Road to 2012 by Dennis L
Venturing into the unknown future ---A future that may or may not come
Road to 2012 by Dennis L. Pearson
(c) 2008/2009/2010/2011 by Dennis L. Pearson All Rights Reserved --- No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission from the author.
In Romans Chapter 16 the Apostle Paul admonished early day Christians not to be deceived by those who talk a smooth line
The following is the beginning of the future: The speech that Barrack Obama made before a Chicago throng in Grant Park the night the America media conferred upon him the American Presidency.... The night he became the anointed one....
Hello, Chicago.
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.
It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voices could be that difference.
It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled -- Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America!
It's the answer that -- that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.
It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.
A little bit earlier this evening, I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Senator McCain. Senator McCain fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country that he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him; I congratulate Governor Palin for all that they've achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.
I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on the train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.
And I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years, the rock of our family, the love of my life, the nation's next First Lady: Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both more than you can imagine, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House. And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother's watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and I know that my debt to them is beyond measure. To my sister Maya, my sister Alma, all my other brothers and sisters -- thank you so much for the support that you've given me. I am grateful to them.
And to my campaign manager, David Plouffe -- the unsung hero of this campaign, who built the best -- the best political campaign, I think, in the history of the United States of America. To my chief strategist David Axelrod -- whose been a partner with me every step of the way. To the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics -- you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.
But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you. I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give 5 dollars and 10 dollars and 20 dollars to the cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy, who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep. It drew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on doors of perfect strangers, and from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized and proved that more than two centuries later a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth. This is your victory.
And I know you didn't do this just to win an election. And I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime: two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after the children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage or pay their doctors' bills or save enough for their child's college education. There's new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to meet, alliances to repair.
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President. And we know the government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been done in America for 221 years -- block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand. What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night.
This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other. Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers. In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.
Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a Party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity. Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours: "We are not enemies but friends...." "Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection."¹
And to those Americans who -- whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your President, too.
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.
To those -- To those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we've proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.
That's the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we've already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight's about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.
She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons: because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America -- the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot: Yes we can.
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose: Yes we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved: Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "we shall overcome": Yes we can.
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.
And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change: Yes we can.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one;² that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubt and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.
Thank you.
God bless you.
And may God bless the United States of America.
Obama, soon to be U.S. President # 44 received the following message from his predecessor, George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States:
"Mr. President-elect, congratulations to you. What an awesome night for you, your family and your supporters. Laura and I called to congratulate you and your good bride," …
"I promise to make this a smooth transition. You are about to go on one of the great journeys of life. Congratulations and go enjoy yourself,"
The US president also reached out to John McCain:
"John, you gave it your all. I'm proud of you, and I'm sorry it didn't work out. You didn't leave anything on the playing field."
Mr. Bush, to his great credit, did everything in his power to ensure a smooth transition between his Presidency and that of Obama. Despite the fact that to the Liberal/Progressive movement Bush was a subject of hate ... To them George Bush should be greeted in the same manner as 1984 character Emmanuel Goldstein, the enemy of the People with hisses , squeaks of mingled fear and disgust.
According to John Ibbitson of the Toronto Globe and Mail; “This is a far cry from the 1980 election, when outgoing president Jimmy Carter prepared a detailed briefing for Ronald Reagan, only to find that his successor either didn't understand or didn't care about what Mr. Carter had to say…. And in 1932, Herbert Hoover was ice itself toward Franklin Roosevelt, who refused to co-operate with the lame-duck president during the transition… Those are the last two instances in which a new president took power dedicated to dismantling the legacy of his predecessor. Both Mr. Reagan and Mr. Roosevelt were also supremely confident presidents who launched revolutionary changes immediately upon taking office.
Both turned out to be great presidents. In regard to an immediate assessment of President-Elect, Obama, Ibbitson took the attitude - well, we'll see.
The same wait and see attitude that the commentator of this story, Gordon Gordonsson took in regard to Obama’s chances for a successful Presidency.
Zechariah 11:2-3 ... Wail. O cypress for the Cedar has
Fallen. Because the glorious trees have been destroyed...
Wail, O Oaks of Bashan. For the impenetrable forest has
Come down. There is a sound of the shepherds wail ... For
Their glory has been ruined. There is a sound of the young
Lions roar, for the pride of the Jordan is ruined
Gordon Gordonsson read a post-election article attributed in
Truthout Magazine to University of Chicago Professor William
Ayers, the very same individual that opponents of Obama said
He was associated with before he launched his bid to become
An Illinois State Senator.
Gordonsson found the following statement by Ayers
Interesting:
"We might find hope in the growth of opposition to war and
Occupation worldwide. Or we might be inspired by the growing
Movements for reparations and prison abolition, or the
Rising immigrant rights movement and the stirrings of
Working people everywhere, or by gay and lesbian and
Transgender people courageously pressing for full
Recognition."
From this piece Gordonsson was reminded of what the reverend
Jesse Jackson said at a former Democratic Convention some
Time back ... In implying that the two sides of an issue may
Both be right Gordonsson viewed this as saying there is no
Right or wrong. And of course, Gordonsson knew that most
Christians couldn’t agree with this
There are standards we must comply with ... There is a
Limitation to our rebellion against these standards.... And
The feel good generation must realize that what they insist
Are rights actually may be sinful to God but he is the Judge
Of that. God offers forgiveness for our misdeeds, sins, but
We must repent and atone for these sins.
Gordonsson had been reading a theology book called Paul and
The Law.... And what he got from that is that the Covenant
That God made with the Jewish people under Jesus has been
Extended to us ... The word went out to the Gentiles and the
Gentiles like the Hebrew nation came under the word. To
Become under the law means that we must abide by the
Standards of the law ... In addition, the significance of
Becoming under the law means that violating the law will
Have consequences for the individual and nation. A penalty
Will be paid ... But just as the Old Covenant law promised
That the Hebrew Nation would be restored if it atones for
Its misbehavior and abides by the law, the same promise is
For us under the New Covenant. The Hebrew Nation is waiting
For the construction of a new Temple in Jerusalem, replacing
The ones that were destroyed during periods of the Hebrew
Nation’s dispersal. For those under the New Covenant, this
Temple is not a building but it is found in our hearts, mind
And soul ... We comply by the law by keeping our hearts
Pure.... In truth we are not saved by the sacrament of
Baptism in Christ or by the Eucharist ... We are saved
Because Jesus died for our sins and offers us grace and
Salvation. And in becoming one with Christ we must change
How we behave --- that is, become new persons in Christ.
Obama speaks about change we can believe in. But Gordonsson
Says that Jesus Christ is the only person that can bring
Forth change that we can believe in ... The ideas expressed
Above by Bill Ayers are ideas inherent in secular humanism
And secular humanism has no eternal values ... All values in
Secular humanism are temporary, human generated and can lead
To anarchy if advanced too far.
For example, the decision of Allentown City Council
President Michael D'Amore to advance a measure granting full
Health benefits to same sex couples working for the City is
An example of Secular Humanism. In Pennsylvania same sex
Couples do not have the right to marry or form a civil union yet;
But D'Amore wants to give these couples the same rights as
Married couples ... A right that quite interestingly is not
Granted to unmarried heterosexual couples.
In Jeremiah 2: 13 the prophet proclaimed the Lord’s
Disgust: “My people have committed two sins; they have
Forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their
Own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.
Gordonsson’s wait and see attitude primarily on his take
On the Obama Administration is based on whether Barrack
Obama and the Democratic Majority would forsake traditional
American moral and political values about God and government
And build a cistern that cannot hold water and moreover
Build a house on sand that won’t withstand the storm.
To Gordonsson, Obama’s attitude in regard to Islam is
Important to know because this may determine what kind of
Cistern and what kind of house will be built in America in
The forthcoming future.
Indeed, at a press conference in Turkey in April 2009,
President Obama casually rebuked the timeless notion that
The United States is a Judeo-Christian nation.
Said Obama;"One of the great strengths of the United States,
"Is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do
not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation
Or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of
Citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
Said Obama at Cairo University June 4, 2009:"I've come here
To Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States
And Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest
And mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that
America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in
Competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common
Principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance
And the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I
Know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but
No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I
Answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the
Complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am
Convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly
To each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too
Often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a
Sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each
Other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground.
As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak
Always the truth.” That is what I will try to do today --
To speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before
Us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as
Human beings are far more powerful than the forces that
Drive us:
"Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience.
I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family
That includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent
Several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan
At the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young
Man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found
Dignity and peace in their Muslim faith. ...
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to
The region where it was first revealed. That experience
Guides my conviction that partnership between America and
Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't.
And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of
The United States to fight against negative stereotypes of
Islam wherever they appear.
.. So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America.
And I believe that America holds within her the truth that
Regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us
Share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security;
To get an education and to work with dignity; to love our
Families, our communities, and our God. These things we
Share. This is the hope of all humanity
So Obama had no doubt that Islam is part of America. But due
To recent events that carried over from the end of 2010 into
2011 should we have some doubt that even in the Moderate
Islam nation of Egypt where Obama made his Cairo University
Assertion in June 2009, that Christianity may not be as
Welcomed in that part of the Arab world as we thought. That
Egypt although it was the first Arab nation to make peace
With Israel does not hold within her the truth that
Regardless of race, religion, or station in life, that all
Of them share common aspirations --- to live in peace and
Security, to get an education and work with dignity, to love
Other families as they were their own, to love the diversity
Found in all communities of their settlements, and to
Respect the different manner in which adherents of the
Multiple religious faiths that exist there worship their God.
.
Wednesday November 24, 2010 ... Hundreds of Egyptian
Christians smashed cars and windows in protests on Wednesday
Over a halt in construction of a church in Cairo and then
Clashed with police, leaving two people dead … The clashes
Came amid mounting sectarian tensions in the Arab world's
Most populous nation after Muslims set fire to homes owned
By the family of a Christian man rumored to have flirted
With a Muslim girl in the south… More than 600 Christians
Had clashed sporadically with police through the morning in
The Talibiya district of the capital Cairo, with
Demonstrators throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, and the
Police responding with tear gas…Several police soldiers
Were injured in the clashes as well as around dozens of
Demonstrators…Some of the protesters were
Led away with blood on their faces, after police hurled
Rocks at them from a bridge, the security official said,
Adding that more than 93 people were arrested….According
To Al reporter, two people killed were a
19-year-old man and a nine-year-old boy….."This is the way
The government starts sectarian strife," said one of the
Demonstrators, who were heard chanting: "With our blood and
With our souls we will sacrifice our lives for you, oh
Cross."… They were protesting against the governments
Decision not to allow the Copts to turn a community center
That they were building into a church, with witnesses saying
Construction workers had been arrested on their way to the
Site…Samuel Suweiha, coordinator of the Christian Partners
For the Nation Movement, told Al that the
Clashes between the Christians and the police forces were
The most violent. …"The main reason for this crisis, and
Other similar crises, is mainly the administrative
Corruption in the local municipalities…and not sectarian
Strife," he said. … "It is well known that President
Mubarak has given orders to all governors nationwide to
Provide all the needed facilities for the construction of
Churches, but the problem is that some employees disregard
Such orders in the absence of supervision. Problems like
This will go on as long as there is no specific unified law
To govern the issue of construction of places of worship,"
Suweiha added…Copts account for between six and 10 percent
Of Egypt's 80 million population and complain of systematic
Discrimination and marginalization…Giza Governor Maj. Gen.
Sayyed Abdul Aziz told Al that the license
Issued was for the construction of a services center and not
A church, "so there was no reason for the riots."…Abdul
Aziz added that the rioters attacked the police forces that
Cordoned the area, wounding two top security officials, five
Police officers and a number of policemen….Christian and
Muslim clerics emphasize sectarian harmony, but communal
Tensions can erupt into criminality and violence, usually
Sparked by land disputes or cross-faith
Relationships…Non-Muslims are required to obtain a
Presidential decree to construct new religious buildings and
Must satisfy numerous conditions before permission is
Granted, in contrast to the ease with which mosques can be
Built. …The clashes took place just days before Egypt is
To go to the polls for a parliamentary election, which is?
Expected to return the ruling National Democratic Party to
Power.
January 1, 2011 ---There were more killings Egypt this week,
As terrorist placed a homicide bomb in front of a Christian
Coptic Church, murdering 21 men, women, and children. As
Tensions increase between Christians and Muslims, there were
Violent demonstrations from the Christian sector, as more
And more of them are being targeted.
The riots occurred after the bombing, pitting the Christians
Against the police, saying that they are not being
Protected, and that they are turning a blind eye to the
Terrorism.
Al Qaeda is claiming the bombings and scenes of rejoicing
Have been witnessed in the communities with known ties to
The terror organization.
At the Vatican on New Year’s Day, Pope Benedict XVI urged Christians to remain strong in the face of intolerance and violence in an appeal that came several hours after a bomb blast outside an Egyptian church that killed at least 21 people as worshippers left Mass.
The pope condemned the widening campaign against Christians in the Middle East in his homily at St. Peter's Basilica, echoing comments last month in which he called a lack of religious freedom a threat to world security.
A comment that U.S Presidential Dennis Kennethsson concurs with completely.
Stated Benedict:
"In the face of the threatening tensions of the moment, especially in the face of discrimination, of abuse of power and religious intolerance that today particularly strikes Christians, I again direct a pressing invitation not to yield to discouragement and resignation,"
As stated by the Associated Press, Benedict has repeatedly denounced a campaign against Christians in Iraq blamed on al-Qaida militants, including an October attack on a Baghdad Catholic church that claimed 68 lives, two of them priests.
The Vatican is very worried that a steady exodus of minority Christians from Iraq will permanently reduce their numbers and discourage the wider community of Christians in the Middle East.
Benedict cited what he called two negative extremes at work in the world: secularism, "pushing religion to the margins to confine it to the private sphere," and "fundamentalism, which instead would like to impose (religion) with force on all."
Another opinion of the Pope that Presidential Candidate Dennis Kennethsson is in agreement with.
Secular Humanism in the United States is indeed pushing religion to the margins to confine it to the private sphere. But this was not the case when our country started.. The Constitution of 1787 under which we still operate under never sought to confine religion to the private sphere. What it did was to prevent the government from imposing a State religion with force on all.
And it is noteworthy the initial government under the Article of Confederation upon the British surrender at Yorktown and the acknowledgement of American Independence by the Crown did not seek to put God in the private sphere either.
Please note this Proclamation for celebrating Tranksgiving in 1781:
By the United States in Congress assembled.
PROCLAMATION.
IT being the indispensable duty of all Nations, not only to offer up their supplications to ALMIGHTY GOD, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his providence in their behalf: Therefore the United States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these States, in the course of the important conflict in which they have been so long engaged; the present happy and promising state of public affairs; and the events of the war, in the course of the year now drawing to a close; particularly the harmony of the public Councils, which is so necessary to the success of the public cause; the perfect union and good understanding which has hitherto subsisted between them and their Allies, notwithstanding the artful and unwearied attempts of the common enemy to divide them; the success of the arms of the United States, and those of their Allies, and the acknowledgment of their independence by another European power, whose friendship and commerce must be of great and lasting advantage to these States:----- Do hereby recommend to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the twenty-eight day of NOVEMBER next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to GOD for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience of his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.
Done in Congress, at Philadelphia, the eleventh day of October, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, and of our Sovereignty and Independence, the seventh.
JOHN HANSON, President.
Charles Thomson, Secretary.
At the first glance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sounds good, as do all the intrusive UN human rights treaties. Article 18 upholds "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..." Article 19 affirms "the right to freedom of opinion and expression... and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
But Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, these "rights" or "freedoms" don't apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies. Your rights would be conditioned on your compliance. Only if your message supports official ideology are you free to speak it. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State, "There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism."[1)]
In December 1998,while Americans focused on more dramatic news, President Clinton quietly signed a new executive order titled "The Implementation of Human Rights Treaties." The media ignored it and our leaders didn't tell us. Yet we will pay the cost -- in freedom as well as dollars -- for the creation of a massive government bureaucracy to promote, monitor, and enforce compliance with human rights regulations mandated by the United Nations. Remember, this governing body shows only contempt for biblical values, American sovereignty, and the U.S. Constitution.
Clinton's timing was perfect. An attack on Iraq had been planned. And after December's impeachment proceedings, Congress would adjourn for the holidays. Without its objection, the executive order would take effect within 30 days (not a hard and fast rule 1), and become a federal law. Once implemented, no one would be free to do or say anything contrary to the new global ideology.
Gordonsson understood that George W. Bush used the Executive Order in the belief that these Orders would undo the damage to American sovereignty and values that William Clinton may have caused. But now he worries that Barrack Obama would restore and build onto what Bill Clinton had wrought.
There are good Presidents and there are great Presidents and there may be a President that is something still more … A President who belongs to the Ages.
On the opposite side, failed Presidencies have periodically occurred in American history and the administration of Jimmy Carter despite somewhat welcomed accomplishments is considered in this category…By the Wall Street Journal Poll conducted in 2005, the Carter Administration is ranked 34th … Only the following Presidents are rated worse: John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding, and James Buchanan. … Now, when Obama ran for President in 2008 there was a cry from his opponents or detractors that his Administration was destined to be Carter II... But Obama in 2008 had a different take --- he pinned the label of Bush III on his opponent John McCain, the Republican Senator from Arizona; and that statement stuck to McCain much as Cactus prickly pines stick to our clothes when we walk in the desert.
After his November 4 lost, McCain met with Obama for the first time since the election at the president-elect's transition headquarters in Chicago on November 17, 2008.
The two pledged a "new era of reform" to solve the US economic crisis, transform energy policy and safeguard national security.
"It is in this spirit that we had a productive conversation today about the need to launch a new era of reform where we take on government waste and bitter partisanship in Washington in order to restore trust in government, and bring back prosperity and opportunity for every hard-working American family," Obama and the Arizona senator said in a joint statement.
"We hope to work together in the days and months ahead on critical challenges like solving our financial crisis, creating a new energy economy, and protecting our nation's security."
But as it happened, John McCain did not buy into Obama's social agenda. The Arizona Senator stood with the Republican minority as it distanced itself from Obama's and the Democratic Party's bid to takeover one-sixth of the American economy through its Health Care legislation. The Senator stood with the Republican Party on its no vote in regard to Obama's deficit escalating Stimulus package...An on security issues, the former Vietnam Prisoner of War was his most critical best as to him the Obama Administration made the home front more vulnerable to terrorist activity ... Excuse me --- Man-made activity ---An Obama Administration reworking of the American language.
For example--- Executive Order 13491 is an Executive Order issued by United States President Barack Obama ordering compliance with US domestic law, and its international agreements, in its treatment of captives issued Tuesday, January 22, 2009
Sec. 3 - Standards and Practices for Interrogation of Individuals in the Custody or Control of the United States in Armed Conflicts…Subsection --- (b) Interrogation Techniques and Interrogation-Related Treatment states:
Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control
of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government,
or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department
or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected
to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to
interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual
2–22.3 (Manual). Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described
in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the
principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes.
Where processes required by the Manual, such as a requirement of approval
by specified Department of Defense officials, are inapposite to a department
or an agency other than the Department of Defense, such a department
or agency shall use processes that are substantially equivalent to the processes
the Manual prescribes for the Department of Defense. Nothing in this section
shall preclude the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or other Federal law and
\enforcement agencies, from continuing to use authorized, non-coercive techniques
of interrogation that are designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force, threats, or promises.
Important to note ---- We have seen no clear evidence of Political Bi-partisanship in Washington D.C ... As the Democrats who had a clear majority of seats in the House of Representatives and for a short while in the Senate having a Filibuster proof legislative body when Arlen Specter a longtime Republican rewired himself as a Democrat.. The truth is, by tweaking the rules to their favor, the Democratic Party does not need the Republican Party to legislate, and as a consequence of this thinking, they acted accordingly in their consultation with the minority party. All they needed to do was to keep unity in their political Caucus especially in the Senate to move their political objectives forward... But outside of the Washington D.C. beltway, the President's personal high approval rating achieved in 2008 quickly evaporated as Independents, Republicans and even Democratic Moderates seemingly did not buy into the policies that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid were pursuing in their name. And in addition, the political movement known as the Tea Partiers that arose as a result of these proposed Democratic polices, became dismayed at the arrogance shown by the ruling Majority Party as they tried to make their point of view known. In the entire Health Care debate President Obama said voting about health care was not about him ... But in the end his supporters acted to save the face of the Obama Administration ....... Ignoring public polls that most Americans did not approve the Health Care Plan that they were pursuing ... If Health Care failed all the political energy of the Obama Administration would have been spent ... And that would have meant a lame duck administration only a little over one year in Obama's Presidential term with second term in doubt ... Obama dismissed this possibility with the statement that he rather be a successful 1-term President then a 2-term President with few achievements.
Unlike Adlai Stevenson who after defeat to Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 took on Eisenhower again in 1956 with the same results, John McCain who would be in the mid-seventies is not believed to challenge Obama for power in 2012 ... Consequently, odds are that a new challenger will emerge from the Republican party to rally its conservative and independent voices; And that the Democrats would stay pat with Obama in 2012 unless public opinion against the Obama Administration encourages a challenge within the Democratic Party... That is what happened in 1980 when Edward M. Kennedy, long-time Senator of Massachusetts unsuccessfully challenged President Jimmy Carter. To Kennedy's chagrin, while beloved in Massachusetts despite of his noticeable faults, this idolization did not carry forth in the rest of the nation. In the case of Obama this idolization which almost can be called a rock star idolization as well bolstered his image and stature domestically within the United States and the world in 2008 and in 2012 some of this idolization in the domestic and worldwide media remains but it does have cracks.
Whether we agree or not, a sitting President is often viewed as being there because of the will of God ... Therefore, it is proper for the citizenry in its prayers to God to ask God's guidance in keeping the President safe and in decision making ... The fact is, a failed Presidency is not in the best interests of the nation ... Americans don't wish a President to fail but it can happen ...
In Israeli history, the people against God's wishes asked for a King to replace the system that had prevailed there for ages --- The Judges ... Reluctantly God consented to the will of the people and made it his will ... Thus Saul despite his flaws in personality and judgment became the first King of Israel ... As it happened because of his exploits in battle, a young boy named David became more popular in Israel then the King causing a negative reaction from the King .... The King wanted David killed and searched the land for the elusive lad with no positive results ... But as it happened, David once had the opportunity to take out the King when Saul visited one of the many caves in the Jerusalem area to relieve himself ... Be it noted --- Saul was unaware that David and his band of men were hiding in the same exact cave at that very moment and would be at Saul's mercy had Saul realized that David was there ... Equally so, David having opportunity to Kill Saul, instead chose to secretly cut of a piece of his robe for later display to the King .... David's attitude then was: "May the Lord judge between you and me. And may the Lord avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you."
In the case of Jimmy Carter, the American system allowed Edward Kennedy to challenge a sitting President ... But Kennedy himself was flawed, and this flaw prevented the Massachusetts Senator from amounting a successful campaign against the President in the Democratic Party ... Yet the Kennedy campaign still had its consequences for the President ... Kennedy's campaign opened the door for the Republican Party to mount a serious challenge in the name of Ronald Reagan ... And the rest is history.
Despite his landslide Electoral College election, Obama felt the need to make an appearance of being a magnanimous and gracious leader by reaching out to his former opponent and also a need to feel the adoration from the people including those that did not support him in his election bid. Some say he adopted a strategy of seeking to keep his detractors close at hand and at the appropriate time dump them or throw them under the bus.
Obama ran for office in 2008 on the slogan Change that we can believe in … Yes we can. … And in the interim between the election and the pending re-election in 2012 there has been change … So-called Health Care reform came to the people " not simply with words" but with political action that a victorious Obama described as the face of Change in America. The question is whether this change is beneficial for the long-term or a detriment… His most ardent supporters say that with the passage of Health Care Reform so short in his Administration Obama has earned a honored place in American History ... Yet most observers in making a critique on the first term are more reserved, are more wait and see. For the present they agree that Obama is no Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt or no Reagan, but neither is he a Harding, or Buchanan either … But he does seek to govern like a would be Juan Peron, Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabee …
It is said that the economic crisis that was raging in the U.S and the world financial markets and industry at the time of Obama's election and transition to office had a tempering impact on his attributed Marxism yet his goal still was to redistribute what was left of the wealth by taxing the wealthy more and redistribute this tax money to the more needy. Obama's Chief of Staff Rohm Emmanuel believes that there is no crisis that should go to waste, so whether it be economic stimulus or health care, it is their preference that things be acted upon quickly to the benefit of the Administration's objectives and goals.
To alleviate and solve this crisis, The President-elect has directed the Transition's economic team to develop the details of a plan for a two-year, nationwide effort to strengthen the American economy. It centered on jobs rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools, and making America a leader in alternative energy. Stated Obama: “After another week of devastating economic news, it's clearer than ever that dramatic action is needed to chart a new path for our economy that gets jobs and wages growing again.”
One thing is certain --- we cannot change the past as the pendulum of time has written the final edition of what has occurred in the past. … And, of course, there is no way for us to physically go back to the past to change it. That is a thing that only Hollywood screen writers have attempted … And neither can we physically go forth into the future because once the future arrives it becomes the momentary present soon to become the past … Therefore change that affects the infinite future can only occur in the momentary present; and the momentary present is filled with missed opportunities and extraordinary successes, and unmitigated failure as well as handicaps to progress brought to the momentary present from the short-term and long-term past.
As it happened, in the past four years, a cautious but empowered Obama Administration, wavering between moderation of position and social activism, has not achieved despite health care the extraordinary successful American Society it promised … The President, who had pledged to place diplomacy ahead of confrontation in world affairs, won the Nobel Prize for Peace , a remarkable and controversial honor for a leader only nine months in office. Intended to honor how Obama had altered the nation's diplomatic direction, the peace prize called attention to how much of the administration's agenda -- from closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay to winding down the war in Iraq and Afghanistan -- remained undone in 2009 and still is not achieved in total as we head into the new election cycle.
Personally, Gordon Gordonsson feels the Nobel Peace Prize committee was too quick to confer the award on Obama. He asks what logic existed to nominate Obama in February 2009 when his administration had just started and could not have any long-lasting achievements in regard to world peace. He also asks -- what individual, group or nation made this rather surprising nomination which so humbled the President the day the award was announced. Of interest, Obama more than any previous President in the first year of Office has been jetting around the world in Air Force 1 as if he was campaigning for something. And of course, if this nomination and ultimate selection was planned as strategy to increase Obama's stature in the world, we now know why the President traveled so much worldwide and engaged in so many times what amounted to an apology tour for America's past worldwide and domestic transgression according to new revelation -- The Book of Obama...
Thorbjørn Jagland, Chairman of the Nobel Peace Committee, said the following words in Oslo, Norway December 10, 2009 in presenting the Nobel Peace Prize to Barrack Hussein Obama : " This year's award must be viewed in the light of the prevailing situation in the world, with great tension, numerous wars, unresolved conflicts and confrontation on many fronts around the world. And, not least, there is the imminent danger of the spread of nuclear weapons, degradation of the environment and global warming. In fact, Time Magazine recently described the decade that is coming to an end as the worst since the end of World War II.
From the very first moment of his presidency, President Obama has been trying to create a more cooperative climate which can help reverse the present trend. He has already "lowered the temperature in the world", in the words of former Peace Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu.
The Committee always takes Alfred Nobel's will as its frame of reference. We are to award the Nobel Peace Prize to the person who, during the "preceding year", meaning in this case since the previous award in December 2008, shall have done the most or the best work "for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" – to quote from the will.
The question was actually quite simple. Who has done most for peace in the past year? If the question is put in Nobel's terms, the answer is relatively easy to find: it had to be U.S. President Barack Obama. Only rarely does one person dominate international politics to the same extent as Obama, or in such a short space of time initiate so many and such major changes as Obama has done. The question for the Committee was rather whether it would be bold enough to single out the most powerful man in the world, with the responsibility and the obligations that come with the office of the President of the United States.
The Committee came to the conclusion that it must still be possible to award the Nobel Peace Prize to a political leader. We cannot get the world on a safer track without political leadership. And time is short. Many have argued that the prize comes too early. But history can tell us a great deal about lost opportunities."
.
To summarize --- the Nobel Prize Peace Committee Chairman said that the Prize was awarded for Obama's words of expectations of positive world change but not his deeds accomplished until then. The Nobel Prize Peace Committee Chairman apparently expects the world to fall into line to Obama's wish list now that he has been anointed a man of peace by that Committee.
Commenting on the award, President Obama said he did not feel that he deserved to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize, and whose courageous pursuit of peace has inspired the world. But he added that he also knew that the Nobel Prize had not just been used to honor specific achievements, but also to give momentum to a set of causes. The Prize could thus represent "a call to action"...
Stated Obama; "But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other. "
Then at Oslo, Obama was brave enough to offer this admission: "I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak – nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. "
Before we go on, it ought to be noted that as a Candidate for President, Barrack Obama made the promise to start the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq immediately upon taking office ... Of course, this promised withdrawal was made by Obama when an increase in military manpower also known as a Surge was authorized by the prior Bush Administration. Reaction to the Bush initiative by most of the Democratic leadership was typical. It was their belief that the Surge would fail. But as events proved, the Bush Administration Surge in Iraq did not fail, it actually succeeded in improving conditions in Iraq. Then too, the fact is, the prior Bush Administration in negotiating and implementing the U.S.-Iraqi Security agreement took Obama off the hook to carry out his promise to withdrawal all U.S. Armed forces from Iraq immediately upon taking office … The agreement required all U.S. forces to withdrawal from Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011. And what-is-more, the agreement stipulated that all U.S. combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.
The U.S. Iraqi Security Agreement was, of course, necessitated because a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the presence of United States and multi-national troops to operate freely in Iraq would expire at the end of 2008. Failure to have such an agreement in place would mean that the United States and its multi-national allies would suddenly be considered as operating outside of International Law if military operations continued . Obama as a new President, certainly would not have wanted to assume the status of receiving international rebuke from the international community so early in his Presidency.
One might ask -- if this American withdrawal of its military forces has been successful and peace and stability becomes the normal domestic condition in Iraqi cities, hamlets, countryside and Provinces -- than peace prize consideration should have been given to the former George Bush administration for answering the challenge and establishing a stable, peace oriented government in Iraq .. But hell will freeze over before that happens.
There are those who will not forgive George Bush after 9/11 for passing the U.S. Patriot Act whose rationale was to safe guard the American homeland from new terrorist attacks that threaten additional infrastructure and American lives ... For his pre-emptive attack on Afghanistan to unseat the puritanical and Al-Qaeda supporting Taliban government and then into Iraq to unseat Saddam Hussein and root out the alleged weapons of mass destruction. ... When this happened most Democrats in the House and Senate were actually on Board citing intelligence reports of Weapons of Massed Destruction. Then gradually, the attitude of most Democrats changed on the issue ... Some went as far as saying that these reports were fabricated or deliberately distorted by intelligence officials loyal to the Bush Administration. In defense of the intelligence community, let us assume that these reports were not deliberately distorted but dated . That much of the WMD material either had deteriorated beyond usefulness or were transferred to a new site outside Iraq. Then too, Saddam Hussein, himself, may have created a ruse allowing intelligence personnel to think that a large amounts of WMD material remained there, and of, course in the end he paid the ultimate penalty for playing games. It's not nice to fool Uncle Sam and his allies. But in any Case, George Bush to his critics was the devil incarnated, the reverse of what Obama is reported to be.
Hate speech in the United State directed toward certain individuals and groups is forbidden and made illegal ... And its scope has been expanded in October 2009 by the addition of new law outlawing acts of violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to the list of federal hate crimes. Congress passed the hate crimes protections as an unlikely amendment to fiscal year 2010's Defense Authorization Act. A rather sneaky, underhanded and cowardly way to pass controversial social policy in my supposedly unenlightened mind. Critics of the Matthew Sheppard/ James Byrd Jr. legislation, including several Republican congressional leaders, argued that an attack against another person is an attack, regardless of motivation, and that no special categories are appropriate
But hate speech directed toward George Bush is politically correct in the mindset of the liberal/progressive coalition domestically and the socialist/Marxist agenda world wide ... It goes without saying that these groups would feel comfortable pouring out their venom and hate at an institutionalized and ritualized hate speech session two minutes a day every day of the year ... To them there is no difference between George Bush and Emmanuel Goldstein and for that matter Adolph Hitler.
It can be said, that in Iraq the American Surge worked ... Can we say that all acts of violence and terrorism have been eliminated in Iraq ... No ... But conditions are much better there now than before the Surge started. And, the former Bush Administration can show comfort by the fact that during December 2009 no American combatants in the Iraq theatre of war had died there due to enemy action.
Can we say that any sign of weakness and resolve by the Obama Administration might entice the Al-Qaeda and the militias to regroup and renew the violence in Iraq as the Taliban regrouped and surged in Afghanistan? Not guaranteed but possible.
Will a surge in American troops work in Afghanistan as it did in Iraq? Maybe ... At a Society of Professional Journalists Convention held at Indianapolis, Indiana in the fall of 2009, two war correspondences were asked a question related to a piece of equipment whose bulk virtually sucked up the damage that a road bomb could do in Iraq and thus help in reducing American deaths and injuries. The question was, could this weapon if utilized in Afghanistan lead to the same results. Their answer was Maybe ... In Iraq considering its flat terrain the weapon was a big help. But in Afghanistan which is more mountainous and the hilly , the bulkiness of the equipment could be a liability. The enemy constantly tries to make their bomb devises much stronger, and on the mountain hills and passes, the enemy if unsuccessful in destroying the mass of the equipment might be successful in causing the equipment to become unstable and tip over in ambushes, presenting a new danger to the troops...
Again the question is asked will a Surge American troops work in Afghanistan as it did in Iraq? There is no doubt that the much more rugged terrain of Afghanistan could make that task more difficult. The Strategy may only work if the game plan or book is rewritten to add new plays perhaps more creative ones to the existing ones that already are part of the plan.
Vice President Joe Biden , ever a team player, apparently things that Obama has such a new approach. Developing a new course of action for Afghanistan that is vastly different than that of George W. Bush, Quotes Biden: " Last night, President Obama laid out his plan to defend our national interest by refocusing our efforts on three clear goals: defeating al Qaeda, stabilizing Pakistan, and breaking the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan....To achieve these goals, the President has authorized the rapid deployment of 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, with a firm commitment to begin bringing our troops home in 2011."
But Biden also evokes the mindset of the liberal/progressive coalition, when he pours more fire on the legacy of former Bush Administration with the following claim: It's a clean break from the failed Afghanistan policy of the Bush administration, and a new, focused strategy that can succeed. Our new strategy ends the era of blank checks for Afghanistan's leaders, facilitates a responsible transition to Afghan security forces, and begins bringing our troops home in 2011.
Not so fast Mr. Vice President, some of the media may disagree ... And present sound arguments of concern in regard to the Administration's Afghanistan proposals and its present cost.
Ironically--- The following media statements in regard to the announced Obama Surge was made in the context of Obama deciding to employ additional American soldiers in Afghanistan upon the advice of his General in Charge General Stanly McChrystal. A decision announced at the West Point Military Academy Tuesday, December 1, 2009, about nine days before the President received his peace award at Oslo, Norway....
Alex Newman an American freelance writer and the president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small media consulting firm who was currently living in Sweden cynically commented in the following report:
"President Barack Obama drew fire from across the political spectrum — even from die-hard supporters — after he announced another “surge” Tuesday... With a straight face, Obama told the nation and his audience at West Point military academy that sending 30,000 more United States troops to fight in the undeclared Afghanistan conflict was somehow in America’s “vital national interest.” ....
Of course, that is nonsense. Obama himself knows that. And the people know too, judging by the polls. But much of the rest of the president’s speech was also a carefully concocted sham designed to dupe the public. In fact, upon examination, some of his comments and reasoning almost seem ridiculous. But nevertheless, the Commander-in-Chief has decided to send more American soldiers and an unknown number of “contractors" to their deaths in central Asia‘s infamous “graveyard of empires.”
He mentioned al-Qaeda more than 20 times throughout the speech, when it is now widely accepted that there are less than 100 men in all of Afghanistan who could be considered members. The Washington Post reported the news last month. Obama has obviously been briefed, and even his national security adviser Jim Jones admitted to CNN in October that the “maximum estimate” was "fewer than a hundred." He also noted that the fighters had no ability to attack America or its allies.
ABC news did the calculations after Tuesday’s speech, concluding that “for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year.” That doesn’t even count troops and resources from other countries. Based on these figures, an uninformed observer might very well conclude that these ragged and elusive men living in caves and clutching AK-47s were thought to have super-human abilities.
“I do not make this decision lightly,” Obama claimed during his speech. “I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda.” Who could forget Pakistan? The president alluded several times to the nation, where the Central Intelligence Agency has been dropping bombs from unmanned drones on alleged militants for years. Presumably the bombings will continue.
Intelligence estimates put the number of supposed al-Qaeda in the region at around 300, though Pakistanis are becoming increasingly fed up with U.S. operations in the country (their parliament has already told the U.S. to cut it out). But since there is essentially no more “al Qaeda” in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, President Obama announced that he would pursue them “elsewhere” as well, from Somalia to Yemen. In other words, endless war, anywhere.
“As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service,” Obama acknowledged Tuesday. Of course, he never really defined the mission at all, let alone clearly. And aside from vague platitudes and various lies, he never explained why it was worthy of the sacrifice either.
Even people who used to believe in the mission, individuals who risked their lives for it, have since abandoned the Afghanistan debacle. "I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," wrote Matthew Hoh, the former Senior Civilian Representative for the U.S. government in Kabul province, in his resignation letter. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."
Obama’s loyal supporters have also been infuriated by his attitude towards the war, and especially by this latest announcement. , traditionally one of the presidents staunchest allies, sent out a letter to supporters urging them to petition Congress to end the war, ASAP. Internal polls revealed that most of their left-wing, Obama-supporting members were opposed to this latest surge.
Even liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow criticized the announcement, comparing Obama’s strategy to the infamous “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive warfare. Using a graph, Maddow charted American troop levels in Afghanistan since the beginning of the conflict, showing clearly that the Nobel peace prize-winning Commander-in-Chief was indeed the new “war president.” Upon taking office, about 30,000 U.S. troops occupied Afghanistan. After Obama’s newest “surge,” that number will be close to 100,000.
Obama’s strategy is also being condemned by warmongering Republicans as well, like Senator John McCain, who criticized the alleged time table for beginning a withdrawal. “Dates for withdrawal are dictated by conditions,” said McCain. “The way that you win wars is to break the enemy’s will, not to announce dates that you are leaving.” He actually has a point: the announcement of a deadline seems rather stupid considering the supposed aims of the war, since now rebels know that they just need to hold out for one day longer than the foreign soldiers remain in their country.
Libertarians and constitutionalists also criticized the plan, obviously. Cato’s director of foreign policy studies Christopher Preble called Obama’s speech “full of internal contradictions.” On Fox Business, Ron Paul called it “a bit misleading,” noting that “Obama is actually preparing us for perpetual war.” He pointed out that there is really no way America can continue paying for this, adding that it would “bring us down” if America does not stop. His proposal: coming home. “We’re following this precept of perpetual war for perpetual peace, and to me it’s perpetual bankruptcy,” Paul said. “How many more people have to die for us to save face?”
A Taliban spokesman cited by the media, however, did not complain about Obama’s “surge,” he merely pointed out the obvious: "The extra 30,000 troops that will come to Afghanistan will provoke stronger resistance and fighting.” As Matthew Hoh pointed out, the people of Afghanistan see themselves as battling a foreign occupier, so the more occupiers that arrive, the more death and destruction will ensue.
Obama is following with remarkable similarity the failed strategy pursued by the Soviet Union — surges and all. The irony of him receiving the now-discredited peace prize days after announcing the war escalation would be shocking if it were not for the incredible amounts of double speak Americans are subjected to every day. U.S. troops should come home immediately, and they should never again be forced to risk their lives anywhere without a constitutional Congressional declaration of war. And Obama voters should work especially hard at the next election to oust the man who lied to the nation, over and over and over again, along with all of his congressional enablers."
And if one critical view is not enough, then the following commentary by Eric Margolis in the Huffington Post of December 8, 2009 entitled "Obama's Surge" may give more insight or satisfaction :
"There were no surprises last week in President Barack Obama's historic speech at West Point. His decision to enlarge and prolong the war in Afghanistan had been leaked well in advance.
The ugly, messy conflict Obama inherited from George W. Bush now belongs to the "peace president" and his unhappy party.
President Obama faced a choice between guns -- $1 trillion for the next decade of warfare in Afghanistan -- or butter -- his $1 trillion national health plan. The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate chose guns.
What Obama should really have been concerned with was Osama bin Laden's vow to first bleed the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, then break America's domination of the Muslim world by luring it into a final battle in Pakistan, a nation of 175 million.
The president also heard alarms from his field commanders and CIA that Taliban and its allies were taking control of much of Afghanistan and threatening the big cities. As US Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned, the mighty US faced defeat at the hands of lightly armed mountain tribesmen -- the same humiliating fate that befell the Soviet Union.
So, as expected, Obama will rush 30,000 new troops into the Afghan quagmire, and arm-twist reluctant NATO allies to contribute 10,000 more token forces.
Obama, with his eye on the Afghan War's growing unpopularity among Americans, confusingly promised some of the 105,000 US garrison will begin withdrawing in 2011. But Obama's aides almost immediately began backtracking on this pledge, which made no military sense at all. Senator John McCain and fellow Republican hawks had a field day shredding the daft proposal.
Afghans, however, listened and concluded that the US, like the Soviets, would one day decamp. Those Afghans working for the US will quickly begin hedging their bets by making discreet side deals with Taliban, as they did with the mujahidin during the Soviet era.
The president insisted his objective remains destroying al-Qaida. But al-Qaida hardly exists in Afghanistan. Only a handful remain in Pakistan, likely no more than a dozen men.
President Obama's insincerity on this issue is very disturbing, undermining his reputation for veracity and clear thinking.
There is also concern that when Obama targets al-Qaida, his real target may be Pakistan.
Obama's plan mirrors the Bush administration's Iraq 'surge' that candidate Obama sharply criticized. US Marines may even go and crush rebellious Kandahar the way Iraq's Fallujah was laid waste.
The Soviets also tried the same surge tactic in the mid 1980's during their Afghan occupation. They also decided to pull back their over-extended troops and concentrate them defending Afghanistan's major cities and main roads from Afghan "terrorists." Both strategies failed miserably. Now the US is trying the same thing.
Tragically, the "anti-war president" missed another major opportunity to end the Afghan War through negotiations.
Anyone who understands Afghanistan's deep complexities knows that Obama's surge won't win the eight year war. Afghanistan's 15-million strong Pashtuns tribal majority will continue to resist Western occupation. Waging colonial wars of pacification against resident populations has proven futile time after time.
At best, it will be an exercise in managing a failed policy.
Americans are turning against the war. Congress is fretting over its mounting costs: US $300 billion for 2009 in a $1.4 trillion deficit year. This war is being waged on money borrowed from China.
Some Democrats are rightly calling for a special war tax on all Americans rather than continuing to conceal the war's huge expenses on the national credit card.
It costs US $1 million to keep each American soldier in Afghanistan. Renting Pakistan's assistance will cost $3 billion per year (overt and black payments combined). Thousands of US troops will remain stuck in Iraq where the underground Ba'ath Party is showing signs of life.
President Obama vowed at West Point to fight al-Qaida ( in Africa and Asia. No wonder many angry, betrayed Democrats are calling him "George Bush's third term."
The most positive interpretation of President Obama's "surge" is that it is a face-saving exercise to cover America's retreat from the Afghan morass.
The key to US strategy is cobbling together a large Afghan army and police led by the US military -- the modern version of the British Raj's native troops under white officers. The Soviets also tried to build a 260,000-man Afghan Communist army, but failed. The US will be no more successful as its Afghan forces are mostly minority Tajik and Uzbek mercenaries.
Efforts will be made to sanitize the corrupt Karzai government and its mafia-like warlords. This, too, will fail, But Obama's hope is that he can declare victory by 2011. This would allow substantial US troop reductions before the next mid-term and presidential elections - if all goes well.
But things are not going well in Pakistan, without whose cooperation, bases, and supply routes the US cannot wage war in Afghanistan. The US-backed Pakistani government of Asif Ali Zardari is awash with corruption charges, condemned by the public as a puppet regime, and may soon be ousted by Pakistan's military.
Most Pakistanis support Taliban, see US occupation of Afghanistan as driven by lust for oil, and increasingly fear the US intends to tear their unstable nation apart in order to seize its nuclear arsenal. CIA-funded assassination teams have joined Predator drones in killing Pakistanis judged hostile to US interests.
Obama's advisors have convinced him an early US withdrawal from Afghanistan will provoke chaos in Pakistan. They don't understand that it is the US-led war in Afghanistan that is destabilizing Pakistan and creating ever more anti-western extremism.
The longer US forces wage war in Afghanistan, the more the conflict will spread into Pakistan, where 15% of its people, and 25% of its military, are Pashtuns who sympathize with their beleaguered fellow Taliban Pashtuns in Afghanistan.
A grimmer view is that Obama has fallen under the influence of military-financial interests, and Washington's rabid neocons who seek permanent war against the Muslim world. Obama's "surge" may only expand, intensify, and prolong the Afghan conflict.
In the end, there will be a negotiated peace that includes Taliban. But how many Americans, allies and Afghans must die before it comes?"
Then too, the following article found in the Australian of February 19, 2009, less than one month in the Obama President underlies the point that from the onset, the Obama Administration was confronted with the reemergence of the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan:
"US President Barack Obama will send 17,000 troops to Afghanistan in time for the Taliban's traditional spring offensive, as he launches an Iraq-style surge aimed at reversing the flagging fortunes of coalition forces battling militants there.
Announcing the surge yesterday, Mr Obama said the increase was necessary to "stabilise a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires".
"The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al-Qaida supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe haven along the Pakistani border," he said.
He recognised "the extraordinary strain this deployment places on our troops and military families", but the deteriorating security situation in the region required "urgent attention and swift action".
Last year was the deadliest for ordinary Afghans caught up in the fighting, the UN reported this week, with a 39 per cent increase in civilian deaths. Militants were to blame for 55 per cent of the 2118 civilian fatalities, while UN, NATO and Afghan forces accounted for 39 per cent, it found.
In Mr Obama's first significant troop deployment, one army and one marine brigade originally scheduled to go to Iraq will be sent to Afghanistan at the request of Defence Secretary Robert Gates.
US officials said yesterday an additional 8000 marines would be on the ground by late April -- when the warmer weather heralded an escalation in fighting.
An army brigade of 4000 soldiers would follow in the northern summer, along with an extra 5000 support troops. The additional troops will be stationed in southern Afghanistan, where the fighting has been heaviest.
The decision comes ahead of a review of US strategic policy in Afghanistan, which is expected to recommend that troop numbers on the ground be increased to 60,000 from the current estimated 38,000 troops fighting militant extremists in the south Asian nation.
A review of US military operations in Iraq, due in the next few weeks, is expected to recommend a corresponding drawdown of troops there as Mr Obama moves to fulfil his election promise to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
Mr Obama said the Iraq drawdown gave his administration the "flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan", adding the immediate troop surge announced yesterday did not preclude sending more forces.
Military force alone could not stop the spread of extremism in Afghanistan and his administration would develop a more comprehensive diplomatic approach to Afghanistan, he said.
Despite leaving the door open to negotiations with more moderate Taliban forces in Afghanistan, the US has taken a hard line against a peace deal struck this week between the Pakistan Government and extremists in the Swat Valley to allow Sharia law there.
Mr Obama is yet to comment on the agreement, which has prompted local Taliban-linked militants to call a temporary ceasefire to months of bloody fighting in the Swat, but US and NATO officials have described the deal as a "negative development".
More than 1000 civilians have been killed and as many as 500,000 displaced in a vicious campaign waged by militants loyal to radical cleric Maulana Fazlullah for the imposition of a draconian Islamic legal code in the former tourist mecca.
The US argues that such peace deals allow militants to regroup and strengthen.
Analysts have also warned that the agreement would encourage militants across Pakistan's now-vulnerable North Western Frontier Province to demand similar concessions.
Taliban and al-Qaida militants already control Pakistan's lawless Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which neighbour Afghanistan and serve as a base for launching cross-border attacks on US and NATO forces.
And finally, another posting in the Huffington Post dated December 10, 2010 entitled "The Nine Surges of Obama's War: How to escalate in Afghanistan" written by Tom Engelhard:
" In his Afghan "surge" speech at West Point last week, President Obama offered Americans some specifics to back up his new “way forward in Afghanistan.” He spoke of the “additional 30,000 U.S. troops” he was sending into that country over the next six months. He brought up the “roughly $30 billion” it would cost us to get them there and support them for a year. And finally, he spoke of beginning to bring them home by July 2011. Those were striking enough numbers, even if larger and, in terms of time, longer than many in the Democratic Party would have cared for. Nonetheless, they don’t faintly cover just how fully the president has committed us to an expanding war and just how wide it is likely to become.
Despite the seeming specificity of the speech, it gave little sense of just how big and how expensive this surge will be. In fact, what is being portrayed in the media as the surge of November 2009 is but a modest part of an ongoing expansion of the U.S. war effort in many areas. Looked at another way, the media's focus on the president’s speech as the crucial moment of decision, and on those 30,000 new troops as the crucial piece of information, has distorted what’s actually underway.
In reality, the U.S. military, along with its civilian and intelligence counterparts, has been in an almost constant state of surge since the last days of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, while information on this is available, and often well reported, it’s scattered in innumerable news stories on specific aspects of the war. You have to be a media jockey to catch it all, no less put it together.
What follows, then, is my own attempt to make sense of the nine fronts on which the U.S. has been surging, and continues to do so, as 2009 ends. Think of this as an effort to widen our view of Obama’s widening war.
Obama’s Nine Surges
1. The Troop Surge: Let’s start with those “30,000” new troops the president announced. First of all, they represent Obama’s surge, phase 2. As the president pointed out in his speech, there were “just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan” when he took office in January 2009. In March, Obama announced that he was ordering in 21,000 additional troops. Last week, when he spoke, there were already approximately 68,000 to 70,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. If you add the 32,000 already there in January and the 21,700 actually dispatched after the March announcement, however, you only get 53,700, leaving another 15,000 or so to be accounted for. According to Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post, 11,000 of those were “authorized in the waning days of the Bush administration and deployed this year,” bringing the figure to between 64,000 and 65,000. In other words, the earliest stage of the present Afghan “surge” was already underway when Obama arrived.
It also looks like at least a few thousand more troops managed to slip through the door in recent months without notice or comment. Similarly, with the 30,000 figure announced a week ago, DeYoung reports that the president quietly granted Secretary of Defense Robert Gates the right to “increase the number by 10 percent, or 3,000 troops, without additional White House approval or announcement.” That already potentially brings the most recent surge numbers to 33,000, and an unnamed “senior military official” told De Young “that the final number could go as high as 35,000 to allow for additional support personnel such as engineers, medevac units and route-clearance teams, which comb roads for bombs.”
Now, add in the 7,500 troops and trainers that administration officials reportedly strong-armed various European countries into offering. More than 1,500 of these are already in Afghanistan and simply not being withdrawn as previously announced. The cost of sending some of the others, like the 900-plus troops Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has promised, will undoubtedly be absorbed by Washington. Nonetheless, add most of them in and, miraculously, you’ve surged up to, or beyond, Afghan War commander General Stanley McChrystal’s basic request for at least 40,000 troops to pursue a counterinsurgency war in that country.
2. The Contractor Surge: Given our heavily corporatized and privatized military, it makes no sense simply to talk about troop numbers in Afghanistan as if they were increasing in a void. You also need to know about the private contractors who have taken over so many former military duties, from KP and driving supply convoys to providing security on large bases. There’s no way of even knowing who is responsible for the surge of (largely Pentagon-funded) private contractors in Afghanistan. Did their numbers play any part in the president’s three months of deliberations? Does he have any control over how many contractors are put on the U.S. government payroll there? We don’t know.
Private contractors certainly went unmentioned in his speech and, amid the flurry of headlines about troops going to Afghanistan, they remain almost unmentioned in the mainstream media. In major pieces on the president’s tortuous “deliberations” with his key military and civilian advisors at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, all produced from copious officially inspired leaks, there wasn't a single mention of private contractors, and yet their numbers have been surging for months.
A modest sized article by August Cole in the Wall Street Journal the day after the president’s speech gave us the basics, but you had to be looking. Headlined “U.S. Adding Contractors at Fast Pace,” the piece barely peeked above the fold on page 7 of the paper. According to Cole: “The Defense Department's latest census shows that the number of contractors increased about 40% between the end of June and the end of September, for a total of 104,101. That compares with 113,731 in Iraq, down 5% in the same period... Most of the contractors in Afghanistan are locals, accounting for 78,430 of the total...” In other words, there are already more private contractors on the payroll in Afghanistan than there will be U.S. troops when the latest surge is complete.
Though many of these contractors are local Afghans hired by outfits like DynCorp International and Fluor Corp., TPM Muckracker managed to get a further breakdown of these figures from the Pentagon and found that there were 16,400 “third country nationals” among the contractors, and 9,300 Americans. This is a formidable crew, and its numbers are evidently still surging, as are the Pentagon contracts doled out to private outfits that go with them. Cole, for instance, writes of the contract that DynCorp and Fluor share to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan “which could be worth as much as $7.5 billion to each company in the coming years.”
3. The Militia Surge: U.S. Special Forces are now carrying out pilot programs for a mini-surge in support of local Afghan militias that are, at least theoretically, anti-Taliban. The idea is evidently to create a movement along the lines of Iraq's Sunni Awakening Movement that, many believe, ensured the "success" of George W. Bush's 2007 surge in that country. For now, as far as we know, U.S. support takes the form of offers of ammunition, food, and possibly some Kalashnikov rifles, but in the future we'll be ponying up more arms and, undoubtedly, significant amounts of money.
This is, after all, to be a national program, the Community Defense initiative, which, according to Jim Michaels of USA Today, will “funnel millions of dollars in foreign aid to villages that organize ‘neighborhood watch’-like programs to help with security.” Think of this as a “bribe” surge. Such programs are bound to turn out to be essentially money-based and designed to buy “friendship.”
4. The Civilian Surge: Yes, Virginia, there is a “civilian surge” underway in Afghanistan, involving increases in the number of “diplomats and experts in agriculture, education, health and rule of law sent to Kabul and to provincial reconstruction teams across the country.” The State Department now claims to be “on track” to triple the U.S. civilian component in Afghanistan from 320 officials in January 2009 to 974 by “the early weeks of next year.” (Of course, that, in turn, means another mini-surge in private contractors: more security guards to protect civilian employees of the U.S. government.) A similar civilian surge is evidently underway in neighboring Pakistan, just the thing to go with a surge of civilian aid and a plan for a humongous new, nearly billion-dollar embassy compound to be built in Islamabad.
5. The CIA and Special Forces Surge: And speaking of Pakistan, Noah Shachtman of Wire's Danger Room blog had it right recently when, considering the CIA’s “covert” (but openly discussed) drone war in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, he wrote: “The most important escalation of the war might be the one the President didn’t mention at West Point.” In fact, the CIA’s drone attacks there have been escalating in numbers since the Obama administration came into office. Now, it seems, paralleling the civilian surge in the Af/Pak theater of operations, there is to be a CIA one as well. While little information on this is available, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt of the New York Times reports that in recent months the CIA has delivered a plan to the White House “for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C.I.A.’s budget for operations inside the country.”
In addition, Scott Shane of the Times reports:
“The White House has authorized an expansion of the C.I.A.’s drone program in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, officials said..., to parallel the president’s decision… to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. American officials are talking with Pakistan about the possibility of striking in Baluchistan for the first time -- a controversial move since it is outside the tribal areas -- because that is where Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to hide.”
The Pakistani southern border province of Baluchistan is a hornet's nest with its own sets of separatists and religious extremists, as well as a (with possibly U.S. funded) rebel movement aimed at the Baluchi minority areas of Iran. The Pakistani government is powerfully opposed to drone strikes in the area of the heavily populated provincial capital of Quetta where, Washington insists, the Afghan Taliban leadership largely resides. If such strikes do begin, they could prove the most destabilizing aspect of the widening of the war that the present surge represents.
In addition, thanks to the Nation magazine’s Jeremy Scahill, we now know that, from a secret base in Karachi, Pakistan, the U.S. Army’s Joint Special Operations Command, in conjunction with the private security contractor Xe (formerly Blackwater), operates “a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, ‘snatch and grabs’ of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan.” Since so many U.S. activities in Pakistan involve secretive, undoubtedly black-budget operations, we may only have the faintest outlines of what the “surge” there means.
6. The Base-Building Surge: Like the surge in contractors and in drone attacks, the surge in base-building in Afghanistan significantly preceded Obama's latest troop-surge announcement. A recent NBC Nightly News Report on the ever-expanding U.S. base at Kandahar Airfield, which it aptly termed a “boom town,” shows just how ongoing this part of the overall surge is, and at what a staggering level. As Iraq from 2003 on, billions of dollars are being sunk into bases, the largest of which -- especially the old Soviet site, Bagram Air Base, with more than $200 million in construction projects and upgrades underway at the moment -- are beginning to look like ever more permanent fixtures on the landscape.
In addition, as Nick Turse of has reported, forward observation bases and smaller combat outposts have been sprouting all over southern Afghanistan. “Forget for a moment the ‘debates’ in Washington over Afghan War policy,” he wrote in early November, “and, if you just focus on the construction activity and the flow of money into Afghanistan, what you see is a war that, from the point of view of the Pentagon, isn't going to end any time soon. In fact, the U.S. military's building boom in that country suggests that, in the ninth year of the Afghan War, the Pentagon has plans for a far longer-term, if not near-permanent, garrisoning of the country, no matter what course Washington may decide upon.”
7. The Training Surge: In some ways, the greatest prospective surge may prove to be in the training of the Afghan national army and police. Despite years of American and NATO “mentoring,” both are in notoriously bad shape. The Afghan army is riddled with desertions -- 25% of those trained in the last year are now gone -- and the Afghan police are reportedly a hapless, ill-paid, corrupt, drug-addicted lot. Nonetheless, Washington (with the help of NATO reinforcements) is planning to bring an army whose numbers officially stand at approximately 94,000 (but may actually be as low as 40-odd thousand) to 134,000 reasonably well-trained troops by next fall and 240,000 a year later. Similarly, the Obama administration hopes to take Police numbers from an official 93,000 to 160,000.
8. The Cost Surge: This is a difficult subject to pin down in part because the Pentagon is, in cost-accounting terms, one of the least transparent organizations around. What can be said for certain is that Obama’s $30 billion figure won’t faintly hold when it comes to the real surge. There is no way that figure will cover anything like all the troops, bases, contractors, and the rest. Just take the plan to train an Afghan security force of approximately 400,000 in the coming years. We’ve already spent more than on the training of the Afghan Army and more than $10 billion has gone into police training -- staggering figures for a far smaller combined force with poor results. Imagine, then, what a massive bulking up of the country's security forces will actually cost. In congressional testimony, Centcom commander General David Petraeus suggested a possible price tag of $10 billion a year. And if such a program works (which seems unlikely), try to imagine how one of the poorest countries on the planet will support a 400,000-man force. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has just suggested that it will take at least 15-20 years before the country can actually pay for such a force itself. In translation, what we have here is undoubtedly a version of Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule (“You break it, you own it”); in this case, you build it, you own it. If we create such security forces, they will be, financially speaking, ours into the foreseeable future. (And this is even without adding in those local militias we’re planning to invest “millions” in.)
9. The Anti-Withdrawal Surge: Think of this as a surge in time. By all accounts, the president tried to put some kind of limit on his most recent Afghan surge, not wanting “an open-ended commitment.” With that in mind, he evidently insisted on a plan, emphasized in his speech, in which some of the surge troops would start to come home in July 2011, about 18 months from now. This was presented in the media as a case of giving something to everyone (the Republican opposition, his field commanders, and his own antiwar Democratic Party base). In fact, he gave his commanders and the Republican opposition a very real surge in numbers. In this regard, a Washington Post headline says it all: “McChrystal’s Afghanistan Plan Stays Mainly Intact.” On the other hand, what he gave his base was only the vaguest of promises (“…and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011”). Moreover, within hours of the speech, even that commitment was being watered down by the first top officials to speak on the subject. Soon enough, as the right-wing began to blaze away on the mistake of announcing a withdrawal date “to the enemy,” there was little short of a stampede of high officials eager to make that promise ever less meaningful.
In what Mark Mazzetti of the Times called a “flurry of coordinated television interviews,” the top civilian and military officials of the administration marched onto the Sunday morning talk shows “in lockstep” to reassure the right (and they were reassured) by playing “down the significance of the July 2011 target date.” The United States was, Secretary of Defense Gates and others indicated, going to be in the region in strength for years to come. (“...July 2011 was just the beginning, not the end, of a lengthy process. That date, [National Security Advisor] General [James] Jones said, is a ‘ramp’ rather than a ‘cliff.’”)
How Wide the Widening War?
When it came to the spreading Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, the president in his speech spoke of his surge goal this way: “We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.” This seems a modest enough target, even if the means of reaching it are proving immodest indeed. After all, we’re talking about a minority Pashtun insurgency -- Pashtuns make up only about 42% of Afghanistan’s population -- and the insurgents are a relatively lightly armed, rag-tag force. Against them and a miniscule of al-Qaeda operatives, the Pentagon has launched a remarkable, unbelievably costly build-up of forces over vast distances, along fragile, extended supply lines, and in a country poorer than almost any other on the planet. The State Department has, to the best of its abilities, followed suit, as has the CIA across the border in Pakistan.
All of this has been underway for close to a year, with at least another six months to go. This is the reality that the president and his top officials didn’t bother to explain to the American people in that speech last week, or on those Sunday talk shows, or in congressional testimony, and yet it’s a reality we should grasp as we consider our future and the Afghan War we, after all, are paying for.
And yet, confoundingly, as the U.S. has bulked up in Afghanistan, the war has only grown fiercer both within the country and in parts of Pakistan. Sometimes bulking-up can mean not reversing but increasing the other side’s momentum. We face what looks to be a widening war in the region. Already, the Obama administration has been issuing ever stronger warnings to the Pakistani government and military to shape up in the fight against the Taliban, otherwise threatening not only drone strikes in Baluchistan, but cross-border raids by Special Operations types, and even possibly “hot pursuit” by U.S. forces into Pakistan. This is a dangerous game indeed.
As Andrew Bacevich, author of The Limits of Power, wrote recently, “Sending U.S. troops to fight interminable wars in distant countries does more to inflame than to extinguish the resentments giving rise to violent anti-Western jihadism.” Whatever the Obama administration does in Afghanistan and Pakistan, however, the American ability to mount a sustained operation of this size in one of the most difficult places on the planet, when it can’t even mount a reasonable jobs program at home, remains a strange wonder of the world.
In analysis, what was pictured above is not a pretty picture ... Considering what has happened to our economy have we overreacted to a real tragedy that befell the American people on September 11, 2001 ... It may have been right to go into Afghanistan to root out those responsible for the attack ... It may even have been right to go into Iraq to root out the dangers there ... We were correct to do it if it were in our national interest ... But one wonders whether in the course of fighting the battle on many fronts at one time have we lessened or enhanced the threats to our national security interests ..The fact is, Our national security actions as we write have not yet planted the Oak Tree which would bring everlasting peace and well-being for the U.S. and the World. Although the War in Iraq continues at the moment to wind down for American Forces, the war in Afghanistan has gotten hot with a increase of American forces on the ground. But at the same time w the Obama Administration expressed a desire to start a drawdown of American Forces in Afghanistan as early as July, 2011. But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates declared Sunday August 2, 2010 that only a small portion of the 100,000 U.S. force in Afghanistan would begin to return home when an Obama administration deadline for the start of a troop pullout would go into effect. The Defense secretary said the numbers for downsizing would be limited at first. 'It would depend on the conditions,' he said. Hopefully, Afghanistan would be more secure from the threat of the Taliban. David Petraeus, the General who designed the successful surge in Iraq and who formally assumed the command in Kabul Afghanistan after the ouster of General Stanley McChrystal, echoed Gates with the assertion: “ If sufficient progress has not been made by the president's deadline to start withdrawal, "I would communicate that to him. ... That's real life," said the general who succeeded the ousted Gen. Stanley McChrystal … Petraeus' comments came as U.S. support for the 9-year war was slipping and the death toll was climbing. July was the deadliest month for U.S. forces, when 66 troops were killed.
Petraeus and other military officials have warned of more combat casualties as additional U.S. troops were sent to the fight. In the fall of 2009, Obama authorized 100,000 troops in Afghanistan -- triple the level from 2008…. Obama's Democratic supporters reluctantly swung behind the plan, but lawmakers have begun to question whether Afghanistan can be won. Petraeus conceded the U.S. mission in the war-weary South Asian nation has been tough, and would remain so…. Just the same, the Obama Administration stated in November 2010 that its “conditions-based” deadline had moved from mid-2011 to some point in 2014.
Please note – As reported by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the U.S Department of Defense issued a new version of its semi annual “1230” report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan on November 23, 2010. … As stated by CSIS, in an act of unintentional irony, the report was issued almost on the day the US and its allies reached the point where they had been fighting longer in Afghanistan than the Soviet Union had fought before them. The irony in such a date is compounded by the fact that the Soviet Union left believing that it had created a regime that was stable and secure enough, and with strong enough military forces to keep control of the country – an assumption that proved true for only two years. The US is now seeking the same definition of victory – albeit with very different internal political goals. But it should be noted, the US also claimed victory in a prior counterinsurgency – leaving a “defeated” North Vietnam, a “stable” democratic government, and “secure” set of national forces in South Vietnam… Unfortunately, in Vietnam, the “defeated” North Vietnam was able to rebuild its military forces when the Americans left, while the military forces of the stable South Vietnam were severely handicapped when the level of military and economic aid granted by the American Congress were severely limited resulting in the embarrassing scene at the American Embassy in Saigon, the former Capital of South Vietnam but renamed Ho Chi minh City by the victors from North Vietnam whose Capital is Hanoi.
Ironically, it was the destruction in Hanoi and its outskirts that resulted in North Vietnam coming to the table to sue for peace. But it was this negotiated peace and the reaction of the Democratic Party Controlled Congress to provide needed support for the South to defend that government from renewed attacks from the North that undid the stable government we thought we left there.
Indeed the Obama Administrations has found itself confronted with many security and foreign policy issues the pass years it has been in power. We have already noted Iraq and Afghanistan, but the fact is, we continue to fuss over I Nuclear threats presented by such rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea and Al-Qaida always seeks to run to new sanctuaries to continue their plans against U.S. interests.... And if this is not enough to make the Administration willy-nilly, the earthquake in Haiti forced the deployment of more troops to deal with the loss of life and loss of infrastructure there...Of course, historically Haiti has seen the presence of American Forces before ...
Throughout the Bush Administration the Democratic leaders according to Conservative pundits have always talked defeat, comparing our recent foreign wars to Vietnam ... We have seen in Congressional behavior, the bait and switch tactic ... That is call for the Bush Administration to pursue a certain approach to the situation as it prevailed in Iraq or Afghanistan, and once the Administration responded positively to their demands but not immediately, they switched gears once again attacking the administrations and calling for a new approach. The moral here is that it is very dangerous to pursue foreign war when the political parties for the most part trivialize such foreign adventures by playing politics. Obama, as a President who had very little experience in world diplomacy before taking office, has been severely tested .... And that test will continue until such time the Sun sets on his Presidency ... And the good citizens of the U.S. trust as well that the Sunset of the Obama Presidency would not also be their own Sunset as well.
We give this warning for those that desire wisdom and truth ... Let no one deceive you with shallow arguments and weak understanding. For, it is for those reasons that the problems we face have occurred.
Take no part in the desperate act of deception that those who failed us continue to orchestrate. But rather, show them up for what they are. The things they wish the public not to remember is like a mark of darkness descending upon their entire being; and we the public should deserve better respect than that .
The fact is, unlike Iraq, Obama's government owns the consequences of the frustrating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan; And Obama's Administration owns the diplomatic fallout and security headaches resultant from its decision not to honor the U.S. commitment to field missile defense interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic..
On March 26, 2010, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to the most far-reaching arms control agreement in nearly 20 years. The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) would cut the two countries’ nuclear weapons arsenals by 25 percent, seemingly demonstrate American and Russian leadership on arms control, and represent a tangible start to implementing a comprehensive nuclear security agenda. Russian President Medvedev and Obama met in Prague on April 8, 2010 to sign the treaty.
Since taking office, Obama claims that one of his highest priorities has been addressing the threat posed by nuclear weapons to the American people. And that’s why, in Prague in April 2009, he stated America’s intention to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, a goal that’s he said had been embraced by Presidents like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
However, we wonder – Will the treaty actually make the world safer? Will it verifiably reduce the threat posed by the only weapons that can destroy the United States and other nations? And will START unlock the rest of the nuclear security agenda?
Then too, we ask:
• Will it allow the President to move forward aggressively on agreements to lock up nuclear materials from terrorists?
• Will it stop new nations from getting these weapons?
• And will it begin a new round of negotiations to reduce from thousands of
nuclear weapons to hundreds?
• Did the agreement pave the way for strong U.S. leadership at the Nuclear Security Summit held in April 20l0?
• Did the agreement pave the way for strong U.S. leadership the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference held in May, 2010?
• And in the end has the Obama Administration turned words into action, and made progress that is clear and concrete
Interestingly, the treaty did not move forward in the U.S. Senate dominated by the Democratic Party prior to the mid-term elections of 2010.In that election the Republic Party eliminated the Democratic Majority in the House and as a result won control starting January 2011; and in the Senate the Republican Party ended for the time-being the Democratic parties super control of the Senate but was unable to take control. Nevertheless, the Start Treaty which required a 2/3rd majority in the Senate was considered during a post-election Lame Duck Congressional Session and approved by a 71 to 26 vote on December 22, 2010 that included Republican support. The vote constituting just one of a string of legislative victories for President Obama after his party was soundly beaten in the midterm elections in November 2010.
May we ask --- would the string of legislative victories be a stimulus for Obama’s re-election in 2012? Maybe not because much of the public was little concerned with what was passed during the lame duck session. But on issues that they were concerned about, the Republicans stuck together and received enough support from rogue Democrats fearful of what may happen two years hence if they vote against the public’s wishes to defeat an Omnibus spending bill that contained a lot of earmarks and deficit spending. To avoid a shutdown of government, the parties agreed to a scaled back stopgap budget to keep the government going to March 2011.
• Please note --- Gay rights activists not content or fully satisfied with the landmark initial federal law voiced hope that the Obama administration would advance more issues on their agenda, including legislation to bar workplace discrimination, allow military service and recognize same-sex marriages... Of course, the recognition of same-sex marriage most certainly in the end the most controversial of issues on the gay/lesbian menu plate.
According to TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty, Obama, continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth on the same-sex marriage issue. Said Lafferty: "When he was discussing gay marriage with Pastor Rick Warren before the election, he expressed support for traditional marriage. Clearly, he didn’t mean it. Now, he’s admitting he wants to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act."
President Obama gave a keynote speech at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) dinner on October 10, 2009 --- the evening before a Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexual/Transgender march on Washington, D.C..
What he said is the following:
"My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield. You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. You will see a nation that’s valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union — a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them."
During the same speech, Obama praised the Stonewall Riot, which launched the gay activist movement in 1969. He described the Stonewall Riot this way:
It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens — when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement.
But the Traditional Values Coalition believes that Obama’s history is wrong about the Stonewall Riot. They claim what he’s celebrating is a drag queen riot that took place outside of a sleazy Mafia-owned gay bar in New York City. Police had entered the establishment over liquor license violations. The drag queens inside rebelled against the police and began throwing rocks, bottles, trash cans and whatever else they could find in the streets to injure the police officers.
As a result of this riot, the Gay Liberation Front was born and lesbians, gays, bisexuals, drag queens, and transsexuals have been agitating for their supposed “rights” ever since.
But you know what, God still speaks to us ... The question is, are we reading his lips?
GOD STILL SPEAKS TO US
By Dennis L. Pearson of The COMMON SENSE HERALD
(c) 2003 by Dennis L. Pearson ... All Rights Reserved
The Old Testament (and the New Testament) speaks to the USA as much as it did to ancient Israel. If we allow the atheists, the false believers and the secular humanists to force the USA to turn its face from God, God will respond by taking our blessing away from us. He will allow the enemy to come to our gates and do great damage to us. We look at world history and see that empires have risen and fallen. Kingdoms have risen and fallen. Nations have risen and fallen. Obviously the USA can share the same fate if the eternal God turns his face from us because we have decided that we are a government and a people above God rather than under God. And additionally, we have decided that we are a government and a people that no longer place our trust in God or have become so arrogant that we think that we do not need God’s potent forced field or shield.
We need to remind ourselves that God gives us the stewardship to rule and we must do it wisely. In ancient Israel God replaced King Saul with David because King Saul abused his power and sinned. He did not allow David to build the temple because he sinned. He did not allow Moses to enter the Promised Land because he sinned. Take God out of society and wickedness will flourish; therefore for the good of the nation it is essential that we remember that his values are superior to ours.
We read at the beginning of the New year , an opinion in a newspaper from an individual who described himself as non-religious. He said It is very heartening that, during the period between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, agnostics, atheists and Humanists be recognized and accepted. Then he defined Humanism as a way of thinking about living a good and moral life without the need to believe in God, or other supernatural deities. Acknowledging that Humanists can be atheists, agnostics or even religious Humanists. Than making it known that at the present time many Unitarian Universalist congregations can be described as Humanists.
It also being recognized, that Unitarian Universalist Congregations in the religious community are one of the most so-called progressive congregations and as such define a good and moral life differently than some of the Main Steam and Conservative religious conservative congregations
We trust that (Secular) Humanists live rather than just think about living a good and moral life. If they lead a good and moral life there will be a measure of congeniality and interaction with the religious community especially the Unitarian Universalist Congregations.
However, If the atheists, agnostics, the false believers, the secular humanists, and even the religious humanists believe that citizens can be safe in a nation, which, having no eternal values to set its standards creates its own values, then they all are deluding themselves. For in such a society the standards for morality will change from day to day and morality will be ordered like a fad. What is in for morality one day, one week, one month, one year or one decade will be out the next day, next week, next month, next year or next decade. And we of the religious community ought not lower our standards for behavior that is scripturally not supportable.
The writer in the same letter to the editor mentioned above offers that the simple act of saying Merry Christmas constitutes divisive rhetoric ... That we all should find ways to break down religious barriers and start cooperating with each other on a human level ... Unfortunately, if religious people must sublimate the reason way they Celebrate Christmas to appease those who place their faith, in the basic, inherent goodness of your fellow human being, then they lose sight of the fact that this basic , inherent goodness of your fellow human being exists only because Jesus Christ died on the Cross for our sins ...
Indeed, the federal government cannot promote a state religion ... The early German speaking immigrants to the U.S were much concerned about this for In their homelands they were told by their ruling prince what religion they were to practice. Consequently, many families have their origins in America due to the persecution of France's Louis XIV who invaded the Duchy of Lorraine and provinces of the Holy Roman Empire (now Southwest Germany).. These people had to convert to Catholicism or die or the very least have their property taken away and be enslaved. Emigration of Protestants was forbidden. However many Protestants did convert to Catholicism with the aim to emigrate if they could and then return to their reformed Christian or Lutheran faith.
Incredibly in the period during and after the 30 Years War and Louis XIV’s incursions – that part of the Holy Roman Empire which later became Southwest Germany lost approximately 90 percent of its population by death or emigration ... It took the economy of the area 120 years to recover.
As far as I am concerned posting the 10 commandments is not the establishment of a state religion. Singing the 4th Stanza of the National Anthem is not the establishment of a state religion. Saying the pledge of allegiance is not the establishment of a state religion.
However, adopting an official atheist policy in government is a violation of the Church State principle by adopting secular humanism as a state approved religion. Indeed in the United State, government cannot force an individual to adhere to a certain religious way of life but neither can government force an individual to cease adhering to a certain religious way of life.
Indeed the laws of government are affected by the pressures put on by those who adhere to or not adhere to a certain religious way of life. And people in that society are expected to submit to the laws of the land. But for those who practice the religious way of life, their guide for morality will be in the time-honored writings and traditions of their faith which ought to be accord with eternal law established by the Creator of the Universe."
And we add to the above writings, most assuredly, the agenda of the lesbian/gay/bi-sexual and transgender coalition and the moral values it applies, may not necessarily jive with the moral values given to us by God over the ages. It is reported of Jesus Christ that he loved the sinner but hated the sin ... Let not new federal law put those who profess Jesus Christ's admonition in their public words whether in the Church or in public be placed in jeopardy because of their beliefs.
Be it noted at the Human Rights Campaign Dinner, Obama promised to:
• Sign a hate crimes bill into law.
• Sign the Employment Non-Discrimation Act into law.
• Overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Which would jeopardize traditional marriage in every state.
• Defend every LGBT activist who is nominated for a federal post.
• Rescind regulations banning HIV-infected foreigners from entering the country.
• Overturn a law passed by Congress that reaffirmed a long-standing policy that forbids gays from serving in the military. (Clinton implemented the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy – which violated the law passed by Congress.)
President Barack Obama on Wednesday October 28, 2009 did indeed sign the first major piece of federal gay rights legislation, a milestone that activists compared to the passage of 1960s civil rights legislation empowering blacks.
The new law added acts of violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to the list of federal hate crimes. Gay rights activists voiced hope that the Obama administration would advance more issues, including legislation to bar workplace discrimination, allow military service and recognize same-sex marriages.
Congress passed the hate crimes protections quietly as an unlikely amendment to fiscal year 2010 U.S Defense Authorization Act.
But at that time the nation was much pre-occupied by the situation in Afghanistan, the Economy, the Baseball Playoffs and the Health Care debate to pay notice ...
And as it was, Obama's political critics were clearly at the top of their game adding to all the distractions by decrying all the government Bailout money....stimulus bills...cash for clunkers...hundreds and hundreds of billions - maybe even trillions - spent without a single Member of Congress being held accountable for what their wild spending spree would do to America's future stretching beyond even their grandchildren.
Their charge was that nearly 13 TRILLION in taxpayer dollars in bailouts and loans have been agreed to by Congress, the Bush and Obama Treasury Departments, and the out of control Fed.
The dollar amounts to them were:
• ... More than FDR's New Deal which they decried as socialist
• ... More than the entire Iraq war which they decried as a debacle
• ... More than the 1980’s savings and loan mess
• ... More than the Korean War ...
With the end game being according to these critics that Our constitutional principles and freedoms are being assaulted at every turn by the following: :
Constant economic crises -- the housing crisis and the resulting chaos is just one example of an economic bubble created by centrally-planned interest rates and money manipulation;
*** The destruction of the middle class -- as fuel, food, housing, medical care and education costs soar, everyone who is NOT on the government dole is forced to make do with less as the value of their money slowly decreases;
And lastly *** Currency destruction -- to them, history shows us that riots, violence and full-scale police states can result when people finally realize our money isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on and REFUSE to accept it.
Their catch phrase being that Congress had no skin in the game ... The phrase attributable to the pen of the late Conservative Columnist William Safire who wrote: "The skin in this case is a synecdoche for the self. [T]he game is the investment, commitment or gamble being undertaken. Thus, investors in a company will be more comfortable in their own skins if they know that the managers are personally invested as well - that they share the risk and have an incentive to share the gains."
And of course, that's what these activists for the Conservative cause wanted Congressmen to do ... They claimed that Congress needed to put some skin in the game to share in the risks and therefore make better decisions. To accomplish this, these activists urged the American public to keep the pressure on and spread the word
Then too, grassroot movements at tea parties and town halls across the country have given the message that Americans are concerned about their country's future—and they are trying to make a difference. This shrinking faith in a growing government has turned ordinary Americans into outspoken activists. Millions of average Americans have gathered in small towns and big cities across the country to evoke the same grassroots revolutionary spirit that propelled America to her independence more than two centuries ago. … Or at least their supporters say they are.
And, What all of the town hall protesters and tea parties have in common is a viewpoint vastly different from the prevailing opinions in Washington or the Beltway. The idea is a new twist on America's old promise—Americans can govern themselves and choose how to spend their own time and money. It's the idea of self-destiny; it's the idea that each person decides for himself where his trust rests—in God, not government. It's the idea that the Constitution has been and always should be the rules by which government operates, restricting government intrusion and ensuring freedom for the people.
These ideas were revolutionary in 1773, when protesting colonists ditched British tea into Boston Harbor. Americans today may not drink as much tea as they used to, but in light of a government that has evolved over the last two centuries, these ideas of liberty once again seem like radical viewpoints.
What does Obama say on these issues if not now, historically?
Stephen G Calabresi, the co-founder of the Federalist Society and a professor of law at Northwestern University wrote the following October 28, 2008 in an article "Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution ---The courts are poised for a takeover by the judicial left."
In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."
He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.
To the above, Calabresi, raised the question of whether Mr. Obama could in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he was required when he took the oath of office. Then Calabresi asked: " Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Was his call for a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? "
Calabresi suggesting: "Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after. But Calabresi in asking this question October 28, 2008 did it a little too late ...
To the Conservative cause, the icing on the cake, meaning the tipping point for action was the Democratic-controlled Congress's gold-plated government plan for the takeover of our health care system! To them this takeover needed to be stopped ... And that's why the grassroots Town Halls and Tea Parties sprung up. But Nancy Pelosi saw to it that at least in the House of Representatives that the health care reform bill would not be stopped. She did it twice ... Initially when the Health Care Measure was brought to the House for approval of the House's version of Health Car and then after the Senate Version was passed she kept the idea alive in the House after the unexpected election of Scott Brown a Republican in Massachusetts ... It is said that after the Scott Brown victory and the loss of a filibuster proof Senate that Obama had decided to pursue Health Care Reform in increments and work instead on Job creation ... But Pelosi still wanted a more radical approach and a 39% increase on Health Care Premiums for Non-group individuals by Anthem Insurance Company of California provided the incentive for Pelosi to carry on the fight and she persuaded Barack Obama to buy using whatever pressure his administration could muster to bring the debate to a successful conclusion.
At the beginning of the Health Care debate under Pelosi's guidance The Democratic-controlled House had narrowly passed by a vote of 220 to 215 a landmark health care reform legislation , handing President Barack Obama what seemed to be a close but hard won victory on his signature domestic priority at 11:14 PM EST Saturday, November 7, 2009. The late Saturday vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin a long-delayed debate on the issue that had come to overshadow all others in Congress.
Please note --- In the United Steelworkers of America, Pelosi and the Democratic-controlled Congress had their supporters ... The Union's position was that health care for all was the civil rights issue of our time ... And that the time was now to act.
To the Union the essential component of any good health care plan would be the following:
1) Affordable options and reform of insurance practices that result in health care for all Americans.
2) A public option that will lower costs by competing with the private sector and offer coverage for Americans who cannot afford alternatives.
3) No taxation for employer-provided insurance and rules to ensure that big employers retain coverage.
4) Shared responsibility by requiring all employers to provide coverage, also known as "pay to Play."
5) Significant cost containment to help families, retirees, businesses and our governments.
6) A Federal funded catastrophic reinsurance program to have employers and VEBAs that provide benefits for pre-Medicare retirees ages 55-64.
The House had passed sweeping health-care legislation, hours after President Obama visited the Capitol to make a personal closing argument for his most important domestic policy initiative to the Democratic Caucus.... In this role, the President was like a Coach in the locker room before the game urging his players on to victory ... Win the battle for whomever ... And the Steelworkers in their stand on health care reform quote the President as saying the following:
" You can't even think about negotiating for a wage increase because the whole negotiation is about trying to keep the benefits you already have ... That's not the fault of the employer. It's the fault of a broken Health Care system that's sucking up all the money."
So it was, On November 5, 2009, at noon, on the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C., thousands of Americans gathered to express their heated opposition to the pending government capture of the nation's entire health care sector according to Robert Romano , Senior News Editor of the Americans for Limited Government.
These individuals, many of whom traveled from across the country, were protesting the takeover of more than one-sixth of the nation's economy by a government that they claim can't even balance its own budget. They were wary of bureaucrats getting between them and their doctors. They opposed any rationing of health care for senior citizens. And they refused to accept the unsustainable hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes and spending riddled in the 2,000 pages of the bill.
Several Republican members of Congress, led by Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann and Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) thrilled the crowd with speeches as the gathered throng chanted "Kill the bill!" and "No you can't!" They were joined by top radio host and author of Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin, and acclaimed actor Jon Voight.
Upon the conclusion of the rally, these concerned constituents stormed the House of Representatives office buildings to petition their members of Congress in person, fulfilling a critical civic duty. Their civic action complicated the Democratic House plans to hold a final vote on the House Health Care Reform Bill that Saturday, November 7, 2009
Bachmann said their country needed them to defeat the bill as she encouraged them to speak up against Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. "The biggest vote in the United States, the biggest voice in the United States is your voice," said Bachmann. "Quite simply, the Republicans don't have the votes to kill this bill… We knew we were limited, but what we knew was unlimited was the voice of persuasion of the American people. And that's why you're here today."
To defeat the bill its opponents—including 54 percent of the American people according to Rasmussen—need to be at least 41 House Democrats voting with Republicans. However, despite the huge majority Pelosi had to work with, House Democrats were still working to achieve a plurality. In short, she didn't yet have the votes.
As reported in the Wall Street Journal of Wednesday, November 4, 2009 House leaders didn't appear to have secured the 218 votes they need to pass the bill. They were moving quickly to swear in two Democrats elected Tuesday November 3, 2009, which would give the party 258 seats in the House and allow leaders to lose as many as 40 Democratic votes without losing their majority… House leaders spent Wednesday scrambling to secure votes from freshmen and lawmakers in swing districts."
Adding urgency to the American people's presence at the Capitol were moves in Congress to speedily move to a vote on the bill, H.R. 3962, in the House. According to top Capitol Hill sources, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had announced that the House would convene an emergency session on Saturday, November 7th with votes occurring as early as 9AM. But the final vote did not occur until the late hour of that day.
The single purpose in Pelosi's mind: to rush the bill through as quickly and covertly as possible—in the face of a tidal wave of public opposition.
Fortunately, throughout the year, the American people have made their voices heard against the unbridled expansion of government. They've stood up and spoke out at tea parties. At the summer town halls. On the phone and fax. Via email. And in person. They have said, "No!"
They are not alone according to the Wall Street Journal, 54 percent of voters oppose the "public option" proposed, which only 42 percent support. But defeating this bill would be no easy task.
Moderate and conservative members of the Democrat caucus were actually the American people's only hope to kill this bill. As Congresswoman Bachmann noted, there are not enough Republicans to defeat ObamaCare.
In response, activists nationwide have begun focusing on those vulnerable members of the Democrat majority who would be concerned about a tough election battle in 2010. Some have already begun to cave in to constituent pressure—especially after crushing GOP victories in Virginia and New Jersey on Tuesday. Activists targeted some 92 House Democrats, including all members of the Blue Dog coalition.
In the end, it was the vulnerable members of the majority who would have to choose on November 7, 2009 who they would serve. Those citizens who traveled hundreds, even thousands, of miles to demand the right to their own health care choices—or the politically powerful liberal elite.
A triumphant Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi cited this closely won victory as significant as the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965. Pelosi was jubilant she had just delivered on a promise decades in the making that her predecessors had failed to bring home ... But in reality the ongoing political division in regard to health care reform did not end with its passage in the House of Representatives ... The curtain had closed on Act One with the remaining Acts to follow scripting a plot line similar to Act One or becoming a Greek Tragedy for those who support the current Health Care bill as it stands or a Grassroots victory for forces that do not want any nationalized health care system of any form.
The House bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats...Republicans in the House were nearly unanimous in opposing the plan that would expand coverage to tens of millions of Americans who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry ... They were joined in opposition by 39 blue-dog Democrats
Obama, who went to Capitol Hill earlier on Saturday to lobby wavering Democrats, said in a statement after the vote, "I look forward to signing it into law by the end of the year." ... But as it happened, Obama needed to revise his time table. His new goal was to sign it into law before the President's First State of the Union Speech before a Joint Session of Congress. But that didn't happen either as the debate continued into March...
In order to assist people seeking to read and review the health "reform" legislation (H.R. 3962) as passed by House Democrats, a list of important page numbers and questionable provisions in the 1,990-page "Affordable Health Care for America Act:" has been made available by opponents to the Bill.
Page 94—Section 202(c) prohibited the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government
Page 111—Section 223 established a new board of federal bureaucrats (the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee") to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase
Page 211—Section 321 established a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage
Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care
Page 255—Section 345 included language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill—while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants' identity, thus leaving the door open for identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits
Page 297—Section 501 imposed a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase "bureaucrat-approved" health insurance—the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, leaking the impression that this provision broke a central promise of then-Senator Obama's presidential campaign
Page 313—Section 512 imposed an 8 percent "tax on jobs" for firms that cannot afford to purchase "bureaucrat-approved" health coverage; according to an analysis by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions "at substantial risk of unemployment"—With minority workers perhaps losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts.
Page 336—Section 551 imposed additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar "surcharge," more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama's senior economic advisor,
Page 520—Section 1161 cut more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors' existing coverage such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs
Page 733—Section 1401 established a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill included no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain's National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000
Page 1174—Section 1802(b) included provisions entitled "TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES" to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi's promise that "We will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the House," and the President's promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000
Please note - The following item was eliminated by amendment before the final vote allowing a few blue dog democrats to join with other democrats in passing the bill ...
Page 110—Section 222(e) required the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions
The Stupak Amendment to Bill 3942 reads as follows:
HAdmt 509 to H.R 3942 -- An amendment printed in Part C of House Report 111-330 to codify the Hyde Amendment in H.R. 3962.
The amendment prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions ... 11/7/2009 House amendment agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 240 - 194, 1 Present
Then too, these are the Top Ten Tax Increases Included In H.R. 3962
|1. Small Business SURTAX (Sec.551, p. 336) |$460.5 Billion |
|2. Employment Mandate TAX* (Secs 511-512, p.308) |$135.0 Billion |
|3. Individual Mandate TAX* (Sec. 501, p.296) |$ 33.0 Billion |
|4. Medical Device TAX* (Sec.552, p. 339) |$ 20.0 Billion |
|5. $2,500 Annual Cap on FSAs* (Sec. 532, p. 325) |$ 13.3 Billion |
|6 Prohibition on Pre-Tax Purchases of Over-the-Counter |$ 5.00 Billion |
|Drugs through HSAs, FSAs, and HRAs* (Sec. 531, p.324) | |
|7. Tax on Health Insurance Policies to fund Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust |$ 2.00 Billion |
|Fund* (Sec. 1802, p.1162) | |
|8. 20% Penalty on certain HSA Distributions* (Sec. 533, p.326) |$ 1.30 Billion |
|9. Other Tax Hikes and Increase Compliance on U.S. Job Creators |$ 56.4 Billion |
| > IRS reporting on payments to certain businesses (Sec. 553, p.344) |$ 17.1 Billion |
| > Delay implementation of worldwide interest allocation rules (Sec. 554, p. 345) |$ 26.1 Billion |
| > Override U.S. treaties on certain payments by "in sourcing" business (Sec. 561. |$ 7.50 Billion |
|p. 346) | |
| > Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties (Sec.562, p.349) |$ 5.7o Billion |
|10. Other Revenue-Raising Provisions |$ 3.00 Billion |
TOTAL TAX INCREASE . . . . . . . . . . $729.5 Billion
According to the media --- The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.
Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. The industry would also lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.
At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill's most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private companies.
Yet The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly for President Barack Obama on Sunday following the House vote as Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard to pass in the House had nowhere to go in the Senate. The Senate would write its own Bill.
Speaking from the Rose Garden about 14 hours after the late Saturday vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on a relay team and "take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people."
The problem was that the Senate would not run with the House Bill. The government health insurance plan included in the House bill was unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who held the balance of power in the Senate. Some Senators said that the health care reform bill passed by the House November 7, 2009 was "dead on arrival" when it arrived in the Senate... Yet such public talk proved to be deceptive as the concept of Health Care Reform did advance in the Senate with the introduction of numerous Bills all un-reconciled with that of the House
House Democrats overcame their own divisions and broke an impasse that threatened the bill after liberals grudgingly accepted tougher restrictions on abortion funding, as abortion opponents demanded.
In the Senate, the stumbling block was the idea of the government competing with private insurers. And Harry Reid worked diligently to overcome any divisions in his party that would threaten the ability of the Senate to pass its own Bill.
Notwithstanding some minor tinkering, the U.S. Senate has now passed the government takeover of healthcare. And despite the fact that it may not contain all of the far left’s extreme demands, it is almost impossible to overstate the nefarious effect of what has emerged.
As Barack Obama has rightly intoned, even as now written, without the “public option,” the measure embodies the single most massive government entitlement program since social security. One-sixth of the economy will be summarily placed in the hands of federal bureaucrats. And the greatest health care system in the history of the world will be torn asunder.
The Democrats have already made clear that the current bill is just the opening salvo of their all-out assault on every aspect of private health care. As Tom Harkin (D-IA) has said, “What we are buying here is a modest home, not a mansion. But, we can build additions as we go along … In the future, amending it and changing it isn’t going to be as tough as passing it in the first place. We amend Medicare and Social Security all the time …That’s what we will do in health care.”
As Harkin and others have also made clear, a binding public option is inevitable. Full funding of abortions is simply a matter of some minor tinkering. And then, once the new law has inserted the federal government into every aspect of health care, a sprawling new “Department of Health” will be created, empowered to control who receives which medical procedure and – even more chilling – who does not. A worst case scenario that many of us don't look forward to.
ALG President Bill Wilson has condemned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for inserting language into the Senate health care bill that would make it nearly impossible to repeal what Wilson called a "health care rationing board."
"The Independent Medicare Advisory Board will become the Healthcare Soviet—dictating rules, rates and procedures in America's health care system with no appeal. That is why Reid has given it the most protection," Wilson explained.
In the Reid Substitute, under Section 3403 in a section entitled "Limitations on Changes to this Subsection," it states, "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
Section 3403 establishes the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), which would "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" under the Reid substitute. Wilson said that is "rationing."
"The whole purpose of this panel is to ration health care to seniors, no question," Wilson said.
"To hide that, the bill states that 'The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care' right after it gets through establishing the power for the IMAB to ration health care," Wilson explained.
"This is Orwellian Newspeak of the first order," Wilson declared, adding, "Right in this section, Harry Reid is saying that they're going to ration health care away from seniors, but they're just not going to call it that."
"And then, to lock it in place, Reid goes as far as to require a two-thirds vote in order to amend or repeal the rationing board," Wilson explained.
The Senate rules change was exposed on the floor of the Senate by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC),as reported by the National Review Online. Senator DeMint said, "This is not legislation. This is not law. This is a rule change. It's a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or repeal the law."
DeMint said that under Senate rules, it should take a two-thirds vote of the Senate to invoke cloture on legislation that contains such rules changes. And, that, "[A]s the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting."
However, the Senate President ruled that the rules change was not a rules change, but a change in procedure.
"This is completely unconstitutional," Wilson noted, pointing to Article I, Section 5 of the Federal Constitution, which states: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings…"
"Under current rules, the Reid substitute, which includes a rules change making it out of order to amend or repeal a section of the bill, should require a two-thirds vote in order to be enacted," Wilson explained, concluding, "That has not happened, and will not happen, meaning that once passed, any attempt to remove the health care rationing board will be deemed out of order forevermore. People are going to die."
Or be fined or go to jail if one fails to purchase health insurance.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Mr. Jefferson was not just writing to the Americans alive in 1776, but to all Americans for all time to come. His words are not meant to be locked away in unread books, or to be venerated as sacred text, but rather to be thought about and debated. We Americans have a wonderful heritage, but it does us no good if we know little about it and give little thought to it. And it is an injustice if the intent of this heritage is misused,
This declaration is not only the cornerstone on which the basis or justification for the independence of United States of America was built, it is the single most radical statement in Western political history since the time of Judges in the Old Testament.
The Declaration of Independence, stated by proclamation, that men (humanity) are endowed with unalienable rights. Also note the phrase "among these are" which indicates that unalienable Rights are not limited to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Universal Healthcare, of course, is not listed as one of these Self-evident unalienable rights ... But, Health care will be added to the list of unalienable Rights. How you ask? By proclamation of those who believe that the U.S. Constitution is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.... But they want to make it so. And they proclaim it through their revision of the Declaration of Independence which although important to the heritage of the United States is not part of the U.S. Constitution.
Please note --- The U.S. has a written Constitution which the U.S. Supreme Court as custodian of , becomes the last court of appeal to interpret the Constitutionality of all Laws passed by Congress and all Executive Orders proclaimed by the President. .... This being a different system then what exists in the United Kingdom which does not have one document known as the Constitution which prevails over all law ... The British Constitution is Unwritten in the sense that many documents of historic importance are included in creating what rights and responsibilities exist for all subjects of their realm... Its legislative body, Parlement, is the creator of law and this law is normally thought as Constitutional. The Courts of the realm apply the law in judgments they don't interpret the law and make them unconstitutional if found wanting.
Look at this commentary by Mike Jordan (July 30, 2009) entitled "Out and About: Health care for everyone?":
There has been a lot of talk lately about health care for all Americans. As our ability to pay for, access and even receive health care for ourselves and our families diminishes yearly and the debate heats up as to how to pay for health care for everyone or even provide it to everyone at all, it might be wise to consider a few things.
Is health care for everyone one of our unalienable rights under the U.S. Constitution?
According to a Feb. 22, 2003, Fiedor Report on the News, Doug Fiedor wrote, “Back in the days of the Founding Fathers, every family was said to have two well-studied books in their library. The most important bestseller around 1775, of course, was the Bible. The second bestseller in the Colonies was ‘Blackstone’s Commentaries on The Law,’ then a new three-volume set on English common law.”
Being “the” law book of the day, it is no wonder our founding fathers — people like George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin — referenced it and quoted it often.
Continuing, Fiedor wrote, “So, it is no surprise that the phrase written by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence originated in Chapter One of Book One of Blackstone’s, titled, ‘Absolute Rights of Individuals.’ Blackstone describes the absolute rights of individuals as being our rights to life, liberty and property. Jefferson took the editorial liberty of changing ‘property,’ to ‘pursuit of happiness,’ knowing full well that all Colonial Americans would understand exactly what was meant.”
Fiedor states that it is we Americans that seem to have a problem with that meaning. “We Americans have lost the concept of true freedom because we no longer know exactly what our rights are,” he wrote. “In today’s United States the word ‘rights’ has been corrupted so completely that few Americans any longer know the difference between the terms procedural rights and civil rights and our unalienable rights and liberties.”
Blackstone defines those absolute rights, but looking at just the first one, “life,” I believe his definition is telling in light of our present health care debate.
“Life — the right of personal security: ‘This right consists of a person’s legal and unintentional enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health and his reputation.’”
So if life is an unalienable right, or one of those absolute rights, and a person’s health is his or hers to enjoy, what happens when a person’s health is impaired? Shouldn’t that person have the right to be able to get the help needed to improve his or her health and be able to do it without cost of home, family security and savings — even livelihood?
There are those who say health care is up to the individual and everyone should accept the status quo. Those folks may be members of the privileged few, like our political leaders in Congress, the ones that have great health care we pay for — something they don’t have to worry about as long as they keep their jobs.
But in the private sector it is obviously a different matter. Companies are forced to cut or drop health care coverage for their employees because it has become too costly. At the very least they are forced to cut coverages, increase deductibles and basically turn what probably started out as a health care program that covered many ills to more of a major medical policy that covers only catastrophic illnesses and then only after each person pays a huge deductible with added loopholes.
Then, is health care an American’s unalienable right? Maybe or maybe not, but without health care for the majority of the people — and health care that is affordable — families will continue to go bankrupt, businesses will be forced to cease operations and fewer and fewer people will have coverage. People will stop seeking preventive care altogether, only seeking help in emergencies, and costs will continue to increase anyway.
So what happens to those other unalienable rights Jefferson wrote about? With health care eating up peoples’ savings, causing them to lose their property and possibly their livelihood — say nothing of liberty or, as Jefferson stated, their pursuit of happiness — is all but lost.
For your information, Blackstone’s Commentaries are still studied, well over 200 years after they were first written, by every major law school in the nation.
Fiedor, at the end of his report stated, “Thus, the protection of life, liberty and property — our natural, absolute and unalienable rights — became the underlying reason our country was formed. There is, of course, a caveat here: As members of society, we are also required to respect these rights in all others. Therefore, the most important reason we empower governments to make and enforce laws is to insure that everyone respects the rights of others.”
In my mind, that may very well be where we are right now. Maybe it is time to empower the government to make and enforce laws to insure good quality health care for every American at a fair cost delivered in a timely manner for the rights of all, not a select few.
Interestingly enough, Fiedor in this report used his argument for less government control and a return to more freedom for the people as he sees our freedoms being taken away by those in power and calling for members of the public to speak out for their rights.
I don’t disagree with that idea at all. What I haven’t seen happen in my lifetime is our so-called free market system delivering good quality health care at affordable cost for all of our citizens, nor the insurance industry paying what it should pay for or cover either.
Where we have ended up on the issue is with a lot of finger-pointing by health care providers, insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industries, i.e., really big business, with no one admitting any wrongdoing or being willing to voluntarily change.
So the government is trying to step in for the good of the people, to insure (no pun intended) the rights of all others. Hopefully that is the case and not just another of our freedoms lost.
It is obvious something needs to be done soon; a continuation of the health care policies of the last several decades is a plan to fail — impacting everyone.
Does the Constitution allow the federal government to force individual citizens to buy health insurance? Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) have been waging a war to force Members of Congress to include a concise explanation of the constitutional authority empowering Congress to enact legislation as part of every bill. The legislation titled “The Enumerated Powers Act” would not allow the House or Senate to consider any legislation not containing an explanation of the constitutional authority for legislation. Clearly this is needed, because Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) had a hard time responding to a simple question from a CNS reporter that strikes at the core of ObamaCare: “Does the United States Constitution give the United States Congress the authority to mandate individuals to have health insurance, to carry health insurance?”
Members of Congress should be able to provide the constitutional authority for the federal government mandating the purchasing of health insurance under the penalty of fines and jail time if they support that idea. For that matter, they should be able to recite a constitutional basis for all legislation they support. It should be the first issue a member considers. Not true with ObamaCare.
And consider the following question: Where in the Constitution does it state that Government as having the authority to FORCE the U.S. Taxpayer to Purchase something in order to be a legal citizen of the U.S.? The fact is, by Constitutional Amendment the poll tax and literacy tax for voting is not allowed ...Mandating that individuals must obtain health insurance, and imposing any penalty—civil or criminal—on any private citizen for not purchasing health insurance is not authorized by any provision of the U.S. Constitution. As such, the bill should be determined unconstitutional, and should not survive a court challenge. This is because, the federal government has limited jurisdiction – having only enumerated powers – unless a specific provision of the Constitution empowers a particular law, then that law is unconstitutional. There is no authorization for the individual mandate
The insurance companies, of course, will get their money and they of course will pay off their buddies in Congress. Actually fining people for not wanting healthcare. Now that is crazy. What a convoluted piece of put it in your face legislation this is. Also, requiring individuals to have health insurance equals a tax on the very breath you take. Taxing people for just being alive is a disgrace
The Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, does not apply to the health care bill, “because there is no interstate commerce when private citizens do not purchase health insurance”. The Commerce Clause covers only those matters where citizens engage in voluntary economic activity
Government can only regulate economic action; it cannot coerce action on the part of private citizens who do not wish to participate in commerce
Nor is the bill’s individual mandate authorized under the General Welfare Clause., which applies only to congressional spending. “It applies to money going out from the government; it does not confer or concern any government power to take in money, such as would happen with the individual mandate. Therefore the mandate is outside the scope of the General Welfare Clause
Obama has stated that he won't "Rule Out" JAIL TIME as a penalty for failing to PURCHASE insurance ..... Is this one sign of the mark of the beast?
Stanford Bricker 9/29/2006 asked the question: IS FREE HEALTH CARE AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT? '
While many hospitals will not turn away anyone needing care because of his or her inability to pay, health care is not cost free. Governors of many states have formed a group to study ways to expand health coverage to more residents But until everyone has coverage, who will pay for the health care of a sick or injured uninsured person who is unable to pay? The answer is, as taxpayers, we all will.
But should this be the case? Are there times when injured or sick persons are so negligent in their behavior they should be denied treatment if they cannot afford to pay for it?
Should the insurance companies and the taxpayers refuse to pay for medical treatment for someone who is injured or sick because he or she:
1. rode a motorcycle without wearing a helmet?
2. didn’t buckle his seatbelt?
3. had self-inflicted wounds?
4. overdosed on drugs?
5. was drunk while driving?
6. smoked cigarettes?
7. continued to drink after being diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver?
8. over-ate while obese or under-ate while too skinny?
Which of the above actions should be considered voluntary? What behavior would you add to the above list? Which behaviors do you think still warrant free health care?
Do you think that if health insurance companies denied payment for some or all of the above it would result in lower insurance premiums for the rest of us? Or would it simply increase the profits of the health insurers and the salaries of their executives?
And what about payment for treatment for those who have already lived a long life and are now in their final few months of life? Should significant sums of money be spent to prolong the life of someone for another day or month? It has been reported "50% of Medicare dollars are spent on 5% of the Medicare population largely because of costly ‘episodic, catastrophic care’ in the final year of life.”
But is it fair for those who are denied treatment to be left to suffer or die because they cannot pay, while those with similar behavior, but who are rich, can afford to pay for their treatment?
Do you think the right to health care should be absolute, or should there be some limitations on how much society is willing to pay?
According to Tom Harkins--- D- Iowa:
Affordable, continuous health care coverage is essential to preventing and managing chronic diseases, and to making the best use of our health care dollars. Yet, today, some 47 million Americans do not have health insurance, and more and more employers are dropping health care coverage of their employees. In a humane, decent society, no citizens should have to forego needed medical treatment because they are priced out of the market. Improving access to quality healthcare must include:
Expanding Health Insurance for Children in Low-Income and Working Families
The federal Children’s Health Insurance Program was created in 1997 to provide health insurance to children of working families who do not qualify for Medicaid but who cannot afford private insurance. By every measure, the program, known in Iowa as the Healthy and Well Kids (HAWK-I), is cost-effective, and has been shown to work well in meeting children’s basic health care needs. But even with this program in place, some 55,000 Iowa children, and more than 8.5 million children nationwide, continue to go without insurance, and the number of children in families making $40,000 or less who are not eligible for or cannot afford private health insurance is increasing. That is why Congress, on a bipartisan basis, twice passed an expansion of this program, fully paid for by increasing the tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products. Both times, the legislation was vetoed by President. But these vetoes are not the final word. We need to ensure that all children in Iowa and across the U.S. are eligible for basic health care, including regular checkups, preventive care, and prompt treatment of injuries and illness.
Expanding Community Health Centers
Because of the increasing cost and declining availability of health insurance, Community Health Centers -- clinics that serve everyone, regardless of ability to pay - have assumed a major role within the U.S. health care system. As chair of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds health care initiatives, I have made expansion of the Community Health Center network a major priority. Since 2000, I have worked to double funding for the program, and to construct new clinics all across the country. In Iowa, I have helped to add five new Community Health Centers, in Cedar Rapids, Dubuque, Fort Dodge, Storm Lake, and Decatur County, while expanding the services already available in Des Moines, Waterloo, Sioux City, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Burlington, and Ottumwa. At the same time, I have secured federal funding to expand facilities and enhance equipment at clinics across Iowa. I am currently working to gain federal status and funding for a clinic in Sioux County.
Improving Rural Health Care Services
Iowa has a disproportionately large population of senior citizens, and many of them live in rural communities. As co-chair of the Senate’s Rural Health Caucus, I am acutely aware of the challenges that the Medicare program faces in largely rural states such as Iowa. Currently, Medicare reimburses doctors and hospitals in rural areas at a much lower rate than in urban areas, and this is making it increasingly difficult for rural hospitals to stay open and for doctors to practice in rural communities. I am currently cosponsoring sponsoring The Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act of 2007, also known as the R-HoPE Act, to address the urban-rural disparity in reimbursements, and to increase the amount of money Medicare pays to rural hospitals, doctors and ambulance services.
Helping Small Businesses to Provide Health Care Coverage
Small businesses that want to provide employees with health coverage are often charged higher premiums than large employers, and are less able to offer their employees a choice of health plans. That is why I am cosponsoring the Small Employers Health Benefits Program Act. This bill would create a new program modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which successfully provides affordable health coverage to more than eight million federal employees and retirees and their families, including members of Congress. The bill would allow small businesses to pool their purchasing clout to negotiate lower rates, and give small-business employees the same kinds of health plan choices that members of Congress have. The bill would also set reasonable limits on what insurers can charge.
In the health care debate, Senator Harkins is said to have said that it was self-evident that Health Care just like life, liberty and happiness is an unalienable right that all residents of the United States should enjoy ... What does the Senator say about the conundrum between the unalienable right of an otherwise healthy human being still in the womb to be born so that he or she could enjoy the promised rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness and healthcare versus the supposive right of a woman to treat the termination of her non life threatening pregnancy as insignificant as surgeon removing an abscess from her back or neck. Senator - What is your take in this? Just as the House and Senate must reconcile their very different Bills to create a Law that President Obama can sign by late January to he can appear and speak triumphant when he gives his Constitutionally required State of Union Message before a Joint Session of Congress in February. You must reconcile the consequences of these two very different and opposing life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and health care inalienable rights ... In addition you must acknowledge the Constitutional grounds you consider Health Care an unalienable right. That Constitutional ground cannot cite the Declaration of Independence as its reference, because the Declaration of Independence is not found in our Written Constitution. And neither can you cite Scottish Law as Arlen Specter once did on another issue.
While the entire Senate voted to protect Medicare benefits , there are big steps that still must be made to the reform bill according to AARP. The Senate must:
• Lower drug costs and close the Medicare Part D coverage gap or "doughnut hole";
• Prevent costly hospital readmissions by creating a follow-up care benefit in Medicare to help people safely transition home after a hospital stay;
• Increase home and community based services so older Americans can remain in their homes and avoid costly institutions; and
• Improve programs that help low income Americans in Medicare afford the health care and prescription drugs they need.
Question: “Should the United States ratify the ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)’? If not, what concerns do you have that need to be resolved before you would support joining the court? Prior to ratification what should the United States relationship with the Court be, particularly in regards sharing intelligence prosecuting war criminals, and referring cases to the UN Security Council?
The future President's response to a Candidate questionnaire during his 2004 Senate race:
Answer: “Yes ... The United States should cooperate with ICC investigations in a way that reflects American sovereignty and promotes our national security interests.”
Then in October 6, 2007, the future President just beginning his campaign for President responded to this candidate questionnaire:
Question: “Given the International Criminal Court’s recent activities in pursuing war crimes and crimes against humanity, what would be your administration’s policy regarding U.S. cooperation with ongoing investigations?”
Answer: “Now that it is operational, we are learning more and more about how the ICC functions. The Court has pursued charges only in cases of the most serious and systemic crimes and it is in America’s interests that these most heinous of criminals, like the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur, are held accountable. These actions are a credit to the cause of justice and deserve full American support and cooperation. Yet the Court is
still young, many questions remain unanswered about the ultimate scope of its activities, and it is premature to commit the U.S. to any course of action at this time.
“The United States has more troops deployed overseas than any other nation and those forces are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden in the protecting Americans and preserving international security. Maximum protection for our servicemen and women should come with that increased exposure. Therefore, I will consult thoroughly with our military commanders and also examine the track record of the Court before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. should become a State Party to the ICC.”
Question: “Beyond cooperation with current investigations, what should the United States’ relationship be with the Court?”
Answer: “My administration would continue to cooperate with ongoing ICC investigations in Sudan.”
Conclusion -- Obama as a candidate seemed to generally favor the ICC — though he obviously had reservations about U.S. membership... Please note --- Bill Clinton had no such reservation ... He signed the United Nations Treaty creating the ICC, but the U.S. Senate never voted on it during his term ... And the Bush Administration notified the United Nations that it would not honor Clinton's commitment for the ICC ... Pulling its signature out of the treaty in May 2002.
And as it was, Samantha Power made the following comment when she was still one of Obama’s senior foreign-policy advisers in his campaign for President:
Until we’ve closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.
If Barack Obama ratified the ICC or announced his support for it on day one, two things would happen. One, it would have the chance of discrediting the ICC in the short term, and two, he would so strain his relations with the U.S. military that it would actually be very hard to recover. There’s a whole lot of internal diplomacy, internal conversations about sovereignty and so forth that have to be had before you can think about that.
But Kevin Jon Heller in Opino Juris wrote July 26, 2008: The U.S. has been the ICC’s most bitter critic, refusing to ratify a Statute it played a critical role in drafting, launching a multi-year blackmail campaign to force States to sign Article 98 agreements, and even authorizing the use of military force against the Hague should an American ever end up in the dock there. Joining the ICC would thus not only demonstrate to the world that the U.S no longer thinks it is above the (international) law, it would legitimize the Court in the eyes of its member States and — perhaps even more important — indicate to other ICC critics, such as Israel and Russia, that their opposition is unwarranted. Indeed, one could easily argue without too much hyperbole that U.S. membership in the ICC would be the single most momentous event in the brief history of the Court, literally heralding the dawn of a new era for international criminal justice.
He continues: "The U.S. deserves the criticism it gets for its irrational hostility to the ICC. But we cannot forget that, over the past six decades, the U.S. has done as much as any country in the world to promote international criminal justice. That’s why the U.S. position on the Court is so distressing — and why a U.S. decision to join the Court would be cause for lasting celebration"
During his eight years in office , George Bush kept the International Criminal Court at arm’s length, refusing to join it but encouraged its work bringing malefactors to justice. With the US acting as the world’s policeman, Bush explained, he could not afford to allow the ICC to take jurisdiction over our military personnel and give our enemies a political lever for interference. Gerald Warner at the Telegraph ( A UK publication) gave us a warning in March of 2009 that Barack Obama will reverse that decision — and that could open the door for a string of indictments relating to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Writes Warner: "But the people who should be feeling really nervous about this development are the citizens of the United States and more especially their armed forces. The signs are that the grandstanding Barack Obama is preparing to subject the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC. In May, 2002 President Bush withdrew the United States from the Rome Statute which established the ICC. With America heading into global conflict, he had no wish to see US troops arraigned for alleged war crimes before a kangaroo court.
That was a wise decision and probably required in terms of the US Constitution. Already, however, the Obama administration is sending out very different messages. America helped defeat a proposal that the warrant for Bashir should be suspended for 12 months – which would have been a welcome respite for the soup kitchens of Darfur. This is a policy change of considerable significance..
Nor is it the only straw in the wind. Last month US Ambassador Susan Rice, in a closed meeting of the Security Council, supported the ICC, saying it “looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda and Darfur”. A week later Ben Chang, spokesman for National Security Advisor General James Jones, took a similar line, telling the Washington Times: “We support the ICC in its pursuit of those who’ve perpetrated war crimes.”
The next logical step is for the United States to sign up to the ICC. That would flatter Obama’s ego as the conscience of the world. It would also put US servicemen at the mercy of any American-hating opportunists who might choose to arraign them on trumped-up charges before an alien court whose judges are likely to be ill-disposed towards America too."
These words and thoughts providing a good reason why Conservative groups sometimes look in horror at Barrack Obama's actions ... They say that the President is at it again ...This time he wants to impose his socialistic views on the United States by subjecting our citizens to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
They claim that Obama recently dispatched a delegation to The Hague to explore issues involving United States' involvement in the ICC, an organization that Conservatives believe could be used to prosecute American soldiers and political leaders on trumped up criminal charges brought by left wing, or terrorist supporting, governments, like Iran.
They go far as suggest that Barack Obama believes that the United States should be subject to global laws, instead of the United States Constitution.
Organizations such as the United States Justice foundation (USJF) are very concerned about this shift in United States policy, claiming the ICC does not recognize many of the U.S. Constitution's provisions protecting defendants in criminal trials, such as the right to trial by jury, and protections against double-jeopardy, which are the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights.
But ironically, Obama would guarantee these same rights to Guantanamo Inmates removed from the prison there for trial in the United States
Says the USJC the main tenet of the ICC is that its jurisdiction extends only to those nations that ratify the ICC treaty. However, the Obama administration is, apparently, going to adopt a policy that would subject the United States to the ICC, even if the U. S. Senate does not adopt the treaty... A clear VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!
The so-called "Rome" statute provides that when the basic requisites for ICC jurisdiction under part of the statute have been met, then the ICC may exercise criminal jurisdiction over nationals of States not party to the Rome Statute, in this case, the citizens of the United States.
The ICC was given such jurisdiction in order to ensure that offenders of the most serious international crimes, which come under the jurisdiction of the Court, will be held accountable of their actions, regardless of their nationality.
This claimed jurisdiction is one of the concerns of USJF, and they feel that this is an unlawful intrusion on our Sovereignty.
They are afraid that this United States Senate, led by Harry Reid, working with other Senators they termed socialists in the Democratic majority, will ratify the Rome Statute if it comes to the Senate Floor, thus destroying the sovereignty of this country.
The fact is, their belief became reality as the Obama White House pushed for ratification of this Treaty starting in May of 2010. However, because of Public protest after ObombaCare was forced on and Concern that the Public would again rise up on this issue, transparency was thrown out the window and the i Administration attempted a end-run the treaty ratification process, "just in case."
Many Conservatives could not trust Harry Reid's Senate to protect their Constitutional Rights! Then too, they could not trust the Obama Administration to protect their Constitutional Rights either. They had already seen with the OBAMACARE Push how the Democratic majority in Congress, and the Obama Whitehouse operate. These Conservations contend that these individuals do not care what is good for the United States, they just care about obtaining more power and pushing their radical agenda!
It is their claim that the ICC does not offer the same due process rights, particularly right to trial by jury and protection against double-jeopardy, rights which are guaranteed under the United States Constitution. These rights were the cornerstones of our legal protections in criminal cases, our "due process" rights which should never be infringed upon.
It was also their claim that the "Rome" Statute contravenes Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section I, of the U. S. Constitution, dealing with the establishment of domestic courts.
To counter the charges of Conservatives, those said to be on the left will argue that the Rome Statute contains due process protections that are essentially in line with protections under the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to remain silent, the guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination, the presumption of innocence, the right to confront accusers and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to a speedy and public trial ... But Conservatives counter by saying that even though a lot of these rights parallel those in our Constitution, there is still no right to trial by Jury.
Another problem with the ICC is that since Congress neither created the ICC nor approved its rules, the Rome Statute is inconsistent with the provisions found in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which empowers Congress with the authority to "constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court," and Article III, Section 1, which states that "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress from time to time ordain and establish."
To Conservatives, the Constitution is pretty clear in this regard. The power to create courts lies with Congress, and not with the global community. That is why they continue to hammer away the point after the fact that U.S. involvement in the ICC has circumvented the U. S. Constitution and destroyed American Sovereignty.
The Court
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.
The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York (United States of America).
The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.
The Court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. It is assisted by a Registry, its administrative organ. Its official languages are English and French.
The International Criminal Court
The International Criminal Court (ICC), governed by the Rome Statute, is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.
The ICC is an independent international organization, and is not part of the United Nations system. Its seat is at The Hague in the Netherlands. Although the Court’s expenses are funded primarily by States Parties, it also receives voluntary contributions from governments, international organizations, individuals, corporations and other entities.
The international community has long aspired to the creation of a permanent international court, and, in the 20th century, it reached consensus on definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials addressed war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity committed during the Second World War.
In the 1990s after the end of the Cold War, tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda were the result of consensus that impunity is unacceptable. However, because they were established to try crimes committed only within a specific time-frame and during a specific conflict, there was general agreement that an independent, permanent criminal court was needed.
On 17 July 1998, the international community reached an historic milestone when 120 States adopted the Rome Statute, the legal basis for establishing the permanent International Criminal Court.
The Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 after ratification by 60 countries.
The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedings were undertaken solely to shield a person from criminal responsibility. In addition, the ICC only tries those accused of the gravest crimes.
Pursuant to the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor can initiate an investigation on the basis of a referral from any State Party or from the United Nations Security Council. In addition, the Prosecutor can initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court received from individuals or organizations (“communications”).
To date, three States Parties to the Rome Statute – Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic – have referred situations occurring on their territories to the Court. In addition, the Security Council has referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan – a non‐State Party.
In the situation in Uganda, the case The Prosecutor versus Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen have been heard before Pre-Trial Chamber II in ansentia. In this case, five warrants of arrest have been issued against the five top members of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). ... Following the confirmation of the death of Mr Lukwiya, the proceedings against him have been terminated. The four remaining suspects are still at large.
In the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, three cases have heard before the relevant Chambers: The Prosecutor versus Thomas Lubanga Dyila; The Prosecutor versus Bosco Ntaganda; and The Prosecutor versus Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui.
The accused Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui were in the custody of the ICC. The suspect Bosco Ntaganda remains at large even at this late date.
In the situation in Darfur, Sudan, three cases were heard before Pre-Trial Chamber I: The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun (“Ahmad Harun”) and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”); The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir and The Prosecutor v. Bahr Idriss Abu Garda
The suspect Bahr Idriss Abu Garda appeared voluntarily for the first time before Pre-Trial Chamber I on 18 May 2009. He is not in custody. The three other suspects remain at large.
In the situation in the Central African Republic, the case The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo has been heard before Pre-Trial Chamber II.
Rumor has it, if Obama makes a second term ... Former member of the Bush Administration will be charged of gravest crimes by members of Al-Qaeda and enemy non-combatants once held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba especially the Yemenis now held in a U.S. prison Camp in Thompson Illinois ...
And as we speak manhunt is currently underway for three Yemenis prisoners who escaped from the federal detention center in Thompson Illinois earlier this week.
Also as we speak The White House finally released the 100th revision of a declassified account of government missteps that allowed a suspected terrorist to slip through security and attempt to blow up a plane on Christmas 2009.
Still more --- In other news: As we speak also, Yemen has once again rejected direct U.S. intervention in its crackdown on al Qaeda, Foreign Minister Abubakr al-Qirbi said Yemen security forces must fight the militants within its borders, but they would accept some assistance from other countries. "What we need from the United States and other partners is to build our capability to provide us with the technical know-how, with the equipment, with the intelligence information and with the firepower," Qirbi said. In other words, Yemen wanted more money from the United States ... Unfortunately, the Obama White House with all its past Stimulus Packages cannot raise enough Yen to satisfy Foreign Minister Abubakr al-Qirbi's wants and needs.
Conservatives for a long time have stated that The Environmental Protection Agency will encourage a sweeping energy-rationing regime without asking Congress. As it happened, predictions as what may happen became reality when the EPA, cap-and-trade legislation in Congress, and also, global treaties restricted Americans' energy usage.
|The Kyoto Protocol was an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The|
|major feature of the Kyoto Protocol was that it set binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European |
|community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels |
|over the five-year period 2008-2012. |
|The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialized |
|countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so. |
|Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions in the |
|atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed |
|nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” |
|The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on December 11 1997 and entered into force on February 16, 2005. 184 |
|Parties of the Convention have ratified its Protocol to date. The detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol |
|were adopted at COP 7 in Marrakesh in 2001, and are called the “Marrakesh Accords.” |
The Kyoto mechanisms
Under the Treaty, countries must meet their targets primarily through national measures. However, the Kyoto Protocol offers them an additional means of meeting their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms.
The Kyoto mechanisms are:
• Emissions trading – known as “the carbon market"
• Clean development mechanism (CDM)
• Joint implementation (JI).
The mechanisms help stimulate green investment and help Parties meet their emission targets in a cost-effective way.
Monitoring emission targets
Under the Protocol, countries’ actual emissions have to be monitored and precise records have to be kept of the trades carried out.
Registry systems track and record transactions by Parties under the mechanisms. The UN Climate Change Secretariat, based in Bonn, Germany, keeps an international transaction log to verify that transactions are consistent with the rules of the Protocol.
Reporting is done by Parties by way of submitting annual emission inventories and national reports under the Protocol at regular intervals.
A compliance system ensures that Parties are meeting their commitments and helps them to meet their commitments if they have problems doing so.
Adaptation
The Kyoto Protocol, like the Convention, is also designed to assist countries in adapting to the adverse effects of climate change. It facilitates the development and deployment of techniques that can help increase resilience to the impacts of climate change.
The Adaptation Fund was established to finance adaptation projects and programs in developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Fund is financed mainly with a share of proceeds from CDM project activities.
The road ahead
The Kyoto Protocol is generally seen as an important first step towards a truly global emission reduction regime that will stabilize GHG emissions, and provides the essential architecture for any future international agreement on climate change.
By the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012, a new international framework needs to have been negotiated and ratified that can deliver the stringent emission reductions the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have clearly indicated were needed.
The 2009 Copenhagen Meeting
Briefing the press at the end of the two-week conference, Yvo de Boer said December 19, 2009 that an accord has been reached that had significant elements, but that were not legally binding.
He described the accord as “politically important,” demonstrating a willingness to move forward. It brings together a diversity of countries that have put in place a letter of intent with the ingredients of an architecture for a response to climate change.
The key points of the accord include the objective to keep the maximum temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius; the commitment to list developed country emission reduction targets and mitigation action by developing countries for 2020; USD 30 billion short-term funding for immediate action till 2012 and
USD 100 billion annually by 2020 in long-term financing, as well as mechanisms to support technology transfer and forestry.
The challenge now is to turn what is agreed into something that is legally binding in Mexico one year from that date
At Copenhagen, President Obama announced what he called a "meaningful and unprecedented" climate change deal with China and other key nations that was sealed before the president headed home from the Copenhagen summit
Obama told reporters.: "For the first time in history, all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change,"
The president added that he met with leaders from India, China, Brazil and South Africa, and "that's where we agreed ... to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius."
Admitting that It's a nonbinding goal, and the emissions targets would not by themselves be sufficient to get to where we need to get by 2050, Obama said, however, it is a first step, and that for many countries "this is going to be the first time in which even voluntary they offered up mitigation targets.
And as it happened, the Obama Administration did attempt to implement the principles stated at Copenhagen through the issuance of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulations, again trying to avoid having the U. S. Senate have to approve the Climate Change Treaty. The thought was that the U. S. Senate at a later date with its filibuster proof Democratic Majority would be able to ratify the Climate Change treaty that Conservatives say would devastate the U.S. economy, sending billions of dollars in tax money to foreign countries, and costing millions of American jobs if approved ...
The contentious point these last few years is that not only is the Obama Administration trying to promote this charade of "global warming", but they are also trying to destroy our sovereignty and substitute international law for our Constitution.
Admittedly , Mr. Obama faced a major hurdle in the U. S. Senate, where he needed 67 votes for treaty ratification. But as it stands right now, that looks impossible, given the partisan nature of votes that have occurred in the Senate these past few year. And the scare that was given the Democratic Party in the mid-elections of 2010. But don't be too sure. Former Liberal Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has shown, in passing the Senate version of OBAMACARE, that he will do, and say, anything to pass the Obama Socialistic agenda, by cutting any deals necessary, no matter the financial cost, no matter the damage to America. Just look at Senators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, who came "on board," after being "bribed" with special funding and special "perks" for their states, with OBAMACARE.. The new Senate Majority Leader is a clone of Harry Reid.
The 2009 Energy Bill: Anti-Market and Anti-Consumer
By Nicolas Loris and Ben Lieberman for the Heritage Foundation
On March 31, 2009 Chairman Henry Waxman (D–CA) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Edward Markey (D–MA) of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee introduced draft legislation that included clean energy investment, energy efficiency mandates, a cap-and-trade program, and protectionist policies that would supposedly help the consumer cope with higher energy prices.
Presented as a comprehensive energy bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) offers nothing more than subsidies and mandates for unsuccessful, unproven energy sources coupled with taxes on reliable energy sources that falsely claim to stimulate the economy by investing in clean technology and creating green jobs. This government-centric approach according to critics will destroy jobs and drive up energy prices for years to come.
Title 1: Clean Energy
ACES includes a renewable electricity standard (RES) that requires 6 percent of electricity to come from renewable energy by 2012. This requirement will increase to 25 percent in 2025.
A federally mandated RES is proposed only because renewables are too expensive to compete otherwise. In effect, Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public. Since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks, a national mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as ratepayers. Any incentive proposed by government should in truth be read as a handout.
Moreover, subsidies are poor policies because they distort normal market forces and encourage government dependence. By subsidizing a portion of the actual cost of a non-competitive project, the government is artificially making it cheaper and distorting the allocation of resources by directing capital away from more competitive projects.
Title 1 of ACES also includes incentives to develop cleaner energy technologies and facilitate the transition to a smart grid, as well as authorization for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to take control of building new transmission lines.
While upgrading the nation's electric grid has merit, such a project cannot be approached bureaucratically, nor can it be used as a subsidy to advance renewable energy sources. More efficient grid technology should be an investment made by the private sector, and if upgrading the grid will save consumers money—as Congress purports it will—consumers will respond to price signals and buy it.
Although a new grid could help store large amounts of electricity for the first time, which would benefit intermittent sources such as wind and solar power, smart grid investment is not automatically coupled with transmission investment. If companies believe the benefits to such an investment will outweigh the costs, they will make the investment. Instead, any federal policy should focus on removing regulatory barriers to upgrading the grid to allow for more consumer choice and protect private property rights.
Title 2: Energy Efficiency
ACES includes new energy efficiency standards for new buildings, rebates to low-income families to buy Energy Star-rated manufactured homes, appliances, and transportation.
Energy efficiency can be beneficial for consumers, but it rarely does good when Washington tries to force it on them. Energy-efficient appliances and mechanisms will not painlessly lower electricity bills: These measures impose costs, and consumers benefit only if the energy savings outweigh such expenses. Mandatory improvements in efficiency usually raise the purchase price of appliances; sometimes the increase is more than enough to negate the energy savings. In addition, the forced reduction in energy use can result in decreased product performance, features, or reliability, which destroys value for the consumer.
The law of supply and demand is perfectly capable of determining the proper balance between energy efficiency and other product attributes. Rigid federal standards give efficiency priority over all other concerns, often to the detriment of families and businesses.
Title 3: Global Warming Regulation
Although the rest of ACES is bad enough, the most alarming section is the government's attempt to regulate carbon dioxide. The third title of the bill introduces a "market-oriented" cap-and-trade program that would reduce carbon dioxide by 20 percent below 2005 levels in 2020 and by 83 percent below 2005 levels in 2050. Furthermore, it calls for strict oversight by FERC and calls on the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Air Act to reduce black carbon and hydroflurocarbons.
Despite Washington policymakers' best attempt to call cap-and-trade a market-oriented approach, the reality is that any carbon capping plan is a costly energy tax in disguise—raising energy prices and unemployment with little, if any, environmental benefit. A global warming tax could generate as much as $1.9 trillion in tax revenue over eight years, which amounts to an annual tax of nearly $2,000 on every American household.
Since 85 percent of U.S. energy demand is met by fossil fuels, taxing the lifeblood of the American economy would have disastrous consequences. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis's study of the Lieberman–Warner cap-and-trade bill found that legislation would result in aggregate real GDP losses of nearly $5 trillion and job losses of 400,000 and 800,000 jobs per year. The targets and timetables in the ACES discussion draft are considerably more stringent than those in Lieberman–Warner and thus would be costlier.
Title 4: Transitioning to a Clean Energy Economy
Because ACES would put manufacturers at a disadvantage, the last title of the bill attempts to lessen that burden by rebating money to "sectors that use large amounts of energy, and produce commodities that are traded globally" or by having "foreign manufacturers and importers ... pay for and hold special allowances to 'cover' the carbon contained in U.S.-bound products." The bill also stipulates that if countries reach an international treaty on global warming, the U.S. will provide aid assistance to developing countries for clean technology.
In essence, raising the costs on foreign manufacturers and importers is a carbon tariff. As a result, not only will energy costs increase, but now everything Americans import will be more expensive too. Furthermore, imposing a carbon tariff could lead to a trade war among a number of countries on which the U.S. depends for affordable goods. Protectionism begets more protectionism: Other countries will view such measures as unfair and respond by implementing more tariffs. Also, any international carbon reduction plan would likely reverse progress made in the developing world—even with the proposed U.S. aid for clean technology. Developing countries' prosperity relies heavily on free trade. Exporting goods in which countries hold a comparative advantage is critical to their economic growth, just like it is to America's.
Counting the number of green jobs created by a transition to a clean energy economy while ignoring the jobs destroyed by any such shift ignores the legislation's net effect on employment: Support for renewable energy would likely cost more jobs than it creates. For example, subsidies for wind and solar energy would, at least from the narrow perspective of the wind and solar industries, create new jobs as more of these systems are manufactured and installed. But the tax dollars needed to help pay for them cost jobs elsewhere, as would the pricey electricity they produce. Proponents of renewable energy, however, argue that these energy sources create more jobs per kilowatt hour and thus are a good investment.[7] But this logic should not be the measuring stick for implementing new energy sources—it proves only that clean energy sources are an inefficient use of human capital and these resources could be more beneficial in other sectors of the economy.
Not the Right Prescription for an Ailing Economy
The architects of ACES argue that the bill will create millions of clean energy jobs and help Americans save on energy costs, but in reality it will do just the opposite. Using taxpayer dollars to invest in inefficient energy sources while artificially driving up the costs of reliable energy with a cap-and-trade program will only cause more economic pain for the consumer—with no environmental benefit to show for it.
Nicolas Loris is a Research Assistant and Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
President Obama, White House Climate Czar Carol Browner, and their Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are not waiting for Congress to pass cap-and-trade.
The enormous grassroots reaction to the Waxman-Markey energy tax bill passing the U.S. House has slowed Senate progress to a crawl. While cap-and-trade remains a major threat (especially with new "tri-partisan" negotiations between Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman), the biggest threat of huge new energy taxes and government controls right now comes not from legislation, but regulation.
Based on a legal theory originally conceived by Climate Czar Carol Browner in the late 1990s, Obama's EPA is moving ahead with greenhouse gases regulations under the 1970 Clean Air Act even though in 1970 global warming hadn't even been invented yet, and the doom-saying scientists were instead warning of an impending ice age!
Even the 1970 Clean Air Act's original author, Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, who supports cap-and-trade, stated a belief the Obama Administration's latest move may be a recipe for disaster:
We are looking at the possibility of a glorious mess being visited upon this country. This is not what was intended by the Congress and by those of us who wrote the Clean Air Act. We are beginning to look at a wonderfully complex world, which has the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth.
— Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.)
And so writes Mr. a EPA Overreach: Tailoring Themselves into a Corner ... A statement by Valvo who isthe government affairs manager at Americans for Prosperity
President Obama has promised the world that the United States will take definitive action on carbon emissions and he needs to have something to show for this promise at the looming global climate conference in Copenhagen. One problem, the American people hate greenhouse gas regulations and they’ve been talking to their representatives in Congress—that’s why cap-and-trade is stalled in the Senate. That’s where the Environmental Protection Agency comes in. The Obama administration is so desperate to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that they are willing to illegally rewrite statutes without authorization from Congress.
In an obvious administrative overreach, EPA wants to rewrite the 1970 Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The agency just released a proposed rule that would allow them to “tailor” the Act to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources that have the potential to emit more than 25,000 tons per year. This rule is a clear violation of the black letter law of the Act, which states that major stationary emitters are classified as “stationary sources with the potential to emit 250 tons or more of any pollutant.”
EPA is in a bind because if they enact their long-sought greenhouse gases regulations as the Clean Air Act actually instructs, they will have to regulate 1.2 million businesses, manufactures and farms, this according to a study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This regulation would place a crippling burden on the country and tie the EPA in knots trying to administrate the avalanche of new permits. This result would also raise a political firestorm that would force the Obama administration and/or Congress to step in and stop the runaway regulators.
EPA is well aware of the statutory language and is trying to sidestep its responsibility in the proposed rule by claiming that “absurd results” and “administrative necessity” require it to rewrite the law on the back of a napkin, absurd indeed. The proposal suggests a “phased approach” that would cover emitters at 25,000 tons now and give the agency six years to strangle emitters all the way down to the legally-mandated 250 tons.
Ever since the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency had to make a greenhouse gas determination based on the language in the Clean Air Act, EPA has been trying to find a way to bend over backwards to shoehorn it in. But what Massachusetts v. EPA and today’s EPA back flips really show is that the Act is poorly suited for greenhouse gases regulation. EPA should have responded to the Court by determining that, due to “absurd results” and “administrative necessity,” the Clean Air Act is the wrong vehicle for the task. This would leave Congress to decide what, if anything, to do about global warming.
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the author of the original Act, has been clear that he never envisioned it being used for greenhouse gases. The fact that EPA has to illegally ignore the plain language of the Act to avoid regulating churches, schools, farms and warehouses all across the country is evidence to this point.
Congress over this issue has been engaged in a healthy and heated debate over the proper role of the federal government in regulating greenhouse gases. The House has already passed a cap-and-trade scheme and Senators Boxer and Kerry have released their version of the bill . To many, this has been an unthinkable administrative overreach for EPA to issue new regulations that are in clear violation of their statutory authority while Congress was in the midst of addressing the issue. Therefore, Members of Congress should step in and stop the EPA, the sooner the better.
The fact is, The 1970 Clean Air Act has been such a bad vehicle to address greenhouse gases that EPA has attempted, illegally, to rewrite the law to suit its purposes. EPA wants to handpick which industries and carbon emitters it will regulate, instead of following the law as written. Not only is it illegal, but it's also ineffective, because state regulators and courts will still be able to use these regulations to shut down the whole U.S. economy.
.Consequently, the legacy of the Obama Administration thus far while having some unnoticed successes for a few special interest groups is one of mostly missed opportunities, but few unmitigated failures. And the stress of the American Presidency has made Obama look older then his years … but looking older does not necessary make one wiser. Especially in times when two of America's big three auto makers became subjected to Obama government micro-management... Obama said at the time that the government did not want to run GM or Chrysler but at the same time he forced both of them into bankruptcy, fired and supervised the management of GM and ordered Chrysler to be bought by Fiat; in addition, engineered energy shortages and transportation difficulties made it difficult to get the products of America’s bread basket to market. … Not to mention a man-caused environmental related water use restriction in California related to agriculture that harmed and threatened agricultural productivity.
There are those who believe that a large national army sometimes puts freedom in danger. In some countries, army leaders have taken over the government and done away with the people's rights ... Fearing such an army, our people wanted the right to have a state militia. or a citizens army ... (The National Guard of each state is made up of volunteers who are citizens) This was the reason for Amendment 2 to the U.S. Constitution
|“ |A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms |
| |shall not be infringed. |
This was the reason for Amendment 2 to the U.S. Constitution. It keeps the federal government from passing rules forbidding the state militia to use arms in lawful ways.
To state it in another way, this Amendment denies to the federal government the power to interfere with your ownership and use of weapons for lawful purposes.
And you get protection against the wrong use of power by a national army.
U.S. Supreme Court Cases
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right which existed prior to the Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The indictment in Cruikshank charged, inter alia, a conspiracy by Klansmen to prevent blacks from exercising their civil rights, including the bearing of arms for lawful purposes. The Court held, however, that because the right to keep and bear arms existed independent of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment guaranteed only that the right shall not be infringed by Congress, the federal government had no power to punish a violation of the right by a private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of their right to keep and bear arms to the police power of the state.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that the Second Amendment, standing alone, applied only to action by the federal government, it nonetheless found the states without power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, holding that "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
Presser, moreover, plainly suggested that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and thus that a state cannot forbid individuals to keep and bear arms. To understand why, it is necessary to understand the statutory scheme the Court had before it.
The statute under which Presser was convicted did not forbid individuals to keep and bear arms but rather forbade "bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law . . . ." Thus, the Court concluded that the statute did not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
The Court, however, went on to discuss the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that "It is only the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States that the clause relied on was intended to protect." As the Court had already held that the substantive right to keep and bear arms was not infringed by the Illinois statute since that statue did not prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms but rather prohibited military-like exercises by armed men, the Court concluded that it did not need address the question of whether the state law violated the Second Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894). In this case, the Court confirmed that it had never addressed the issue of the Second Amendment applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This case remains the last word on this subject by the Court until now.
Miller challenged a Texas statute on the bearing of pistols as violative of the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. But he asserted these arguments for the first time after his conviction had been affirmed by a state appellate court. Reiterating Cruikshank and Presser, the Supreme Court first found that the Second and Fourth Amendments, of themselves, did not limit state action. The Court then turned to the claim that the Texas statute violated the rights to bear arms and against warrantless searches as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. But because the Court would not hear objections not made in a timely fashion, the Court refused to consider Miller's contentions. Thus, rather than reject incorporation of the Second and Fourth Amendments in the Fourteenth, the Supreme Court merely refused to decide the defendant's claim because its powers of adjudication were limited to the review of errors timely assigned in the trial court. The Court left open the possibility that the right to keep and bear arms and freedom from warrantless searches would apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.
The Supreme Court leaving no doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right for all citizens and legal residents to own firearms for legal purposes, in 2009 and 2010 moved on to decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. A case of paramount importance to American citizens, especially gun-owners, to see if that their constitutional rights are respected not only by the Congress, but by state and local governments.
In 2008, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, as that case concerned the actions of the District of Columbia government, a federal entity, the high court was not called upon to decide whether the right bound states and local governments. Over the years, almost the entire Bill of Rights has been held to apply to state and local governments by incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, at issue is a 27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the annual taxation of firearms, and otherwise interfering with the right of law-abiding individuals to keep guns at home for self-defense. The case was brought on behalf of four Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association.
"The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are secured to us against violation by all levels of government," noted Alan Gura, of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, lead counsel for the McDonald plaintiffs. "State and local politicians should be on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town."
Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident since 1952 who led the fight to integrate his union local in the 1960s and is a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the news.
"I am grateful the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case," McDonald said. "I now pray that the Court secures me and all other law-abiding citizens the right to defend ourselves and our families."
Chicago attorney David Sigale commented, "The City of Chicago cannot take from millions of Americans the fundamental freedom of self-defense in one's own home. We are confident the Court will stand on the side of the law-abiding citizens and the Bill of Rights."
"We're pleased to hear that the Supreme Court has decided to take a look at Chicago's gun laws," added ISRA President Don Moran. "In this time of economic uncertainty and increasing lawlessness, the good people of Chicago ought not have to choose between violating Chicago's gun ban, and protecting themselves and their loved ones."
The Chicago gun ban challenge was among the most closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At stake were not just the question of whether the Second Amendment secured the right to arms against state and local governments, but also the extent to which the Supreme Court preserved individual liberty against encroachment by state and local governments.
The opening brief to the Supreme Court was filed November 16, 2009. The brief advocated breathing new life into the moribund Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. Specifically, an originalist reading of the 14th Amendment dictates that the right to keep and bear arms is a "privilege" and "immunity" that a state must not abridge.
Barrack Obama made public his clear anti-gun agenda in March 2004 in Chicago. Obama voted against Illinois Senate Bill 2165 allowing citizens the right to protect themselves and instead worked for local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20 without Obama's vote...
Opponents to Obama's apparent Anti-Gun Agenda before and after Obama's Inauguration as the 44th President have expressed the immediate urgency to stop Obama's apparent Anti-Gun Agenda ASAP before he can appoint any additional anti-gun judges to the Bench.
Of course, one so-called anti-gun Supreme Court Justice that Obama had appointed to the bench was Sonia Sotomayor; and her decision and dissent Opinion made in regard to McDonald v. City of Chicago was well publicized in the American media.
The long-awaited challenge to Chicago's handgun ban was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2, 2010 and a decision announced in June of that year. Given the philosophical division of the Court at that time, no one on both sides of the issue were surprised that the justices would rule that the Second Amendment was incorporated through the 14th Amendment as a barrier to local gun bans.
Even those of the Anti-Gun Agenda realized the consequences of the notion that the Amendment is incorporated, but hoped the justices would leave enough wiggle room in their ruling to allow most, if not all, existing gun control laws to stand. For those of the Anti-Gun Agenda their salvation would be if Obama would be able to appoint enough Anti-Gun Justices to the Supreme Court and throughout the Federal Court System that the issue could be revisited with a different result
That attitude left many hard-core gun rights advocates once again demanding, "What part of shall-not-be infringed don't you understand?"
In response to the Supreme Court Decision on McDonald vs. City of Chicago, Obama said: "I'm not going to take your guns away" and "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear... I think people can take ne at my word."
Obama sent his Attorney General, Eric Holder to the Senate to detail his support for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the government to
ban firearm possession for any person by merely adding that person's name to the terror watch list.
Attorney General Holder aggressively detailed the Obama anti-gun agenda in his public statements before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
• Holder wanted national, permanent gun registration system.
• Holder wanted new federal authority to prohibit any person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns from those on the list that possess them.
As it evolved, law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear unless they own sport-utility rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, handguns and any other firearm that Obama and his anti-gun attorney general don't like.
And now to the International front on the U.S 2nd Amendment Issue ...
..“…world leaders must accept the fact that we cannot let the free market rule the international arms trade”..... so says Oscar Arias, .President of Costa Rica and. Nobel Peace Prize laureate
The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs proclaims:
Undeniably, too many arms still end up in the wrong hands. Shipments appear in countries with dismal human rights records or where they exacerbate conflict or facilitate repression. These may be direct deliveries which might be considered irresponsible.
The misuse of arms could also be the result of activities of illicit arms brokers and traders who conclude their deals by exploiting legal loopholes, evading customs and airport controls and falsifying documents . Such illicit activities have violated every United Nations arms embargo, with small arms and ammunition as the main items transferred.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has identified as a “recurring problem” the absence of a normative framework for all states to guide decisions regarding arms transfers. He underlined that regional examples of such agreed standards have proven useful in preventing the transfer of arms to areas of conflict or repressive governments.
In 2006, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to establish a group of governmental experts to look into “the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms”.
The report of that group, concluded in 2008, has prompted the General Assembly to start discussions focused on a possible arms trade treaty, open to all Member States. Two one-week meetings per year were held from 2009 to 2011.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced late in 2009 that the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” many 2nd Amendment advocates had convinced themselves that the UN Small Arms Treaty was nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme... To them,
there is no question that The 2nd Amendment of the U.S Constitution remains under attack concerning individual gun rights ... To them , the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by ordinary private citizens like YOU or me ... Admittedly, when Secretary of State Clinton spoke, the so-called gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new proposal under wraps. The same exact strategy that proponents of Nation Health Care Reform had utilized
But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” one could get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.
If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.
As believed by these people, rightly or wrongly, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees ever since its founding almost 65 years ago.
To the so-called petty dictators and one-worlders who control the UN, the U.S. isn’t a “shining city on a hill” -- it’s an affront to their grand totalitarian designs for the globe.
These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remained free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide oppressive power they crave.
And the UN’s apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip people of their freedoms would be to DESTROY their gun rights.
The truth is, to both sides there’s no time to waste... The fact is, the last thing the gun-grabbers in the U.N. and in Washington, D.C. wanted was for the people to have enough time to react and digest what was happening so as to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical legislation.
The so-called gun grabbers had made that mistake before, and the people made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the “Treaty on Small Arms” into law since the mid-1990s.
But in 2009, spokesman for those who believed in 2nd Amendment rights feared that the task to defeat these measures would be tougher, due the set of political circumstances that there no longer existed a pro-gun Republican Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.... There was no longer any Republican in the White House who had stated opposition to the treaty.... And everyone seemed to know how Germany, Great Britain, France, Communist China or the rest of the anti-gun members of the United Nations were going to vote.
So for these people, the only option for stopping the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” was during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate when 67 votes rather than a super majority or a simple majority of one-half plus one of those voted was required for ratifying a proposed Treaty
But, Dudley Brown, Executive Director, National Association for Gun Rights explained in a fund raising letter that while Republicans comprised 40 members in the 111th Congress -2010 Session of the Senate , enough to defeat any proposed Treaty ... The Republicans had to stand together with all 40 members or at the least 34 members to guarantee the defeat of one and all Small Arms Treaties. But on this issue not all the remaining Republicans in the Senate were considered “pro-gun” in any sense of the term.
They looked at ratifying treaties much like approving the Presidents’ Supreme Court nominees. And if one recalled, there were NINE Republicans who voted to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor; and, a dozen more GOP Senators only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots pressure from the folks back home.
And the Democratic leaders of Congress still can't understand why the Tea Baggers are so critical of where this neo-progressive government has been taking us ... And Great Scott ... The confident Obama team so brilliant in 2008 had a sinking feeling in late 2009 and 2010 ... Like the 2000 Yankees who needed only 1 strike and 1 out to move to the World Series over the Boston Red Sox .... The Obama team only needed reconciliation between the House and Senate on Health Care Overhaul to send the package to the White House for the President's John Hancock --- Mission complete as George W. Bush would say. But the Yankees let the Divisional Series slip away from them ... And Whereas, the 2009 Republican Gubertorial Victories in Virginia and New Jersey were wrote off as local phenomenon's, a 2010 Special Election reversal in Massachusetts, could not be ignored.
Consider Massachusetts. before January 19, 2010, no Republican Senate candidate in Massachusetts had won since 1972. The seat that was contested that evening had been held by Ted Kennedy for almost 50 years and the Kennedy family was on the campaign trail against the Republican candidate. All 10 congressional districts in Massachusetts were held by Democrats. In 2008, the congressional Democrat in Massachusetts with the lowest winning percentage was Barney Frank - and he won with 68%! Just 12% of voters in Massachusetts are said to be registered as Republicans.
Who is that 50 year old truck-driving everyman in the pick-up truck that did the impossible? Of course, we are not certain what the make and color of his pick-up truck was, but let us assume it was the color "Brown." Who was that triathlete, that political surprise from Wrentham, Massachusetts? .... The Brown Shirt he was wearing had the number 41 on it in blue.
But, Scott Brown did not win because voters suddenly loved the Republican Party. He won not with a message of "Send more Republicans to Congress." Instead, his most salient message was "send me to Washington to be the 41st vote against the health care takeover." Apparently, it worked well in a state that already has a public health insurance plan.
Consequently, the Obama team in 2010 let their filibuster proof Senate slip away from them in Massachusetts... The victory of this so-called political lightweight complicated plans for the Obama team to finish the job in 2010 and election defeats in November 2010 would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the Obama team to pass Obama's health care overhaul bill in Congress during the remainder of his current term in office if nothing was able to be achieved in 2010
Oh, the democratic brain trust would get together to come up with some innovative legislative approaches to deal with the last need pieces to make their effort to pass health care reform reality. And how would they deal with Democratic politicians more concerned about their political survival than taking one for the Barack-man once they knew exactly what the new mercurial political reality was. And this new political reality, this earthquake of political opinion so to speak, struck in the same week a massive earthquake in Port-au-Prince, Haiti compelled the beleaguered Obama team to dispatch military units to the stricken nation to maintain Civil Control or Security and to give aid to the victims and restore some measure of economic activity in that impoverished land. For the U.S. Military, already engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, it now had a new responsibility in Haiti .. A more peaceful responsibility , nevertheless, but one under certain circumstances could deteriorate into violence. It would be interesting to learn whether any of the troops ultimately dispatched to Haiti were actually destined to be part of the Afghanistan Surge announced by the President late in 2009. How many of these troops ultimate destinies will be changed because they went to Haiti rather than Afghanistan or Iraq at this time. In a different era, a soldier who hailed from Pennsylvania but stationed in Colorado had orders to go to Vietnam, but these orders were changed because riots had broken out in such American cities as Detroit and Chicago in the late Sixties, and his military unit was re-assigned to restore civil peace in these cities. This re-assignment made a difference for this soldier, after that he never received orders to go to Vietnam.
The Obamacrats knew this as well as a result of political polls that indicated that political trouble was brewing in Massachusetts. Consequently, Barrack Obama felt compelled to jump into Air Force I jet for an emergency campaign junket to Massachusetts to stop the new shot around the world from being fired .... But interestingly, when President Obama campaigned with Martha Coakley, neither of them said one word about health care -- the issue on which the President has staked everything. They knew that even in Massachusetts -- the liberal bastion of the nation -- their health care takeover had been rejected by a majority of the people.
In Massachusetts, Health Care Overhaul had fallen off the wall and splintered into many pieces and all the King's men could not put it together again. Oh that man in the pick-up truck who had the audacity to compare himself to Edward Kennedy's revered brother, the late President John F. Kennedy ... That man, Scott Brown, also muddied the water for Health Care Overhaul in Washington, D.C.
However, in Washington D.C. this health care battle did not end immediately. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid were at work with plans to jam the health care takeover through before Senator-elect Brown could be seated. One plan considered was to have the House pass the Senate's Health Care Overhaul bill in short order so the President could quickly sign it into law before his scheduled first State of Union address before a Joint Session of Congress. Then introduce new legislation later or at the same time to make revisions to the health care overhaul plan that would be more agreeable to House members and would have Senate support. It being important to advocates of health care overhaul that the infrastructure for health care overhaul be set in place at that time so it couldn't be easily reversed later on by another Congress.
President Obama showing some Common Sense warned Democrats in Congress not to "jam" a health care reform bill through, this being the consequence of the fact that they've lost their commanding majority in the Senate, and said they must wait for newly elected Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown to be sworn into office.
At the same time the President also gave his take on what happened in Massachusetts. He said the same voter anger that swept him into office in 2008 carried Brown into office on a stunning upset victory over heavily favored Democrat Martha Coakley.
In the Presidents words said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' 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...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...Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table: The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated ...(The) People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process. ...I think point number two is that it is very important to look at the substance of this package and for the American people to understand that a lot of the fear mongering around this bill isn't true,"
Conservative radio host, Rush Limbaugh in responding to Obama's anger statement said: "What! ... Massachusetts anger against George Bush has resulted in the election of a Republican. Does that make sense!"
Despite Massachusetts, President Barack Obama and top congressional Democrats continued to push ahead with efforts to overhaul health care. What once was considered a certainty, a movement on the fast track, became bogged down in quick changing political reality so much that it became a uphill fight. The president acknowledging that the effort ran into a "bit of a buzz saw" of opposition.
At a town hall meeting in Elyria, Ohio on January 22, 2010, Obama said on Health Care: "There are things that have to get done. This is our best chance to do it. We can't keep on putting this off," His intent was to warn listeners that spiraling medical costs threaten to bankrupt them and the country unless Congress acts. The motto of Obama's social program --- Never waste an existing real or perceived emergency to advance one's cause and also, if there is no emergency create or suggest one.
In 2010, so early in his Presidential term, Obama had used immense political capital to advance the health care overhaul and remake a system that has frustrated past administrations, most recently Democrat Bill Clinton in 1994. In 2012, the debate is still open whether he can succeed where others have failed is now anything but clear, the beat still goes on.
What does it mean for Obama? Is he weakened? Will he survive this? Is this just a bump in the road? Obama said at time: "But I want you to understand, this is not about me. This is about you."...
The question is, what does the so called "you" want? If this was the game of gulf, and Obama was putting on the green, would he judge correctly the path his ball must go to get into the hole, or would he misread it.
What message or warning should Obama and his democratic party get from their Massachusetts misadventure?
House Republican leader John Boehner warned that the Massachusetts election sent a very loud warning to Democrats.
"My home state of Ohio has endured nine straight months of double-digit unemployment ... And for the better part of those nine months, Democrats in Washington have been focused on this government takeover of health care that working families just can't afford and want nothing to do with..
So what has been happening with you .. According to Boehner "a political rebellion" has been brewing for month's because of opposition to greater government control over the economy and people's lives. That rebellion propelled Republican Scott Brown to victory in the Massachusetts special election.
Political pundits after the 2008 political debacle for the Republican party said that the Grand old Party was going to be in the minority in both houses of Congress for a long time. That it would be possible that the Democratic Majority would remain solidly in control for decades .... If the late 2009-2010 "political rebellion" dissipates that could still happen ... and that would mean events would occur that will be detailed later in this report ... On the other hand, if the political rebellion does not dissipate and it in fact expands, it could spell trouble for the Democratic Party and Obama. And who is to say whether this political anger will also in the end be directed towards the Republican Party as well. Which means that both established political parties would diminish in political power and a new force would arise to successfully challenge them for power.
All we can say now is, lucky that Obama constitutionally as President has a set term of office because if he had the status of a prime minister then things would be more interesting than they are now. The fact is, a Prime Minister who loses the faith of his Party may either step down to allow another party member to govern or call a new election ahead of the scheduled timetable ... Then too, a Prime Minister who perceives that the public has turned against him might be forced to call a new election ahead of the required election timetable ... But equally so, when a Prime Minister perceives that the popularity of his party has risen, they may be tempted to hold a sudden election to capitalize on this popularity ...
The fact is, at the start of his Presidency, Barrack Obama had a lot of good will among the American people ... For many months in his first year this high level of good will remained high... But as winter moved into spring and spring moved into summer and summer moved into fall and fall moved once again into winter and the new year, Obama's personal popularity took a plummet. One wonders how an individual so short in his term can become so out of touch with the American people so soon...He campaigned on the theme Hope and Change and his motto was Yes we can.... But more and more Americans no longer have hope and see no change in how Washington does business. And by their political rebellion are telling the President, no you can't ... We ask, is this so or are we seeing a mirage? But we note -- even if it is not a political mirage, it is also possible for the President to make a remarkable political recovery . The title of this report is Road to 2012 - Venturing into the unknown future --- A future that may or may not come. If Obama indeed makes a political recovery then the so-called fictional happening as detailed later in this report may happen. However, if the President continues to disappoint many and many of his supporters abandon him, the Road to 2012 will follow a different highway. And Secretary of State Hilary Clinton might be a key figure to watch. And see what the President's reaction would be to any challenge by Mrs. Clinton.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the independent regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing the federal campaign finance law. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency.
Federal campaign finance law covers three broad subjects:
· Public disclosure of funds raised and spent to influence federal elections;
· Restrictions on contributions and expenditures made to influence federal elections; and
· The public financing of Presidential campaigns.
Historical Background
As early as 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In response, Congress enacted several statutes between 1907 and 1966 which, taken together, sought to:
· Limit the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups on the outcome of federal elections;
· Regulate spending in campaigns for federal office; and
· Deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of campaign finances.
In 1971, Congress consolidated its earlier reform efforts in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), instituting more stringent disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties and political action committees (PACs). Still, without a central administrative authority, the campaign finance laws were difficult to enforce.
Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. The 1974 amendments also established an independent agency the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the law, facilitate disclosure and administer the public funding program. Congress made further amendments to the FECA in 1976 following a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo ; major amendments were also made in 1979 to streamline the disclosure process and expand the role of political parties.
Public funding of federal elections originally proposed by President Roosevelt in 1907 began to take shape in 1971 when Congress set up the income tax checkoff to provide for the financing of Presidential general election campaigns and national party conventions. Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code in 1974 established the matching fund program for Presidential primary campaigns.
The FEC opened its doors in 1975 and administered the first publicly funded Presidential election in 1976.
The Campaign Finance Law
The Federal Election Campaign Act
The basic provisions of the FECA are described below.
Disclosure
The FECA requires candidate committees, party committees and PACs to file periodic reports disclosing the money they raise and spend. Candidates must identify, for example, all PACs and party committees that give them contributions, and they must identify individuals who give them more than $200 in a year. Additionally, they must disclose expenditures exceeding $200 per year to any individual or vendor.
Contribution Limits
The FECA places limits on contributions by individuals and groups to candidates, party committees and PACs. The chart below shows how the limits apply to the various participants in federal elections.
[pic]
[pic]
Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures
The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections:
· Corporations;
· Labor organizations;
· Federal government contractors; and
· Foreign nationals.
Furthermore, with respect to federal elections:
· No one may make a contribution in another person's name.
· No one may make a contribution in cash of more than $100.
In addition to the above prohibitions on contributions and expenditures in federal election campaigns, the FECA also prohibits foreign nationals, national banks and other federally chartered corporations from making contributions or expenditures in connection with state and local elections.
Independent Expenditures
Under federal election law, an individual or group (such as a PAC) may make unlimited "independent expenditures" in connection with federal elections.
An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and which is made independently from the candidate's campaign. To be considered independent, the communication may not be made with the cooperation or consent of the candidate or his or her campaign; nor may it be made upon a request or suggestion of either the candidate or the campaign. While there is no limit on how much anyone may spend on an independent expenditure, the law does require persons making independent expenditures to report them and to disclose the sources of the funds they used. The public can review these reports at the FEC's Public Records Office.
Corporate and Union Activity
Although corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections, they may establish PACs. Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals and use those funds to support federal candidates and political committees.
Apart from supporting PACs, corporations and labor organizations may conduct other activities related to federal elections, within certain guidelines. For more information, call the FEC or consult 11 CFR Part 114.
Political Party Activity
Political parties are active in federal elections at the local, state and national levels. Most party committees organized at the state and national levels as well as some committees organized at the local level are required to register with the FEC and file reports disclosing their federal campaign activities.
Party committees may contribute funds directly to federal candidates, subject to the contribution limits. National and state party committees may make additional "coordinated expenditures," subject to limits, to help their nominees in general elections. Finally, state and local party committees may spend unlimited amounts on certain grassroots activities specified in the law without affecting their other contribution and expenditure limits (for example, voter drives by volunteers in support of the party's Presidential nominees and the production of campaign materials for volunteer distribution).
Party committees must register and file disclosure reports with the FEC once their federal election activities exceed certain dollar thresholds specified in the law.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act
Under the Internal Revenue Code, qualified Presidential candidates receive money from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which is an account on the books of the U.S. Treasury.
The Fund is financed exclusively by a voluntary tax checkoff. By checking a box on their income tax returns, individual taxpayers may direct $3 of their tax to the Fund (up to $6 for joint filers). Checking the box does not increase the amount a taxpayer owes or reduce his or her refund; it merely directs that three dollars from the U.S. Treasury be used in Presidential elections. Checkoff funds may not be spent for other federal programs.
The funds are distributed under three programs:
Primary Matching Payments
Eligible candidates in the Presidential primaries may receive public funds to match the private contributions they raise. While a candidate may raise money from many different sources, only contributions from individuals are matchable; contributions from PACs and party committees are not. Furthermore, while an individual may give up to $1,000 to a primary candidate, only the first $250 of that contribution is matchable.
To participate in the matching fund program, a candidate must demonstrate broad-based support by raising more than $5,000 in matchable contributions in each of 20 different states. Candidates must agree to use public funds only for campaign expenses, and they must comply with spending limits. Beginning with a $10 million base figure, the overall primary spending limit is adjusted each Presidential election year to reflect inflation. In 1996, the limit was $30.91 million.
General Election Grants
The Republican and Democratic candidates who win their parties' nominations for President are each eligible to receive a grant to cover all the expenses of their general election campaigns. The basic $20 million grant is adjusted for inflation each Presidential election year. In 1996, the grant was $61.82 million.
Nominees who accept the funds must agree not to raise private contributions (from individuals, PACs or party committees) and to limit their campaign expenditures to the amount of public funds they receive. They may use the funds only for campaign expenses.
A third party Presidential candidate may qualify for some public funds after the general election if he or she receives at least five percent of the popular vote.
Party Convention Grants
Each major political party may receive public funds to pay for its national Presidential nominating convention. The statute sets the base amount of the grant at $4 million for each party, and that amount is adjusted for inflation each Presidential election year. In 1996, the major parties each received $12.36 million.
Other parties may also be eligible for partial public financing of their nominating conventions, provided that their nominees received at least five percent of the vote in the previous Presidential election.
On March 27, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA),Law No. 107-155. . (AKA 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law)... During ensuing years (2002 -2009) provisions of this act dictated what practices were permitted or not permitted for Presidential, Congressional or Senatorial campaigns conducted in those years.
At a hearing held Wednesday September on 'Hillary: The Movie,' conservative justices repeatedly asked whether limits on corporate contributions in federal elections are too broad and amounted to censorship of free speech... At issue was whether the court should strike down two legal precedents that bar corporations from spending their general treasury funds on political speech during campaign season... We don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats," Chief Justice John Roberts said at one point, referring to staff members of the Federal Election Commission which enforces the campaign finance laws. Three justices, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, are on record opposing the two provisions. And after oral arguments it appeared that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were prepared to vote with their colleagues on the court's conservative wing,,, At the same time, the court's liberal wing remained united in the view that the corporate restrictions were justified by Congressional concern about the corruptive and distorting influence of corporate dollars in federal campaigns. Some also suggested that it was unfair for corporations to use shareholder money to pursue political goals... Then too, the court's liberal wing remained united in the view that the corporate restrictions were justified by Congressional concern about the corruptive and distorting influence of corporate dollars in federal campaigns. Some also suggested that it was unfair for corporations to use shareholder money to pursue political goals...Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and the court's newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, repeatedly stressed that the court should identify narrower grounds to decide the case rather than overturning established legal precedents...But the conservatives – including Roberts and Alito – seemed determined to correct what they view as an error of constitutional import.
The 'Hillary' documentary
The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, involves a decision by the FEC to block video-on-demand broadcasts of a 90-minute documentary attacking the potential presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton...The film, "Hillary: The Movie," was produced by a conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United. The group complained that the FEC action was an unconstitutional form of government censorship of political speech...The government responded that the documentary was similar to a pre-election broadcast attack advertisement and thus could be regulated by the government under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).. Citizens United filed suit, arguing before a three-judge panel that the McCain-Feingold law was unconstitutional in the way it was being enforced by the FEC against “Hillary: The Movie.”... The panel disagreed. It ruled that the documentary was the functional equivalent of electioneering and that Citizens United must disclose the documentary’s financial supporters if it wanted to run broadcast ads during election season.
.The high court is considering whether to overturn the section of BCRA that deals with corporate spending before and during elections. In addition, the court is considering overturning a 1990 decision in a case called Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The 1990 case established the legal foundation for the corporate restrictions later adopted in BCRA.
'Corporate electioneering'?
In a joint statement, Sens. John McCain (R) of Arizona and Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin, the two cosponsors of BCRA, warned that overturning the corporate restrictions in the law would be a "drastic step."..."At stake in this case are the voices of millions and millions of Americans that could be drowned out by large corporations if the decades-old restrictions on corporate electioneering are called into question," the senators said.
"During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts, whom we both voted for, promised to respect precedent," Senators McCain and Feingold said. "If he casts the deciding vote to overrule [the two legal precedents] it would completely contradict that promise, and could have serious consequences for our democracy."
Others according to a report of the Christian Science Monitor of September 10, 2010 were pleased with the apparent direction of the court.
"Based on today's argument, free speech advocates can be optimistic for a broad vindication of First Amendment rights," said Steve Simpson, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice. "Several justices recognized that a piecemeal approach to free speech is insufficient to protect vital constitutional rights.",,, Mr. Simpson added, "Corporate speech bans are nothing more than government censorship of selected speakers. The simple fact is it takes money, including corporate money, to speak up and be heard. Under the First Amendment, the government has no business deciding which speakers gain admittance to the marketplace of ideas."
Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, holds a different view.
"Since the dawn of the Republic, the court has recognized that corporations are artificial entities that enjoy unique advantages and must therefore be subject to greater government oversight," Mr. Kendall said. "If the court turns back on this constitutional text and history, it will blatantly disregard the will of the people and unleash corporate influence on elections."
On January 21, 2010, The US Supreme Court struck down a major portion of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law, saying it violated the free-speech right of corporations to engage in public debate of political issues... In a landmark 5-to-4 decision announced Thursday, the high court overturned a 1990 legal precedent and reversed a position it took in 2003, when a different lineup of justices upheld government restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations during elections.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 57-page majority opinion: "Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."
Warren Richey in his report in the Christian Science Monitor of January 21, 2010 suggests: "The decision opens the gates for what campaign reform advocates warn will be a flood of corporate spending in future elections. The ruling is expected to permit similar political expenditures from the general treasuries of labor unions, as well."
As expected, there was vocal displeasure with the decision ... Fred Worthheimer, president of Democracy 21 said: “This is the most radical and destructive campaign-finance decision in the history of the Supreme Court.” ... Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause added: “Today’s decision is the Super Bowl of really bad decisions. It returns us to the days of the robber barons,”
Patrik Jonsson Patrik Jonsson wrote in the Christian Science Monitor of Sat Jan 23 :
"In unusually testy language, Mr. Obama vented his frustration at the end of a tough week for liberals that saw the election of a Republican in dark-blue Massachusetts, the potential demise of broad-based healthcare reform, and the crash of the liberal radio network Air America. But the Supreme Court’s ruling, which lifted some limits on corporate and union campaign spending, represents perhaps the gravest threat of all to Americans since it could mean the end of “common sense legislation” regarding healthcare or the environment, Obama said. Republicans, meanwhile, hailed the ruling as a tribute to free speech, which GOP chairman Michael Steele said “strengthens democracy.”
From the White House, President Obama also called the ruling a “major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
At issue was a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold law. Section 203 of the law barred corporations and labor unions from using general treasury funds to pay for advertisements or other broadcasts that mention a political candidate in a way that Federal Election Commission officials might view as electioneering. The ban applied 30 days before any primary and 60 days before a general election.
Campaign-reform advocates said the provision was necessary to prevent a proliferation of noncandidate advertisements (paid for by wealthy corporations and unions) from crowding out the candidates’ own campaign ads.
Critics of the regulation said it amounted to unconstitutional censorship. They argued that corporations should enjoy a First Amendment right to spend money and advocate political and policy positions during election seasons just as individuals can.
And as it came down, the Supreme Court agreed with the critics. “Rapid changes in technology – and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression – counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make … categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.”
In a 90-page dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens denounced the majority opinion as a dangerous rejection of common sense. “While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics,” he wrote.
“The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation,” he said.
The high court decision leaves intact campaign contribution regulations – including laws barring campaign contributions to federal candidates from corporations and unions. It also leaves intact laws barring so-called soft-money contributions to political parties.
In a second portion of its decision, the Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 to uphold a portion of BCRA requiring corporations and others to disclose their involvement in political advertisements. Those disclosures include identifying who is responsible for the content of an advertisement and who contributed money to support the making of the advertisement... The lone dissent in that portion of the decision came from Justice Clarence Thomas.
In the main portion of the decision, Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito.
Justice Stevens’ dissent was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor.
In reaching its decision, the court invalidated a 1990 Supreme Court ruling, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which first established the legal approach adopted in Section 203 of BCRA. The Austin decision justified restrictions on corporate expenditures to prevent wealthy special interests from distorting the campaign playing field and dominating the marketplace of ideas.
The majority justices said the government restrictions interfered with the open marketplace of ideas rather than protected it. “By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and non-profit, the government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public,” Kennedy wrote.
When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful,” Kennedy wrote. “The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves
In its ruling on Thursday, January 21, 2010 the high court upheld the lower court’s ruling on the disclosure issue but reversed on the constitutional challenge.
On a grace centered Christian Forum a person identified as Stucky made comment December 23, 2009 in regard to an Obama Administration action that he regarded as Obama's first wag the dog operation. He said that On Thursday, December 17 2009 when President Barack Obama’s most important policy agenda of his administration appeared to be in jeopardy, a delay in Health Care Reform passing in the Senate, the U.S helped execute an attack on an “alleged” Al-Qaida camp in Yemen that reportedly caused the death of civilians, women, and children.
This was before Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab's failed attempt to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day in which Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility... The claim of responsibility suggested the al-Qaida leader wanted to appear in direct command of the terrorist group's many affiliates around the world at time when some analysts have suggested he was mostly a figurehead.
Bin Laden asserted: "The message delivered to you through the plane of the heroic warrior Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a confirmation of the previous messages sent by the heroes of the Sept. 11...America will never dream of security unless we will have it in reality in Palestine.God willing, our raids on you will continue as long as your support for the Israelis continues."
On Christmas Day, Nigerian Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up his Northwest Airlines flight as it approached Detroit Metro Airport. But the explosive powder he was hiding in his underwear failed to detonate.
He told federal agents shortly afterward that he had been trained and given the explosives by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, an al-Qaida affiliate in Yemen.
Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula originally claimed responsibility for the failed plot. But bin Laden suggested he was the one who ordered attacks, rather than just put his seal of approval on events afterward.
In conducting its own attack in Yemen, the United Stated used unmanned Predator Drone weaponry similar to that it used in operations in Pakistan. An operation that had prompted some concern from the Pakistani government because of observable collateral damage to civilians' that was produced from these attacks. Which prompted another voicer to question whether this was an example of American terrorism?
Surprisingly, Stucky who initially raised the question of a Clinton like Wag the Dog operation defended the American attack when he said: "Civilian casualties are an unfortunate aspect of war. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour they attack a well identifiable humongous military base on the edge of the ocean. Moslem terrorists live and fight among civilians. All their weapon stockpiles are kept in houses right next to civilian housing. This war against cowardly Islamic terrorists is unlike any other war we've ever fought. The other countries learned from the communists of the Viet Nam war that posed as citizens to kill our troops in cities and in the small villages. Now the terrorists do it on a grander scale than Viet Nam.
War is terrible but the Muslims yell and scream that the American infidels are indiscriminately killing civilians when our military does their best to avoid civilian casualties. The Muslims kill thousands of innocent civilians on both sides. Where is your outrage at that?
As an aftermath of the attempted attack, Yemeni security forces stormed an al-Qaida hide-out in a principle militant stronghold in the country's west, setting off clashes, officials said, as a security chief vowed to fight the group's powerful local branch until it was eliminated. A government statement said at least one suspected al-Qaida member was arrested during the fighting in Hudaydah province. The province, along Yemen's Red Sea coast, was home to most of the assailants in a bombing and shooting attack outside the U.S. Embassy in 2008 that killed 10 Yemeni guards and four civilians.
The group's growing presence in Yemen, an impoverished and lawless country on the edge of the Arabian Peninsula, had drawn attention with the attempted attack on a U.S. airliner. U.S. investigators said the Nigerian suspect in the attack had told them that he received training and instructions from al-Qaida operatives in Yemen.
Could this potential disaster in the air been averted?
The U.S. government claimed it had sufficient information to disrupt an al Qaeda plot to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day, but failed to identify Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab as a potential bomber, a White House review of the incident showed...In the end, the six-page report found, it was the inability of the intelligence community to "connect the dots" in putting all the pieces of information and analysis together.
But from our standpoint, a few years in the future --- Was there any connection between the alleged Yemeni attack against Al-Qaeda of December 17, 2009 and the attempted bombing December 25, 2009...
Interestingly, in regard the unmanned drones, Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.
Senior defense and intelligence officials confirmed that Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes' systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as SkyGrabber -- available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet -- to regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar with reports on the matter.
U.S. officials maintained at the time there was no evidence that militants were able to take control of the drones or otherwise interfere with their flights. Still, the intercepts might have gave America's enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under U.S. surveillance.
The drone intercepts marked the emergence of a shadow cyber war within the U.S.-led conflicts overseas. They also pointed to a potentially serious vulnerability in Washington's growing network of unmanned drones, which have become the American weapon of choice in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Obama administration had come to rely heavily on the unmanned drones because they allow the U.S. to safely monitor and stalk insurgent targets in areas where sending American troops would be either politically untenable or too risky.
The stolen video feeds also indicated that U.S. adversaries continue to find simple ways of counteracting sophisticated American military technologies....And this was the message that Kim Dunniger of CBS News and James Logan staff reporter of Chicago Tribune at a September 2009 Society of Professional Journalist Conference in Indianapolis, Indiana confirmed focusing on a troop carrier used in Iraq that could deflect the state of art road bombs used by enemy combatants thus saving American lives... However such technology used in Afghanistan is not as effective due to terrain and the use of heavier ID road bombs ... These heavy weight vehicles are not as effective in hillier roads where road bombs while not destroying them may turn them over ... And the situation is that the enemy is constantly working to develop bigger bombs to counteract this technology and also developing little land mines to freeze American units when one of their members loses a limb by a small pressurized land mine devise.
As events went down, The U.S. Justice Department announced January 7, 2010 that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian national, would be charged with a six-count criminal indictment returned in the Eastern District of Michigan for his role in the attempted Christmas day bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253 from Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to Detroit...
Some debate the legal status of Abulmutallab -- Whether he should be treated as an illegal enemy combatant and be tried in military court or be given all the rights and privileges of the accused in the American Court System. Is there a difference? Yes! ...
If Abulmutallab was held in military court, U.S. intelligence could question the suspect without a lawyer present as long as it took to get valuable information from him concerning future plans of terrorist groups to attack the American homeland or its interests ... However, should he be held in either the Federal or State Civilian Court System, the rules of evidence were different . In the Civilian court system, Abulmutallab had to be advised of his right to remain silent and have an attorney represent him on all legal issues he confronted; and what-is-more, if he could not afford an attorney the State or Government would have to provide him one... Unfortunately, to those who wanted to obtain all the information they could from Abulmutallab, the use of the ladder option would cause the needless loss of a lot of potential intelligence due to the fact that the suspect could remain silent on the advice of his attorney to all questioning.
According to the indictment, Northwest Airlines flight 253 carried 279 passengers and 11 crewmembers. Abdulmutallab boarded Northwest Airlines flight 253 in Amsterdam on Dec. 25, 2009 carrying a concealed bomb. The bomb components included Pentaerythritol (also known as PETN, a high explosive), as well as Triacetone Triperoxide (also known as TATP, a high explosive), and other ingredients.
The bomb was concealed in the defendant’s clothing and was designed to allow him to detonate it at a time of his choosing, thereby causing an explosion aboard flight 253,. Shortly prior to landing at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Abdulmutallab detonated the bomb, causing a fire on board flight... Abdulmutallab was subdued and restrained by the passengers and flight crew after detonating the bomb. The airplane landed shortly thereafter, and he was taken into custody by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers. Abdulmutallab required medical treatment, and was transported to the University of Michigan Medical Center after the plane landed.
On other issues, behind the scene off and on tensions between Pakistan and India still remain a concern and the Bloc Quebecois still has ambitions to separate itself from Canada. But on a brighter side, Israel SUDDENLY made peace with Syria and Palestine without explanation from the Obama Administration, with the result that the Third Jewish Temple is presently being constructed on Mount Mariah also known as the Temple Mount. The press and the Obama Administration have no clue that something big and wonderful is about to happen there … The real push for peace began with the appearance of an unexplained Monolith on the Temple Mount not any push by the Obama Administration or the United Nations. Israel’s push into Gaza against Hamas occurred in the latter days of the Bush administration. In this crisis Obama was no more then a bystander. But In Iran, when there was a spark of hope that a new peaceful revolution would replace the Theocracy. But Obama fumbled the football, struck out and made a bogey. Only after pressure, his idea of punishing the government for unmercifully cracking down on protesters was to forbid Iran officials to attend the annual hot dog/hamburger and fire work picnics at U.S. embassies around the world. Iran still denies the Holocaust of Jews in Germany and Central Europe in the late 1930's and early 1940's ... As stated by Kenneth Cragg in Muhammad and the Christians - A Question of Response Chapter 2, p.25 :
".... Muhammad's purpose turned on a vigorous marriage of Medina's occasions with Mecca's ultimacy. ... Among the occasions were the building of prestige, the recruitment, or the confiscation, of resources, the enlistment , or if need be the intimidation of the tribes. Inevitably the conflict with Mecca meant suspicion, or accusation, of connivance or conspiracies with the parties. It is painful to sort out the truth in the welter of change and counter-change that embittered the combatants and bedeviled their neighbors. Even neutrality is suspect where strife intensifies. The Jews particularly were in the cross-fire of partisanship if only because the Prophet's earlier anticipations of their acceptance of him had been more evidently denied and because, in Medina, the separate autonomy of Islam was more totally affirmed."
So in Iran, the origin of their hatred toward the Jews also seems to center on the decision of many adherents of Judaism to reject the prophet Muhammad's new found faith in the early 7th century . Interestingly, President Obama in initially seeking the outward neutral course in regard the Iranian election, drew partisan barbs from the party or movement out of power in the U.S. and even raised eyebrows among partisans of his own party. And in Iran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mocked President Obama for challenging Tehran's brutal crackdown on protesters, calling him a poor imitation of former U.S. President George W. Bush. "Correct yourself," Ahmadinejad said in remarks aimed at Obama. "Show your repentance." But Obama declined to take the bait, blowing off Ahmadinejad's demand for an apology and saying it would not lend credence to the Iranian regime's campaign to blame foreign influences for its domestic situation.. Therefore, Iran like North Korea remain Rogue nations ... Rogue nations that remain steady on their course to develop nuclear weapons ...
Indeed, there are no perfect candidates. They, like all of us, are all flawed. But we must prayerfully examine the policies of the candidates, from those seeking the Oval Office to those seeking local offices, and go to the polls to support the men and women who best uphold the political and social values we hold dear.
The need is clear --- Let us fearlessly stand up for the unborn, the biblical family, strong national defense and unswerving support for Israel. .
And moreover, Americans must not allow the Soul of America to be abused, sold short or talked down. Our hearts should not be troubled by the Culture of Malaise which takes advantage of troubled times and seeks to make Americans submit to new rules they never would have tolerated in less troubled times.
In 1979, Democratic President Jimmy Carter said the following: “I know, of course, being President, that government actions and legislation can be very important. That’s why I’ve worked hard to put my campaign promises into law, and I have to admit, with just mixed success. But after listening to the American people, I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can’t fix what’s wrong with America. So, I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy.
I do not mean our political and civil liberties. They will endure. And I do not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might.
The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways.
It is a crisis of confidence.
It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.
The confidence that we have always had as a people is not simply some romantic dream or a proverb in a dusty book that we read just on the Fourth of July. It is the idea, which founded our nation and has guided our development as a people. Confidence in the future has supported everything else -- public institutions and private enterprise, our own families, and the very Constitution of the United States. Confidence has defined our course and has served as a link between generations. We’ve always believed in something called progress. We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own.
Our people are losing that faith, not only in government itself but in the ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate rulers and shapers of our democracy. As a people we know our past and we are proud of it. Our progress has been part of the living history of America, even the world. We always believed that we were part of a great movement of humanity itself called democracy, involved in the search for freedom; and that belief has always strengthened us in our purpose. But just as we are losing our confidence in the future, we are also beginning to close the door on our past.
The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.
In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives, which have no confidence or purpose.
The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past five years. Two-thirds of our people do not even vote. The productivity of American workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for the future has fallen below that of all other people in the Western world.
We were sure that ours was a nation of the ballot, not the bullet, until the murders of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. We were taught that our armies were always invincible and our causes were always just, only to suffer the agony of Vietnam. We respected the Presidency as a place of honor until the shock of Watergate.
We remember when the phrase “sound as a dollar” was an expression of absolute dependability, until ten years of inflation began to shrink our dollar and our savings. We believed that our nation’s resources were limitless until 1973 when we had to face a growing dependence on foreign oil.
These wounds are still very deep. They have never been healed.
Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have turned to the Federal Government and found it isolated from the mainstream of our nation’s life. Washington, D.C., has become an island. The gap between our citizens and our government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual.
What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests.
You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.
Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift. You don’t like it, and neither do I. What can we do?
First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We simply must have faith in each other, faith in our ability to govern ourselves, and faith in the future of this nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.
One of the visitors to Camp David last week put it this way: “We’ve got to stop crying and start sweating, stop talking and start walking, stop cursing and start praying. The strength we need will not come from the White House, but from every house in America.”
We know the strength of America. We are strong. We can regain our unity. We can regain our confidence. We are the heirs of generations who survived threats much more powerful and awesome than those that challenge us now. Our fathers and mothers were strong men and women who shaped a new society during the Great Depression, who fought world wars and who carved out a new charter of peace for the world.
We ourselves are the same Americans who just ten years ago put a man on the moon. We are the generation that dedicated our society to the pursuit of human rights and equality. And we are the generation that will win the war on the energy problem and in that process, rebuild the unity and confidence of America.
We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.
All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path -- the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem
… Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources -- America’s people, America’s values, and America’s confidence.
I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure nation.
In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not do it alone. Let your voice be heard. Whenever you have a chance, say something good about our country. With God’s help and for the sake of our nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit. Working together with our common faith we cannot fail.
But the Carter Administration did fail in winning the support of the American people, and in 1980 the American people joined hands with Ronald Reagan inorder to achieve the rebirth of the American spirit.
In 2009, in the midst of the promise of change Obama we went back to the future with his rhetoric and as Reagan would say there we went again.
As expressed by Obama in an economic speech of January 8, 2009: :”We start 2009 in the midst of a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime – a crisis that has only deepened over the last few weeks. Nearly two million jobs have now been lost, and on Friday we are likely to learn that we lost more jobs last year than at any time since World War II. Just in the past year, another 2.8 million Americans who want and need full-time work have had to settle for part-time jobs. Manufacturing has hit a twenty-eight year low. Many businesses cannot borrow or make payroll. Many families cannot pay their bills or their mortgage. Many workers are watching their life savings disappear. And many, many Americans are both anxious and uncertain of what the future will hold.
I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be if we don’t take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world.
In short, a bad situation could become dramatically worse.”
What we see here is the return of the culture of Malaise and lack of Confidence. For those who find political gain in troubled times and practice or relish in such rhetoric, happy days are here again.
Obama continues: “This crisis did not happen solely by some accident of history or normal turn of the business cycle, and we won’t get out of it by simply waiting for a better day to come, or relying on the worn-out dogmas of the past. We arrived at this point due to an era of profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate boardrooms to the halls of power in Washington, DC. For years, too many Wall Street executives made imprudent and dangerous decisions, seeking profits with too little regard for risk, too little regulatory scrutiny, and too little accountability. Banks made loans without concern for whether borrowers could repay them, and some borrowers took advantage of cheap credit to take on debt they couldn’t afford. Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or discipline, and too often focused on scoring political points instead of the problems they were sent here to solve. The result has been a devastating loss of trust and confidence in our economy, our financial markets, and our government.”
And of course, none of Obama’s good buddies in ACORN, Freddie Mack , Ginne Mae, and in Congress were responsible for what occurred. Believe that and I will sale you a bridge in Brooklyn. But if truth be known the Republican Party had dirty hands as well. Around the time of the Obama speech, Vice President Dick Cheney said that the Administration could not see the economic crisis coming. It should be questioned whether the facts were deliberately hidden from the Administration Or the Administration choice to see no evil, hear no evil or speak no evil. Ironically the Administration by providing the means to bail-out the financial institutions and the Auto industry did more for the advancement of Socialistic Change then their mean-spirited detractors could ever hope.
Obama continues: “Now, the very fact that this crisis is largely of our own making means that it is not beyond our ability to solve. Our problems are rooted in past mistakes, not our capacity for future greatness. It will take time, perhaps many years, but we can rebuild that lost trust and confidence. We can restore opportunity and prosperity. We should never forget that our workers are still more productive than any on Earth. Our universities are still the envy of the world. We are still home to the most brilliant minds, the most creative entrepreneurs, and the most advanced technology and innovation that history has ever known. And we are still the nation that has overcome great fears and improbable odds. If we act with the urgency and seriousness that this moment requires, I know that we can do it again.”
It’s a plan that represents not just new policy, but a whole new approach to meeting our most urgent challenges. For if we hope to end this crisis, we must end the culture of anything goes that helped create it – and this change must begin in Washington. It is time to trade old habits for a new spirit of responsibility. It is time to finally change the ways of Washington so that we can set a new and better course for America.”
Obama in seeking a new policy and approach to how we do business in America wanted to change the way Washington D.C did business as well. Whether Obama’s new plan could actually steer the nation’s economy away from foul weather or continually ride on the edge of foul weather remained to be seen. But one thing was absolutely clear, if the Obama Administration was successful in convincing the American public that economic crisis they faced at the beginning of their Administration was of a historical grand scale or immenseness, any gains or apparent gains made in the years between 2009 and 2012 would result in good public relations in the nation’s electronic and print media and therefore guarantee continued enthusiastic support among the public.
According to Obama: “There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short-term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes, and confidence in our economy. It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy – where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.
That is why we need to act boldly and act now to reverse these cycles. That’s why we need to put money in the pockets of the American people, create new jobs, and invest in our future. That’s why we need to re-start the flow of credit and restore the rules of the road that will ensure a crisis like this never happens again.
That is why I have moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will immediately jumpstart job creation and long-term growth..”
Sadly, as we begin the new year 2012 the abortion holocaust continues to be our national disgrace; and the biblical family is being assailed more than ever.
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, and the eldest of Robert Kennedy's eleven children sparked controversy — and outrage on this issue— by stating In a column for Newsweek magazine's Web site in 2009 that President Barack Obama better reflected the views of American Catholics than did the Pope. Declared Townshend "Obama's pragmatic approach to divisive policy . . . and his social-justice agenda reflected the views of American Catholic laity much more closely ... " then the views expressed by vocal bishops and pro-life activists. Then too, while Townshend acknowledged that Obama and Pope Benedict XVI do "disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality," she asserts that these same American Catholic laity believe Obama's on their side. Therefore, Townshend champions the opinion that Obama's agenda is closer to the views of the American Catholic laity than even the Pope's. But more important to reporter Gordon Gordonsson upon reading Townshend's comments is which position is more correct in the eternal scheme of things --- the secular position of Obama or the views expressed by Pope Benedict in his recent encyclical "Charity in Truth."
Pro-life advocates like Judie Brown, president and co-founder of the American Life League, a pro-life organization states that Townsend's views were "misguided" in an article written for the CNS News ... and contended: "Reproductive freedoms,' for those unfamiliar with the culture of death's propaganda, is a code phrase for abortion on demand, sex instruction in schools, birth control for kids, and all manner of bizarre propositions that help the purveyors of smut to define the human person as an animal incapable of self-control . . .
Townshend alleges that the Pope's recent encyclical "Charity in Truth," gives "moral credence to Obama's message."
But to Brown both Townshend's and Obama's views are clearly inconsistent with the Pope's view that .. " Without respect for the human person, it is impossible to bring about a just society, and in a just society, there is no room for heinous crimes such as abortion."
Then too, in a just society, a just society of hope and change, is there room for the foreign born ... It was written optimistically in the Federalist the following quote;
Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people - a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.
But John Higham in his book Strangers in the Land takes a critical look at American Nativism. To quote Higham:
"Nativism has been hard for historians to define . The word is distinctively, a product of a specific chain of events in eastern American cities in the late 1830's and early 1840's. Yet it has a penumbra of meaning so broad and indefinite that it seems to refer to a perennial human experience. Does Nativism consist only of the particular complex of attitudes dominant in anti-foreign crusade of the mid-nineteenth century? Or does it extend to every occasion when native inhabitants of a country turn their faces or raise their hands against strangers in their midst?
From the Garden of Eden to 1984 ( ed. note -- and to the present day) , no age or society seems wholly free from unfavorable opinions of outsiders. Understood in those terms such general terms, Nativism would include every type and level of antipathy toward aliens, their institutions, and their ideas. Its beginnings in American history would date from the first Indian resistance to the white intruders. This view, by reducing Nativism to little more than a general ethnocentric habit of mind, blurs its historical significance. On the other hand, confining Nativism to the special sort of movement prominent for a couple of decades in the middle of the nineteenth century is too narrow; the inner spirit of that movement has taken quite different guises at other times and places. The spirit of Nativism appeared long before the word was coined about 1840 and had its deepest impact long after the word had largely dropped out of popular parlance."
In the context of Modern Day America ... Beings as our land had its beginnings for the most part from people from other areas of the globe, leaving their native lands and settling in America ... In that way we have become a people created by Immigration ... A nation in the dog world whose Pedigree would not be considered pure-bred, but would be considered more of a mongrel. We are a melting pot of diverse people merging into one nationality called American .. Throughout our history immigration has been welcomed ... Yet at the same time the unwelcome mat has been rolled out in front of our doors when the interests of the native-born, as we said the prodigy of earlier immigration, collided with those of the new arrivals ... Most Americans today say that the welcome mat is still at the Port of Entry to America for those who take the legal steps to get here to stay ... But for those who by-pass this legal process (the so-called Illegal or undocumented aliens so to speak) the welcome mat is pulled back ... The big concern or fear is, that these undocumented aliens with the aid of those who might benefit politically by their presence may be allowed to receive certain services of society providing an additional burden on taxpayers of local and state governments. Of course these illegal or undocumented aliens so to speak live in a shadowy and fearful world that certain employers or individuals could take advantage of by paying them low wages and other controlling ways.
Mike Stout of the Pittsburgh area in his song Blood on the Rocks who lyrics are given below, reminds us how late 19th and Turn of the Century 20th Century company played off the Native-Born and Immigrant:
Down in MckeesRock back in 1909 . Employment was soaring on the Assembly lines. The Biggest Company was a place called the Pressed Steel Car ... With 6,000 workers and a Boss who ruled the plant just like a Tsar ... Immigrants were pouring in from every place to do the dirtiest jobs for the of lowest of pay ... kind of like the same situation you got here today ... They called the place - the last chance- the Slaughterhouse ... Every day you went to work you didn't know if you were coming back out ... Speed-Up and abuse was more than any man could stand... With kickbacks to the foreman and mass extortion at the plant. Exploited, persecuted, treated worse than a dog, told to sell their wives if they wanted to keep their jobs than 40 riveters walked off they were sick of being robbed ...16 different nationalities, 16 different tongues, walked off the line in solidarity stood up together as One ... Fighting in the streets in the slums of Hunkeyville , meeting up on Indian Mounds .. The Company knew they had to break their Will ... They brought the Cossacks to Town ... There were Blood on the Rocks ...
They brought in the Guards, Strike breakers, Storm Troopers and Thugs ...Armed to the teeth Boss Hosthop was clearly out for Blood Meanwhile the town called Hunkeyville was surrounded and attacked. The Strikers and their families were evicted from the Company Shacks ...Then on bloody Sunday in the shadows of the Mill the Cossacks opened fire ....Nine workers were killed ...The IWW came to town the strikers wouldn't yield. There were blood on the Rocks ... Ah ...Down on the Rocks ...
Then the Company caved in the workers thought they had won. They marched back into the plant all proud together as One ... .But behind the scenes a divide and conquer scheme was hatched they bought off the native born and counter-attacked ... When the Bosses reneged on every promise they made the Immigrants walked back out the native-born stayed. The lessons of unity buried in the cracks of history...16 different nationalities, 16 different tongues, raising up in solidarity standing together as One. Two months long holding on strong on the streets, on the picket lines and the docks.... The immigrants knew just what they had to do .When you talk the talk and walk the walk .There be Blood on the Rocks... Blood on the Rocks, Down in MckeesRock... There was Blood on the Rocks,,, Down on the Rocks,,, There was Blood on the Rocks... Blood on the Rocks, Down in MckeesRock... There was Blood on the Rocks,,, Down on the Rocks.
Actually the above still a problem, in the Global Economy of the early 21st century ... Where established or emerging industries elect to relocate their plants to countries like Mexico where labor costs are lower only to relocate to China where labor costs are even lower.
There is a common political axiom --- 'If it is not broken, don't fix it" Well, in the world of the Obama Nation, America's infrastructure and social system must be crumbling or fracturing in the best case scenario or bankrupt in the worst case scenario given his multitude efforts to break what he calls a broken system in many cases. His real intent being to create a New perhaps Socialist America ... And to accomplish that he must take advantages of presumed emergencies or create emergencies to build America's new mansion and build for himself the legacy of creating the New America which must bow down to the demands of our new global society. Many in the global society believe there is an unalienable right for all peoples to move about and live where they want paying no attention to immigration laws of the nation's they seek to intrude upon. Obama knowing this view and accepting it, but as President he is sworn to defend the borders of this nation from all foreign and dangerous domestic enemies and enforce the laws of the United States .. Please note --- one is not a domestic enemy of the United States simply if that individual is a member of a different Political Party than Obama's and has a difference of opinion or philosophy about how the nation should be governed ...
So as we advance to the election of 2012, President Obama believes that our broken immigration system can only be fixed by putting politics aside and offering a complete solution that secures our border, enforces our laws, and reaffirms our heritage as a nation of immigrants. This sounding much like a water-downed political statement ... A wish in the political polarized world of the Obama Presidency would be hard to meet ... He believes our immigration policy should be driven by our best judgment of what is in the economic interest of the United States and what is in the best interest of the American worker. President Obama recognizes that an orderly, controlled border and an immigration system designed to meet our economic needs are important pillars of a healthy and robust economy.
And the following is the means by which the President intended to accomplish his policy goal
1) Strengthen Border Control
President Obama promised to protect the integrity of our borders by investing in additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.
2) Improve Our Immigration System
President Obama promised to fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and enable legal immigration so that families can stay together.
3) Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
President Obama promised to remove incentives to enter the country illegally by preventing employers from hiring undocumented workers and enforcing the law.
4) Bring People Out of the Shadows
President Obama announced support of a system that allowed undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
5) Work with Mexico
President Obama promised to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease the economic desperation that leads to illegal immigration... But how are you going to keep the Companies down on the farm in Mexico so to speak when China beckons with the incentive of lower wages and higher profits?
Sadly, as we begin the new year 2012 terrorists would like nothing more than to strike our nation again and again; and Israel continues to be targeted for destruction by Arab renegade nations despite the peace it made with the new nation created on its west bank. Then too, the world is still focused on the continuing weakness of the present economic situation globally. Therefore the Obama Administration still bonded with former Clinton Administration financial expertise continues to walk to the tune of “It’s the economy stupid.” Unfortunately, the Obama Administrations long jib has not yet found continuous fair weather.
For Barrack Obama even the simple task of resigning his U.S. Senate seat to allow him to consecrate solely on his transition to office was a source of grief as Illinois Governor Blagojevitch thought it was an opportunity to enrich himself by selling the seat to the one who made the best offer. Timing is all-important and remarkably Obama did not show the wisdom to hold off his necessary resignation until the Electoral College, which met the first Monday after the second Wednesday or December 15, 2008, had formally ratified his election. Scuttlebutt is that the fallout from this affair almost unseated his top aide Rahm Emmauel and others because of stories related to their roles they played in the Blagojevich affair.
With this being said, we direct attention to the 2012 Presidential Election Campaign -----In 2012 four presidential debates were scheduled ------ The first in Nairobi, Kenya.... The second in Caracas, Venezuela ... The third in Teheran, Iran and the Fourth in Jakarta, Indonesia ... The debates are supervised by the United Nations Commission on political debates which supervises all elections of its member nations by a Treaty initialed in 2009 and passed by the Democrat Party Controlled Senate in the United States in 2010 almost without debate. Of course, one proviso of the Treaty is that member nations must make all citizens whether Natural born or naturalized eligible to run for the highest office of that country. A Second Proviso provides that signatories of the Treaty must provide for open borders, meaning that we all are citizens of the world and should be allowed to live where we want ...The exception to the case being political dissidents within that country who may be forced to exit the country despite being citizens if their words and actions violate any Fairness Doctrine established by that government. The goal of this treaty is to create an atmosphere for Unity rather then division. But the obvious message in the Treaty is do it my way or take a hike.
Incidentally, the sites of 2012 Presidential Debates are the summer, winter, spring and fall White Houses of Incumbent President Barrack Hussein Obama. Fact is, the main White House in Washington D.C., now referred to as the Ayers House, is rarely visited now a days since the Congressional elections of 2010 except for Official purposes as the Obama Administration in a sense of fairness and equality rented it out to a community organization formerly named ACORN to provide affordable housing for low and moderate income people despite the fact that ACORN activities were highly questioned by the cable media and a reactive Congress ... The same is the case for the governments Maryland Hideaway once called Camp David but now called Camp Jeremiah Wright. The President took this action after the tainted Congressional elections of 2010. That election representing a great victory for the Democratic-Obama Party except most races were close with the Obama Party successful 100% of the time in Congressional and Senatorial districts where recounts were mandated by State law or petitioned for by Obama Candidates. Experts, who like to remain unnamed, claim that Obama candidates benefited from thousands of votes that suddenly appeared after Election Day. Some experts even go as far as saying that the alleged Obama Party voters actually realized the old political axiom of voting early and often with the added conundrum of voting late as well. Richard Daley, the former Chicago Mayor in the 60”s that helped elect John Kennedy with questionable amount of cemetery votes in Cook County, would be most proud.
President Barrack Hussein Obama if he had a choice would prefer to govern from his Kentwood/Hyde Park Mansion in Chicago, Illinois when he is in the United States anyway. Some say he would like to move the Executive capital of the United States to Chicago as well.
The logic of this is that this would have allowed his young daughters to stay in Chicago to attend school and also remain in contact with their best friends from school. The only change to that situation would be that U.S. government secret service agents are constantly around to make sure their teachers and fellow student would treat them well.
Clearly, it's perfectly appropriate (and understandable) that the Obama's – and nearly 40% of the U.S. Congress – have decided that the Washington D.C. public school system isn't the best fit for their children, and have chosen another option
| |
| |
And Indeed --- It would have been harder for the secret service to operate and provide protection for the Obama children in a Washington D.C. public school which is part of the nation's worst-performing public systems academically, and also, are among the most dangerous in the country. While there is nothing wrong with choosing to avoid such a system (most parents would), Obama and members of Congress we are told are currently trying to shut down a D.C. academic scholarship program that is providing a similar "way out" for 1,700 low-income Washington students...If true --- what a pity that is happening on Obama's watch.
According to the school's website, Sidwell Friends seeks "academically talented students of diverse cultural, racial, religious and economic backgrounds," providing them with a "rich and rigorous interdisciplinary curriculum designed to stimulate creative inquiry, intellectual achievement and independent thinking in a world increasingly without borders."
Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton (and Vice President Al Gore) also made the choice to enroll their children at Sidwell. ...
The fact is, an international crisis as predicted by Vice President Joe Biden had occurred within six months of his inauguration as President and nobody could contact him because he and his wife Michelle either had a parent-teacher conference or were on one of their private date episodes. The much-maligned former President George W. Bush in an unusual move had provided the Obama Transition team with contingent plans how the new President could respond at the onset of crisis. The outgoing Clinton Administration left behind no such contingencies at the time of its departure and its young staff showed some immaturity by thrashing the West Wing of the White House and removing the letters W off computers. As it developed, many of these former White House staffers returned to former or similar positions in the West Wing and, former Bush staffers did not return the favor by doing to their successors as their predecessors did to them. But the truth is that the new old guys in the block so hated George Bush the younger that in the first days of the Obama Administration they threw a party in which it was reported that shoes were thrown at the effigy of the former President.
One may question that these presidential debates were outsourced from American soil ... But the truth is President Barrack Hussein Obama had insisted that the first Presidential debate of 2012 be held in Nairobi near Obama's ancestral home and the summer White House. This, of course, would be an historic event, the first time an American Presidential debate would be held outside the political borders of the United States... Which was, renamed in 2011 the Democrat States of the Obama Nation? The fact is the cult of Obama's personality and charisma did in fact overwhelm the nation to the dismay of the dissident Republican Party, which remains shell shocked by it setbacks in all election cycles since 2006 despite the fact that the personal popularity of the President has declined drastically over his polices... But apparently what the public thinks and how it is reflected in votes is something else . Allentown, PA Congressman Charles Dent who had survived the American voter retreat from Republican candidates in a Democratic State was elected Republican Party Minority Leader in 2010, complains that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has assigned the Republican Caucus to a room the size of a janitor's closet. To which Pelosi responded: "That's where all Republicans and vocal critics to this government should go: In the Closet."
It also should be noted that having the debate in Nairobi would allow Obama's 91-year-old grandmother to see the debate live and increase the local sale of Obama Beer by tailgaters.
Additionally, Obama honored the insistence of Kenya's President Kbaki's and Kenya's Prime Minister Raial Odinga's request that he provide enhanced U.S investment to the development of Kenya and East Africa. Yes indeed, many 24-hour basketball Courts, Track Marathon training facilities and the Summer White House was built to aid the Kenyan and East African economies. ... A gracious Obama even allows his half-brother to work as a servant in the Summer White House ... But his Aunt in Boston now granted legal status in the Obama nation still remains in public housing.
Of interest, Prime Minister Odinga is Obama's Liu tribal cousin, Odinga in 2007 had run for the Presidency of Kenya against Kbaki on a platform of Change ... Odinga's hotly contested and close loss to Kbaki resulted in months of violence in normally peaceful Kenya. To stem this violence and create unity, Kbaki offered Odinga the Prime Ministership. A coalition of rivals to speak … Something Obama picked upon in his appointments despite his references to Abraham Lincoln.
Keith Obberman, of the former MSNBC cable news network, now renamed the Obama Broadcasting Company, and an Obama partisan, was named the moderator of the debate
Obama's surprise opponent is Dennis Kennethsson, a former steelworker, substitute teacher, umpire and neighborhood leader. He arose from nowhere to offer a serious challenge to Obama incredibly defeating Arnold Schwartzenegger, Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, Dick Cheney. Al Gore and William Jefferson Clinton for the right to be a Challenger to Obama.
Be it noted --- by virtue of the U.N. Treaty the 2012 election cycle has come to resemble more or less the rules of an America's cup challenge.... No longer are there Democratic or Republican Party primaries or Conventions ... There is simply the incumbent bracket and the Challenger bracket ... As sitting President, Barrack Obama had a free ride into the General Election if he decided to run again ... Only he was allowed to organize a Citizens Convention to nominate him by acclamation and establish a new platform for the 2012 campaign. But for the challengers they had to run a grueling primary campaign in all 52 states plus the capital Washington D.C. Puerto Rico combined with the U.S. Virgin Islands had become a state in 2010. Guam combined with American Samoa had become a state in 2011.It was through the 2009 United Nations Treaty that Schwartzenegger a naturalized citizen was allowed to run for President. And notably, William Jefferson Clinton was allowed to run for President for a nonconsecutive Third Term by the same treaty if he chose to run.
By a skin of his teeth, dark horse candidate Dennis Kennethsson from Pennsylvania overcame his opponents and quickly invited all his opponents to be part of his Presidential campaign team.... The second place finisher Hillary Clinton, despite her early role in the Obama Administration as Secretary of State resigned to run for President but ended up becoming the Vice Presidential Candidate according to the rules of the Challenger primaries. Ophrah Winfrey replaced the former first lady of Arkansas and the United States and former New York senator as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.
Kennethsson, in truth, would have preferred to have a different running mate other than Clinton. But rules being as they were, he accepted her as his running mate ... But the question lingered among what remained of the free press, would Clinton and Kennethsson be able to join a close common front to campaign effectively against Obama and Joe Biden. Some say Kennethsson would have better accepted Sarah Palin as his running mate who had announced suddenly on July 3, 2009 that she would resign the Governorship of Alaska to take on a larger, national role, citing a "higher calling" to unite the country along conservative lines.
Palin portrayed her resignation as a selfless choice done for the good of Alaskans. She said they will now be free of the expensive and distracting — and she said bogus — ethics inquiries generated by her new prominence. “Some Alaskans, maybe they don’t mind wasting public dollars and state time, but I do,” she said
But reporter Gordon Gordonsson suggests that all this was the Democratic Party's strategy to hem in a politician they regarded as a challenger to their power in 2012 ... Some suggest that what transpired was an example of Chicago politics exported to Alaska that Obama's Chief of Staff Emmanuel excels in.
Said Sarah Palin on her Facebook Page a few days later: "I am now looking ahead and (to) how we can advance this country together with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint,"
The reality was for Kennethsson that he had no say where the Presidential debates were to be held because the United Nations which sanctioned the debates operated on the terms that the Champion had the right to determine the terms and location of all future person to person debates with the Challenger. And Obama, as incumbent President made all the decisions on this matter.
As you know, airline and mass transportation operations have been highly regulated and controlled in the Obama Nation. Apologists for the Administration freely admit that this provides obstacles for the free movement of the American public and commerce throughout the country. Spur of the moment short-haul or long-haul trips without the knowledge of government watchdogs are highly discouraged. They maintain that such security measures are necessary both for homeland security purposes and also for the sake of fairness and economic equality for the lower and moderate income people , No longer could the average American take spur of the minute trips anywhere. American citizens are required to get permission from the quality of life Commission to receive a special passport to travel to other regions of the Country whether by personal transportation or mass and to receive security clearances to travel aboard.... This procedure constituting a contradiction with the UN Treaty, which allowed non-citizens to pour through all borders, at will. These stipulations apply to everyone with the exception being the President; members of his Administration, and Congressional leaders. Even the heads of major U.S. banks and industrial concerns whose assets had been quietly nationalized after a series pork barrel loaded and costly economic stimulus packages were bound to these new rules and changes as to how America did business.. . It even applied to Alaska’s former Governor Sarah Palin who in some cases had to use a dog sled to get out of Alaska and go down to the Lower 48 States only to have her trek complicated by both Canadian and American Customs. To use Pennsylvania Dutch Vernacular: “I never seen the like of it to receive a former Soviet Union like Internal passport to travel within my own country, such a betrayal of the commerce clause and individual rights portions of the U.S. Constitution.”
Sarah Palin, in fact, wanted to run for President in 2012 but leaks coming out of Russia indicated that Energy People in the Obama Administration considered making a deal to sale Alaska back to Russia if Palin ran for President. Palin, of course, has been an advocate of developing Alaska’s Oil and Gas resources to benefit both the Alaskan and American Economy and still is popular with those who were not in agreement with the Obama nation despite resigning the Alaskan Governorship in 2009. However, the U.S. Energy people since day one of the Obama Administration opposed such expanded oil and gas drilling in Alaska as inconsistent with their energy plans. Even if these Alaskan resources were brought into the U.S. through pipelines running through Canada. These same energy people decried the import of Canadian Shale Oil as well because its need for additional refinement then oil and gas imported from elsewhere… But ironically, if Russia bought back Alaska to help balance the U.S. budget and pay off some of our national debt thus gaining in the process control of these resources, the Obamaite Energy people would open the doors and lay a red carpet for this Russian-Alaskan raw sources. This being part of the strange decision making coming from those who are sworn to uphold American interests.
The decision-making began when the government of Kyrgyzstan in February 2009 announced that U.S. Forces would be ordered out of the Manas air base within 6 months by a decree by Kyrgyzstan President Kurmanbek Bakiyev that stunned the new Obama Administration and drew suspicion that Kyrgyzstan was acting under the influence of Russia, which staunchly opposed Western military presence near its borders. The Americans had used the base in Kyrgyzstan to ship military hardware and troops crucial to operations in Afghanistan. And of course, the value of the continued operation of the Afghanistan base increased especially in the light of the Obama Administration decision to increase the level of American troops deployed to Afghanistan; and additionally due to the destruction and sabotage of supply lines in Western Pakistan flowing to Eastern Afghanistan by increased Taliban and insurgent activities in Pakistan's Swat Valley.
Many believed that Moscow’s strategy was to force the Americans to create a longer supply line to Afghanistan from Russia that would require the Americans to keep Moscow in the loop for Afghanistan decisions. Moscow for the longest time felt that it had the right to exert its influence in the Central Asia Steppe region and it was adverse to America having more influence there then Moscow. Of interest, Russia, too, had a base in Kyrgyzstan, which was one of the Republics in the former Soviet Union before its break-up.
Of interest, just a short time before the Kyrgyzstan 's governments announcement, Moscow had given that government a $2 billion loan
But as it happened, on June 24, 2009 Kyrgyzstan reached a deal with the U.S that would allow the American base to remain open and continue to be used by U.S. forces to transport weaponry and ammunition. A much-needed boost to the U.S.-led coalition as it ramped up its military operations against Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan.
Why the reversal of position by the Kyrgyzstan government? The answer laid in the cost for the American use of the base ... When the issue emerged the annual rent for the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan was $17.4 million ... Hereafter, the Americans had to pay three times more in order to play.
Analysts, said at the time Russia, grudgingly accepted the agreement in the hope of U.S. concessions on issues that have badly strained its relations with Washington — such as NATO’s possible expansion eastward and a planned U.S. missile defense complex in central Europe.
“Reaching this agreement is, of course, Kyrgyzstan’s sovereign right,” said a Russian Foreign Ministry statement released after the deal was announced... But should we literally buy into those words.
In the case of Kennethsson, despite being a candidate for President, permission to attend the Nairobi debate did not come ...The official reason was that Kennethsson had applied too late for an exit visa …But the truth is, Kennethsson applied for the visa in plenty of time. Simply stated – a person loyal to Obama in the Immigration Bureau conveniently delayed processing of the application to benefit Obama politically. Some say, to avoid detection, the same individual hid the application in the glove department of his private vehicle. Therefore like a refugee Kennethsson and his chief aides Neil Browne, Bill Major, Ed Leskin and Dr. Mike D’Amore had to acquire a Kodiak Raft to navigate down the Lehigh River into the Delaware River at Easton Pennsylvania, continue the wonderful journey down the Delaware River to the Delaware Bay where they secretly went on board a sloop headed out to the open seas beyond the 200 mile U.S territorial to secretly board a larger boat headed for the Azores. At the Azores, Kennethsson and his small staff finally could catch a plane to Nairobi, Kenya.
Oddly, the quartet that traveled with Kennethsson seemed more oriented with the politics of Obama than Kennethsson. But Kennethsson noted that he maintained radio contact with a quartet of aides back home that were more attuned to the political values expressed by radio hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. ... Innately, Kennethsson knew how to steer the proper course after digesting the contradicting opinions of both sides ...
Despite their support for Obama, Kenyan officials had to accept the entry of Kennethsson into their country by virtue of the 2009 UN Treaty. Obama was a bit annoyed by Kennethsson showing up but for his image he accepted knowing that there would be talk about an unfair voting cycle or a rigged voting cycle if Kennethsson could not participate in the debate as Challenger. … Indeed, an empty chair would get more negative attention then he desired. Just the same, Obama grumbled to his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel why the Coast Guard was not able to intercept the five men in the tub before they left U.S. territorial waters. Ophrah Winfrey who was also there, whispered to Emmanuel: “ Maybe they used a stealth tub." Offering a second opinion, Vice President Biden stone panned: "Maybe, Kennethsson's four Obama sympathizers' confused the Coast Guard radar screen." Said Emmanuel: “Very funny...Very Funny... That's hilarious ... Ralph Cramden would say, I going to send you to the moon , Alice." Replied Obama: " We can't do that, there is far too much risk in manned space flight."
In analysis, the impetus of Kennethsson's charge from nowhere was the Obama's party nationalization of the 401 K and Keough./IRA plans by placing these assets in the Social Security System's alleged independent trust which really doesn't exist to make an appearance of firming up and making the fund sound to quell the fears of pensioners... The concern was indeed there as both the Republican and Democratic parties had raided the Social Security Trust Fund to pay certain government expenditures. The first to do it was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Controlled Congress during the Great Society and the practice has been continued by both parties ever since. Additionally, out of concern of lost tax revenues due to 401 K and Keough/IRA tax credits, Democratic Committeemen sought to tie-in these credits to income levels. This would be the case for new clients of 401 K plans as well as older clients of the same plans. Apparently the rest of the nation can now understand the Native American complaint that the Great Diverse fathers and mothers in Washington speak with a forked tongue. Which means that no one can trust that any governmental program will actually be in tack when the younger members of the plans actually get to the age they can tap it.
In October, 2008, U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee and U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support entertained proposals that would tax 401(k) plans. Both held hearings laying the groundwork for future legislation that could eliminate most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that investors receive by placing their money in the $3 trillion 401(k) system. The plan, which may serve as a model for this change, is by Prof. Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York. It is similar in ways to some European systems. "Actually there are two plans, said Prof. Ghilarducci, "a short-term one and a long-term one. As part of the bailout, I would include a provision for individuals to be able to swap their 401(k) s at its August 2008 value for special issue government bonds paying 3 percent plus inflation." When asked about the terms of the bonds, which she calls "Guaranteed Retirement Accounts" Prof. Ghilarducci remarked that no one ever asked that question. After thinking about it, she said the terms would be the social security eligibility date of the owner.
So what this means is, someone making over a certain threshold in their income cannot adjust their tax statement to pay taxes on income after throwing money into a 401k. Under our current system, if you make $100k a year, you put $10k into a 401k, and then you get taxed at $90k a year. The debate then was, even if you put that same money into 401k, you still would get taxed at the $100k a year. This is a classic example of imputed income tax. Taxing you on something that is considered of value even if you don't actually spend it at that time. The real kicker is, you still get taxed on this money in your 401k when you retire and start drawing down on that retirement account. This is called double taxation. The plan was passed by the Democratic-controlled congress and signed into law by President Barrack Obama. Upon signing the bill, Obama joked: “when I was a member of the Illinois and U.S. Senates, I could vote present on any bill I didn’t want to record. Well ladies and gentlemen eventhough I approve this bill, interpret my signature as recording that I am present rather then signing this bill.”
Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at The New School for Social Research in New York, at that time offered this assessment for retirement accounts." Congress should let workers trade their 401(k) assets for guaranteed retirement accounts made up of government bonds. When workers collected Social Security, the guaranteed retirement account would pay an inflation-adjusted annuity under her plan. The way the government now encourages 401(k) plans is to spend $80 billion in tax breaks, which goes to the highest-income earners. That simply results in transferring money from taxed savings accounts to untaxed accounts. " The problem here is when passed the government did not just let workers do it they made it mandatory from day one.
What she proposed was that the tax subsidy be eliminated completely. In its place everyone gets a $600 federal income tax credit. This would benefit those who make less. But in the case of the aforementioned example, while people making $40,000 a year would see a net gain; people earning $60,000 per year would experience a net loss. A tax increase by Democrats on those making $60,000 per year would not be in line with the their presidential nominee U.S. Sen. Barrack Obama's pledge to only increase taxes on those making $250,000 per year.
To state it again in another way, we had Democratic Congressmen who wanted to buy-out personal 401K investments, at their worth in August 2008. They would be willing to give 3% interest annually. That would have compensated for Barrack Obama's phantom tax cut on the 95% of Americans including credits for those who pay no taxes. It was a control factor. CONTROL. That is the government will provide.... Now they want to take what Americans have saved and gain control, demand a minimum of 5% deduction from the paycheck, control it and use it to replenish the Social Security System, or rather in lieu of it. What has happened to all the monies paid to SS? Now they are saying, basically, because they have screwed up, we paid the money, they gambled our money through the years, and now they want to take more. WE PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY.
To sum all this up: 1) Social security or government retirement accounts hardly ever adjust properly for inflation. When you introduce inflation like our government has, it lessons their responsibility to pay true inflationary rates on government pensions and social security. To better put it, they pay less for their promises. 2) Not taxing someone on the money they introduce into their 401k doesn't mean you still don't collect tax revenue. The tax revenue is just delayed until that person withdraws it at a later time. Usually you get greater tax gains by letting the 401k grow into bigger earnings. 3) The government bond annuity that proponents for the plan suggested would never keep up like a regular annuity. 4) This is basic class warfare. Anyone effected by this will out smart the government and hide this money into accounts that probably will leave the US. That means this is money not invested back into our economy, not creating jobs or enhancing productivity. 5) To compare this proposal to our social security system means it will become a ponzi scheme for our government to borrow off of. This means that the money collected will just end up paying current obligations. The program would go bankrupt.
Stated Obberman to begin the debate: "Mr. Kennethsson. I personally don't think you are qualified to be dogcatcher, neighborhood leader, yet alone President. You are a mischievous autistic rat that seeks to take back the nation and restore the United States of America from the Man. Why are you insulting or wasting the time of this nation's subjects, I mean public, by challenging the Nobel Peace prize winner, the Emperor, I mean the President. By the way how did you get here anyway? I bet it will be more difficult for you then an illegal alien to get back into the country!
Replied Kennethsson: "If I interpret the question correctly ... You are really questioning my audacity and my boldness to Challenge the President.
Offered Obberman: Yes, I am, That is a very negative thing to do ... That's very disruptive to the unity the Emperor, I mean, the President is trying to encourage a different kind of society.
Stated Kennethsson: "What a Freudian slip you just made."
An angered Obbermman said: " Stop it, you slime ball. You definitely need to under-go the re-education process."
Replied Kennethsson: “So sorry, Are you talking about the Guantanomo Bay Re-Education Center that replaced the Detainment Center for Terrorist Combatants who were usually Islamic? Who else will join me there? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Bobby Gunther Walsh , Karl Rowe, and Joe Lieberman. I guess that Michael Moore or George Seros won’t be there. …
A calm Kennethsson continued in confidence: " I can assure you that despite my advanced age of 65 and admitted lack of governing experience in Washington, D.C. Harrisburg, PA, Lehigh County, PA and Allentown, PA that I am ready to be President. Why? I possess the common sense, intuitive intelligence to digest new data, correlate and combine it with older data to create a general perception of what the problem is or what is happening to make a decision that would be right to handle the given situation. Additionally, I would continue to monitor the situation least fine tuning be needed to the decision on target or on mark ... The fact is, I don't engage in fine sounding rhetoric or oratory just to confuse as some do. It is not in my make-up to be a mastermind of confusion, misinformation or destructive transformation.... As Santayana Said: 'Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it' ... And I add, those who seek to hide the past have something to hide."
Said Obberman: Don't you believe in sharing the wealth?
Said Kennethsson: " I prefer Jesus Christ to Karl Marx ... And none of the land distribution policy of Robert Mugabee --- Thank you...
An impatient Obama chimed in: " But I offer change, I. I ... I think you will like my change. But before he could say more, the President could not constrain his smoker’s cough … A by-product of many years of off and on smoking … Once the cough subsided, the President put into his mouth a nicotine coated gum stick.
An amused Kennethsson replied: "You said change. Did I hear you say change? Maybe people want a change from you? Change can be good, surprising, bad or disastrous...What have you brought us? A push toward a debilitating Socialistic society. If you get re-elected what will you offer us ... More of the same or not .. Will you accelerate the programs that have caused me to run against you or will you change your course and repudiate them?
The main-line media in 2008 never truly questioned whether Obama had enough experience to be President. They simply thought of him as the one who would deliver the nation from George Walker Bush ... The skillful orator cast in the image of JFK ... The movie star who worked efficiently for youthful votes. The demi-God whom had what it took to be our deliverer.
Now in the year 2012 we see the outcome and sadly we see a failed Presidency.... Once elected in 2008 we gave him the opportunity to be successful ...We wished him to be successful ... But he is not successful…. Our industry is still in the pits and in some communities grocery stores are bought out of all its fresh food shortly after the truck that brought it leaves… That’s not the America I was born and raised in. That’s the America that has descended from its height of prosperity to the one of third world doldrums. An America that is in the sight-hair of regulations imposed by the new global Financial Stability Board.
Replied Obama: " Give what we did time to mature. We delayed what we wanted to do because of what George Bush left us ... I said at the beginning we wouldn't accomplish what we planned to do in the first 100 days, the first year or the first term ... But we will get to the mountaintop with more time.... We will get to the Mountaintop and see the Promised Land. From the mountaintop I will go down into the Promised Land and see our plan of change mature for the benefit of the American people. ...
Interrupted Obberman:" Mr. Kennethsson, can’t you see how deleterious your challenge is to the success of the change that the Emperor, I mean Obama so stresses.
Asserted Kennethsson: " I am questioned ... I am doubted ... I am condemned ... Nevertheless, I pursue and continue the fight. I do not retreat as I do not hear the trumpet ... If I prevail my election will not be considered as historic as Obama's election. But just the same my election will produce an earthquake in the minds of men ... Whereas the policies of Obama when fully implemented will turn Americans into subjects and serfs my election will make Americans citizens again.
Thus be it ever where Freemen shall stand between their beloved homes and the War's desolation ... Blessed with victory and peace, may we offer praise to the power that has both created and preserved a nation... Conquer we must, when our cause it is just...And Let this be our motto, in God do we Trust; And the Stars and Stripes in triumph shall wave over the land of the free and brave.... And I add not a land of people who are controlled, are subject to extreme political correctness and the afraid.
An annoyed Obbermman replied: No more political garbage from you ... I am finished with you.
Replied Kennethsson: You are a fine example of objective journalism.
Said Obberman: Mr. Kennethsson, these are seditious words - You should be arrested on the spot.
Replied Kennethsson: "Are the words of the 4th Stanza of the Stars Spangles Banner seditious ...Arrest me if you wish. But that would make a mockery out of the Bill of Rights... Let it be noted that the President before he was President stated his annoyance with the negative provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which deprived the federal government and other government of from taking control of our lives. Do you want your life completely controlled by the government? Do you want to live your life as a Plantation hand?
The President interrupted: Hey there man, Are you trying to bring up Ayers, Wright. Pleigger and the rest again...
Replied Kennethsson: I didn't say a word ... You did.
Continued Kennethsson: " Politically there is a time one must throw tea into the bay or river and this may be the time ... There is a time to take away the sleeping bag from the sleepers. And this may be the time... Vigilance is the watchword... Those who sleep must be awakened.... If you have become Goliath, I am David and this is why I stand before you in battle ... Most importantly, I don't think that the voters in 2008 voted for the end of the American Republic, the Suspension of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the start of the new American Empire called Obama nation with the President accorded the honor of an Emperor, movie star and demi-God...
Moderator Obbermman, who broke down in frustration, was replaced by another MSNBC, that is Obama Broadcasting Commentator, Senator in his dreams Chris Matthews.
Stated Matthews: “Mr. Kennethsson, I don’t think you are winning the debate tonight… What can you say to make it not so?
Stated Kennethsson: Are you kidding! Obama has said very little tonight … it has been me; myself and I that has been under attack tonight.
Interrupted Mathews: “ Strategy, my pinhead err whatever, Obama has said more in silence then you can ever say. I still have a tinkling feeling for him in my legs even after almost four years of power…. Did I mention I had thoughts of becoming a Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania to replace Arlen Specter? Of course, that was before, the ancient one, decided to change his political stripes seeking political preservation. But that didn't help him much as the movement of time brought the more youthful and forced the more ancient out.
Replied Kennethsson: “ So sorry, I am not Vaspuchian’s monkey and I have not prayed to the three monkeys lately. That is, see no evil, hear no evil or say no evil. I pay deference to President Obama solely because he is President, but I do not place the President’s symbol on any part of my body let alone my forehead as Obama’s community service legion does. … Obama is a clever leader, but where his ship of state is taking us I have no idea even now except my intuition tells me that his course is not towards fair weather that more often then not he stirs the ship of state toward inclement weather rather then avoiding it or conquering it. Calm as he is Obama prefers the state of crisis
Obama mutters; “ Not true! not true! , not true!.”
Retorts Mathews: “Well said, Mr. President. It seems that Mr. Kennethsson does not share or appreciate your vision “
Stated Kennethsson: “Mr. Mathews, “The fact is, even in Obama’s rule injustice still exists, his vision does have faults that stand uncorrected and unchallenged by many; the wise men he selected to carry out his vision did not undo or correct this vision; then too, the award winning scholars he selected to carry out the vision. Did not conspire to undo or correct this vision; and you know, neither did the philosophers he selected to carry out the vision operated to undo or correct this vision either … So there we have, All the President’s team worked hard to carry out the President’s vision, but like the King’s men for Humpty Dumpy, they could not completely put our economy back together again. Indeed the economy has gained somewhat, but there still remain cracks in the shell that will never accommodate the rosy vision of Obama because this vision does have its faults and these faults will not set the economy free to prosper.
Obama again mutters: “Give me time, Give me time, Give me time. My vision will be done!”
Replied Mathews: “ I know that Mr. President … The American people I think will come to understand that. But that person over there is a nonbeliever, an infidel to your philosophy He is creating a lot of tension for you … Is there a place we can take him to give him some sort of re-education … Maybe, Guantanomo.
Replied Obama: “ Rahm would you look into that?
Retorted Kennethsson: “Who else would be there with me … Sarah Palin? The non-repented Supreme Court Justices, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and rest of the Conservative talk hosts. . Moderates … You should understand that I take the approach of Creative Tension to force the President to acknowledge those who are the new victims of his Obama style injustice. … Indeed I take the nonviolent approach to resolving this injustice of whatever kind. . Does Obama recognize that my approach is rooted in respect for all people regardless of their sex, race, ethnicity or station in life, and takes a clear firm nonviolent stand against all injustice as Martin Luther King did? … However, even in taking this creative tension approach there are behaviors that human being promote that are not within the law no matter how we loosely interpret it.
Replied Matthews: “ You don’t say … Now Mr. Kennethsson, I am bothered by the fact you haven’t accepted campaign finance money … is that unfair to President Obama.”
Stated Kennethsson: Why is that unfair? He did not accept the check-off money in 2008 and he has not accepted it this year again. The former Democratic Party that promoted it now neglects the same campaign tool the Party wanted to use to level the playing field against Republican candidates. How interesting is that!
Interrupted Obama: “The the the point is, the era of Obama was supposed to be the second era of good feeling in America. Where the parties would unite in a single purpose, become one … Where conservatives, moderates would buy into liberal principles and become transformed and enlightened under my leadership and vision … Your candidacy was just supposed to be a token one At the moment it seems more then a token. How do you explain this?
Replied Kennethsson: “ So sorry. A token I am not … I am for real… I do this for the American people not me … Does that sound familiar? And when you hear the bell ring at the conclusion of Election Day … Start packing for the transition to a new administration will begin. Oh that’s right, you never really moved into the White House, did you?
Interrupted Obama: I can’t let that happen … My work is not finished … Like Mayor Bloomberg in New York I want to serve a third term as President after this term.
Interrupted Kennethsson: “A third term, how interesting. So you want to cross the Rubicon … when do you seek to be crowned?
Interrupted Obama: “ Well, I never been so insulted. I never.
What is wrong with us becoming more like Europe, with a welfare state and social safety net that would allow the vast majority of its citizens to enjoy the benefits of a developed, high-income economy. When Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965, it was widely believed that insuring the elderly and the poor, respectively, were just the first steps toward universal health insurance. We never got there
Interrupted Kennethsson: “ So you would like us to become more like Europe. That is your call if you remain President. But the probability is that you won’t. And it will be my call.
Let’s look at the facts in regard to Social Security:
>Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones)
> didn't know this.
>
> Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on
> what's what.
>
> And it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts
> are facts!!!
>
>
> Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA)
> Program. He promised:
>
> 1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.
>
> 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of
> their annual incomes into the Program,
>
> 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be
> deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
>
> 4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund'
> rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used
> to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other
> government program, and,
>
> 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as
> income.
>
> Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a
> Social Security check every month --and then finding that we are getting taxed on
> 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to 'put
> away', you may be interested in the following:
>
> Q: Which political party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust
> Fund' and put it in to the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
>
> A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
>
> Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social
> Security (FICA) withholding?
>
> A: The Democratic Party.
>
> Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
>
> A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding
> vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
>
> Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to
> immigrants?
>
> AND MY FAVORITE:
> A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved
> into this country, and at age 65, they began to receive Social Security
> payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them
> even though they never paid a dime into it!
Which is interesting to me because my Grandmother, bless her soul, never received a cent of Social Security because her husband a businessmen who died in the late 1930’s never paid into the system. And my grandmother who was alive in the Carter Administration never was accorded the privileges that was accorded to immigrants who never paid into the system and who were over sixty-five.
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn
> around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
> And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!
>
> > AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT
> FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
>
> A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to
> take everything you have."
> -Thomas Jefferson
Mathews like Obbermman had a sinking feeling in his stomach … Therefore he was replaced by Katie Kuric of the former NBC network.
Offered Kuric: “ Mr. Kennethsson, It is said that you own land on the Moon … isn’t that crazy. Isn’t that strange. When was the last time you visited your property; and how much did it cost you?
Replied Kennethsson: Is that a gotcha question?
Replied Obama: Answer the question.
Replied Kennethsson: I have a deed that claims to transfer me one acre of moon property in which I call Steelworkers Bay. It appears to be a legal transfer but until men return to the Moon and establish authority one can not be certain that the one who transferred the property had legal rights to do so, But apparently that person does have the paperwork to prove it. No, I have not been to the site … the transportation necessary to get me there is either non-existent or too expensive. The price I paid was very cheap and I won’t feel I was bamboozled if the deed proves to be of no value because as a gimmick item it is very neat and cool … I do believe in the space faring civilization and its slogan Ad Astra. And it would be nice to preside, as President while equipment to take us back to the Moon and beyond is being developed and built. The Obama defunct Project Constellation didn't anticipate America’s return to the Moon until the year 2020. But now, who knows when. Which means at the very least this return will occur before my retro payments to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation ends…. But seriously we still need to use the innovation and drive of American entrepreneurs to close the Gap in U.S. spaceflight now that the Space Shuttle fleet has been retired … In going to the International Space Station we are presently dependent upon Russia’s Soyuz for crew access to the International Space Station. Let us hope they never say there is no room at the Inn because of some international dispute.
Replied Obama: I… I … I really prefer robotic missions then human missions to the final frontier because I find human missions too too risky. But I will not argue against what you say. Our continued access to the International Space Station does remain a concern.
To which Kennethsson replied: “You did allocate $2 billion in additional funding for NASA to address the Gap … But the your proposed option of extending Space Shuttle Operations beyond 2010 to 2011 only cuts the gap one year. And $2 billion is only a drop in the bucket for Constellation whose shortfalls in budgeting may add another 18 months to the Gap…. To me it is foolish to strip the Orion Crew Exploration vehicle of the capability to support lunar exploration, making it simpler and lighter and supposedly easier to complete sooner. … As expressed by Space Frontier Foundation Co-founder Rick Tumlinson: ‘this idea is crazy because it will strand NASA in low Earth Orbit, instead of exploring the solar system… The whole point of that Vision for Space Exploration was to send NASA’s Lewis & Clark further out into the frontier, to the Moon, Mars and near-Earth asteroids, while the private sector takes over Earth Orbit. Cutting Orion back gives us “Gemini on steroids’, which would be change for the worse.’ …As stated by Will Watson, Foundation Executive Director, I don’t think it would be good policy to put all our eggs in one basket by pouring even more money into the Shuttle, an old system that was on its last legs or a controversial new program that’s already behind schedule.” Indeed, if we are serious about closing the Gap and about” making humanity’s presence in space economically sustainable we must consider Watson’s suggestion that we use the $2 billion to stimulate multiple entrepreneurial systems that will not only slash costs, improve safety, and close the Gap, but also will help create a whole new space industry with new jobs here in America.”
Of course, I am acceptable to all ideas of merit that will accomplish the purposes we stated.
Replied Obama: Again I do not argue against what you are saying …what you cite may be correct … but what you say is not my vision at the moment … it may, but then it may be in the future
Obama looking at his clock and then at the hand signals of his Chief of Staff next responded: “But please excuse me I have a pressing appointment I now must go.”.
Replied Kuric: Is it an important diplomatic or economic meeting?
Replied Obama: “No, I have to fly off to a Parents-Teacher Conference in Chicago.
Replied Kuric: “ What a great Man.”
Responded Kennethsson: “ Katie.… Ask yourself what does it take to make government work properly at the various levels of government on the local level, state level, national level and the world level? In the simplest terms it takes hard work and drive. Of what you may ask? People ... People make all these various levels of the government work - not buildings ... Building are only the body of the city --- a tool to be utilized by people. The Soul of all governments is its people and every government I believe has compromised the good intensions of a proud and self-sufficient people. Therefore it has abused its soul."
In my experience, Citizen Participation in Allentown was encouraged by City Official because the Federal Government's Community Development Block Grant program required citizen input. Thus we see in Allentown the Development of the Allentown Community of Neighborhood Organizations.... I remember going to my first meeting in the fall of 1976 at Dieruff High School and representatives of the Mayor's Ad Hoc committee for Citizen Participation explained the concept... They told us how we would set up our neighborhood associations and then come together as a coalition of neighborhoods to discuss problems of a city-wide concern. It was understood that problems of a localized nature would only come to the coalition if the neighborhood failed in its effort or efforts to seek resolution...In the beginning the people were led to believe that such a program would save tax money. But we didn't see a reduction in our taxes. In fact, it opened up a period wherein city government sought federal grants for everything. Our Administration had fallen prey to the siren lure of federal grant programs that have dependency on the uncertain budgetary decisions that will be made in Washington. Additionally, the Allentown taxpayer must pay for the services of a highly paid grants consultant based in Washington."
Again as we entered another political cycle in 2009, we note that the attitudes of public officials on the local level, state level, national level and the world level have not changed ... The bureaucracies encouraged upon the lower levels by the upper level of government are still there and not always fully funded. The Original core levels of the lower levels of government were sometimes supplemented by additional funds from an upper level of government but as we said these levels of supplementation are uncertain over the years, therefore increased costs encouraged by these supplementation also remain inadequately funded. But you know what, there are limits in funding whether to lower levels of government or directly to business or people that the higher levels of government can safely provide ....
Why the dependence on federal grant money by lower levels of government ? 1. Our political leaders on both the municipal and state level wanted to avoid political accountability for budget decisions by funding municipal and state expenditures with federal tax dollars...2. The Administration delighted and lusted in the competitive search for big bucks; that is, it developed the attitude that if we don't get the federal loot someone else will ...3. The municipal and state bureaucracy has succumbed to the reality of life that they needed grant programs to justify their positions....
And also, today our banks and major industrial means of production are also caught in the web
Said Kuric: “Wow you have said a mouthful … Let’s talk again … Maybe privately.”
Replied Kennethsson: “ I give this advice to people dealing with all government officials: "If you sit down and eat with a ruling prince, keep your mind on the business at hand: If you come out of Greed forget it and go home for you will become overwhelmed by government enticements
With that the debate ended … And Kennethsson and his Aides began to develop plans to go to Caracas, Venezuela as Venezuelan President Hugo Chaves required them to attend his weekly Presidential broadcast so that they could hear him talk on and on for hours about his vision and then blame any failure of vision on part of his ministers who failed to carry out this vision properly. Then extend his show by launching a tirade against Kennethsson for not being in lockstep or total agreement with the vision of his soul Mate Obama or even worse, Chavez’s own vision for his people.
What Obama wanted to know from his staff what they had on Kennethsson’s thinking toward the North American Free Trade Association Treaty? What they came up is the following statement made by Kennethsson on December 15, 1993:
“Pay heed and listen to these words from the Bible - Book of Proverbs:
... " When you sit down to eat with a ruling prince, be sure to keep your mind on what is before you, and if you are a greedy man. Cut your throat first." (Proverbs Chapter 23: Verses 1-2)...
... "Wisdom builds the house, good judgment makes it secure, knowledge furnishes the rooms with all the precious and pleasant things that wealth can buy." (Proverbs Chapter 24: Verses 3-4)...
Bill Clinton last week signed U.S. legislation to implement the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which will merge the markets of Canada, Mexico and the United States into the world's largest free trade zone.
Let us hope that NAFTA was built on wisdom and good judgment! Former President George Bush whose Trade Representative Carla Hills successfully negotiated the pact, thinks that NAFTA was built on wisdom and good judgment... And so does former Presidents Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter ... Initially the Clinton Administration reserved judgment on NAFTA, but with the inclusion of a Side Bar Agreement negotiated with Mexico and Canada by Mickey Kantor, Clinton’s Trade Representative, the Administration dropped all reservations... But Ross Perot, a 1992 presidential candidate and the inspirational leader for "United We Stand" vigorously disagrees with the Administration's stand... So does organized labor ... Interestingly, the opposition of Ross Perot prompted Mr. Clinton to characterize Perot during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" as the "master of the one-liner and emotional retort" who "kept things stirred up because that's what he likes to do." In his strident attack against labor on the same program, Clinton denounced their "roughshod muscle-bound tactics" and "naked pressure" to intimidate Democratic lawmakers.
NAFTA, which builds on the five-year old U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, takes effect January 1, 1994 and over the next 15 years eliminates tariffs and other trade barriers. It creates the world's largest free trade zone, covering 360 million people and stretches from the tropics to the arctic.
New reservations about NAFTA brought up by the new Liberal Party government of Canada headed by Prime Minister John Crettien caused some concern and anxiety in the Clinton Administration right up to Clinton's ceremonial signing of the U.S. legislation. In the end, the U.S. and Mexico agreed to Canadian demands that uniform trade laws be developed to avoid disputes over unfair trading practices. The three countries agreed they would try to negotiate over the next two years codes governing trade subsidies and dumping, or unfair pricing.
The U.S. and Mexico also agreed to a Canadian demand that would deny NAFTA the right to compel Canada to export their water resources. But the U.S. refused to give into a Canadian demand that would provide Canada with the same energy protection as Mexico. Mexico unlike its neighbors isn't required to share its energy resources with its partners during a supply crisis. Canada wanted equality with Mexico on the issue.
Canada's new government had threatened to drop out of the agreement if its demands for changes weren't met. Interestingly, Canada is currently trying to increase its oil and liquid gas exports to the U.S., not reduce them.
To understand NAFTA one must accept the fact that the world since the fall of the Soviet Union is in the process of creating a new economic order. The world is presently evolving into two competing trade groups. If both groups accepted the principles of the General Agreement On Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the world would have a functioning system. Indeed there would be stiff competition between the trade blocks, but this competition could be handled. U.S. Trade representative Mickey Kantor is currently involved in the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations in Geneva Switzerland. If complex negotiations are successfully completed by December 15, 1993, GATT will receive fast track review in Congress like NAFTA.... But at the time of this writing, many issues remain unsettled. The current round of GATT negotiations began in 1987. The initial GATT agreement was made in 1948.
One of these competing groups is the tightly knit European Community. Europe's main concerns include coping with jobless rates soaring past 11%, with failed efforts to craft common foreign, defense and monetary policies, and discredited politicians who have offered little vision and hope for the future. Viewed from America, the European Community is in an insular and defensive mood, unwilling to look much beyond its own economic crisis.
The second competing group is the loosely organized and fledgling Asia - Pacific Economic Cooperation group (APEC). The 15-member group is a diverse collection of countries, ranging from huge and still communistic China to tiny Brunei, whose separate passions for freer trade and compassion differ greatly. The U.S. and its NAFTA partners have membership in this group with the U.S. having been rebuffed by the European Community in its desire to have observer status.
The first ever gathering of APEC meeting in Seattle, Washington recently gave the European Community a clear and disturbing message concerning its desire to obtain an observer status in APEC. APEC told the EC politely to buzz off. The rationale being if Europe didn't want member nations of APEC to have a role in EC Affairs, APEC couldn't possibly allow the EC to have a role in their affairs. Many Asians blame Europe for stalling on global trade talks
The Seattle Summit can be viewed as a diplomatic first of symbolic importance. It's the initial gathering of leaders from the world's most dynamic economies, assembled to spur even faster growth by increased cooperation around the Pacific Rim... Then too, the Seattle Conference can be viewed as another sign of its Asian members wealth... The Asian membership accounting for 25% of global production compared to only 4% three decades ago.
As Proverbs Chapter 24: Verses 3-4 says: " Wisdom builds the house, good judgment makes it secure, knowledge furnished the rooms with all the precious and pleasant things that wealth can buy..." In light of the emerging European Community Trading Block, which may exclude the United States, NAFTA is an attempt by the United States to build a bridge with its North American neighbors... A Bridge that some say will be soon expanded to include South American nations as well... An economic Manifest Destiny so to speak... With APEC, the Americas may well build a bridge across the Pacific Ocean to link the Americas with Asia... With GATT, APEC would build a bridge to the European Community... “
The President upon reading the statement shook is head in a way his handlers knew expressed concern. Obama said to Emmauel: “He knew this in 2003 when he had no portfolio in government to learn this…. Woe we got to box this guy in. If this was a basketball game I would play the old Box and 1 zone against him.”
As it occurred the rest of the debates were canceled as well as the election of 2012.
Strange as it may seem, many Americans including Kennethsson had mysteriously disappeared, as did many citizens of the world. A confused and beleaguered Obama said this was some sort of mystery, tribulation or act of God he could not understand.
As this story was written the Armies of the world that include European Union troops sent by European Union President Tony Blair are headed toward a place in the Middle East with the intent of confronting an individual who is said to have descended to the Earth from the clouds. Obama spoke in his initial campaign for President about change we can believe in. However, the change that the person who descends from the sky with a great host of believers will bring to the world changes that we can believe in.
Barrack Obama, who arrived on the world political scene with great popularity, can only be troubled by the new development. Some say that his drive to become Emperor of the United States and perhaps the world has been stymied by this new development. He must make a critical decision in regard to committing U.S. troops. Will he ally himself with the armies of the world as authorized by the United Nations Security Council resolution? Or will he be on the side of the Kingdom of God, which is coming down to Earth through this man who is descending to earth from a cloud? …. As it was stated in Isaiah 24:21-22 ... "... it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.
Barack, the orator , now needs to make a decision. On who's side will he stand. He can't count on the host to free him from this judgment like the multitude freed Barabass from the cross in his day ... Will he stand up for Jesus a man born without Adam's sin , died without Adam's sin, and in doing so gave us all the opportunity to receive forgiveness of our sin trough his grace ... Or will he stand up for the Anti-Christ ...
Observers at the scene are somewhat confounded at what is happening … some reports suggest the mysterious reappearance of Obama’s Presidential Opponent Dennis Kennethsson in the ranks of the forces supporting the One who descended from the clouds … What is for certain, these same observers say that something climatic is about to occur in the Valley of Armageddon.... The government of man has proven itself to be utterly corrupt ... And it has failed as predicted ... No superman arrived on the scene to solve all the world's problems nor bring the world peace...
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- 100 fun things to do by yourself
- how to retire by 60
- change homepage to xfinity by comcast
- sayings to live by funny
- how to cite by paragraph
- how much to retire by 55
- words to live by quotes
- road to becoming a lawyer
- things to do by yourself when bored
- brussels to ghent by train
- debt to gdp by country
- title to song by lyrics