Featured Video
Our BlogRoll

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Bipartisanship

TO:                        President Barack Hussein Obama

FROM:                 Conservatives of all stripes

REFERENCE:    Invitation to bipartisanship

Mr. President:

We welcome your invitation to participate in debating so called “Health Care Reform.” Please understand we will not be used for political ends and will only engage in meaningful discourse. If by bipartisanship you mean for us to abandon our principles then let us assure you that will not happen.

Firstly, let it be known that health care is not a right but a privilege and therefore falls completely outside the scope and purview of Constitutional government. We will not compromise on this fundamental truth.

Secondly, it needs to be pointed out what dismal failures other government sponsored initiatives (such as Medicaid and Medicare) continue to be. These unconstitutional and misguided programs were doomed at their inception. As predicted they have swollen far beyond all initial estimates and completely failed to check costs. To call such moral disasters opportunity is a lie. We will not help you create yet another bureaucracy boondoggle and purloin more freedom from our citizens.

In conclusion let us zero in on the basis of our continued discord. It is not your goals with which we take issue but your methods. Nearly every policy you propose eradicates some freedom. The issues are valid but depriving the populace of freedom, be it personal, economic, etc. will never be a viable option, never! If you are hopeful that “putting everything on the table” demands we consider turning our backs on the principles of personal freedom and personal responsibility the answer is a resounding NO!

Mr. President, are you willing to discuss methods? If so we look forward to a meaningful dialogue.

PS.  Can you help us identify the fundamental principles you and your party will never abandon? We are sure there must be at least one.

Completely Sincerely,

We, the People, of the United States of America

Free the SEALs petition

Three weeks ago I posted a story about three Navy SEALs who were charged with assault in the daring nighttime raid and capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed, the suspected mastermind of the March 2004 attack that killed four Blackwater employees. Two of those sailors were arraigned this week, the third scheduled next week. See an interview with one of them here.

The folks over at Human Events have posted a petition to send to Defense Secretary Robert Gates to intervene. You can sign the petition here. Congressman Duncan Hunter (CA-52) and several other members of Congress have also asked the SecDef to step up.

Here’s a copy of the petition:

Hon. Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, DC

Dear Secretary Gates:

We, the editors and staff of HUMAN EVENTS, and the many Americans who have attached their signatures to this petition, hereby request your personal intervention to dismiss the charges against Navy SEAL operators SO2 Jonathan Keefe, SO1 Julio Huertas and SO2 Matthew McCabe.

These three men are charged with abusing a terrorist they captured in a daring nighttime raid on or about 1 September 2009. On that night, they — as part of a platoon from SEAL Team 10 — captured and detained Ahmed Hashim Abed, one of the most barbaric and dangerous terrorists in Iraq. The terrorist — in a move that is literally right out of the al-Queda training manual — complained of abuse, apparently alleging he was struck in the stomach.

We had hoped that the SEALs’ commanders would dispose of this matter at the lowest level — with a scolding and perhaps a few hundred pushups — for anyone actually guilty of inflicting an inconvenience on this bloody-handed barbarian. But on 29 September 2009, Gen. David H. Petraeus signed a letter authorizing MGen. Charles T. Cleveland to dispose of the allegations of misconduct. In that letter, Gen. Petraeus said that MGen. Cleveland could, “…dispose of these matters in any manner you deem appropriate. This includes the authority to convene courts-martial at any level up to and including General Courts-Martial and to refer charges concerning these individuals to any court-martial.”

The three now face special courts-martial next month. We believe their commanders — including General Petraeus — have failed you, the SEALs and the American people by not preventing the matter from going this far.

You are the person next in line above General Petraeus in the chain of command. You can, legally under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, intervene to dismiss the charges against the three SEALs and direct that they be restored to duty.

We respectfully request that you do so forthwith. For this matter to continue — and to place the honor and fighting future of these three men at stake — is manifestly a gross injustice.

It’s ridiculous to think these three could be demoted or discharged for their heroic efforts.

Silencing the voice of opposition

Harry Truman once said, “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

Mark Hyman over at the Spectator had a great piece this morning on how the White House has started down that path.

The Obama Administration declared war on the minority of media outlets that do not worship the political left’s newest false idol immediately after Obama was sworn in. Three days into his presidency Obama warned Congressional Republicans against listening to radio host Rush Limbaugh. Amazingly, the president who offered to sit down with the thug leaders of rogue nations, such as Iran’s Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without any preconditions believed an immense threat was posed by a radio talk show host originally from southeastern Missouri.

Then the White House launched a jihad against Fox News Channel and its hosts by first boycotting appearances on the cable channel and then second, by engaging in name-calling and leveling baseless allegations.

Thankfully defeated, there was also the Fairness Doctrine, which promoted fairness like the Taliban promotes womans’ rights. Since none of those efforts have worked, there is this.

The FCC is contemplating the notion that some or all of the electromagnetic spectrum occupied by radio and TV broadcasters is the perfect real estate to launch a national wireless broadband service. The price tag is $350 billion. That is as much as nearly $120,000 per person to be connected. Apparently, the FCC has not heard of the “$99 Triple Play.”

Evicted broadcasters would no longer offer free, over-the-air radio and TV, but would instead be confined to subscription platforms such as cable and satellite or the Internet. This aspect of the plan is indeed troubling. The public would be required to pay for their news, information and entertainment services and there would be no free option.

Elimination of free private media. Maybe I should ask a North Korean where that leads?

Beirut victims get denied again

Two weeks ago tomorrow was Veteran’s Day, and I missed this from the Boston Globe.

On Veterans Day, Christine Devlin stood in the cold in Westwood for the unveiling of a new memorial to local soldiers lost overseas, including her son Michael, one of the 241 servicemen killed in the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.

Devlin is among 30 Massachusetts relatives of victims of the Beirut attack who have been fighting for more than a decade to get compensation for what many consider the first major terrorist attack against the United States. After a federal judge ruled in 2007 that Iran was liable for $2.65 billion in damages to be shared by 150 families seeking restitution, they believed they were on the cusp of victory.

But now, the Obama administration is going to court to try to block payments from Iranian assets that the families’ lawyers want seized, contending that it would jeopardize sensitive negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and establish a potentially damaging precedent.

Yeah, he’s right. It would definitely “jeopardize sensitive negotiations,” and those negotiations might actually stall. Or even worse, we might actually have to start enforcing UN resolutions.

Building the case took four years of depositions from victims’ relatives, US government officials, and even a former Hezbollah member, amounting to 30,000 pages of testimony, according to Thomas F. Fay, one of the lawyers representing the families.

The families’ first victory came in 2003 when the US District Court in Washington found that Iran’s Ministry of Information and Security helped plan and facilitate the Oct. 23, 1983, attack. Then, two years ago, the same court ruled the Iranian government was liable for the $2.65 billion in damages.

The families’ legal advisers and the Obama administration – like the Bush administration before it – disagree on how many Iranian assets could be legally seized in the case.

The Treasury Department estimates there is only $45 million in seizable Iranian assets in the United States and has argued in court that some of the property that the families’ lawyers have sought is outside the United States and cannot be legally seized.

Okay, um, why in the wide world of sports does Iran have any assets in the United States?

The Justice Department declined to comment further on the administration’s position, but as the congressional analysis stated, “The issue has pitted the compensation of victims of terrorism against US foreign policy goals and some business interests.’’
Shameful as it is, it is, and always will be, about money – foreign or domestic.
H/T to Van Helsing.

Navy charges SEALs for assaulting terrorist

Here’s some more moral building in the Obama military…

FoxNews is reporting that three Navy SEALs are being charged with assault in the capture of one the FBI’s most wanted terrorists. Ahmed Hashim Abed is the supposed “mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004.”

The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.

FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

“I gave the detainee a glance over and then left,” the SEAL wrote. “I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health.”

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

Okay so let me get this strait. A Navy SEAL team monitors this guy for weeks; they plan, execute, and succeed in an insanely dangerous mission. After the target is captured, he’s turned over to the Iraqis, where he whines about a bloody lip. And now three of those SEALs have been charged with dereliction of duty?!

They should have left him laying in the sand.

Bogus jobs, bogus statistics, real money

Yesterday, Watchdog.com broke the story about numerous bogus claims on the federal site Recovery.com, 30 new or saved jobs in Arizona’s 15th district; 25 jobs saved or created in Connecticut’s 42nd district, and the list can go on.

Today, Watchdog.com has more information.

According to data retrieved from Recovery.gov, nearly $6.4 billion was used to “create or save” just under 30,000 jobs in these [440] phantom congressional districts–almost $225,000 per job. The web site operates on an $84 million budget and is tasked with monitoring the distribution of the $787 billion stimulus package passed by Congress–which, for the record, counts 435 members–in early 2009.

To see a list of the 440 bogus districts, click here.

The site’s monitors, however, are not too savvy about America’s political or geographic landscape. More than $2 million was given to the 99th District of North Dakota, a state which has only one congressional district. In order to qualify for 99 districts, North Dakota would have to have a population of about 60 million people, almost 24 million more people than California

South Carolina’s 7th took the cake, garnering more than $27 million in stimulus funds, despite being eliminated in 1930. And Virginia’s 12th District may have been written off at the start of the Civil War, but it must carry some sentimental value in Old Dominion–it received more than $2 million, according to recovery.gov

The stimulus helped to create 35 congressional districts in Washington D.C. and the four American territories, all of which have no congressional districts. These areas received $5 of the $6.4 billion distributed to the non-existent districts…

Vice President Joe Biden admitted that the administration’s statistics were flawed after an Associated Press study revealed several instances of exaggerated and outright false job creation. The vice president acknowledged that “further updates and corrections are going to be needed.”

Either, the editors of Recovery.com think we’re all morons, or they are incredibly lazy. I’m thinking it’s probably both; there has apparently been no attempt to proof the site, at all.

Duane Lester, at All American Blogger, asks a good question. Given all this, do you want to depend on the government for a health recovery(.com)?

Reckless apathy

Okay, so I missed this over the weekend; Saturday was my wedding anniversary (Renae- I love you more than you could possibly imagine.), and yesterday was Sunday, which is always a busy day for me. Anyway, enough excuses.

slide_3638_51838_large

RedState, and a few others has this. Apparently, our illustrious leader, in his reckless apathy for history and feelings at home, bowed to the Emperor of Japan. Now, before you say, “wait, Japan is a democracy,” I know Japan is a democracy; it still has an emperor, kind of like the UK still has a queen; Obama bowed to her too. But, the difference here though, is that the current Japanese Emperor is the son of Hirohito. Lest you’ve forgotten, here’s a quick history on Hirohito.

7 December 1941: Over 2,400 killed and over 2,000 others wounded in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

g32836

This would be like a president 60 years from now, bowing to the son of Osama Bin Laden.

Pathetic.

My apologies to the nearly 109,000 who died fighting in the Pacific theater, and to the other 16 million men and women who served during WWII.

Holder puts CIA on trial in NYC not KSM

Eric Holder’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohamed in civilian court in NYC is not about justice; it’s about interrogation and the CIA.

I am not a lawyer, but I’ve watched enough Law & Order to get an idea on how things work, things like discovery – and through the discovery process, the prosecution will be obligated to disclose the nature of KSM’s confession. The defense then will be allowed to call “expert” witnesses to clarify, verify, and vilify the CIA for the measures taken to secure that confession, and most of it, if not all of it, will become public record.

When Obama was asked about the trial this morning, he said “I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subjected to the most exacting demands of justice.”

Justice?! Are you kidding me! Does anyone honestly think there are twelve objective people in that jury pool? This is so obviously political – the case is slam dunk in NYC, guarantee a conviction, and, at the same time, expose all the intelligence and military dirty laundry.

Akaka says no constitutional authority for individual mandate

Nicholas Ballasy over at CNSNews has posted a great article quoting Daniel Akaka saying he’s not aware of the Constitution giving Congress the right to include the individual mandate. Go ahead pick up your jaw; now, before you assume the pride of the Aloha state has flipped his liberal lid, Akaka also says the lack of such authority doesn’t matter. But, then again what Constitutional authority or lack thereof has ever really mattered to these folks anyway?

Regardless, it’s a good piece revealing the state of mind of those supporting ObamaCare and the individual mandate.

When CNSNews.com asked whether the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make Americans buy health insurance, Sen. Akaka said: “I’m not aware of that; let me put it that way. But what we’re trying to do is to provide for people who have needs, and that’s where the accessibility comes in, and one of the goals that we’re trying to present here is to make it accessible.”

Oh, so it’s about accessibility. Using that defense, Congress should make everyone who is eligible by a car, so those who can’t (or won’t) drive, can ride the bus. I know, it doesn’t make sense to me either

When asked if there was a specific part of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to make people buy health insurance, Akaka said: “Not in particular with health insurance. It’s not covered in that respect. But in ways to help citizens in our country to live a good life, let me say it that way, is what we’re trying to do, and in this case, we’re trying to help them with their health.”.

Wait, what, so it’s about health then. Okay, so everyone should be forced to buy a gym membership, so those who don’t want to work out, can go sit in the sauna at the Y. Again, doesn’t make sense to me either.

“It’s an idea of making it possible for people and this is what it’s all about,” he said. “I don’t look upon that as a penalty but as a way of getting help with health insurance.”

Um, uh, hmmm, what?

In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan proposed by then-President Clinton that included a mandate that all individuals purchase health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the issue and discovered that the federal government had never in the history of the United States mandated that individuals purchase any good or service.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” said the CBO. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

In an analysis published this July, the CBO said that an attempt to justify a mandate that people buy health insurance by using the Commerce Clause—which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce “among the several states”—raises a “novel issue.”

Not a “novel issue,” a Constitutional issue.

See the whole interview here.

Obama orders full intel review on Fort Hood

Townhall.com is reporting that Obama has ordered a full review of all the intelligence related to the Nidal Hasan, and is specifically asking the question if that information was properly disseminated and thoroughly checked out.

Obama also ordered the preservation of the intelligence. Members of Congress, particularly Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for a full examination of what agencies knew about Hasan’s contacts with a radical imam and others of concern to the U.S., and what they did with the information.

Hmmm, I can’t help think this a “CYA” response to questions Hoekstra raised about Hasan’s finances. This guy was making close to $90k/year, and he was living in a $300/mo apartment on Ramen Noodles and Beenie Weenies (beef of course). Where was the money going?

The FBI confirmed this week that the U.S. government knew about 10 to 20 e-mails between Hasan and a radical imam beginning in December 2008.

It think it pretty obvious if it was properly disseminated, the answer to the last question above is, No!