Obama Undermining America: 2013 Archives

INCOME INEQUALITY HAS GROWN DUE TO DEMOCRATIC POLICIES

This week President Obama, in another attempt to divert attention from the disaster which is Obamacare, announced for the balance of his term he would "pivot" to dealing with "income inequality."

He has marshalled every Democratic and left-wing organization, labor union and think tank to join in this phase of the never-ending Obama campaign to sell his "new" ideas, new ideas from decades past which have never worked.

Minimum wage hikes, more government spending of money that isn't there, stripping corporations of the right to compete in political advertising on equal terms with labor unions and so on.

They even made a movie on the marvels of government dependency for all! Showing at selected screens nationwide.

Where does promoting dependency on government wind up? Mark Steyn has his thoughts.

The Post-Work Economy

A permanent dependency class means a citizenry deprived of dignity.
By Mark Steyn in the National Review Online
December 7, 2013

One consequence of the botched launch of Obamacare is that it has, judging from his plummeting numbers with “Millennials,” diminished Barack Obama’s cool. It’s not merely that the website isn’t state-of-the-art but that the art it’s flailing to be state of is that of the mid-20th-century social program. The emperor has hipster garb, but underneath he’s just another Commissar Squaresville. So, health care being an irredeemable downer for the foreseeable future, this week the president pivoted (as they say) to “economic inequality,” which will be, he assures us, his principal focus for the rest of his term. And what’s his big idea for this new priority? Stand well back: He wants to increase the minimum wage!

Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos of Amazon (a non-government website) is musing about delivering his products to customers across the country (and the planet) within hours by using drones.

Drones! If there’s one thing Obama can do, it’s drones. He’s renowned across Yemen and Waziristan as the Domino’s of drones. If he’d thought to have your health-insurance-cancellation notices dropped by drone, Obamacare might have been a viable business model. Yet, even in Obama’s sole area of expertise and dominant market share, the private sector is already outpacing him.

Who has a greater grasp of the economic contours of the day after tomorrow — Bezos or Obama? My colleague Jonah Goldberg notes that the day before the president’s speech on “inequality,” Applebee’s announced that it was introducing computer “menu tablets” to its restaurants. Automated supermarket checkout, 3D printing, driverless vehicles . . . what has the “minimum wage” to do with any of that? To get your minimum wage increased, you first have to have a minimum-wage job.

In my book (which I shall forbear to plug, but is available at Amazon, and with which Jeff Bezos will be happy to drone your aunt this holiday season), I write:

Once upon a time, millions of Americans worked on farms. Then, as agriculture declined, they moved into the factories. When manufacturing was outsourced, they settled into low-paying service jobs or better-paying cubicle jobs — so-called “professional services” often deriving from the ever swelling accounting and legal administration that now attends almost any activity in America. What comes next?

Or, more to the point, what if there is no “next”?

What do millions of people do in a world in which, in Marxian terms, “capital” no longer needs “labor”? America’s liberal elite seem to enjoy having a domestic-servant class on hand, but, unlike the Downton Abbey crowd, are vaguely uncomfortable with having them drawn from the sturdy yokel stock of the village, and thus favor, to a degree only the Saudis can match, importing their maids and pool-boys from a permanent subordinate class of cheap foreign labor. Hence the fetishization of the “undocumented,” soon to be reflected in the multi-million bipartisan amnesty for those willing to do “the jobs Americans won’t do.”

So what jobs will Americans get to do? We dignify the new age as “the knowledge economy,” although, to the casual observer, it doesn’t seem to require a lot of knowledge. One of the advantages of Obamacare, according to Nancy Pelosi, is that it will liberate the citizenry: “Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.” It’s certainly true that employer-based health coverage distorts the job market, but what’s more likely in a world without work? A new golden age of American sculpture and opera? Or millions more people who live vicariously through celebrity gossip and electronic diversions? One of the differences between government health care in America compared to, say, Sweden is the costs of obesity, heart disease, childhood diabetes, etc. In an ever more sedentary society where fewer and fewer have to get up to go to work in the morning, is it likely that those trends will diminish or increase?

Consider Vermont. Unlike my own state of New Hampshire, it has a bucolic image: Holsteins, dirt roads, the Vermont Teddy Bear Company, Ben & Jerry’s, Howard Dean ...And yet the Green Mountain State has appalling levels of heroin and meth addiction, and the social chaos that follows. Geoffrey Norman began a recent essay in The Weekly Standard with a vignette from a town I know very well — St. Johnsbury, population 7,600, motto “Very Vermont,” the capital of the remote North-East Kingdom hard by the Quebec border and as far from urban pathologies as you can get. Or so you’d think. But on a recent Saturday morning, Norman reports, there were more cars parked at the needle-exchange clinic than at the farmers’ market. In Vermont, there’s no inner-city underclass, because there are no cities, inner or outer; there’s no disadvantaged minorities, because there’s only three blacks and seven Hispanics in the entire state; there’s no nothing. Which is the real problem.

Large numbers of Vermonters have adopted the dysfunctions of the urban underclass for no reason more compelling than that there’s not much else to do. Once upon a time, St. Johnsbury made Fairbanks scales, but now a still handsome town is, as Norman puts it, “hollowed out by the loss of work and purpose.” Their grandparents got up at four in the morning to work the farm and their great-great-great-whatever-parents slogged up the Connecticut River, cleared the land, and built homes and towns and a civilization in the wilderness. And now? A couple of months back, I sat in the café in St. Johnsbury, and overheard a state official and a Chamber of Commerce official discuss enthusiastically how the town could access some federal funds to convert an abandoned building into welfare housing.

“Work” and “purpose” are intimately connected: Researchers at the University of Michigan, for example, found that welfare payments make one unhappier than a modest income honestly earned and used to provide for one’s family. “It drains too much of the life from life,” said Charles Murray in a speech in 2009. “And that statement applies as much to the lives of janitors — even more to the lives of janitors — as it does to the lives of CEOs.” Self-reliance — “work” — is intimately connected to human dignity — “purpose.”

So what does every initiative of the Obama era have in common? Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security disability expansion, 50 million people on food stamps . . . The assumption is that mass, multi-generational dependency is now a permanent feature of life. A coastal elite will devise ever smarter and slicker trinkets, and pretty much everyone else will be a member of either the dependency class or the vast bureaucracy that ministers to them. And, if you’re wondering why every Big Government program assumes you’re a feeble child, that’s because a citizenry without “work and purpose” is ultimately incompatible with liberty. The elites think a smart society will be wealthy enough to relieve the masses from the need to work. In reality, it would be neo-feudal, but with fatter, sicker peasants. It wouldn’t just be “economic inequality,” but a far more profound kind, and seething with resentments.

One wouldn’t expect the governing class to be as far-sighted as visionaries like Bezos. But it’s hard to be visionary if you’re pointing in the wrong direction. Which is why the signature achievement of Obama’s “hope and change” combines 1940s British public-health theories with 1970s Soviet supermarket delivery systems. But don’t worry: Maybe one day soon, your needle-exchange clinic will be able to deliver by drone. Look out below.

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is the author of After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. © 2013 Mark Steyn

|

OBAMA HAS LOST THE YOUNG: A MAJORITY WOULD THROW HIM OUT TODAY IF THEY COULD

Millennials Abandon Obama and Obamacare
A majority of America's youngest adults would vote to recall the president.
By Ron Fournier in the National Journal

Young Americans are turning against Barack Obama and Obamacare, according to a new survey of millennials, people between the ages of 18 and 29 who are vital to the fortunes of the president and his signature health care law.

The most startling finding of Harvard University's Institute of Politics: A majority of Americans under age 25--the youngest millennials--would favor throwing Obama out of office.

The survey, part of a unique 13-year study of the attitudes of young adults, finds that America's rising generation is worried about its future, disillusioned with the U.S. political system, strongly opposed to the government's domestic surveillance apparatus, and drifting away from both major parties. It blows a gaping hole in the belief among many Democrats that Obama's two elections signaled a durable grip on the youth vote.

Indeed, millennials are not so hot on their president.

Obama's approval rating among young Americans is just 41 percent, down 11 points from a year ago, and now tracking with all adults. While 55 percent said they voted for Obama in 2012, only 46 percent said they would do so again.

When asked if they would want to recall various elected officials, 45 percent of millennials said they would oust their member of Congress; 52 percent replied "all members of Congress" should go; and 47 percent said they would recall Obama. The recall-Obama figure was even higher among the youngest millennials, ages 18 to 24, at 52 percent.

Continue reading to see full polls. . .

|

REPUBLICANS MUST WIN A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM FOR ALL AMERICANS IN THE 2014 ELECTIONS! ABRAHAM LINCOLN IS OUR GUIDE.

There is a lot to catch up on!

The Chatham RTC and our colleagues in the Lower Cape - the RTCs of Harwich, Orleans, Eastham, Brewster and Truro -- worked hard to put together what I will call a magnificent observance of the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address on November 19th, 2013. It was held exactly 150 years to the day after President Lincoln put into words what the war had achieved -- fulfilling the promise in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.

We chose the elegant Wequassett in Harwich as a fitting location to celebrate such a momentous day in America's history. It was also fitting that Massachusetts was one of just a handful of states honoring the day -- Gettysburg itself, the Lincoln Library in Springfield, Illinois and Lincoln, Nebraska, renamed that shortly after the assassination.

More than 100 citizens of the Lower Cape gathered to honor President Lincoln and reflect on the meaning packed into his 272 words. Our special guest Republican candidate for Governor Charlie Baker not only came out of respect for President Lincoln and his message, but the urgency that should be directed towards winning all Republican contests in November 2014 to achieve yet another Rebirth of Freedom. As Charlie said,"I am proud to be the heir of Abraham Lincoln and his concern for freedom and equality before the law for all." His words were enthusiastically received. It is clear that Charlie Baker cares deeply that Lincoln's message is a message for our times.

It is fitting for Massachusetts to join in the celebration because the heart and soul of the abolitionist movement was in Boston. Massachusetts was the second state (right after Vermont) to outlaw slavery in 1783.

The leading publication of the movement was The Liberator, begun in Boston by William Lloyd Garrison in 1831 and continued right through the Civil War. When the Republican Party was formed on an anti-slavery platform in 1854, abolitionists en masse became Republicans and swept Lincoln to victory in 1860.

The anthem of the anti-slavery cause in the Civil War, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, was a poem penned by a Boston abolitionist Julia Ward Howe.

The Republican Governor of Massachusetts John Andrew was such a fervent and active supporter of freedom for slaves that a hospital at what was an all-black college in Tuskegee, Alabama is named after him.

During the war it was the Republican abolitionists with Massachusetts in the forefront who kept putting pressure on President Lincoln to unilaterally "do something" to free the slaves. Trouble was, for Lincoln, a President sworn to uphold the Constitution and a lawyer as well, slavery was legal under the Constitution in states which allowed it. And the Supreme Court had ruled that Congress could not restrict slavery in the new territories of the Louisiana Purchase. What could he do?

Beset daily with demands from his most loyal and demanding supporters, he searched for an answer and, as the inventive lawyer he was, he found it in that troublesome document the Constitution itself.

Preserving the Union was the President's paramount duty under the Constitution and he was waging a war to do just that. Just perhaps, under his War Powers as Commander in Chief, he could indeed "do something."

Lincoln delivered an ultimatum to the rebel states: Return to the Union by January 1, 1863 or he would free all the slaves in rebel territories and order the Union Army to protect them. His war aims were two-fold: To encourage slaves to flee the plantations, thus weakening the agricultural output of the South, the source of almost all of its external revenue and, hopefully, to get freed slaves to sign up for Union Army. He achieved both purposes -- and his Emancipation Proclamation was never legally challenged.

Until 1963 the South was winning most of the battles. By mid-summer, the effects of the Emancipation Proclamation were beginning to be felt. On the first three days of July, the bloody battle of Gettysburg was fought and the Union forces were victorious, forcing Lee to quit the battlefield and retreat.

Cheering crowds stormed the White House on July 4th wanting to hear from the President, but we waved them off. It wasn't yet time to say what he sensed had occurred: The war had turned in the Union's favor and the Union would be preserved. And something just as great if not greater was being accomplished.

The citizens of Gettysburg decided on a Soldiers' Cemetery and that a solemn dedication was called for. The date set was November 19, 1863. Edward Everett, himself a Massachusetts abolitionist, probably the most distinguished man of his times, was chosen to deliver what would be a two-hour oration. The invitation to Lincoln was a courtesy by the committee, which politely indicated he could make "a few remarks" after the principal talk. Lincoln told his aides before leaving Washington that was fine, he would be "short, short, short."

After what would have been Edward Everett's oration, Abraham Lincoln, in his long black coat with white flecks in his beard, walked through the crowd at Wequassett, took his place at the front and began, "Four score and seven years ago,...

"Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Scott Hamilton." The crowd rose with enthusiastic applause in appreciation of this stirring rendition.

President Lincoln had put things in context. Acceptance in the Constitution of slavery as life as it had been in America since the early 1600s was a betrayal of the Declaration of Independence. Now the promise that all men are entitled to the enjoyment of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" had been made fact by the brave men who had fought and died. There had been A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM.

There was still "unfinished business" for "us the living." It is to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln spoke not only to the people of his times, but to all those generations to come in America who would be threatened by the loss of freedom. Lincoln had warned that if America were to suffer decline, be defeated, it would be from within. Every generation had to be on guard, every generation had to fight for a new birth of freedom to ensure the perpetual continuation of a government controlled by the people, not by those who from time to time would be in power.

President Reagan had his own warning, that freedom can be lost in a single generation.

When we see the overreaching in Democrat-controlled Washington eroding our freedoms, limiting our choices,refusing to enforce the laws of the land, intruding into our private lives, taxing and regulating the productive and denigrating the accomplishments of the successful, we must take heed of Lincoln's message and gird ourselves for the elections ahead. It isn't just the White House, it is every Democrat who supported its policies, voted for them and did not protest the constant lying to the American people about how they had been deceived.

And the one-party tyranny in the State House is spending our taxpayer money on government handouts to those who aren't entitled to them, imposing taxes and more taxes, even automatic taxes on gas, and more and more regulation, it is time for change there, too. Contrast the Weld to Romney years of balanced budgets without tax increases and low unemployment and strong job growth in a business-friendly economy with the past seven years.

President Lincoln's spirit will be with us as we fight to reclaim the freedoms which are being stolen from all Americans by those in power who are telling us how to live our lives.

2014 is the time the people must fight to win back our freedoms. We must bring about a new birth of freedom. It is Republicans who must lead the charge as they did to free the slaves of 150 years ago.

Fran Meaney, Chairman, Chatham RTC

|

LET US BE THANKFUL THIS THANKSGIVING THAT WE STILL HAVE THE POWER AND WILL TO FIGHT TO PRESERVE OUR FREEDOMS

On this Thanksgiving Day let us be thankful for those who would open the eyes of those who are blind to how the government is stealing from us the rights guaranteed to us by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Ask yourself these questions which Judge Napolitano poses and you will understand how important the 2014 elections will be. And, if we are not the ones called to fight for freedom, who?


The Grinch who stole Thanksgiving

By Andrew P. Napolitano Wednesday, November 27, 2013

What if another Thanksgiving Day is upon us and owing to the government, we have less to be thankful for than we did at the last one? What if at every Thanksgiving, liberty is weakened and the government is strengthened? What if Thanksgiving’s warm and breezy seduction of gratitude is just the government’s way of inducing us to think we should be grateful for it?

What if we don’t owe the government any thanks for anything? What if the government owes us back all the freedom and property it has stolen from us? What if the government has produced nothing and owns nothing, save what it has coerced us to give it? What if the courts have ruled that the government can lie and cheat with impunity in order to acquire our property or assault our freedoms?

What if the government lies and cheats regularly to enhance its own wealth and power? What if the government claims that its power comes from the consent of the governed? What if no one consented to the government’s spying and lying except those who personally and directly benefit from it?

What if the government is afraid to tell us all it is doing to us, for fear we might vote it out of office? What if that vote would change nothing? What if the spying and lying continued no matter who ran the government? What if those who spy and lie don’t lose their jobs no matter how they lie, upon whom they spy or who gets elected?

What if this holiday of turkey and football and family is the modern-day version of bread and circuses? What if bread and circuses — which Roman emperors gave to the mobs to keep them sated — are just the government’s way today of keeping us sated at the end of every November? What if the government expects us to give thanks to it for letting us have Thanksgiving Day and Black Friday off?

What if the president thinks he's a king? What if he claims the power to kill people outside the Constitution? What if some of these people were your sisters, neighbors or friends? What if he thinks he's so smart that he knows what choices we should make? What if he makes those choices for us?

What if we each have the natural right to choose how to care for our own bodies, but he has used the coercive powers of the law to tell us how to do so? What if that law compelled all persons to pay for more health insurance than they needed, wanted or could afford? What if the president deceived dupes in Congress into voting for that law? What if the president deceived millions of Americans into supporting that law? What if the president forced you to pay for a health insurance policy that funded killing babies in their mothers' wombs?

What if the president knows what you want and need because his spies have captured your every telephone call, text and email? What if the Declaration of Independence says that our rights are personal, inalienable and come from God? What if the Constitution says that among our inalienable rights are the right to be left alone and the right to be different?

What if the president took an oath to uphold the Declaration and the Constitution but believes in neither? What if he believes that our rights come from the collective consent of our neighbors, whom he can influence or, worse yet, from the government, which he can control? What if he believes that he can invade our right to be left alone by spying on us and lying to us, and destroy our right to be different by killing us? What if he actually did all these things?

What if only individuals foolish enough to do so give up their own rights but cannot give up the rights of those of us who refuse to surrender them? What if the government can only constitutionally take away personal freedoms when a jury has convicted someone of a crime? What if the government thinks it can take away our rights by ordinary legislation or by presidential fiat? What if it has done so?

What if someone who once worked for the government knew all this and risked life and limb to tell us about it? What if the government at first denied that it lies to and spies upon all Americans? What if it demonized the whistleblower? What if it chased him to the ends of the Earth because he revealed awful truths? What if everything Edward Snowden revealed about the government turned out to be true?

What if it is the personal courage and constitutional fidelity of Mr. Snowden for which we should be thankful? What if the government hates and fears our freedoms just as it hates and fears the revelation of the awful truths Mr. Snowden possesses?

What if our thanks are a result primarily of the Author of our freedoms, who made us in His image and likeness, and to those who have exercised those freedoms to seek and reveal the truth? What if it is the truth, and not the government, that will keep us free?

What if we have the right to pursue happiness, no matter what the government says? What if we have the right to be unique, no matter what the government wants? What if the freedom to seek the truth will bring us happiness?

What if that freedom, which is still ours, is a just cause for a happy Thanksgiving, after all?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution.

|

OBAMA AND SENATE DEMOCRATS RESPONSIBLE FOR GOV'T SHUTDOWN

What is overlooked by the media and of course ignored by the Senate Democrats and President Obama is that the Constitution clearly gives the right to appropriate money to the House. So, when the House appropriates money to run the government but not to implement Obamacare, it is wholly within its constitutional rights. When the Senate and the President refuse to recognize the House's constitutional rights, it is they who are causing the governmental shutdown. Dr. Thomas Sowell explains it well.

Democrats Chose the Shutdown
National Review Online
By Dr. Thomas Sowell
October 4, 2013

And Republicans are within their legal and constitutional rights to act as they have.

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for Obamacare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

As for the House of Representatives’ right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Whether Obamacare is good, bad, or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

Obamacare is indeed “the law of the land,” as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its constitutionality.

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been furloughed are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies — unless they are in an agency that would administer Obamacare.

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who — if anybody — “wants to shut down the government.” But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for Obamacare.

The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for Obamacare. Senate majority leader Harry Reid says that he wants a “clean” bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word “clean” like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run Obamacare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote for, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of “legislation by appropriation,” as it used to be called.

Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But that it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.

Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out — and articulation has never been their strong suit — the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2013 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

|

THE PEOPLE MAY SUFFER, BUT I MUST WIN

Obama grew up in a Marxist-saturated life - his mother, his grandparents, his high school "mentor," then hanging out with Marxist types at Occidental and Columbia. Then he went to work as a Marxist community organizer in Chicago, studying and implementing communist Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals. His decision to go to Harvard Law School was to learn how to gain political power to become a more effective community organizer.

And so he became Community Organizer in Chief in the White House and the rules he plays by are the same. Do as I say. No compromise. I won. You lost.

And so the people that foolishly elected him twice are being forced into a monstrosity of a health plan that they do not want. Why is Obama doing this? Because he can. Whatever balance as a human being he presumably had appears to have been buried far beneath his community organizer ideology.


Community Organizer Runs Amok
By JANICE SHAW CROUSE on 10.9.13 @ 6:08AM
American Spectator

The shutdown reveals our president at his most unbalanced.

From its earliest days, the Obama Administration has operated from a “community organizer” worldview, characterized by an “us” against “them” perspective. The President has repeatedly and in a variety of circumstances said, “Elections have consequences, and I won” as an excuse for yet another executive order, non-Constitutional decision, or “in-your-face” arrogant action. The President goes through the motions of listening to others: he claims to be bipartisan; he hosts White House confabs and talks about the need for compromise, but he always ends up saying, “I won,” and ends any pretense of discussion or negotiation. He explains that, as President, he shouldn’t have to “bring something to the table” and declares that he will not negotiate, as though that his beneath his dignity as President. He goes to play golf and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s snide remarks become the Democrat voice.

Obviously, the President did win the election; he won the presidency. But, as noted by James Joyner in Outside the Beltway: the President is not a king or a prime minister. Granted, he is the most powerful person in America and, indeed, in the world (though, sadly and increasingly, less so), but he does not control the other two branches of government. They have the responsibility to balance his power for the good of the people. The Legislative and Judicial branches of government are independent entities.

And, as clarified brilliantly and effectively by Thomas Sowell, the House of Representatives has the right –– indeed, the authority and responsibility –– to grant or withhold money: they voted “all the money required to keep all government activities going except for Obamacare.” The decision of the House of Representatives determines independently where money is to be spent. It is called “legislation by appropriation.”

Thus, the House deemed, as representatives of the people, that Obamacare was not ready for implementation nor was the timing right given the high levels of unemployment and the national debt and deficit figures creating a financial crisis.

Let me repeat: The House authorized funds to operate the government except for ObamaCare; the Senate refused to accept the money for operating the government unless funds were also appropriated for Obamacare. As Sowell notes, “That is their right. But that is also their responsibility.”

In other words, the Senate chose to shut down the government rather than delay funding for Obamacare. And, even if the Senate had voted the same as the House, the President said he would veto that vote. The bottom line is that neither the Senate nor the President would accept the appropriations authority of the House.

Thus, the Senate and the President bear sole and complete responsibility for the government shutdown. If they had been willing to accept the constitutionally determined role of the House of Representatives, there would have been negotiations on the controversial issues while government operated as usual. A reporter who worked for two decades as a New York Times reporter described the Obama Administration as the “most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.”

All the political posturing of the Obama Administration and Senate leadership –– including unprecedented vindictive actions, name-calling, pettiness and juvenile behavior –– comes straight out of a “community organizer” playbook, not from constitutional government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Community organizers ensure that the consequences for opposing them are “as painful as possible.” By now, everyone is familiar with all the unprecedented “trivial and petty” measures taken by the Obama Administration to ensure that the public is as inconvenienced as possible. Park Rangers were told to “make life as difficult for people” as they could. They were forced to close down national parks –– even those that are outdoors and normally not guarded and have no entrance or exit; instead, the monuments or areas were barricaded with metal fences wired together. The National Mall and other historic areas were turned visually into police crime scenes with police tape draped over barriers and police cars blocking entrances to parking lots and driveways with red and blue lights glaring.

Community organizers demonize opponents. Wes Pruden, veteran columnist for the Washington Times, described Sen. Harry Reid as “weary from exhausting his thesaurus for synonyms for ‘arsonist’ and ‘terrorist’ and ‘pillager’” –– just a few of the derogatory terms he used to refer to the Republicans and anyone whose views differ from the Democrats intent on forcing Obamacare against the public will. Mr. Pruden compared the shutdown politics to grade-school one-up-manship with the point being “to see who can squeeze hardest, make the most pious speech and listen for the applause.”

Community organizers always proceed forward within the ideological framework (worldview) that pits “us” against “them.” A tour guide at Yellowstone National Park was leading a group of tourist at the park when the shutdown went into force. The tourists complained about the “Gestapo tactics” that confined the group to their hotel and would not even let them take pictures of the scenery. Catholic priests in the military were threatened with arrest if they conducted mass. A jogger at the Valley Forge National Historic Park was fined $100 for “trespassing” on public property. Campers, bikers, and hikers were issued fines at Acadia National Park.

Community organizers believe that the ends justify the means and that there are winners and losers with the winners taking all the “marbles” and the losers trod under foot. A senior administration official told the Washington Examiner, “We are winning; it doesn’t really matter to us how long the shutdown lasts.” The President has just upped the ante by reiterating that “he won’t negotiate on a government-funding bill or debt-limit increase.” The White House is eliciting what they called “sob-stories” from the public about how the shutdown is hurting them with plans to use those emotional tidbits to sway public opinion their way; after all, anything goes when you are the winner and everyone else is the loser.

Clearly, for this administration: It’s my way or the highway. Amber Alerts have been shut down; Leader Reid doesn’t worry about children dying from cancer, and the dog therapy program that brings dogs to visit terminally ill children has been suspended. Then, in the lowest blow of all, news comes that families of military personnel killed in Afghanistan during the shutdown will not receive funeral benefits –– typically around $100,000 to cover airfare to D.C. for the arrival of the body and other costs associated with the loss of a loved one. There appears to be no low to which this Administration will not stoop to show who “won.” For the community organizer, winning is all that counts.

|

VD HANSON: RACIST OBAMA, DELIBERATELY UNDERMINING AMERICA AND DEMONIZING WHITE AMERICANS

If you want to read all in one place the most sickening things Obama deliberately has done and is doing to damage America and stick it to white Americans (as he was taught to do by Reverend "God Damn America" Wright), this piece by Victor Davis Hanson is it.

Read it and weep, but get ready to give your all to a Republican victory in 2014.

Obama: Transforming America
National Review Online
October 21, 2013
By Victor Davis Hanson

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

“We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” — Michelle Obama, May 14, 2008

There certainly is no question that Barack Obama wants to change the United States. And there clearly is no doubt that such fundamental transformation is difficult, given our tripartite system of government — even though Obama entered office with large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, an enthralled media, and a closely divided Supreme Court.

So to what degree, after nearly five years in office, has Obama succeeded in changing the United States?

Federal spending. We are $6 trillion more deeply in debt. And there are record numbers of Americans on food stamps, unemployment insurance, and disability insurance, or simply disengaged from the work force. Obama has also fundamentally changed Americans’ ideas about the redistributive state.

Whereas, under Clinton and Bush, the argument centered on whether federal subsidies eroded the work ethic, created dependency, and led to a permanent underclass, now the discussion is quite transformed beyond the safety net. Fairly or not, Obama is seen as expanding entitlements in part as a political tool, quite apart from the question of their efficacy in eliminating poverty.

The problem is not just that his critics accuse Obama of trying to create a permanent constituency, a loyal “47 percent” dependent on state money, but rather the way in which Obama himself envisions these programs as reminders of his them/us faultlines. After 2009, the regulations governing food stamps and welfare were liberalized and politicized as never before. These payouts were judged not just on whether they hurt or helped people, but also, in the Greek and Roman sense, of increasing the number of recipients so as to change political realities.

Taxes and debt. Democrats usually wish to raise them, Republicans to shrink them. Nothing new there. But under Obama, there is now a twist. Higher taxes are not a means to achieve a balanced budget, as under the Clinton-Gingrich deal of 1997. Indeed, the return of a 39 percent–plus federal income-tax rate on higher incomes will result not in a balanced budget as before (even with congressionally imposed sequestration). We will still have huge annual deficits of two-thirds of a trillion dollars or more.

Because nearly half of Americans will continue to pay no federal income taxes, and the old Clinton rates were imposed only on the upper brackets, we have the worst of both worlds: high taxes on job creators, along with continuing huge deficits. That paradox raises the question of whether Obama sees deficits not just as necessary to prime the economy, or as a tolerable consequence of huge increases in federal spending, but also as a mechanism to serially raise taxes on the upper brackets, as a desirable redistributive end in and of itself. Taxes are seen now not just as a way to fund expenditures, but as a punitive tool — hence the new phraseology of 1 percent, fat cats, corporate-jet owners, you did not build that, no time to profit, at some point you’ve made enough money, etc. A more equal but poorer America appears to be preferable to a more affluent but less equal nation.

Continue reading "VD HANSON: RACIST OBAMA, DELIBERATELY UNDERMINING AMERICA AND DEMONIZING WHITE AMERICANS"

|

LOYAL OBAMA SUPPORTERS RAISING MONEY FOR WORLD WAR III

It's hard to believe, isn't it?



|

OBAMA AND HILARY CLINTON: BETRAYAL IN BENGHAZI

A highly decorated ex-military leader Colonel Phil Handley bluntly condemns the president and the Secretary of State for refusing to provide assistance to the four Americans who ultimately were murdered in Benghazi. They have shamed the United States and violated the sacred combat code of doing all that's possible to save American lives under siege -- and that includes the Commander in Chief.


Betrayal in Benghazi

May 30, 2013 By Colonel Phil Handley
FrontPageMag.com

The combat code of the US Military is that we don’t abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don’t run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying. Among America’s fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds.

The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEALs who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction-of-duty. Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.

Continue reading "OBAMA AND HILARY CLINTON: BETRAYAL IN BENGHAZI"

|

OBAMA DECLARES ISLAM'S WAR ON THE REST OF US IS OVER

Charles Krauthammer excoriates Obama for his dangerous wishful thinking.

Obama's Dorothy Doctrine

Declaring the War on Terror over won’t make it so.

BY CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

“This war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. . . . ”

— Barack Obama, May 23

Nice thought. But much as Obama would like to close his eyes, click his heels three times, and declare the War on Terror over, war is a two-way street.

That’’s what history advises: Two sides to fight it, two to end it. By surrender (World War II), by armistice (Korea and Vietnam), or when the enemy simply disappears from the field (the Cold War).

Obama says enough is enough. He doesn’t want us on “a perpetual wartime footing.” Well, the Cold War lasted 45 years. The War on Terror, twelve so far. By Obama’s calculus, we should have declared the Cold War over in 1958 and left Western Europe, our Pacific allies, the entire free world, to fend for itself — and consigned Eastern Europe to endless darkness.

John F. Kennedy summoned the nation to the burdens of the long twilight struggle. Obama, agonizing publicly about the awful burdens of command (which he twice sought in election), wants out. For him and for us.

He doesn’t just want to revise and update the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which many conservatives have called for. He wants to repeal it.

He admits that the AUMF establishes the basis both in domestic and international law to conduct crucial defensive operations, such as drone strikes. Why, then, abolish the authority to do what we sometimes need to do? Because that will make the war go away? Persuade our enemies to retire to their caves?

Continue reading "OBAMA DECLARES ISLAM'S WAR ON THE REST OF US IS OVER"

|

THE ABUSES OF POWER OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PILE UP

The abuses of power by the Obama administration are piling up. To be free, we must be strong and our government must be committed to the freedom that was the reason for the nation to come into being in 1776. Instead, our government is contemptuous of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

It seeks to strangle the right of free speech. It has attacked freedom of religion. Through its several agencies it is intimidating our citizens.

The appalling disclosures of the intimidation of citizens by the IRS, the lawlessness of the Department of Justice in seizing phone records of the Associated Press from its office in the House of Representatives and asserting criminal involvement by a highly respected Fox News investigative reporter under a 1917 espionage act to get personal data reveal a national government that has a disregard if not a contempt for the founding principles of this country. Obama/Biden – and Holder -- should resign in disgrace, but they won’t. As citizens we will have to do all we can to join the fight to restore this country’s honor.

There has been some powerful words written over the past few days that you should read if you haven’t already. Just click on the links below.

Kimberley Strassel, the absolutely superb journalist writing weekly in the Wall Street Journal, has two brilliant pieces that are must-reads, one from last week, one from this, both dealing with the deliberate efforts of Obama to prevent American citizens from exercising their constitutional rights.

The IRS Scandal Started At the Top

Conservatives Became Targets in 2008

Peggy Noonan, also writing in the WSJ, details the corruption and constitutional abuses in the IRS scandal and why it’s impossible to get an honest investigation by the Department of Justice or any other unit of the executive branch under Obama.

A Battering Ram Becomes a Stonewall

Roger Ailes, who runs Fox News, issued a letter to all Fox News employees commending their professionalism and stating that Fox News would not be intimidated.

We will not waver.

We couldn't help but note that the sign-off at the end of Special Report with Bret Baier (Fox News show at 6), wasn't the usual "Fair, Balanced and Unafraid," but, at least for that day, "Fearless and Unafraid."

|

Dr. BENJAMIN CARSON SAYS OBAMA IS TRYING TO "DESTROY THE COUNTRY"



Dr. Benjamin Carson, the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital who garnered national headlines for his pointed remarks at last month’s National Prayer Breakfast, says that President Obama and his political allies are trying to “destroy the country.”

“Let’s say somebody were [in the White House] and they wanted to destroy this nation,” Carson postulated in remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “I would create division among the people, encourage a culture of ridicule for basic morality and the principles that made and sustained the country, undermine the financial stability of the nation, and weaken and destroy the military. It appears coincidentally that those are the very things that are happening right now.”

Carson, who is 62, said that the blame for the nation’s current state of affairs does not lie with “any one particular person.” His barbs, though, were clearly aimed at President Obama.

Drawing a link between his medical practice and his political beliefs, Carson argued that righting the nation’s course requires governance “of and by the people.” “That’s why we have these complex brains,” he explained, and went on to joke, “the number of interconnections you have [between neurons] rivals the national debt.”

At the National Prayer Breakfast in February, Carson — with President Obama as a captive audience — lodged a full-frontal assault on the president’s agenda, from progressive taxation to Obamacare. Carson’s remarks led to calls, most notably from the Wall Street Journal editorial board, for him to launch a presidential bid come 2016. He will retire from medicine in three months and, though he declined to discuss his particular plans, he indicated that he hopes to become further involved in educational initiatives; Carson founded a scholarship fund in 1996.

In an event billed as “President Obama’s (National Prayer) Breakfast Club,” Carson shared the stage with Eric Metaxas, the author of a biography of the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who used his time on stage at 2012’s breakfast to argue that progressives have distorted Christianity in the service of political ideology.

Check this out.

|

WHY OBAMA'S MARXIST READING OF THE CONSTITUTION IS WRONG

David Mamet, a man of Hollywood but now a conservative, writes about the individual's rights under the Second Amendment to decide what he needs to defend himself.

He provides background for his argument by talking about government power as viewed by Obama and by the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution.

It is a brilliant piece that deserves reading.

Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm
David Mamet
January 29, 2013 issue, Newsweek Magazine

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.

For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”

All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.

Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.

As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.

President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”

But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”

This is a chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance with law.

The Founders recognized that Government is quite literally a necessary evil, that there must be opposition, between its various branches, and between political parties, for these are the only ways to temper the individual’s greed for power and the electorates’ desires for peace by submission to coercion or blandishment.

Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.

Continue reading...

|

WHAT IS COMING DOWN


THE COMING AVALANCHE OF DEBT

The United States is over $16 trillion in debt. The point is rapidly approaching
where our young people cannot look forward to a prosperous future, and in
November voters chose to make matters worse rather than better. Michael Ramirez
depicts the avalanche that is about to descend on our heads:

h/t Power Line blog.

|

ARE ENTITLEMENTS CORRUPTING AMERICA?

|
WE ARE THE PARTY OF LINCOLN.
WE STAND FOR FREEDOM AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL.



Contact: Diane Bronsdon 508 945 9218
C R Facebook
GREATEST THREATS TO THE U.S.
ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM
ISLAMIC TERRORISM
RADICAL ISLAMIC IMMIGRATION
ISLAMIC HATRED OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS
Watch
To help us do our part to keep America strong and well informed, just click below. Donate Now!

News
Syndication
rdf
rss2
atom

Links
Michael O'Keffe District Attorney
Leo Cakounes Barn.Cty Commish
Sheriff Cummings
Hot Air
Legal Insurrection
National Review
Power Line
Pajamas Media

Causes:

Semper Fi Fund
Cape Cod Cares for Our Troops
Wounded Warrior Family Support
New England Center and Home for Veterans
Search
Chatham Info
Archives
Monthly Archive

Archives

Categories