Some Questions For Congress To Ask On Benghazi

May 7, 2013 7 Comments

Jay Carney told us the other day that the Benghazi attacks happened “a long time ago.” Carney said this as though it was outrageous that anyone was still talking about the terrorist attack that killed our Libyan ambassador which happened just eight months ago. Congress is holding hearings on the Benghazi attack this week, several whistleblowers are scheduled to testify. The administration’s response is to declare that the State Department already investigated the matter and their conclusions are “unimpeachable.” In other words, the administration already made its determination and how dare you question it. You must be one of those people concerned about government tyranny or something.

It’s  the job of Congress to investigate these matters, especially when an ambassador dies. The Obama administration spent two weeks lying about why the Benghazi attack happened. For two weeks they claimed it was because of an anti-Muslim video on You Tube. In reality it was an al Qaeda terrorist attack. The media never questioned Obama, even after it was revealed that the attack was terrorism. You’ll recall at the second Presidential debate CNN’s Candy Crowley openly sided with Obama despite Obama not telling the truth. Blaming the You Tube video was a cover up, part of an extensive cover up in fact. The Obama administration could have done something but Obama chose not to. Congress is right to investigate.

Obama presented himself last year as the hero of the War on Terror. He was the killer of Osama who hadn’t allowed any terrorist attacks during his time in office. He intervened in Libya, taking out its terrorist dictator. Then a terrorist attack happened which resulted in our ambassador dying and being dragged through the streets of Benghazi. The administration could have stopped the attack, we had drones and special ops in the area but they were held back. Obama went to sleep that night not knowing or caring about the end result of the terrorist attack. When it turned out to be a potential political disaster for Obama, the administration blamed a video no one had ever heard of to protect the President. The media ate it up and refused to do any investigations themselves.

One wonders why the media isn’t concerned about administration threats against whistleblowers. One wonders why the media doesn’t seem to care that the State Department won’t vouch for the credibility of any whistleblower. In doing this the State Department is essentially telling us all the whistleblowers can’t be believed or in the alternative the career diplomats are too afraid of losing their jobs to speak up. Whistleblowers used to be the sort of people the media championed because they spoke the truth while entrenched power lied. These days the overtly partisan press won’t challenge the President they agree with and ignore or disparage whistleblowers against him.

It isn’t just Obama of course, Hillary Clinton is right in the middle of this mess. The Democrat press badly wants her to run for President in 2016. If there is one thing that can derail Hillary it’s Benghazi. Her fingerprints are all over this mess. The ambassador died under her watch, she’s responsible for ensuring his security. She’s responsible for him being in Benghazi rather than Tripoli. It is Hillary who never requested additional security or help for the ambassador on the night of the attack. Hillary went along with the video excuse and sent Susan Rice off to deliver the lie on all the Sunday talk shows less than a week after the attack. Benghazi could take down or limit the power of both of these Democrats.

While the media wasn’t much interested in Benghazi in September and October last year, they’re showing at least minimal interest now. The follow questions need to be asked and answered in the next week or so, if not by Congress than by the media. 1. Who in the administration came up with the idea of blaming the You Tube video? 2. Who helped construct the story? 3. Who gave the final go ahead with releasing the excuse? 4. Who in the administration was asked by the Benghazi consulate for additional support? 5. Who in the administration decided not to provide it? 6. Which members of the administration aided in the making of that decision? 7. We need a minute by minute accounting of Obama’s whereabouts and who he was with on the night of Sept. 11-12. 8. Were American special forces or the US military every denied authority to attack or otherwise provide aid during the Benghazi attack. 9. Why was our ambassador in Benghazi on Sept. 11? Answers to these questions will aid Congress and the public in determining what actually happened.

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

Obama Expands Drone Strikes To American Soil

March 6, 2013 8 Comments

Back when Bush 43 was President the anti-war left, Obama included, pitched a hissy fit over drone strikes on terrorists. In fact they pitched a fit over both wars and the detentions at Guantanamo Bay. Since Obama became President the anti-war left suddenly fell silent on all of these issues. Thus proving that they really weren’t against the war, they were just against Bush. Obama didn’t stop the wars immediately, in fact got involved in a third war in Libya. Guantanamo is still open. No one seems to talk about that anymore, the press suddenly doesn’t care how the prisoners there are being treated.

The bigger issue today is that the left is silent on drone strikes. They were outraged over drone strikes on terrorists, accusing Bush of killing children and other innocent people. Obama hasn’t just adopted Bush’s drone strike policy, he’s expanded it. From all accounts Obama goes through terrorist files and picks and chooses which ones to attack. Bush limited attacks to foreign terrorists, Obama with Eric Holder’s help has expanded the attacks to include Americans who may be working with our terrorist enemies. Thus these American citizens, evil though they may be, are denied their Constitutional rights. Obama is their judge, jury and executioner.

All of the drone strikes in question have taken place on foreign soil. It would be one thing if during the course of war the American military killed Americans who are wearing the combat uniform of a foreign power. But these drone strikes involve people who pose no direct threat like, for example, someone who pulls a gun on a cop and gets shot. These are people who may be hatching evil plots but at the time of their execution via drone strike they don’t pose an immediate threat. If Holder believes killing these Americans is Constitutional what is to stop drone strikes on American soil?

Nothing according to Eric Holder. Holder in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul says that while conditions for an American soil drone strike may be rare and unlikely, it would be constitutional. Holder already set the precedent for killing Americans via drone strike abroad. He’s using that precedent to expand it to include American soil. All it takes is an American ”terrorist” and a President willing to push the button. All in the name of public safety of course. Any lunatic dreaming big evil dreams involving death and destruction in his parents basement are potential targets of Holder’s policy. All in the name of public safety.

It’s potentially worse than that. Political opponents can be branded as terrorists and taken out via predator drone. More than a few Democrats called the NRA domestic terrorists after the Newtown shooting. Under Holder’s precedent the President could decide to take out the NRA headquarters in Virginia. All in the name of public safety of course. If we elect ourselves a particularly evil President, it is hardly out of the realm of possibility that this precedent could be used to take out members of other political parties. If the Supreme Court doesn’t like it, he’ll drone attack them too.

Obama is unlikely to attack political opponents in this manner. But that’s not the point. The point here is that we’ve seen this administration expand the use of drone attacks to first include American citizens and now to use drone attacks on American soil. There are no limits on these drone attacks other than the limits the administration has created for itself. We’ve seen these limits erode over just the last four years. Congress needs to limit the power of the President to use drones on American citizens. In fact, Congress would be wise to eliminate the Holder precedent by banning drone strikes on Americans altogether. The government should not be entrusted with the power to declare Americans terrorists without a trial. The potential for corruption is far too great.

Filed under constituton Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

DHS, FBI Monitor Your Online Activities

May 29, 2012 Leave a comment

The Department of Homeland Security has released a list of keywords that will grab their attention on Facebook and other websites. The list includes the words pork, cloud, toxic, tornado as well as an extensive list of government agencies, foreign countries, diseases and weather words. DHS alleges that they’re only targeting actual threats. But in order to determine what is an actual threat, they have to sift through millions of law abiding citizens posts online. Next time you mention the pork tenderloin you’re having for dinner or the tornado watch in your town or the next time you mention a government agency online, know that DHS is likely watching or at least skimming your post to determine whether you’re a threat.

Meanwhile the FBI is secretly creating  a unit that seeks to make it easier for the government to eavesdrop on wireless and internet communications. The FBI wants internet providers to make it easier for them to tap into private email accounts. They also want to be able to decode and thus eavesdrop on conversations made via Skype and other similar sites.

These two issues go hand in hand. It is illegal for the government to wiretap without a warrant. If it isn’t already, it should be illegal for the government to tap into private email accounts and private internet communications such as instant messages and Skype. It’s one thing for the FBI to monitor foreign activities, particularly the activities of suspected foreign terrorists. The same can be said for DHS. But the minute the monitoring becomes of American citizens, the government has a constitutional problem. They are not free to monitor us without a warrant.

You might say that some internet activities are public and that’s certainly true. We may debate whether or not tax money should be wasted monitoring blogs such as this one. But at least this is a public activity. Facebook isn’t per se a public activity. Sure there are some public aspects to it but it’s a closed universe with limits on who can see content. We can all agree that there are private internet communications made via email, instant messaging and video conferencing where there is a clear expectation of privacy. Yet the actions of DHS and FBI are trying to blur all internet communications.

Government shouldn’t be monitoring my Facebook posts about pork fat, Pakistan, the flu or my commentary on various government agencies. Even though these are public communications made in a semi-public setting, there is an expectation of privacy. In short, there’s an expectation that the government isn’t paying attention to my commentary. You likely also have that expectation, no matter what you’re talking about. When government monitors what people say, it has a chilling effect on free speech. There is a fear that the state is watching and may seek to prosecute based on ones beliefs or how they choose to communicate. That’s a serious problem and DHS is certainly attempting to chill free speech by monitoring nearly every communication made about any serious international or health issue.

It’s one thing for DHS and FBI to monitor the activities of suspected foreign terrorists, even unreasonably suspected foreign terrorists. But to monitor American citizens, to make it so easy to obtain access to emails and instant messages, that’s beyond the limits of the Constitution. DHS and FBI need warrants to look at this information and unless there is a minimally reasonable belief someone is committing a crime, government has no business paying attention to your trip to Mexico, my love affair with all things pork or my pastor’s bout with the flu. Government simply should not have this power over our lives and it’s a complete cop out to claim it’s all to protect us from terrorism. At some point freedom is more important than protection from barbarian terrorists. We’ve reached that point when DHS is following your Facebook and Twitter posts and the FBI is trying to hack everyone’s email.

Filed under freedom Tagged with , , , , , ,

Torture By Ensure And Obama’s Terrorism Support

April 30, 2012 7 Comments

The Obama campaign is running around alleging that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have pulled the trigger and ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden. Romney may be many things but he isn’t Bill Clinton. In 2007 he made it pretty clear that he would in fact take out Osama, he just wouldn’t announce where or when. That seems like a pretty prudent response for a candidate in 2007. The notion that Obama is the only guy who would have pulled the trigger is laughable. Especially so when he spent all of the 2008 campaign ridiculing the Bush administration for using so-called torture in the form of water boarding. It happened to be water boarding that resulting in the information that led Obama to bin Laden’s lair.

The left has forever attacked the CIA for water boarding and other techniques used against terrorists. Leslie Stahl, for example, was shocked to find out that the CIA used the dietary supplement Ensure as a “dietary manipulation” against terrorists. Stahl declared the use of Ensure against imprisoned terrorists “Orwellian.” I suppose it’s Orwellian when doctors proscribe Ensure to their patients who need extra vitamins and other nutrients. This is the fantasy land the left lives in when it comes to terrorism. It’s the same fantasy land that Obama lived in before he became President. From all accounts, Ensure is still on the Guantanamo menu.

When Obama took office he declared that the War on Terror would be called an “overseas contingency operation.” Apparently that term didn’t take because earlier this month the administration announced the War on Terror was over. Never mind that al Qaeda still exists and the US has a top 10 list out on them. Never mind that other terrorist organizations are threatening the United States, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Of course, those are Obama approved terrorist organizations. The Brotherhood has been aided by the Obama administration, particularly in Egypt. This is the same Muslim Brotherhood that to this day wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Mind you the Arab Spring that has handed power to the Muslim Brotherhood was aided by Obama pal George Soros.

This has been the problem with Obama all along. Some terrorists are okay, others are to be dealt with. Obama deserves credit for pulling the trigger on the bin Laden operation. But it needs to be pointed out that he has hurt the American position regarding terrorism all over the world with his support for the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a group that within the next generation will engage in major acts of terrorism, if not start a regional or global war. These guys aren’t kidding around when they say they want to destroy Israel. Obama helped put them in power and he continues to fund Egypt’s military which of course further aids the Brotherhood’s terrorist objectives.

What Romney does about all this is anyone’s guess. We know the left isn’t much interested in tackling terrorism, especially when certain terrorist groups further the left’s own political causes. It’s likely that Romney wouldn’t have a problem with the terrorist Ensure diet, unlike the maniacs at CBS. Still, terrorism is a major international matter. It’s one that Romney hasn’t been asked much about because the economy is clearly the number one issue. Romney would have pulled the trigger on Osama, but then what? Will he support the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas like Obama has? Will he call out Obama for supporting these terrorist organizations? That remains to be seen.

Filed under Terrorism Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Democrats Hysterical Over House Radical Islam Hearings

March 11, 2011 Leave a comment

Democrats are hysterical over Rep. Peter King’s hearings on radical Islam in America. Some of it has been amusing such as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee quoting herself and rambling on about a breathing Constitution. Others would be powerful, such as Rep. Keith Ellison’s speech, if only they were factual. And other Democrats have just gone off the deep end such as Rep. Al Green declaring the KKK was a bigger terror threat than al Qaeda. In the end, the Democrats want to portray King’s hearings as the new McCarthy hearings. Nothing could be further from the truth.

King’s hearings are necessary because we have had shootings here in the United States performed by radical Muslims. The Ft. Hood shooting for example was committed by a radical Muslim who shouted allu akbar before firing. The recent military shooting in Germany was committed by a radical Muslim. There have been al Qaeda terror cells broken up by the FBI. There have been radical Islamic clerics holding meetings throughout the country. While I believe it is their right to hold such meetings, if they are organizing terror cells who plan to commit acts of terror that isn’t quite the same as holding a Muslim revival meeting.

The Democrats are howling about Sen. Joe McCarthy, whom they’ve spent the last half century demonizing for no good reason. Sen. McCarthy has been accused of just about everything, even though the evidence he presented was largely correct. If there was a Congressional committee that engaged in falsehoods, it was the House Un-American Activities Committee which had been created by progressive Democrats during the second World War. HUAC did a fair amount of accusing without any evidence while McCarthy never named names unless there was a direct tie to the Communists in America. Interestingly Sen. McCarthy is often tied to HUAC by the liberal press despite the fact that he never served in the House and therefore was never on any House committees.

Rep. Ellison wept yesterday during his speech opposing hearings on radical Islam. I’m sure it was very touching on the news last night. However, Ellison didn’t exactly present the facts correctly, as more than one news outlet has noted. He claims that 40% of terror cell break ups happen thanks to Muslims, unfortunately that isn’t true. He cites a Muslim who died in the 9-11 attacks, claiming he was accused of being part of the terror plot. In fact, the opposite was true.

Perhaps the most absurd of the Democrats rants (besides Rep. Lee’s, which is just a bunch of crazy rambling, par for the course for her) was from Rep. Al Green who claims the KKK is a bigger terror threat than al Qaeda. If this were 1950 I would agree with him 100%. Back in the 50′s the Klan was still around and thanks to FDR and the Democrats there wasn’t a Federal anti-lynching law. They were certainly a major terror threat. Unfortunately for the Congressman’s argument, they aren’t a terror threat anymore. The Klan barely exists and when they rear their ugly head they’re opposed and mocked across the board. Al Qaeda on the other hand killed 3,000 Americans and tore down the two tallest buildings in the country. Their brand of radical Islam is gaining a foothold in America. I dare say in 2011 al Qaeda is by far the bigger terror threat.

There are legitimate reasons for the House to investigate radical Islam in America. It’s no different than the House investigating gang activity or any other form of dangerous association. Like it or not, there is a sect of Islam that wants to attack the United States and its interests in a violent manner. I see no reason why Congress shouldn’t investigate. This isn’t HUAC lobbing unsubstantiated links between Hollywood and the Communist Party. If it dips into that territory then the investigation ought to stop. But there is no reason whatsoever why Congress shouldn’t investigate this subject. This isn’t a matter of freedom of religion, it’s a matter of public safety.

Filed under culture, Politics, Terrorism Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Middle East On Fire, Obama Slow To Respond

February 25, 2011 Leave a comment

It’s been interesting to watch the Obama administration over the past few weeks. The administration never seems to be on the same page. Hillary Clinton says one thing while Obama does another. It took a week for Obama to say anything remotely supportive of Hosni Mubarak after riots started in Egypt. It turns out that the administration was working with the Muslim Brotherhood and other leftist organizations in secret. When it became clear that Mubarak was going to be removed from office, suddenly Obama was out in public stamping his feet telling the Egyptian President to step down.

Similar things appear to be happening in Libya with Moammar Gadhafi. Gadhafi is a much worse character than Mubarak, especially so considering he bombed a US airline flight in Scotland in the 80′s. President Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 after the Libyans planted bombs in Berlin. After the US took out Saddam, Gadhafi suddenly wanted to be pals with the US. He has been of marginal help in dealing with al Qaeda, who he apparently doesn’t like or more likely is afraid of.

There’s more to Obama’s dealings with Gadhafi though. In the 80′s Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright traveled to Libya with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to visit Gadhafi. Colonel Gadhafi has been a financial supporter of the Nation of Islam and it’s no secret that there are strong connections between Farrakhan and Obama. Obviously we all know about Obama’s 19 years spent at Wright’s church.

Obama was the first American President to meet with Gadhafi in person. So perhaps they have a personal relationship that makes it difficult for Obama to call on Gadhafi to resign. That said, Obama didn’t even use Gadhafi’s name in his little speech about Libya the other night. He essentially didn’t take any position at all, other than calling on the violence to end. Obama’s Wednesday speech on Libya was incredibly weak and continues his tread of weak American responses to actions abroad. First the President takes forever to formulate a response, then his response is weak. This has unfortunately been Obama’s trend from the beginning.

There are two outcomes in Libya and neither of them are particularly great. Colonel Gadhafi could remain in power. He’s provided the US with a little bit of information about al Qaeda but is otherwise a wicked terrorist who has caused American deaths in the past via terrorism. The other outcome in Libya is that is taken over by Islamic socialists in the Muslim Brotherhood. The dominos will have started tipping in Tunisia and Egypt, it will have loved on to Libya. Next up is Algeria and Morocco. The Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of a caliphate will be closer to being achieved.

The two choices aren’t appealing to me or to most people. Unfortunately there isn’t a demand for actual freedom and liberty in Libya, just as there wasn’t in Tunisia or Egypt. These folks aren’t looking to Thomas Jefferson, they’re looking to radical Islamic clerics who just happen to be in bed with socialists and international unions. So seeing Libya fall to the Muslim Brotherhood and assorted Islamic socialists isn’t exactly a good thing. In fact, long term it’s not good at all.

I think President Obama is torn. He’s worked with the Muslim Brotherhood and various left-wing Muslim groups in Egypt. Many of the President’s domestic allies support the Muslim Brotherhood and the unions that are fighting in Egypt and Libya. (think: Code Pink, AFL-CIO etc) On the other hand, the President has close ties with the Nation of Islam, which Gadhafi has supported for many years. Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright has long been a supporter of Gadhafi’s. I think the President is torn, which in part explains his silence for days on end and it certainly explains why Obama couldn’t even use Gadhafi’s name in his speech.

In the end we must recognize that we have both an incredibly weak President who doesn’t like making decisions and a President that is willing to work against the best interests of the country. There is no reasonable case to be made that the Muslim Brotherhood is good for the United States, yet Obama has supported them for two years in their effort to get rid of Mubarak. Mubarak was no saint, but at least he kept things peaceful in the middle east which was in our best interest. Obama would rather see worldwide socialism rule the day and that is surely what was being offered by the Brotherhood and the various unions aiding the Egyptian protests.

Things in the middle east are going to get worse before they get better. The dominos are falling down and we can only hope this doesn’t spread to major oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia. We already know from Facebook that a ‘day of rage’ is being organized on March 11th in Saudi Arabia. It remains to be seen whether or not there will be protesters or if the Saudi’s can crack down on them before the 11th. The middle east is on fire and our President is unfortunately weak and/or on the wrong side.

Filed under foreign policy, islamic socialism, unions Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Stimulus II, Islamic Terror Support & Food Police

December 14, 2010 Leave a comment

I’ve watched with a certain amount of amusement the left’s reaction to the deal Obama cut with the Republicans concerning the Bush tax cuts. The left has gone mad even though Obama got the better end of the deal. Meanwhile, Obama himself can’t even bring himself to say anything nice about the deal, going on the attack against everyone in his presser last week. He attacked the GOP as a bunch of hostage takers while attacking the left as a bunch of sanctimonious purists. Obama got the better end of the deal though, which makes the left’s attacks so absurd. The GOP got to keep the Bush tax cuts but had to give up what amounts to extended welfare for the chronically unemployed. The cost is nearly a trillion dollars, two thirds of which are spending. Which of course means the real cost is over $600 billion, since taxes aren’t monies being paid out by the government. I’m not so sure avoiding a tax increase is worth that sort of dough. The right has been largely silent, much to my chagrin. But the left is enraged over this deal. The left is so in love with the idea of taking money away from the rich that they can’t see past keeping tax rates the same for a paltry two years. In their rage, the left is behaving as only the radical left used to behave. For a century the left has been willing to go along with incremental change. They’ve been willing to compromise because they know in the long run they’ll end up getting everything they want. It’s only been the extreme left, the Communists and other such leftists, who have demanded absolute purity and called left-wingers like FDR and LBJ traitors, phonies and most amusingly “right-wing.” Now they’re calling Obama a corporatist, a centrist and a sell-out but it isn’t just the extremists in the left-wing doing it. It’s rank and file left-wing Democrats who are the loudest complainers. There is no plausible explanation for why Obama is being held to a higher standard by the rank and file than other liberal Presidents. That is unless I care to turn the race card on the left, which I’m not willing to do. Obama cut himself a great deal, a liberal deal and it’s the liberals who are the most outraged. No wonder the moderates didn’t vote for these people last month.

WashPo: Swindle of the Year (Charles Krauthammer)
WSJ: From Audacity to Animosity (Peggy Noonan)

I’m not a Glenn Beck fan. I find his radio show irritating and I see through his bogus sales technique. While I find the left’s hatred of him amusing, it’s not compelling enough for me to pay a ton of attention to him. I did notice last week that the left was enraged because Beck accused 10% of Muslims of being terrorists. One of his assistants wrote a blog post defending Beck and I’ll have to say he makes a compelling argument. A terrorist is defined as someone who ‘uses or advocates terrorism.’ Which means that anyone who supports terrorism is in fact a terrorist. There was a poll done in 2009 by a respected polling company (ie: the study wasn’t paid for by Beck) which sought to discover the feelings of Muslims living overseas. The results suggest that Beck is mostly correct and the findings suggest that Islam is extremely dangerous. When asked whether they support attacks on US citizens 4% of people in Azerbaijan support terrorist attacks on the low end of the poll. On the high end 24% of Palestinians support such attacks. Some people in these countries had mixed feelings about terrorist attacks, so they’re at least somewhat sympathetic. 15% of Palestinians have mixed feelings, meaning nearly 40% either support or somewhat support terrorist attacks against the US. The range goes from 10% in Egypt to 40% of Palestinians. Asked whether they support al Qaeda’s attacks on the US the range is from 9% in Azerbaijan to 21% in Egypt. Those approving of attacks on US citizens working in Islamic countries, the range is from 7% in Azerbaijan to 30% in the Palestinian territories. Like it or not a good number of Muslims support terrorism, it’s likely in the 10% range. This is a religion with 1.5 billion people, which means 150 million of them are terrorists. If only 1% of those people would actually carry out a terrorist attack, we’re still looking at 1.5 million people willing to go forward with a terrorist act. Islam is a religion of war and conversion by the sword, it has been from its very beginning. Until we take this wicked religion and it’s true beliefs seriously, we stand no chance in the War on Terror. Beck is unfortunately right.

Stu Blog: Dear Media: Glenn was right. You were wrong.  Apologize.

The food police are at it again. Mrs. Obama’s childhood nutrition bill was passed by Congress last week. The bill continues the cradle to grave welfare that the left loves so much. Now taxpayers are not only going to foot the bill for breakfast and lunch for low income students, we’re going to buy them dinner as well. Next we’ll be buying them a suit of clothes, a car and a puppy dog. Mrs. Obama’s bill isn’t just about welfare, it’s about the nanny state as well. Her bill bans (I kid you not, it bans) pizza parties in school and bake sales that do not sell food the government declares as healthy. So much for the local control Democrats like to lobby for when it suits them. In any event, Mrs. Obama takes matters two steps further than all of this. First, Mrs. Obama claims we can’t just leave nutrition up to parents. Apparently parents aren’t capable of deciding what’s best for the children, the government needs to step in and make the decisions for them. We can’t just leave it up to those parents, parents are idiots after all. Government has to step in to stop these idiot parents. I find this sort of arrogance vile. Mrs. Obama also declared childhood obesity a ‘national security threat.’ If the term ‘national security threat’ hasn’t jumped the shark already it certainly has now. Fat children are as much a national security threat as the grandma’s the TSA has been groping for the past month. Mrs. Obama’s assertion is ridiculous on its face, as is her nutrition bill. For all the whining the left is doing about Obama, his administration has done more for the nanny state the left loves so much in two years than has been done since LBJ. School children are being fed by the government, the government is dictating what can be eaten in schools, parents are declared incapable and their job is taken over by the state, what’s not to love about this bill if you’re a leftist? If you love freedom, if you believe parents are more than capable of making decisions for their children, if you’re tired of cradle to grave welfare then this bill makes you sick to your stomach.

Breitbart Video: Michelle Obama on Nutrition: ‘We Can’t Just Leave it Up to the Parents’
Politico: Michelle Obama has new warning on obesity

Filed under Legislation, Politics, Taxes, Terrorism Tagged with , , , , ,

Wikileaks, Cancun, Food & Lame Ducks

December 1, 2010 Leave a comment

The Federal government is the victim of yet another terrorist attack, this time at the hands of Wikileaks which released 250,000 pages worth of classified documents. In the past Wikileaks dumped documents relating to the Bush administration, which is perhaps why the current administration seemed less than interested in prosecuting the matter. Now the leaks involve his administration almost exclusively. I suspect Obama will change his tune. These leaks significantly hurt the United States abroad, which is the entire goal of Wikileaks. Information that should remain internal has now been leaked and it hurts us in the Middle East, in Asia and in South America. While it is mildly amusing to see that Hillary Clinton wanted information about Argentina’s President concerning her drug use and mental stability, that request needed to remain priviate and classified because it’s leak hurts the standing of the US in Argentina. It doesn’t matter whether their President has a drug problem or is or isn’t mentally stable. That information is important so that the Secretary of State will know how to deal with or what to expect from her. It isn’t just Argentina’s President who is the subject of these leaks. There are negative things said, suggested or investigated concerning every leader in the Middle East, Russia, and Asia. These leaks destroy the credibility of the United States in the international community. Furthermore, if we cannot keep this sort of information classified and out of the hands of terrorists, why ever would we think that the government should be trusted with our private and personal health care files? The Obama administration and the Federal government generally have proven their incompetence and ought not be trusted with any sensitive information about individuals.

Guardian UK: US Embassy Cables: UN seeks answers from Washington

Thousands of scientists with a political agenda will descend on Cancun, Mexico for yet another conference on global warming. Most if not all the scientists will be flying in for their stay in luxury accommodations in Mexico. No word as to whether they’ll plant trees in order to offset their phony carbon footprints. One group of left-wing radicals wants to halt economic growth in the developed world for 20 years via government controlled and enforced rationing. Prof. Kevin Anderson insists that rationing wouldn’t lead to a recession and it wouldn’t lead to a worse lifestyle. The good Professor insists that rationing would just cause us to make some adjustments in our lives. By adjustments he of course means we’ll be giving up some of our freedom. Rationing has always lead to poverty and starvation. During WWII, the government in Britain rationed everything imaginable until 1954. The result was a disaster. The black market thrived, people went without all because of government. Interestingly during WWII Hitler did not ration food because of the disaster food rationing had been for Germany during WWI. Government enforced rationing will lead to a lower lifestyle for those of us in the United States. Make no mistake, that is the goal. These arrogant political ‘scientists’ want to control us. They’re experts after all, they know better. They sit from their arrogant perch at one luxury resort after another telling us how we must be controlled by the government for our own good. They want to ration our lives away. Do you think they will be subject to rationing laws? Of course they won’t. Whenever government rations the elites are never denied, they are never without. It is only us little people who have to suffer the negative affects of rationing. After all, the elites know what’s good for us. Or so we’re expected to believe.

Telegraph UK: Cancun climate change summit: Scientists call for rationing in developed world

The Senate passed a major food regulation bill yesterday that will result in more expensive food for Americans. The country doesn’t need more food regulation, it needs less. All that food regulations do is keep small food producers out of the market by making the barrier to entry to expensive to enter the market. The excuse for the new regulations are a handful of salmonella outbreaks. Does anyone really believe that more regulation would have prevented those outbreaks? It’s nearly impossible to make and sell unpasteurized cheese in the United States. It is illegal to import and sell Italian Pancetta in the United States because it’s allegedly dangerous. The Italians never seem to get sick off of pancetta, one wonders why our government believes Americans will. More inspections and more regulations are not the answer for salmonella problems in food. This isn’t 1901, we don’t have serious food production problems. Truth be told, the free market was taking care of food production problems long before government stepped in with regulations. That said, there is always going to be a certain amount of risk in eating food and no amount of government regulations will protect us from every possible threat. Banning unpasteurized cheese isn’t protecting anyone from anything other than enjoying fine cheese. Banning Italian pancetta and other such products isn’t protecting anyone from anything other than enjoying the best pancetta in the world. Yet rather than cut back on regulations the Senate, including around 10 Republicans, want more regulations and more money spent. Thankfully the Senate bill includes a fee increase, which is a tax according to the Constitution. All taxes must originate in the House, which has not yet passed this food bill. Therefore, there is a serious question as to whether the Senate will have time to debate and vote on this bill prior to the end of their session.

The Blaze: Senate Passes Food Bill
Roll Call: House May Block Food Safety Bill over Senate Error

Washington is broken and one of the problems with it are lame duck Congressional sessions. They were a problem four years ago when the Republicans tried passing a bunch of bills before the Democrats took over and they’re a problem this year as the Democrats seek to push through unpopular bills before the GOP takes over in January. I think it is completely  unnecessary to have lame duck Congressional sessions. The GOP won 63 House seats because the American people rejected the Democrats vision for this country. The Democrats shouldn’t be allowed to force that vision on an unwilling public for two months. Two hundred plus years ago it took months to discover the winner of a Presidential race, it took a considerable amount of time to count votes. A hundred years ago it still took a considerable amount of time to count votes and determine the winners of elections. Today we know the makeup of the new Congress before the night of an election is over. Within a week or two nearly ever race is certified. In order to fix Washington and rid this country of lame duck Congressional sessions I propose a Constitutional amendment to move the date to swear in the new Congress to the last Monday in November. I would also ban Congress from meeting between election day and the new swearing in day absent emergency situations. This amendment would ensure that the American people are heard and it would ensure that outgoing Congressmen don’t pass bills that the people clearly do not want passed. What do you folks think?

RCP: End the Lame-Duck Sessions (David Harsanyi)

Filed under Cancun, Climate Change, Free Speech, Politics, Terrorism Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers