AP reported at 2PM Eastern Time on October 29, 2010 ,separate and simultaneous terrorist scares occurred late Thursday evening calling upon FBI and officials to search multiple planes and one truck in Chicago as part of an investigation of packages originating in Yemen, but flying out of London and Dubai, respectively. Routine searches brought forth the packages, which were addressed to religious sites, including one synagogue. Based upon the nature of the equipment found--an ink cartridge with wires and powder, officials are looking at these attempts as a "dry run" for a possible real terrorist run.
They might be right on target with that assumption. But the assumption begs a more important question; Is the FBI creatively considering places "outside the box" of typical targets that still meet the goals of terrorists? How much manpower will be required of the FBI for further "dry runs" in preparation for the real thing? Remembering the history of Pearl Harbor, espionage revealed that New York was in imminent danger of attack by Japan, but while all eyes were on the East Coast, Japan struck it's closer target, Pearl Harbor, behind our backs. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are not stupid. They know that the US will not have a blind eye for its own. And they are most likely privy to the notion that event such as attacks on U.S. soil make excellent political opportunities.
With every "dry run" terrorists learn more about the methodology and capabilities of our investigative networks. It is much like watching footage of the opposing team's games to learn patterns and game strengths and weaknesses. The more footage, the more learned. The more learned, the more counter defenses can be planned and strategies for success implemented.
But one has to wonder just how many false wolves the hunter must run after before the real one sneaks in to grab Granny while the hunter runs to all the wrong places? It is a strategy that is disconcerting. While threats are being sent to places like Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, one has to wonder, as with New York in relation to Pearl Harbor, whether the real targets will be far from usual, far from expected, but far from insignificant. Houston is such a place. Port cities are vulnerable. Technology centers are vulnerable. Aerospace and science centers are vulnerable. Global market centers are vulnerable. Highly populated areas are vulnerable. Energy producing areas are vulnerable. That puts Houston conspicuously, but likely overlooked, on the list of top targets. With this in mind, it would be very intelligent for citizens everywhere, but especially in metros like Houston and Los Angeles, Corpus Christi and San Francisco, to consider whether such methods as 'virtual strip searches via x-ray machines--machines that have not been tested for their radiation safety, especially those who are at risk--or a highly intrusive physical "pat down" resembling sexual assault to some are really effective as terrorists pop from one flitting place to another in a game of cat and mouse.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
TSA: Modern gestapo creates damned if you do fly and damned if you don't policy
NPR reported this morning that 80% of Americans are "fine" with the Transportation and Safety Administration (TSA) whole body image scanning, or "pat down" procedures. I, for one, would like to examine those numbers and the credibility of such a poll. But regardless of the numbers approving or somewhat approving the measures, the 20% who oppose it are the people the founders were concerned over and the reason we don't have a democracy but a republic.
TSA has, by the Administration's directing, effectively taken away all rights upon purchase of an airline ticket. And they said that much. On the video accompanying this article, aired on CNN, one can hear the TSA manager say to the protesting passenger-wannabe that when he bought his ticket he forfeited his rights. Forfeiting of rights? Where exactly is that on the ticket? Or even in terms of purchase prior to paying for the ticket? Where is that in the Constitution?Unlawful search and seizure of a suspected criminal is, not just a faux pas, but against the law. Where is it exactly that the Federal government via TSA or any other bureaucracy has a right to supersede and override laws of search so to reduce the rights of common, ordinary citizens and visitors to this country far below that of suspected criminals?
This unsuspecting passenger was detained after refusing the pat down, the whole Body Imaging (WBI) scan and his flight. The TSA official wanted the person's contact information, specifically his full name, his address and phone number--for his own best interest in order to move on, the official assured. The man, wanting to leave and get on with his life, questioned how it was in his best interest, as the TSA officer suggested, since as far as he was concerned the incident was over and he was trying to "move on". The response of the officer is telling.
Now nothing more than a victim, the former passenger is told that they need his information so TSA can contact him for the case they will be filing against him. Then the officer agrees that the man cooperated with them.
What the TSA official is not explaining to this now former airline passenger is that their rules claim a ticketed customer has the right to refuse the invasive pat down or the whole body x-ray scan only by refusing to take the flight. If the would-be passenger refuses either scrutiny, he/she can be fined $11,000. The caveat to refusing the flight is that he or she must refuse before being selected for the inspection regardless of whether they decline to fly or they suffer the $11,000 penalty. One spokesperson for TSA explained that once the process begins, there is no backing out, even if TSA itself tells the objector to leave the airport. Most of those selected for further examination are selected at the time of ticket purchase. Tickets are coded randomly (or not so?) to choose passengers for hightened searches. (I know, as I have been one of those in the past. I was fortunate. It was before WBI and pat downs of the sort TSA has now implemented. My ticket, I learned, had a special bar code that was a signal to the inspector to pull me out of line for additional screening.) According to TSA's statement, in theory, once one realizes they will be subject WBI or pat down they are subject to the fine if they evade search by cancelling their flight. In the case of the man in the video, since he went through the line and declined the extra searches after being selected, and also he was asked to leave the airport by TSA, he is still subject to the $11,000 fine!
TSA's reasoning on this is that if they let the person go, they are potentially allowing a terrorist to escape.
To say that the public needs to be actively involved in the legislative process to restrict the Federal government from violating Constitutional rights and paradigms, such as: right to warrant for search and seizure, innocent until proven guilty, due process, etc., would be so obvious as to not need saying. The American public must call the shots. It is the American way. Unless we want to see gestapo style living conditions and loose all our rights, it is an imperative.
For the first time, I am actually aligning my views with the ACLU, who is vehemently arguing the validity of such searches and the damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't approach to travel by the TSA.
Studies show that the kind of searches the TSA is conducting are ineffective in deterring terrorism. What has been found effective are surveillance and monitoring of patterns of movement and behaviors of both groups and individuals. In addition, the very method denounced as unfair, here, has proven most effective: "racial" profiling. The deliberate strip search of a child as seen on video (YouTube.com) is absurd. This kind of abuse of Americans is traumatising enough for adults, but horrifying to children. It begs the question: Who is the terrorist?
Here is a link to a list of the airports with WBI equipment in operation. Another site has a list of airports currently using the equipment as well as the kind and when, and where those airports use them. This site also includes a list of airports not currently using WBI equipment.
TSA has, by the Administration's directing, effectively taken away all rights upon purchase of an airline ticket. And they said that much. On the video accompanying this article, aired on CNN, one can hear the TSA manager say to the protesting passenger-wannabe that when he bought his ticket he forfeited his rights. Forfeiting of rights? Where exactly is that on the ticket? Or even in terms of purchase prior to paying for the ticket? Where is that in the Constitution?Unlawful search and seizure of a suspected criminal is, not just a faux pas, but against the law. Where is it exactly that the Federal government via TSA or any other bureaucracy has a right to supersede and override laws of search so to reduce the rights of common, ordinary citizens and visitors to this country far below that of suspected criminals?
This unsuspecting passenger was detained after refusing the pat down, the whole Body Imaging (WBI) scan and his flight. The TSA official wanted the person's contact information, specifically his full name, his address and phone number--for his own best interest in order to move on, the official assured. The man, wanting to leave and get on with his life, questioned how it was in his best interest, as the TSA officer suggested, since as far as he was concerned the incident was over and he was trying to "move on". The response of the officer is telling.
Now nothing more than a victim, the former passenger is told that they need his information so TSA can contact him for the case they will be filing against him. Then the officer agrees that the man cooperated with them.
What the TSA official is not explaining to this now former airline passenger is that their rules claim a ticketed customer has the right to refuse the invasive pat down or the whole body x-ray scan only by refusing to take the flight. If the would-be passenger refuses either scrutiny, he/she can be fined $11,000. The caveat to refusing the flight is that he or she must refuse before being selected for the inspection regardless of whether they decline to fly or they suffer the $11,000 penalty. One spokesperson for TSA explained that once the process begins, there is no backing out, even if TSA itself tells the objector to leave the airport. Most of those selected for further examination are selected at the time of ticket purchase. Tickets are coded randomly (or not so?) to choose passengers for hightened searches. (I know, as I have been one of those in the past. I was fortunate. It was before WBI and pat downs of the sort TSA has now implemented. My ticket, I learned, had a special bar code that was a signal to the inspector to pull me out of line for additional screening.) According to TSA's statement, in theory, once one realizes they will be subject WBI or pat down they are subject to the fine if they evade search by cancelling their flight. In the case of the man in the video, since he went through the line and declined the extra searches after being selected, and also he was asked to leave the airport by TSA, he is still subject to the $11,000 fine!
TSA's reasoning on this is that if they let the person go, they are potentially allowing a terrorist to escape.
To say that the public needs to be actively involved in the legislative process to restrict the Federal government from violating Constitutional rights and paradigms, such as: right to warrant for search and seizure, innocent until proven guilty, due process, etc., would be so obvious as to not need saying. The American public must call the shots. It is the American way. Unless we want to see gestapo style living conditions and loose all our rights, it is an imperative.
For the first time, I am actually aligning my views with the ACLU, who is vehemently arguing the validity of such searches and the damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't approach to travel by the TSA.
Studies show that the kind of searches the TSA is conducting are ineffective in deterring terrorism. What has been found effective are surveillance and monitoring of patterns of movement and behaviors of both groups and individuals. In addition, the very method denounced as unfair, here, has proven most effective: "racial" profiling. The deliberate strip search of a child as seen on video (YouTube.com) is absurd. This kind of abuse of Americans is traumatising enough for adults, but horrifying to children. It begs the question: Who is the terrorist?
Here is a link to a list of the airports with WBI equipment in operation. Another site has a list of airports currently using the equipment as well as the kind and when, and where those airports use them. This site also includes a list of airports not currently using WBI equipment.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Keys to Communist Party Success: Methods of "Changing" America in their own words
The Democratic Party: Communism’s cloak
Two years ago I wrote on my blog that electing Obama would prove to be, not just a disappointment to Republican voters, but also a betrayal to Democratic ones, as they were duped into believing Obama stood for freedom rather than bondage by government.
Obama is not a Democrat as much as a socialist and potential Communist. The Communist Party agrees.
But I was partly wrong and stand corrected by that party. I should have included the current leadership in Congress of the Democratic Party as well as many executive appointed Obama point men. Without correction at the polls the Federal government is precisely on track—albeit a slower one than they wish—down the path of Communism. So says the Communist website:
"If the grand alliance that elected Barack Obama comes out in full force to vote we can stop the Tea Party/Republican takeover and continue moving forward."
From the pool of those elected rise the teams that facilitate an Administration. What you vote for now, either feeds solutions or feeds problems.
The Communist Party is methodically courting the Democratic Party. And says so openly. The Republican Party is a lost cause to them. While the website was full of inaccuracies and flat out lies in a propaganda blitz, a reading of certain articles, such as the speech given at the Communist Party Convention, reveal much, on and between the lines, smooth talk and propaganda aside. (Thankfully we have world history to show the true colors of Communism's full cycle to failure.)
In its national convention, Communist Party Chair, Sam Webb counseled:
"I say 'stay attuned to the thinking and mood of the American people' because that is the point of departure as far as building broad united action is concerned. What we think and how we say it to a larger audience is important and necessary for sure. In fact, our message is needed now more than ever.
But we should not make the mistake of assuming what we think is necessarily what the American people think and are ready to fight for" [emphasis added].
All true, the words leap off the page. What he is saying is, (like the website) don’t tell people everything about the Communist ideology. Tell them the part that sounds good. Then we can persuade them to join our forces. And let us continue to use the Democratic Party as the mechanism for mutual goals.
Webb continues:
"Nor should we make the mistake of thinking that what unites working people and their allies and what they are ready to fight for is a static target. What energizes people today can easily give way to something of a more radical nature tomorrow."
Meaning, keep your heads up and eyes open for inroads. Look to adjust to the crises of the moment, because that is how the Communist ideology works. And hope for radicalism (read: willingness to revolutionize the country). Heads up and eyes open is precisely what the American voter must have.
Infiltration or Indoctrination: It is all the same to the Communist party
We come to the crux of the Communist Party methodology:
I would argue that a relationship to the Democratic Party at this stage of struggle is a strategic necessity and later on probably a tactical requirement. It also isn't at loggerheads with the struggle for political independence.
The first part of this statement is self-explanatory. The latter is a disturbing one, if one understands the history of Communism and freedom-liberty; and their opposition to each other. “Loggerheads with the struggle for political independence” the hope that some day in the future the ideals of communism can stand on their own without piggy-backing on the Democratic Party.
Properly organized and united, the working class and people's movement can win and utilize positions in the government and state apparatus to bend public policy, institutions and agencies to the advantage of working people and their allies and create the conditions for more radical changes.
The emphasis (italicized words) in the above two paragraphs comes directly from the original transcript. A read of the Communist Manifesto will translate for Americans the meaning of “working class” and “people’s movement” all which were used by leaders such a Hitler, who proved that the only worth of the “working class” is in facilitating whatever the government deems important for it’s good — not the people’s.
Hence, people are referred to by the indifferent term of “the masses.”
A reform-minded president - and certainly one who has "Transformative" ambitions - is only successful to the degree that a mass and militant insurgency is part of the political mix.
In January 2009, Chair Webb made these remarks:
“[An] economic recovery plan must include not only a sizable and sustained economic stimulus, but also far-reaching political and economic reforms [that] have any chance of resuming a developmental growth path that is robust, sustainable (in a double sense: economically and environmentally) and favors the interests of the working class and its allies."
Study of Webb’s writings concurs with the Manifesto: “developmental growth path” means socialism. “Favoring the interests of the working class and it allies” is fancy double speak for the Communist Party and the government they design.
How Obama fits the agenda
In his 2009 outline to facilitate the goals of Communism were these that correspond to action by Congress and the Administration: In brackets is listed the corresponding action of President Obama.
* Public ownership of the financial system and the elimination of the shadow banking system and exotic derivatives. [TARP; FannieMae; FreddieMac; AIG]
* Public control of the Federal Reserve Bank.
* Counter-crisis spending of a bigger size and scope to invigorate and sustain a full recovery and meet human needs—something that the New Deal never accomplished. [Stimulus; Cash for Clunkers; Small Business stimulus]
* Strengthening of union rights in order to balance the power between labor and capital in the economic and political arenas. [Bill to consolidate work’s voted into one union vote; elimination of secured private ballot]
* Trade agreements that have at their core the protection and advancement of international working-class interests. [Multilateral Agreement for the Establishment of an International Think Tank for Landlocked Developing Countries, NY, 09.24.2010; Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights, NY, Dec. 2008].
* Equality in conditions of life for racial minorities and women.
* Democratic public takeover of the energy complex as well as a readiness to consider the takeover of other basic industries whose future is problematic in private hands [moratorium on oil platforms in the Gulf who have violated no permits or statutes; one of the first initiatives Obama enacted with unequaled Executive power was a moratorium on Gas drilling in Utah—holder of the one of the largest deposits of natural gas and shale (oil)].
* Turning education, childcare, and healthcare into “no profit” zones [public education that included early morning childcare, wards of the state; UN treaty “Rights of the Child”; Obamacare (The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act)].
* Rerouting investment capital from unproductive investment (military, finance and so forth) to productive investment in a green economy and public infrastructure [The Obama administration's promotion of Green policies dominate grants; TARP; ending war without winning].
* Changing direction of our nation’s foreign policy toward cooperation, disarmament, and diplomacy. We can’t have threats, guns and military occupations, on the one hand, and butter, democracy, goodwill, and peace, on the other. [Oct.2010, Obama agreed to give China America’s top secret technology with military capabilities; then Obama sent NASA administrator to China to ‘negotiate’ space technology “sharing”; Disarmament Treaty 2010].
* Full-scale assault on global warming [“Global Warming” treaty].
* Serious and sustained commitment to assisting the developing countries, which are locked in poverty and [“Global Warming” treaty; See ‘Trade Agreements; there are actually many UN treaties under this guise currently under construction].
New model of economic governance needed [“Global Warming” treaty].
Mid-term elections carry the burden of accomplishing the goals of an Administration. In this election the question begging the people as they go to the polls is whether they will elect public servants willing to accommodate and cooperate with “a reform-minded president who has transformative ambitions,” as the Communist Party plainly puts it, to reach their goals of changing the United States of America.
Other reading in full text used for this series of articles:
http://treaties.un.org/pages/ParticipationStatus.aspx
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
http://cpusa.org/a-way-out-of-the-deepening-crisis/
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/communist-party-hails-new-obama-era
Two years ago I wrote on my blog that electing Obama would prove to be, not just a disappointment to Republican voters, but also a betrayal to Democratic ones, as they were duped into believing Obama stood for freedom rather than bondage by government.
Obama is not a Democrat as much as a socialist and potential Communist. The Communist Party agrees.
But I was partly wrong and stand corrected by that party. I should have included the current leadership in Congress of the Democratic Party as well as many executive appointed Obama point men. Without correction at the polls the Federal government is precisely on track—albeit a slower one than they wish—down the path of Communism. So says the Communist website:
"If the grand alliance that elected Barack Obama comes out in full force to vote we can stop the Tea Party/Republican takeover and continue moving forward."
From the pool of those elected rise the teams that facilitate an Administration. What you vote for now, either feeds solutions or feeds problems.
The Communist Party is methodically courting the Democratic Party. And says so openly. The Republican Party is a lost cause to them. While the website was full of inaccuracies and flat out lies in a propaganda blitz, a reading of certain articles, such as the speech given at the Communist Party Convention, reveal much, on and between the lines, smooth talk and propaganda aside. (Thankfully we have world history to show the true colors of Communism's full cycle to failure.)
In its national convention, Communist Party Chair, Sam Webb counseled:
"I say 'stay attuned to the thinking and mood of the American people' because that is the point of departure as far as building broad united action is concerned. What we think and how we say it to a larger audience is important and necessary for sure. In fact, our message is needed now more than ever.
But we should not make the mistake of assuming what we think is necessarily what the American people think and are ready to fight for" [emphasis added].
All true, the words leap off the page. What he is saying is, (like the website) don’t tell people everything about the Communist ideology. Tell them the part that sounds good. Then we can persuade them to join our forces. And let us continue to use the Democratic Party as the mechanism for mutual goals.
Webb continues:
"Nor should we make the mistake of thinking that what unites working people and their allies and what they are ready to fight for is a static target. What energizes people today can easily give way to something of a more radical nature tomorrow."
Meaning, keep your heads up and eyes open for inroads. Look to adjust to the crises of the moment, because that is how the Communist ideology works. And hope for radicalism (read: willingness to revolutionize the country). Heads up and eyes open is precisely what the American voter must have.
Infiltration or Indoctrination: It is all the same to the Communist party
We come to the crux of the Communist Party methodology:
I would argue that a relationship to the Democratic Party at this stage of struggle is a strategic necessity and later on probably a tactical requirement. It also isn't at loggerheads with the struggle for political independence.
The first part of this statement is self-explanatory. The latter is a disturbing one, if one understands the history of Communism and freedom-liberty; and their opposition to each other. “Loggerheads with the struggle for political independence” the hope that some day in the future the ideals of communism can stand on their own without piggy-backing on the Democratic Party.
Properly organized and united, the working class and people's movement can win and utilize positions in the government and state apparatus to bend public policy, institutions and agencies to the advantage of working people and their allies and create the conditions for more radical changes.
The emphasis (italicized words) in the above two paragraphs comes directly from the original transcript. A read of the Communist Manifesto will translate for Americans the meaning of “working class” and “people’s movement” all which were used by leaders such a Hitler, who proved that the only worth of the “working class” is in facilitating whatever the government deems important for it’s good — not the people’s.
Hence, people are referred to by the indifferent term of “the masses.”
A reform-minded president - and certainly one who has "Transformative" ambitions - is only successful to the degree that a mass and militant insurgency is part of the political mix.
In January 2009, Chair Webb made these remarks:
“[An] economic recovery plan must include not only a sizable and sustained economic stimulus, but also far-reaching political and economic reforms [that] have any chance of resuming a developmental growth path that is robust, sustainable (in a double sense: economically and environmentally) and favors the interests of the working class and its allies."
Study of Webb’s writings concurs with the Manifesto: “developmental growth path” means socialism. “Favoring the interests of the working class and it allies” is fancy double speak for the Communist Party and the government they design.
How Obama fits the agenda
In his 2009 outline to facilitate the goals of Communism were these that correspond to action by Congress and the Administration: In brackets is listed the corresponding action of President Obama.
* Public ownership of the financial system and the elimination of the shadow banking system and exotic derivatives. [TARP; FannieMae; FreddieMac; AIG]
* Public control of the Federal Reserve Bank.
* Counter-crisis spending of a bigger size and scope to invigorate and sustain a full recovery and meet human needs—something that the New Deal never accomplished. [Stimulus; Cash for Clunkers; Small Business stimulus]
* Strengthening of union rights in order to balance the power between labor and capital in the economic and political arenas. [Bill to consolidate work’s voted into one union vote; elimination of secured private ballot]
* Trade agreements that have at their core the protection and advancement of international working-class interests. [Multilateral Agreement for the Establishment of an International Think Tank for Landlocked Developing Countries, NY, 09.24.2010; Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights, NY, Dec. 2008].
* Equality in conditions of life for racial minorities and women.
* Democratic public takeover of the energy complex as well as a readiness to consider the takeover of other basic industries whose future is problematic in private hands [moratorium on oil platforms in the Gulf who have violated no permits or statutes; one of the first initiatives Obama enacted with unequaled Executive power was a moratorium on Gas drilling in Utah—holder of the one of the largest deposits of natural gas and shale (oil)].
* Turning education, childcare, and healthcare into “no profit” zones [public education that included early morning childcare, wards of the state; UN treaty “Rights of the Child”; Obamacare (The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act)].
* Rerouting investment capital from unproductive investment (military, finance and so forth) to productive investment in a green economy and public infrastructure [The Obama administration's promotion of Green policies dominate grants; TARP; ending war without winning].
* Changing direction of our nation’s foreign policy toward cooperation, disarmament, and diplomacy. We can’t have threats, guns and military occupations, on the one hand, and butter, democracy, goodwill, and peace, on the other. [Oct.2010, Obama agreed to give China America’s top secret technology with military capabilities; then Obama sent NASA administrator to China to ‘negotiate’ space technology “sharing”; Disarmament Treaty 2010].
* Full-scale assault on global warming [“Global Warming” treaty].
* Serious and sustained commitment to assisting the developing countries, which are locked in poverty and [“Global Warming” treaty; See ‘Trade Agreements; there are actually many UN treaties under this guise currently under construction].
New model of economic governance needed [“Global Warming” treaty].
Mid-term elections carry the burden of accomplishing the goals of an Administration. In this election the question begging the people as they go to the polls is whether they will elect public servants willing to accommodate and cooperate with “a reform-minded president who has transformative ambitions,” as the Communist Party plainly puts it, to reach their goals of changing the United States of America.
Other reading in full text used for this series of articles:
http://treaties.un.org/pages/ParticipationStatus.aspx
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
http://cpusa.org/a-way-out-of-the-deepening-crisis/
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/communist-party-hails-new-obama-era
Monday, November 15, 2010
War between Obama, Parties & grassroots- tea parties to define strategy
We should expect the next two years to be a lame duck debacle. Except this year does not follow the historical pattern of cycles in politics. I predict this will be one of the bloodiest two years in American political history, but not totally a lame duck era. Obama will struggle to find a way to convince the pubic of his viability for reelection. The Democratic Party will maneuver any and everything in site against the Tea Party because they believe it is the flying carpet holding up the Republican Party. Members of the Republican Party will preoccupy their time with finding more (Tea Party) candidates than other parties, dedicated to, in particular, Jeffersonian philosophy. They will keep their noses clean because Tea Party folks and grassroots America are cleaning house—literally.
Obama could employ two possible strategies to keep himself in office. He claims he will work with Republicans. This lays the path for blame later, when Obama-style legislation does not pass Congress, and the President claims he truly tried, but Republicans would not cooperate. Using this strategy would be to misunderstand who put the Republicans in power in 2010—voters across many parties, and of many cultural backgrounds. Newly elected Representative Pete Olson, a Republican from Houston's 22nd District gets this. He sees his election as "more of an assignment from the people to fix things, rather than a victory for a political party." If Obama fails to recognize that grassroots activism is looking beyond party affiliation alone to the intent of each newly elected official; and to recognize the expectation that all parties are expected to clean themselves up, or experience the same wholesale sweep again, he will loose reelection.
Here we go: Today an AP wire reported that Obama is appealing to newly elected Republicans to go along with his decision to allow tax cuts to middle class—those earning up to $200,000—but not to the “rich”. Here is a major philosophical rift: Obama not supporting a free market system where Republicans want the cut for everyone so the rich can provide jobs and opportunities for others not so rich. It is again, a matter of government control vs. people control.
Obama might try to blame Democrats for his bad decision-making. If he actually agrees to reverse Obamacare (not likely, but not inconceivable), quits his carte blanche spending policies, and agrees to rein in government, Obama stands a chance of being reelected on the premise that he was just backed into a corner.
Obama will sell his efforts as what the voter wanted. In his current trip the India, he claims to shore up security and trade agreements that better the economy and national security. But going abroad to solve economic woes won’t appease Americans who want repeal of Obamacare, measures to ensure less government interference, secure borders, and guarantees of less spending and debt.
If Obama tries to use race to push his “immigration reform”, by ignoring current laws on immigration and border security, it will make America angrier. Particularly in border states like Arizona and Texas, which has a huge international border of more than 1200 miles. Houston led the nation in illegal immigration deportation due to crime. Nearly all those suspended were found guilty of crimes, other than simply being in the U.S. illegally. Obama misread the Latino voter when he recently told them to stick with him and he’d be sure to give illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship above those standing in line. Apparently that didn’t sit well with Latino voters. More Latino candidates from the Republican Party were elected than ever. The message was clear. And it wasn’t Obama’s message.
The next two years promise to be a holy war of philosophical dialog, badmouthing and slurring the opponent as future candidates and parties maneuver for power for 2012. The Democrats will launch offensives at the Tea party movement, not realizing that it is not an arm of the Republican Party, and isn’t likely to keep allegiance to any person or party that veers from its objectives of no more party tricks and no more federal intrusion. But I predict Democrats will seek every speck of dirt possible on new Republicans in an attempt to prove the voters wrong. Conservative from every state, such as Senators Hutchison, TX, Lee, UT, and Portman OH, will forge alliances with others for state's rights along with governors. If the Democratic Party tries to muster greater support from unions and other powerful organizations, it will unleash more fury from the grassroots who will see it as an outright attempt to rob their independent voices. The Tea Party will be watching with microscopic focus and call out any impure politics and demagoguery they see. The Republican Party will spend its time reiterating the theme of the newly passed midterm election, focused upon the lead of Tea party movement, but reminding the Democrats that they have yet to see the light. And Americans will become more vocal, angry at any unsuccessful measures, and more assembled.
Keep the first aid kit handy; it’s going to be a bloody two years.
.
Obama could employ two possible strategies to keep himself in office. He claims he will work with Republicans. This lays the path for blame later, when Obama-style legislation does not pass Congress, and the President claims he truly tried, but Republicans would not cooperate. Using this strategy would be to misunderstand who put the Republicans in power in 2010—voters across many parties, and of many cultural backgrounds. Newly elected Representative Pete Olson, a Republican from Houston's 22nd District gets this. He sees his election as "more of an assignment from the people to fix things, rather than a victory for a political party." If Obama fails to recognize that grassroots activism is looking beyond party affiliation alone to the intent of each newly elected official; and to recognize the expectation that all parties are expected to clean themselves up, or experience the same wholesale sweep again, he will loose reelection.
Here we go: Today an AP wire reported that Obama is appealing to newly elected Republicans to go along with his decision to allow tax cuts to middle class—those earning up to $200,000—but not to the “rich”. Here is a major philosophical rift: Obama not supporting a free market system where Republicans want the cut for everyone so the rich can provide jobs and opportunities for others not so rich. It is again, a matter of government control vs. people control.
Obama might try to blame Democrats for his bad decision-making. If he actually agrees to reverse Obamacare (not likely, but not inconceivable), quits his carte blanche spending policies, and agrees to rein in government, Obama stands a chance of being reelected on the premise that he was just backed into a corner.
Obama will sell his efforts as what the voter wanted. In his current trip the India, he claims to shore up security and trade agreements that better the economy and national security. But going abroad to solve economic woes won’t appease Americans who want repeal of Obamacare, measures to ensure less government interference, secure borders, and guarantees of less spending and debt.
If Obama tries to use race to push his “immigration reform”, by ignoring current laws on immigration and border security, it will make America angrier. Particularly in border states like Arizona and Texas, which has a huge international border of more than 1200 miles. Houston led the nation in illegal immigration deportation due to crime. Nearly all those suspended were found guilty of crimes, other than simply being in the U.S. illegally. Obama misread the Latino voter when he recently told them to stick with him and he’d be sure to give illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship above those standing in line. Apparently that didn’t sit well with Latino voters. More Latino candidates from the Republican Party were elected than ever. The message was clear. And it wasn’t Obama’s message.
The next two years promise to be a holy war of philosophical dialog, badmouthing and slurring the opponent as future candidates and parties maneuver for power for 2012. The Democrats will launch offensives at the Tea party movement, not realizing that it is not an arm of the Republican Party, and isn’t likely to keep allegiance to any person or party that veers from its objectives of no more party tricks and no more federal intrusion. But I predict Democrats will seek every speck of dirt possible on new Republicans in an attempt to prove the voters wrong. Conservative from every state, such as Senators Hutchison, TX, Lee, UT, and Portman OH, will forge alliances with others for state's rights along with governors. If the Democratic Party tries to muster greater support from unions and other powerful organizations, it will unleash more fury from the grassroots who will see it as an outright attempt to rob their independent voices. The Tea Party will be watching with microscopic focus and call out any impure politics and demagoguery they see. The Republican Party will spend its time reiterating the theme of the newly passed midterm election, focused upon the lead of Tea party movement, but reminding the Democrats that they have yet to see the light. And Americans will become more vocal, angry at any unsuccessful measures, and more assembled.
Keep the first aid kit handy; it’s going to be a bloody two years.
.
Texas Rep fighting Obama intention to give China NASA's space secrets
October 13, 2010-Congressman John Culberson, representing the Houston area sent a blunt letter to Barack Obama, objecting to the President's attempts to give away top U.S. NASA technology to China. Obama is sending NASA Administrator, Charles F. Bolden Jr. to China to "begin a dialogue on human space flight cooperation between NASA and the China National Space Administration (CNSA)."
The President did not receive ratification from Congress for any such negotiations, but, of his own accord, sent Bolden to China this week. Culberson's two concerns, both founded in Constitutional basis, are that the President was not authorized by Congress to make such a pact with China, and that it is a breach of National Security.
When referring to any duty outlined in the U.S.Constitution, the Founders expected that foremost in decisions would be what the intent of any action would be, making it plain that they must follow the purposes of the Constitution. According to the document that the Federal government is required to protect the states from harm (Art.I Sec.8; Art IV, Sec.4). Additionally, the duties assigned to each branch assure that there is a consensus in those intents. For example, two different places in the Constitution reiterate the need of the Senate to approve treaties created or signed by the President. The President cannot make treaties of his own volition. Several clauses lay a claim to protection by the Federal government to the states. Under the Constitution (Art II, Sec.2), treason is defined as an act of "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
President Obama has already stated his intention to give China the U.S. top technology that has the capability to produce chemical and other warfare tools. Every past President as a security issue has guarded those technology trade secrets.
The President did not receive ratification from Congress for any such negotiations, but, of his own accord, sent Bolden to China this week. Culberson's two concerns, both founded in Constitutional basis, are that the President was not authorized by Congress to make such a pact with China, and that it is a breach of National Security.
When referring to any duty outlined in the U.S.Constitution, the Founders expected that foremost in decisions would be what the intent of any action would be, making it plain that they must follow the purposes of the Constitution. According to the document that the Federal government is required to protect the states from harm (Art.I Sec.8; Art IV, Sec.4). Additionally, the duties assigned to each branch assure that there is a consensus in those intents. For example, two different places in the Constitution reiterate the need of the Senate to approve treaties created or signed by the President. The President cannot make treaties of his own volition. Several clauses lay a claim to protection by the Federal government to the states. Under the Constitution (Art II, Sec.2), treason is defined as an act of "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
President Obama has already stated his intention to give China the U.S. top technology that has the capability to produce chemical and other warfare tools. Every past President as a security issue has guarded those technology trade secrets.
Obama's highest technology give away in China trade agreement spells disaster for Houston area
September 26th, 2010 9:00 pm CT.
Containing millions of carbon nanotubes, the NASA biosensor can alert inspectors to minute amounts of potentially dangerous organic contaminants.
Photo: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2009/ps_1.html
"The New American," reports* a disturbing and irrational policy by Obama, who plans to share the nation's top technology secrets with China instead of curtailing their thievery. The technology, forbidden by several past administrations, includes "sensors, optics, and biological and chemical processes," all of which are “identified as having inherent military application".
Obama claims trade will be from private "enterprise" to "enterprise". (But as the article points out, there are no private enterprises in China. There is only China.) Just how Obama plans to expedite this arrangement is curious. It is highly conceivable that he would order U.S. companies to comply with the agreement, even if they 1.) Created the technology and weren’t obliged to give it away; and 2.) Felt it was very un-American (read: treasonous) to divulge such information.
The effect of such a policy is chilling: Many Houston companies are in jeopardy of economic disaster. Demand for products with such technology produced here can be lost to China's manipulative marketing. Their price point can lead to destruction of our export of like products and future products. Even the Houston Technology Center, Texas' largest technology "business incubator" ** for emerging new companies will likely suffer significantly from this give-away. The non-profit organization, which has been responsible for job growth, promotes and funds technology in areas of energy, science, nanotechnology, and NASA/aerospace. It's tremendous success is likely to be derailed along with its clients, if emerging companies know that their innovations will be confiscated at their expense and handed to a highly questionable ally. This is not trade but capture and execution. That may be China's definition of free enterpise, but it certainly is not America's.
Additionally, with a direct exchange between "enterprises" comes knowing who made such technology and where companies are located. Those become vulnerable military targets by China or any allies with whom they also "share". It creates security risks in the Houston area and across the nation.
Fortunately, we are not China. The People run the government here. Texas, as the 15th largest economy in the world has phenomenal power. Filing yet another suit, with an injunction against Obama and the administration, would be a start.
Additionally, Obama will significantly loose comrades in the Congress and may face impeachment for, among other things, aiding the enemy, if we exercise our voting rights. Giving a thief the goods is not a better solution than pre-empting their attempts to steal them.
* http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/4559-obamas-china-trade-solution-give-them-our-hi-tech
**http://www.medindia.net/health-press-release/80-Gulf-Coast-Emerging-Technology-Companies-Positioned-for-Investment-81497-1.htm
Containing millions of carbon nanotubes, the NASA biosensor can alert inspectors to minute amounts of potentially dangerous organic contaminants.
Photo: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2009/ps_1.html
"The New American," reports* a disturbing and irrational policy by Obama, who plans to share the nation's top technology secrets with China instead of curtailing their thievery. The technology, forbidden by several past administrations, includes "sensors, optics, and biological and chemical processes," all of which are “identified as having inherent military application".
Obama claims trade will be from private "enterprise" to "enterprise". (But as the article points out, there are no private enterprises in China. There is only China.) Just how Obama plans to expedite this arrangement is curious. It is highly conceivable that he would order U.S. companies to comply with the agreement, even if they 1.) Created the technology and weren’t obliged to give it away; and 2.) Felt it was very un-American (read: treasonous) to divulge such information.
The effect of such a policy is chilling: Many Houston companies are in jeopardy of economic disaster. Demand for products with such technology produced here can be lost to China's manipulative marketing. Their price point can lead to destruction of our export of like products and future products. Even the Houston Technology Center, Texas' largest technology "business incubator" ** for emerging new companies will likely suffer significantly from this give-away. The non-profit organization, which has been responsible for job growth, promotes and funds technology in areas of energy, science, nanotechnology, and NASA/aerospace. It's tremendous success is likely to be derailed along with its clients, if emerging companies know that their innovations will be confiscated at their expense and handed to a highly questionable ally. This is not trade but capture and execution. That may be China's definition of free enterpise, but it certainly is not America's.
Additionally, with a direct exchange between "enterprises" comes knowing who made such technology and where companies are located. Those become vulnerable military targets by China or any allies with whom they also "share". It creates security risks in the Houston area and across the nation.
Fortunately, we are not China. The People run the government here. Texas, as the 15th largest economy in the world has phenomenal power. Filing yet another suit, with an injunction against Obama and the administration, would be a start.
Additionally, Obama will significantly loose comrades in the Congress and may face impeachment for, among other things, aiding the enemy, if we exercise our voting rights. Giving a thief the goods is not a better solution than pre-empting their attempts to steal them.
* http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/4559-obamas-china-trade-solution-give-them-our-hi-tech
**http://www.medindia.net/health-press-release/80-Gulf-Coast-Emerging-Technology-Companies-Positioned-for-Investment-81497-1.htm
Vet Affairs grades of U.S. Reps unfair & misleading
The problem with reading statistics or a rating system when trying to research candidates and issues is that virtually nothing is as it seams, popularity polls excepted. Rating, or grading systems that declare a candidate--and most likely an incumbent because they have a voting record--does or does not support a particular group, issue or policy can be very misleading and blatantly unfair.
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran Affairs (IAVA) recently graded all U.S. Congressmen and Senators in an evaluation of how well each supported the military and veterans. The report, entitled, "Find out who in Washington really supports our troops and veterans," grades on a score of A to F, using 18 key legislative acts for Representatives, and 12 for Senators as IAVA criteria, with each act in support of IAVA earning one point. The claim from the title and the grading are not only unfair but deceptive.
On the face of it, such grading systems seem legitimate. But the reality? As they say, the devil in the details.
For one, while the report claims no bias to party affiliation there was a distinct divide between good and bad grades among party lines. Democrats got better marks than Republicans. Since Republicans are traditionally more supportive of military, war actions and the needs associated with troops and veterans, it begged the question, "Why?"
A read of the bills themselves--even a read of the summary supplied on the IAVA website--explains and is telling but not a surprise. Bills used as criteria were not necessarily for the specific needs of the veterans. For instance, HR.2346, confusingly called "the Supplemental Security Act," and the "Consumer Assistance to Recycle Act" is a bill the IAVA claims is about stop loss insurance, but actually includes measures for "Cash for Clunkers," and moving terrorists and other war criminals from Guantanamo Bay to the States. But where no political maneuvering occurred, such as in H.R.1211, a bill for better care among female veterans, the vote was unanimous.
Additionally, there is a key flaw to the way in which grading was done, which adds to the deception. Using the same scoring a school would use for grades is not an accurate portrayal of the legislator's efforts because of the way the point are divided into respective grades. F grades are based upon agreeing with the IAVA half the time. While 50% for learning purposes might be fair to determine failing to understand a concept with competency, giving a failing grade in support of a cause, when in fact, half the legislative issues were supported is hardly failing. Failing in supporting legislation should be just that, a total failure. There was no one who did not support the IAVA in some issues. Even Paul, arguably the most conservative of the bunch, and Brady voted for just shy of half the measures, but each got "F" marks, as if to suppose they never supported veteran or military legislation at all.
What ever area of Texas or the country a citizen is, it would be well advised to take such scoring systems with a grain of salt, or research the bills, together with their representatives entire record, to really know the score.
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran Affairs (IAVA) recently graded all U.S. Congressmen and Senators in an evaluation of how well each supported the military and veterans. The report, entitled, "Find out who in Washington really supports our troops and veterans," grades on a score of A to F, using 18 key legislative acts for Representatives, and 12 for Senators as IAVA criteria, with each act in support of IAVA earning one point. The claim from the title and the grading are not only unfair but deceptive.
On the face of it, such grading systems seem legitimate. But the reality? As they say, the devil in the details.
For one, while the report claims no bias to party affiliation there was a distinct divide between good and bad grades among party lines. Democrats got better marks than Republicans. Since Republicans are traditionally more supportive of military, war actions and the needs associated with troops and veterans, it begged the question, "Why?"
A read of the bills themselves--even a read of the summary supplied on the IAVA website--explains and is telling but not a surprise. Bills used as criteria were not necessarily for the specific needs of the veterans. For instance, HR.2346, confusingly called "the Supplemental Security Act," and the "Consumer Assistance to Recycle Act" is a bill the IAVA claims is about stop loss insurance, but actually includes measures for "Cash for Clunkers," and moving terrorists and other war criminals from Guantanamo Bay to the States. But where no political maneuvering occurred, such as in H.R.1211, a bill for better care among female veterans, the vote was unanimous.
Additionally, there is a key flaw to the way in which grading was done, which adds to the deception. Using the same scoring a school would use for grades is not an accurate portrayal of the legislator's efforts because of the way the point are divided into respective grades. F grades are based upon agreeing with the IAVA half the time. While 50% for learning purposes might be fair to determine failing to understand a concept with competency, giving a failing grade in support of a cause, when in fact, half the legislative issues were supported is hardly failing. Failing in supporting legislation should be just that, a total failure. There was no one who did not support the IAVA in some issues. Even Paul, arguably the most conservative of the bunch, and Brady voted for just shy of half the measures, but each got "F" marks, as if to suppose they never supported veteran or military legislation at all.
What ever area of Texas or the country a citizen is, it would be well advised to take such scoring systems with a grain of salt, or research the bills, together with their representatives entire record, to really know the score.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Is the Right to Secede Really the Issue?
The question of whether the states have the right to secede from the Union has been circulating even before the two most independently minded states of Texas and Alaska joined the union. Since the question has recently been brought to me again, it seems an appropriate discussion, since it appears to be an enviable power that states seem to hope for and in that context we approach the conundrum: Do the states have the right to secede?
First, the Founding Fathers were quite aware of the right for a people to abandon their present form of government in the hopes of instituting another to preserve their God-given rights. After all, they did precisely that by seceding from England. That is the impetus behind the writing of the Declaration of Independence. The basic element is indeed a right. It is also a bloody one.
The Founders discussed at length the nature of the newly reformed Republic in the context of earlier problems with such a loosely formed Federation—and the Confederation was barely that. Problems such as balancing protection of the states enjoined, with their mutual independence. So, the Founders created a federation of states where the central government was obligated to protect the states as sovereign republican governments. The Constitution created a much stronger bond than the previous one under the Confederacy. It provided needed protection from invasion that left the early United States vulnerable and provided even better protection from neighboring states that would have a tendency of bullying smaller states. In return the constitution provided the central government power to collect revenue (that would be taxes) in order to facilitate those duties for, and on behalf of, the states.
Thus, the United States government is obligated to protect the body of states and protect the unity of states. This might not sit well with those who say, “Well then, what of the original right to secede— was it a farce?” Indeed not. But before further explanation it is fair to say that while many people will blame Abraham Lincoln for the bloodiest battle in U.S. history, the civil war—because he reasoned a state could not secede as it is part of the union and therefore the union as a whole owned the states, he was not the originator of that reasoning. The Founders were.
The Founders devised a governmental system that gave every opportunity to address grievances to the government. There are double-digit numbers of checks and balances to the U.S. Constitution. And the powers are clearly expressed. Whatever policies the Federal government creates must be applied only to those duties. The creative way in which those duties are dealt with can be varied and broad, but still within the confines of those duties, depending on the need but always staying within the intent of the Constitution. Among them is the duty of the Federal government to protect the right of states to a Republican form of government. (That one clause, alone holds within it three checks on the balance of power.)
This does not contradict the right to secede. The Founders knew that, since men and their fellows enjoin the basic right of freedom, including devising a new system of government or leaving it if the former is not viable, they had to ensure that there would be no reason or want to secede. They devised a government that allowed redress, improvements when wrongs were committed and modifications where needed in order to remove the need or want for secession, because they knew precisely how horrific and perilous secession was. Hence, the real question is not, “Do the states (and thereby their people) have the right to secede?” but rather, “should they secede and at what cost?”
The ultimate question is, “How wise is it to secede?”
Because a state wants to secede, does not mean any of the other states will welcome, encourage, or support the movement. In fact the opposite is likely to happen. Furthermore, there is no written right or process for secession in the Constitution, like there is for adopting a new state or territory. Furthermore, the Federal government itself is likely to vehemently object. And as we have seen of late where the federal government is suing states trying to adjust and repair the deliberate neglect of federal duties, it is more probable that the Federal government will physically and legally oppose secession. It would result in war. The history of secession shows it to be a bloody one. Is there a state willing to risk extinction? And if a state were to successfully secede, what then? As a, now unprotected country, that former state would bear the burden of it’s own protection—from other well-established countries and even possibly formerly friendly state-allies. Even a state the size of Texas or California would find it most likely impossible to defend itself against military might or an aggressive culture. In fact, the civil war came about not because there was no remedy but because the remedies were not honored. In the first place, the southern states broke an agreement—a compromise—set in the Constitution with the dissolution of slavery included. Without honoring the specially designed system that was focused upon unity, there was nothing left but a bloody battle for secession.
On the other hand, with all the powers appropriately applied, remedy, redress, and corrections in policy are all provided for and encouraged through Constitutional means. It isn’t that the Founders wanted to force the states into a governmental prison—tyranny-quite the opposite. It was that they wanted to provide every avenue to prevent the terror of such a violent way of solving a problem, to which they were personal witnesses in the Revolution. Thus, the only reason left to secede is simply the lack of honoring the system as designed. It would be far more wise and prudent to use all resources in restoring and using the system as designed and testing the system as such, before contemplating the alternative during a period of neglect.
First, the Founding Fathers were quite aware of the right for a people to abandon their present form of government in the hopes of instituting another to preserve their God-given rights. After all, they did precisely that by seceding from England. That is the impetus behind the writing of the Declaration of Independence. The basic element is indeed a right. It is also a bloody one.
The Founders discussed at length the nature of the newly reformed Republic in the context of earlier problems with such a loosely formed Federation—and the Confederation was barely that. Problems such as balancing protection of the states enjoined, with their mutual independence. So, the Founders created a federation of states where the central government was obligated to protect the states as sovereign republican governments. The Constitution created a much stronger bond than the previous one under the Confederacy. It provided needed protection from invasion that left the early United States vulnerable and provided even better protection from neighboring states that would have a tendency of bullying smaller states. In return the constitution provided the central government power to collect revenue (that would be taxes) in order to facilitate those duties for, and on behalf of, the states.
Thus, the United States government is obligated to protect the body of states and protect the unity of states. This might not sit well with those who say, “Well then, what of the original right to secede— was it a farce?” Indeed not. But before further explanation it is fair to say that while many people will blame Abraham Lincoln for the bloodiest battle in U.S. history, the civil war—because he reasoned a state could not secede as it is part of the union and therefore the union as a whole owned the states, he was not the originator of that reasoning. The Founders were.
The Founders devised a governmental system that gave every opportunity to address grievances to the government. There are double-digit numbers of checks and balances to the U.S. Constitution. And the powers are clearly expressed. Whatever policies the Federal government creates must be applied only to those duties. The creative way in which those duties are dealt with can be varied and broad, but still within the confines of those duties, depending on the need but always staying within the intent of the Constitution. Among them is the duty of the Federal government to protect the right of states to a Republican form of government. (That one clause, alone holds within it three checks on the balance of power.)
This does not contradict the right to secede. The Founders knew that, since men and their fellows enjoin the basic right of freedom, including devising a new system of government or leaving it if the former is not viable, they had to ensure that there would be no reason or want to secede. They devised a government that allowed redress, improvements when wrongs were committed and modifications where needed in order to remove the need or want for secession, because they knew precisely how horrific and perilous secession was. Hence, the real question is not, “Do the states (and thereby their people) have the right to secede?” but rather, “should they secede and at what cost?”
The ultimate question is, “How wise is it to secede?”
Because a state wants to secede, does not mean any of the other states will welcome, encourage, or support the movement. In fact the opposite is likely to happen. Furthermore, there is no written right or process for secession in the Constitution, like there is for adopting a new state or territory. Furthermore, the Federal government itself is likely to vehemently object. And as we have seen of late where the federal government is suing states trying to adjust and repair the deliberate neglect of federal duties, it is more probable that the Federal government will physically and legally oppose secession. It would result in war. The history of secession shows it to be a bloody one. Is there a state willing to risk extinction? And if a state were to successfully secede, what then? As a, now unprotected country, that former state would bear the burden of it’s own protection—from other well-established countries and even possibly formerly friendly state-allies. Even a state the size of Texas or California would find it most likely impossible to defend itself against military might or an aggressive culture. In fact, the civil war came about not because there was no remedy but because the remedies were not honored. In the first place, the southern states broke an agreement—a compromise—set in the Constitution with the dissolution of slavery included. Without honoring the specially designed system that was focused upon unity, there was nothing left but a bloody battle for secession.
On the other hand, with all the powers appropriately applied, remedy, redress, and corrections in policy are all provided for and encouraged through Constitutional means. It isn’t that the Founders wanted to force the states into a governmental prison—tyranny-quite the opposite. It was that they wanted to provide every avenue to prevent the terror of such a violent way of solving a problem, to which they were personal witnesses in the Revolution. Thus, the only reason left to secede is simply the lack of honoring the system as designed. It would be far more wise and prudent to use all resources in restoring and using the system as designed and testing the system as such, before contemplating the alternative during a period of neglect.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
War between Obama, Parties & grassroots/ tea parties to define strategy for 2012 General Election
We should expect the next two years to be a lame duck debacle. Except this year does not follow the historical pattern of cycles in politics. I predict this will be one of the bloodiest two years in American political history, but not totally a lame duck era. Obama will struggle to find a way to convince the pubic of his viability for reelection. The Democratic Party will maneuver any and everything in sight against the Tea Party because they believe it is the flying carpet holding up the Republican Party. Members of the Republican Party will preoccupy their time with finding more (Tea Party) candidates than other parties, dedicated to, in particular, Jeffersonian philosophy. They will keep their noses clean because Tea Party folks and grassroots America are cleaning house—literally.
Obama could employ two possible strategies to keep himself in office. He claims he will work with Republicans. This lays the path for blame later, when Obama-style legislation does not pass Congress, and the President claims he truly tried,
but Republicans would not cooperate. Using this strategy would be to misunderstand who put the Republicans in power in 2010—voters across many parties, and of many cultural backgrounds. Newly elected Representative Pete Olson, a Republican from Houston's 22nd District gets this. He sees his election as "more of an assignment from the people to fix things, rather than a victory for a political party." If Obama fails to recognize that grassroots activism is looking beyond party affiliation alone to the intent of each newly elected official; and to recognize the expectation that all parties are expected to clean themselves up, or experience the same wholesale sweep again, he will loose reelection.
Here we go: The same day I wrote this entry an AP wire reported that Obama is appealing to newly elected Republicans to go along with his decision to allow tax cuts to middle class—those earning up to $200,000—but not to the “rich”. Here is a major philosophical rift: Obama not supporting a free market system where Republicans want the cut for everyone so the rich can provide jobs and opportunities for others not so rich. It is again, a matter of government control vs. people control.
If Obama is smarter he might try to blame Democrats for his bad decision-making. If he actually agrees to reverse Obamacare (not likely, but not inconceivable), quits his carte blanche spending policies, and agrees to rein in government, he stands a chance of being reelected on the premise that he was just backed into a corner.
Obama will sell his efforts as what the voter wanted. In his current trip the India, he claims to shore up security and trade agreements that better the economy and national security. But going abroad to solve economic woes won’t appease Americans who want repeal of Obamacare, measures to ensure less government interference, secure borders, and guarantees of less spending and debt.
If Obama tries to use race to push his “immigration reform”, by ignoring current laws on immigration and border security, it will make America angrier. Particularly in border states like Arizona and Texas, the latter which has a huge international border of more than 1200 miles. Houston led the nation in illegal immigration deportation due to crime. Nearly all those suspended were found guilty of crimes, other than simply being in the U.S. illegally. Obama misread the Latino voter when he recently told them to stick with him and he’d be sure to give illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship above those standing in line. Apparently that didn’t sit well with Latino voters. More Latino candidates from the Republican Party were elected than ever. The message was clear. And it wasn’t Obama’s message.
The next two years promise to be a holy war of philosophical dialog, badmouthing and slurring the opponent as future candidates and parties maneuver for power for 2012. The Democrats will launch offensives at the Tea party movement, not realizing that it is not an arm of the Republican Party, and isn’t likely to keep allegiance to any person or party that veers from its objectives of no more party tricks and no more federal intrusion. But I predict Democrats will seek every speck of dirt possible on new Republicans in an attempt to prove the voters wrong. Conservative from every state, such as Senators Hutchison, TX, Lee, UT, and Portman OH, will forge alliances with others for state's rights along with governors. If the Democratic Party tries to muster greater support from unions and other powerful organizations, it will unleash more fury from the grassroots who will see it as an outright attempt to rob their independent voices. The Tea Party will be watching with microscopic focus and call out any impure politics and demagoguery they see. The Republican Party will spend its time reiterating the theme of the newly passed midterm election, focused upon the lead of the Tea Party movement, but reminding the Democrats that they have yet to see the light. And Americans will become more vocal, angry at any unsuccessful measures, and more assembled.
Keep the first aid kit handy; it’s going to be a bloody two years.
Obama could employ two possible strategies to keep himself in office. He claims he will work with Republicans. This lays the path for blame later, when Obama-style legislation does not pass Congress, and the President claims he truly tried,
but Republicans would not cooperate. Using this strategy would be to misunderstand who put the Republicans in power in 2010—voters across many parties, and of many cultural backgrounds. Newly elected Representative Pete Olson, a Republican from Houston's 22nd District gets this. He sees his election as "more of an assignment from the people to fix things, rather than a victory for a political party." If Obama fails to recognize that grassroots activism is looking beyond party affiliation alone to the intent of each newly elected official; and to recognize the expectation that all parties are expected to clean themselves up, or experience the same wholesale sweep again, he will loose reelection.
Here we go: The same day I wrote this entry an AP wire reported that Obama is appealing to newly elected Republicans to go along with his decision to allow tax cuts to middle class—those earning up to $200,000—but not to the “rich”. Here is a major philosophical rift: Obama not supporting a free market system where Republicans want the cut for everyone so the rich can provide jobs and opportunities for others not so rich. It is again, a matter of government control vs. people control.
If Obama is smarter he might try to blame Democrats for his bad decision-making. If he actually agrees to reverse Obamacare (not likely, but not inconceivable), quits his carte blanche spending policies, and agrees to rein in government, he stands a chance of being reelected on the premise that he was just backed into a corner.
Obama will sell his efforts as what the voter wanted. In his current trip the India, he claims to shore up security and trade agreements that better the economy and national security. But going abroad to solve economic woes won’t appease Americans who want repeal of Obamacare, measures to ensure less government interference, secure borders, and guarantees of less spending and debt.
If Obama tries to use race to push his “immigration reform”, by ignoring current laws on immigration and border security, it will make America angrier. Particularly in border states like Arizona and Texas, the latter which has a huge international border of more than 1200 miles. Houston led the nation in illegal immigration deportation due to crime. Nearly all those suspended were found guilty of crimes, other than simply being in the U.S. illegally. Obama misread the Latino voter when he recently told them to stick with him and he’d be sure to give illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship above those standing in line. Apparently that didn’t sit well with Latino voters. More Latino candidates from the Republican Party were elected than ever. The message was clear. And it wasn’t Obama’s message.
The next two years promise to be a holy war of philosophical dialog, badmouthing and slurring the opponent as future candidates and parties maneuver for power for 2012. The Democrats will launch offensives at the Tea party movement, not realizing that it is not an arm of the Republican Party, and isn’t likely to keep allegiance to any person or party that veers from its objectives of no more party tricks and no more federal intrusion. But I predict Democrats will seek every speck of dirt possible on new Republicans in an attempt to prove the voters wrong. Conservative from every state, such as Senators Hutchison, TX, Lee, UT, and Portman OH, will forge alliances with others for state's rights along with governors. If the Democratic Party tries to muster greater support from unions and other powerful organizations, it will unleash more fury from the grassroots who will see it as an outright attempt to rob their independent voices. The Tea Party will be watching with microscopic focus and call out any impure politics and demagoguery they see. The Republican Party will spend its time reiterating the theme of the newly passed midterm election, focused upon the lead of the Tea Party movement, but reminding the Democrats that they have yet to see the light. And Americans will become more vocal, angry at any unsuccessful measures, and more assembled.
Keep the first aid kit handy; it’s going to be a bloody two years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
