Archive for the ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ Category
President Obama’s executive action effectively legalizing up to 5,000,0000 illegal aliens in America is actually a bit of a nothing-burger policy-wize.
Most common-sense conservatives and Republicans don’t have a substanative problem with:
1) Allowing illegal aliens who have lived here for at least five years and who have children here who are U.S. citizens getting themselves right with the law and applying for a green card.
2) Allowing people who arrived here as children five or more years ago to do the same.
It’s really not that big a deal substanatively from a policy standpoint.
If Ronald Reagan were recommending this and went through the proper legislative channels, most of us would not have a big problem with this.
Actually, Reagan did do something like this, with Congress’s approval.
The title of the legislation was the Simpson-Mizzoli Act.
Under this legislation,, it was envisioned that about 4,000,000 illegal immigrants would apply for legal status through the act and that roughly half of them would be eligible.
In other words, about what Obama’s executive order is envisioning.
So the policy substance of what Obama is doing is not a huge deal.
What is a huge deal is HOW Obama is doing it.
He told us he had grown impatient with Congress’s inaction. So he decided to go it alone.
That’s not how our republic works.
In our system, Congress makes the laws. It’s the President’s job to “faithfully execute” the laws of the land.
He’s the executive, not a lawmaker.
Congress is the lawmaking body.
This is how “separation of powers” works — the foundational principle of the American structure of government.
So President Obama went rogue, decided he did not like the law as written. So went ahead and decreed his own law. This is what emperors and dictators do. This is what happens in a banana republic.
The trouble is there is no remedy to stop Obama from doing what he’s doing short of Impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, followed by a trial in the Senate and a vote of expulsion by the Senate.
This has never happened in the history of our Republic.
It would have happened to Richard Nixon. But he resigned.
Obama knows he’s safe. It would take a two-thirds super-majority in the Senate (67 votes) to expel him from office. That’s an impossible bar.
So Obama is free to do just about anything he wants short of killing a little girl with his bare hands in front of cameras on the White House lawn.
The problem is our system is ill-equipped to deal with a President who acts in bad faith.
For example, the Constitution gives the President the power to pardon criminals.
If President Obama wants, he can pardon every criminal now in prison (including every murderer, gang member, and rapist) and they would be free to go back out on the street to commit their mayhem.
Short of impeachment and expulsion by the Senate, there’s nothing we could do.
Even the case for impeachment in this case would be difficult because technically Obama would not be breaking any laws if he just released every criminal in America’s prison through his Constitutional power to pardon whomever he chooses.
Theoretically, Congress can impeach and expel a President from office if they just view him as grossly neglecting his duties as President, or as grossly acting against the nation’s interest. But technically, he would not be violating any law by pardoning every criminal in America.
President Obama might well decide to pardon every illegal alien living in America.
That’s certainly not out of the realm of possibility, given what he just did.
Now clearly, the Constitution does not envision any President pardoning every criminal in America . . . because that would be just nuts.
But the Constitution doesn’t say he can’t. So technically he can.
So there’s really nothing we can do to prevent Barack Obama from destroying the country — if he wants to.
He can fire every General, Admiral, Colonel, and Major in the military if he wants to. He can move all our military forces and troops to the South Pole as a joke.
And there’s absolutely nothing we could do about it short of Impeachment and a vote of expulsion by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds super-majority vote.
He can also use the IRS and Department of Justice (which he controls) to harass, prosecute, and destroy his political opponents — which he’s been doing. There’s nothing much we can do about that either.
He can also pack the courts with radical leftist ideologues who will rubber stamp whatever he wants to do. He’s basically done that.
So this is a serious question America’s Constitution does not handle well.
What happens when America elects a President who really doesn’t like America very much, who says he’s out to “fundamentally transform” America — who says he’s out to “remake America” . . . and apparently will use any means to do so, whether legal or not?
We’ve never before had a President of the United States who just did not much like America.
We’ve had incompetent Presidents — such as Jimmy Carter and James Buchanan.
Incompetent Presidents can also do a lot of damage to the country. But at least they aren’t purposefully trying to destroy the country.
What happens when we have a President who sees it as his mission in life to knock America down a few pegs, to punish America for being so successful, or even destroy America completely?
President Obama knows that if he can find a way to simply allow Mexico and Latin America to move to America, that’s the end of the Republican Party. He can turn America into a one-party state, like Venezuela or any number of other Latin American countries.
Our system does not have an adequate remedy for a President who decides to go rogue.
Can’t Two Things Be True? The Iraq War Was a Mistake. It Was Also a Mistake to Abandon Iraq to ISIS.
They were both wrong. Both their policies were disastrous for U.S. interests.
The verdict is in on George W. Bush’s decision to oust Saddam Hussein.
We found no WMD program, no nuclear weapons program under Saddam in Iraq – the pretense for going to war. As thuggish a dictator as he was, he turned out to be a bulwark against Islamic extremism.
He was no threat to the United States. He was actually an asset.
Saddam hated al Qaeda and the Islamic radicals as much as we do. He did a superb job at killing them.
This is why W’s father, George H.W. Bush made the decision in Operation Desert Storm to push Saddam out of Kuwait, back to Baghdad, and to leave him there.
Reagan also understood Saddam’s value.
He was a counter to the even worse Iran — which is why we sided with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War.
We had an alliance with Incredibly awful Joseph Stalin against the even worse Adolf Hitler.
Not that Saddam was even close to as bad as these fellows.
But in 2003 W Bush made the decision to go to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam, and set up a flimsy replacement government that needed a permanent U.S. presence to survive.
Dumb decision to replace Saddam with this un-serious government.
We’d be far better off with Saddam still in place.
But even dumber is Obama’s decision to abandon Iraq to ISIS.
Obama compounded one mistake with an even worse blunder.
Pulling all U.S. forces out of Iraq suddenly and completely left a power vaccum that was filled by ISIS.
Obama is doing the same in Afghanistan.
Just about everyone agrees we had to go to Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and hunt down bin Laden.
But we’re now leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban – which no doubt will also become a safe haven for ISIS and every other fanatical Islamic group.
Two years ago, Obama thought it was a great idea to arm rebels in Syria in the hope that they might overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad – another Saddam-like strongman dictator.
The problem is these rebels included ISIS and other fanatical Islamists.
Obama claimed he thoroughly vetted the rebels and was only arming “moderate” Islamic rebels.
Are there any “moderate” Islamic guerrilla rebels?
If you believe that, I have horse-racing bet portfolio I’d like you to invest in.
Now Obama is bombing ISIS in Syria, who he used to think it was a good idea to arm.
Meanwhile, ISIS is riding around in U.S. tanks with U.S. rockets and weapons beheading people.
Obama also thought it was a great idea to help the Islamists get rid of the dictator in Libya Muammar Gaddafi. So now Libya is in a state of anarchy and terrorists are using the former U.S. Embassy as their headquarters.
Obama also sided with the Muslim Brotherhood against U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak – another strongman dictator. But at least he was a friend of the U.S. and not out to erase Israel from the map.
The good news in Egypt is that the Muslim Brotherhood has since been thrown out by the Egyptian military. So we have another Mubarak-style regime in Egypt, no thanks to Obama.
But that’s good for the United States.
The truth is Democracy doesn’t work in Islamic countries — at least not those that take the Koran seriously.
Sharia Law and democracy are incompatible.
If you have a vote in these countries, you will have one election one time.
If Saudi Arabia had an election, al Qaeda or ISIS would likely win. We don’t like the corrupt Royal Family that runs Saudi Arabia. But they’re better than the alternative.
We don’t like Assad, but he’s better than what would replace him. We certainly did not like Saddam or Gaddafi. But look what we have now. These countries have become Jihadist Wonderlands.
George W. Bush made one mistake. And it was a biggie – the Iraq War.
He should have just left Saddam in place. Saddam was a “managaeble problem,” to borrow the words of Obama.
Actually, he wasn’t the problem. Turns out he was a pretty good solution to radical Islam, which he hated.
So Bush made a big strategic mistake. Huge.
But Obama has taken the wrong side in literally every conflict in the Middle East. Not once has he chosen the correct side.
He sides with Hamas over Israel. He sides with the Muslim Brotherhood over Mubarak. He sides with “moderate elements” of the Taliban over Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan.
There are no “moderate elements” of the Taliban.
Obama has spent much of his Presidency trashing the Iraqi government — I guess as a way to justify America’s exit from Iraq.
As a result of Obama’s policies , ISIS now controls an area of Iraq and Syria the size of Indiana.
As flawed as George W. Bush was, do you think this would have ever happened if he were still President?
The entire Middle East is now in flames now because of Obama. We have no friends in the Middle East anymore, except Israel – who Obama constantly trashes.
Is Jordan a friend?
It doesn’t matter much because they’re in the process of being overrun by ISIS.
For what it’s worth, George W. Bush assembled a coalition of 48 countries to take on Saddam — the misguided venture though it was.
Barack Obama has persuaded a grand total of nine countries(including the great nation of Albania) to join his coalition to take on ISIS.
Great Britain and Germany have said “no thanks” to Obama’s idea of bombing ISIS in Syria.
That’s how much confidence our allies have in Obama.
Barack Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Winston Churchill by comparison.
President Obama cannot point to a single foreign policy success for his Administration. Everywhere you look, his foreign policy is a disaster.
Here’s your handy list of Obama’s 12 Worst Foreign Policy Disasters:
1) Iraq is imploding.
Obama released Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the terrorist who was in U.S. custody and who is now leading the ISIS takeover of Iraq. ISIS is an al Qaeda offshoot which is so radical that it was disavowed by al Qaeda as too extreme even for them. Upon his release from a U.S detention camp in 2009, al-Baghdadi promised America: “I’ll see you in New York.”
Iraq had a relatively stable pro-America government on Obama’s first day as President. All he needed to do was get a “status of forces” agreement with Baghdad — easy to do, if Obama had wanted it. But he was determined to leave zero U.S. presence in Iraq.
So the terrorists are filling the power vacuum.
We are now in the incredible position of hoping Iran (“Axis of Evil”) steps in to stop the advance of ISIS.
2) Afghanistan soon to be under the control of the Taliban and al Qaeda again
Now that we’ve swapped five Taliban terrorist leaders for one U.S. Army deserter, Obama has made it clear that America will do nothing to stop the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan. These terrorist leaders he released back into the field are top commanders, mass-murders, called by experts “the worst of the worst.”
At least four of the five will return to the battlefield.
Obama has now taught terrorists that one American deserter equals five top Taliban commanders.
Taliban leaders have announced that they plan to kidnap as many Americans as they can.
Every American is now a target for kidnapping by terrorists.
As in Iraq, Obama is determined to leave no U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan will be under Taliban-al Qaeda control again within a year.
3) Obama Lost Egypt
Obama actively undermined U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak in favor of the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian military has since expelled the radical Muslim Brotherhood from power in a coup and reestablished some semblance of order over the country. But America has lost a key ally in the Middle East.
4) Libya is in flames
Libya is now a terrorist enclave thanks to Obama – who backed the al Qaeda-led insurgency against Gaddafi. As bad as
Muammar Gaddafi was, he at least wasn’t al Qaeda and seemed satisfied with just being dictator of Libya. Gaddafi hasn’t been a threat to the United States since President Reagan sent a couple of cruise missiles into his living room.
One of the side benefits of the second Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein was that this convinced Gaddafi to abandon his nuclear bomb program. Gaddafi had become a toothless tiger in his old age.
The successful al Qaeda attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya resulting in the killing of a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans shows who is really in charge of Libya today — thanks to Obama. It also sent a message to the rest of the world that this Administration is utterly inept when it comes to protecting Americans and U.S. interests.
For terrorists, it’s now “open season” on Americans.
6) Assad calls Obama’s bluff
I find myself in rare agreement with the leftist former Congressman Dennis Kucinich who says the Obama Administration has become al Qaeda’s air force in the Middle East. Yes, the Assad regime is bad, but the replacement is likely to be far worse – al Qaeda and other radical offshoots.
For some reason, Obama thought the Assad regime’s alleged killing of 1,400 insurgents with chemical weapons during a civil war was beyond the pale. But this is small potatoes as far as brutal regimes go. The Rawanda regime slaughtered 800,000 innocent Rawandans, but we did nothing. Pol Pot slaughtered one-forth of Cambodia. We did nothing.
So why the selective outrage?
Assad claims his regime did not use the chemical weapons. He claims these chemical weapons were used by the Muslim Brotherhood or perhaps in a “False Flag” attack — as a tactic by the rebels to bring the Western world’s wrath down on Assad. Assad has supplied some decent evidence that this might be the case.
At any rate, Obama backed off his “red line” threats to Assad to get rid of his chemical weapons, thus sending a message to the world that Obama doesn’t mean what he says. Putin has since taken advantage of Obama’s fecklessness to seize the Crimea and roll tanks into the Ukraine.
Obama’s on-again, off-again threats to Assad combined with his complete withdraw of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan signaled to the world that Obama is no force to be reckoned with.
7) Putin considers Obama a joke
Obama, meanwhile, has turned America into the world’s laughingstock.
8) Iran soon to have nukes
Obama has made it clear he will do absolutely noting to stop Iran’s program to develop nuclear weapons.
9) North Korea soon to have nukes
Obama has made it clear he will do absolutely noting to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons.
10) Alienated Israel
Obama is the most anti-Israel President in American history. Actually, he’s the only anti-Israel President in American history. Obama has made no secret of his disdain for Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
11) Alienated Great Britain
Obama outraged America’s closest ally by agreeing to provide Britain’s nuclear submarine secrets to Vladimir Putin. He did this, apparently, as a gesture to Putin that we are on Moscow’s side and as part of his program to “reset” relations with Putin.
12) Alienated Poland and Eastern Europe
Obama reneged on America’s commitment to provide anti-missile protection to Poland. He did this also as part of his failed program to “reset” America’s relations with Putin.
Never before has America been more loathed and disrespected around the world. Obama is universally regarded by foreign leaders as arrogant, weak, dishonest, detached, selfish, back-stabbing, petulant, lazy, foppish — just about every characteristic you don’t want in a leader.
Now that the price of oil is soaring to over $110 a barrel, Americans might be starting to see that foreign policy matters. Get ready to pay $6 for a gallon of regular gas – which is what Obama says he wants.
Meanwhile, Obama is playing another round of golf today — his equivalent of Nero’s fiddling.
QUESTION: Is Obama really this incompetent? Or is he failing on purpose as part of his program to destroy America and Western Civilization?
Imagine a referee who ALWAYS gets the call wrong — never right. At a certain point, you’d have to conclude this isn’t by chance, or that perhaps there’s some kind of mental illness at work.
A side-benefit of all these foreign policy disasters for Obama is they distract America from the disaster of ObamaCare and the disaster of Obamanomics. The U.S. economy in Q1 actually shrank by 1%.
So which is worse: Obama’s foreign policy, or his domestic policies?
It’s a tough call. I would say his foreign policy disasters are worse . . . because most of the damage he’s doing in foreign policy can’t be fixed.
The bottom line point of this article is America’s founders did their best to protect us from ourselves. But, ultimately, we get the government we deserve. It’s not like we haven’t had many opportunities to change course.
We’re all familiar now with Barack Obama’s unilateral changing of laws by executive order, or just ignoring laws he doesn’t like, or enacting his own laws out of thin air through his control of the regulatory bureaucracy. Regulations, promulgated by the executive branch bureaucracy carry the force of law.
I have long argued that the President ought to be able to exercise the line-item veto, ought to have substantial power.
I have argued this because what Congress does is send up enormous “ominibus” spending bills, encompassing the entire federal government, or big chunks of it. They then bury all kinds of pork-barrel spending in these spending bills. So the President then must either accept the entire bill, or veto it. Ronald Reagan repeatedly made the case for the line-item vote, so he could throw the junk out of these enormous spending packages.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that the line-item veto is unconstitutional. I don’t see why.
The veto is a Constitutional power accorded to the President. But that’s what the Supreme Court ruled.
So Congress figured out a way to short-circuit the President’s Constitutional veto authority by sending up these enormous omnibus spending bills in the form of a single law.
The result is the continued explosion of federal spending.
So giving Congress more power is clearly not the answer. Congress’s approval rating is hovering between 12 and 13 percent.
Of course, Obama has gone way beyond the simple line-item veto idea. He ignores border security laws, duly passed by Congress. He ignores his own ObamaCare law — declaring changes to provisions in the law the public hates.
The truth is, most of the changes he’s enacting to the ObamaCare law are a modest improvement to the law. The law is a disaster on almost every level and should be repealed. But the changes he’s declaring on his own, though illegal, are making the law marginally less miserable.
Republicans in Congress have no power to force Obama to follow the law. Nor would they likely exercise this power even if they could enforce the law on Obama. How can you oppose delaying and cushioning the assorted ObamaCare mandates on businesses and individuals?
As things stand now, Obama could strangle a child to death on national TV, and there’s really no enforcement mechanism to bring Obama to justice. His henchman Eric Holder runs the Justice Department. So he’s not going to bring charges against his boss. Plus, Holder is just as radical as Obama — who says he wants to “fundamentally transform” America.
And so long as Harry Reid is in charge of the Senate, no action is possible against Obama. Plus, we would need at least 60 Republican Senators to actually expel Obama from office — more than that, because not every Republican would vote to expel an American President from office.
So impeachment by the House of Representatives is possible, and has happened. But actual expulsion from office is near impossible.
So what we have moved to, essentially, is a parliamentary system of one-party rule.
Under the parliamentary system, whichever party controls the legislature chooses the prime minister.
This has its pluses and minuses.
The plus is that the people get the government they deserve.
The people have multiple opportunities to get the government they want.
There’s the Presidential election every four years.
If Congress is divided, the President can do whatever he wants — declare martial law, confiscate all our property, whatever.
There’s not much we can do about it.
But every two years, Americans have an opportunity to get the President in line if he acts irresponsibly or even tyrannically.
We have an opportunity to rein in Obama in the 2014 November elections.
The truth is America’s founders wanted a robust energetic executive branch. Alexander Hamilton’s view prevailed for the most part. The Constitution corrected the almost non-existent federal government established by the Articles of Confederation.
The federal government was still too weak, which required a Civil War to correct.
We need a strong federal government and a strong Presidency to be a world super-power. Otherwise, we would devolve into tribalism, like Afghanistan. We don’t want that.
But if the President abuses his power, does things the people don’t want, the people have a chance every two years to rein him in.
The problem with a country run by Congress is we get dysfunction — nothing happens. Or, you end up with tyranny by bureaucracy — which is what we have now. Congress is lazy. So it likes to delegate its law-making authority to faceless bureaucrats who are accountable to no one.
But the problem with a country run by a single individual (a king or dictator) is that very bad things can happen — like Adolf Hitler. Henry VIII was no bargain either. Neither was Louis XIV.
The beauty of the American system is that ultimately the people get the government they want and deserve.
We have an opportunity every two years to correct course.
I was stunned that America reelected Obama in 2012. But that’s what happened. That’s the way it is.
Apparently, Americans had not had enough socialism, or did not really understand ObamaCare, or thought they had corrected Obama’s excesses with the 2010 mid-term Congressional elections, which were a landslide for Republicans.
Or perhaps Mitt Romney did not present a compelling case against ousting a sitting President.
Whatever happened in 2012, Obama won — and the election was not all that close.
I like having an energetic President. I like clear choices. This way the people can see quickly what’s really happening. They can then say “yes” or “no.” They can do that every two years.
My sense is that Obama is too radical for America. He’s done a good job of masking how radical he really is. So he won reelection in 2012 against Thurston Howell III.
But now people are beginning to see the real Obama. They don’t like ObamaCare — never have.
They don’t like his war on business — that is, the U.S. economy.
Most Americans like business — the source of jobs and money.
Most Americans like capitalism, the source of wealth — so we aren’t relegated to mud huts.
Most Americans don’t think most jobs should be government jobs . . . because Communism did not work out so well.
Yes, people want a safety net. They want Medicare. The want Social Security. They don’t like to see beggers on the street. But they don’t like socialism either. Most Americans admire Bill Gates, Steve Jobs. They admire achievers. Most Americans don’t want to punish people just because they achieved.
Most Americans understand that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison made our lives better — much better. Why punish them? Why crush innovators and producers with the heavy hand of government bureaucracy.
They also want a safety net. They want to protect the disabled and the elderly — but they don’t want to reward the lazy and the clueless.
My guess is that America will reject Obama’s neo-Marxism.
What’s great about Obama is he really is offering America a clear choice.
America’s founders did their best to protect us from ourselves. But ultimately we get the government we deserve.
I have no problem with that.
STARK CONTRAST: Nelson Mandela was a uniter and a healer. Barack Obama is a divider and a well-poisoner.
The difference between Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama is just stunning.
Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years by the white apartheid government of South Africa.
The minority white government labeled him a terrorist.
Apartheid ended. Nelson Mandela was released from prison and became leader of South Africa.
Many pundits (including me) assumed there would be a bloodbath — that Nelson Mandela would use his power to exact revenge against white South Africans. I expected that he would exterminate the white minority, chase whites out of the country, confiscate their property, shut down their businesses.
I assumed that he would quickly set himself up as a dictator and that South Africa would become another Hell hole, like so many other African countries.
By all accounts, Mandela was a socialist of some kind — a man of the Left.
He got along well with the likes of Fidel Castro. Many of his statements indicated he was at times sympathetic to Communism. He joined the Communist Party in South Africa in 1961, but seems to have left the party in 1962. And he said in court testimony that he had never become a Communist.
Nelson Mandela was on the U.S. government’s terrorist watch list. And the African National Congress, which he led, was classified by our government as a terrorist organization.
His ex-wife, Winnie Mandela, was a radical Leftist who advocated killing whites. She cheered the barbaric practice of necklacing those who did not march in lockstep with the Communist Party line. She said ”The Soviet Union is the torch-bearer for all our hopes and aspirations.”
She also said: “With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country.”
Nelson Mandela and Winnie Mandela parted ways.
She was a radical. He turned out not to be.
Nelson Mandela probably had soclialistic instincts.
He and Barack Obama would probably consider themselves “peas in a pod” in many respects, ideologically and philosophically.
But Nelson Mandela turned out to be a truly great man. In an act of Christ-like super-human forgiveness, he seemed to harbor no bitterness toward whites for the 27 years he spent in prison.
If he was bitter (who wouldn’t be?), he never showed it. Instead, he put South Africa’s future ahead of whatever anger toward whites that he must have harbored.
Mandela’s Economic Miracle
Far for chasing whites out of the country, exterminating whites, and confiscating their property and businesses, Nelson Mandela encouraged whites and their businesses to stay in South Africa. He did not move South Africa toward socialism and Communism, as many of us expected he would. Instead, he encouraged entrepreneurship and industry.
As a result, South Africa’s economy grew strongly under Mandela — an average of 3 percent growth per year between 1995 and 2003. This was double the average 1.5 percent annual growth rate under apartheid from 1980 through 1994.
From 1994 to 2008, incomes for black South Africans increased by 93 percent, but incomes for white South Africans also increased by an impressive 62 percent, according to University of Cape Town economist Murray Leibbrandt.
So if Mandela was at one point some kind of a Communist or socialist, he certainly did not govern that way.
As a result, South Africa remains by far the most prosperous country on the African continent. It became even more of an economic superpower on the African continent under Mandela than it was under white apartheid rule.
It’s worth noting also that Nelson Mandela kept much of the apartheid homeland system in tact, much reviled by American liberals.
The main substantive change Mandela brought to South Africa was that blacks had as much right to apply for jobs as whites.
Had he attempted to dismantle the semi-autonomous “sovereign” homelands of Bophuthatswana and Kwazulu, he knew that would have triggered a civil war.
There had been a history of bloody conflicts between the African National Congress and the Zulu Inkatha Freedom Party, but Mandela was able to forge peace through negotiation and compromise.
Though Mandela’s party was the African National Congress, the rival Zulus came to trust Mandela.
This was on a level with getting the Palestinians to trust the Israelis.
The Contrast With Obama
Nelson Mandela was a uniter and a healer.
Contrast Nelson Mandela with Barack Obama — who is a divider, a well-poisoner, and a “sower of discord.”
The great poet Dante had a special place deep in Hell for “sowers of discord.”
They were way down there in Circle 8 in Dante’s Inferno.
Whenever possible, Obama injects race into politics. His standard playbook is to demonize his political opponents . . . and even entire industries. He not only demonizes Republicans, he demonizes the insurance industry, the coal industry, the oil companies — just about the entire private sector.
His 2008 campaign machine even savaged “Joe the Plumber.”
Obama refers to his critics as “enemies.”
Obama described his brief stint working for a business as working “behind enemy lines.”
Obama’s hatred of Republicans is so total that he carefully crafted health care legislation so that it would not garner a single Republican vote in a 435-member U.S. House of Representatives and a 100-member U.S. Senate — not a single Republican vote. Not even Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, both of whom vote with the Democrats about half the time on major legislation.
Both Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins would have loved to have voted for ObamaCare, if they could have possibly justified it. Surely, he could have also brought along the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham if he had made any effort at all.
It would have be very easy to throw Republicans a few bones and to have attracted some Republican votes for ObamaCare.
Why not do that if it costs you absolutely nothing?
Obama chose not to.
He had control of both chambers of Congress. So he wanted to make sure Republicans received absolutely nothing they wanted in the ObamaCare legislation — not even tort reform (which everyone supports, except lawyers).
Obama wanted legislation that would not and could not garner a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. That takes some doing. That takes careful thought.
This is not how you govern effectively.
Always, when governing, you want to do everything possible to bring the other side into the tent — even if you don’t really need to. Why not make your major piece of legislation bipartisan if at all possible?
If your legislation cannot get a single vote in Congress from the other party, there’s a good chance that it’s bad legislation.
Ronald Reagan was able to get 70+ votes in the Senate for his tax-cut plans in 1981 . . . because he reached out to the less ideological Democrats.
He did not spike the football when he won the Presidency. He did not tell leaders of the other party: “We won, you lost,” the way Obama did.
Reagan did not do any victory dances. He did not give the middle finger to the other party. Instead, he immediately reached out to the other party, without compromising on his principles.
Obama doesn’t even talk with Republicans. He attacks Republicans in every speech. He accuses Republicans of wanting dirty air, dirty water, and of wanting to throw grandma out into the snow. He says Republicans don’t care about children who have autism. He calls Tea Party people “Tea Baggers” (a sexual term).
He (his campaign) actually accused Mitt Romney of killing people.
In every speech, Obama tries to portray Republicans and conservatives as evil. He even sicks the IRS on his political opponents. One gets the sense that Obama would kill his political critics if he could.
That’s certainly not how Nelson Mandela behaved.
Mandela kept the white minority in South Africa in the tent. He did not assail them as evil. He made it clear to them that they would be welcome in the new South Africa. Whites would have a place at the table.
As a result, South Africa continues to prosper.
Under Obama, the U.S. has gone in the opposite direction. Not only is our economy stuck in the mud and going no where, but America has become more racially divided than ever.
Mandela wanted South Africa to work, to be successful, to be prosperous.
Obama just wants to push his narrow socialist ideological agenda, no matter what the results.
Apparently, he doesn’t care that ObamaCare is a total disaster. He’s determined to see the ruinous law through to the finish, no matter what harm it brings. No adjustments. No compromise. Certainly no discussions with Republicans on how to fix ObamaCare.
There are ways to fix most of what’s wrong with ObamaCare. But Obama won’t listen
Obama could score amazing political points by changing course, by making adjustments, by listening, by fixing what’s not working.
But he won’t . . . because he sees his critics as evil. He won’t even entertain the possibility that his critics might have some ideas worth considering.
It’s too bad Barack Obama learned nothing from Nelson Mandela’s example of how to govern a country.
Nelson Mandela fostered good will and trust. Barack Obama fosters ill will and distrust.
Nelson Mandela was modest and humble. Barack Obama uses the word “I” more than any President in American history. For Barack Obama, it’s always all about Obama.
I truly love Nelson Mandela, even though we probably disagreed on a lot of issues.
He was a great man — one of the greatest in world history . . . because of his actions, because of how he actually behaved when he had all the power.
He certainly could have set himself up as a dictator. He chose not to. He could have become the world’s richest man by seizing all the diamond mines and business assets of South Africa. He chose not to.
I was dead wrong in my predictions about what Nelson Mandela would bring to South Africa.
But who could have predicted he would turn out to be the saint he turned out to be?
Who could have predicted that he would put all the personal anger he must have felt aside for the 27 years he unjustly served in prison . . . to do what’s best for his country?
Nelson Mandela was a true patriot.
Nelson Mandela is the model for how to bring people together. He is the definition of leadership.
I put him on the level of Mother Teresa and George Washington in terms of being a true force for good in the world.
What a stark and jarring contrast to Barack Obama’s smallness, pettiness, and nastiness.
I’ve been waiting for this great day.
President Barack Obama’s job approval rating has dropped to an all-time low of 39.9 percent on the Real Clear Politics average of polls.
And look at his wonderful plunge since November 2012!
Also, Republicans now have a 5 percent lead over Democrats on the generic Congressional ballot, according to today’s Rasmussen’s poll.
The 2014 Congressional Elections must be all about the ObamaCare disaster – ObamaCare all the time, 24/7/365.
Obama really might end up being the destroyer of liberalism. If government can’t even build a functioning website for $634 MILLION, how can it run a vast and complex health care system that consumes 18 percent of GDP?
The George Zimmerman trial is over except the formalities.
The prosecution has rested. And most of the prosecution’s witnesses support Zimmerman’s account of what happened.
We are now hearing from the defense. But this trial is effectively over based on the evidence and witnesses the prosecution put on. Either this is the most inept prosecution of all time, or there was no case and we should not have had a trial.
George Zimmerman’s injuries on his head and face, including a broken nose, clearly show he was beaten by the much-taller Trayvon Martin (6 feet tall vs the 5′ 8″ Zimmerman). There was a four-inch height difference. Trayvon was clearly far more athletic than the short, overweight, out-of-shape Zimmerman.
Jonathon Good — the most credible witness, the witness who saw the most – testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman raining down blows on Zimmerman.
The fact that the back of Zimmerman’s clothing was wet and had grass stuck to the back of his pants and jacket is strong evidence that Zimmerman was on his back taking a beating.
The prosecution has all but conceded Martin was on top beating Zimmerman.
The prosecution is trying to say that the fact that Zimmerman was not grievously injured suggests he used unreasonable force in response.
But the extent of the injuries has nothing to do with the law concerning self-defense.
The prosecution, of course, knows this. The prosecution is doing all it can to confuse the jury about the law in order to get a false conviction — a tactic by the prosecution that is, at best, immoral, if not illegal.
The law says you have the right to shoot an attacker in self-defense if you reasonably fear you might be killed or suffer grievous bodily harm.
It doesn’t say you have the right to shoot only after you suffer grievous bodily harm. You just need to have a reasonable fear that you might be killed or suffer grievous bodily harm.
If an attacker is on top of you pounding your head on cement, this would certainly qualify, even if you manage to escape grievous bodily harm.
It was only later, after an uproar from national black leaders (Al Sharpton, etc) and the media that a charge of second degree murder was filed.
President Obama even jumped into the case, telling America: “If I Had a Son, He’d Look Like Trayvon”.
When the President of the United States came out against Zimmerman, no doubt the State of Florida felt it had little choice but to move forward with some kind of show trial. Black leaders were also threatening riots if there wasn’t justice for Trayvon.
So now we have this show trial, at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Of course, I don’t know what really happened that night when George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. I have seen nothing in the trial so far that disproves anything Zimmerman told police that night.
We have conflicting testimony about whose voice on the 911 call was crying for help. Trayvon’s family says it was Trayvon. Zimmerman’s family says it was George. The guy who actually witnessed the event, Jonathon Good , says it was George.
So we don’t know. No one really knows what happened that night.
The prosecution must prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
This means all six jurors must believe, with near 100 percent certainty, that George Zimmerman hunted down and murdered Trayvon Martin with malice. That’s what a Second Degree Murder conviction requires.
There’s absolutely no evidence of that. Zimmerman fired just one shot. He says he thought he had missed. He says he did not realize Martin was dead until after his arrest.
If Zimmerman had malice toward Trayvon Martin, or toward black people, or if he fired out of some sort of rage or hatred, he likely would have fired more than one shot.
The forensics show that the gun was against the sweatshirt, but not pressed up against the body, that the sweatshirt and the second shirt under the sweatshirt were several inches away from the body — as would happen if Martin were on top of Zimmerman, bending over Zimmerman, raining down blows on Zimmerman and pounding Zimmerman’s head against the cement, just as Zimmerman described.
The prosecution is desperately trying to make the case that Zimmerman was a wannabe cop.
The evidence for this is that he took a criminal justice course several years ago and applied to become a police officer. So the prosecution is twisting what most people would consider to be positives into negatives for Zimmerman.
But what courses he took at a community college and what jobs he applied for are irrelevant. All that matters is what can be proven happened during those few seconds before George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin.
The prosecution is trying to make the case that Zimmerman, because he took this criminal justice course at a community college, understood Florida’s “stand your ground” law and understood what to say to police.
Assuming that’s true (a huge stretch), does this mean we can’t trust the testimony of cops in trials because they know what to say? Does this mean we can’t trust police reports because they know how to tailor their reports to whatever charges they want to prove?
Doesn’t making a point like this undermine the credibility of law enforcement and our entire criminal justice system?
Is the prosecution’s point that those who know the law can’t be trusted to tell the truth . . . because they know the law — and doubly can’t be trusted to tell the truth if they also want to become a cop?
This is an argument so bizarre and illogical I felt like I was watching a riff in a Monty Python movie.
Never mind that this case doesn’t even involve Florida’s “stand your ground” law. Zimmerman is not relying on the “stand your ground” law. He is claiming simple self-defense.
The state’s theory is that George Zimmerman is a wannabe cop who hates black people and who appointed himself vigilante (Charles Bronson-style). The state wants the jury to believes that George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin and, motivated by racist rage, stalked Martin and gunned him down because Martin was wearing a hoodie.
The evidence for all this is that he took a course on criminal justice and applied to be a cop.
The fact that the prosecution has spent so much time on this point just underscores how flimsy their case against Zimmerman really is.
“Is this really all they have? Is this really their entire case?” I keep asking myself.
I kept waiting for the grand finale, which never happened.
I don’t think the prosecution really even believes its own case.
It’s as if they know they have to come up with something because the politics of this case demands it. So this is the best they can do.
This is a trial that never should have happened.
These prosecutors should all lose their license to practice law for bringing such a frivolous case, at enormous cost to taxpayers. Prosecutors are only supposed to bring cases they know they are near-certain to win. They are only supposed to bring cases where the evidence is overwhelming.
This is why most prosecutors have a 98-100 percent conviction rate. It’s considered a breach of ethics for prosecutors to bring to trial cases they have almost no chance of winning — in this case, zero chance of winning . . . because almost all the evidence the prosecution presented supports Zimmerman’s account of what happened.
The lead detective in the case (a witness for the prosecution) believed Zimmerman told the truth to the police, has still found no evidence to suggest Zimmerman was lying about anything.
Has there ever been a criminal case in history where the lead detective (the man in charge of the investigation for the state) takes the side of the criminal defendant?
Incredibly, that’s what happened here.
The law professor the prosecution put on the stand told the jury the prosecution had misstated the law, and proceeded to give a tutorial on what the law actually is concerning “stand your ground” and “self-defense” – and why Zimmerman appears to have acted in accordance with the law.
The judge should not send this case to the jury. The judge should summarily throw this case out for lack of evidence.
Of course, that won’t happen because this is a political trial.
This trial is happening because President Obama personally weighed in on this case against Zimmerman . . . and because of threats to riot from the black community. This is a trial about “political correctness,” not about what the state can prove happened that night.
George Zimmerman is the target of a modern lynch mob, with Barack Obama (the President of the United States) surreally leading the mob.
So, it’s come to this.
In America today, we really can be tried as a criminal (and potentially jailed for decades) for accidentally running up against “political correctness.”
By Ben Hart
Lost in the avalanche of Obama scandals over the past week (IRS-gate, Benghazi-gate, and reporter-phone-records-tapping-gate), was an admission by Barack Obama that, yes, he is indeed a socialist (at a minimum).
The admission appears in a report by the New York Times where Obama is quoted as telling his inner circle that he often dreams of ”going Bulworth.”
Here’s the revealing quote buried deep in the NYT piece:
In private, he has talked longingly of ‘going Bulworth,’ a reference to a little-remembered 1998 Warren Beatty movie about a senator who risked it all to say what he really thought.”
So what does Obama really mean by “going Bulworth”?
Bulworth is portrayed as a hero in the film because he came out of the closet and boasted that he was a socialist, out to destroy the capitalist system. He would be unhindered by pragmatic political concerns from pursuing his mission. To Bulworth, the enemy is capitalism.
When Obama tells his inner-circle that “going Bulworth” is what he really wants to do, he’s saying his facade of political pragmatism is a lie — a calculated lie for the purpose of winning elections.
But now that he no longer has to worry about elections, he’s free to do what he really wants.
Bullworth is Obama’s socialist hero. Now he’s “going Bulworth.”
Using the IRS to punish his political adversaries is part of Obama’s way of “going Bulworth.”
Obama’s agenda is Bullworth’s agenda — destroy capitalism and transform America into a socialist country, apparently by any means necessary.
This “going Bulworth” admission would be a lot like if President Reagan had said “I’ll be going Dr. Strangelove in my second term.”
Can you imagine if Reagan had ever said something like that?
It would confirm the liberal suspicion that Reagan was so anti-Communist, such a hardline Cold Warrior that he might welcome (might even start) a nuclear war against the Soviets.
This would be big news. We would wonder, with good reason, what his plans for us really are.
Of course, we had to wade through 17 paragraphs of non-news (fluff) before we reached Obama’s bombshell “going Bulworth” quote in the New York Times article.
Either the editors at the New York Times did not fully understand what “going Bullworth” meant. Or they did, and just didn’t want to draw attention to Obama’s statement.
During his 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised he would “fundamentally transform” America.
Now we know what he means by this. He means move America’s from a capitalist economic system (which has produced more prosperity than any nation in history) to a socialist system. Socialism always creates poverty and misery.
What’s unclear is the degree of socialism Obama and the fictional Bullworth want.
Is it French-style socialism where 57 percent of the economy is the government? Or is it Mao Tse Tung-style socialism, where 100 percent of the economy is the government?
Obama hasn’t told us.
By the way, even French-style socialism isn’t so good. We now learn some French citizens are being taxed at more than 100 percent of their income.
No wonder French millionaires are fleeing France in droves.
By the way, can you really love something you want to “fundamentally transform“?
This is what Obama says he wants to do to America.
If I were to tell my wife that my goal is to “fundamentally transform” her, would she take that as a compliment?
Most likely, she’d file for divorce.
Of course, constitutionalists have known all along what Obama’s true agenda is. His mom was a socialist. All his key mentors and associates throughout his life have been anti-American socialists and Marxists, including his mentor when growing up Frank Marshall Davis (Communist Party USA member); William Ayers (Weather Underground founder, bomber of the Pentagon and NYC police headquarters); his America-hating pastor of 20 years Jeremiah Wright.
Obama had the most left voting record in the U.S. Senate — to the left of the likes of Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy, to the Left even of the self-described Socialist Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders.
So the fact that Obama is a socialist (or worse) is no secret to anyone who has followed his life and career. Now that he’s no longer concerned about reelection, he admits it.
And he’s using the massive weapon of the federal bureaucracy he runs to make it happen.
We are just now learning that Obama’s use of the IRS and the Justice Department to target the Tea Party, conservative organizations, conservative donors, Christian organizations, reporters and journalists Obama doesn’t like, even Billy Graham, is the tip of the iceberg of what’s happening.
The IRS was targeting organizations that have the keywords “Tea Party,” “Constitution,” or “patriot” associated with them.
In the world of Obama and his IRS, it’s apparently suspicious if you’re a “patriot” who talks about the “Constitution.” And if you are a “Christian” “Tea Party” member who talks about the “Constitution,” you might as well turn yourself in to authorities for hard labor at a prison camp in northern Alaska.
It’s now clear Obama and his gang are using the full machinery of the federal government to crush dissent and punish his critics.
Obama is going way beyond anything Nixon tried. Nixon was a piker compared to Obama.
I favor going over the fiscal cliff. No more talks with President Obama.
It’s about time the American people (including the Middle Class) start paying for the government benefits they are demanding.
Going over the fiscal cliff means we start making that happen.
Today, the federal government is borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it’s spending. We now have a $16.4 TRILLION national debt.
Obama’s own budgets propose adding a $1 TRILLION+ to the national debt every year for as far as the eye can see.
This means the American people are enjoying lots of benefits from government without paying for them. We are passing the bill onto future generations.
That’s not fair. And it’s immoral.
Assuming there’s no fiscal cliff deal (I hope there isn’t) the tax bill for the median family or household will increase by about $3,500 in 2013.
Some mandatory spending cuts also kick in. I’m all for that.
Now, if it were up to me, I’d cut the entire federal budget by about two-thirds.
That’s about what it would take to scale our federal government back down to Constitutional size. But that’s not what the American people are voting for.
The American people want more from the government. So it’s time they start paying for it.
When you really think about it, the fiscal cliff IS the compromise.
Obama wants no spending cuts, only tax increases.
People like me want all spending cuts, no tax increases. In fact, I want tax cuts plus spending cuts, while Obama wants more spending and more taxes.
So there’s no possibility of any meeting of the minds in further discussions with Obama.
We just have a very different (polar opposite) philosophy of that the proper role of government is.
With the fiscal cliff, we get some tax increases and we get some real spending cuts. We begin the process of bringing the federal budget back into balance.
So that’s the compromise. It’s the compromise Barack Obama, John Boehner, and Harry Reid all agreed to in 2011.
It’s the compromise both chambers of Congress voted for. So let’s stick with that.
Even at this rate (of fiscal cliff-scale spending cuts and tax increases) it will take decades before we actually start paying down the national debt. But at least we’ll be heading in that direction.
But something eles may happen when we go over the fiscal cliff – something good.
Once the median family’s tax bill goes up $3,500 in 2013, more voters will start to wonder if all this government they are asking for is really worth it. As long as they can push the bill for all this government onto future generations (who have no vote), it’s fun to accept all these goodies from the government . . . because they seem free.
I’d love to have a credit card that allowed me to spend as much as I want, and have someone else in the future pay for all my spending. What a gas that would be!
That’s exactly what Congress and President Obama are doing.
At least the fiscal cliff imposes some discipline — on both Washington and the American people. Not much, but some.
Will we double-dip back into another recession if we go over the fiscal cliff?
Yup. Probably. Almost certainly . . . because the government’s credit card spending will be curbed.
When you hit your credit card limit and you’ve been living off your credit cards, your lifestyle is going to take a hit.
That’s what will happen if we go over the fiscal cliff and don’t raise the federal debt limit.
It’s tough medicine. But it is medicine. It’s ultimately good for us to live within our means. But that can be hard.
The endess deficit spending without consequences must end.
It will end eventually. The question is: When?
Will the spending end when the economy completely collapses, like a house of cards, under the weight of debt?
Or will some fiscal discipline start now — when we still have a country we can save?
I vote for starting now — which is why I hope we go over the fiscal cliff.
I vote for going over the fiscal cliff because it’s immoral to pass the bill for all these government benefits onto my children and grandchildren. It’s time to pay the Piper.
The recent election seems to indicate that America is probably over.
Unlike in 2008, we can’t say the American people just did not understand who they were electing — a socialist (at a minimum), but more likely some kind of Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, Anita Dunn, Van Jones, ACORN-style neo-Marxist.
Americans knew exactly what they were doing when they reelected Barack Obama.
In 2012, America clearly chose more socialism, more deficit spending, a lifetime of debt for our children and grandchildren, and a future that looks like Greece, Venezuela, or worse.
And the election wasn’t that close. The only states Mitt Romney carried that John McCain didn’t were North Carolina and Indiana.
We have become “Food Stamp Nation.” We have become the “Entitlement Society.”
Goodbye “land of the free.”
On July 4, 1776, America declared its “Independence” from the British Empire, and fought a seven-year war to achieve that.
November 6, 2012, will mark the day that today’s Americans declared that what they really want is “Dependence” on Big Government. Most Americans don’t want “Independence” and freedom any more.
So let’s be honest and cancel July 4th celebrations — Independence Day . . . because we now have November 6th — “Dependence Day.”
Most Americans prefer to be “taken care of” by a busy body Nanny State.
Consider these discouraging facts on the state of American public opinion . . .
- A Washington Post poll shows 54 percent of the American people trust Obama more than the Republicans in Congress on the economy. Only 34 percent trust the Republicans more than Obama on the economy.
- The same poll shows six in ten Americans opposed even to raising Medicare eligibility from age 65 to age 67 as a way to save money.
- 60 percent say any changes to Social Security are unacceptable — such as raising the retirement age for receiving Social Security benefits.
- Only 29 percent of Americans think the best way to reduce the budget deficit is to cut spending.
- 74 percent support raising taxes on Americans earning more than $250,000 per year.
- 54 percent support increase taxes on Americans earning more than $50,000 per year, such as by phasing out or eliminating the mortgage interest payments deduction.
- A new Rasmussen poll shows only 37 percent of Americans consider themselves “fiscal conservatives.” The rest just want to keep on spending — keep spending about the same, or spend more.
Obama has made it clear he will accept no spending cuts whatsoever as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, just tax increases and more debt. That’s his answer to the $17 TRILLION national debt — soon to be $20 TRILLION, then $30 TRILLION.
Yet the American people clearly like his approach far more than House Republican efforts to restore some fiscal sanity to our spending mess.
Americans appear willing to accept the current 7.8 percent unemployment rate as the new normal. The unemployment rate is over 10 percent if you use the size of the workforce that existed on Obama’s first day in office.
The U.S. economy is growing at a rate of about 2 percent a year — barely enough to keep up with population growth, and half the rate of the average economic recovery following a recession.
Almost all this meager economic growth we are seeing is occurring from government spending — that is, by deficit spending.
Almost none of the economic growth we are seeing is coming from the private sector — the wealth creating sector.
Growth that comes from government deficit spending is not real growth. I can live better for a while by running up my credit card charges. But at a certain point, my financial world implodes.
That’s how the Obama economy is achieving even the pathetic growth we’re now seeing.
The annual income of the median American household has dropped by $4,300 under the Obama Presidency.
But Americans appear satisfied with this state of affairs. Americans are giving Obama high marks for this performance.
So where’s the hope for a better future?
I’m not seeing any.
Will Republicans and conservatives win any victories in the future?
Sure, we will. We’ll win some victories here and there.
But the long-term trend is downward. The Republican candidate for President has won a majority of the popular vote just once since 1988.
What makes you think things are going to get better?
Unless we figure out away to get at least 40 percent of the Hispanic vote instead of the 27 percent Romney got, we’re doomed.
American voters are making it very clear what they want, repeatedly.
What they want is clearly not freedom.
Americans just don’t value freedom and opportunity much anymore.
They want to be taken care of by the government. And they don’t care much about what kind of a country they leave for their children and grandchildren.
Americans won’t accept one penny of cuts to their benefits even if it means saving America for future generations.
The truth is, we could solve the budget deficit crisis pretty quickly if we just . . .
1) Increase the age of eligibility for receiving Medicare and Social Security from 65 to 70 and then index that to increasing life-expectancy.
The average life expectancy in 1949 in America was to age 66.
This means people could expect to receive Social Security benefits for one year on average.
Today, the average life expectancy is age 76. But many are living into their 90s.
I’m 54 years old. I fully expect to be working until I’m dead or incapacitated . . . because I love doing what I do. I can’t stand the thought of retiring. To do what? Play golf?
How many hours a day can I play golf?
I plan on working for as long as I’m physically able to do so . . . because I love working. There’s just not enough time in life to do all I want to do.
We need to raise the age for receiving Social Security and Medicare to at least age 70 and then index the eligibility age for participating in these programs to average life expectancy, which increases every year.
Those reforms alone would mostly solve our deficit problem.
2) Cut defense spending by one third.
America now spends $950,000,000 a year on defense. That’s nearly $1 TRILLION, or about 26 percent of our $3.8 TRILLION yearly federal budget.
Right now, 43 percent of the entire world’s military spending is, well, us. We are spending six times more on our military than #2 China.
We are spending 14 times more than Russia. Both Britain and France spend more on their military than Russia.
Russia is really just a Third World country, no longer much to worry about.
There’s no Hitler on the horizon and aircraft carriers are not needed to kill terrorists.
Surely the 12 aircraft carriers we now have are enough.
No other country in the world has more than two aircraft carriers. China and Russia each have one aircraft carrier.
The main threat to us is terrorism. Aircraft carriers and enormous standing armies are not what we need to defeat terrorism. What we need to defeat terrorism are excellent intelligence, more special ops forces, more drones, and the like. But these are not high-ticket items, like aircraft carriers.
President Eisenhower (no liberal) warned America about the “military industrial complex” and the threat it presents to our liberty and wallets.
But that Washington Post poll shows that most Americans don’t want any cuts to our military either. Americans want no cuts whatsoever to anything government is doing.
The U.S. government today is borrowing 42 cents our of every dollar it spends.
But Americans won’t tolerate even modest common-sense budget reforms to put America’s fiscal house in order and save the country for future generations.
Today, it’s all about how much free stuff can I have right now from the government before the American economy completely implodes under the weight of this $17 TRILLION debt that’s going up $1 TRILLION every year, with no end in sight.
Add to this $500,000,000,000 new dollars the Federal Reserve continues to print every year like confetti. Because of all this new money the Federal Reserve has been printing under Ben Bernanke and Obama, the value of the dollar has declined by 40 percent (compared to gold and other commodities) since Obama’s first day in office.
Americans knew exactly what they were doing when they voted to reelect Obama for another four years. They want to party on someone else’s dime until the money runs out and the economy implodes.
So I’m going to be changing the focus of this blog.
This blog is no longer going to be much about day-to-day politics.
I really don’t care much what happens in the fiscal cliff negotiations.
Ideally, we will go over the fiscal cliff. We should not be negotiating at all with Obama. We should just let the fiscal cliff happen.
We should let the automatic spending cuts kick in along with all those tax increases that will also kick in on January 1 . . . because Americans should at least pay for the all the government they are demanding — not pass the bill onto future generations.
But this blog won’t be focusing much anymore on all that.
Instead, I’ll mostly focus on steps you can take to save yourself and your family from the coming inevitable economic collapse.
America appears to be over — at least for the foreseeable future.
If America is ultimately to be saved, things will need to get a whole lot worse before they get better.
Americans will need to experience true full-bloom socialism before they reject it — much as has happened in Eastern Europe. Americans will need to find out what it’s like when most of the federal budget is dedicated to paying for the national debt.
Americans will need to find out what it’s really like to lose freedom before they start to value freedom again.
It’s no fun having government bureaucrats micromanaging every aspect of your life.
People would rather live in the woods with nothing than stay in the prison.
To save America, perhaps then we should just let Obama and the Left have what they want.
Let them quickly turn America into Greece or Cuba . . . and then see how Americans like it.
Meanwhile, we can continue to talk about freedom and first principles, as articulated in America’s Declaration of Independence. Then perhaps Americans will eventually return to that . . . because it was, after all, freedom that made America the most prosperous nation in human history.
Until then, until the American people learn what socialism (prison) is really like, and start to value freedom again, it will be like “Moses in the Wilderness” for us who believe in the original American idea of limited government.