Obama On Syria: Shut Up And Just Trust Me

June 18, 2013 Leave a comment

According to President Obama, you can’t really understand Syrian policy unless you’ve been in the Situation Room. In this one little comment made during an interview with Charlie Rose we see everything that’s wrong with Obama. He’s taking the country into war without any debate and his best argument is that we should just trust him. His reason why we should trust him? He’s been in the Situation Room, we haven’t. We have 4,500 troops on the Syrian border, Obama is running guns to Syrian rebels who have pledged allegiance to al Qaeda. He honestly thinks we shouldn’t question him because we haven’t been in the Situation Room.

There is to be no debate of course. Like with everything else Obama pushes, the time for debate is over. We’ve had years to debate every issue he brings to the table, so we’re to knock it off at this point. In the case of Syria, the President said last week when he announced he was supporting al Qaeda rebels that he didn’t even have a plan in place yet. Presumably the plan will come this week. Never mind that Assad was accused of using chemical weapons months ago. At this White House they apparently don’t plan for future possibilities. Don’t you dare question them though, you haven’t been in the Situation Room!

We’ve seen this sort of dismissive arrogance throughout Obama’s two terms. We were told to just trust him on Obamacare, he knew what was best. The time for debate was over, Congress had to push through the bill. That it’s turned out to be a terrible mess that massively increases insurance rates and causes employees to lose hours and health benefits isn’t of concern. The time for debate was over, you’d better trust Obama. He pulled the same stunt with gun control earlier this year. He trotted out grieving families from the Newtown shooting and told the country the time for debate was over. We should just trust the President.

The time for debate on Syria is not over, in fact it isn’t over for any of these issues. Syria in particular should not be closed down for debate by the President. It’s up to the President to make a compelling case to Congress and the American public for war with Syria. No President gets to tell the country they understand the situation, just trust me. For all the bellyaching Obama did about Iraq when Bush was President, the fact is Bush didn’t take this country to war until the country had a robust debate about the matter. Bush obtained a Congressional resolution on Iraq. Obama has cut off debate from the beginning, we haven’t been in the Situation Room so just shut up and trust the President.

The public has a right to demand the President make a compelling case for war in Syria. We have a right to know why we’re supporting rebels who have pledged allegiance to al Qaeda. This is after all the same organization that attacked us on 9-11 and killed our Libyan ambassador last September. Why are we arming them and otherwise supporting them? Is Assad really worse than al Qaeda? We have 4,500 troops on the border. Are they going to see combat on the ground in Syria? What sort of arms are we supplying? What sort of danger is a no-fly zone going to present for our troops? How does this action affect our relationship with Russia, China, Turkey, Israel and Europe?

There are plenty of questions to be asked about Syria, not the least of which is why it took three months to decide Assad using chemical weapons was rotten enough for war. Yet Obama is uninterested in the consent of the governed, he’s interested in closing debate and doing as he pleases. Us little people haven’t been in the Situation Room so we really should just shut up and leave Obama alone. Say what you will about Bush and Iraq, at least we had a national debate about the issue. One that was welcomed and encouraged by the President. With Obama, he doesn’t want to be bothered explaining himself. He’s the President, in his mind he makes the decisions and we should just trust him. Barring that, we should just shut up and leave him alone.

Filed under Syria Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Why Is Obama Supporting Al Qaeda In Syria?

June 14, 2013 2 Comments

The anti-war President is taking the United States into another war. This time we are expected to support a war favoring rebels in Syria. Please ignore the fact that the rebels have pledged their support for al Qaeda. Earlier this week the Syrian rebels executed a 14 year old for “insulting Islam.” It gets even better of course! The administration is considering settling thousands of rebel refugees here in the United States. What could possibly go wrong? Honestly, who wouldn’t want to live next door to an al Qaeda supporter whose leaders execute kids for “insulting Islam”? In fact if you don’t want to live next door to such a person you’re a racist and a bigot!

There’s no doubt that the Syrian government is no good. According to Obama, Assad’s government used chemical weapons against al Qaeda supporting rebels which apparently killed 100-150. This apparently crosses Obama’s red line, do ignore the fact that this information has been around for months. Obviously we should all oppose the use of chemical weapons and Assad should be condemned internationally for using them. Sanctions would be more than appropriate in this case. Whether those sanctions are from Washington or the UN really doesn’t matter.

The problem here is that Assad has used those weapons against al Qaeda supporting rebels in his own country. He hasn’t threatened to use chemical weapons against Israel, the United States or any other foreign power. Assad doesn’t have the capability to hit a foreign target. Compare Assad to Saddam Hussein, the latter of which threatened Israel and the United States. American, British and Russian intelligence all said he had weapons of mass destruction. One can understand why Bush would want to take our Saddam if he had those capabilities. Assad on the other hand doesn’t have the capability to use chemical weapons internationally.

Since we’ve brought up Saddam it’s important to note that our intelligence was wrong, he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction on any sort of large scale. What makes us think our intelligence is right about Assad? Al Qaeda supporting rebels claim they were attacked with chemical weapons, so we just believe them? We have had a number of massive intelligence failures over the last decade, why should we believe our intelligence today? It would be a little absurd to suggest that we should just trust Obama as though by his very existence our intelligence services will be foolproof.

At the end of the day we have to ask why Obama is taking our country to war in support of a group of rebels that support al Qaeda? Is al Qaeda our enemy or are they our ally? Let’s not forget, it was al Qaeda agents who killed our ambassador in Benghazi, to say nothing of the 9-11 attacks and countless attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years. Why are we supporting rebels who back this evil group? Surely there is a way to get at Assad without giving aid to al Qaeda. For a President who ran on an anti-war ticket in 2008, he’s very quick to pull the trigger on war. Worse, he does so without any sort of national debate.

Obama says chemical weapons were used and that’s it we’re at war without any debate as to why we’re involved. Taking the nation to war requires more than the President making a declaration. In fact, it requires Congress making a declaration which suggests the founders wanted the people to debate war before the nation engages in war. The United States hasn’t been attacked. Our allies haven’t been attacked. Our interests abroad haven’t been attacked or even threatened by Assad. In fact, Assad has no ability to wage war against the United States nor does he threaten as such. So why are we going to war against Syria. Especially so when it means siding with our enemy al Qaeda. We really are entering George Orwell’s 1984.

UPDATE: One administration official says Obama would have declared Assad crossed the “red line” whether there was evidence or not. It begs the question why Obama wants to aid al Qaeda supporting rebels in Syria, with or without evidence of chemical weapons use by Assad. What else is going on here? Is it a cover for previous gun running via Benghazi? Is Syria really a proxy battle between the US and Russia? Does Obama want radical Muslims to obtain US weapons and if so why? Obama’s actions in Syria are very troubling.

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Surveillance State Completes Obama’s Fundamental Transformation

June 13, 2013 6 Comments

A House Committee is looking into allegations that the IRS obtained 60 million health records from a California heath insurance company. It appears the IRS subpoenaed records from the insurer, no doubt they’ll claim the 60 million health records were a mistake. It might be a mistake if a few files were taken in the course of a massive financial document production. When the IRS takes 60 million health records, it’s intentional. The big question is why the IRS wants to peer through 60 million health records. One wonders if it has anything to do with Dan Schulman and Sarah Ingram’s 322 combined White House visits.

All of this relates back to the surveillance state Obama is creating. Obamacare and the IRS scandal are related. Both further the administration’s goals of creating socialized medicine and demonizing the “enemy.” (read: Republicans and conservatives) Within the IRS the Obama administration found a group willing to go after conservatives for harassment. Conservatives, particularly the Tea Party, have been the most hostile to Obamacare. It just so happens the IRS is the agency that gains the most under Obamacare. The IRS is charged with enforcing the Obamacare individual mandate, thus they now get to enter the world of healthcare which they have never been involved in before. With conservatives balking at Obamacare, the administration found an agency willing to fight conservatives in order to retain their new found power.

The Snowden leak exposes for us just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the surveillance that Obama wants to have on ordinary Americans. Congress was briefed on the extent of it yesterday and even Democrats were “astounded” by how deep the surveillance of Americans is. Not only are they following our phone and email records but under Obamacare they’re creating a national database of our medical records. It just so happens that 60 million of those records landed in the hands of the IRS. One wonders where else within the government medical records might land.

Don’t expect the media to connect the dots between the White House, Obamacare, the IRS and NSA surveillance. To the media they’re just stand alone issues. There are so many family conflicts of interest between the media and the administration it’s no wonder Obama’s biggest scandals have been broken by papers in the UK. There are dots to connect though. The fundamental transformation of America includes the complete and total loss of privacy with the government tracking our every move and our every visit to the doctor. One wonders if they’re tracking our every purchase on our credit card, our every deposit and withdrawal at our bank or our every stock transaction.

This is the fundamental transformation of America. It isn’t just the socialist goal of Obamacare. It’s the fascist goal of a police state that has corporations procure data on individuals which they then willingly pass on to government. Have you not noticed that none of the cell phone companies or companies like Google have complained about having to provide government with massive amounts of data? They’re in on it, they’re probably getting paid handsomely. Make no mistake, the surveillance state created by Obama is the fundamental transformation of this country. We have gone from a free people who are secure in our persons and effects to a people whose every move is tracked by government. It’s taken 5 years, this has all happened under Obama. The big question, the one that can’t be answered yet, is whether the public even cares. If we don’t care, the transformation is complete.

Filed under corruption Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Is Edward Snowden A Hero Or Traitor?

June 12, 2013 6 Comments

The establishment is out in force against Edward Snowden. John Boehner, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Dianne Feinstein, Mike Rodgers etc. have all called Snowden a “traitor.” This appears to be a loosely coordinated attack on Snowden’s credibility, it seems unlikely that all of these people would use the term traitor. Snowden may have violated Federal law but it seems a bit extreme to call him a traitor. So far as we know he hasn’t leaked any information directly to a foreign government as such he really isn’t a traitor. Unless of course we call all national security leakers traitors because maybe in a dusty cave in the middle east a member of al Qaeda will find something out.

The question is whether Snowden is a hero for exposing government spying on citizens or whether he’s a criminal. The media has presented the question as hero or traitor, we’ll use the term criminal instead. Having said that, it’s presented as an either or question. The answer is that Snowden is probably both a hero for exposing the extent of government spying on the average American citizen as well as a criminal for violating various Federal laws. There really isn’t any doubt that he violated Federal law by exposing this program, so there really is no arguing that he’s a criminal under the law.

If Snowden is a criminal, can anyone within government blow the whistle on Federal abuse of power? There’s no question that under Federal law Snowden is a criminal because he exposed a top secret spy program. How else was he supposed to expose the illegal program though but by breaking the law? This is where Snowden, potentially, becomes a hero because he is risking his own life to expose to the country the illegal activities of its government. We should say he’s a potential hero because we really don’t know yet what his motivations really are or who fed him some or all of the information he’s exposed. That said, it appears that there is no place for a whistleblower to call out the government without the threat of prosecution. That’s a pretty serious problem.

We have reached the point in this country where the Federal government has become its own entity separate from the voting public. There are 2.7 million civilian Federal employees. On the security side of things, there doesn’t appear to be any oversight whatsoever. If Obama is to be believed, he can’t even oversee the IRS. (yet he oddly wants an even bigger government) If Congress and the President are incapable of overseeing such a large workforce which enforces millions of pages of law and regulation then the bureaucracy has become its own being. These 2.7 million are unelected and any number of them can engage in illegal activities without much oversight.

Where does the whistleblower fit in all of this? We on some level tolerate the whistleblowers who have exposed four scandals at the EPA, an insider trading scandal at HHS and a prostitution and drug ring scandal at Hillary’s State Department. (funny how all these scandals come out after the 2012 election) The Feds might stamp their feet a little bit over these whistleblowers but not like they do over national security whistleblowers. In Snowden’s case, we have a Federal government tracking all of our phone records and emails. They can track our location based on those phone records. Shouldn’t the people know their government is doing this?

To listen to Speaker Boehner and a host of Democrats the people shouldn’t know and anyone who exposes such information is a traitor. It’s funny with the Democrats how warrantless wiretaps of foreign nationals caused an uproar when Bush was President but with Obama the mass data mining of all Americans doesn’t bother them in the least. If Snowden exposed the Bush administration he would be a Democrat hero, instead he’s a traitor. We need to have a serious conversation in this country about whether the government really needs to have this many secrets and whether they really need to follow our every move in order to “protect” us from terrorism. It’s a conversation the gaudy magnificos in Washington don’t want to have but one the people need to have amongst ourselves. Until we have such a coversation, we should withold calling Snowden a traitor.

Filed under corruption Tagged with , , , , , ,

The Country That Knows Not Its Constitution Is Lost

June 11, 2013 6 Comments

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

How can our Federal government collect data on billions of phone calls and emails from ordinary Americans not accused of or suspected of any crime without violating the fourth amendment? Americans have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. Surely phone calls and emails fall under either papers or effects, perhaps houses depending on where such activity is taking place. The government warrant on Verizon and other cell phone companies is so broad, it cannot possibly describe with any particularity the places to be searched or what shall be seized.

In short, what the Federal government doing is tossing the fourth amendment aside in the name of security. Don’t you go paying attention to those Tsarnaev brothers who, the older of which managed to travel from the US to Chechnya without any knowledge of the Federal government. We’re supposed to trust that the Federal government will use this information in a proper way, to combat terrorism. Don’t you go paying attention to the IRS which was used to politically harass the President’s opponents (enemies in his language) or to leak information about his opponents finances.

Fortunately for Obama, the country does largely trust him with all of this data. According to Pew, 56% don’t have a problem with the massive data mining that the government is engaged in. Only 41% find the government’s data mining actions unacceptable. The government schools are a complete success, the country has no idea what the Constitution says or how it applies to our lives. The lack of American history in schools (with the exception of slavery and other American evils) and basic civics is playing out before our eyes. The nation no longer cares whether the government tracks their phone calls or emails. The schools clearly do not teach that “he who is willing to give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither.”

The country is lost, there’s just no way around it. The left whined for years about Bush’s warrantless wiretaps of foreign nationals. Obama is mining data on innocent Americans not accused of any crime whatsoever and the country backs it. The Federal government is creating an American version of the East German Stassi, which will know everything about us. Our phone calls, our emails, our medical records, our financial information etc. At least 56% of the country doesn’t care about any of this. With numbers like that, it’s clear our freedom is lost. Obama promised us he would fundamentally transform the country and he has.

Our only hope  is that the courts will put a stop to this. Apparently Sen. Rand Paul is preparing a class action lawsuit. Let’s face it, he might win some political points but he’ll lose at the Supreme Court. The Court just ruled that states can take DNA swabs of anyone they arrest. Do you really think the Court is going to rule data mining unconstitutional? If anything, Sen. Paul’s lawsuit will simply entrench data mining in Supreme Court precedent. The left’s living constitution will become more of a reality than it already is. As such, restraints on government will be no more. One wonders if they’re even restrained right now.

Filed under freedom Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Do Americans Care About Government Surveillance?

June 10, 2013 Leave a comment

Edward Snowden is the whistleblower responsible for alerting the country about our Federal government’s massive data mining. He appears to be a 29 year old contract employee with the NSA. One wonders why the Feds are giving contract employees so much security clearance. We can hardly blame Snowden for coming forward, after all some might want the leaker to disappear. We’ve discovered that the Feds are collecting data from Verizon and other cell phone carriers, they’re also following our online activity via PRISM. The PRISM program apparently provides direct server access to the government. Congress is rightly concerned over their Verizon Blackberries, they should also be concerned about PRISM snooping. This is a gigantic 1984 style mess, the question is whether the public even cares.

The establishment line about Snowden is that he’s dangerous because he doesn’t really understand the program. His lack of understanding makes his disclosure of these programs dangerous. It’s safe to say that Snowden probably doesn’t understand the whole program and how it works. It’s probably also safe to say that he doesn’t fully understand the depths of these programs. What he does know though is that the Federal government is engaged in massive data mining, collecting the phone records and emails of ordinary Americans. This sort of information is only dangerous in that it hurts the establishment if the public should become aware that the government is watching them.

That’s assuming the country even cares about individual liberty anymore. Let’s face it, the uproar over the Verizon subpoena and PRISM is largely limited to civil libertarians and journalists. The polls have hardly been overwhelming against these programs. There are countless examples of people saying they don’t care because they have nothing to hide. A healthy minority doesn’t hold an opinion and another healthy minority supports the programs. Together they’re practically a majority. We should hardly be surprised when we have cradle to grave welfare. For large groups of Americans the government is Santa Claus rather than a threat to freedom and liberty.

There are plenty of people who have something to hide from the government. Congressmen have every right to expect their communications are secure from executive branch snooping. So do Federal judges. Separation of powers extends to the communications of Congress and the Judiciary. Do we want the President snooping in on the strategy of the opposing party in Congress? Doctors have a right to expect their communications with patients are secure. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that an unscuplulous President might use a doctor’s diagnosis against a political opponent. Lawyers also expect their communications remain private. So do businessmen who surely don’t want the President to aid their competition, even if that competition donated money to the President’s re-election campaign.

James Madison said that if men were angels there would be no need for restraint on government. We can all come up with worst case scenarios in this situation and it’s good that we do so. Because no matter how much we want to believe the President and those in power are good people, the reality is that like all mankind they are totally depraved. Maybe the President himself won’t stoop to such levels but their subordinates may. We’ve seen plenty of scandals in the Obama administration over the last month. After the IRS scandal, do we really want the government to have all our phone records? Even if we accept the administration claim that the IRS problem was just a couple of rogue agents, do you really want rogue Federal employees spying on their real and imagined enemies? That’s the best case scenario for abuse, don’t we all know it will get much worse than rogue employees? That said, does anyone really care?

Filed under corruption Tagged with , , , , , , ,

We’ve Arrived in Obama’s Version Of 1984

June 8, 2013 Leave a comment

It stands to reason that when yours truly goes on vacation some major news story will happen. I spent the last few days in Cincinnati with my family, all of the Tuesday-Friday posts were written last weekend. We have discovered this week that the Federal government is formally spying on nearly every American. Obama tells us we should just trust the government. In the alternative it’s all Bush’s fault. Except that it isn’t. The Patriot Act was renewed by Obama. It is Obama’s Federal government that sought secret subpoenas collecting phone records from every Verizon customer (and presumably every other cell carrier).

The Federal government is keeping track of every call you make. The scope of Federal intrusion is so broad they can read our ideas as we type them. In other words the Federal government has the ability to read this blog post as it’s being typed. The Feds are tracking all of us via their secret PRISM system which apparently factors heavily in Obama’s daily intel briefings.  They don’t need a subpoena and yours truly need not be suspected of any criminal activity. The Post Office is photographing the front and back of every piece of mail it processes. Meanwhile if you want to read the Court opinion allowing all of this surveillance the Justice Department doesn’t want you to see it as they’re fighting the publication of said opinion.

The Federal government is officially tracking our every move, we’ve arrived at 1984. It’s all for our safety of course. That the Federal government wasn’t able to stop the Tsarnaev brothers from bombing the Boston Marathon cuts into the government’s best argument. The fact is the government can do far more harm with this information than good. We already know the IRS targeted conservative groups and it’s been alleged that other government agencies joined the IRS in harassing said conservatives. Is it that far out of the realm of possibility that the Federal government could use phone contacts and emails against a political opponent? What about using the phone contacts of a political rival to use against them during a campaign. It doesn’t even have to be inappropriate in nature. Knowing who a candidate is talking to can help a sitting President prepare a campaign against them.

As an attorney I find the mass data collection by the Federal government a potential breach of attorney-client privilege. Let’s say I’m defending someone accused of a Federal crime. If I email my client anything of a confidential nature, any sort of work product, the Federal government will have its hands on it. They could then use that information against my client and my defense of that client. If they’re tracking my phone, they could find out who I’m talking to. Maybe they’ll find out what witnesses I’ve spoken with or which potential experts I may have contacted. The Justice Department could then use that information against my client and my defense.

What we’re looking at is the biggest breach of privacy in the history of the world. That it happens in a country that has long prided itself on individualism and limited government is nothing short of appalling. Blame Bush all you want, so far as we know his administration never subpoenaed this sort of information from the mass of Americans who haven’t been accused of any crime. If Bush did engage in this sort of data mining, then he’s wrong as well. Right now this issue falls squarely on Obama and his administration. It is Obama who renewed the Patriot Act, it is Obama who subpoenaed all of Verizon’s records. At the end of the day, this issue goes beyond left-right and Republican-Democrat. This is a matter of right and wrong. It is fundamentally wrong for the Federal government, or any government, to track its citizens like this.  Those not accused of crimes are entitled to privacy from government intrusion.

Filed under corruption Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Who Should The GOP Nominate In 2016?

June 7, 2013 6 Comments

It’s time to start thinking about the Republican Presidential nomination for 2016. Candidates are already making random appearances in Iowa and we’re only 18 months away from campaigns really kicking off in earnest. Based on the last round, the first debate is less than two years away. With that in mind it’s time for Republicans to start thinking about what sort of candidate they want to represent the party against Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or some random back bencher who thinks he can pull off an Obama.

Let’s first reject the notion that we need to nominate a woman or minority just for the sake of nominating a woman or minority. If the best candidate ends up being a minority or a woman, that’s great. However, we Republicans need to reject the Democrats vision of America which separates us into various little groups based on race, ethnicity and sex. We don’t need electoral quotas, we need to further the conservative cause. If we start accepting the Democrats notion of a divided America full of little groups that need to be appeased because of their race or sex, then we’ve lost the essence of free market conservativism.

Which brings us to the most important qualification for the next nominee: He has to be a conservative. We have nominated liberals the last two elections. We cannot afford another John McCain or Mitt Romney. Candidates like that cannot win. We need to offer a viable alternative to the Obama and Democrat notion of an expansive nanny state. We have built in issues heading into 2016 with the Obama administration scandals. We need a candidate who can articulate a small government alternative to the big government scandal mess Obama has given us. Most importantly our candidate needs to articulate freedom. If there’s one thing that has been missing in the last two elections it’s a discussion on freedom. The Republicans can argue this issue and win it but they’ve got to nominate the right candidate.

The Republicans have a lot of fine Senators who will be running for President. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz come to mind, Marco Rubio as well if he rehabs his image after embarrassing himself on immigration. Of the three, Ted Cruz is probably the best. However we might want to consider shying away from nominating a Senator. Before Obama the last Senator elected was JFK. The two of thing share some things in common besides being former Senators. They both had a very difficult time figuring out how to manage the Federal government and govern. It’s very easy to manage a Senate staff of 20, it’s much more difficult to manage a massive Federal government.

With that in mind, we might want to consider looking at nominating a Governor rather than a Senator. Governors have managerial experience. Running the executive branch of a state is like a smaller version of running the executive branch of the Federal government. Governors are forced to make managerial decisions, they learn how to pay attention to each part of the executive branch. As such, they enter the White House with the knowledge of how to manage. It’s quite a leg up on a Senators who specialize in bloviating on the Senate floor and in Committee meetings. We have some decent Governors, not including the traitorous Chris Christie. Scott Walker, John Kasich, maybe even Rick Perry if he can rehab his image.

It is of the utmost importance that we nominate an experienced conservative who can articulate the conservative vision and why it is better than the Democrat’s vision. John McCain was a disaster because he wasn’t a conservative. When the economic crisis hit, he didn’t oppose Obama and Bush on the bailout, he joined them. Mitt Romney may have had executive experience but how could someone who supported Obamacare light as a Governor articulate opposition to Obamacare? Not only do we need someone experienced, we need someone young. Since the end of the Cold War the youngest candidate has won. So we need a young, experienced conservative. We have such people, let’s start thinking about who the best candidate is and back them.

Filed under Republicans Tagged with , , , , ,

Progressives Turn Food Into A Political Movement

June 5, 2013 Leave a comment

Since the beginning of the progressive movement socialists have been obsessed with what people eat. It largely begins in the United States with Upton Sinclair’s book “The Jungle” which prompted Congress to pass all sorts of food regulations. Never mind that by the time Congress acted the free market had already forced reform within the meat packing industry. The National Socialists in Germany were obsessed about creating super Ayrans through food, Hitler is a famous vegetarian. It continues today with the progressive lefts obsession with organic food and opposition to non-organic food and GMO’s. It’s one thing to enjoy tasty food, it’s another thing to make a political movement out of food.

EU Bureaucrat and American food writer Michael Pollan has declared that “it’s not food if it comes though the window of your car.” Don’t you just love how these self appointed experts get to declare what is or isn’t food, largely based on their own personal preferences. This is the language of the progressive food movement though, their goal is to put anyone who opposes them on the defensive by declaring their position to be in favor of “not food.” You may or may not enjoy eating at McDonald’s but it is absurd to suggest that the food made there isn’t in fact food. It has nutritional value, whether the progressives like hearing it or not.

Another go to issue for the progressive left is their unwavering opposition to GMO’s. A few weeks ago the left held protests in a couple hundred cities against GMO’s and Monsanto. Monsanto is the new boogyman on the left. It’s become like Haliburton, they just say the name and we’re all supposed to know what they’re talking about. In any event, the left insists GMO’s are dangerous and going to kill us all. They of course don’t have a shred of evidence to support that claim. That won’t stop them from trying to scare people into opposing GMO’s. After all, they’ll just declare it’s “not food” thus isolating the opposition and putting them on the defensive.

The fact is, GMO’s are a great blessing for the world. By changing a gene or two in corn or some other vegetable, Monsanto is breeding a vegetable that isn’t as susceptible to certain bugs. They’re making stronger vegetables, able to grow in more varied climates. There are arguably billions of people without daily access to food across the globe, GMO’s can feed these people by making sure crops aren’t destroyed by pests and by making sure the crops planted are as strong and as likely to survive as possible. We should be rejoicing over God’s blessing, instead the progressive left wants all of this stuff declared poison and banned. Anyone who thinks the left really cares about poor people is fooling themselves. If they cared about poor people, they would support GMO’s.

Yours truly is a bit of a foodie, so I understand wanting to eat good food. A line has to be drawn though when food becomes a political movement. Whether you like hearing it or not, no one can tell the difference between an egg bought at Kroger’s and a “free range” egg from some farm. You’re dreaming if you think there’s a difference between so-called factory beef and beef from some farm that declares their beef “natural.” (assuming we’re talking about the same breed of cow and same quality (choice or prime)) None of these things are any healthier for you either. If you want to spend the extra money on it, eat your heart out. However, don’t become a snob and look down on those of us who either don’t share your interest or can’t afford it. Food is an interest, it isn’t a political movement. Or at least it shouldn’t be a political movement.

Filed under Food Police Tagged with , , , , ,

DNC Shifts Focus From Obama Scandal To GOP’s Response

June 4, 2013 2 Comments

Overreach is the word of the week on Capitol Hill. The Democrats and their trusty defenders in the media have decided the new narrative is that the Republicans are “overreaching” on the IRS scandal. The DNC started it on Friday, David Plouffe hit it on Sunday, and they’re off and running Monday and beyond. Of course MSNBC had to chime in as well, making Rep. Issa’s comments about Jay Carney the story as opposed to the IRS targeting conservative groups. The theme of the week is overreach as such we’re to focus not on the administration scandals but on those dastardly Republicans and how awful they are.

This is a classic diversionary tactic from the Democrats. When the heat is on them for their own deeds, they shift the focus to whatever trumped up awful the Republicans are engaging in. When Benghazi happened last September, the administration was successful in making Romney’s reaction the story rather than the terrorist attack and Obama’s response to it. They’re trying to do the same thing here. Rather than allowing the country to focus on what Obama’s government has done with the IRS or what mistakes they made in Benghazi or with journalist subpoenas, the Democrats are making the story about the Republicans.

If they aren’t successful this week in turning the story into those dastardly Republicans “overreaching” then David Plouffe wants to make Rep. Issa the story. Apparently 40 years ago Issa wasn’t charged with grand theft auto and 35 years ago wasn’t charged with insurance fraud. The key here is that Issa was never charged with a crime. That won’t stop the Obama administration from sending attack dogs like Plouffe out to make Issa the issue rather than all of the scandals that he’s stuck investigating. Keep in mind, when Issa was not being charged with crimes Obama was smoking pot in his “Choom Gang.” Of course Obama’s past isn’t relevant, Issa’s apparently is.

The latest Democrat talking points scream desperation, especially the Issa attacks. If one had to guess the Issa attacks aren’t going to matter. However the general talking point about the Republicans overreaching could very well be successful. The Obama administration and their accomplices in the media have been successful in the past at shifting focus away from Obama’s errors, mistakes and scandals by making the Republican response the focus. In this case, all of these scandals are around a month old. It seems a little late and thus a little desperate to try to shift focus to the Republican response. Especially so when the GOP hasn’t exactly been focused on impeachment. The DNC talking points suggest that Republicans aren’t allowed to complain or investigate illegal activities in the administration, including political targeting by the IRS. Such is ridiculous.

It’s interesting that the DNC issued these talking points last Friday and by Monday we had half a dozen or more articles all using the same language. The media is still squarely behind Obama. The question is whether the talking points will become the full time narrative picked up by the entire media. The scandals facing the Obama administration go well beyond something that one could easily attack a Presidential candidate two months before an election over. The administration lied about what happened in Benghazi. Under Obama’s watch, the IRS unjustly targeted conservative groups. The Department of Justice subpoenaed phone records of over 20 AP journalists and James Rosen of Fox News in violation of the DOJ’s own regulations. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius used her position as heath care insurance regulator to shake down health insurance companies to fund a non-profit. Former EPA Chief Lisa Miller used a fictional email alias so as to avoid the open records law. (her alias was a “scholar of ethical behavior”)

These are all serious issues that call into question Obama’s competence as the Federal government’s chief executive. No wonder the DNC wants to make the Republicans the focus. How dare those Republicans question anything this President does! See, they’re overreaching by questioning the President. In making this argument the DNC and the administration want us to ignore the anything goes attitude this President and his administration has. We have never seen such a collection of cabinet level clowns. Yet instead of questioning Obama’s decisions or the actions of his administration, they want us to focus on how the Republicans respond. How utterly absurd. You get the feeling that this time around it isn’t going to work.

Filed under corruption Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 150 other followers