About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Swine fever? Congress feeds at the taxpayer trough


Got a problem with the high cost of living? Well then, just become a member of Congress!

To get elected to Congress these days, you should have a good head of hair (a must for TV soundbites), be able speak very emotionally on the stump, and have well-connected friends. Then bingo--you're probably in luck of landing one of the most 550 coveted jobs in the entire world!

But the real payoff isn't so much the job itself, it's the probability that you'll serve comfortably in a lifestyle of the rich and famous for the rest of your days-- you'll have it made for life.

Don't think so? Well, try this for a wild and crazy hypothetical question: Would you rather hit the state lottery, or win the next available congressional seat in your district?

A lottery winner automatically has to pay 35% in taxes, and is besieged by unwanted publicity. Often times, these winners eventually become losers, especially if they've overspent their millions after having retired prematurely. Some even end up heavily in debt.

Now compare to a newly-elected congressperson:

They get paid six figure incomes, have few living expenses, and "government-paid-everything" perks...right down to free shoe shines and haircuts. They travel worldwide. They have their own limousines, privately chartered flights, and pay for little else other than a residence in DC.

Are you worried about retirement? Well again, just "become involved" and run for Congress.

Hardworking congressional members certainly don't have to worry about contributing to some 401K plan like us common folks. No sir! They can just feed from the congressional "pension honey-pot," which is kept full by the overtaxed American public.

After 20 years, a member of Congress can retire with up to 80 percent of his/her salary. Pity...just eighty percent; what's a poor Congressional retiree to do? But then again, it's not exactly a life of having to wear sackcloth and surviving on pet food either.

New House members are entitled to a personnel allowance from which they may hire up to 18 full-time staff members, and receive office expenses for travel and supplies. Yearly Senate office costs range from $3.5 million to $4 million PER member. That's an approximate $400 million in annual federal expenses, for only 100 Senators!

For House members-- although the figures aren't a matter of public record--18 staff personnel being paid 50k/year, would equal a nice round 900,000 dollars in salary costs. Now add in office, travel, etc., and that's another $200,000; so EACH representative costs us lowly taxpayers $1.1 million/year, and x 450, equals $480 million, just in annual House "support" expenses, let alone their pensions.

So adding it up, we have a combined total of nearly $1 billion/year in annual taxpayer costs, just to keep this aristocracy "functioning."

Now lets get to the real nitty-gritty, and try to compute a rough (very rough) total estimate of what a Congressional retiree will garner-- although many serve to their "expiration" date.

Figuring on a basis of .80 x 150,000 = $120,000/year annual pension, times 20 years average retirement period= $2.4 million total taxpayer cost...that's just for ONE retired congressperson! And if you consider the overall number of living congressional retirees-- plus their free lifetime medical benefits-- the total easily adds into the billions.

Hoo-wee! Is it any wonder that these people will spend several million dollars to get elected for a job that pays 150,000/year, plus "perks" from eager-beaver lobbyists? Well wonder no more. Getting elected to Congress means celebrity, status, and possibly becoming a highly-paid lobbyist yourself, if you retire "prematurely."

How about inflation? Well, fuh-getta about it. If you serve in Congress, your pay is automatically "pegged" to the increases of thousands of other high-ranking personnel in the federal government, including cabinet agency heads and federal judges.

Congress-- in their infinite wisdom-- knows there's never a good time for headlines about relatively rich public officials deciding to give themselves more taxpayer money. So it looks like automatic Congressional pay raises--first instituted in 1989-- are not going away anytime soon.

And what about the income taxes these dutiful, dedicated public servants must pay?

We're all familiar with that coveted position-- member of the congressional "Ways and Means Committee". And why is it so desirable? You can REALLY call the money shots from this perch:

Members of the House Ways and Means (and the Senate Finance Committee) are directly responsible for our insanely complex tax laws-- but they need not bother with their own returns.The IRS maintains two "customer service" centers to exclusively assist lawmakers and Capitol Hill staff in filling out their tax forms, all at a big cost to taxpayers.

Worried about rising medical insurance premiums? Congress gets free outpatient care at Bethesda and Walter Reed Hospitals. House members receive free meals and vacations from lobbyists and others.

Is gasoline burning up your budget? Well then, just consider the "good ole' boy" law allowing members of the U.S. House to lease luxury cars with taxpayer money, and with no regard for rising consumer prices for fuel. There is no price limit, and gas is included-- once again, all paid by taxpayers.

And what about parking fees, fines and tickets? No problem, once again it's part of the "free Congressional ride."

Mr. Charles B. Rangel  (D-NY) paid $1,540 in parking fines on his Chrysler PT Cruiser with campaign funds. And it was also reported that Mr. Rangel has been storing a classic 1972 Mercedes-Benz in the House of Representatives parking garage for at least the last nine years, slightly more than the 45 allotted days. His penalty? Nada. Nothing.

And for his "work car" Mr. Rangel was among the more "footloose" representatives, paying $774 a month for a  Cadillac De Ville-- courtesy of Uncle Sam, and the tax-paying public.

And if we want something done about all this extravagance, we can just write our congressperson for relief. They'll surely be concerned.
 
QUESTION: When was the last time you took an all-expenses paid vacation-- or even had the time to take one?

Congress members often travel to the great golf courses of the world, paid for by private sponsors, who often have direct interests in legislation on Capitol Hill. These trips are tagged as "official business". And members of Congress get to take along spouses and girlfriends-- it's all part of the cover.
 
House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio-- avid golfer and world-class traveler-- took 42 trips between 2000 and 2007, often with his wife Debbie. And this poor, overworked, overstressed legislator often had to fly on private, luxury-laden corporate jets, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco's private plane.

To add insult to injury, all House Members can keep their frequent-flier miles that we taxpayers have paid for.
 
And surprise-surprise...the new congressional crackdown on lobbyists is NOT producing the outcome many had thought it would. For every ban on gifts and limitations on meals, there seems to be a new loophole around it. So despite the window dressing, there probably won't be any letup in public officials accepting lavish gifts, or all those hospitality perks from "private interests."
 
Remember Civic's class, where we all learned about the congressional 'franking privilege' of free mail?  It was founded by Benjamin Franklin with good intentions-- to keep constituents back home informed of an elected official's activities.

But today, these mass mailings are only slick incumbent re-election packages, masquerading as constituent information. And the best congressional perk of all? It's the PROLONGED vacation time, so members can come away with good, first hand information from their districts back home.

Members of Congress get endless benefits, automatic pay increases, and enjoy "featherbedded" retirements, while most Americans have suffered a generation-long period of stagnant wages, due to the over-regulation of the economy-- all brought on by guess who: Congress.

(Quote) "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty"...Thomas Jefferson.

But consider today's 19% Congressional public approval rating. When people loath the government-- and the government doesn't care about the people--there is decadence.



www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's in Washington...Wall Street takes a "bow"


St. Patrick's day, March 17-- America's favorite traditional, non-official holiday.

And going back to March 17,1976, it was a St. Patrick's day to remember for all investors, when on that day the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 13.78 to 1009.21, and actually closed ABOVE 1,000 for the first time.

Yes laddies, the green beer on Wall Street was flowing in abundance on that storied St. Patrick's day. It touched off a wild wave of optimism: Brokerage houses across America, whose staffs had been withered down unrelentingly in a grinding 3-year bear market, were now beginning to hire again.

Spring 1976 was indeed a time for optimism in America:

The Alaskan pipeline was well underway, and was creating a new frontier of jobs above the Arctic circle. In the lower 48, large industrial companies were gearing up for new production, as orders for capital goods came pouring in.

GM was only 3 months away from introducing its brand new, beautifully designed "B- Body" line of cars that auto pundits predicted would be a huge success . The classified ad pages were expanding. It seemed as though everyone at once was starting to hire.

College grads and Phd's--who were working as gas station attendants and waiters-- now were getting replies to their resumes, as jobs offers in their fields of study actually began appearing in their maiboxes.

For the U.S., it was good times ahead after a terrible, frightening 3-year recession, that had seemed like it would NEVER end.

But then in November, 1976 came the election of James Earl Carter; and like a plane with a unconscious pilot at the controls, America's economy began another downward spiral to yet another teeth-clenching, gut-wrenching recession.

On the day after New Years, January 2, 1980, the Dow Jones had closed at a pathetic 824.57. In early 1979, inflation had reached a startling 11.3%, and by March,1980, it had soared to 13.5%. And interest rates dealt the final coup de' gras to Carter's economy, rising from an abysmal 11% in 1979, to an agonizing, staggering 19% by Jan 1981.

It was the first time in history that all three indicators simultaneously had been in such distress, and a new term emerged to define the debacle --stagflation.

But although Carter's ineptness ruined the economy, let give him at least SOME credit-- he had done it passively (unintentionally). And he did possess SOME business management expertise, because our beloved 39th president actually had spent much of his life running the family peanut farm in Plains, Georgia.

But now, we are under the wonderful economic tutelage of Barack Obama, our know-it-all, supremely confident anti-president, who professes to have all the answers to revive our grievously wounded economy.

But unlike Jimmy Carter, Mr. Obama has never run anything in the private sector, not even a Koolaid stand as a child in Indonesia, or even so much as a paper route during his adolescence in Hawaii.

Attention Wall Street... look out below!

Yes, Mr. Barack H. Obama-- the Harvard-educated lawyer--he's got all the answers... all the spiffy retorts...and all the solutions. Got a foreign policy problem? Blame Bush. Got a problem with high deficits? It's not his fault-- that too started with the "Boosh" administration.

Yes, Barack's an expert at blaming everyone but himself. He's just so smart; so prestigious, and "too cool for school." Plus the leftist media will support the his infallibility "to the bitter end"-- and it may get here sooner (2012) rather than later (2016).

Just you wait there a-while, Mr. Obama.

Our radical leftist 44th president may be facing a little surprise ahead, and it's the one thing he hadn't figured into his Machiavellian plan for ensnaring our fragile economy within his mega-government web of Socialism.

Mr. Obama can seize the auto industry, ransack the banking industry, tax the energy industry to oblivion, control the health care industry, plus whatever else the congress is willing to cede to this insatiable fascist.

But the one thing that our anti-president didn't figure on, is something immune to his politics, immune to his personality, immune to the slanted liberal media--even immune to congressional legislation:

The one economic indicator that cannot be fudged, manipulated. spinned (spun), or misinterpreted, can be found on Wall Street -the NYSE--the "home" of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

(music)"Oh give me a home... where Obama can't roam..."

Right now Wall Street "experts" (propagandists) claim the Dow is on a roll--recently closing above 8000-- up over a thousand points from just a few weeks ago.

But in the parlance of the insiders (who really influence market direction), it's nothing more than a "sucker rally"-- the result of tens of thousands of solicitations by individual brokers trying to earn a living, "jaw-boning" hapless small investors to..."Hurry up, now is the time to get in before the next big move up."

The next big move up? Somewhere out there Gordon Gekko must be smiling.

But is now the time for greed on Wall Street---or fear?

With all those stellar economic events lurking on the horizon, the real insiders (the "smart money") knows that the market has nowhere to go but down--way down--possibly to 4900 in the next 18 months.

And no wonder. Wall Street and the market ALWAYS looks out ahead 18-24 months; that's why the insiders make the money that small investors unwittingly yield to them, as they buy high in unrealistic optimism, and sell low in panic.

It's always been that way on Wall Street...except for now.

As we look out ahead for the next year or two, it may be a long time coming before ANYONE (either a smart-money insider, or average Joe investor) ever sees these levels in the market for another 20--30 years.

But why?

The American economy has never before experienced what's on the horizon-- the intentional destruction of our free markets-- courtesy of our know-it-all (except for Wall Street) anti-president, Barack Obama.

Let's take a quick economic inventory of what's in store for Wall Street (and Main Street) in the next 2 years:

-higher income taxes--less disposable income for consumer spending
-higher business taxes for both small and large companies
-more government regulations for both large and small companies
-higher energy costs
-dollar inflation from rampant deficit spending
-cap 'n trade carbon taxes on energy
-card check (forced unionism) which will drive up business costs for everyone
-high unemployment--the result of clean air regulations on heavy industry
-higher energy costs for electricity- i.e. clean air penalties for coal-generated power
--higher corporate taxes for American companies doing business overseas
--more IRS audits driving U.S. capital offshore-- less domestic business investment

The Obama administration (regime) has a 5-year plan--it's all been figured out. Tax all fossil fuel energy. De-industrialize the Midwest and the South, where they burn coal. Force the auto industry to make cars nobody will buy. Force the banks to accept unnecessary bail-out capital, and then decide to whom they may lend it.

So expect a rapid transformation for private business from the free market to a government-planned economy, where you'll still own it-- but Big Brother now runs it!

And how do you think Wall Street will react to this? The same way it did from 1933 to 1945-- the last time a socialist president assumed total control, where the government can introduce itself any time, anywhere, into the private decision-making apparati, and levy restrictions on what private enterprises will be able to do within their own boardrooms.

EXAMPLE: Recently King Obama "summoned" all the credit card companies to Washington to tell them..."you can no longer 'overcharge' your customers." So just where in the Constitution is the president allocated the power for that? And where was the outcry from the private sector against it?

Now an emboldened Obama will soon be telling banks what interest rate they can charge, what private companies can produce, what type of workers (union) they can hire, how much they can produce--and at what price.

Is this a free market...or economic fascism?

So the Dow-Jones to 4900? Why not, as Obama's economic fascism takes hold and begins to strangle everyone's bottom line.

What effect will it have on the heavy industrial companies and energy companies? And what will happen to the transportation industry, the small business community, and the individual taxpayers themselves?

It's all so very simple: As government controls and regulations go up, everyone's bottom line will go down-- way down-- and taking down the stock market, our economy, our 401K's, and dashing the hopes and dreams of everyone who had the outlandish notion that they could some day become financially independent.

And now, it's all about to be dashed upon the rocks of Obammunism.



www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

1976-2008...the Golden Age of Stupidity


Remember seeing the old black and white film clip of President Franklin Roosevelt's declaration of war on Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Mr. Roosevelt spoke in righteous indignation (quote)..."December 7, 1941-- a day that will live in infamy."

Now flash forward to August 18, 1976; a day-- as time progresses-- that will live forever in infamy, for both the Republican party and America. Hardcore political junkies can never forget it.

On that fateful day, one of the most electrifying floor fights in political history took place in Kansas City, Missouri, where Gerald Ford and  Ronald Reagan were virtually deadlocked in the delegate count going into the final vote for the presidential nomination.

Although Ford had won more primary delegates than Reagan, he lacked the amount necessary to secure victory. The convention had opened with both candidates pulling out "all the stops" to win.

But then Reagan committed his biggest career political blunder-- he alienated his core conservative support:

In a bid to attract liberals and centrists, Mr. Reagan nominated Richard Schweiker for his V.P-- the Arlen Specter of his day. The move immediately backfired, infuriating conservatives who despised the liberal Pennsylvania Senator.  Many of the crucial uncommitted delegates who were leaning to Reagan, now fled over to the Ford camp.

This would be Reagan's day of infamy, and it would indeed, have consequences...great consequences.

Had he gone with his first choice --conservative New York Senator, James L. Buckley-- political historians agree the nomination would have swung over to Mr. Reagan; but the blunder allowed Ford to gain the momentum he needed to win the nomination.

But yet, the final balloting for president was electrifying. As the first states began to declare, the drama and suspense were palpable in the air. Ford won the nomination with 1187 votes to 1080 votes for Reagan; and despite his blunder, it was that close...107 votes .

Reagan endorsed Ford at the close of the convention, and delivered a truly inspirational and magnanimous declaration of "party unity", an eloquent stirring speech that far overshadowed Ford's own acceptance address.

In an ironic quote from a story in the August 20, 1976 edition of the "Kansas City Star," it read..."Some delegates left the convention wondering if they had voted for the wrong candidate".

SOME DELAGATES? All the delegates!

Anyone on that convention floor who had heard Reagan's reconciliation speech, immediately realized they had made a grievous mistake in picking Ford; and thus we ended up with Jimmy Carter- the smiling peanut farmer-- a disastrous 1-term president whose damage to America is still resounding to this very day.

Yes, the delegates had left the convention "wondering" (knowing) if they had voted for the wrong man.

And how 'bout 1996? The Republicans nominated Bob Dole. What chance did a meandering, plodding speaker like Dole have against slick Willie Clinton?

But despite the obvious mismatch, the Republican delegates again had voted for the wrong man, nominating Mr. Dole on the basis that "it was his turn," and because of his staunch loyalty to the party, he "deserved to be nominated."

Predictably, NBC's "Saturday Night Live" (as they had done to Ford) ridiculed the dignified Dole to no end, portraying him as an ancient, senile, clumsy, and bumbling dolt, who could not even maintain his balance on a stage.

After the liberal media had sliced and diced Dole to pieces, Clinton won in a landslide.

So as before, the Republicans--in their vain attempt to "be fair" to a party loyalist-- we again harken back to that quote..."wondering if they had nominated the wrong man."

Ever since the untimely death of the political genius, Lee Atwater in 1991, the Republicans inexplicably have lost their ability to survive media attacks from the left, and it has cost them dearly.

Atwater was George H.W. Bush's media guru, who crafted the controversial Willie Horton campaign ad, and suggested that a video clip of Michael Dukakis--looking foolish riding atop a tank-- be incorporated in to a second negative campaign ad, that almost overnight saw the liberal Dukakis give up a nine-point September lead in the polls, to a turn-around where Bush won in a November landslide.

But if it hadn't been for Atwater, again it would have been a case where the Republicans would've nominated the wrong man, and the weak, meek Dukakis would have been in the Whitehouse, and in plenty of time to appease the blustery Saddam Hussein, and his 1991 takeover of Kuwait may have gone unanswered.

But what if Reagan had won in 1976? There would have been no Jimmy Carter's destruction of the CIA; no disastrous Community Reinvestment Act; no stagflation; no gas lines;  no Iranian hostage crisis; no Russian invasion of Afghanistan; and probably, no rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

Other than that, Carter would have been a legendary president.

But consider if the Gipper had won:

Reagan would have strengthened the military, shored up the economy; and unlike Carter, would have been no naive whipping boy, genuflecting before our Mideast enemies.

But it was not meant to be. If only it were not for those misguided 107 votes on August 19 of 1976, how different would our nation be today?

Even as late as spring, 2008, the litany of Republican political stupidity has continued on unabated.

Last year, in the initial primary days, the Republicans were on the verge of nominating Mitt Romney--an honest, experienced, self-made, super rich businessman-- who had an actual plan to re-invent America's economy using traditional means: fiscal responsibility, tax cuts to stimulate private investment in new plants, and create new industry.

But despite him being perhaps the most accomplished man to ever run for president, Romney was lampooned unrelentingly by the other Republican candidates for his religion, his 1994 "flip-flop" on abortion; and his stellar economic and political achievements were marginalized by a carping, jealous, liberal media.

Romney was shamefully victimized by his own party, and the very man the GOP needed most to shore up a sinking economy, had himself been sunk by sheer Republican folly, who got just what they deserved: death by stupidity-- political party suicide-- the nomination of  the boring, stodgy, John McCain, who had practically zero chance against the youthful magnetism of Barack Obama.

And if that were not enough, the shining charisma of Sarah Palin, who's brilliant acceptance speech for VP had won her legions of both partisan and non-partisan support, was mishandled so badly (stupidly), that within 4 weeks, she had been annihilated politically, with the public led to believing that she was little more than a female Homer Simpson: a dismayed, chuckle-headed, moose-hunting housewife, who just somehow happened to win the governor's seat of Alaska.

Of course, once again it was all courtesy of a jealous liberal media, borne of Republican political stupidity.

But only if Lee Atwater had been around for the last 20 years... who knows? This late, brilliant media strategist may have gone on to guide the Republicans to victories in 92, 96, and 2008; but the former architect of George Bush's victory in 1988, died of a brain tumor at the age of 40-- the peak of his political success and power.

Atwater-- considered the Republican Party's best political tactician of the last century-- was feared for his readiness to skewer democratic opponents, and his skill in carrying out those attacks.

But ever since his passing, the Republicans have done just the opposite -- played fair 'n square, and have been the party of the nice guys-- a surefire way to lose every election.

If the Republicans insist on being nice guys, they've gotta be smart; innovative; win on ingenuity-- try something different-- start the 2012 nomination for president right now.

That’s right...start now! It would capture the political spotlight; it would force the liberal media to see the Republican stars in action, firing away at the inexperienced arrogance of Barack Obama, and professing smart political and economic solutions of their own.

Imagine Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney on a national speaking tour: Palin for her expertise in energy, and Romney for his brilliant ideas to revive the economy.

Imagine Michelle Bachmann and Eric Cantor speaking together-- another dynamic duo, who now serve in the House of Representatives. Cantor for his brilliance on budgets and numbers, and Bachmann for her fiery patriotism, both denouncing the treasonous liberals in the Obama administration.

All four of these Republican stars, given a national forum, could outshine the false, "tele-prompted" popularity of Barack Obama, and expose him for what he is-- a shameless, supercilious liberal, who has but one agenda-- tax and spend America into socialist oblivion.

Picture a touring Republican cavalcade of stars-- a premature primary campaign-- warning America that the media is out to subvert all conservatives, and every voter must trust their own instincts, because there is no truth anywhere in American politics; only lies; only traitors (Arlen Specter), with liberal democrats strictly out for themselves.

Or it could be known as "the Republican Truth Squad of the Stars," revitalizing the party, re-energizing the nation; and demonstrating that there is hope--yes hope-- for the United States to once more be great; or as Reagan so artfully professed..."morning in America again."
 
Who-- besides the lying liberal media--says the Republicans don't have any ideas, and lack any true leaders? Let them be seen!

Stop the defeatist myth that there is no one who can defeat Obama in 2012. Stop it dead in its tracks! The democrats are behind it all--joined at the hip with the leftist media-- and the Republicans must put an end to their lies, or they will once again be victimized by their own naive stupidity.

Elections do matter; and not the best candidate, but the smartest political party, invariably wins; and not always to the benefit of the country as a whole.

The Republican fairness and "decency" doctrine continues to yield disastrous results in the form of 3 liberal presidents, who have appeased our enemies, and supported calamitous socio-economic policies, where America's long term survival as a great nation may actually be in doubt.

Lee Atwater--wherever you are-- what would you do?


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tea parties for liberty...or a leftist tool of tyranny?


We all fondly remember reading in history class about the Boston Tea Party, an event brought to us 'courtesy' of the Dutch East India Tea Company, and the onerous taxes the Colonials had to pay if they wanted to brew a decent cup of tea.

On the night of December 16, 1773, patriots headed by Samuel Adams (not the brewery) dumped 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor, in protest of the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, and every other form of "Taxation without Representation."

Even now, the event remains one of the most popular forums for school plays, as children dress as American patriots disguised as Indians, while their parents reflect upon the most famous act of political dissent in American history.

Of course this was also a natural forum for the modern day, "Sons of Liberty" tea-party protesters, who sought to mimic the original taxation w/o representation platform, as conservatives sent their "warning" to Congress, and reassured fence-sitting independents that not everybody agrees with the left.

The original Sons of Liberty were disguised as Indians, so as not to be a spectacle that could invoke the wrath of the British Crown.

But the modern version of the tax-day tea parties may only have served to invoke the wrath of the angry, in-your-face, mean-spirited leftists who now unabashedly control the levers of power in this country.

Ironically, what actually took place this last April15th may only end up backfiring on the GOP.

The orderly, family-atmosphered tea parties proved one thing: conservatives still aren't done "playing nice", while the Democrats rule uncontested, and undoubtedly will play hard ball with the republican minority until at least 2011.

But there was one decidedly major positive outcome: It filled up a big hole in the GOP's organizational skills, helping them realize the unifying political power of the internet-- one of the key strategies formerly the exclusive tool of the Obama camp.

But just like the "I hope Obama fails" comment, the brilliant, Machiavellian democrats used the tea parties as an excuse for putting their agenda on fast forward.

Indeed, it’s all about 'compressing the time frame.'

Obama knows he must hurriedly empty his socialist ammo clip. He'll let his henchmen (er henchpersons) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ramp up the dirty work he was saving for the latter part of his first term, and move it on up now and "let ‘er rip."

Republicans claim the big national turnout "sent a message" to moderate democrats: "They're aware that we're mad"... "people have had enough"... "we're not gonna stand for all this spending and taxes, and robbing our children's future"...etc.

But the real message they managed to send Mr. Obama was, "Hurry up before November 2010." Until then, our anti-president knows America will remain under one-party rule. So it's "damn the tea parties...full speed ahead."

The result? Leftist overkill! The Waxman-Markey bill-- the Stalinist edict on "dangerous CO2" emissions; Obama's pending amnesty reform bill; the democrat's 'reconciliation plan', a sneaky, back door manipulation to pass nationalized health care; cap ‘n trade climate change legislation; green energy; takeover of the banks; government take over of the auto industry-- they're all happening at once!

Obama has put 'em all on fast forward, knowing that if he continues to be attacked from the right, it only garners MORE suport from his left, as long as he has the majority on Capitol Hill.

It's called painting by the numbers -- Obama's Marxist portrait of how to destroy the Constitution in his first 100 days.

So instead of a 2012 'benchmark for completion' for Obama's socialist transformation, it’s merely been compressed by 24 months.

Obama now says..."just get everything out the door by Jan. 2011, and we'll have more time for fudging the census, and preparing for my 're-coronation' in January 2013."

Obama senses his "window" has opened even wider-- he's eminently shrewd enough to see it may close by January of 2011 -- so he's firing all his guns at once before the ignorant 'middle ground' electorate can perceive his true agenda, and by that time-- like a metastizing socialist cancer-- it'll be too late.

Obama rightly figures, "Bring it on...the more opposition from the right, the merrier."

As long as the media stands firmly behind their messiah, the republicans can hold tea parties till political eternity, and it'll be little more than an excuse to disparage them as a bunch of "right wing extremists"...”whackos who want to hurt our president”... "kooks"..."racists"..."the crazy far-right, with a tendency towards violence"...and...“tools of the rich who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes".

When will the republicans learn? Obama cannot be attacked from the right while his support from the media and the left is intact; i.e.,"Obama cut your taxes, what are you protesting?"

And talking about Obama's birth certificate (and other such egregious stupidity) may end up hurting the GOP, as the clock ticks ever closer to Nov. 2010, and the republicans have yet to find a "political Moses" of their own.

Recall how the leftist media cleverly played down the dignity of April 15, treating the tea parties more like an “MTV Spring Break” event for Fox news, instead of taking a more somber, journalistic approach.

So all ye modern Republican Sons of Liberty; how do you respond in the face of such staunch adversity?

Just like the original Sons, who did great economic damage to the Crown, you must attack leftist king Obama where he's vulnerable-- from his left-- and damage him by the numbers!

But how do the republicans attack a radical leftist from the left? Just like Obama does...divide and conquer.

First, remind his moderate congressional support that every vote for an Obama policy is the slippery slope to defeat. Do any democrats desire to fall on their political swords in 2010, for he (Obama) that will be immune for at least 4 more years?

Remind his legions of leeches --his core support of government dependents-- that Obama (and Geithner) have spent 100-1 in favor of Wall Street vs. Main street: only 20 billion extra for food stamps, but trillions so far to the Wall Street and banking entities -- a clever masquerade of betrayal of the people whom he professes to so solidly support.

Expose this sham...reveal the messiah as the political puppet of the super rich leftist George Soros-- a man who pulls all the political strings of the Obama marionette.
 
Remind his leftist media support that as they continue to broadcast their one-sided portrayal of the great infallible Obama, this will only continue incensing the people who actually buy newspapers, and watch the 6:30 PM national news, and drive their shrinking core audiences to Fox.

Like  the scene in "Godfather, Part II"-- where Tom Hagen disputes the futility of Mike Corleone's assissination plot against Roth -- the republicans must ask the fawning Obama media…"is it worth it?

Yes; is it worth it to continue to support a man who has polarized America like no other in history? Is it worth it to support a bitter partisan divide that will only weaken our economy, and eventually put all the major news services in jeopardy, as their older audience shrinks, and the young seek out their politics from Comedy Central and Face Book?

So is it worth it for all you media people to self-destruct on the rocks of Obammunism, and stand behind the most subtle, socialist charlatan to ever occupy the Whitehouse?

And is it worth it for all you leeches to keep depending upon your monthly Obama check, when the kitty may one day run dry, and Obama is long gone and retired on his princely presidential pension?

Yes, can it be worth it to be so short sighted, when the hard realities of life will always remain?

There can be no future in supporting  the Pied Piper of Marxism-- all that missing is Obama's ability to play the flute.

Only unemployment, higher energy bills, higher costs of living, inflation, loss of America's economic power-- these will be the ultimate legacies of Barack Obama.

Yes republicans-- this is all fertile ground for the taking-- use the next round of tea parties to not directly attack Obama, but undermine his support on the left. Everyone's bottom line is their own best interests at heart.

Partake of the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson; know exactly what you're all up against...the tyranny of the majority!

As Jefferson once wrote..."A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."



www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The REAL pirates off the Somali coast: who are they?


Remember the old territorial gangster feuds in Chicago in the 1920s? The most infamous was the brute clash of the Capone Gang versus the 'Bugsy' Moran mob, culminating in the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.
 
Well in a sense, that's kind of what's been taking place around Somalia since the last decade; but media coverage of this "gangster feud at sea" has been largely non-existent.

In America, there is an intriguing curiosity concerning the captured, baby-faced 19 year old Somali pirate "lad," who stands accused of being the mastermind behind the attack on the Maersk Alabama. He faces serious charges that could mean life in prison; he is the first person in more than a century to be charged with piracy.

Yet he's smiling! But why? What's to be happy about? The prospect of life in prison-- or worse?

But in order to reveal this inexplicability, we must first proceed with a little backround history...the "Somalia story."

In the late 19th century, the seas around Somalia--one of the most fertile fishing grounds of all the Indian ocean--were first plundered by British colonial fisherman.

But for the Somali people, with Africa's longest coastline, (and a largely desert landscape), fishing had provided people one of the only ways for survival on such a barren land.

Somalia is now so dirt poor that people actually sleep on the ground; there are no beds, and little in the way of housing, shelter, or even sanitation, let alone enough provisions to go around to feed oneself.
 
So from the time they're very young, Somalian children quickly learn to adapt and develop survival skills ...or else.

After fishing Somalia's coastline dry, it was only then did the colonial Europeans depart. So for the next century, there was relative calm off Somalia's coast, while the inland inhabitants largely subsisted on agriculture and raising cattle.

Then a generation ago, came two severe droughts (1974 and 1986). Tens of thousands of nomadic Somalis --whose livestock were wiped out --re-settled along the coast. They developed into large communities that became dependent on offshore fishing.

In 1992, with the fall of the General Barre regime (and the disintegration of the Somali Navy), sea-poachers swooped in and began competing for the abundant rock-lobster and prized pelagia fish in the deep ocean shelf off the Horn of Africa. European ships --having destroyed their own fish stocks by over-exploitation – now moved in to overfish the Somali coastlines, as the English had done100 years before.
 
Russian and Chinese trawlers also began using 30 mile-long drift nets, stealing an invaluable protein source from some of the world’s poorest people, and ruining the livelihoods of the legitimate fishermen. Even Kenya-registered fishing vessels participated in the rape of the Somali fishing grounds.

This vicious use of drift nets-- basically "strip-mining at sea"-- has allowed an estimated $300 million worth of seafood to be stolen from the country's coastline in the last ten years, a staggering sum that could have transformed the country to a functional, market economy.
 
Like the American gangster territorial wars of the 1920's, the Somali fisherman began tossing aside their fishing gear and picked up AK-47's instead.
 
But that's only half of this ecological nightmare; it gets worse-- much worse-- and also has been largely ignored by the media.

By the mid 90's, toxic dumping off the Somali coast had become another "growth industry." European companies began callously skirting the strict environmental rules in their home countries, and mysterious ships were dumping vast numbers of barrels into the ocean.

The coastal population began to experience strange rashes, nausea, tumors, and congenitally malformed births. After a 2005 tsunami, hundreds of leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 3000 died.

So who were the one's acting as pirates?

Even now, large seeping containers often wash ashore along with thousands of dead fish, driving the hapless Somalians away from their own coastline. Somalia has complained for two decades, but with zero response from the international community.

According to the U.N. it cost $2.50 per ton for a European company to dump  waste off the Horn of Africa, as opposed to $250 per ton to dispose of it properly in Europe.

In a telephone interview, a Somali pirate "spokesperson", known as Sugule Ali, gave a story that became a headline in a recent edition of the "Times of London": it read..."They stole our lobsters; and poisoned our beaches."

Now, with no other choice, local militias, collaborating with Somali fishermen, began to capture vessels, and demanded legitimate compensation in the form of illegal dumping fines. But the scheme quickly shifted to 21st century piracy.

But still, the ravage by foreign vessels off Somalia's coast goes on unjustified, unabated, and unreported.

Unpoliced fishermen have been resorting to detonating underwater explosives, killing endangered species like sea-turtles, orca, sharks, and baby whales, as well as destroying the reefs and vital fish habitats in the sea. But still, this largely remains ignored altogether by the civilized world.

It’s a primary example of how one-sided media coverage can unjustly distort the picture of who actually are the REAL pirates.

So is it any wonder that our smiling Somali prisoner is overjoyed to be in U.S., with 3 squares, and a relatively clean place to sleep and shower? Even though he may be in prison on Riker's Island, it's a half-a-world away from his dirt poor native land.
 
No doubt, our pirate is happy to  be in a prison. To him now, he can eat like a king, sleep in a real bed, enjoy the sanitary facilities, and spend his time watching cableTV -- the lifestyle of an aristocrat in Somalia.

Just like the Jeffersons, our smiling teen pirate captive will be “moving on up.”
 
This is a "shining" example of why Americans kids take their country for granted-- and why immigrants see it as a land of wealth and fantasy.

Just imagine what was going through our captured prisoner’s mind, as he as rode through New York City to his initial hearing: "Look at all these cars; and these Americans...so well dressed...so clean... and many of them are so fat."

An obese Somalian? Never!

"I'm actually in  America...I made it! I won't ever go hungry again. I can sleep on a bed like a civilized human being. I can educate myself in the prison library. Hey, I might even learn to write, and author an autobiography and get rich, and possibly be released in 25 years, and I will be free in America!"

Free at last...free at last.
 
Yes-- free in America- the land of opportunity; that's probably how the rail-thin Somali teen pirate sees it.

So who doesn't blame him for smiling? It's probably every Somali kid's fantasy dream: to go from barely surviving in the world's poorest country, then overnight, to be living for the rest of your life in the world's richest land.
 
But what about minority children who are born in America, and grow up poor? What's their perspective on life in the world's richest country?
 
Despite their poverty, they have food in abundance; the U.S.is the only country on earth with grossly obese poor people.
 
Despite their "poverty," most poor kids have fashionable clothes, cellphones, and the "bling" to go with it.
 
Despite their poverty, they attend public schools in a country that spends more on its students per capita than almost any other nation in the world; yet many refuse to apply themselves, and accuse those who do of "acting white."

This curiosity was first formally proposed in the mid-80's by Mr. John Ogbu, an emigrating Nigerian professor of anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley, which has since become almost a truism: "When minority students try hard and do well, they are disparaged by their less successful peers for "acting white."

Hence, many end up with no education, no motivation, no future, with their only survival skill being their ability to cash their monthly Obama check.

And for those who do graduate and go on to college, most take "ethnic studies" courses, or major in ‘womens' studies, and graduate with few marketable skills other than being hired for a supervisory position with ACORN (or going into the military, which is an honorable career, but requires no college).
 
Now let’s play our favorite game…"what if."

What if, by some master-stroke, the young Somali pirate's ACLU lawyer is able to get him freed, somehow convincing the jury that he was a "misguided youth," and "had no other recourse but the peer pressure to piracy."

America (being the magnanimous country that it is) would no doubt permit him to stay, and perhaps, with an outpouring of sympathy, the acquitted pirate would be given a place to live until he "gets on his feet."

And within a decade, who would bet against the fact that our young, poor Somali pirate would become successful, because he was grateful for the opportunity to live in America, where you're restricted only by the limitations placed on oneself --and not blame anyone else.

So for all those American kids out there who are born into poverty, grow up hating their circumstances, and blame everyone for their "misfortune" and lack of opportunity; perhaps we should administer some tough love if they should drop out of school --'sentence' them to a year in Somalia --and see what happens when they're allowed to return.

It'd be interesting indeed to find out.

And realistically, could we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in someone else's toxic waste, watching foreigners snatch their fish to be eaten in restaurants in London and Paris?

If this was going on off the coastlines of America, how would we respond?
 
The essence of the modern war on piracy could be best summarized by the story of a captured 4th-centuy BC pirate, who-- after being brought before Alexander the Great-- the fabled Alexander demanded to know: "What do you mean by your attempt to keep possession of the sea?"

The smiling pirate responded: "The same as what you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber: while you, who do it with a great army and fleet, are called emperor."
 
So once again-- who was being the real pirate?



www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

High speed rail: "If you build it...they will come"


In nineteenth century America, rail was the only way to travel long distances. There were no other alternatives. The "iron horse"-- like the Conestoga wagon-- enabled frontier settlers to win the West.

And considering the America of 150 years ago, 35 mph cross-country travel by rail was the high speed of its day, versus riding a horse with saddlebags, or loading up the ol' ox-drawn covered wagon.

High-speed trains have been an idea floating around Washington since the 60's. But as Chairman Mao used to say in China --"it's time for another great leap forward."

Right now, the Republicans are having a  hard time finding something that raises the consciousness of the average voter; but if they were to elevate high speed rail to their campaign platform, it just may be the political issue to enable them to actually WIN- not survive- the next election.

High speed rail is one of a few RATIONAL ideas left; and like the Apollo moon shot of the 60's, it could actually spark a total economic revival in America, and leave a permanent high tech legacy for all future generations.

In the 60's, for every dollar spent on the Apollo space program, NASA created an "economic multiplier" effect, returning four dollars of actual economic growth. There were tens of thousands of jobs created in Houston, Huntsville Alabama, and Cape Canaveral in Florida. Almost overnight there were a plethora of other 'spin-off' jobs around the country.

Companies such as McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, and other new similar industries were all part of the program necessary to cobble together the rockets, the moon-landing modules, vehicle-launchers, the propulsion systems, the spacesuits and life-support systems, etc.

New job titles emerged: aeronautical engineer-- astronaut- even the oft-joked about title of "rocket scientist"; all were offshoots of the space program in the 60's.

Experts today estimate that if America were to actually take the great leap forward and build a ground-up high speed rail system, the economic multiplier effect would be even greater than the space program 40 years ago-- as much as 6 to 1-- for every dollar spent, it would generate an actual six dollars in additional economic growth.

6 to 1? Who wouldn't take those odds, especially with the all-but-moribund economy we have today. Restructuring the nation's interstate transportation is long-long overdue, and would be a watershed opportunity for the Republicans to take away the political initiative from the democrats.

But politics aside, there are other compelling reasons for the U.S. to restructure its transport systems, like the need to prepare for stricter air-pollution standards, to alleviate traffic congestion, and coax the air-travel industry to get out of its "rut".

On the interstates, drivers almost everywhere are facing gridlock and worsening road rage--all adding to time wasted-- which jacks up the cost of doing business. The automobile promised mobility, but we've reached the point of diminishing returns-- the growing number of cars in an increasingly urbanized world offer only the opposite-- immobility!

And the same holds true in our nations' airports, as airline travelers now face  "air- rage" impediments.

There is airport gridlock...congestion in the parking lots...slow-moving security lines...metal detectors. There are luggage searches, and the dreaded humility of personal searches, right down to having to remove your smelly shoes-- all for the pleasure of  a sardine-like passenger experience, where sufficient legroom, hip room, and even food for one's growling stomach-- are denied.

Now contrast today's air travel versus the 60-70's, when air travel was glamorous. Passengers dressed to the 9's (whatever that means). Stewardesses (as they were called back then) were the starlets of the airways-- all wore designer uniforms-- and they were there to serve you, not police you like today

Even the names of the old airlines sounded glamorous and evoke memories of grandeur. TWA-Trans-World Airlines; Pan-American Airways: KLM Royal Dutch Airlines; BOAC- British Overseas Air Corporation...etc.

But now, airline travel is not dissimilar from riding the Greyhound: The obnoxia and hassle of ill-mannered passengers, scant service, crowded travel conditions, all are indicative that Americans need a new passenger-travel paradigm for the 21st century.

Now contrast boarding a high speed inter-city train with
the distress of air travel:

For a flight of about an hour's duration, you have to arrive at the airport at least an hour in advance (security check) , then a good part of the "experience" is spent taxiing and waiting for clearance-- all are not an issue with high-speed rail.

On the train, you can access the Internet, and do your work while commuting; but can that easily (or cheaply) be done on a plane?

And what about personal comforts (i.e. liquid refreshment)? On a plane, they'll confiscate anything "suspicious", right down to your expensive bottle of max-volumizing shampoo. But on a high speed train, it’s what a flask was invented for!

And what would happen if airlines now had to face competition? You'd  see a sudden spike in service and creature comforts, and lower fares. Some Airlines have become so brazen, that they'll even charge you for an extra pillow. Pretty soon, they may even resort to the pay toilet, so desperate do they seem to protect their bottom line.

But if time-harassed Americans had the option of hopping on a 200 mph train, vs. sitting around an airport, they'd take to the rails almost any time.

You drive right up to the depot, get on board (with no long waits or security checks), and then relax unencumbered by impudent children bawling & screaming across the aisle-- no claustrophobic seating arrangements-- and quality hot food available in the dining car.

It's a no-brainer. Just ask the Japanese or the Europeans. High speed rail travel is fantastic!

In England, you can connect from London and take the high-speed French TGV through the Chunnel from Dover to Calais, and then speed onward to Paris. First time passengers rave about the convenience, and often describe the experience as "amazing". Nothing in the U.S. compares in comfort, quality or RELIABILTY.

In France, the luxurious, glamorous TGV bullet trains are always booked solid. Travelers love the food and the pastoral view of the French countryside whizzing by at 200 mph.

To travel between the original Paris-Lyon link, you must make your reservations well in advance. But once aboard, you'll be pampered by wide reclining seats; footrests; convenient storage for luggage; and buffet/bar car. In first class, meals are served at your seat, with optional DVD film player rental.
 
Sure beats paying for a measly little blanket, or surviving a 4-hour flight on a bag of stale pretzels.

Japan’s high-speed rail network (in service since 1964), now stretches for 1,360 miles, linking nearly all its major cities. The most heavily traveled link is the original line between Tokyo and Osaka, where the bullet trains carry an astounding 117,000 passengers a day. The transit time of two hours and 30 minutes compares with a driving time of eight hours.

In Japan, the trains run on time...exactly on time-- for if not, the conductor or engineer will face dismissal--no excuses, no exceptions.

In Spain, the growth of the Alta Velocidad Española (AVE) high-speed rail network has changed peoples' attitudes almost overnight. Unlike footloose, highly mobile Americans, Spaniards were once fiercely attached to their home regions, and traditionally reluctant to live or even TRAVEL elsewhere.

In 1992, Spain's first high-speed line opened between Madrid and Seville. Critics panned the controversial decision to build the line, and were predicting a costly failure.

But the AVE proved to be smash success. Politicians now fight to secure stations in their districts, competing to offer ever-more ambitious expansion plans, and projections peg that nine out of ten Spaniards will live within 31 miles of a high speed rail station by 2020.

Residents of Barcelona can be in Madrid in just over two-and-a-half hours-- a journey that takes around six hours by car. Ciudad Real, a small town 120 miles south of Madrid, had completely vanished from the map. Now it has an AVE station that puts it just 50 minutes away from Madrid, and the once-forgotten city has come alive, and has attracted a host of industries; and the train is full in both directions.

Now who says history doesn’t repeat? If we were to go back to the opening of America's transcontinental railroad-- like Spain-- it knitted together all the major cities, and created an economic boom for all the smaller towns in between, and changed our nation overnight.

In retrospect, there wasn't a free market choice when Americans switched from trains to cars and planes a half-century ago. The federal government actually distorted the market-- pouring federal money into roads and airports--while the railroads had to build, maintain, and pay taxes on all of their infrastructure and stations.

But compared to the amount of money and resources we spend rebuilding roads, bridges and airports, the amount required to build a high-speed rail system is a bargain vs. the cost of traditional transportation.

High speed rail will breathe life back into city centers, and would encourage compact development, instead of sprawl. Plus it would spawn light rail lines, street cars, and short-hop "metros" to connect to the rail stations.

And given the option, people would be excited about high speed rail: It’s better transportation-- better for the environment-- and would create the economic boom that has been lurking beneath our noses ever since the 1980's.

And to all those naysayers who think Americans won't abandon their beloved cars-- or their preference for flying-- just go to Spain and take the train.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com
  

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Coming soon to a factory near you...the Waxman-Markey anti-stimulus


Pssst...wanna hear a good one? Henry Waxman (the California ultra-leftist House democrat) has stated that his new climate bill WON'T harm the U.S. economy.

Can this environmental noodlehead actually be serious?

Waxman is the type of guy who stays up late thinking of new leftist ideas to force down our throats-- his dream for an ecological nirvana-- but it's a nightmare.

Yes indeed, the benevolent Henry Waxman, who claims his bill won't hurt the economy. It's like pretending cancer is harmless. Waxman's big lie of lies is nothing more than economic carcinoma in its most virulent form, because it will metastisize insidiously from one industry to another.

And now, we must introduce his partner in crime, Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts), another leftist radical who--as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy &  Environment-- has been a one-man wrecking-crew to block drilling leases in Alaska in order to "save" the pristine habitat.

This lunatic claims that the current estimate of 30,00 polar bears are grounds enough to block oil exploration to avoid their extinction; so don't dare try to tell good ol' Ed that there ain't no global warming--no sir-ee--because he's having none of it.

Waxman and Markey are the Laurel & Hardy of environmentalism-- out to pass their clean air bill-- then sit back and watch it slowly leach the lifeblood out of every manufacturer, energy producer, farmer, and you guessed it...everyone else who uses energy-- all because of non-existent global warming.

And God save America if this bill passes! The cost of living, the cost of driving, and the cost of doing business for almost everyone-- all will literally go sky-high in the next decade-- or even sooner.

Their legislation requires that CO2 emissions be reduced 20 percent by the year 2020, and that all greenhouse gases be reduced by 80 percent by 2050.

That's right-- EIGHTY PERCENT!

And once our leftist Congress passes this travesty, we can expect to see life change precipitously for the worse (thanks to these two fascist fools) because it will virtually outlaw the internal combustion engine in the next decade, if "compliance" is to be reached.

We'll be forced to drive "green" cars. We can kiss goodbye to our power lawnmowers, snow-blowers and leaf-blowers. And wait till we open up our utility bills in a few years.

The Waxman- Markey clean air bill will suck so much disposable income from the average American (estimated at $3000 annually per household) that our consumer-driven economy may all but collapse under this final death blow.

And Waxman- Markey won't stop there, not by a long-shot.

This law will force us to adopt the green energy source of the future: windmills-- yes windmills-- a 16th-century, weather-dependent "technology," and forsake reliable, dependable coal-power, which generates almost 60% of our nation's electricity-- and provides it cheaply.

So think about all the coal miners that will be put out of work; think about all the steel workers and the rest of the heavy industry workers that will be forced out of their livelihoods for so-called environmental reasons, while the congressional aristocracy will continue to fly around in their privately-chartered, CO2--emitting jets, and be chauffeured around Washington sitting in the back seats of huge, gasoline-powered limousines.

Meanwhile, the Chinese will be the ones to benefit as our heavy industries either close down, or move overseas to greener pastures. This bill will only serve to indirectly subsidize our foreign competitors who could care less about green energy, and will continue to power their economies with dependable coal and fossil fuels.

But what about all the fun of driving the green cars of the future? It'll be bye-bye gasoline, and hello to battery power-- another "technological" breakthrough that was invented by Alessandro Volta in the year 1800.

And say "so long" to your sports car, "hasta-lavista" to your work truck; and bid "adios" to your SUV. The Waxman-Markey bill will eventually legislate them out of existence, much like the EPA did to Detroit's flourishing muscle car industry in the early 70's.

And to add insult to injury, the Obama administration is calling this--believe it or not-- a jobs bill--youch!

Not only will it grievously wound the private sector and drive millions of people to their local unemployment offices, just picture all the new "energy-police" positions that'll be created as an offshoot of this horrid legislation.

They'll be "energy inspectors" going everywhere, checking for "compliance." It will create an entire new layer of government workers-- a green energy Gestapo-- whose sole task will be the harassment and condemnation of any company (or any household) who refuses to comply--complete with the onerous fines to match.

It's all part of the cover: Create a bigger bureaucracy...more and more government employees; while more and more private-sector workers are forced onto the unemployment rolls, dependent upon their monthly Obama check-- or else starve.

Obama... Markey...Waxman...Congress...the EPA -- they all know what the master plan is: it's all about the tipping point-- where 50% of the people become dependent on the federal government-- which assures enough votes to keep this autocracy in Washington to "serve" the people for at least 4 more fun-filled years.

So they'll keep levying more regulations, which will beget more destruction of the economy, with 15% (or greater) unemployment-- plus a hugely expanded government work force-- as increasing political power inexorably flows to Washington, and hapless citizens with lost jobs, lost pride, facing a bleak future.

But all the while, they'll be breathing sweet, clean, fresh air.



www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

With Obama on the job, who needs the CIA?


November 30, 1775...one of the most important sessions of the Continental Congress.

On the recommendation of Benjamin Franklin, the "original CIA" was established; it would be known as the "Committee of Secret Correspondence," founded on the premise..."It is of utmost consequence to the cause of liberty that the Committee be kept informed of developments in Europe, to find out the disposition of foreign powers towards us;  therefore, circumspection and impenetrable security are necessary."

One of the Committee's most exemplary American agents was Captain David Gray of Massachusetts. Posing undercover as a deserter, Gray became the courier for Major Oliver DeLancey, Jr., the head of the British secret service in New York.

It was the original "spy-vs-spy" episode in American history:

For two years, Captain Gray successfully penetrated the principal communications' link of the British secret service, leading to the capture of a "John Anderson", who purportedly had knowledge of the impending surrender of a major Patriot installation-- the strategic fortress of West Point.

Upon discovering that "John Anderson" had passed through the lines en route to General Benedict Arnold- the traitorous commander at West Point-- Captain Gray had Anderson apprehended, and after "vigorous interrogation," the undercover agent admitted to his true identity-- the infamous Major Andre--and was summarily tried, convicted, and executed as a British spy.

Benedict Arnold, learning that Andre had been taken, at once fled West Point and joined the British forces. Then Washington's reinforcements arrived, and a military calamity was averted thanks to the counter-intelligence work of Captain Gray.

Had the Americans not uncovered Benedict Arnold's plot to hand over West point, the Revolutionary War may have had an entirely different outcome. The British would have seized this vital location at the bend in the Hudson River north of New York, and bisected the colonies in two-- entirely sealing off New England.

From the outset of the Revolutionary war, General Washington had always demanded effective counterintelligence work from his subordinates.

To offset British numerical superiority in firepower and troops, Washington made frequent use of deception, allowing fabricated documents to fall into the hands of enemy agents. His couriers carried bogus information, and then allowed themselves to be "captured" by the British.

Washington would insert clever forgeries into intercepted British pouches, which were then permitted to reach their destination. He often would construct fake military fortifications to confuse the enemy.

Washington managed to make the British believe that his three-thousand-man army outside Philadelphia was a full forty-thousand strong, which is the reason why the English never did attack the city back in early 1777, when it was highly vulnerable.

To this day, most Americans have failed to grasp the seminal importance that accurate information (gleaned through espionage) had in America's amazing victory over the vastly superior forces of the British. American intelligence proved to be the "great equalizer" that enabled the Continentals to survive and eventually win their war of independence.

Even a century and a half later, the tiny democratic state of Israel was founded along a similar path, due to their legendary CIA-type spy organization, the Mossad.

To this day, the Mossad remains cloaked in myth. It was formed on April 1,1951. Mossad translated exactly is..."Ha-Mossad le-Modiin ule-Tafkidim Meyuhadim"--the Institution for Intelligence and Special Tasks.

Without a doubt, the Mossad's most fabled work was the discovery of Egyptian President Gamal Nasser's plans for a joint Arab strike to annihilate Israel--the 6-Day War.

On May 27,1967 Egypt, Jordan and Syria had planned a surprise combined ground & air operation. However, Israeli intelligence had gotten wind of the plan (called " Operation Dawn") and transmitted it to defense minister Moshe Dayan.

In an excerpt from the June 14,1967 edition of TIME magazine, we get a grasp of the splendid performance of the Mossad in enabling the Israeli air force to foil the surprise attack:

"...By the end of the first day's fighting, some 400 warplanes of five Arab nations had been obliterated. Egypt alone lost 300, Syria 60, Jordan 35. The cost to Israel's 400-fighter air force was 19 planes and pilots, mostly downed by ground fire. In a few astonishing hours of incredibly accurate bombing, Israel erased an expensive decade of Russian military aid to the Arab world."

Of course, the real key was Israel's ability to mount a surprise pre-emptive strike that crippled its Arab enemies, before they themselves could move against the Jewish State.

At its founding, the Mossad's original motto had been..."By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Avoid War." But their new shibboleth (slogan) has evolved to: "For lack of guidance, a nation falls, but many advisers make victory sure."

But going back to 1775, what if there had been "liberal opposition" in the Continental Congress, and they had voted down Franklin's suggestion of a secret spy agency, because it would amount to "playing unfair?" Would the 'rebels' have lasted 'till 1781, and eventually win the Revolutionary war?

And where would Israel be today if back in1951, liberals had seized the Knesset (Jewish parliament) and voted against the formation of the Mossad, because it would require deception, lying, and cause to the world to "not like" the new country of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust.

During the Second World War, the OSS (America's forerunner to the CIA) did an incredible job in conjunction with the British Secret Service in deceiving Hitler before D-Day-- misleading the Nazis to where the attack would actually  occur--which historians agree was key to the Allied victory in the war.

And who doubts (besides liberals) that the Allied victory— with countless covert operations and massive deception—served a just cause, and was morally superior to permitting an Axis victory, which would have enslaved the Western world.

But after the war, when the CIA was formed-- out of deep moral and political confusion-- some American liberals equated the agency with the KGB, and sought to "get even" for all the lying and deception.

And it was the liberal betrayal of America's most guarded military secret, the atomic bomb, that enabled the Soviets to keep pace with America, and prolong the Cold war for 40 frightening years.

From 1946-47, it was the Rosenbergs (Julius & Ethel) who passed US atomic bomb secrets to Stalin. Then, in 1948, Alger Hiss passed the workings of the hydrogen bomb to the Soviets.

In both cases, neither were paid well; it was liberal betrayal of their homeland for reasons of profound disdain of America, who had used "inhumane" means (the BOMB) to end the war in August ,1945.

In fact, Julius Rosenberg’s secret KGB code name was "Liberal". And it was his wife Ethel, who recruited her brother, David Greenglass, to covertly steal nuclear secrets. Greenglass not only provided the Soviets with a sketch of the fuse for the atomic bomb, but also gave them a complete diagram for a prototype.

Then, another liberal traitor who worked for the CIA in the 1960's, Philip Agee-- a bitter critic of U.S. foreign policy--infuriated American intelligence officials by naming agency operatives in his 1975 book.

Agee quit the CIA in 1969 after 12 years working mostly in Latin America, when leftist movements were gaining sympathizers. His book, "Inside the Company: CIA Diary," cited alleged CIA misdeeds against leftists in the region, and included a 22-page list of purported agents, and exposed a CIA station chief, Richard S. Welch, who was later killed by leftist terrorists in Athens.

Agee's actions in the 1970s inspired a law criminalizing the exposure of covert U.S. operatives.

Then in the late 70's, CIA critics like liberal Idaho Senator Frank Church (under the guise of congressional oversight), severely restricted CIA covert operations, after a series of public hearings which vilified the agency for its actions during Vietnam & Watergate.

But the emasculation of CIA activities reached its apogee under President Carter’s CIA Director, Stansfield Turner.

In 1977, Turner fired 400 of the CIA's best experts that kept an eye on the Middle East. This demoralized the entire U.S. intelligence community, and made it virtually impossible to respond to the Iran hostage crisis the following year.

These self-inflicted wounds also contributed to serious U.S. reverses in Angola, Ethiopia, Iran, and Afghanistan. But to this day, the surviving members of that late 1970's Congress (and the Carter White House) stubbornly refuse to take the blame for these disastrous blunders.

But now, after 50-plus years of liberals getting even with America, the peril to the CIA still persists with perhaps its most grave threat ever-- the election of Barack Obama-- the charlatan master of presidential double-speak, who will now release compromising memos of CIA practices to end the "War on Terror".

Mr. Obama recently announced..."the CIA has my full support."

Translation: "But interrogation is out forever."

Jimmy Carter saw fit to castrate the CIA's personnel in 1977; and now, Obama seeks to put the icing on the cake by emasculating the agencies' basic ability to function.

This is like sending soldiers into battle with unloaded rifles-- just what you'd expect from our anti-military, anti-security, anti-president, who prefers to be nice to our enemies, have the world like us, and that way, the Muslim terrorists will just melt away like last winter's snow.

"The United States is a nation of laws,'' Obama said. "My administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals.''
 
Translation: I will make sure the CIA now operates like the Red Cross, and will give aid & comfort to our enemies.

In Obama's nirvana, we see a perfect liberal world...everyone just be nice... be happy toward our enemies...no bad spies telling lies...no evil deception...no terrible torture...just wonderful, straightforward revelations of U.S. intelligence secrets, and the whole world will nod in unanimous approval!

Yes-- just like little children-- we'll show you ours, and you will show us yours; and Obama will appoint Pollyanna as head of the CIA. Just pretend we have no enemies; and pretend there are no plans for incipient attacks against us.

Just get the nice, Muslim extremists to promise that they will never again plot against us, or force an American to kneel on the floor while they saw his head off-- all while being videotaped for Al-Jazeera.

And according to Mr. Obama, we certainly don't want to support a terrorist-like organization like the CIA within our country, do we? That's why we are the good guys. We follow a certain set of rules. When we do this, we make many allies, and the whole world now loves us.

And to make sure everyone behaves, Obama will get Congress to pass a law outlawing evil in the world, and everything will be all hunky-dory for time immemorial.

T.S. Eliot once wrote: "Espionage is a wilderness of mirrors, a necessary evil...and when properly conducted, spying and covert action are necessary and good in a just struggle."

And who besides the liberal traitors in Washington, could possibly doubt that American’s war against terror is not just?

Espionage is as old as history itself.

In the Old Testament, we read that Moses sent spies into the land of Canaan, to see "whither the cities they dwell in are camps, or strongholds.” (Numbers: 13:17-19)

Technology has changed, but evil (which Obama pretends no longer exists) never goes out of style.

The enduring need for espionage was even acknowledged in a parable of Jesus... “What king will march to battle against another king, without first sitting down to consider whether with ten thousand men, he can face an enemy coming to meet him with twenty thousand?" (Luke 14:31-32)

Winston Churchill wrote..."In wartime, truth is so precious, that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

But in the fantasy liberal world of Barack Obama, if there is ANOTHER terrorist attack in the United States, will he bear the yoke of the tragedy-- or is it beyond his pay grade?



www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hyperstagflation-- Obama's leapfrog beyond the Carter disaster of the 70's


FLASHBACK TO THE GOOD OLD DAYS: Remember when you were a little kid, and Aunt Edna or Uncle Marty would come over to visit, and hand you MONEY? If they were a cheapskate, they'd maybe fork over a quarter (or a 50-cent piece); but if they were on the generous side, they might be good for a whole buck (or more) every time you'd see 'em.

But in any event, they'd always tell you to "put this in your piggy bank"..."save this for a rainy day"... or, "don't spend this foolishly"..."have Mommy save this for you," or even..."save this for college."
 
Oh yes-- those were the good ol' days indeed, when we all had that notion of SAVING pounded into us as children.

But nowadays, if we were to bestow upon our favorite nephew or niece (or grandchild) a cash handout, could we honestly look them in the eye and advise them to save it for the future? HAH!

Like the kitchen cookie jar, is a kid's bedroom piggy bank about to become obsolete? But what has changed? Why all the skepticism about our children's financial horizons?

Well, for the answer, just turn your prayer rug to the east, and hope that our wonderful Congressional legislators in Washington DC aren't setting us up for a nice, old-fashioned bout of hyperinflation--1920's Germany style.

Everyone has heard the story a million times of some poor-soul, hungry, hapless German pushing a wheelbarrow full of 'worthless marks' to the store for a loaf of bread; but maybe Americans should stop all their complacency, and begin to take this scenario seriously.

Imagine going into your favorite swanky restaurant, enjoying  a leisurely 5-course meal, and to your great dismay, discovering the price for the dinner has gone up since you first ordered! That's hyperinflation in the real world.

Or imagine going into a showroom, taking a gander at the window sticker, then after a long, inquisitive, and careful test drive, you return to the dealership and discover that same car now costs MORE than when you first saw it...that too, is hyperinflation in the real world.
 
Actually, hyperinflation has occurred twice in American history:

In 1775, the Continental Dollar was a series of notes designed to support the revolution. Its plates were crudely engraved by Paul Revere himself, and were printed on such thick paper that the British referred to them derisively as..."the paste-board money of the rebels."

Clearly, The British were on to something.

In the original 1775 printing, there were $6 million in new Continental notes; but by the end of 1776, the Continental Congress had ordered up $25 million of additional currency printed, and at the SAME time, the individual colonies were printing up their own money, called "bills of credit".

Can one even imagine the chaos of being paid in paper, that was worth little more than a mere promise-- i.e. not backed by gold or silver (specie)?

It is said that more men deserted at Valley Forge-- not so because of their unwillingness to fight the Redcoats-- but because they had no faith of being paid in questionable currency. After all, an AWOL continental soldier could expect to return to his farm and grow cash crops, or raise hogs for a TANGIBLE profit.

Incredibly, by 1781, Continental regulars had to shell out $600 for new a set of boots. And to add insult to injury, a soldier was charged a whopping $10 for a simple spool of thread, just to repair his tattered blue uniform (you were only issued one).

By the end of the war, there had been an incredible $241 million worth of continental dollars printed up, and they literally became wallpaper after they were declared worthless in November 1781, after undergoing a hyperinflation rate of over 2500 percent!

Remember--whenever people lose faith in the currency, there is always social chaos as a price to be paid.

By the end of World War I in 1918 Germany , it took TEN marks to purchase what just ONE would buy before the war. And by the end of the 1920's, the mark was also considered worthless, and from all the violence and social upheaval arose a Mr. Adolf Hitler.
 
Going way back, many Americans recall all the old jokes of being paid in "Confederate money." But if you were living in the South between 1862-1865, hyperinflation was nothing to laugh about.

During the Civil war, Confederate war financing consisted of over $1.5 billion in paper dollars that began depreciating BEFORE the ink had a chance to dry. Confederate officials had preferred that the currency be backed not by specie, but rather public confidence in the Confederacy’s survival after the war.

This being the case, each Southern state printed up their own personalized Confederate "brand" of currency (diluting the money further). Plus, the fact that these poorly printed bills were easily counterfeited would make things all the worse.

Ironically, the Confederate decision to print paper money in lieu of a system of taxation (or to not sell "war" bonds) brought on the most oppressive form of defacto taxation any society can endure--runaway hyperinflation.

By war's end, Confederate currency saw an incredible inflation rate topping 9,000 percent!

Predictably, there were thirteen known food riots in the South during the latter years of the war. Jefferson Davis tried to stop a bread riot in Richmond by offering rampaging housewives money from his own pockets. But his money was as worthless as theirs, and the angry mob only dispersed after Davis threatened that his troops would open fire if they didn’t skidaddle back home.

No matter what the era, loss of confidence in the currency begets hyperinflation...then opposing forces take over to accelerate it even further. These include unwillingness of suppliers to produce, and the consumers’ rising preference for hoarding of necessities, as it becomes incumbent to spend money as fast it comes in.

In hyper-inflation, money loses most of its value practically overnight, to the point where all confidence is lost. And thanks to our dearly-beloved Congress, and Bernard Bernacke's printing press in the fed basement, the rest of the world may soon regard the American dollar as the British once did in 1770's-- "not worth the thick paper its printed on."

And for all you skeptics out there who say..."Oh no, this couldn't happen in modern day America," then just look back in history and you'll see the future --and its not a pretty picture.

QUESTION: What has changed since the days of the Continental congress, when they ran the colonial printing presses flat-out for six entire years? ANSWER: practically nothing.

Nowadays, Congress and our central bankers just love to keep printing money, believing they can somehow "manage" the economy through the manipulation of interest rates and the money supply.

But unlike the colonial times, we have that looming problem of a national debt escalating faster than a speeding bullet train; and therefore, the government printing press is necessary to monetize the escalating federal debt that our leftist politicians thrive on, as they recklessly mortgage the future of both our country and our children.

Remember all the cool commercials for US savings bonds? Well bring 'em back! We need to resume selling them, as raising taxes has reached its upper limits.

In 2010, voters will undoubtedly seek to clean house in the midterm Congressional elections, but it may be too late; there may already be too much money in the deficit spending pipeline to avoid a financial apocalypse. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that ominous storm clouds are gathering on the horizon:

With Bernacke printing literally trillions of paper dollars and injecting them into our economy, inflation of the currency is inevitable. So can anyone deny this, and still be telling the TRUTH at the same time?

Now couple that with our rapidly rising unemployment rate--- according to the Department of Commerce, it’s at 8.75 percent; but these figures are being fudged by the Obama administration-- in all actuality, almost 1 in 7 people are out of work now, or will be shortly.

And what about economic development which requires investment? With both large and small businesses held hostage by what the pro-Socialist Obama administration may do next,  the economy (like the stock market) will inevitably languor in the future, faced with higher business taxes, cap & trade, environmental taxes on energy, and a general anti-business, pro-entitlement attitude in Washington.

But without some miracle, our economy has only one direction to go--south.

So let's do the final analysis: We're heading for something that never before has been seen in America--not even during the disastrous days of the late 70's Carter economy-- hyperstagflation!

And how can it be avoided, with high inflation, low economic development, and high unemployment?

Every single example in history-- all the way back to Rome-- reveals that hyperinflation always begins during a deflationary period, and is a combination of a rapid increase in the money supply, coupled with a rapid loss of confidence in the system.

So does this sound like a plausible scenario, given the insane, out of control, DEFICIT spending going in Washington today?

Now couple this with our foreign lenders, who may shut off the credit spigots, and we end up by the next decade with the worst of all possible economic scenarios-- a hyperinflationary depression!

And while there may be no bread riots, or people hauling dollars around in wheelbarrows for a pound of baloney, you can bet your last roll of pennies that if we do reap the consequences of Congress' incredibly profligate deficit spending, the United states will literally become a third world nation overnight, with gold at $2500/oz., gasoline at 11-12 dollars per gallon, grocery prices on the moon, and four-digit utility bills, with people riding bikes outside, and wood-burning cast iron stoves for "central heating" on the inside.

It'll be just like going back to the good old days, when modern conveniences weren't even around.

Back in his day, Thomas Jefferson often warned of the damage caused if the people assigned control of the money supply to the banking sector...(quote) "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."
 
Jefferson wrote..."If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency-- first by inflation, then by deflation-- the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Now if only Jefferson were alive today, and could be appointed for Secretary of the Treasury.



www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The difference between patriotism-- and being patriotic.


October 19, 1781, Cornwallis surrenders at Yorktown-- the end of the American Revolution.

It was widely believed that General George Washington, who had miraculously led the colonial insurrection against England, would then appoint himself as king of the new American nation, and reward himself for having risked the "best years of life" to achieve the victory.

But Washington voluntarily resigned as Commander in Chief in an act of supreme humility.

The entire world was literally astounded! Never before in western history had someone refused the opportunity to be made king.

Most people had assumed that General Washington, as America's most-powerful man, would declare himself as its almighty ruler. Even King George III is said to have nearly toppled over in surprise, declaring that Washington was... "the greatest man alive today."

Washington had resigned because he believed in government by law, not by monarchs and dictators. And the last thing he wanted to do was to remain in the celebrity spotlight, let alone fulfill his destiny as America's first president.

February 4, 1789--the day for America's initial presidential election. After the Electoral college had sent their sealed ballots to the newly-formed United States Congress, it was announced that George Washington had unanimously received the nomination.

But the reluctant Washington yearned for privacy. He had fought for years in the French & Indian war, and then led the Continental army to one miracle victory after another.

So all the war-weary Washington was thinking about was going back home, and working around the yard at his gorgeous, newly-remodeled estate in Mt. Vernon, with its bucolic riverfront view.

Yet Washington realized that America looked upon him as their hero, and out of sheer calling to duty, he figured he could serve 4 quick years, and then head for the hills back home in rural New York.

But the new American nation had other plans: After his first term, Washington was again unanimously re-elected president, because everyone seemed to agree that only HE could do the job, and with good reason.

By the middle of the 1790's, America was consumed by the threat of another foreign war-- either with Britain OR France– plus the dangerous power struggle between Hamilton and Jefferson.

But what if Washington had not been a patriot? Could the new nation have avoided blundering itself into yet a second war with the British? After all, the Americans had been remarkably fortunate to have won the first.

At the end of the war, the British refused to withdraw their troops from the Ohio River Valley-- a promise broken in the treaty of Ghent. From their forts along the Ohio, the British now supplied Indians with weapons to use on migrating American settlers.

Meanwhile, on the other side, the French told America, "you owe us big-time,” claiming that America was bound by its 1778 treaty to fight alongside them vs. the British. In addition, both nations threatened piracy--to confiscate the cargo of American trading ships-- which could have destroyed America's growing economy.

But Washington, through his supreme foresight, wisely steered America from the popular call for a second war of independence, and the colony-states once again had survived yet another grave crisis from abroad.

Back during the founding of our republic, there existed a plethora of great American statesman--all who were God-fearing men willing to sacrifice their own personal agendas for love of country-- the true definition of patriotism.

But nowadays, where have all the patriots gone? The nation is literally destroying itself upon the rocks of polarization and partisan politics.

And whither the Republicans, the so-called party of patriotism? Where are all their leaders? And where are all their patriots? Currently, the GOP is a ship adrift without a rudder- there are no true leaders-- and sadly, no true patriots.

Oh sure, we could cite those famous conservative radio talkers, ala Hannity, Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, et al; but are they patriotic enough to step forward and run for the presidency? Instead of serving in Washington, they have chosen to safely remain above the fray, saying to themselves..."I'll just write a book instead."

But what if George Washington had chosen to write a book, and retire at Mount Vernon in a life of luxury? How would history have gone for our new nation?  Would there even be a United States of America today?

Unlike Washington (and the heroic men of his time), the radio talk show "heroes" of our day choose not to give up the affluent lifestyle they cherish, because it would be "too much of a sacrifice" in lieu of service for their country.

And what about the democrats who now hold sway in Washington DC? Most of them would rather surrender their first-born, rather than admit to being "not patriotic."

But the reality is that we have the Constitution-hating Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House; we have big government-promoting Harry Reid as Senate majority leader-- both in charge of a pack of leftist, power-crazed, self-promotional despots, who could care less about their country-- and unlike George Washington--seek only to retain their positions in government.

Back in the 1780's, we had the Founding Fathers; but now in the first decade of the 21st century,  we have the scheming plotters--a treacherous, treasonous, calculating band of legislative desperados, who defy the Constitution's stated purpose of a limited government, and seek to make the federal monster an end itself, rather than a means to an end-- the "posterity" of the people.

Looking back upon our nation's history, it seemed as though it was God's providence itself that created our nation, and allowed it to survive to this present day.

During the one-sided battle of Long Island, General Washington was badly routed, and saved from total annihilation only by the onset of darkness. The Continental Army had been surrounded by the British on both land and sea.

And then came the "divine fog', which immobilized Admiral Howe's English fleet.

Miraculously, under the cover of bad weather, Washington's troops were able to ferry across the East River to Manhattan on the night of August 29, 1776. The British high command remained in utter ignorance of the evacuation, and when they charged into the American positions the next  morning for the kill, they found nothing but empty trenches.

So was it "Divine intervention" (the fog) that had permitted Washington's army (and the survival of the revolution) to fight another day?

And in the most crucial moment of the three-day battle at Gettysburg, was it again that same intervention, in the defense of Little Round Top, that has served to shape the destiny of the America ever since? Had the 20th Maine Regiment been driven off that hill, the Battle of Gettysburg might have had a different outcome, and the South may have gone on to capture nearby Washington DC, and would win the Civil War.

All throughout the early 1860's, it seemed that God's providence once again saved America, as exemplified by the selfless patriotism of Abraham Lincoln.

Had Lincoln not been elected in 1860, could America have survived to this day?

Lincoln could have lived the life of a successful, practicing trial lawyer in Illinois, and amassed wealth and fortune; but instead, he traveled to Washington & ran for the presidency in noble, altruistic service his country-- all at the time of its greatest peril.

So "armed" with all the above evidence, can anyone think otherwise that America has become a wealthy, independent nation, other than because of the blessings of God, who always seemed to have the right men in the right places at the right time, that has resulted in the miracle of  the United States of America?

If we were to examine a timeline, it seems as though God's providence seemed to emerge just in time every fifty years, for after 1865, it was as though America had slipped into a dark age of its own:

In that shameful period after Lincoln, American history saw a half-century of mistakes and ineptness. Then again miraculously, a president emerged to move our country back on course to its original ideals of a great nation.

From 1865 to 1900, the nation experienced mostly a succession of non-descript, mediocre leaders, until the fateful assassination of William McKinley, and the unplanned ascendancy of Theodore Roosevelt to the White house.

It was true blue patriotism that literally flowed through Teddy Roosevelt's veins:

He had been a hero in the Spanish-American war; he led the suicide charge up San Juan hill and survived without a scratch-- God's providence? A man of great foresight, Roosevelt immediately seized the opportunity to expand America's influence as a world power in the early 20th century.

He dug the Panama canal; he went after the monopolies of big business; he recognized the importance of keeping the European nations at bay, encouraging America to "walk softly and carry a big stick"-- the bedrock of American foreign policy ever since.

Like Lincoln before, Teddy Roosevelt had arrived at just the right time.

Then fifty years hence, God again seemed to intervene in the personna of John F. Kennedy-- America's first Catholic president.

John F. Kennedy-- reluctant, humble, World War II hero; great inspirational speech maker, with a brilliant, charismatic--yet forceful-- personality. It seemed as though Kennedy could charm beyond anyone who had ever previously served in the White House.

It was as if God Himself had rewarded America for a job well done in the previous two decades, when the U.S. saved the world from fascism in the Second World War, and had minded well the world's affairs throughout the 1950's.

After Mr. Kennedy became president (like Teddy Roosevelt), he helped America recognize its greatness as a nation as the benevolent world domineer of the 60's .

John F. Kennedy--who's family was worth an estimated $300 million-- was the consummate patriot. He was selfless in serving as president.

In the brief time in which he served, he professed the importance of "country first" over individualism. He instilled his own, forever-remembered brand of patriotic pride in Americans, who then passed it onto their baby-boomer children.

But nearly fifty years after Kennedy, has God now suddenly abandoned America, because those in Washington have now chosen to move away from Him?

Gone are the days of the great patriots in our government. Gone are the days when our elected officials can look themselves in the mirror and be proud. Gone are the days when we were taught as children, that pride was the all important trait that we inherited, and to never relinquish our pride in our selves and in our country.

And now, lacking any TRUE patriotic leaders, America's  long-term survival may be in doubt:

We’re running the biggest deficits in history-- threatening us with future insolvency.

We’re losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are moving offshore, as taxes force them to abandon the country that enabled them to grow to be great.

The nation lacks a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves.

Hard-working, middle class Americans are being squeezed every which way.

These are times that cry out for leadership--for patriotism--for someone who's wiling to sacrifice their own personal self interest (like George Washington) and serve for pure love of country-- not for themselves!

But when we look around us, we’ve got to ask: ‘Where  have all the patriotic leaders gone?’

Has God's providence now been forsaken towards our country, in the election of the atheistic Barack Obama as America's first anti-president?

In fall of 2008, at a campaign rally in Raleigh, NC, Mr. Obama angrily lashed out at John McCain's accusations that he lacked patriotism... “Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country.”

But In Barack Obama's eyes, what's to love about a country that he never grew up in? What's to love about a country that he was taught as a youth to hate? And what's to love about a place, when your very own spouse shares your view that America is a "downright mean country," and has nothing to be proud of?

Yes- can anyone expect Barack Obama to exhibit any patriotism, when he literally has nothing in common with most Americans, having grown up in Indonesia and Hawaii, and knows not of what it is to love a country that he actually may not even possess legal citizenship?

Yes America --we're now being led by an anti-president who has little in common with us, and who literally despises all America stands for, and what made it great: patriotism, love of God, and above all-- duty to country.

On the morning of September 27th,1963 a marxist sympathizer (and presumed atheist), Lee Harvey Oswald, applied for a visa at the Cuban Embassy in New Orleans, stating that he was seeking a meeting with Fidel Castro. On the application, it was noted: "The applicant states that he is a member of the American Communist Party."

The visa was rejected.

Before this, Oswald had been the first U.S. Marine ever to defect to the Soviet Union. And ironically. after a only a year in Russia, he was expelled back to America as probable CIA spy.

Today, the history of mankind is filled with "what ifs" and "if only" events. And in American history, this is one of the big 'what-ifs':

What if Oswald had been detained by the CIA as a spy, and not been able to return to the USA from Russia? What if he had NOT gone back to his mother's hometown (Fort Worth) where ironically, a friend helped him get a job working at the Texas Book Depository in Dallas?

Our lives are influenced by events far beyond our capacity to perceive at that time (or understand after the fact), let alone be able to predict in advance.

On a bright sunny day in Dallas-- Nov 22, 1963, Lyndon Johnson became President after a lone gunman-marxist traitor took out his venom on America, and assassinated perhaps its most beloved president of all time. 

And like the classic 1971 song from Don McClain..."that was the day the music-- and true patriotism in America-- may have died."



www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The liberal doctrine of appeasement-- "decrying war for the sake of peace"


QUOTE: "A liberal is one who believes in using a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way to direct the forces of education, publicity, politics, economics, business, law and religion, which will bring peace and the maximum of well-being to the greatest number of human beings...Henry Wallace (circa 1953).

Henry Wallace? Does anyone even recall who this ultra-liberal was...or what he did?

Wallace was Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture from 1933 to 1940, and Vice President from 1941 to 1944, and is basically regarded as little more than a blip on the timeline of American history.

But he is best known as being FDR's most liberal lieutenant-- a man whose determination to "fashion a better world" made him (in the words of John Kenneth Galbraith), "second only to Roosevelt as the most important figure of the New Deal."

As you would expect of any idealistic liberal, Wallace bravely championed big-government programs--the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, the Farm Credit Administration-- and founded the New Deal's version of food stamp and school lunch programs.

Wallace was the Ted Kennedy of his time, and of course, he would have been a shoe-in to become one of Obama's right-hand cronies were he alive today.

During the1930's, Walllace's growing stature as a broad-based liberal caught the eye of FDR, and in the summer of 1940 (after making the decision to run for an unprecedented third term), Roosevelt selected Wallace for the vice-presidency.

But in the summer of 1944, the fate of America took a turn which would affect history down to its very foundations, and altered the course of time in a seminal (and most fortunate) way:

At the '44 democratic convention, bitter wounds remained from the aftermath of Wallace's 1940 nomination, and when it came time for FDR to choose a running mate, he discovered Wallace faced fierce opposition among the democratic party leadership.

Exhausted by war (and not up for a floor fight) Roosevelt offered Wallace only a limited endorsement to the convention, saying that..."he would be glad to run with Senator Harry S. Truman, or Justice William O. Douglas, should they be selected." Wallace's support quickly dissolved, and the VP nomination went to Truman.

In retrospect, we can look back and see it was good ole American regional politics that saved the day for our country, and the Supreme Being had intervened. In April, 1945, Roosevelt collapsed from a cerebral hemorrhage, and Truman became his successor in the Oval office.

Then on August 6, 1945, the B-29 crew of the "Enola Gay" dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. But it took a second Nagasaki bomb, otherwise the obstinate Japanese would not have stopped the conflict. It was their militaristic culture that would have prevailed over the futility of continuing a hopeless war.

If you were an American serviceman slated to invade Japan in late 1945, the Bomb was the greatest thing on earth. It stopped the Japanese from fighting. It saved countless lives on both sides.

But what if Truman had also been a liberal, and as Wallace put it..."one who believes in using a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way to direct the forces of democracy."  What would have been the fate of all those World War II soldiers and sailors back then?

After the bloody capture of Okinawa, the U.S. military began preparations for the greatest invasion that NEVER was-- thank God and President Harry Truman.

Plans for “Operation Downfall" --the invasion of Japan-- called for two massive military operations. The first invasion was code-named “Operation Olympic,” and scheduled for Nov. 1, 1945, to hit the island of Kyushu. The second invasion was scheduled for March 1, 1946, code-named “Operation Coronet,” and would be an attack on the main island of Honshu.

Historians estimate that if the invasion of the Japanese homeland had actually occurred, one million Americans would not have returned back home to mom after the war.

To this day, conservative arguments defending President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb are still raging, as liberals decry the brutality of incinerating over 100,000 Japanese.

EXAMPLE: In Obama's G-20 trip to Europe, he all but went out of his way to apologize for Truman's use of the bomb. And if Truman were alive today, Eric Holder would undoubtedly be threatening hearings for "crimes against humanity."

In the research room collection of published materials in the Harry S. Truman Library, one of the stories in 1995 was titled: “Sailor Had No Qualms About Use of Bomb." In a quote from that sailor, we can see just how fortunate it was that Truman had acted decisively..."To the many thousands of us who were spared, Harry Truman was our savior, and made the right decision."

But what would Henry Wallace have done, if it had been HE that succeeded Roosevelt as president, instead of Truman?

One can only conclude Wallace would have nixed the Bomb as "being unfair" and "in-humane," and the invasion of Japan's homeland would have gone forth, and perhaps cost America more casualties than ALL of our other previous wars combined--and possibly the war would not have ended until 1947.

Even 20 years later, holdout Japanese soldiers were still being discovered on remote Pacific islands, so fanatical was their resistance to their American enemies, and their dedication and willingness to fight to the end.

And in the early 1950's, were it not for the ultra-rightist Wisconsin senator, Joe McCarthy,  who knows how many more Communist sympathizers could have been organized into a leftist faction, and possibly seized control of the democratic party back then, just as the liberals in Congress have done today.

If it hadn’t been for McCarthy, there may have been no president Kennedy, but instead, a democratic liberal candidate opposing Richard Nixon in the election of 1960.  And had a democratic liberal been in the Whitehouse back then, what would have been the outcome in the Cold War's greatest showdown, the Cuban missile crisis?

What would a weak foreign policy liberal have done against the blustering Soviet bully, Nikita Khruschev, back in Fall of 1962? Would he have sold out America for "peace in our time" (ala Neville Chamberlain)?

Imagine how different American history would have gone if Cuba had become an armed nuclear camp-- 90 miles off the coast of Florida-- were it not for the heroic, iron-willed decisiveness of John F. Kennedy. How would events have gone for America if the Russians had installed nuclear missiles, that were aimed directly down our throats?

In the 70's, ultra-liberal Jimmie Carter may have been a nuclear engineer in the Navy, but the appointment of his college roommate, Stansfield Turner-- who literally destroyed the CIA in 1977-- has had repercussions to this very day, and could trigger the next nuclear attack, possibly in the Mideast.

Also during the 1970's, the U.S. Senate held highly politicized, public hearings on CIA operations. The Senate investigating committee was chaired by Idaho's Frank Church, a liberal Democrat who craved the presidency.

Now lets play what if: What if Church had defeated Carter for the democratic nomination in 1980, and had gone onto defeat Ronald Reagan? What would have been the course for America in the1980's?

Would Church have ordered the bombing of Libya, which removed another possible Muslim terrorist dictator (Moammar Khadaffi) from the world stage? Would Church have ordered the buildup to a 600-ship ocean Navy? Would the Soviets have detected another spineless, treasonous, lily liberal in the Whitehouse like Carter, and chose to escalate--rather than end-- the Cold War?

And what about now, with Mr. Appeaser himself-- Barack O'Carter Obama-- calling our foreign policy shots?

So far, Mr. Obama has a nearly spotless record.

As a polar opposite of John Kennedy, Obama chose to back down to the threat of another Communist dictator-- Kim Jong IL-- in the recent North Korean missile crisis.

All Mr. Obama would need to have done is show a little spine, and simply had Jong's missile blown up on the launch pad. The result? Right along with his missile, Kim Jong's blustery dictatorship may have toppled, and perhaps a less repressive "administration" would've taken over, and ceased the mindless funding of North Korea's military in lieu of feeding the famished population.

Kim Jong has literally starved his hapless country to death-- there are no small animals or birds left in North Korea, because the people have hunted them to virtual extinction, so desperate are they for food.

But our great liberal humanitarian, Barack Obama, chose the Carter-esque, non-confrontational way out, and opted for a strongly-worded UN resolution, to which Kim has reacted by thumbing his nose at America.

Now-- having successfully tested his missile to the third stage-- Kim Jong will be able to sell them to the Iranians, the Syrians, and possibly even Chavez and Raul Castro in the Western hemisphere, and could eventually precipitate yet
ANOTHER Cuban missile crisis.

You can always count on liberals to bring upon war, in the name of championing peace. It's called "brinkmanship"-- the same thing Hitler did in Czechoslovakia in the late 1930's, Stalin did in Berlin in the late 1940's, and what Krushchev did in the early 60's in Cuba.

All of these events changed the course of world history as a result of either a liberal backing down (i.e. Neville Chamberlain), or a forceful leader standing firm (Truman & Kennedy).

And now, for his next liberal trick, Barack O'Carter will appease the Iranians, who will be thrilled to talk about "peaceful uses" for their nuclear program-- grateful for the opportunity  to keep increasing the number of centrifuges they buy from the Russians-- and will howl behind Obama's back as he grants them the one critical facet to facilitate their nuclear weapon program to completion--TIME.

By "talking" to the Iranians, does our anti-president even realiize he's giving them time? Does Obama understand that Vladimir Putin is the one behind the push for a nuclear Iran, as the Russian economy has collapsed along with the price of oil?

Mr. Putin would be thrilled to witness the outbreak of yet another Mideast war, where Iran launches a missile strike at Israel, and blocks the Strait of Hormuz-- and the price of oil skyrockets as Mideast oil imports cease.

And would Obama then hide in the Whitehouse, as he did recently during the Somali piracy incident? Would he retaliate with a "strongly-worded resolution" against Iran from the UN, and wait for the world "to come together" to stop the fanatical Mamoud Akmidinejad?

Meanwhile, the fate of Israel would hang in the balance; the Russian economy would be 'stimulated' with a wartime price of $200/ barrel oil; the US would be caught flat-footed, and our strategic petroleum reserve would be quickly bled dry.

Now lacking oil, our military would not even be able to sustain itself in the event war was unavoidable.

Throughout history-- whenever liberalism meets fanaticism--- fanaticism wins, and people suffer grievously as a result.

Be it war or any political confrontation, the liberal doctrine (as defined by Henry Wallace) that believes in a non-violent, tolerant and democratic way, ALWAYS invites that very conflict which the liberals seek to avoid.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

History will tell...are we our own worst enemy?

 
“Throughout the world, freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man... in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America...They are the freedom fighters.”

Although the above sounds eerily like a call to jihad (holy war) taken from an Osama bin Laden fatwa, this glowing speech was proudly enunciated by President Ronald Reagan on March 8, 1985.

Back then, Reagan was referring to the bravery of the Afghan freedom fighters--the Mujahadeen-- who had single-handedly stalemated the Russian army after their Christmas day 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.

Reagan and his CIA chief, William Casey (from a classified report) had determined the Soviets would never be able to beat the Mujahadeen, even with 50,000 additional troops.

Casey hatched a covert plan to enable Saudi Arabia to finance these fierce, Afghani warriors, and provide additional recruits.

Thousands of young Muslim men-- in their desire to claim their "booty" of 72 virgins-- streamed out of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, and all over the Middle East to join the conflict.

Enter Osama bin Ladin, then 22, the eldest son of a very rich Saudi construction titan. The CIA blundered by not realizing that the crusading bin Laden could have cared less about helping America win the Cold War, and didn't consider the long-term implications of supporting a network of Islamic fundamentalist rebels.

As it turned out, it was siding with one devil to fight another.

By 1984, the CIA  reported that the Soviets were no closer than they were in 1979 to achieving their goals. Gleefully, Reagan and Casey now decided to step on the gas, and proceeded to up the ante:

Soon, word was out that the Mujahadeen had received so many weapons from the U.S. that they were selling them to third parties.

But the Reagan administration responded by going completely overboard, as if the Mujahadeen were a NATO ally. Classified military intelligence, training, and even satellite reconnaissance data-- all were funneled into Afghanistan through Iran.

Also included were sophisticated sniper rifles, timing devices for C-4 plastic explosives, antitank missiles, and other equipment. For the Mujahadeen, it became an Islamic version of Christmas.

"Stingers" were also sent--portable, shoulder-fired infrared-guided antiaircraft missiles-- and were used very effectively, with a hit rate of 89 percent.

And as if this were not enough, CIA records indicate 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage, and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up.

While back in America, young Muslim CIA recruits went to Camp Peary in northern Virginia-- "The Farm"---where young Afghans and Arab nationals from Egypt and Jordan learned about sabotage and explosives, and eventually filled the ranks of the Mujahadeen.

Of couse these “lend-lease” bomb-making skills would haunt the US down the road, and eventually blossomed into the al-Quida resistance in Iraq.

Car-bombs, truck bombs, vest bombs, I.E.D. roadside bombs...ironically all these horrors can be traced back to the overzealous, misguided training of the Mujahadeen recruits by our CIA.

Because we had no agents on the ground in Afghanistan, America made one of its most grievous misjudgments, not realizing that the Mujahadeen's fierce resistance was purely cultural --not political.  It was less about siding with the US, and more about a jihad to defend Islam from invading Russian infidels.

After running the Soviet Army out of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was given the Muslim equivalent of the Congressional medal of honor, and then returned home to fester away about his next adventure.

Back in Saudi-land, the "diabolical Wahabi" Bin Laden began to single out the U.S. as a grave peril, because he instinctively sensed our modern culture threatened the 7th century foundation of the traditional Holy Islamic state.

From his observations of U.S. military forces (who were staging in Saudi Arabia for Desert Storm) Osama went ballistic over the way Americans acted toward Saudi women.

Bin Laden also recognized the threat from American pop culture as it was projected from abroad onto his home satellite dish…(quote) "If we were to embrace the values of this nation, it would undermine belief in Allah, destroy the Muslim family, and corrupt the innocence of Muslim girls and  children."

And with all the U.S. troops stationed on the Saudi peninsula, Bin Laden resented it as an "American invasion of Holy Muslim territory," and began to plan his revenge on America-- culminating in 9-11.

Predictably, the US government refuses to admit its role in creating the vicious movement that spawned bin Laden, the Taliban, and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists that plague the West—and of course, the eventual disaster that befell New York.

Ironically, the name "Al Qaida" was created in the CIA  offices in Washington. In Arabic, it is literally defined as 'the base' or data base-- the title for the computer file of the thousands of Mujahadeen who were recruited by the CIA to serve as a proxy army versus the Russians.

As one unnamed senior CIA investigator said after 9-11, (quote) "We set up the very system of Islamist terrorism we are now trying to dismantle.... people forget that we invented al-Qaida, and that Bill Casey was getting the Saudi fundamentalists to assemble all these fanatics to kill Russians.... No one asked what would happen when it was over."

In short, al Qaida became a classic Dr. Frankenstein's monster situation, largely due to the cunning and logistical genius of Osama bin Laden.

In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge (he has a degree in civil engineering), bin Laden built “training camps” dug deep into the sides of mountains, where the Mujahadeen could be trained by their fellow Sunni brothers-- the Taliban.

(quote)...Fool me once, shame on you; but fool me twice...

Right now, in our current Afghan conflict, is the U.S. about to get fooled again? Will Richard Holbrook and the Obama administration make the same intelligence blunders of a generation ago as did the Reagan administration?

Presently, Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zadari, has called on America to provide his country with American drones (and classified intelligence) to target Taliban militants, telling US officials that… “continuing independent drone attacks inside Pakistan’s territory are counter-productive.”

Mr. Zardari continued: "President Obama once said that ‘he would act if we weren't willing and able'. We certainly are willing, and with international support (drone technology), we will become even more able. ...the bottom line is the question of trust.”

Zardari went on…“These drone attacks by the U.S. are a violation of Pakistan's sovereignity, and cannot be condoned, even when they are done by allies and friends"…."We would much prefer that the US share its intelligence and give us the weapons, drones and missiles that will allow us to take care of this problem on our own."

Is this guy an expert con man or what? Would you buy a used car from him? It seems as though Mr. Zardari has missed his calling.
 
(repeat)...“The bottom line is the question of trust”.

But could we trust Pakastani scientists? How soon would it be before they would take our drones apart and steal the technology? Would that mean another spin of the India-Pakistani war in Kashmir? Would it later come back to haunt America in some future “asymmetrical" war?

Stay tuned.

But how many times do we have to repeat history? Whenever we give an ally weapons to fight our enemy—they become OUR enemy!

Today’s allies are tomorrows insurgents.

So far Richard Holbrook—Obama’s crackerjack regional envoy--seems to have taken Zardari's sucker bait, saying…"The United States and Pakistan face a common strategic threat… a common enemy and a common challenge, and therefore a common task.... By letting them call the shots on final actions against foreign militants, then they we will truly be fighting their own war, and not America's War."

While the Obama administration seeks to re-energize the engagement with Pakistan, throwing money at problems is one way, but naively transferring sensitive technology may comeback to haunt America, in the same way the bomb-building camps at the CIA "farm" near Washington once did.

Near the end of the Vietnam War, Walt Kelley, writer of the comic-strip character 'Pogo', spoke words as applicable now as they were then... “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Skyway robbery? Obama's blowhard energy folly


Last January, during his address to Congress, Barack Obama declared..."We will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

The statement drew thunderous applause. Nancy Pelosi almost hit the ceiling, so fast did she arise from her chair. But all levity aside, let's step back for a moment and get realistic about our country's energy future.

In Denver, Mr. Obama recently signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, proclaiming..."it will lay the groundwork for new green energy economies that can create COUNTLESS, well-paying jobs!"

Countless jobs? Umm-hum.

Sure Mr. Obama-- there's nothing wrong with developing alternative energy, but keep in mind the old saying: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

So let's call Mr.Obama's statement 'onto the carpet' and check for veracity:

When we think of alternative energy sources, windmills sound so appealing… so romantic...so green. It's like power from heaven; and according to the green energy fruitcakes who insist upon its promotion, it's as if all wind-sourced power were free!

An oil well drilled in North Dakota or Montana would cost $2-4 million, and would independently produce 1000-2500 barrels of high-energy-density oil per day.

But just one windmill costs $2 million from start to being hooked onto a grid; and in comparison, each would produce a paltry amount of low-density wind energy on a breezy day.

The reality of wind power is different from the environmental romance. Windfarms are weather-contingent, unreliable, and require back-up-- an inefficient and periodic power source useful only in certain locations.

But what about the countless jobs it will create? So let us now do the math:

How many employees does it take to man a spinning gaggle of windmills, or a functioning array of  solar panels, versus just ONE of those dirty/dreadful coal or nuclear power plants?

A coal fired facility requires anywhere from 150-400 people to operate & maintain; while a nuclear plant not only produces huge amounts of regional power, it's also an economic generator for 1,500 - 2,000 jobs, and plays a critical role in its local economy.

In the Northeast, a recent study of a plan for 33 wind-turbine towers 410 feet high, with blinking lights on top, strung out over 6.5 miles of rural landscape, aided by 40 miles of service roads-- with a 5.8-mile transmission line-- would support a whopping 70 permanent jobs.

Green energy will displace-- not create-- countless jobs.  And for what, a better environmental national conscience, at a cost of abandoning our nation's existing energy infrastructure?

But undaunted by all the current evidence to the contrary, Mr. Obama (in a recent speech at Georgetown U.)  favorably cited Spain as an example of how to boost an economy by creating green jobs. But he may have exaggerated just a little.

Since the year 2000, the Spanish have gone "full blown " to wind turbines. But a new study from Rey Juan Carlos University shows that if the U.S. adopted similar green energy policies, it would destroy more than double the number of conventional energy jobs in current existence.

The Spanish study also calculated that it cost 571,138 Euros to create each job. That's more than $755,000 for each green collar job! How’s that for economies of scale?

And how about Britain? Gordon Brown's ambition to become a global leader in renewable energy may also be gone with the wind. Recently, Shell and BP pulled out of renewable energy projects, including a £3 billion project for 341 turbines in the Thames Estuary, and scrapped a proposed £2.2 billion windfarm off the Welsh coast.

And surprise, the English are returning to good ole king coal.

Mr. Brown’s target of generating 35 per cent of the country’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020 would cost England an estimated extra £100 billion vs. coal. His plans have collapsed as funding dries up, and the price of oil and coal has fallen.

In Britain, coal is abundant and at present, very cheap-- the main reason why British power stations love it. A recently approved coal-fired station in Pembroke will be the largest in Britain, producing 2,000 megawatts, a full two-thirds of the TOTAL power produced by ALL of the country’s wind turbines.

And throughout northern Europe, wind farms have proved to be no answer to global warming.

The Germans have invested more than anyone in this form of energy, but are finding (according to newspaper "Der Spiegel") that despite installing more than 17,000 wind turbines, the nation is now emitting more CO2 than BEFORE it built them.

In Canada, it might be good idea to take a close look at recent developments regarding noise pollution from wind turbines.

A windfarm in Cherry Valley (Ontario Province) began operation a couple of months ago, and now complaints are coming in from residents ( including those who favored the project) that noise is penetrating their homes and disturbing sleep.

In the United States today, we get less than 2 percent of our electricity from wind. And President Barack blowhard Obama's energy plan calls for 10 percent of American electricity from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.

But does anyone know how President blowhard plans to build all these solar and windmill farms? Does he furnish any blueprints, companies to work with, estimated power output, etc?

Did he present any allocations of how he is going to spend the money, or did President blowhard just say we are going to nullify the conventional energy companies to make an angry public feel better?

Yes, our common enemies--coal & big oil!

It's the same old tried and true socialist propaganda. Obama presents no DETAILED plan-- only vague ideas. He just drops buzz words, and lets the media and general public "take it from there."

Lets start by telling the truth--the big inconvenient truth about green power-- it is hugely expensive: triple the cost of coal power; almost double the cost of nuclear. Advocates of green power insist that the price will soon decline. But this remains a promise that may never come to pass.

The big costs involved are not only the turbines and solar panels. There are vast land acquisitions required for siting, and for stringing wires from thousands of small-scale generators to the distribution grid spanning all the way to the cities. And throughout the next few decades, these costs are more likely to rise than to fall.

Wind and solar suffer from inherent dis-economies of scale that can never be corrected vs. carbon-based fuels, who's price depends on free market supply/demand ratios--not skewed from government subsidies.

And what about the NIMBY factor, and its effect on local real estate values? Who would invest a quarter of a million dollars to build a residence nearby an unsightly, noisy wind turbine, when they could just as easily go elsewhere?

These behemoths are over 40 stories high, and have blades which swing over an area larger than a football field. The towers require vast amounts of real estate, and cannot be concealed. Moreover, they create annoying television interference.

The drive for cleaner energy will irrevocably change the landscape. People resist windfarms for one simple reason-- they despoil the beauty of their communities. It seems perverse to ruin the landscape in the name of preserving the environment.

The big push to turn farms into wind factories-- to take agricultural land and turn it into an industrial wind turbine complex--is NOT farming; it is industrialization!

Lawmakers should resist calls to add an extensive and costly new transmission system that would carry electricity from remote areas (i.e. Texas and  the Great Plains) to places with high energy demands (Boston, Chicago and New York).

Obama's so-called "climate solutions" could irrevocably damage the planet they are intended to protect. Our biologically rich and arid desert ecosystems are remarkably fragile.

In our haste to combat global warming, we could very well hasten the demise of our beautiful avian species, and insect-devouring bats, all of whom would have to dodge fast spinning blades of 450 foot tall turbines, strung out all along major migration routes.

And once topsoil and plant life have been disrupted for the placement of solar arrays, wind farms, and transmission lines, restoration would be cost-prohibitive, if not impossible.

Mr. Obama's plan for renewable windpower amounts to dismantling our dependable existing energy system, in exchange for an unreliable,16th-century technology solution-- all for a problem that does not even exist!

The reason why we are still stuffing black lumps of carbon into furnaces is simple: it makes economic sense, and the financial markets are shouting this message louder than ever before. We must carry on burning fossil fuels for the time being, and the media must stop supporting green energy lies to a scientifically dumbed-down American public.

Does it make sense to trample sensitive ecosystems in the new rush to develop alternative energies? It would be an oxymoronic case of destroying the Earth in order to save it.

Before the Obama administration and his congressional cohorts are done, we could be reeling from one of the most extraordinary spectacles in American political history-- a wholly misguided war against our own economic self-interests as a nation.



www.kenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stevensgate: Once again, politics trumps justice


Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus (42 BC - 37 AD) was one of Rome's greatest generals, whose campaign in Germania laid the foundations for the northern frontier of its empire.

But Tiberius Ceasar is best remembered as a dark, reclusive, and somber ruler who never actually desired to be emperor. Pliny the Elder called him 'tristissimus hominum'..."the gloomiest of men."

So what had made Mr. Tiberius so gloomy? It was the death of his son, Drusus Julius Caesar in 23 AD, who had served well as his trusty political watchdog (the Roman Senate was literally full of back-stabbers).

Hence, after son Drusus' untimely death, Tiberius Caesar's rule quickly descended into a dictatorial "state sponsored" reign of terror.

In his latter years, an increasingly paranoid (and vindictive) Tiberius would hold frequent trials for sedition in the Senate, as he sought to eliminate all accusations against him. Tiberius made certain that all of his political enemies (real or imagined) would be prosecuted, and then thrown from cliffs for his own personal form of entertainment.

In 26 AD, Tiberius Caesar appointed his son-in-law, Pontius Pilatus, as governor/procurator of Judea.

As governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate was responsible for the collection of imperial taxes. As procurator, he also had a judicial function to go after and eliminate any political opposition.

It seems as though the Jews hated paying taxes to Rome (taxation w/o representation) and thus Pilate had a ready stream of political opponents to dispose of.

He felt sympathetic to Jesus, but when the frenzied crowd proclaimed, "We have no King but Caesar", Pilate realized he had better condemn Him or else risk his position as procurator (federal prosecutor), the most coveted foreign position in all the Roman empire.

Throughout history, federal prosecutors have gone out of their way to eliminate political opponents of the State (i.e. status quo).

A prime modern-day example is Robert Toricelli of New Jersey, who in 2002 had managed to become both an anathema to the Democratic party, and the Bush administration at the same time.

Toricelli was somewhat of a right wing democrat, and became despised by his own party.

During his 14 years in the House, he was best known for his close ties to anti-communist lobbies, including the Taiwanese and South Korean interests, which had funneled money into his senate campaign.

He was also one of the most fervent Democratic supporters of the Persian Gulf War, voting to authorize the first President Bush to wage war over Kuwait.

Most Americans recall little about him, other than "he was convicted of something."

But that about sums it up. Toricelli was never prosecuted or convicted, but was eliminated by virtue of accusations from the federal government, which amounted to little more than nothing.

The New Jersey senator’s legal problems began with a local investigation of David Chang, the Korean-American businessman who had given 53 thousand dollars worth of  gifts (including cash and appliances) for Toricelli's 1996 Senate campaign.

But the $53,000 was hardly the issue --Toricelli's problem was that by Fall of 2002, he faced enemies from both sides-- attorney general John Ashcroft on the right, and the Senate Ethics Committee in Congress on the left.

Both the Democrats and the Bush administration wanted Mr. "loose cannon" Toricelli out!

After the Senate ethics committee had unanimously censured his conduct in June 2002, Toricelli fell sharply in the polls. But still, he had been charged with nothing.

But with control of the Senate resting on a one-vote margin, the Republican Party began pouring funds into the New Jersey Senate campaign, bombarding the airways with advertisements denouncing Torricelli as a "money-grubbing crook".

Then came the coup' de gras: a Justice Department report-- drafted in May of 2002, but withheld until October before the election-- declared that there was “substantial corroborating evidence” for Chang’s charges against Torricelli.

Mr. Torricelli denied wrongdoing, but because of the Justice Department report, he ended his 2002 re-election campaign as questions about the scandal persisted.

But what has been suppressed was the real reason for Toricelli's demise-- his efforts to uncover the TRUE facts surrounding the 9/11 tragedy, revealed in his February, 2002 speech before the Senate-- which would rebuke president Bush's call for the "War on Terror:"

(quote) "It has been 5 months since the lives of our people were taken in the most devastating attack on America in history... There have been words of rage and revenge...Vows to strengthen our security...There has been everything except a voice of inquiry."

Alarmed by the threat of Torricelli’s call for an independent investigation of 9/11, President Bush held a private meeting with congressional leaders, requesting his OWN agenda for the inquiry, which sealed Mr. Torecelli's doom.

The smear on the Senator was now put on fast-forward:

First, the "New York Times" launched a series of stories against Senator Torricelli, who's pick for the November 2002 New Jersey elections was his opponent, Frank Lautenberg.

Only praises for Lautenberg had come forth from the Times-- but Senator Torricelli was continually dragged through the mud. The paper alleged that the Chang case against Mr. Torricelli..."cried out for prompt investigation and resolution.”

Then, on September 21, 2002, a Federal Judge ordered a letter to be released, suggesting that Torricelli was guilty of more than talking gifts. These turned out to be nothing other than blatantly false innuendos.

Federal prosecutors had never brought any charges against him, but by October 2002, Torricelli’s position in the polls collapsed, and he dropped out of the race.

Mr. Lautenberg went on to win the seat.

Then in an eerie repeat of political history, Alaska senator Ted Stevens was convicted in October 2008 of lying on Senate forms about home renovations and gifts he received from William Allen.

It was Allen's statements to the FBI which led to "checking" to see if Stevens had been receiving unreported gifts. But what had led Allen (Mr. Stevens' long time friend) to suddenly come forward?

The case cost Stevens, 85, a seat he had held for 40 years. Once the Senate's longest-serving Republican, he narrowly lost to Democrat Mark Begich soon after the verdict.

Our Constitution's "Speech or Debate clause" offers a broad shield against interference by agencies of the Executive Branch into how a member of congress might have created, for example, an earmark that benefited a campaign contributor.

But despite the clause, Stevens' home renovation scandal became a matter that mysteriously began to attract the attention of federal prosecutors just months before the 2008 election.

The government dutifully pressed ahead with the case, with grand juries continuing to hear evidence in both Anchorage and Washington, D.C.

The misconduct by federal prosecutors were disclosures that they had withheld information from the defense concerning the "Toricelli Note," which proved Stevens was not guilty of intentionally misreporting the amount Allen had spent fixing up the senator’s Girdwood, Alaska vacation home.

Stevens (in his note to Mr. Allen) was referring to the scandal of his friend, Senator Robert Torricelli:

"Dear Bill:

When I think of the many ways in which you make my life easier, I lose count...Thanks for all the work on the Chalet. You owe me a bill —remember Torricelli, my friend. Friendship is one thing. Compliance with the ethics rules entirely different." (end)

This note would have undermined the prosecution's claim that Mr. Stevens attempted to hide a political benefactor (Mr. Allen) for contributions to his home renovation.

But the most salient point of all-- the disparity between the $80,000 Mr. Allen had told the FBI that was put into the senator's Girdwood home, and the $250,000 Allen testified to in court-- thus amounting to perjury and prosecutorial malfeasance.

Since Stevens' defense proved that he had paid $160,000 for the renovations, not only did Stevens NOT receive a gift from Mr. Allen, he was blatantly overcharged by his so-called friend.

So it was a question of $80,000 that cost the Republicans a critical seat in the 2008 election.

But what about Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, and the 4.75% loan he got from Countrywide, saving him $77,000 interest on his mortgage? Was he even the least bit concerned with this blatant violation of congressional ethics?

Not one of Dodd's peers has ever initiated any action against him.

And what about the former Senator from Delaware, V.P. Joe Biden? A recent Google Earth photograph reveals that the Biden Compound in Greenville has at least 4 houses, swimming pool, tennis courts, and other amenities.
 
But a conflicting review of Biden's 2005, 2006, and 2007 income tax returns indicate he reported a net worth of only $470,000. And Mr. Biden also reported he has NO home note, suggesting his home/homes are paid for.

So how does a person-- who has never made much more than $150,000 per year-- amass property worth 10 times (or more) of what he reports to the Senate? Where are all those dutiful, federal prosecutors concerning this?

In retrospect, the only thing Senator Stevens was guilty of was bad timing: being caught between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic henchman in trying to secure his Senate seat for the Democrats.

Sorry Ted-- wrong place, wrong time. You were wanted only for your political position. And magically, now that the election is over, Steven's charges are dropped, and all is hunky-dory in DC.

Our Founding Fathers were God-fearing men of morality, and had warned us about the "corrupt judiciary" and the dangers of the federal government having prosecutorial power.

Prosecutors play two roles. On the one hand they are officers of the court, charged with seeing that the guilty are convicted and the innocent acquitted.

On the other hand, prosecutors are participants in an adversary system of adjudication. They are expected to HONESTLY carry forward one side of a courtroom battle. And If they lack zeal, the system fails entirely.

But if they have zeal of the wrong kind (in the case of Toricelli and Stevens) they can affect the balance of power in the federal government itself.

QUOTE: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government. So let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution, so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
...Thomas Jefferson

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Republicans must realize..."our side needs an ACORN"


Year: 1951.
Location: Bavaria, southern Germany.
Mission: American CIA engineers would build the world's most powerful radio station-- Radio Free Europe ( RFE)-- for the purpose of penetrating the Iron Curtain with words of truth.

Post World War II American policy makers (such as George Kennan and John Foster Dulles) had acknowledged that the Cold War could eventually be won in a "war of ideas"-- and the result was the funding of Radio Free Europe.

So on April 22, RFE's transmitter went on the air for the first time, and with its array of four masts, this cold war sentinel emittted an incredible 740,000 watts-- indeed, the world's most powerful radio station of all time.

Radio Free Europe would play a critical role in history, proving instrumental in winning the Cold War in the late 1980's.

Listening to Its broadcasts were forbidden in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and East Germany. The Communist authorities would use sophisticated jamming techniques against RFE, and even sent agents to Germany in a brazen attempt infiltrate its headquarters.

Radio Free Europe would often expose names of Communist leaders posing as members of the Czechoslovakia underground. In Hungary, RFE would broadcast information about what was truly behind Soviet political motives,  all derived from 'special observers' who reported these critical details back to RFE headquarters.

Political intrigue, the CIA, the KGB-- all would surround the operation of RFE for its first 30 years. And despite all of their efforts, RFE's eventual effect was the West's triumphant overthrow of the Communist regimes behind the Iron Curtain.

In 1990, the profound reach of Radio Free Europe was summarized by Hungary's post-Communist Prime Minister, Jozsef Antall..."Radio Free Europe has given us the gift of truth, and at a time when telling the truth was counted as a crime against the State.''
 
But now in America 2009, the liberal censorship by our media amounts to deception by omission-- a summary offense against the First Amendment-- and a grievous crime against our democracy!
 
Back then, Radio Free Europe was founded by Americans to thwart Communism in eastern Europe.

But ironically, our homeland media is now promoting a subtle form of Obamunnism, aided and abetted by our marxist anti-president, whose agenda is to "get even' with America-- a country who's democracy he patently abhors.

EXAMPLE: Last fall, the New York Times engaged in a massive pre-presidential election cover up of ACORN, a thuggish leftist faction that grew out of a community organizers' movement from south Chicago from the 1970's.

A New York Times reporter was closing in on a story that would have directly linked the Obama campaign to ACORN through an organization called, “Project Vote.”

Project Vote had worked in tandem with ACORN to register fraudulent votes in Illinois in the 1990s; and the head of this "Project Vote" (i.e. Project: How to Steal Elections) was Barack Obama.

But at the last minute before press time, the NY Times' executive editor decided to "can" the story in late October, 2008, for reasons that..."We’re not going with this... it’s a game-changer."

ABC World News Tonight? Same thing.

CNN said, ‘We're shutting the story down, because the Obama campaign called and had said, ‘We did not provide or support information that would confirm that.’

So CNN killed the story--and has NEVER explained. This is all a blatant failure of our democracy--the failure of the mass media to fulfill our First Amendment.

This was a story that may have not only have ended Obama's political career in disgrace, it could have triggered a well-deserved McCarthy-like hunt for exposing ACORN,  the most dangerous threat to our democracy since the American Communist party in the early 1950's.

ACORN-- south Chicago's leftist answer to the Klan-- has had a truly "patriotic" history, marked by acts of voter fraud, embezzlement, violent protests, union busting, and swaying elections.

Mr. Obama's connection to ACORN began in Chicago in the late 1980's. After a few years in the backround as their lawyer, Obama represented ACORN in a dispute that saw Illinois eventually passing the "Motor Voter" registration act, where ACORN was accused of double and triple-registering the exact SAME voters.

In 1995, Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar had balked at implementing the federal motor voter law out of concern that letting people register via postcard --and blocking the state from pruning voter rolls-- might invite vote fraud.

As young lawyer out of law school, Obama, a community organizer himself, sued on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), and won.

ACORN later invited Obama to train its staff.

ACORN opposes welfare reform. ACORN opposes securing American borders to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. ACORN was heavily involved a few years back in opposing Rudy Giuliani's efforts to privatize failing New York schools.

Back in the late 1980's, Madeleine Talbot (the leader of Chicago ACORN) was so "impressed" by Barack Obama's community organizing skills, that she invited him to help train her own staff.

Talbot had been a key leader in an attempt by ACORN to storm the Chicago City Council during a minimum-wage debate, where demonstrators pushed over the metal detector table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen from entering the session.

ACORN's well-funded "volunteer" neo-marxists play for keeps, but remain behind the scene because of media disinformation--or no information.

Incredibly, ACORN is supposedly a volunteer organization that survives on contributions by local business organizations; but it's true source of funds--conveniently censored by the media-- is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It receives federal monies for its various "community organizing" efforts.

The revenues from these programs are in billions of dollars. This is all verifiable through the Freedom of Information Act.

To confuse investigators, ACORN cleverly has split into over a hundred splinter groups; and the Woods foundation is yet another splinter group that has secretly funneled funds back to ACORN.

Mr. Obama--as a member of the foundation and an elected official for the State of Illinois-- helped raise funds for ACORN. And there has been virtually no government oversight over ACORN's use of the funds.

Nationwide, prosecutors are well aware of ACORN's contributions to America's elections. Criminal indictments are all a part of the group's history, but with suspiciously few convictions.

ACORN was investigated in 2006 for submitting 1,495 false voter registrations in St. Louis. In Ohio in 2004, four ACORN employees were indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms-- but not convicted.

In January 2005, two Colorado ACORN workers were sentenced to "60 days community service" for submitting false voter registrations.

On Nov. 1, 2006, four part time ACORN employees were indicted in Kansas City, Mo., for voter registration fraud. Prosecutors said the indictments are part of a national investigation.

In 2008, the Michigan Secretary of State office told the Detroit Free Press that ACORN had been submitting a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications to vote.

In Washington State in 2004, Dino Rossi (R) beat Chris Gregoire (D) in the governor's race on the first ballot count by 261 votes--triggering an automatic machine recount.

The secretary of state certified the result of the machine recount, making Rossi the winner by 42 votes. But the ACORN-corrupted Democratic Party requested and paid for a statewide hand recount.

Predictably, Gregoire won that by 129 votes. There were a disputed 1,678 illegal votes out of the 2.9 million cast. Some 754 of those votes were cast by convicted FELONS, who were all registered by guess who...ACORN!

But a Chelan County judge ruled on behalf of the democrats saying that..."Republicans provided no “clear and convincing” evidence that any of those illegal votes were responsible for Gregoire’s 129-vote winning margin.

Miraculuosly, ALL extra votes found in King County were registered by ACORN for Gregoire, who was sworn in despite Republican lawmakers’ attempts to stop the inauguration. The recount should have been investigated by the F.B.I.-- but was not.

In August 2008, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported criminal investigations against at least six ACORN workers who tried to add dead, imprisoned, or imaginary people to the voter rolls. Many of these were names taken from cemetery head stones.

And despite reports in the local media, none--repeat NONE-- of these stories were ever picked by any national media outlet.

And ACORN activities should be fully investigated with regard to the Minnesota Senator's race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken, where Democrats "transformed" a 725 vote margin for incumbent Norm Coleman into a "final tally" 225 vote victory for challenger Al Franken-- a net change for a reversal of 950 votes out of a total of 3.2 million votes originally cast.
 
Coleman won statewide in ALL precincts by a statistical margin of only 0.0002%. But magically, in the recount, Franken won almost all challenges presented to the Minnesota State Canvassing Board, and prevailed in some precincts by margins as much as 75%, or even higher!

Statistically, for the odds in the recount to turn so convincingly in Franken's direction were IMPOSSIBLE. But where ACORN is involved, nothing is impossible when stealing an election is on the line.

And here's a surprise-- Mark Ritchie, Minnesota secretary of State (a staunch ACORN operative) -- was in charge of the recount.

Last year, ACORN's goal was all part of a massive "national" voter registration drive aimed at the  presidential election.  But mysteriously, ACORN was operating in ONLY the seven so called battleground states.

In every corner of the country, Democrats have always staunchly opposed ANY measures requiring photo identification to prevent voter fraud. Thus ACORN manages to stay out of courtrooms by exploiting all these so called "gray areas" in America’s election laws.

Their numero-uno trick is to flood voter registration offices with thousands of new registrations at the last possible moment (which violates no law) ensuring that some fraudulent registrations will inevitably be missed.

ACORN’s  lack of criminal convictions is a testament to their prowess at subverting the American electoral process-- and all courtesy of the absence of major news media coverage of ACORN's involvement in any of this.

Ask anyone about ACORN—you’ll get a shoulder shrug. Most Americans think ACORN is all about trying to conduct  voter registration drives.

The Republican Conservative Political Action Conference knows otherwise: “What ACORN is trying to do is change the very core of what America is. And they’re using poor people and people of color to do it.”

The group has attempted to publicize ACORN’s track record of election fraud; but despite all their efforts( plus all the other anecdotal stories involving ACORN's wonderful contribution to our democracy) the mainstream media is reluctant to report on the group’s "transgressions".

But how much censorship can America take before ACORN eventually subverts all close elections?

ACORN is a corrupt organization from the top down. But fraud doesn't bother anyone who's corrupt themselves, such as the many Congressman who hold office because of ACORN’s illegal activities:

-They have protection rackets, but no Congressperson goes after them, using RICO
-They break tax laws; but who cares, since they elect democrats.
-They have registered millions of fraudulent voters over the years, but these subversives are able to "fly below the radar," thanks to the censorship of the media.

What is needed is an RFA- a radio free America: the conservative truth-talkers such as Limbaugh and Hannity have already been discredited, thanks to our pro-leftist media, who differ little from the Iron Curtain communist regimes who once attempted to suppress the truth.

And thanks to ACORN and that same media cover, we  have Governor Gregoire in Washington state, Franken in the Senate, and Obama in the Whitehouse

And of course, none of this will matter as the ACORN  “volunteers” begin taking up the 2010 Census, and further corrupt our democracy by “creating” enough Congressional inner city districts to assure one-party rule in Congress for perhaps the next 30 - 40 years.

After ACORN succeeded in getting Obama elected, Americans are now faced with a leader who was never vetted, resulting in the most polarizing and divisive president in the last 150 years-- or maybe ever.
 
So every time you turn on the TV and see Brian Williams, or Katie Couric, or Charles Gibson, or Wolf Blitzer-- you are witnessing journalistic fraud in action.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive