMERICA?

And why did our President collude with Calderón with such a display? Simply because they are pathetically trying to hide their incompetence, malfeasance and negligence as to their respective responsibilities when it comes to enforcing immigration law (Obama) and stemming drug trade, crime and illegal immigration onto American soil (Calderón).

As the Obama/ Calderón tag team stood side-by-side, one would think they actually rehearsed their collective speeches. The President went first saying,

“We (Obama and Calderón) also discussed the new law in Arizona,which is a misdirected effort -- a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system, and which has raised concerns in both our countries. And I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law. We’re examining any implications, especially for civil rights. Because in the United States of America, no law-abiding person -- be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico -- should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like. “
The inferences by Obama that the Arizona immigration law would lead to racial profiling are disingenuous, to be kind, and an outright LIE, to be cruel and honest. So either the President has been as lax on reading the Arizona statute (like his other “crack” top officials Napolitano and Holder) as he has been on immigration enforcement or is outright lying to the American people. The Arizona statute was enacted on April 23, so we'll give the President the benefit of the doubt that he just has not had the time to read “all 16 pages” of the statute. So instead he simply made politically charged irresponsible statements attacking a state of the union to mask his incompetence and, perhaps, just perhaps, to pander to the Hispanic voter base. (Gee, would the President actually throw an entire state under the bus for political purposes? Naw, only some corrupt Chicago thug politico type would do such a thing.)

Since President Obama has neglected to correctly represent the Arizona law, to set the record straight the Arizona immigration law is extremely clear that it not only doesn’t portend racial profiling the law was amended to specifically state that fact. The Arizona law states as follows when it comes to racial profiling,

“for the enforcement of Willful Failure to Complete or Carry an Alien Registration Document, Unlawfully Picking up Passengers for Work and Unlawfully Transporting or Harboring Unlawful Aliens a law enforcement official or agency cannot consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution."

When Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill that made changes to SB1070 she was emphatic that the changes were put into law to make it a crime to consider racial profiling while enforcing the law,

"These changes specifically answer legal questions
raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling," Brewer said in a statement after the signing. "These new amendments make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated in Arizona."

At this stage, given the multiple explanations of the Arizona legislation, we get it President. You are going to continue to misrepresent it to make political hay and to insulate your regime from its incompetent and irresponsible efforts to protect American sovereignty.

After the President finished his bashing of one of America’s great states he tags Mexico’s President Calderón to step into the politically partisan ring and issue more punishment against Arizona. Calderón, who is President of a country of which it’s capital has the dubious honor of being the kidnapping center of the world, took his turn at vilifying Arizona. Yes folks, the President of the kidnapping capital of the world goes to Washington to lecture Americans on how terrible we are when it comes to controlling crime. Only the President’s regime could dream up such incredulous political theatre. Calderón driveled on the following in the Rose Garden,

“In Mexico, we are and will continue being respectful of the internal policies of the United States and its legitimate right to establish in accordance to its Constitution whatever laws it approves. But we will retain our firm rejection to criminalize migration so that people that work and provide things to this nation will be treated as criminals. And we oppose firmly the S.B. 1070 Arizona law given in fair principles that are partial and discriminatory.”

A two-legged drop kick delivered on America by saying he (1) won’t do a thing to stop the illegal flow of immigrants to the United States AND (2) he then body slams the Arizona immigration law. Under the auspices of President Obama and the progressive/socialists Pelosi and Reid, Calderón continued his attack on America with his remarks to a joint session of Congress. Calderón won sustained support applause from DEMOCRATS in attacking the Arizona law on Capitol Hill when he said,

"I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona. It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree, but also introduced a terrible idea using racial profiling for law enforcement."

Calderón conveniently forgot to mention in the Rose Garden and to Congress that Mexicans living and working in the U.S. transfer about $25 billion to the Mexican economy. In addition, Mexican criminals and moochers cost taxpaying citizens and legal immigrants almost $350 billion per year.

I’m sure Arizona law SB1070 is available in Spanish, but perhaps Mr. Calderón, not unlike President Obama, has not had the time to read it. I imagine instead he had the law explained to him, in their "own words", by the President and his Court--Napolitano and Holder.

If this shameful display in Congress of the progressive/socialist democratic party applauding prevaricative attacks on Arizona by this character Calderón isn’t evidentiary proof of the dangers for America lurking within Congress posed by the progressive/socialists democrats I am hard pressed to find more damming evidence.

Taking a cue from President Obama’s blame game strategy, at his joint session speech Calderón pathetically blamed America for crime in HIS country saying that the influx of assault weapons from America has contributed to Mexican crime rates. Calderon said a spike in violence in Mexico coincided with the expiration of the assault weapons ban in the U.S. in 2004,

"There is one issue where Mexico needs your cooperation, and that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly arms across the border. Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands. Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals."

This Calderón canard is ably handled by John Lott, author of “More Guns, Less Crime”. Mr. Lott states that,

“Calderón 's understanding of what the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is no more accurate than it is about Arizona's new immigration law. Let's review the assertions he made to Congress: Calderón claimed that these were "powerful weapons." It is a common misunderstanding as the "assault weapons" ban conjures up images of machine guns used by militaries. Yet the 1994 federal assault weapons ban had nothing to do with machine guns, only semiautomatics, which fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. The AK-47s banned by the assaults weapons ban were civilian, semiautomatic versions of the gun. Just as Mexican drug cartels are able to bring drugs into their country, they are also able to bring in really powerful weapons from around the world to defend both their valuable drugs as well their turf against competing drug dealers. Reports indicate that grenades and rocket launchers are not even available for sale in the United States and come from countries such as South Korea, Israel, and Spain. Two thousand two hundred thirty nine grenades were seized by the Mexican government from 2007 to 2009. Similarly, machine guns in Mexico originate from China, Israel, and South Africa. It is hard to believe that Mexican drug cartels would want to get look-alike "military-style" weapons from the U.S., when they can get the real military weapons elsewhere. . President Calderón really needs to read American laws before he lectures us about how we should change them. More worrisome, the vast majority of Democrats appeared to stand up and give him a long 20 second standing ovation when Calderón called for renewing the Assault Weapons Ban. Banning guns based on their looks and not how they function doesn't make a lot of sense for reducing crime."

Will President Calderón also make speeches before the national legislatures of South Korea, Israel, Spain, and South Africa blaming them for Mexico’s crime or does he relegate his hypocritical rhetoric to the U.S. on that matter?

Also, nobody is forcing the Mexican criminals to purchase these weapons. This crime wave falls on the head of Mr. Calderón and nobody else. Mr. Calderón should cease and desist the Obama-like blame game strategy and start looking within his incompetent administration to solve crime within Mexico. According to Reuters, the death toll from drug violence since Calderón set the army on cartels as soon as he took power in late 2006 has soared to around 23,000, with gruesome news of beheadings and torture. Mr. Calderón has no credibility to lecture the U.S. on crime control or immigration policy given his disastrous record as Mexico’s President. Before he starts up again on his lecture tour perhaps he should do some ride- alongs with Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to learn some real life lessons on controlling illegal immigration crime within his own country.

The Obama- Calderón tag team was a dishonor to the the sanctity of the White House, Congress and the American Presidency. But there was one saving grace--at least the President didn’t bow.

OBAMA IMMIGRATION ILLITERATES ON PARADE: YOU EXPECTED US TO READ THE ARIZONA LAW?

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Mon, 24 May 2010 23:02:00 +0000

Highlights of Obama administration officials Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney-General Eric Holder and State Dept. Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs P.J. Crowley sharing their criticisms of Arizona immigration bill SB1070. There's only one catch: THEY HAVEN'T READ THE LAW!! Just an inconvenience when it comes to Obama officials. If they haven't read their own ObamaCare 2,400 page debacle, why waste their time reading 16 pages of state legislation?

What is priceless in this video is the President saying, "Information is a distraction, a diversion". For some reason I don't imagine there are too many distractions or diversions in this White House.

THE FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX: ARIZONA'S IMMIGRATION LAW RESURRECTS AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sun, 23 May 2010 11:30:00 +0000

The story of the Phoenix in Egyptian mythology involves an immortal creature that has a lifespan of 500 years. When its life is up, the Phoenix builds a nest that would catch on fire when ignited by the sun and burn the aged body of the Phoenix, and it would be reborn from the ashes of the pyre. The Phoenix symbolizes recovery from a tragedy and regeneration. Like the mythological Phoenix, Arizona’s namesake capital has done the same by signing into law Arizona immigration law SB1070. This legislation has resurrected and regenerated Arizona from the ash heap of crime and cost ridden illegal immigration and regenerated it’s opportunity to protect its citizens and its border sovereignty.

While President Obama has been busy placing America in the ash heap of progressive/socialism over the last 16 months bowing to foreign leaders while criticizing America, imposing his progressive/socialist agendas on Americans and attempting to convert America into his own vision of Greece, the Arizona state legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer were busy doing HIS job-- crafting Arizona immigration enforcement law to enforce and protect American border sovereignty. On April 23 in Phoenix, Arizona Gov. Brewer signed into law SB 1070, Arizona’s immigration law, which goes into effect July 29. It is the toughest, most courageous and needed immigration legislation in the country. This bi-partisan popular legislation is a milestone and the first real step in America to address the overwhelming civil, criminal and economic dangers due to unenforced federal immigration laws and has met with widespread approval by mainstream America.

Of course, the embarrassment of riches Obama administration is openly critical of the legislation and, as usual, is out-of-touch, out-of-step and out-to-lunch when it comes to the wishes of the American people. The Obama administration has shamelessly criticized the law without even reading the statute—all 16 pages (depending on how you print it). No surprise. Recall their reading skills when it came to their own ObamaCare bill? This is not exactly a “hooked on American phonics” administration. President Obama has gone public with a sequel to his disdain for American exceptionalism “Apologize for America” tour and produced his “Apologize for Arizona” tour by criticizing the Arizona immigration law alongside his co-conspirator Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Obama and Caldron: the dynamic duo of illegal immigration who caused Arizona to enact such immigration law to protect its sovereignty.

Arizona’s immigration law is more than integral to stemming the costs, crime and other social injustices imparted on Arizona citizens and legal immigrants associated with illegal immigration. It is representative of the lingering, languishing politically correct (and expedient) incompetence of the Obama administration to tackle federal immigration law to protect the sovereignty of our borders. Instead, this administration has focused its political capital on advancing its progressive/socialist agenda. Programs such as the progressive/socialist unconstitutional ObamaCare, $800 billion radical left-wing, wasteful “porkulus” spending, out of control federal spending deficits (which for April reached a record-breaking $82.7 billion), progressive/socialist industry takeovers of insurance, financial and automotive industries and stimulating record unemployment. Programs and policies to reduce freedoms and protections. The Arizona immigration law accomplishes the opposite.

Arizona Immigration Law National Popularity
Despite the Obama/Calderon regimes, the Arizona immigration legislation is so nationally popular with the American people that a poll conducted by the Washington, D.C.-based, nonpartisan Pew Research Center indicated that 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question anyone they think may be in the country illegally. After being asked about the law’s provisions, 59% say that, considering everything, they approve of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law, while 32% disapprove. Perhaps most astonishing is the poll’s finding that Democrats are evenly divided on the law; 45% approve of the law and 46% disapprove. Even Democrats approve of two of the law’s principal provisions: requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status (65%) and allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify their legal status (55%). Republicans overwhelmingly approve of the law and three provisions tested.

Other states have also realized the laxity enforcement of American sovereignty by the Obama administration. Many are considering taking advantage of the 10th amendment by doing it the “Arizona way” to protect their borders. The courageous Arizona legislation is so popular that 11 other states have or will introduce Arizona-like immigration legislation to protect their sovereignty, having no faith that the Obama administration will take the necessary steps to neither protect American borders nor enforce federal immigration legislation. Why would the administration do so? According to the President America is not very exceptional, so why protect its borders. The revolution is on for states to protect their citizens from the dangerous policies of the Obama administration. First there are 18 states suing the federal government over the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare. Now 11 states may adopt similar Arizona legislation to protect their borders due to the failures of this administration's border protection efforts.

We see a trend here- states vs. Obama. States realizing that the Obama administration is undermining constitutional freedoms (ObamaCare) and ignoring federal legislation (immigration law and American sovereignty) so their only recourse is to take the appropriate action to protect state’s rights.

The Facts About Arizona SB 1070
Fundamentally Arizona law SB 1070 mirrors the federal law by simply enforcing it at the state level. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has stated that,

"Despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise, the new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document is adopted, verbatim, from the same offense found in the federal statute."

She is correct. Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Section 1304e requires that, “every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him. Those who fail to comply will be guilty of a misdemeanor and will be fined $100 and can be imprisoned up to 30 days.”

So why has Arizona decided to enact similar, if not less punitive, immigration legislation as the federal law? Simply because the federal government does not enforce the federal legislation! Gabriel Chin, a professor of law at the University of Arizona, wrote that,

"However, while the underlying offenses are federal crimes, they are among the least prosecuted in the U.S. Code," he wrote. "For the relevant offense at issue here, failure of a non-citizen to register in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1306(a), there were five convictions across the U.S. in FY 2008. So to be precise, the statement would be 'What the Arizona law does is make a state crime out of something that already is . . . a federal crime that the federal authorities have chosen not to enforce except in rare circumstances.'"

The intent of this Arizona legislation is to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in Arizona through attrition. Attrition through enforcement presents an effective option that respects the rule of law. By stepping up the enforcement of immigration laws through state-level actions, Arizona has induced thousands of illegal aliens to self-deport. The bill is very clear in Section 1 of its intent to be an inducement for illegals to self-deport.

“The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies
in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”

Arizona’s new law includes several elements. It makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, which mirrors federal law, just as with narcotics and other crimes. Legal non citizens can be charged if they fail to have their immigration documents handy. Basically, SB1070 has been passed for one reason only-- TO ENFORCE EXISTING FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS.

Upon signing the bill Gov. Brewer was not shy about her convictions that this legislation is key to her responsibilities as governor to protect the citizens of Arizona from the plague of illegal immigration. Upon signing the law she stated,

"Border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life.”

One only wishes President Obama exacted such tough language when it comes to protecting American sovereignty from illegals or terrorists. Our President appears to reserve his tough language to attack FOX news, tea party participants and America at-large.

Why did Arizona suddenly decide to enact such legislation? Fundamentally, the state has hit a critical mass when it comes to the dangers imposed on its citizens from illegal immigrants. As far as sheer beauty is concerned Arizona has few rivals in the union. From its painted deserts, vibrant with a colors ranging from lavenders and bursts of red, orange and pink to its thick green forests that create canopies filled with mountain creatures in higher elevations, Arizona is a veritable symphony of spectacular scenery. And, of course, Arizona is home to the magnificence of the Grand Canyon

However Arizona’s opulent physical beauty has been equaled by the ravages imposed on its sovereignty from factions of illegal immigrants. Of the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. an estimated 500,000 live in Arizona. Phoenix is widely known as America’s “kidnapping capital” with over 300 kidnappings in 2009. Immigrants and drug smugglers in Arizona have snatched their rivals, associates or their family members as a way to collect unpaid debt for lost trafficking loads, make quick money from crews flush with cash or as retaliation for earlier abductions. A few kidnapping victims are killed, and others face a range of abuse, such as having their legs burned with clothing irons, their arms tied to the ceiling or their fingers broken with bricks. According to Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu,

"We've been inundated with criminal activity. It's just -- it's been outrageous.” Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, president of the Arizona Association of Sheriffs has stated, "Crime is off the chart in this state."

The Arizona Department of Corrections reports that 15% of the more than 40,000 people serving time in the state's prisons are illegal immigrants. In Arizona’s Maricopa County, the state's most populous county, where 60% of Arizonans live, Sheriff Joe Arpaio said 14% to 18% of those booked into county jails are illegal immigrants. Economically, the costs of their immigration problems passed on to Arizonans are astounding. According to FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Arizona’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers about $2.7 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration.

Gov. Brewer has stepped up to the plate to protect the citizens of Arizona with a vigorous and thoughtful immigration law to confront these dire economic and safety realities facing Arizonans. The Arizona immigration bill enjoys strong support among Arizonans and key police groups. The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, which is a police union, and the Fraternal Order of Police back the bill. Detractors to Gov. Brewer’s remit to Arizonans has been challenged by the usual progressive/socialist suspects, i.e., the far left, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney-General Eric Holder and, of course, President Barack Obama. Predictably, the far left has registered their claims that SB1070 is either unconstitutional, promotes racial profiling and is a “Nazi-like show me your papers form of legislation”. As we tick off each one of these false claims, they all ring hollow.

The ObamaBots’ who criticize the law are in the minority. Their criticism is due to a combination of legislative ignorance of the law and that the law just doesn’t fit into their progressive/socialist agendas. We can spice that up with the fact that the Arizona legislation slaps the Obama administration in the face after saying to them, “Do your job Mr. President or we the states will do it for you”.

Unfounded Progressive/Socialist Reactions To The Law
Critics say the law could lead to racial profiling of Latinos and other ethnic minorities. Some Latino and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, say they plan to challenge the law in court as unconstitutional in that it violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal immigration power and authority. The Southern Poverty Law Center believes:

“Arizona’s newly adopted immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional and will undoubtedly trample upon the civil rights of residents caught in its path. Quite simply, this law is a civil rights disaster and an insult to American values.”

However, three University of San Diego law professors believe that argument would fail because the Arizona law does not conflict with federal immigration law. The state law is only seeking to enforce federal immigration law.

The U.S. Constitution does not mention immigration anywhere and it does not specify rules for immigration. In the section of the Constitution known as the Enumerated Powers, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states,

“(Congress shall have the power) To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,”

not regulate or enforce (or not enforce) immigration law. In addition the U.S. Constitution’s 10th amendment states,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Therefore there is no mention in the Constitution granting Congress power to enforce immigration laws (Article 1, Section 8) and the 10th amendment states that, since there are no such powers, those powers are delegated to the states if not prohibited by the state. NEXT!

With respect to the claim that SB 1070 will lead to racial profiling even our illustrious Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has weighed in saying that she feels the law will encourage Arizona law enforcement to profile illegal immigrants based on race. Asked whether the law invites racial profiling, she said, "I don't think there's any doubt about that." Since Mrs. Clinton is an Obama administration employee, she obviously is not required to read legislation, health care reform or otherwise.

Obviously our Secretary of State has read neither the Arizona law nor the federal immigration statute. The federal immigration statute, which is under the jurisdiction of the Obama administration, actually permits racial profiling. Federal Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

“State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient. Immigration officers and police must have a valid warrant or valid employer's consent to enter workplaces or residences.”

Gov. Jan Brewer has placated Mrs. Clinton and her other leftist friends concerns who haven’t read the Arizona law and laid to rest this controversy by amending the law to state that law enforcement cannot consider race when questioning suspected illegal immigrants. The amended law reads as follows,

“for the enforcement of Willful Failure to Complete or Carry an Alien Registration Document, Unlawfully Picking up Passengers for Work and Unlawfully Transporting or Harboring Unlawful Aliens a law enforcement official or agency cannot consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution."

Gov. Brewer’s statement subsequent to this change in the law confirms her intent of the amended law,

“These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling. These new amendments make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated in Arizona."

If that piece of the legislation is infracted by law enforcement then there is legal recourse on the part of the apprehended to claim as much. The Arizona law states in Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, article 8,

“A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANYOFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULLEXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.”

Kris Kobach, a professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, A.B. (Harvard University); Ph.D., M.Phil. (Oxford University); J.D. (Yale School of Law) has litigated a number of high-profile lawsuits in the field of immigration. He is also the principal drafter of Arizona’s new immigration law. Kobach opines that the left’s racial profiling argument is a non-starter, “The other argument that they will make is they will claim an equal protection violation based on the hypothetical possibility that there might be racial profiling. Given that the law expressly prohibits racial profiling it will be very difficult for them to prevail on that one as well.”

Florida GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio has stated that the changes to the law to frustrate racial profiling are admirable and he now fully supports the bill,

“Since then, the changes that have been made to the bill I think greatly improve it. Understand that what Arizona is facing is different from anything Florida has ever faced. Arizona has a physical border with Mexico. And there is kidnappings, human trafficking, drug wars coming across that border into an American city. Frankly, very few states in the country can imagine what that’s like.” Rubio went on in support of the Arizona law saying America cannot be the only country in the world that does not protect and enforce its border sovereignty, “America cannot be the only country in the world that does not observe or enforce its immigration laws. A key part of your sovereignty is the ability to control the influx and out flow of your people is the ability to secure your border. And you’re never going to be able to do that if you have an immigration system that says ‘come to this country illegally. If you’re able to stay here long enough, you’re able to stay here forever.’ And you’re never going to have a legal immigration system that works if you grant amnesty.”

And what has been the response to this legislation by America’s “crack” homeland security and law enforcement team of Janet Napolitano and Attorney-General Eric Holder? With their history when it comes to protecting America’s security and sovereignty, advice from these two is akin to asking the undertaker how to cure deadly diseases.

Napolitano, former governor of Arizona, said, "This is the type of the law I would veto when I was governor. It is bad for law enforcement. It takes law enforcement off the streets looking at the types of crimes they need to prioritize. It is a shame." A shame? What is a shame is that when Ms. Napolitano was governor of Arizonan she did nothing to protect the state from the economic and criminal hazards from illegal immigrants. The other shame is that, like all Obama top officials she is reading impaired and HASN'T READ THE BILL!! In fact, while governor of Arizona Napolitano personally vetoed numerous illegal immigration laws to protect Arizonans and vetoed three versions of SB 1070 while governor. Not a surprising gubernatorial record for Ms. Napolitano given her record of accomplishment as Homeland Security Secretary.

Since Napolitano has assumed that position in the Obama administration, over a span of just 16 months there have been five terrorist attacks or planned attacks on American soil. Napolitano is more concerned about demonizing Tea Party and ObamaCare protestors than she is about exacting tough policies to counteract true terrorism. Her homeland security “strategy of luck” is not a “system that works”, to quote her response to the Christmas bomber that almost killed 290 people. Every day Ms. Janet Napolitano is in charge of America’s homeland security it creates an actual risk to American lives and property.

Attorney-General Eric Holder, another friend of terrorists, has weighed in with his irresponsible commentary on the law. Holder, who refuses to even admit that "radical Islam" is a reason Faisal Shahzad tried to blow a hole in Times Square, has said that Arizona's new immigration law could “…drive a wedge between police and immigrant communities and could lead to racial profiling, has made it clear that his Justice Department is considering a lawsuit to block the legislation from taking effect.” However, in keeping with the Obama administration’s penchant for not reading legislation, a la ObamaCare, Mr. Holder also hasn’t read the Arizona immigration law because it is so lengthy, all of 16 pages.

This is the exchange between Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex) and Eric Holder at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on May 13, 2010.

"Have you read the Arizona law?" Poe asked.
"I have not had a chance. I grant that I have not read it," Holder acknowledged.
Poe, after helpfully pointing out that the 10-page law is "a lot shorter than" the Obama administration's health-care overhaul bill, said he couldn't understand "how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law. It seems like you wouldn't make a judgment about whether it violates civil right statutes, whether it violate federal preemption concepts,if you haven't read the law."

Holder said he based his public comments about the legislation on reading news reports, watching television and talking to Justice Department lawyers who are reviewing it.

This is how our U.S. Attorney General draws his unbiased legal conclusions-- watching MessNBC with Keith Olbergirl, reading the DailyKos and talking to Obama Justice dept. lawyers who won’t prosecute Black Panther voter intimidators.

Other far left Obama radicals have also selfishly and foolishly weighed in on their protestations to protecting American sovereignty. In Obama’s home state of Illinois (surprise), the Highland Park high school girls basketball team was planning to compete in a tournament in Arizona. The team has been selling cookies for months to raise money for the tournament and, after winning their first conference title in 26 years, the girls are being denied the opportunity to play in the tournament over safety concerns and because the trip “would not be aligned” with the school's “beliefs and values,” according to Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson. Parents are outraged. "Why are we mixing politics and a basketball tournament?" said Michael Evans, whose daughter Lauren is a junior on the team. "It's outrageous that they're doing this under the guise of safety." Hebson is concerned about the school’s beliefs? Hebson allowed the team to play in China! But apparently the human rights policies of China are not as much an affront to her sensibilities than the Arizona legislation. This is purely a disgraceful, selfish, hypocritical politically motivated display on the part of this Suzan Hebson to punish these girls in order to satisfy her progressive/socialist allegiances to her messianic-induced President. Chicago-thug politics takes no prisoners, even when it comes to girls high school basketball players.

Obama’s “Misguided” Response To The Law
Last, but not least, how did our President respond to the Arizona law? Aside from his anti-American photo-op with Mexico President Calderon. Obama reacted in his typical irresponsible, unteleprompted manner. Mr. Obama has referred to the Arizona immigration law as “misguided” and politicizes the law by undermining it. Since the President’s disdain for America was manifested in his two “Apologize for America” tours bashing American exceptionalism, one can expected that he isn’t satisfied yet and now must go on the attack state-by-state.

Mr. Obama has the “audacity” to castigate the Arizona immigration law as misguided, when he has “misguided” America for the last 16 months with record unemployment, deficits, debt, progressive/socialists policies and terrorist pandering. The President should take a very “guided” cue from Arizona governor Jan Brewer and do the job he was elected to do, which is to protect American borders from illegal entry and enemy combatant assaults on American soil- for both of which he receives a grade of “incomplete”.

President Obama’s solution for illegal immigration reform is called “comprehensive immigration reform”--code for amnesty for all illegals. In the wake of the Arizona law, Obama’s friend, Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez wrote an angry letter to the President and has called for Obama to make good on his campaign promise to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Guitierrez said, “A man who told the Latino electorate that he saw undocumented immigrants as future citizens, not criminals or deportees, has not lifted a finger. For Mr. Gutierrez's information, the cost to the American taxpayers for Obama-led mass amnesty is $1 trillion, as reported by the Heritage Foundation. This policy is purely a political ploy on behalf of the progressive/socialist democratic party to curry votes for illegal immigrants. A cost, in today’s Obama-led economic environment, that is unsustainable.

In fitting manner, our President made a classless, ignorant joke about the plight of illegal immigration in Arizona at the White House correspondent’s dinner. Perhaps in his cozy, out-of-touch taxpayer-paid White House Mr. Obama doesn’t quite understand the economic and societal costs of illegal immigration. The response from Gov. Brewer’s office to the President’s irresponsible comments was,

"The drug trafficking and border violence is out of control in Arizona and demands serious attention. President Obama and Congress ignored several requests from Governor Brewer for help in securing the border," Brewer spokesman Doug Cole said in a statement. "Instead of helping, President Obama chooses to crack jokes to an adoring crowd. Mr. President, this is not a laughing matter."

President Obama’s ignorant sense of humor was met with this video by Gov. Brewer. Paybacks are quite unpleasant Mr. President, especially when others must undertake your responsiblibites and you see it as a laughing matter.

California “Fruits and Nuts” Reaction To The Law
Ironically, the most outrageous and laughable critic to the Arizona immigration law comes from cities within the state of California. A state that, according to the FAIR, compiled from census data, illegal immigration costs the state of California $10.5 billion per year, or $875 million per month, or $20 million per week. A dubious criticism at best.

Los Angeles, the “City of Leadership Idiots” run by it’s Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and city council types such as Janice Hahn, has decided to grandstand by issuing a boycott with Arizona over its tough new law targeting illegal immigration. And why? Because Arizona has decided to enforce illegal immigration laws, Los Angeles refuses due to its progressive/socialist agendas and, let’s not forget that the Los Angeles city leadership has been distracted lately bankrupting the city. Much like our President with the nation! Bright idea- a bankrupt city starts a boycott!! Absolute geniuses running (or ruinng) a once great city. Note--progressive/socialists not only are reading challenged, but arithmetic challenged. A very dangerous lot indeed.

A boycott that will likely affect some immediate $8 million in contracts with the state. Several other California cities, including San Francisco and Oakland, have already adopted resolutions requesting city departments to not sign any new contracts with Arizona companies.

A motion, approved by LA City Council, provides for a boycott of Arizona goods and services and suspends travel to the state. The Motion is fringed with language like: “Suspend travel to Arizona unless it would harm City interests; where there is no significant cost to the city, or in conflict with any law; to refrain from entering into any new contracts or amending them from a company headquartered in Arizona.” Los Angeles city councilmember Janice Hahn has asked for cancellation of contracts wherever “possible and feasible”. Hahn has called for 250 cities to enact similar laws to that of L.A. to force a repeal of the alleged racist law signed by Governor Brewer on April 23.

Apparently, again, the Obama progressive/socialists have issues reading legal text. This boycott may simply not have any constitutional grounding. But, to be sure, never let the constitution and federal laws get in the way of a juicy progressive/socialist agenda. As Katharine Russ writes in CityWatch LA,

“It is difficult to see the logic in this boycott. Calling for the possible destruction of another states economy in protest of a law, not yet enacted, that MAY potentially have the ramifications of racial profiling is akin to “putting the cart before the horse. As Justice Cardozo observed in Baldwin v.G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. (1935), “the Constitution was framed upon the theory that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and salvation are in union and not division.” With that same thought; a 1951 Supreme Court decision (Dean Milk v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951), ruled that no municipality (state) may pass ordinances that discriminate against interstate commerce unless doing so is the only possible way to fulfill a legitimate local purpose.”

Aside from the apparent lack of constitutional grounds for issuing this ridiculous boycott, the Los Angeles city leadership costs poor Angelino taxpayers $1 billion annually for supporting illegal immigrants. So instead of worrying about Arizona state law, the Los Angeles city leadership should be concentrating on their own costs of illegals. It seems that not only do poor Angelinos have to deal with the incompetence of a Presidential administration’s enforcement, but they also have to contend with such immigration incompetence at the local level.

Also, given the apparent blinding Obama progressive/socialist political allegiances of the Los Angeles leadership at the expense of LA taxpayers, the Los Angeles- Arizona boycott will only hurt Hispanics. Hispanics make up a huge chunk of Arizona’s state's hospitality and service sector workforce -- and with city governments and organizations pulling the plug on travel and conventions in Arizona, state officials point out that Hispanic workers stand to lose. Hispanics make up close to 30% of the workforce in Arizona -- and nearly 40% in the service sector, according to Census figures. While high unemployment persists across the country, a study released this month by the Joint Economic Committee found that Hispanic workers are make up a disproportionate amount of the nation's jobless. The unemployment rate for Hispanics was about 3 points higher than the national rate. But, the Los Angeles “City of Leadership Idiots” probably haven’t sorted that one out just yet—grandstanding boycotts to advance an agenda of progressive/socialism takes time and details can wait.

Arizona Response to “LA LA Land" Boycott
Arizona’s response to the Los Angeles boycott has been two-fold. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the law mirrors a federal requirement that legal immigrants carry immigration papers.

"It's already the law in the United States, and I have a responsibility to stand up and protect the people of Arizona and we will do that. Charges that the law will lead to racial profiling are just pure rhetoric. I find it really interesting that we have people out there that are attempting a boycott in favor of illegal actions in Arizona. That to me is just unbelievable."

Unbelievable indeed. A nation of states, a president and federal officials who attack those who simply attempt to enforce the law IS quite unbelievable.

Of course Arizona can boycott with the best of them. In response to the Los Angeles’ boycott, Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce is threatening to encourage the state’s utilities to cut off energy delivery to Los Angeles if the city does not back down from its boycott over the state’s new immigration law. Approximately 25 percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona. Pierce responded to the Los Angeles boycott by saying,

“If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. “I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.”

A fitting response by Arizona since the intellectual lights have been off in the Los Angeles city leadership for some time now.

Arizona has also retaliated with its own “Buycott Arizona” website. For those interested in planning a vacation or business event in the safest state in the union when it comes to illegal immigration, visit the beautiful state of Arizona and rest free that illegal immigration laws will be enforced.

Arizona Soaring
Arizona has set the pace for illegal immigrtion reform and built the template for other states to finally have control over the burgeoning socio-politcal-economic costs associated with illegal immigration. A clear message to the Obama adminsitrtion and the politically correct progressive/socialists that Americans will no longer tolerate their politically expedient corruption and ineptitude when it comes to American sovereignty.

Arizona has the courage to enforce what the Obama administration refuses to do itself. As Arizona’s rebirth soars from the pyre of costly and dangerous illegal immigration, it’s beautiful flight gives Americans a vision of hope for the country to finally put its immigration house in order.

OBAMA'S "NON-STARTER" TREATY: RUSSIAN OVERSIGHT OVER AMERICAN MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sun, 09 May 2010 01:16:00 +0000

President Barack Obama “started” down another road towards his naïve kumbaya collectivist worldview. This one took him to the streets of a nuclear-arms-free world. On April 8, 2010 in Prague President Obama and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev signed the new START treaty. The new START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) treaty is a follow-up to the 1991 START I treaty, which expired in December 2009, and to START II and the 2002 Treaty of Moscow (SORT), which was due to expire in December 2012. However, given the administration’s new START negotiation treaty terms, the parties to the Treaty may want to rename it “non-START” for a number of reasons, especially because of the sacrifices to American nuclear protectionism.

Under the Treaty, the Obama White House reports that the U.S. and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms, approx. 30%, within seven years from the date the Treaty enters into force. But there is significant debate as to the bilateral aspects of the Treaty. As reported by Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation,

“The broad terms of the “New START” treaty are (or should have been) straightforward: The U.S. will reduce a certain number of its strategic offensive arms in return for a reciprocal obligation by the Russian Federation to reduce its offensive strategic arms. The Russians, however, have agreed to reciprocate such reductions only if an additional condition is met by the U.S.—that the U.S. pursue its ballistic missile defense program only to such an extent that the Russian Federation approves, and if not, the Russians will exercise their right to withdraw from the treaty. Specifically, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that Russia would have the right to withdraw from the treaty if “the U.S.’s build-up of its missile defense strategic potential in numbers and quality begins to considerably affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces.”

The Russians believe, therefore, that the Treaty is as much about reduction of U.S. missile defense systems as it is about strategic offensive arms reduction. A statement from the office of Russian president Medvedev made explicit the official Russian position on the treaty:

“The Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms signed in Prague on April 8, 2010, can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile defence capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.”

The Russian president has a point and our President naively and foolishly gave away the U.S. missile defense store. The preamble to the Treaty, agreed to by both Presidents Obama and Medvedev, does in fact state that “the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.”

Secretary of state Clinton was dismissive of the preambles language by saying

“Now, one aspect of our deterrent that we specifically did not limit in this treaty is missile defense. The agreement has no restrictions on our ability to develop and deploy our planned missile defense systems or long-range conventional strike weapons now or in the future.”

But this certainly was not the case for her counterpart Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. He stated emphatically that,

“Russia would have the right to withdraw from the treaty if “the U.S.’s build-up of its missile defense strategic potential in numbers and quality begins to considerably affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces.”

Some arms control groups believe that the perambulatory language is non-binding. But a general rule of treaty interpretation is that treaties shall be interpreted in accordance with their context, which shall comprise, among other things, the preamble to the treaty. Regardless, there is a clear disagreement between the U.S. and Russia regarding the terms of the Treaty.

Kim Colmes of Heritage also notes other U.S. constraints and Russian favoritism inherent in the terms of the Treaty. Colmes writes,

“The biggest problem with the new treaty is how lopsided it is in Russia’s favor. Because of financial constraints and outdated nuclear systems, Russias nuclear arsenal was already going down, especially its aging launchers and delivery systems. It would have likely been forced to make the reductions codified in this treaty whether or not the U.S. reduced its weapons. And yet if the treaty is ratified, we will have locked ourselves into reductions that cannot be changed. Were we ever to want to increase our nuclear arsenal — say, because China or some other country threatens us — doing so would put ourselves in violation of international law.”

Colmes also states that new START offers better protection to Russians than Americans.
“The new START also will give better protection to Russians than Americans. Once it is fully in force, we have to cut 151 of our delivery vehicles and launchers, while Russia could actually add 134 and still be under the limit of 700. The only side that’s disarming on this score, then, will be the U.S.”

To add insult to injury in this dreadful negotiation by the Obama administration, Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation reports that the new START treaty actually facilitates the Russian trend to return to Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle warheads (MIRVs) on intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBMs). To MIRV a missile is to place several nuclear warheads on a single ICBM. This helps Russia since its highly destabilizing RS-24 mobile, MIRVed missile will be the mainstay of Russian strategic forces by 2016. Therefore, while the Obama Administration is moving the U.S. aggressively toward single warhead missiles, the new treaty has no limitations on the number of warheads that can be deployed on Russian missiles. As Russia develops a multi-warhead strategic missile arsenal the U.S. goes in the opposite direction-- an unstable nuclear posture emerges in favor of the Russians.

So President Obama signs new START that gives Russian oversight to U.S. missile defense systems. An American President allowing Russia, a country that is free to sell arms to Iran, to have governance over American missile defense systems. This is how President Obama defines protecting Americans!! The President also signs the Treaty that encourages the Russians to deploy multiple warheads on their missiles.

Two-thirds Senate consent is required for Treaty ratification and Senate ratification proceedings are expected to be taken up in November/December after the mid-term elections. However, Senators Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) and John McCain (R-Ariz) have deep concerns over the inherent Treaty language tilting an imbalance in favor of the Russians. GOP opposition is expected unless the Treaty’s language is changed to protect U.S. missile defense strategies and for the modernization of existing nuclear warheads permitted under the Treaty. Sen. John McCain has serious concerns over the Obama administrations Nuclear Posture Review that limits U.S. nuclear modernization.

Sen. McCain, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, summed up fearful America’s sentiments best on the Obama-led new START treaty in his opening statements on April 20,2010 at that committee’s hearing,

“In the coming months, we will have the opportunity to assess the treaty and confirm that nothing inhibits our ability to deploy defensive weapons to counter the missile threats of rogue states. Russia must not have veto power
over U.S. decisions on our missile defense architecture, and I will reject any attempts by this Administration, or any future Administration, to do so."

President Obama’s naïve eagerness for a world of kumbyaian nuclear disarmament apparently caught him singing with his eyes wide shut while negotiating new START. Because of his collectivist worldview blinders, Americans are at risk to pay a price for less nuclear defense protection.

OBAMA'S DEWEY PRAGMATIC WORLDVIEW AND HIS CONSTITUTIONAL "TOOLS"

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sat, 01 May 2010 00:45:00 +0000

President Obama’s loyalists have commented on his pragmatic approach to policy matters, ostensibly to distance him from the Reagan/George W. Bush leadership styles and to mask his ideological past and his current Presidential policies. Those touting Mr. Obama as someone who rises above the political fray and is a “thinking out of the box” pragmatist are disingenuous at best. Especially when one ponders his rigid worldviews grounded in ideological progressive/socialist approaches to resolving matters of domestic and foreign interest.

If President Obama is a pragmatist, rather than an ideologue, then his approach to policy matters seems eerily like some form of self-styled pragmatism that suits his progressive/socialist ideologies. One must also question whether any notion of basing U.S. policy decisions on pragmatism lends itself to matters of American government. For all those who praise Mr. Obama for his pragmatism, it begs the question, at what price pragmatic?

If we in fact conclude that Mr. Obama does employ (and by his and his loyalist’s accounts he does) pragmatism in policy-making decisions, is it employed at the expense of the fundamental laws embodied within the U.S. Constitution? Are Americans left with a President that either affronts the U.S. Constitution as a "tool" through which he applies self-indulgent pragmatic theory or an ideological progressive/socialist shrouding himself in some form of high-minded pragmatism?

Not an attractive set of questions for Americas to answer. However, it's Obama's worldviews that hold the answer key.

Obama’s Pragmatist Loyalists
There have been a number of essays and articles touting President Obama, pre and post his election, as a non-ideologue who will employ pragmatism to solve America’s problems. A president who will bridge the ideological gaps of left and right and then forge a road towards American success. Christopher Hayes, in a Dec. 2008 essay in The Nation, presumably attempts to excite his readers with “great news” that the forthcoming Obama presidency will foretell an anti-ideologue that will govern and lead through a purely pragmatic approach to problem solving devoid of ideological interests and agendas.

Mr. Hayes musters off a list, all “FOBs” (Friends of Obama) mind you, ranging from inner-circle types such as Vice-President Biden, Valerie Jarrett and Cass Sunstein to liberal political commentators such as David Sanger, Glenn Greenwald and George Packer, who depict Mr. Obama as an admirable pragmatic populist progressive thinker. Ms. Jarrett can sum up their views in Mr. Hayes’s article, when she is quoted as saying,

"I'm not sure people understand how pragmatic he is. He's a pragmatist. He really wants to get things done".

Get things done, indeed. Get things done by any means necessary, pragmatic or otherwise and damn the U.S. Constitution, but as a tool for his means.

President Obama has also not been shy about cloaking his ideological worldview penchants in the name of pragmatism. In an interview with Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes then President-elect Obama states that when it comes to economic policy, he doesn't want to "get bottled up in a lot of ideology and 'Is this conservative or liberal?' My interest is finding something that works." Mr. Obama also alluded to his pragmatic approach with his humorous comment to GOP lawmakers at the House Republican retreat by saying, “I am not an ideologue”. A very “he doth protest too much” moment reminiscent of President Nixon’s famous plea, “I am not a crook”.

Norman Ornstein, no less of the American Enterprise Institute, has penned two articles claiming President Obama is a pragmatic leader. In his article entitled “Obama's Health-Care Realism” Mr. Ornstein characterizes the President by saying,

“The Obama strategy since his election has been based on a gimlet-eyed and pragmatic assessment of the prospects and limits afforded by public opinion and the political process.”

In his article entitled “Obama: A pragmatic moderate faces the 'socialist' smear”, Mr. Ornstein begs the question on those who characterize President Obama’s policies as progressive/socialist through an excruciating excuse-making tirade defending Obama’s policies through the lens of pragmatism. Ornstein states the following,

"This president is a mainstream, pragmatic moderate, operating in the center of American politics; center-left, perhaps, but not left of center.”

Obama’s “Deweyian” Pragmatism and Worldviews
In light of all this Presidential pragmatism praise, it is important to put into context pragmatism's history, theory and it's suitability when governing as an American President. If Mr. Obama is in fact this prudent pragmatist, how did he derive his context for applying this theory and is it's usage consistent with a President's oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution?

Pragmatism is commonly understood as a practical approach to problems and affairs; however its roots run much deeper. Pragmatism is a philosophical movement, developed in the United States, which holds that both the meaning and the truth of any idea is a function of its practical outcome. Pragmatists claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected. Fundamental to pragmatism is a strong anti-absolutism and a philosophy of mutable truth and ideas that are true insofar as they are useful in a specific situation; what works today in one case may not work tomorrow in another case. Ethical ideas are accepted as long as they continue to work. The standard of moral truth is expediency.

C.S. Peirce, William James and John Dewey are leading early American pragmatist theorists. In Louis Menand’s “The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America" they all believed that,

"ideas are not 'out there' waiting to be discovered, but are tools—like forks and knives and microchips—that people devise to cope with the world in which they find themselves… And they believed that since ideas are provisional responses to particular and irreproducible circumstances, their survival depends not on their immutability but on their adaptability. Under the Darwinian imperative of pragmatism, we must be prepared to discard our old ideas as readily as we discard our old tools."

Therefore the true pragmatist casts all ideas to the wind, unless they serve an immediate purpose towards an expedient and practical solution. As we meander through this murky wetland to resolve President Obama's use of pragmatism, keep in mind that the American Constitution is rife with ideas.

Of the three leading founders of pragmatism in America, John Dewey (1859-1952) appears to be the most identifiable with President Obama's approach to pragmatic governing to further his worldviews. Author of “The School and Society”, Dewey was one of the founders and the leading philosopher of “progressive” education and developed his educational philosophy when he joined the faculty of the University of Chicago in 1894, coincidentally Obama's former employer. He founded the university's Laboratory School to test scientifically his ideas for improving education.

John Dewey was a democratic socialist who applied his "tool", the idea of socialism, to advance his pragmatic beliefs as to his worldview of a new social order by using children's education as a catalyst. Dewey's dangerous contributions to progressive educational techniques advanced the theory that schools should condition children for the desired "social order.

Dewey’s goal was to achieve a utopian “equality” implemented by government intervention in the private sector, so that men can obtain their “wants” as well as their needs. It was the children Dewey targeted as the means by which to obtain his desire. Dewey dismissed as irrelevant the teaching of fundamental knowledge such as reading, writing, math, and science. Both the educator and the students are to be flexible and tentative. His purpose of a school was to foster social consciousness. Dewey’s new school would become a vehicle for the de-alienation and socialization of the child. The school would be an embryonic socialist community in which the progress of the student could only be justified by his relation to the group.

John Dewey wanted government to take over all education via government schools. He praised socialist Edward Bellamy as his “Great American Prophet” after Bellamy wrote the book “Looking Backward” wherein Bellamy penned his totalitarian vision. Dewey was fascinated by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and between 1920 and 1928 wrote many articles praising the “new” educational system imposed by the totalitarian socialists. At the invitation of the Commissar of Education in 1928, Dewey traveled to the new USSR. (For greater insight into the damage John Dewey inflicted on America’s educational system please refer to articles by Chuck Roger in the "American Thinker", Bruce Deitrick Price in "American Chronicle" and Bob Cheeks’ review of the book “John Dewey and the Decline of American Education” by Henry T. Edmondson).

Dewey's social pragmatism envisioned a collective society that assures "the full growth of all its individuals," a society in which "individualism and socialism" become one. According to John Dewey’s social pragmatism, what is true is that which works for a society (not for an individual) through the promotion of the public good. Dewey advocated a relativistic (truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them), secularized form of altruism that calls for sacrificing oneself to attain the ends of the People. In this view society, rather than the individual, passes moral judgment. Social policies are measured by their consequences instead of by abstract principles of what is right or just. He considered himself a democratic socialist in the 1920s and '30s, and questioned corporate capitalism's capacity to promote democratic values.

John Dewey’s beliefs were codified in and he was a signer of the “Humanist Manifesto” in 1933. A debatable name given it's inherent affirmational affronts to humane opportunities for freedoms, innovation and independence. This Manifesto, authored primarily by educators at the University of Chicago and Columbia University, was a total and complete abdication of theism--God does not exist! In fact the first affirmation within this Manifesto is,

“ Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”

The Manifesto’s purpose was to advance a new worldview that, in addition to a secular outlook, a world that denounces capitalism and proposes "change" to a new economic order calling for "wealth redistribution". The Manifesto's fourteenth affirmation codifies this belief and states,

“ existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.”

President Obama’s worldview parallels Dewey’s socialist/humanist view virtually in it’s entirety. One only needs to review his remarks prior to his ascent to the Presidency. His "weak moment" campaign Joe the Plumber remark “share the wealth” and his pre-presidential radio interview in 2001 wherein he commented on redistributing the wealth by saying,"

"One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organising and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

are totally aligned with Dewey's beliefs. Other examples of his Dewey-like socialist allegiances are his deep association with radical leftist neo-Marxist groups such as the Chicago New Party, the Democratic Socialists of America, his ties to ACORN, and his admitted attendance at socialist conferences at New York’s Cooper Union, wherein Mr. Obama writes on p.122 of his 1995 autobiography “Dreams From My Father,

“Political discussions, the kind that at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences that I sometimes attended at Cooper Union or the African cultural fairs that took place in Harlem or Brooklyn during the summers-a few of the many diversions that New York had to offer, like going to a foreign film or ice-skating at the Rockefeller Center.”

(For a very comprehensive accounting of President Obama’s international socialist connections please refer to Cliff Kincaid’s article in Accuracy in Media.)

President Obama brings home his Deweyian worldview beliefs when he made his Berlin Wall anniversary speech on July 24, 2008. In that speech then candidate Obama espoused his new social order calling for a “citizens of the world” view denouncing prosperity opportunities in any one nation, i.e., the U.S. In his speech he said the following,

"the walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand … the walls between … natives and immigrants ... cannot stand. These now are the walls that we must tear down. We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity."

John Dewey could not have said it better!! Obama’s Berlin remarks are virtually directly out of the Humanist Manifesto’s fourteenth affirmation.

In fact, the God-less, antitheist, pragmatists of the progressive/socialists International Humanist and Ethical Union endorsed and applauded President Obama's election victory by saying,

"It was not merely necessary that Barack Obama become the President of the United States, it was vital that he become so through popular mandate."

Obama’s Constitutional Tools To Advance His Worldview
Mr. Hayes, Ornstein et alia pragmatism defense is all fatally flawed. If President Obama indeed has employed social pragmatism in his policies then how does it all appear to be conveniently and singularly seen through the worldview prism of a progressive/socialist agenda? The challenge for all Obama pragmatist defenders is to uncover an example of one domestic policy issue taken up by President Obama that utilized America’s free-market capitalist system. As the President has stated when railing against Wall Street profits and consistent with his worldview enunciated in his Berlin speech,

“There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses, now’s not that time”.

Perhaps now, Mr. Hayes, Ornstein et alia, is not the pragmatic "time” to find such examples.

The President's worldviews were also evident in his teaching days at the University of Chicago's law school. As a law professor Obama was known as a pragmatic when it came to interpreting the Constitituion. He utilized the Constitution simply as a tool to find the sweet spot on how to level-set societal needs, avoiding any high theory when it came to Constitutioanl interpretation. As Jodi Kantor reports in the New York Times,

"Former students and colleagues describe Mr. Obama as a minimalist (skeptical of court-led efforts at social change) and a structuralist (interested in how the law metes out power in society). And more than anythingelse, he is a pragmatist who urged those around him to be more keenly attuned to the real-life impact of decisions. This may be his distinguishing quality as a legal thinker: an unwillingness to deal in abstraction, a constant desire to know how court decisions affect people’s lives.Though Mr. Obama rarely spoke of his own views, students say they sensed his disdain for formalism, the idea —often espoused by Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas, but sometimes by liberals as well — that law can be decided independent of the political and social context in which it is applied."

President Obama is certainly practicing what he preached to his students when it comes to Constitutional interpretation. His pragmatic encroachments on the Consititution to advance his worldview is unprecedented. The litany of constitutional deconstructionism perpetrated on America in his fifteen months as President Obama’s is alarming. Maryan Zihala, J.D., provides valuable insght into the numerous unconstitutional actions on the part of the Obama Presidency all in the name of his worldview of collectivism for his vision of the "common good".

Corporate seizures: the seizure of AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GMAC, General Motors, Chrysler: a violation of the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment.
Stimulus bill: she writes that on the spending limitations in the Constitution, Madison wrote: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
ObamaCare: there is absolutely no constitutional authority for the federal government to be taking over the health care system, forcing taxpayers to pay for the health care of others, and requiring individuals to have health care insurance – on pain of fines and incarceration. To date thirteen states have challenged ObamaCare as unconstitutional.
ObamaCzars: President Obama now has almost three dozen of these policy analysts working in the White House. In the past, Congress has created about a dozen offices for the president with the top position held by a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee. Obama has tripled this number and none of his new czars have been confirmed by the Senate. This is beyond any constitutional executive powers; this is legislating by presidential fiat. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says: “He shall have power . . . and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.” Article 2 does allow that the Congress may vest the appointment power in the president alone, by law – but Congress has not done this in regard to the cadre of new czars appointed by this president.

OBAMA UNCOVERED
President Obama's loyalists either are blinded by political partisanship or can't see the proverbial forest for the trees when assessing the President's governing philosophy. The heart of his philosophy is not pragmatism. That is simply a means to an end to create a worldview of collectivism. The Constitution, defining America's ideals, is merely a tool for Mr. Obama to apply pragmatic thought to achieve his worldview.

President Obama wears horse blinders that permit him to see only his sanguine vision of the world as a “sea of collective mediocrities” and the benefits of progressive/socialist ideologies to support that vision. He will employ pragmatic theory to advance his worldview regardless of how much it infringes on the tenants of the U.S. Constitution. Ideology and pragmatism, by nature, are mutually exclusive. However, as any good little pragmatist will confirm, for one to shape their worldview they use ideas as tools, albeit socialist ideologies and/or constitutional ideology deconstruction, to accomplish their goal. The President has managed to convince his loyalists that he is, as Mr. Ornstein notes, “a pragmatic moderate”and not an ideologue. A neat trick that our President has been able to pull on willing believers, until one peels back the many layers of the Obama onion.

So who is President Barack Hussein Obama? A Deweyian social pragmatist. A progressive/socialist ideologue? A Humanist Manifesto devotee? A constitutional deconstructionist? Unfortunately, all of the above. He is a tsunami of ideologies, theories, manifestos and deconstructionists, which culminates in a mindset to transform the U.S. into his worldview of collectivism. Collectivism achieved through statism, socialism or any other political philosophy sans capitalism, the one philosophy that flies in the face of mediocrity driven collectivism.

His most egregious crime while pursuing that “dare to dream” worldview is his failure to uphold his oath as President to the fundamental tenants of our Constitution. A President is expected to worship at the Constitutional altar. President Obama treats it like an old machete to cleave through his version of societal injustices towards his collectivist worldview.

As this President moves through his tenure, his Obama campaign mantra of “hope and change” continues to live on in his mind. Change by any means pragmatically necessary to meet his collectivist worldview. A presidency that is a cautionary tale for all current and future Americans .

AMERICA'S GREAT DIVIDE: DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:37:00 +0000

As America struggles to manage through an Obama administration that has stewardship and responsibility for an economic crisis of spiraling budget deficits, burgeoning public debt, a declining U.S. dollar, unprecedented unemployment rates and ever-increasing global competition, it finds itself between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Striving to avoid a pending socio-economic earthquake America finds itself on a political and public policy fault line. On one side of that fault lies the philosophy that an American free-enterprise democratic-capitalist society will create economic growth and employment through innovation and a laissez-faire public policy. On the other side is an Obama-led ideological philosophy of a European-style welfare state that applies governmental intervention and regulation over corporate America to create societal cohesion. America’s socio-economic safety, preservation and hegemony hangs in the balance.

America must continue to maximize its economic potential through its unique democratic capitalist system. A system created by and for Americans that is the engine of American hegemonic wealth, innovation and job creation. However, that very system needs to be employed to maximize the potential of the American work force and strive to minimize the gap of American social classes and compensation.

America therefore, under the Obama administration, finds itself in a policy sub-struggle of maintaining its hegemonic economic strength through its democratic capitalist roots or drifting towards an Obama policy of European-like social democracy, resulting in an innovationless welfare state.

Jim Manzi addresses the above in a thoughtful essay in National Affairs entitled “Keeping America’s Edge”. Mr. Manzi’s manifesto of sorts for preserving America’s fundamental ideals offers up solutions to his view of America’s core societal problem, i.e., “how do we continue to increase the market orientation of the American economy, while helping more Americans participate in it more fully”.

Mr. Manzi outlines three major realities facing America today as we navigate through these socio-economic shoals:

the inherent conflict between the creativity and change involved in free-market capitalism and the innate human propensity to avoid risk and change.
ever-increasing international competition.
the growing disparity in behavioral norms and social conditions between the upper and lower income strata of American society.

Given these realities, Mr. Manzi summarizes the current Obama political and policy environment quite well as America attempts to reconcile its quest to maintain its successful heritage of democratic-capitalism, while also striving to narrow the growing disparity of American societal classes, short of becoming a social democratic Obama-led welfare state in the name of social cohesion.

“Reconciling these competing forces is America's great challenge in the decades ahead, but will be made far more difficult by the growing bifurcation of American society. But a dysfunctional political dynamic has prevented the nation from addressing it well, and has instead given us the worst of both worlds: a ballooning welfare state that threatens future growth, along with growing socioeconomic disparities.”

Mr. Manzi attests that innovation causes productivity and involves the use of human capital in new and constantly evolving ways, but this can lead to a painful displacement of workers and it is difficult to predict what new industrial sectors will actually be productive and how they will develop. That is why the free play of markets with limited intrusion by the government is so essential. If not, then industrial policies protect existing jobs that would, by economic nature, be eliminated causing controlled stagnation versus economic growth.

The perplexing response to this, a la the Obama administration, is to slow down the rate of innovation and redistribute the economic output in a manner designed to maintain social harmony. This is the logic of the social democratic welfare state, and the direction pursued by much of Western Europe since the Second World War. The price America would pay for this direction forged by the Obama administration is indeed steep.

Under a social democratic welfare state, Europe's share of global economic output has been collapsing in the face of global competition, decreasing from less than 40% of in the 1970s to about 25% today. America cannot afford such a steep price to pay for an Obama-led social democracy welfare state simply to satisfy their singular ideological religiosity of social cohesion. America’s Asian global competitors are not as altruistic in their policies and to quote Mr. Manzi, “America needs economic output to keep up.”

In this post-modern of modern worlds we live, America has led the way towards innovation, but as Mr. Manzi points out, our global competitors have copied our trademark. As Mr. Manzi states,

“The wealth-creation engine of the post-war world was designed in America, but available to other nations too — and so in time those that had more advanced economies before the war (predominantly Western Europe and Japan) re-industrialized to the point that, by the 1970s, they began to challenge America's position. This revived competition, along with the oil shocks of the '70s, dramatically changed the global circumstances that had allowed the United States to have it all: high rates of economic and wage growth along with a high degree of economic equality.”

The Carter administration nullified U.S. economic growth throughout the 1970s through its social democracy polices and the restrictions it imposed on markets with the purpose of promoting social harmony. These included everything from price controls to government encouragement of private-sector unionization to zealous anti-trust enforcement.

The Reagan administration revitalized untapped U.S. economic growth through sound monetary policies plus deregulation. Reagan succeeded and America re-emerged as the acknowledged global economic leader and its economic output per person is now 20% to 25% higher in the U.S. than in Japan and the major European economies.

But, as Mr. Manzi points out, America has retained its economic hegemony but has not maximized its potential,

“it is important to see that this robust growth means only that America has not lost ground in global economic competition, not that it has gained much. From 1980 through today, America's share of global output has been constant at about 21%. Europe's share, meanwhile, has been collapsing in the face of global competition — going from a little less than 40% of global production in the 1970s to about 25% today. Opting for social democracy instead
of innovative capitalism, Europe has ceded this share to China (predominantly), India, and the rest of the developing world”.

America has come full circle with the onset of the social democratic welfare policies of the Obama administration with its emphasis on social cohesion at the expense of economic innovation, productivity and growth. Mr. Manzi rightly identifies the Obama administration’s policies as a clear shift toward the European social welfare state,

“Seen together, these initiatives — shifting government spending away from defense and public safety toward social programs; deeper direct involvement of the government in the operation of large corporations
across a substantial portion of the economy; energy rationing in the name of managing climate change; more direct government control of health-care provision; and higher tax rates that probably include a VAT — point in a clear direction. The end result would be an America much closer to the European model of a social-welfare state, which prioritizes cohesion over innovation.”

To avoid this dangerous systematic policy shift toward American socialism by the Obama administration, Mr. Manzi identifies some clear solutions. Solutions that will avoid “throwing out the baby with the bathwater”. Preserving America’s system of democratic-capitalism while solving for a more socially cohesive American society to benefit from such a system.

Mr. Manzi advises the following:

promote innovation through a return to a free-market economy allowing the private sector to both fail and succeed in their natural form without government intervention along with a reformation of social entitlement programs. Relinquish government ownership (not oversight)of industrial assets such as the automotive, banking, insurance and health care industries and roll back Obama stimulus packages to retain fiscal responsible spending levels.
the financial markets are too interconnected for investor protection. A modernized version of “New Dealish" type financial regulation should be implemented focusing on creating walls that contain busts, rather than on applying brakes that hold back the entire system. Mr. Manzi advises reforms that should establish "tiers" of financial activities of increasing risk that are open to any investor. The government should provide protection for investors in the lower risk tiers and should permit failure in the higher risk tiers. Investor protective regulation would address some of the problems of social cohesion by allowing more Americans to participate in our market system without being unwittingly exposed to the effects of market collapses.
deregulation of the public school system is essential for social cohesion and innovation. The creation of a real marketplace among ever more deregulated publicly financed schools wherein there is a market in which funding follows students, and far broader discretion is permitted to those who actually teach and manage in our public schools. A public school system that is ¬decentralized, entrepreneurial, and flexible.
re-conceptualize immigration as recruiting and assimilation. We should think of immigration as an opportunity to improve our stock of human capital. Once we have re-established control of our southern border, and as we preserve our commitment to political asylum, we should also set up recruiting offices looking for the best possible talent, from Mexico City to Beijing to Helsinki to Calcutta.

America has choices. To continue its bright proven heritage of a democratic-capitalist system that fosters innovation, U.S. economic dominance, growth and jobs. Or an antithetical Obama ideology that fosters social democracy through governmental ownership and overregulation that will stagnate innovation and economic growth and employment. Both ideologies can address the need to provide greater social cohesion.

The Reagan administration reinvigorated America’s proud heritage of growth through democratic-capitalist policies fostering innovation, individuality, choice and opportunity while bridging the societal gap between the “haves” and “have nots” through reformative tax policy and deregulation. The Obama administration mantra “share the wealth” social democracy policies instituted policies that dis-incent innovation, stifle job production and usurp private enterprise and individual choice through government takeover, overregulation and tax increases.

The difference lies in that the former ideology served to elevate society whereas the latter served to de-elevate society. These are the clear choices that present the great divide confronting Americans.

ObamaCare And Other Social Engineered Entitlements: The Progressive/Socialist's Ultimate Backdoor Pass to Socialism

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 14:02:00 +0000

Tuesday, March 23, 2010, marks an historic day in the annals of American government. On that day the President of the U.S., Barack Hussein Obama, signed into law HR 3590, the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, affectionately and forever known as ObamaCare. That day is historic in that ObamaCare is the most sweeping piece of socialist legislation ever imposed on the American people overtaking 1/6 of America's economy and it's socialist features impacting huge aspects of other American industries.

I use the word “imposed” since we all know by now how shameful the progressive/socialist party (formerly known as the Democratic party) crafted and enacted this most unconstitutional of legislations using treacherous locked-shut backroom “lets make a democratic deal” tactics and their arrogant refusal to share its details with the public given its immense unpopularity. Regardless, Obamacare now joins Social Security and Medicare as the third and largest social entitlement cost in the triad of socially engineered programs thrust upon American's collective economic backs.

If we go cruise down memory lane as to the original cost estimates and intentions of the other two social entitlements dwarfed by ObamaCare, it is alarming to see how the well-intentioned selling points made by progressive/socialists to assist Americans in their retirement and health care have contributed to the systematic bankrupting of America.

Social Security
The first progressive/socialist entitlement, the Social Security Act, was enacted in 1935 and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Upon signing this “New Deal” entitlement, President Roosevelt spoke of protecting the average citizen from the perils of unemployment,

"We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."

Protection President Roosevelt? According to the 2009 Social Security trustees report this Social Security “protective” entitlement will have negative cash flow and will pay out more in benefits than it collects in social security taxes in 2010. The unfunded debt of the Social Security program is $18 trillion and the trustees of the Social Security administration have stated that the Social Security reserve will be exhausted in 2037. It took 100 years since 1935, but the progressive/socialists have managed to mismanage "protection" of our federal retirement funds quite nicely and it took only three generations time to accomplish that neat feat.

Medicare
The second progressive/socialist entitlement, Medicare, was enacted in 1965 and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson under the Social Security Amendment of 1965. Upon signing this “Great Society” entitlement, President Johnson remarked,

“The benefits under the law are as varied and broad as the marvelous modern medicine itself. If it has a few defects--such as the method of payment of certain specialists-then I am confident those can be quickly remedied and I hope they will be.”

Has a few defects President Johnson? When Medicare was enacted, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion; off by nearly a factor of 10. According to the 2009 Social Security trustees report, as of 2010 this woefully abused entitlement’s projected annual assets drop below projected annual expenditures by 2012. The projected date of Medicare’s Trust Fund exhaustion is 2017 and the unfunded Medicare debt now stands at $90 trillion dollars. This second of the entitlement triad will be bankrupt in approximately 50 years after it’s original enactment into law. It seems that the bankruptcy rate is accelerating by 50% with each new progressive/socialist entitlement program.

Taken together Social Security and Medicare entitlements have an astounding total unfunded debt of $108 trillion, and each U.S. taxpayer’s portion of that debt is approximately $360,000!! Do we see a trend here in how the federal government’s chronic mismanagement of social entitlements systemically leads to bankrupting the American economy?

If we take a breath and ponder the financial burden imposed on current and future American taxpayers laid upon them by these two miserably failed progressive/socialist programs, one would logically rationalize that societal entitlements are doomed for financial disaster and we would never again allow them to rear their ugly head. But no, the Obama administration decides in their inimical “wisdom” that we must once more go “unto the breach” of social entitlements. In totalitarian fashion, the progressive/socialist leadership’s unholy trinity of Obama, Pelosi and Reid force-fed the American taxpayer the mother of all government social entitlements, “ObamaCare”.

ObamaCare
ObamaCare is the "Cowboys Stadium" of progressive/socialist entitlements. Before signing ObamaCare, President Barack Obama made the following closing remarks about his cornerstone legislation,

“And we have now just enshrined -- as soon as I sign this bill -- the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.”

Enshrined that everybody should have basic security when it comes to health care, Mr. President? Where does one begin to dismantle such beguiling rhetorical nonsense? Even Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson's remarks had the decency, courage and integrity to hedge a bit on the future prospects for success of their entitlements. Obama’s audacity of deceit in his ObamaCare bill - signing remarks surpass even his remarks at the House Republican retreat when he said to the group of GOP lawmakers, “…I am not an ideologue." The internet slang “lol” could not be more of an understated response.

ObamaCare is an unconstitutional $2.5 trillion cost to the American people that by all estimates, including the CBO, will cause an increase in health insurance premiums for most Americans and 17% higher premiums for young, healthy adults.

ObamaCare will bankrupt over half the nation’s states and cause increased state income taxes due to shifting of Medicare patients on to state Medicaid rolls.

ObamaCare increases health-related corporate and personal income taxes by $600 billion.

Corporate tax hikes will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher costs and the ObamaCare personal tax hikes that include the nefarious “medicare” tax on investment income will compound further decreases in economic growth already created by other Obamanomic polices, i.e., his failed $800 billion so-called stimulus package and his skyrocketing budget deficits.

The unintended consequences of this disastrous legislation are already seeping out. Major American corporations are expecting enormous additional charges to their balance sheets estimated at $14 billion due to the ObamaCare elimination of retiree’s prescription drug subsidies. These corporations are projecting massive layoffs due to this ObamaCare business charge.

Also, lest we forget, the unholy trinity was also crafty enough to sneak a socialist policy within the larger socialist policy, by incorporating into ObamaCare a total federal socialization of student loans which will cause 31,000 in lost jobs. And, surprisingly enough, the unholy trinity didn’t care to listen to American's opinions about that change either!

As artfully detailed in the American Thinker, the domino effect of ObamaCare will eventually drive U.S. health insurers into bankruptcy and the “single-payer” government system that Obama and Pelosi always wanted initially will be THE only health insurance option for Americans.

For perspective, Medicare covers approximately 50 million people today and is virtually bankrupt due to federal government mismanagement, after only 50 years since it's origin. ObamaCare is to cover all Americans, over 300 million people. Do the math as to how long it will take for the incompetent progressive/socialists within the federal government to bankrupt ObamaCare. If Social Security took 100 years, Medicare 50 years we can only assume that within a generation, 25 years, ObamaCare will be bankrupt

How is the American economy expected to survive this ObamaBurden? To quote Charles Krauthammer, “As the night follows the day, VAT follows health-care reform”. In order to cover the overwhelming costs of this very un-American-like and very European-like form of socialism, we must heed Mr. Krauthammer's prognostications of a forthcoming European-like ObamaVAT.

However, the most heinous crime imposed on Americans by ObamaCare is that in an era of an Obama-driven stagnant economy, unprecedented budget deficits and joblessness, ObamaCare will cause tremendous job losses due to the above burdens placed on the private sector and ObamaCare’s unconstitutional health care purchase mandate for all businesses and individuals.

The economic and unconstitutional carnage imposed on Americans through Obama-like progressive/socialist entitlements is clear and evident. But what are the various accepted definitions of socialism, how did Progressive/Socialists manage to infect American government and politics and what is their mission?

Look for future posts from Political Policy on the keys to identifying the Obama-like progressive/socialist's agenda, tactics, strategies and mission to convert America from a country of freedoms and liberties to one of totalitarianism and suppression.

During the interim please listen to the attached 2001 radio interview with then Illinois state senator Barack Hussein Obama espousing his progressive/socialist philosophy, manifested in his presidential agenda and mission and culminating in his ObamaCare progressive/socialist entitlement legislation.

ObamaCare, the ultimate progressive/socialist backdoor pass to destroying American freedoms and liberties. A pass that must be repealed and replaced with extreme prejudice.

ObamaCare Scary Movie: Hoax & Quotas

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:15:00 +0000

So how much does the American public really know about this 2,100, uh 2,400, uh 2,700 page ObamaCare disaster? The typical response varies from “complicated”, “vague”, “scary”, “increases premiums”, “nobody in Congress has been able to explain it (including the President)”, “government control”, “reduces my benefits”, and, the number one response is “what the heck does health care reform have to do with me getting a job?”.

But we are not alone. In her inimical “Gracie Allen” manner Speaker Pelosi speaking at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties admitted as much by saying, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. Our tax dollars at work indeed. But if you read below even Speaker “Gracie Allen” knows of one item in the social engineering ObamaCare House bill version that will turn you on your ear.

Any and all House, Senate or White House versions of ObamaCare are so confusing, confounding and unhealthy for America that not even the Obama Democratic supermajority in the House and Senate could or would read any versions of them explain them or defend them. And now they refuse to even VOTE for them. THANK YOU MR. OBAMA, MRS. PELOSI AND MR. REID FOR THE CARNAGE THE REPUBLICANS WILL HAVE TO CLEAN UP AFTER NOVEMBER.

Yes, this ObamaMess is such a disaster that the Democrats in the House are looking for every congressional parliamentary trick in Robert's Rules of Order. So for more insight into the opaque Obama presidency’s parliamentary parlor tricks check out this Washington Post cite where Ezra Klein gallantly attempts to explain our illustrious Democratic leaderships sleight of hand to avoid being on record that they voted for ObamaClusterCare. Also read Sen. Orrin Hatch’s commentary on the Democrat’s abuse of the public’s trust by using reconciliation to avoid voting on the mess they created and , in the process, shoving this mess down the public’s throat.

So today as we draw closer closer to facing the frightening thought that our health care and 1/6 of our economy will be in the incompetent hands of Obama, Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid the following is a key morsel of information on this defecation on the American public widely known as ObamaCare. Mona Charen writes in the National Review that the Pelosi version of ObamaCare has a provision that has several sections that mandate racial and ethnic quotas for medical schools and other federal contractors. The bill specifies that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, "in awarding grants or contracts under this section . . . shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of . . . training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

This scary movie called ObamaCare has so many twists and turns in it that it makes ”The Exorcist” seem like a Disney flick.

ObamaCare Summit: An Impasse-able Meeting Of The Minds

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:12:00 +0000

President Obama held his oft promised televised health care summit at the Blair House on February 25, 2010 with members of both parties in the House and Senate. Ostensibly the objective of the President’s health care summit meeting was twofold; (1) have a meeting of the minds between both parties to move forward with bi-partisan health care reform legislation and (2) because he promised the American public eight times during his 2008 campaign that, "…we will work on this process publicly. It'll be on C-SPAN. It'll be streaming on the Internet” (better a year and a half late than never to deliver on that promise).

However the actual reason for President Obama to suddenly call this summit in the “spirit of bi-partisanship” is that, in the wake of Scott Brown’s Republican Senatorial victory in Massachusetts, he no longer has the opportunity to ram his grossly unpopular ObamaCare package through a supermajority Democratic Senate. So after losing the “race with the angel” with Scott Brown’s 2010 election, he fabricates this ObamaCare summit as a political ploy in an attempt to dupe the public into thinking he is actually “listening” to their concerns over his health care package.

Listening? The “summer of 2009” Tea Parties, anti-ObamaCare Town Hall rallies, polls consistently showing that the majority of Americans are not in favor (approx. 60% according to Rasmussen polls) of his ObamaCare package were not a loud enough message for this President to abandon ObamaCare and, as Republicans suggested, start over,? Even his own 2009 super majority Democratic House and Senate could not “agree to agree” on his ObamaCare proposal and allow him to sign it into legislation in 2009 before the “race with the angel”. In the face of anti-ObamaCare outcries he has continued to move forward with his unpopular agenda. If not a believer, just take a look at his 2010 deficit budget package of $3.8 trillion in spending, showing a deficit of $1.6 trillion. This is not a President that listens! Hopefully, the President’s own Federal Employees Health Benefits program has a provision for reimbursing hearing aids.

So how would one characterize the tenor of the ObamaCare summit? Do the words grandstanding, insolent, condescending and overbearing come to mind? As Republican attendees Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Eric Cantor (R-VA) dazzled the President with facts, the President dismissed their points with double-talk sarcasm. Rep. Ryan hoisted the President with his own petard by cornering him with his creative ObamaCare double accounting, which results in a $500 billion deficit in its first ten years and a $1.4 trillion deficit in its second ten years. See the following exchange between Rep. Ryan and our back peddling President, which drives home this point:

Rep. Cantor was condescendingly chastised by the President Obama for bringing to the summit the Democratic Senate’s 2,400 page bill and the President’s 11 page proposal. The President referred to it as a prop,

“…when we do prop like this, stack it up and you repeat 2,400 pages, et cetera, you know, the truth of the matter is -- is that health care's very complicated.”

A PROP?? IT’S HIS BILL!!!

So after the President reminded everyone that he didn’t want to actually SEE the mess he created, in his exchange with Rep. Cantor he resurfaced his “share the wealth” analogy with his proposal of a governmental controlled health insurance risk pool to include both healthy and unhealthy insured. After a frustrated Rep. Cantor informed the President for the umpteenth time that his ObamaCare plan is unaffordable, the President skirts the issue. Surprised? Since he ascended to the Presidency when has Mr. Obama ever thoughtfully considered American costs as he systematically bankrupts America with his proposals. See the exchange below, especially 10:20 into it when the President does his “share the wealth” dance on his governmental insurance pool proposal.

Towards the end (13:05) of the Cantor-Obama exchange Vice-President Biden actually had a lucid moment and made a point that sums up the impasse between the Obama left-wing faction of Congress and the Republicans and the American people. The Vice-President remarked that,

"…the question is how far to go. So ... you're either in or you're out. (Either) the government can't do it -- none of it -- or they can do some."

Exactly. The Republicans and the American people have long ago recognized that the government “can’t do it” and are “out”. But, again, this is a President and Democratic Congress that is hearing impaired and refuses to listen. Taking the Vice-President’s remarks one question further, why would the American people respond by saying the government “can’t do it”?

It is not as though Republicans and the American people do not believe in holistic health care reform as to care and cost. But they want this achieved through private sector, free-enterprise health insurance purchasing opportunities sold across state lines, with limited government oversight, that affords them personal choices as to cost and coverage. Republicans and Americans are seeking meaningful medical malpractice tort reform which in turn would reduce defensive medicine practices and their overall health insurance premiums. And Republicans and Americans want the Federal government to return to them their freedoms and prosperity, not imposing more governmental control over their lives while bankrupting them in the process.

When it comes to health care reform the Republicans are not the party of “no”; that handle is written all over the Democratic Congress. Republicans have put forth 31 measures for meaningful health care reform that have all been summarily killed by the hearing impaired Democratic leadership in the name of obstructionism, to serve their special interests and socialistic agenda for America.

It is plain to see that President Obama went into his summit with a foregone conclusion that his ObamaCare package will be passed as is come hell or high water and damn the 2010 elections. The latest development is that Democratic led Senate will “force feed” ObamaCare on America by using reconciliation, aka the nuclear option, which requires only a 51 majority vote to pass the ObamaCare bill. The Hill reports that,

“President Barack Obama closed Wednesday’s healthcare summit by stating his willingness to use controversial rules to pass healthcare with a simple majority vote. “We cannot have another yearlong debate about this,” Obama said. “When it comes to the most contentious issue, I'm not sure we can bridge the gap”.

The Hill also reports that Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), an attendee at the summit, said,

“I think one of the results of today’s meeting is that the American people fully understand that this bill needs to go forward with a majority,” Waxman said. “I don’t think too many people are going to quibble if it involves reconciliation.”

And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must have many Democrats who are up for re-election in November this year grabbing their collective chests with her latest bomb. According to the Speaker she personally doesn’t care about the 2010 election results as long as her left-wing, socialist Democratic party passes ObamaCare and imposes more government control, cost and waste on the American people. After the ObamaCare summit Pelosi said the following,

"We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress," she said. "We're here to do the job for the American people.”

Perhaps the Speaker meant to say “…do the job ON the American people”.

All in all President Obama’s health care summit was nothing more than one of his grand taxpayer funded photo-ops not worth the used napkins at the lunch breaks.

the Republicans have offered health care solutions to the President, House and Senate leadership that are dismissed out of hand,

the American people have offered their voice of opposition to ObamaCare through Tea Parties, Town Halls, New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts Republican victories,

the Congressional Budget Office has scored ObamaCare as a long-term deficit ridden disaster,

and public policy health care experts have stated emphatically that ObamaCare will result in more costs, less options and reduced care.

President Obama and his Democratic Congressional leadership’s response are to ignore and dismiss those messages and selfishly progress along their disconnected path towards socializing America.

President Obama’s health care summit was the final recognition that America and his agenda are at an impasse that cannot be bridged. But this deep philosophical divide between President Obama and his Democratic Congress and that of the American people will be resolved come this year’s November elections. To that point there was one comment made by the President as he wound up his summit that was agreed by all,

“…that's what elections are for”.

Rep. Paul Ryan's "Roadmap For America's Future": Brave, Courageous And Bold

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:12:00 +0000

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), ranking member of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, has put forth a controversial but courageous visionary budget policy for the future. Rep Ryan’s proposal entitled “Roadmap for America’s Future” is a statesman-like plea to the American people for “getting real” when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap is so “real” that the CBO agreed to score it against the Obama administration's fiscal policies and projections. According to the CBO scores Ryan's budget proposal moves the country in the right fiscal direction on every policy point as compared to the Obama budget projections, which does the polar opposite.

Rep. Ryan's Roadmap is fraught with tough love budgetary policies engineered to finally put America’s fiscal house in order. This Roadmap is not your typical politician’s duplicitous budget plan ripe with special interest and base-pleasing provisions that only rearranges the deficit spending deck chairs. Ryan’s Roadmap is asking Americans to make some immediate tough choices given the dire financial prospects facing all Americans as we white knuckle on the Obamanomic runaway spending express.

His plan would bend the federal debt, spending and economic curves in the opposite direction of the current administration’s projections. But at the same time the Roadmap requires all Americans to take upon themselves more personal responsibility for their future retirement health care and pensions through concessions in entitlement programs, the major causes and drains on public debt and spending.

The provisions in Ryan’s courageous plan are not for the faint of heart, but if you really want a heart stopper take a glimpse of our future at the attached CBO analysis comparing Ryan’s Roadmap proposal to the current administrations off-the-chart trajectories of 3 key economic indicators: government spending, public debt and economic growth/capita. According to the CBO for each indicator Ryan’s Roadmap bends the trajectories in the correct dierction, i.e., the polar opposite of the Obamanomic projections.

Chart 1: Obamanomic Govt. Spending Compared to Ryan Roadmap

In chart 1 under Ryan’s Roadmap, federal spending peaks in 2033 at 24.1% of GDP. It levels off and drops after that and settles at approximately 15% of GDP by 2080. The Obamanomic federal spending levels would continue to rise each year from 2010 up to a startling 65% of GDP by 2080.

Chart 2: Obamanomic Public Debt Compared to Ryan Roadmap

In chart 2 Ryan's Roadmap keeps debt held by the public from spiraling to unsustainable levels. Under Obama’s current policy, debt held by the public soars to the improbable level of more than 750% of GDP (though the economy would crash well before this level was reached). As CBO notes in its June 2009 "The Long-Term Budget Outlook", countries that carry debt of more than 100% of GDP must change their fiscal policies because those levels are not sustainable over the long run. The Roadmap also slows the accumulation of debt held by the public, and eventually reduces debt year-over-year beginning just before the middle of the century.

Chart 3: Obamanomic Economic Growth Compared to Ryan Roadmap

Chart 3 shows data from CBO that, under Ryan’s Roadmap, the standard of living for a child born today would double the time he or she reached middle age, just after the middle of the century. In this way, the sustainable budget path continues the American legacy of providing the next generation with the opportunity for continued prosperity. This contrasts with the Obamanomic fiscal policy, which leads to stagnant, and declining, standards of living. In short, unlike the current Obamanomic fiscal path, Ryan's Roadmap supports the American legacy of leaving the next generation better off than it's predecessor generation.

So what are the directions in Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap to point these charts in the right trajectory and arrive at our destination of fiscal sanity ? Rep. Ryan gets us there by blazing a trail reshaping the three major impediments to fiscal responsibility: Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and punitive progressive tax rates. Taking aim at controlling Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security costs is imperative to controlling fiscal spending, and this point may not be well understood by most Americans. Bruce Bartlett, a former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, confirms this by stating,

"Many polls show that the vast majority of Americans have no idea of the true composition of federal spending. According to a recent Rasmussen survey, just 35% of Americans know that Social Security, Medicare and national defense spending constitute more than 50% of the federal budget. A 2001 poll showed that half of all Americans thought foreign aid comprised at least 20% of the budget, and the average response was 25%. In fact, foreign aid is less than 1% of the budget and has been for decades."

The highlights of Ryan's Roadmap provisions are as follows:

Medicare: current Medicare recipients and those enrolling in the next decade would continue under today's program, though wealthier recipients would pay somewhat higher premiums. In 2021, Medicare would become a voucher program for new recipients (those today 54 or younger). With vouchers, recipients would buy Medicare-certified private insurance. In today's dollars, the vouchers would ultimately grow to $11,000. Eligibility ages for Medicare and Social Security would slowly increase toward 69 and 70, respectively.
Medicaid: modernizes Medicaid and strengthens the health care safety net by reforming high-risk pools, giving states maximum flexibility to tailor Medicaid programs to the specific needs of their populations. Allows Medicaid recipients to take part in the same variety of options and high-quality care available to everyone through the tax credit option.

Social Security: for those 55 or older today, the program would remain unchanged. For those younger, benefits would be reduced, with no cuts for the poorest workers. Workers 55 or younger in 2011 could establish individual investment accounts that would be funded with part of their payroll taxes. Government would guarantee a return equal to inflation.

Tax Reform: taxpayers could choose between today's incomprehensible tax system and a streamlined replacement having no deductions and virtually no special tax breaks. Above a tax-free amount of $39,000 for a family of four, taxpayers would pay only two rates: 10 percent up to $100,000 for joint filers and 25 percent on income greater than $100,000.

In addition Ryan proposes a spending freeze at 2009 levels from 2010 to 2019 for non-defense discretionary spending, which is about 1/6th of the federal budget.

Political commentary reaction to Rep. Ryan’s proposal has on many fronts been laudatory and praises his proactive concern for America’s fiscal future. Ezra Klein writes in the Washington Post the following,

“…But it is also impressive. I wouldn't balance the budget in anything like the way Ryan proposes. His solution works by making care less affordable for seniors. I'd prefer to aggressively reform the system itself so the care becomes cheaper, even if that causes significant pain to providers. I also wouldn't waste money by moving to a private system when the public system is cheaper. But his proposal is among the few I've seen that's willing to propose solutions in proportion to the problem. Whether or not you like his answer, you have to give him credit for stepping up to the chalkboard.”

Robert Samuleson of the Post also praises Ryan’s courageous proposal and calls for the Obama administration to step up to the plate on a fiscal solution. Samuleson writes,

“…But the larger point is that Ryan is trying to start a conversation on the desirable role and limits of government. He's trying to make it possible to talk about sensitive issues -- mainly Social Security and Medicare -- without being vilified. President Obama recognized that when he called Ryan's plan a "serious proposal." But since then, Democrats have resorted to ritualistic denunciations of him as pillaging Social Security and Medicare. Legitimate debate becomes impossible. If Democrats don't like Ryan's vision, the proper response is to design and defend their own plan. The fact that they don't have one is a national embarrassment."

Notwithstanding the Washington Post’s support, in spirit, for Ryan’s Roadmap the question is whether it is politically feasible. The Democratic party has expectedly greeted Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap with no acceptance and no alternatives to their systematic dismantling of America’s fiscal security. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to Rep. Ryan’s proposal with her typical vacuous political (vs. statesperson) "Bush-baiting" charges by saying

"The Republican budget provides tax breaks for the wealthy, ends Medicare as we know it and privatizes Social Security. Here they go again, rehashing the same failed Bush policies."

A no-surprise political response from a no-solution leader. The Republican leadership, though, is treading cautiously around Ryan’s Roadmap and has not embraced it as expected. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) distanced himself from the legislation by saying "it's his," referring to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). Boehner emphasized the document did not have the backing of all House Republicans.

Bruce Bartlett confirms both party leadership’s lack of support for Ryan’s proposal and calls for a needed public and congressional attitude transformation in order to get real about runaway fiscal spending. In Forbes Bartlett says,

“The Ryan plan is, of course, politically ludicrous. It would be impossible to get Congress to even implement one of its major provisions, let alone all of them simultaneously. And I say this as someone who in principle supports many of the ideas in his plan. For example, I believe we must raise the retirement age, and it's hard to see how we can meaningfully reform the health system to reduce cost inflation as long as health insurance is free of taxation. But I don't delude myself that it is possible to implement such changes absent a major transformation in political attitudes or conditions that do not now exist."

Bartlett’s perspective is dead on and places American attitudes towards government spending at the crossroads of fiscal ideology. As Rep. Ryan points out in his Roadmap letter to America the two paths are clear:

(1) ever-rising levels of government spending that will overwhelm the Federal budget and the U.S. economy with crushing burdens of debt and higher taxes and a future in which America’s best century is the past century or (2) a second future- one in which the principles that created America’s freedom and prosperity are restored.

Rep. Ryan has stepped out on to the proverbial political limb and bared his soul for all to see how deep his concern is for regaining America’s prosperity . His ambitious Roadmap may not be, in its totality, a politically pragmatic nor practical solution to the challenges facing America’s economic future. However it sets the pace and tone for the courageous conversation to commence. If the Obama administration, Congress and the public have the courage to meet him half way on his Roadmap for America’s Success perhaps America will regain its path towards economic prosperity.

Brave, courageous and bold expectations for all.

For more information on Rep. Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Success” please visit its website at http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/.

Also, the below Cato Institute podcast by Chris Edwards provides some excellent insight into how aspects of Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap prevents America from continuing it’s economic “death spiral” into financial obscurity under the dangerous Obamanomic policies holding hostage America’s economy.

Chris Edwards is the director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute and a top expert on federal and state tax and budget issues. Before joining Cato in 2001, Edwards was senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee examining tax, budget, and entrepreneurship issues. Edwards' articles on tax and budget policies have appeared in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Investor's Business Daily, and other newspapers. He is the author of "Downsizing the Federal Government" and co-author of "Global Tax Revolution". He holds a B.A. and M.A. in economics.

President Obama's State Of The Union Address: Bullying On The Bully Pulpit

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:03:00 +0000

President Obama needs to learn to play nice in the sandbox and not bully his playmates. At least that is the message America needs to send to Mr. Obama after his first State of the Union (“SOTU”) address on Wednesday, 1/27/10. In 2009 President Barack Hussein Obama, the leader and most powerful figure of the free world, had the gift of a super Democratic majority in the House and Senate upon taking occupancy in the White House and was the darling of the national and international press corps. And what did he accomplish over his first full year in office with that massive front line? A hopeless agenda of anti-American change rejected not only by the American people and the GOP, but by his own party.

So in the President’s SOTU address whose fault is that? According to President Obama it’s everyone’s but his. Throughout his 70 minute SOTU tirade he kicked, yelled and pointed his finger at former President George W. Bush (surprise, surprise), both parties of Congress, the Supreme Court no less, lobbyists and the American people to let them know as much. One only wishes President Obama would express such exuberant passion against terrorists, praising our country and for growing the economy as he does when he doesn’t get to play with all his toys.

Peter Wehner in Politics Daily has this to say about the President’s address,

“The speech was defensive and petulant, backward-looking and condescending, petty and graceless. He didn't persuade people; he lectured them. What was on display last night was a man of unsurpassed self-righteousness engaged in constant self-justification. His first year in office has been, by almost every measure, a failure – and it is perceived as a failure by much of the public. Mr. Obama cannot stand this fact; it is clearly eating away at him. So he decided to use his first State of the Union to press his case. What he did was to set back his cause.”

The most glaring example of Mr. Obama’s petulance in his address was his unprecedented unpresidential, disrespectful dressing down of the Supreme Court, compounded by that he didn’t even have the facts correct in his condescension to the Court, as evidenced by Justice Alito’s reaction to the President’s remarks (see video below).

America has in their midst a President who has been coddled and entitled his entire life. From affirmative opportunity entrance to Harvard law school preceding a mediocre college career, an undistinguished law professor and “present voting" Illinois state senator career that led to his “empty suit” 304 day stint as Illinois U.S. Senator, Barack Obama has always been provided all the toys he wanted without earning the right to have them. Now he doesn’t quite understand why, as President, that the yellow brick road that guided him to the presidency has turned rusty and riddled with such obstinate obstacles as the U.S. constitution, bill of rights, freedom of speech, good old fashioned American capitalism and pesky Republican victories in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts. Well, Mr. Obama, you’re not in Chicago anymore.

A bully’s tactic is overtly premised on fear and intimidation to accomplish their goal, but is covertly driven by insecurity and inadequacy. In President Obama address he attempted to convey fear to the American people if they did not support his domestic agendas and intimidation to Democrats and Republicans alike if they didn’t earnestly work towards enacting said agenda. But what drives his fear and intimidation is his miserable failures as a first year President as evidenced by American tea party and Washington march outcries and even a lack of confidence in his agenda by his own super Democratic majorities.

CBS News poll

President Obama’s first full year in office has been remarkably dismal and is reflected in his polls showing, according to Gallup, one of the lowest average approval ratings for a first year President in over 50 years. After a full year in office the President has managed to create unprecedented national debts and deficits, record breaking unemployment, imposed anti-capitalist tax laden and failed stimulus spending, held hostage important initiatives while promoting a failed socialist and unconstitutional $2.5 trillion health care agenda, employed socialist/government takeover of American industries, dismantled and compromised national security measures and enacted policies that provide more leniency to terrorists than America’s own intelligence agencies. Ergo, are we surprised by the poll ratings?

Mr. Obama doesn’t accept those ratings nor does he accept that his playmates, Congress, the Supreme Court and the American people are not entitling his failed agenda. So in his SOTU does Obama take a page from former President Clinton’s playbook in 1994 when Democrats lost the House and show America he gets it, have a “lesson learned” and pivot to the center away from his socialist/progressive agenda? No, his choice is NOT to listen, but to arrogantly bully, cajole, intimidate, strike fear and blame Washington for the very same old and cold tactics of influence that he campaigned to “change”.

But who is Washington? President Obama IS Washington and his presidential promise to change its old ways cloaked in a marketing message of “hoax” and change” has been exposed. In the President’s SOTU address he put lobbyists on the chopping block by saying,

“We must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists...that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions."

However, as reported in The Hill, within 24 hours of that comment the administration invited those very same lobbyists he threw under the bus in his SOTU address to participate in a series of off-the-record conference calls with senior officials to discuss a range of topics; a prime example of the hypocritical behavior of an intimidating bully who desk pounds “do as I say, not as I do”.

America and President Obama would like to put behind us his connections to his ACORN, Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers days of years past that trained him in the tactics of intimidation and fear. The “hope and change” President Obama campaigned on is not a wish for America, but one America wishes for Mr. Obama. For America wishes and hopes he will change his philosophical approach to his presidency and come to the realization that he represents all Americans, will put forth policies to utilize America's unique platform of opportunity for success and capitalize on those building blocks to improve America's status.

But if President Obama continues his socialist agenda grounded in American resentment employing ACORN/Alinsky bullying tactics his presidency will be lame-duck long before its time.

This is because, in the end, bullies never win; they are simply exposed for what they are.

The below is the GOP response to the President's SOTU address, ably delivered by newly inaugurated Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell

National Guard Tribute: "Always Ready, Always There"

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:04:00 +0000

The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 373rd birthday on December 13, 2009. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

Following World War II, National Guard aviation units, some of them dating back to World War I, became the Air National Guard, the nation's newest Reserve component. The Guard stood on the frontiers of freedom during the Cold War, sending soldiers and airmen to fight in Korea and to reinforce NATO during the Berlin crisis of 1961-1962. During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. Over 75,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called upon to help bring a swift end to Desert Storm in 1991.

Since that time, the National Guard has seen the nature of its Federal mission change, with more frequent call ups in response to crises in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the skies over Iraq. Most recently, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 50,000 Guardmembers were called up by both their States and the Federal government to provide security at home and combat terrorism abroad. In the largest and swiftest response to a domestic disaster in history, the Guard deployed more than 50,000 troops in support of the Gulf States following Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Today, tens of thousands of Guardmembers are serving in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the National Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing to the states units trained and equipped to protect life and property, while providing to the nation units trained, equipped and ready to defend the United States and its interests, all over the globe.

A belated happy birthday to the National Guard and God bless America's brave men and women of the National Guard who are "always ready and always there" to protect and serve our nation on it's shores and abroad.

For more information on the National Guard please visit it's website at http://www.ng.mil/.

Bank Of Obama: Where The Distraction Is

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:13:00 +0000

President Barack Obama is channeling infamous bank robber Willie Sutton. Over his career Willie Sutton was purportedly responsible for robbing over $2 million from banks. When asked why he robbed banks legend has it that Sutton responded by saying, “because that's where the money is." President Obama obviously agrees with Mr. Sutton and knows this all too well given his latest legislative “heist” proposal.

Since President Obama is incapable of and refuses to control budgetary costs due to his reckless government spending programs he predictably, like a good little socialist, is attacking and attaching corporate America profits to do his job for him. And which corporate industry does he target? Again, predictably, he pursues his favorite corporate “whipping boy’, the financial institutions “because that’s where the money is”. But is it really about money or is there something else afoot with Mr. Obama's latest socialist brain child proposal?

Obama has now proposed legislation to Congress to impose a 0.15% fee on certain liabilities of financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets to, ostensibly, help recoup TARP bailout dollars and trim the federal budget deficit. This temporary (and we all know how long temporary is) fee, aka tax, is expected to raise as much as $90 billion over 10 years.

There is only one overarching flaw with this flavor-of-the-week politically motivated ObamaNomic fiscal strategy and that is THE INSTITUTIONS THAT CAUSED THE TARP LOSSES ARE FOR THE MOST PART EXEMPT FROM THIS OBAMA TAX AND THAT INCLUDES THE AUTOMAKERS, FANNIE MAE, FREDDIE MAC AND DELINQUENT MORTGAGE BORROWERS. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF OBAMA POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT LEGISLATION TO PUNISH SUCCESS AND REWARD FAILURE.

Let’s once again attempt to comprehend the sophistry behind this latest and greatest ObamaNomic socialist/populist proposal, which is no more than a means to mask his socialist policies to date, force feed Americans more of the same and curry favor with his socialist political base. To quote Shakespeare’s Henry V, “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more”.

David C. John of the Heritage Foundation helps to that end and provides excellent insight into the “Obamalogic” surrounding the President's latest proposed legislative debacle. To quote Mr. John’s reasoning,

“When President Obama announced the details of his Administration's plan to tax financial institutions, he said, "We want our money back, and we are going to get it." However, he doesn't seem to care who pays the money back, as most of the firms who would be forced to pay the "fee" either paid the money back with interest, took TARP money under duress only because the Treasury told them that they had to, or never took any money in the first place. The companies that have caused most of the TARP losses so far--GM and Chrysler--are exempt. The White House needs a villain to blame for the nation's continuing economic woes, and Treasury desperately needs revenue to reduce the massive deficits caused by the Obama Administration's spending policies. This is the wrong approach to reducing the swollen deficit and would inevitably cause more problems than it solves. It is a bad idea being used to score political points and should be dropped.”

Mr. John also notes major some points on how this Obama bank tax is both ineaquitable, economically unsound and politically motivated:

With one exception, the Obama bank tax does not apply to the entities that caused TARP's losses. As of September 30, 2009, TARP lost money on its bailout of AIG, auto companies GM and Chrysler, and the administration's program to help people refinance mortgages. TARP's other programs actually showed a small profit and Congress is certainly not going to make those individuals who benefited from the mortgage refinancing plan repay the losses of that program. The fee would not apply to Chrysler or GM, either.

the Obama bank tax is not designed just to recapture some of the profits that financial institutions made last year since it would apply to both profitable and unprofitable financial institutions. This structure would make it even harder for undercapitalized financial institutions to rebuild their financial strength and increase the risk of failure if the economy goes back into recession.

the Obama bank tax would be on top of both (1) another proposed new Obama FDIC fee that would apply to roughly the same group of financial institutions, and (2) the corporate income taxes that they currently pay.

the Obama bank tax is not structured in a way that would reduce irresponsible risk taking. Although the cost will be highest on firms that use riskier ways to finance their operations, the 0.15% level is not high enough to discourage them from doing so. Instead, this Obama bank tax is much more a case of Washington seeking a “cut of the bank’s action”.

despite claims that the Obama bank tax would be collected only until TARP deficits are "paid for" (about 10 years), history suggests that these temporary taxes become a permanent tax.

Warren Buffet, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., is not pleased with this latest Obama proposal and had this to say about it,

“I don’t see any reason why they should be paying a special tax. Supporters of the plan to tax the banks are trying to punish people. I don’t see the rationale for it. Look at the damage Fannie and Freddie caused, and they were run by the Congress. Should they have a special tax on congressmen because they let this thing happen to Freddie and Fannie? I don’t think so. Most of the banks didn’t need to be saved.”

Doug Elliott, a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington and a former managing director at JPMorgan Chase & Co, is quoted as saying, “The politics on this is really quite easy. The public would be supportive of anything up to shooting and burning the bankers.” For more comments on the pros, cons, likes and dislikes of the proposed Obama bank tax The Hill has commentary from an array of yea and nay sayers.

But all of the above must take time to understand the ObamaNomic sophistry behind Obama’s new flavor-of-the-week proposal. In his January 16, 2010 radio address Mr. Obama paints the picture of the bank "villain", handlebar mustache and all, quite well ,

“Like clockwork, the banks and politicians who curry their favor are already trying to stop this fee from going into effect. The very same firms reaping billions of dollars in profits, and reportedly handing out more money in bonuses and compensation than ever before in history, are now pleading poverty. It's a sight to see. If banks can afford to pay out all those bonuses, he said, then they can repay taxpayers, too. "We're not going to let Wall Street take the money and run. We're going to pass this fee into law,"

So there we have it-- a new Obama piece of larcenous legislation that is inequitable, benign as far as contributing to reducing the Obama deficit, will only reconfirm financial institution’s fears as to future uncertainty under the Obama economic regime and, in turn, will cause less business lending and greater effort toward retarding job growth.

Mr. Obama will, in his narcissistic sophist manner, exploit successful institutions to cause all of the above to mask his failures and socialist agenda, politicize an ongoing failing economy (which he created), along with blurring the lines even further between free and government-controlled enterprises. All of this done at the expense of the American worker.

In response to the question posed at the outset as to whether there is something else afoot here, other than money, with Mr. Obama's new and improved bank crusade I submit there is and it's called the old "shell game". A distraction from and an opportunity to continue the failed Obama socialist economic policies and agenda. Mr. Obama is simply applying his hero Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #11--pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. And the target for President Obama is the banks.

Recall that Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that’s where the money is; President Obama robs them because that’s where the distraction is.

Obama Terrorist Policy: America's Date With Disaster

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:27:00 +0000

As a follow-up to Political Policy’s post dated 1/15/10 entitled "Liberal Left's Loathing of the CIA", the following is an excerpt of an essay written by Mark Thiessen entitled "Stop Blaming the CIA", which was published in The Daily Beast. Mr. Thiessen is a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and author of “Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama is Inviting the Next Attack”.

“The report released by the White House on Thursday, January 21, 2010 into the failure to stop al Qaeda’s attempt to blow up a passenger plane over Detroit in 2009 on Christmas day found a number of mistakes and according to the New York Times, “The report concluded that the government’s counterterrorism operations had been caught off guard by the sophistication and strength of a Qaeda cell in Yemen, where officials say the plot against the United States originated.”

President Obama laid blame for this failure on the agency he has put under siege since his second day in office: the CIA. “This was not a failure to collect intelligence,” he declared this week, “it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence we had …. That’s not acceptable and I will not tolerate it.” But Obama’s chief counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, told a different story, acknowledging that we did not, in fact, have all the intelligence we needed: “We did have the information throughout the course of the summer and fall about … plans to carry out attacks,” Brennan said. “We had snippets of information …. We may have had a partial name. We might have had an indication of a Nigerian. But there was nothing that brought it all together.”

The question is: why did we have nothing that brought all the “snippets” of information together?
Within 48 hours after taking office, President Obama eliminated the only tool that would allow the intelligence community to do so: the CIA program to interrogate senior terrorist leaders. Thanks to Obama, America no longer have the capability to detain and question the only individuals who know how the information fits together—the terrorists themselves.”

In National Review’s critique of “Courting Disaster” they write that Mr. Thiessen,

“tells the story of how America's dedicated intelligence professionals went head- to-head with the world's most dangerous terrorists, got them to tell us their plans, and kept America safe for eight years, until Barack Obama exposed their secrets to the enemy, unilaterally disarmed in the face of terror, and invited the next attack. In exposing these secrets, writes Thiessen, President Obama repeated a number of lies about the CIA program -- falsehoods that have been widely echoed in the news media and have become part of the conventional wisdom. Courting Disaster challenges that conventional wisdom, and refutes the false arguments that have been made by Obama and the critics of the CIA program.”

For an example of liberal media falsehoods about the CIA enhanced interrogation program, look no further than the attached video of Marc Thiessen challenging, exposing and holding accountable CNN's Christiane Amanpour as one of the guilty on that score.

Political Policy advises all those concerned about America’s national security and it's systematic dismantling in the name of political correctness by the Obama administration to read Mr. Thiessen’s essay in The Daily Beast and his new book “Courting Disaster”.

Through his book "Courting Disaster" Mr. Thiessen has performed a great service to his country by exposing the inherent dangers posed by the Obama administration’s naive, corrupt and incompetent national security policies that undermine both America's national intelligence agencies and it's homeland defense.

Post-Brown Syndrome and America's Holy War

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:16:00 +0000

We have all seen those insane religious fanatics on street corners spinning the gospel to satisfy their twisted religious beliefs. To find such a spectacle within the fanatical socialist religiosity of the left wing of the Democratic party look no further than the attached videos of their high priests and messiah doing the same on the street corners of the airwaves.

The aftermath of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts special election for Ted Kennedy’s vacant senate seat (aka, the real “Boston Tea Party”, the “Boston Massacre”, the “Boston Stranglehold”) has been much more than simply a clear message to the socialist wing of the Democratic Party that America rejects their agenda, it has been a religious meltdown experience for them. They are now speaking in tongues!!

If in doubt please view the following two videos. The first video is an hysterical, schizophrenic theocratic exchange between two Obama disciples, Chris Matthews and Howard Dean, on MS (“Many Socialists”) NBC’s Hardball two days after Scott Brown’s election. The second video is the messiah himself providing twisted “ecclesiastical” insight as to why Scott Brown was elected.

I don’t want to spoil the fun of watching these 3 religious fanatics of the church of LDS (“liberal democratic socialists”), but here is some of the exchange.

Matthews/Dean

MATTHEWS: Oh! You rationally would not have voted for the conservative Republican because he’s against health care, but you say the voters are irrational. They somehow send smoke signals in their voting. They vote for a conservative Republican who’s totally against health care to tell the country they want a progressive health care program. That’s crazy!
DEAN: We know what they did.
MATTHEWS: Are voters crazy?
DEAN: We actually know that they did.
MATTHEWS: Are voters crazy?
DEAN: Chris, there’s only one crazy person around here, and I may hold up a mirror. You may see him in a minute here.
MATTHEWS: But you mean that voters…?
DEAN: Don’t be silly.
MATTHEWS: I’m just looking at the results. I’m not cheering them; I’m looking at them. And you’re not looking at them.
DEAN: We –
MATTHEWS: You’re saying no matter who won… Suppose Coakley had won. You would have said that was a victory for progressive Democrats. Wouldn’t it be?
DEAN: No, I woulda said –
MATTHEWS: Wouldn’t you have said it if she won?
DEAN: I — I — I would have said, “Thank God the right person won.”
MATTHEWS: Okay. In other words, if she wins, that’s a victory for your side. If she loses, that’s a victory for your side.

The messiah himself in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

So the socialist high priest Howard Dean believes that if Martha Coakley won OR lost the Massachusetts special election it is a victory for the Democratic party’s agenda and the messiah, aka President Obama, believes that electing a Republican in the Massachusetts special election is a referendum on the public’s anger over the Republican Bush years. I’m not a psychiatrist, but after viewing these two interviews there must be some connection between an intractable, fanatical religious-like belief in fatally flawed socialistic policies and delusional schizophrenia.

It is the best of times and the worst of times in America. With the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts it is the best of times for the Republican party as it is poised to take back America from the radical left leadership in Washington who are on a religious mission to deconstruct America and rebuild it into a socialist’s nirvana. The worst of times because, as those who love America wage this holy war against socialism, the country will continue to suffer dire consequences as the White House and the democratic congressional leadership continue their efforts to ravage American freedoms, foundations and security.

In the spirit of America’s Judeo-Christian foundations, we should all pray that both sides find solace and peace.

ObamaCare Price Controls: Bending the Value Curve Down

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:43:00 +0000

The hallmark of ObamaCare is that health insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage to those patients with pre-existing conditions. How is that goal achieved and what are the implications of such a daunting mantra? In order to achieve ObamaCare’s overarching purpose, health care price controls would be put into effect to ostensibly limit the premiums paid to insurers and reimbursements to health care providers, but would also cause in and of itself an overall rationing of health care. In the attached Cato Institute podcast, Michael F. Cannon discusses the ramifications of health care price controls, which is the centerpiece of ObamaCare in both the House and the Senate versions of health care legislation.

Fundamentally all economists agree that price controls degrade both quality and quantity of goods and services. Governments can impose artificial price controls on free enterprises, but that does not change the economic reality of underlying costs, associated production and the accompanying harmful economic distortions and results. In fact Larry Summers, President Obama’s Director of the National Economic Council, is quoted saying such in a testimony to the IDB Conference on Development Thinking and Practice, Sept. 4, 1996,

“...price and exchange controls inevitably create harmful economic distortions. Both the distortions and the economic damage get worse with time. Meanwhile, attempts to preserve price controls induce otherwise avoidable rationing schemes and goods shortages. And when goods disappear from official markets -- except perhaps those designated for privileged consumers -- they reappear in unofficial ones, but at much higher prices.”

Mr. Cannon illustrates the above by way of example.

If it cost $20 to produce a widget and the government forces an enterprise to sell the widget for $10, then the enterprise will limit both the quality and quantity of widget production to manage to a selling price of $10 in order to be profitable and stay in business. How would this example translate into a health care insurer environment? If an insurer charges $50,000/yr. for a health insurance premium and the government requires the insurer to charge $10,000/yr. to cover health costs this may appear to be attractive to the insured. However, this “price control” imposed on the insurer incents the insurer to reduce health care coverage that would cause them to be unprofitable, e.g., reducing coverage for diabetic patients, cancer patients, heart failure patients, etc, which in turn reduces the value of the health insurance plan.

This is precisely the sort of economic distortion President Obama’s own chief economic adviser warned against. Both quantity and quality of health care would be compromised by ObamaCare price controls.

Mr. Cannon provides valuable insight into the economic realities and distortions of ObamaCare price controls that would undercut and compromise it’s intentions and, most importantly, compromise the quality and quantity of health care for all Americans.The jury is still out as to whether ObamaCare will in fact bend the health care cost curve down, but it will most certainly bend it's value curve down.

Michael F. Cannon is the Cato Institute's director of health policy studies. Previously, he served as a domestic policy analyst for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee under Chairman Larry E. Craig, where he advised the Senate leadership on health, education, labor, welfare, and the Second Amendment. Cannon is coauthor of "Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It". He holds a bachelor's degree in American government (B.A.) from the University of Virginia, and master’s degrees in economics (M.A.) and law & economics (J.M.) from George Mason University.

Will Obama's Foreign Polices Be "Carter Redux"?

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Gallagher) — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:21:00 +0000

Could President Obama’s “straddling the fence” approach to foreign policy cause him and America to suffer the same consequences of the failed Carter administration’s policies? Further, could his approach ring a death knell for future presidents who embrace such a cautious and somewhat incoherent tact to foreign policy?

Walter Russell Mead, in his essay entitled “The Carter Syndrome” published in Foreign Policy, addresses these and other questions through a comprehensive review of past president’s struggle to strike the right foreign policy balance. Mr. Mead identifies the foreign policy dilemmas posed to President Obama through the prism of four foreign policy schools of thought; Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, Jacksonian and Wilsonian.

Mr. Mead cautions President Obama if he continues to send mixed signals as to his foreign policies. The ramifications will affect American interests and ultimately his presidency.

“Neither a cold-blooded realist nor a bleeding-heart idealist, Barack Obama has a split personality when it comes to foreign policy. So do most U.S. presidents, of course, and the ideas that inspire this one have a long history at the core of the American political tradition. In the past, such ideas have served the country well. But the conflicting impulses influencing how this young leader thinks about the world threaten to tear his presidency apart -- and, in the worst scenario, turn him into a new Jimmy Carter.”

As context, the following are Mr. Mead’s general themes of the four foreign policy schools of thought.

Hamiltonians- the Hamiltonian doctrine is the doctrine that pushes the economic primacy of the United States. Hamiltonians believe that a fundamental link between the government and big business is key to the survival and success of the country. They believe that the US is best served by international organizations that protect fundamentally American interests.

Jeffersonians- Jeffersonians are most interested in protection of American democracy on the home front and believe that foreign entanglements are a sure method of damaging American democratic systems. Jeffersonians believe that the U.S. is something better and different and often protest against international agreements, rather than for them.

Jacksonians- the driving belief of the Jacksonian school of thought is that the first priority of the U.S. in both foreign and domestic policy is the physical security and economic well-being of the American populace. Jacksonians believe that the U.S. should not seek out foreign quarrels, but if a war starts, the basic belief is there's no substitute for victory.

Wilsonians- Wilsonians believe that both the moral and national interests of the U.S. are best served by spreading American democratic and social values throughout the world. They want to see the U.S. involved on a worldwide basis with a peaceful international community based on the rule of law. The United Nations is perhaps the quintessentially Wilsonian creation.

Mr. Mead characterizes Mr. Obama’s foreign policy philosophy, as former President Carter’s, largely as Jeffersonian (which is no bed of roses) tinged with a Wilsonian view of U.S. social and democratic idealism. But can President Obama turn a blind eye to regimes that fly in the face of such Jeffersonian & Wilsonian American ideals. Mr. Mead writes,

“Obama may well believe what he said in his inaugural speech -- "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" -- but as any president must he is already making exactly those tradeoffs. Why else refuse to meet the Dalai Lama? Why else pledge support to the corrupt regime of President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan or aid Pakistan despite the dismal track record of both the civil and military arms of the Pakistani government when it comes to transparent use of U.S. resources? Did the administration not renew its efforts to build a relationship with the regime in Tehran even as peaceful democratic protesters were being tortured and raped in its jails? Is Obama not taking "incentives" to Khartoum, a regime that has for more than a decade pursued a policy in Darfur that the U.S. government has labeled genocidal? It is hard to reconcile the transcendent Wilsonian vision of America's future with a foreign policy based on dirty compromises with nasty regimes”.

Drawing comparisons to the Carter administration’s indecisively strewn foreign policies Mr. Mead states that,

“Carter faced many of the same problems, and the image of weakness and indecision that helped doom his 1980 run for re-election is a perennial problem for Jeffersonian presidents. Obama will have to leap over these hurdles now, too. The contradiction between the sober and limited realism of the Jeffersonian worldview and the expansive, transformative Wilsonian agenda is likely to haunt this administration as it haunted Carter's, most fatefully when he rejected calls to let the shah of Iran launch a brutal crackdown to remain in power. Already the Wilsonians in Obama's camp are muttering darkly about his failure to swiftly close the Guantánamo prison camp, his fondness for government secrecy, his halfhearted support for investigating abuses of the past administration, and his failure to push harder for a cap-and-trade bill before the Copenhagen summit.”

His presidential campaign over, as President Obama moves forward with his presidency he will have to make some difficult foreign policy choices that will affect his political future, the future of America’s and the world’s interests and foreign policy strategic considerations of future presidents.

The stakes are high for both President Obama’s legacy, America and the world as it is in the 21st century. Cohesive and clarity are his watchwords as he molds and shapes his foreign agenda, lest he finds himself after his term in office cast into the bowels of political purgatory, a lonely place sans Jimmy Carter.

Walter Russell Mead is the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations