Tag Archives: Eric Holder

Smaller Government’s Newest Politician: Barack Obama

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Seems Barack Obama has slipped on his Mitt Romney mask.   The President hosted a White House smaller-government event complete with a bubble graph slide show and CEOs.  One difference: Obama is proposing lessening the grip of government on jobs and the economy by asking Congress to transfer more power to him.  Obama asking for more power to curtail government could be likened to quitting marijuana by shooting heroin.

Come on now, is America supposed take seriously that a government-loving liberal who’s promoted big budget-busting bureaucracy as the catalyst to job creation for the last three years, is suddenly into saving money and jobs by consolidating government?

By now, when Americans hear the name Barack Obama they instantly think: great teeth, questionable golf skills and a wife who shops at Target.

However, to many, the name Obama also calls to mind things like: union thuggery, socialized health care, unelected and unaccountable czars, demonization of the rich, punishing businesses, widespread unemployment, limiting Constitutional liberties, borrowing $6.2 trillion in one term, maligning conservativism, and thinking government should fund everything from education for illegals to abortion on demand.

Now, nine months prior to the next election, with less than stellar approval numbers and the unemployment rate still unacceptable, supposedly in an effort to save “$3 billion and 1,000 to 2,000 jobs over ten years,” Obama suddenly wants to streamline federal trade policy by requesting the “power to consolidate agencies that promote U.S. exports.” The plan is to close down the Commerce Department and merge together the “small Business Administration, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade and Development Agency.”

Sorry, but giving Obama more power over business doesn’t accomplish the goal of less government. It just puts governmental-style control into the hands of one person, which feels a tad uncomfortable — control over which companies get government help in trade issues.  Doesn’t this smell of crony capitalism in the hands of a veteran of pay-to-play in Chicago?

During remarks at the White House and without informing Congress, Obama said:

Today, I’m calling on Congress to reinstate the authority that past presidents have had to streamline and reform the executive branch. This is the same sort of authority that every business owner has to make sure that his or her company keeps pace with the times. And let me be clear: I will only use this authority for reforms that result in more efficiency, better service and a leaner government.

If the same Congress that Obama said he’s planning on working without gives him the “green light,” he would gain “fast-track authority — that is, the ability to bypass a Senate filibuster — for any number of government consolidation proposals.”  All that’s required is that he present his bids as being “aimed at saving taxpayer dollars and boosting efficiency,” which three years of economic disaster has proven, with Obama in charge, probably isn’t the case.

Let’s remember that thus far, although he’s asking for greater authority, Obama hasn’t earned it.  He’s been neither efficient, adept at saving taxpayers money, nor a man fond of “leaner government.”  If Congress agrees, “The House and Senate would have to hold an up-or-down vote within 90 days of receiving such a proposal.”

It’s not surprising that the usual RINO suspects like Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee support Obama’s efforts.

However, what is surprising is the normally tough Obama administration skeptic Darrell Issa (R-California), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, being positive about giving the President more clout.  Issa wants to prevent Eric Holder’s “Fast and Furious[ly]”-tainted Department of Justice from having the power to police the Internet through the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), yet he’s optimistic about Obama’s Gimme More Power proposal?

Thankfully, other Republican politicians are more cautious. Seasoned Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is wary of the normally disingenuous anti-Congress Obama sincerely “calling on Congress,” and is skeptical that Big Government Barry wants to reform government at all.

Hatch raises a great point. After finding the time to bus CEOs to the White House and set up alongside the trusty Teleprompter a slide show as slick as anything at Bain Capital, couldn’t Obama also find time to consult with Congress before making his big announcement? Especially since the President forcefully requested that Congress reinstate the type of powers last exercised by Ronald Reagan, a leader everyone knew consistently promoted small government.

Taken aback, Hatch said:

What’s disconcerting is that the president has again chosen not to work with Congress — even after I specifically asked the Obama administration to fully brief Congress if it chose to reorganize our trade agencies. As the lead Republican on the Finance Committee, I will discuss this matter with my colleagues and will expect a fullaccounting by the administration in short order.

The Utah Senator better hurry, because if he asked the Obama administration to follow a certain protocol and they refused, it’s questionable whether the President (checks and balances be damned) can be trusted to handle increased autonomy.

While cynical, it appears that crafty Obama may be luring Republicans into a ‘smaller-government/more power for me’ Catch-22.  If lawmakers refuse to comply, the President can then say, “See, even when I do what they say they want, they refuse to work with me.  That’s why I must work around them.”

That sort of slick ploy could garner the additional power Obama seeks, reaffirm his anti-Congress contention and deliver a few more “We can’t wait” campaign slogans for 2012.

For astute politicians, Barack Obama promoting less government in a venue that would exclude Congress should send up a red flag. Vowing that he would “only use” the authority in a certain way shouldn’t fool anyone. It seems as if Obama’s real plan may be to expand presidential power by tickling the ears of hopelessly naïve Republicans while simultaneously fashioning a platform of accusation upon which to condemn Congress.  Hedging his bets, President Obama is probably convinced that either way – he’ll win.

 

‘Fast and Furious’: What if Eric Holder is Telling the Truth?

Originally posted at BIG Government

In light of the “Fast and Furious” fiasco, the Obama administration is embarrassing itself whenever it tries to convince the public that on issues like healthcare and immigration reform, the government is well equipped to ensure the safety of the American people.

Presently, a scandal surrounding the White House alleges that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) purposely allowed Mexican drug cartel gang members to gain possession of illegal weaponry on the US side of the border. Despite his denials, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice are suspected of knowing about the effort whose intent was to track gunrunning kingpins by way of a “tactic known as ‘letting guns walk.’”

Gun walking involved the feds standing by and doing nothing while weapons such as “an antiaircraftmachine gun, a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher” were loaded into trunks by suspected Mexican straw purchasers.  The illegal acquisition of the weapons was overlooked, with the intent to use the guns as a pseudo-GPS system to track down and overtake dangerous Mexican drug cartels.

The problem is, those same guns eventually turned up at murder scenes alongside the bodies of two dead Border Patrol agents, Jamie Zapata and Brian Terry, not to mention the innumerable Mexicans killed in drug wars with guns smuggled in from Arizona.

In a letter to members of Congress, Eric Holder defended his lack of familiarity with the controversial undertaking, maintaining that he had “no recollection of knowing about the operation, called ‘Fast and Furious,’ or of hearing its name prior to the public controversy about it.”

Some members of Congress believe Eric Holder had prior knowledge of the gun-walking operation.  If the Attorney General continues to maintain he was unaware of the debacle, it must be because he believes that plausible deniability protects and benefits the political future of both himself and the President of the United States.

But Mr. Holder is misguided, because while it would be horrifying to find out he possessed foreknowledge of the failed operation, what would be even worse for big government progressives would be to find out that the Attorney General is actually telling the truth.

Holder not knowing about “Fast and Furious” proves that an Obama appointee’s poor administrative oversight cost the lives of two Americans who died in service to their country, which underscores the potential for massive bureaucratic failures now and in the future.

Both Obama’s and Holder’s attempts to deny complicity serve to verify that every endeavor this administration undertakes threatens more and more innocent people, either through outright incompetency or shameless disregard for human life.

Eric Holder’s actions and denials may be an attempt at feigning innocence, but such efforts undermine Obama’s unrelenting attempts to convince and reassure the nation to entrust government bureaucrats with even larger life-and-death decisions.

Think about it: How can an administration vow to be competent enough to handle the administrative oversight of health care reform for a population of 300 million people if it can’t monitor a small number of guns?

Whether the Attorney General gave his approbation or he didn’t, to track criminals by employing the harebrained idea that murderers could be traced when dead bodies float up in the Rio Grande ultimately affects the credibility of Obama’s future big government plans for America.

The felonious lunacy of “Fast and Furious” exposes the Obama administration’s pervasive impotence on every level. Regardless of how President Obama tries to give surety to the American public, it’s obvious that a group unable to tie their own shoes is in no position to run a health care program slated to cost trillions and affect hundreds of millions Americans over the next 10 years.

Add to the President’s refusal to address dangerous open borders; his favoritism toward illegal aliens living unlawfully in America; and the pursuit of repeated lawsuits against states trying to defend themselves against hostile invasion, and the situation gets still more precarious.

Holder and Obama testifying to being clueless about a poorly thought-out, relatively small-scale yet incredibly dangerous operation indicates that any Obama endeavor larger than “Fast and Furious” could eventually end up exponentially costing more lives.  So how can this administration vouch for immigration reform involving 13 million illegal aliens when they were unable to maintain control over 2,000 illegal guns?

Thus, as Darrell Issa (R-CA) presses Eric Holder to explain the tragedy of how two American border agents ended up in body bags, he may not realize he is doing the nation an even greater service. By getting to the bottom of the “Fast and Furious” controversy, Congressman Issa is reaffirming for a country under siege by an administration whose actions mimic those of armed enemies, that everything the Obama administration touches turns to disaster and one way or another ultimately ends up threatening our lives.

Judging by the numbers alone, “Fast and Furious” proves that an administration who failed to control a program that involved a couple of thousand guns should not be trusted with the healthcare oversight for 300 million Americans.  Nor should Obama continue to be allowed to falsely assure the American public that 13 million illegal aliens pose little or no danger to our nation or its people.  Lest we forget, gun walking was supposed to prevent crime, not cause it.

If the good intentions surrounding the giving of guns to criminals failed so miserably, it stands to reason that extending government largesse in the form of health care and immigration reform also carries with it the explosive potential to result in the “Fast and Furious” destruction of the entire nation.

Barack’s ‘Laugh Factory’ Revue

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Democrats have to believe Americans are either stupid or stricken by a nationwide epidemic of Attention Deficit Disorder. If anyone takes the time to try to figure out the contradictory things the left says and does, it’s so convoluted, nonsensical and ridiculous that, if it weren’t so detrimental, one might think it was material for standup comedy at the Laugh Factory.

Recently, when Nancy Pelosi made a solo trip to the White House to discuss concerns over spending cuts to entitlement programs, while she was there, the woman who unwillingly gave up the gavel very likely broached the subject of unemployment and job creation as well.

In the past, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi shared the opinion that unemployment benefits create “jobs faster than practically any other program.” According to Nancy, abysmal job numbers coupled with doling out additional unemployment benefits should have the job market booming.

Ms. Nancy, whose personal income grew by 62% during the recession, is convinced that $330 a week puts disposable cash into the pockets of non-working Americans to spend on shopping sprees.  Praising what she considers a “double benefit,” Pelosi, who regularly sports $80K Tahitian pearls, maintains that job-creating unemployment insurance “injects demand into the economy” by providing the money that keeps the market churning.

Barack Obama’s job stimulus plan varies somewhat from Pelosi’s, but still contains distinct similarities to those proposed by the former Speaker of the House.  Obama is convinced that raising taxes is a job creator and blames Republicans for being unwilling to burden the taxpayer to create jobs. The President’s job plan doesn’t conflict with Pelosi’s unemployment benefit job incentives, because people who run to the mailbox to collect that government-issued three hundred a week still pay taxes to the government on the money so generously given to them by the government.

So, in a roundabout way, both Obama and Pelosi agree that the higher the unemployment the more job creation, because taxes can be obtained from the unemployed – which, according to some liberals, could get people back to work.  It’s a win-win; with unemployment at 9.2%, Pelosi/Obama may be onto something. Thus, despite the bleak job forecast, Americans should be encouraged because as lay offs grow, new jobs can be created in the process.

Seem illogical?  Americans may need to be reminded that this is the political party whose rationale includes telling the nation that sacrifice is needed to get through a difficult economy while insisting that the way to subsist in trying times is to raise the debt ceiling, spend more money, and assume more debt.

Thankfully for Americans clamoring for work, even without Nancy Pelosi’s insightful input the President still exhibits innovative expertise in the area of job creation. Besides raising taxes, as a way to get people working again apparently Obama believes career opportunities can be created by sharing Second Amendment rights with Mexican drug cartels.

Either that, or Barack has been too busy chasing around golf balls and campaigning for 2012 to notice what Attorney General Eric Holder and the ATF have been up to on the border. Then again, it could be neither of those and Obama simply concurs with the idea that jobs can be created and Mexican/American relations enhanced by curtailing the Constitutional right of Americans to bear arms.

By proposing “new reporting requirements on thousands of gun dealers near the Mexico border,” the President may simply be stimulating bureaucratic job opportunities.  Moreover, while Obama concentrates on punishing law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement positions are also being created for personnel willing to apprehend carloads full of illegals at Phoenix, Arizona traffic lights whose vehicles are stocked with assault weapons.

With the law enforcement profession in mind, the text of the Stimulus Bill indicated that, with the knowledge of the federal government, taxpayer monies financed the ATF gun-walking policy. That’s right – either the President failed to read the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or someone in his administration convinced him that arming Mexican drug cartels who subsequently shot Americans with ATF Project Gunrunner weapons would get people back to work.  Or maybe both.

For an additional amount for ‘‘State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance,’’ $40,000,000, for competitive grants to provide assistance and equipment to local law enforcement along the Southern border and in High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal narcotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of which $10,000,000 shall be transferred to ‘‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Salaries and Expenses’’ for the ATF Project Gunrunner.

Leaving aside the good intentions of those in authority, who would argue that funding ATF Project Gunrunner doesn’t illustrate ingenious Democrat job creation at its finest?

On many fronts, the President’s rationale may seem illogical and, were it not so deadly and destructive, even laughable.  Yet, to unemployment-benefit-job-creator Pelosi, the explanation for what appears absurd to sane people probably makes perfect sense to the likes of Nancy. But then again, it could just be another example of the President’s high level of intelligence making it difficult for mere mortals to comprehend the genius behind creating jobs by raising taxes and arming drug cartels.

Therefore, despite the lack of a laugh track, when not out “churning the economy” with unemployment benefits or ducking bullets fired by automatic weapons the ATF allowed murderous Mexican illegals to acquire, it would probably be best for Americans to give up questioning the irrational and prepare for Laugh Factory antics to continue for a least another year.

Good Enough for Government Work?

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

The US government has an increasingly notorious reputation for hiring employees whose backgrounds and histories negatively impact the wellbeing of the American people. The feds desire control and authoritative leadership and yet, from Barack Obama to the uniformed, rubber-gloved employee patting down Grandma in the airport, the government’s only skill is successfully finding and hiring staff that would be better left on the unemployment line.

Take for instance when the US Census Bureau cobbled together a workforce to knock on doors during the “It’s in Our Hands” 2010 census.  That was when convicted sex offender Frank Kuni was ‘handily’ hired to gather demographic information, persuading innocent home dwellers to open the door because he was sporting a government-issued blue writing badge on his uniform. That was scary, but when compared to Indiana US census worker Daniel Miller, who was charged with burglary and rape while proudly representing the US government in the home of a handicapped woman and her elderly mother, Kuni was well behaved.

As evidenced time and again, the government seems willing to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things like Constitutional credentialing for those seeking the presidency and excusing civic-minded Black Panthers voluntarily participating in Election Day activities by exercising the right to voter intimidation.

A short time ago, an air safety worker controversy arose. It seems that in American airports, from the terminal to the tower passengers are subjected to hazardous situations, thanks to bureaucrats insisting that the flying public place life and limb under the oversight of a system crowded with individuals better qualified to be mopping jail floors.

No one is exempt, including the First Lady.  Due to federally-employed air traffic controller ineptitude, Mrs. Obama came dangerously close to having a midair collision with a 200-ton military cargo plane.

Even worse, in an effort to root out potential terrorists, prior to allowing the boarding of planes the federal Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) agency has already hired 65,000 screeners whose job is to pat down airline passengers in search of explosive devices.

In the government’s never-ending quest to exhibit nondiscrimination, same-gender security personnel screen small children, paraplegics, and elderly women, one of whom described the humiliating experience in the following way: “If a person touched me like that without my permission, it would be considered criminal sexual assault.”

An ABC News producer said, “The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around. It was basically worse than going to the gynecologist.”

Small children are warned against allowing strangers to touch their private parts; however, a new prerequisite for going to Disneyland, besides doing your homework and cleaning your room, is to allow federally designated government gropers wearing badges and rubber gloves to violate what should be an inflexible “no touching” rule.

Prior to being violated by strangers, terrified children are reassured not to be afraid because the person doing the pat down is of the same sex.  Little girls go on the female groper line and little boys are subjected to extensive man/boy pat downs, a job benefit worthy of posting on the NAMBLA website.

Sex offender census workers, sleepy air traffic controllers, and over-enthusiastic airport security screeners may cause offense to grown ups, but pale in comparison to kindergarteners being felt up by individuals like Transportation Safety Administration Officer Thomas Gordon Jr. of Philadelphia, who apparently has a predilection for child pornography.

The TSA now alleges that the security officer, after putting in a hard day of routinely searching airline passengers, including young boys, “uploaded explicit pictures of young girls to an Internet site on which he also posted a photograph of himself in his TSA uniform” and “distributed more than 100 images of child pornography via Facebook.”

In response to accusations, Homeland Security agents, who largely concentrate on tracking right-wing extremists, prolife activists, and ex-military service personnel, took a break from the “Great Central U.S. Shake Out” earthquake preparation initiative to arrest the pedophile who, for the last six years, has been busily handling six year-olds.

“Citing privacy rules, TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis,” who is part of the government’s effort to deny anyone privacy, “would not say if Gordon has been suspended from his job, but noted that he had been in federal custody since his arrest.”

If Barack Obama’s “full confidence” in the agency that nearly made him a widower is any indication of what the future holds for sexual deviate Thomas Gordon, after “careful assessment of the facts and the law,” Eric Holder will probably drop the charges and Gordon will be back on the job just in time to frisk for summer vacation.

Once again, in the name of safety and security, the American people have been put in jeopardy by a supposedly well-intentioned federal bureaucracy who, all the way up to the White House, employs individuals who are not only unqualified, but many have criminal backgrounds or, in the case of the President, a concealed history at best.

With that in mind, one can’t help but wonder what the future holds for a nation whose lives are being placed at the mercy of a government that insists on keeping Americans out of harm’s way by placing even the smallest citizen in the position of being manhandled by sexual perverts.

If the past is any indication of what the future holds, inept bureaucrats will continue to improperly vet government employees.  Drug addicts will stock pharmacy shelves, hit-and-run drivers will work the licensing window at DMV offices, and illegal aliens will man the phones for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.).  Moreover, with government-run health care on the horizon, it’ll only be a matter of time before chronically ill patients start dying at the hands of Health and Human Services-hired serial killers saving money in health care costs while dressed in government-issued scrubs.

Another ‘Fast and Furious’ Obama Fiasco


Originally posted at American Thinker

The old saying goes, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Well, if that well-known idiom is true, shouldn’t the opposite also apply? If something doesn’t work, rather than reproducing the original, shouldn’t someone make adjustments, especially if failing to do so threatens America lives?

Take for example “Operation Fast and Furious,” where, in an effort to track and capture criminals south of the border, the United States Department of Justice allegedly allowed Mexican drug cartels, gunrunners, and gangs to obtain illegal weaponry. Consequently, ICE Special Agent Jamie Jorge Zapata and U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry, armed with only a government-sanctioned bean bag gun, were killed by Mexican gang members. These thugs used artillery smuggled over the border under the watchful eye of the ATF, who, somewhere along the line, lost track of the contraband.

Recently, when Mexican President Felipe Calderón came to visit with President Obama, it was reported that “the two […] came together on a policy to stop drug and weapon smuggling across the border.” Asked why he failed to inform his friend Felipe about a US operation that purposely allowed guns to make their way from Arizona into Mexico, Obama said that he “didn’t know about it.”

Under fire for an operation that allowed smuggling of U.S. weapons across the nation’s border with Mexico, President Obama said in an interview that neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder authorized the controversial “Operation Fast and Furious.”

Responding to the question about U.S.-authorized gun smuggling, Obama maintained plausible deniability on behalf of both himself and the Attorney General. However, Federal Senior Agent John Dodson, whose job was to stop drug trafficking, claimed he was told to allow the weapons to “walk” across the border. Dodson contends, “The gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.”

If proven valid, the logic behind such a harebrained idea would be similar to providing U.S. surface-to-air missiles to Iraqi militants so that when American helicopters were shot out of the sky, the radical associations could be traced back to Iran and Hezb’allah.

Dodson predicts that a rogue arsenal will be “claiming victims on both sides of the border for years to come,” which most would agree is a high price to pay for refusing to close the border or take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of America’s citizens.

According to CBS news correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, “Project Gunrunner,” presently known as “Operation Fast and Furious,” was established to prevent “American weapons from getting into the hands of Mexican gangs.” Unfortunately, the endeavor has had the opposite effect. Attkinsson’s account alleges:

ATF managers allegedly made a controversial decision: allow most of the weapons on the streets. The idea, they said, was to gather intelligence and see where the guns ended up […] One agent called the strategy “insane.” Another said: “We were fully aware the guns would probably be moved across the border to drug cartels where they could be used to kill.”

50-caliber weapons are fearsome. For months, ATF agents followed 50-caliber Barrett rifles and other guns believed headed for the Mexican border, but were ordered to let them go. One distraught agent was often overheard on ATF radios begging and pleading to be allowed to intercept transports. The answer: ‘Negative. Stand down.’

Months after Zapata’s and Terry’s deaths, it is being revealed that the government sting operation was so incredibly incompetent that at one point, two men at a border crossing were arrested when found with “AK-47 assault rifles, Ruger .45-caliber handguns and ‘cop-killer’ pistols made to fire armor-piercing bullets.”

Then, when U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents ran the “guns’ serial numbers through a nationwide database,” none were flagged as stolen or suspect. Can anyone say “HHS National Electronic Health Records Database“? Thus, two men and six illegal weapons were released, one of which turned up at a “murder scene in Puerto Palomas, Mexico” a month later.

Yet despite the mess, some at the top must still believe the border “war” strategy of arming potential enemy combatants was a smashing success. Why else would the United States now be contemplating arming anti-Gaddafi rebels in Libya? The current goal is to find a legal way to “allow limited supplies of arms to the rebels.” This time, the justification for the gun-gift policy is not to identify criminals, but to help the vulnerable “defend themselves from attack.”

One minor detail: it is believed that al-Qaeda is fighting alongside the rebels and is already suspected of snatching missiles from an arsenal in Libya. Is this “common sense be damned” or the government’s attempt to follow the vapor trail of successfully launched missiles back to Osama bin Laden?

This is why bureaucratic debacles are pervasive. Government simply refuses to fix blunders, habitually perpetrates proven catastrophes, and not only preserves the dysfunctional, but also takes pride in itself for making it worse. Americans died after someone in Obama’s chain of command thought it was a great idea to arm Mexican criminals. The response to failed policy in Mexico is not to eighty-six the idea completely, but to replicate the plan in a civil war where no one is 100% sure who is friend and who is foe.

If, after the fact, American soldiers die because of arming Hezb’allah, al-Qaeda warriors, and “freelance Jihadists” disguised as Libyan rebels, what is Obama going to do — call upon the trusty “Who authorized illegal guns to Mexico?” excuse, which was that he “didn’t know about it”?

Dead Americans and piles of bodies in a Mexican war prove once again that Obama’s policies are not the answer to anyone’s ills, let alone a means to end a war. Moreover, incompetence is revealing itself as a major source of murder and mayhem both here and abroad. What reasoned, rational person would even propose that a policy that failed so miserably in Mexico be duplicated in Libya — especially on behalf of individuals who, once armed, will make bloodthirsty neighborhood drug cartels seem more like Mr. Fred McFeely Rogers?

When he admitted that he knew nothing about American guns being supplied to Mexican criminals, Barack Obama placed blame on a “big government […] with a lot of moving parts” for border patrol agents being killed with weapons the ATF knew were smuggled across the border. Regrettably, what makes things more treacherous is having a president at the controls who, rather than abandoning a failed policy, chooses to compound an already bad set of circumstances by propagating in Libya the same deadly policy proven to be a fiasco in Mexico.

 

America’s Anti-Animus President

The past few months have been quite a season of hope and change for America’s gay community. Barack Obama has a new openly gay social secretary, Jeremy Bernard, marriage is no longer narrowly defined as being between a man and a woman, and in the Middle East, when not dodging mortar fire the troops on the battlefield will now be mandated to participate in gay sensitivity training sessions.

Couple that with Sundance Film Festival indie lesbian family/sperm donor-Dad favorite “The Kids are Alright” being nominated for four academy awards, and not since “Brokeback Mountain” has Queer Nation risen to such heights in America.

The President of the United States, who first opposed gay marriage, then prayerfully “grappled” with the concept, finally agreed with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science’s choice of a potential Oscar winner and reversed his puritanical view on same-sex nuptials.

Barack Obama, on an extended sabbatical from teaching constitutional law, sided with Massachusetts Federal District Judge Joseph Tauro that DOMA, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional and discriminatory.

In an effort to undermine the God-ordained one-man/one-woman institution and further deconstruct the fabric of American society, Obama felt inclined to cross the great divide and side with Carson Kressley. In doing so, Barack personally laid the axe to the root of traditional marriage and time-honored convention.

Speaking on behalf of the President, Attorney General Eric Holder said that between 2008 and 2011 America’s nouveau-centrist President has “concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.”  According to Holder, President Obama had an epiphany and realized:

[T]he congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act ‘contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution’s) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.

In the run-up to the 2012 election the decision to redefine marriage appears to be Barack’s attempt at buttressing the liberal base, a move some conservative pundits believe is an “inexplicable political error.” Yet, Barack has survived many such miscalculations. Does anyone remember the decision to have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tried in a U.S. civilian court?

Thus, to reinforce a recent shift to the center, Barack Obama yielded to the romantic notions of 2% of the population, disregarded the consensus of the 98% who supply the societal glue that holds the nation together and, in the form of a policy change sent a belated wedding card to Mrs. and Mrs. Ellen and Portia DeGeneres.

A President who put his hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution now feels he has the authority to decide what is and what is not constitutional. This is a problem because now, any American who clings to the outmoded idea that marriage has distinct gender roles, or who disapproves of the gay/lesbian lifestyle based on moral or religious convictions is “guilty” of what the President calls “stereotype-based thinking and animus.”

Weakening the sanctity of marriage obviously wasn’t enough iconoclasm for Barack the Centrist. About the same time that Obama gave new Dads Anderson Cooper and Ben Maisani the go-ahead to tie the knot, he also issued an edict that Pentagon officials waste no time in launching an “extensive force-wide program to ease the process of integrating open homosexuals into the ranks, including into close-knit fighting units.”

In other words American combat forces in Afghanistan, in between fending off Taliban attackers “armed with AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and explosives vests,” must now spend time in a war zone learning how to agreeably share a foxhole with Nathan Lane.

Army Command Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill, the top enlisted man in Afghanistan and an outspoken proponent of ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military, said that “the sessions on respecting gays’ rights will go right down to the forward operating bases, where troops fight Taliban militants.”  According to the Sgt. Major, the plan is to “execute that training right …on the battlefield.” No unit will be exempted.

Even though 37 US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in less than two months and despite his enthusiasm about bisexual recruits Sgt. Hill seems unsure whether touchy-feely get-along-with-a-gay sessions will distract combat forces, which would put the lives of fighting men and women in danger. Referring to gay sensitivity sessions in a war zone, Hill said “We hope that it will have little impact on … combat and security operations.”

While “hope” continues to “spring eternal,” Elaine Donnelly, head of the Center for Military Readiness, said “it is ridiculous to train combat Army soldiers and Marines as they engage in daily combat with tenacious insurgents.”

Likely to be accused of animus-filled insubordination and lack of proper prioritization techniques, Ms. Donnelly said: “It’s absurd because the military has more important things to think about in that dangerous part of the world. For the administration to say this is more important …shows flawed priorities at best. It is ridiculous.”

Word to the wise, Ms. Donnelly – Sgt. Hill has issued a severe warning: “If there are people who cannot deal with the change, then they’re going to have to do what’s best for their troops and best for the organization and best for the military service and exit the military service, so that we can move forward – if that’s the way that we have to go.”

So there you have it.  Barack Obama’s idea of “Hope and change” rears its head again. On the military front, personnel on the battlefield hope that searching for IEDS with RuPaul has “little impact on their combat and security operations.” And change means that in the heat of battle, exhibiting sensitivity to gay soldiers takes precedence over staying alive, and determines whether a soldier will be forced to leave the military or not.

On the domestic front, Barry delivered hope to gay America by changing his mind on both traditional marriage and the sexual orientation of his social secretary. In Barack’s mind, he has brought true hope and lasting change by identifying the constitutional error in the “prejudicial, spiteful” and “malevolently ill-willed” thinking that traditionalists exhibit by rejecting same sex marriage.

Barack Obama’s revitalized pro-gay agenda, be it on the bloody battlefield of Afghanistan or in wedding chapels across the nation, introduces a new level of concern about a nation who puts gay politics before the security of combat troops and the time-honored institution of traditional marriage.  While gay America mistakenly believes “The Kids are Alright,” the remainder of the nation wonders whether the country will ever recover from the damage done by a misguided President’s progressive vision for America.

Umar Farouk’s Terrorist Triumph – American Thinker January 2, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker446186-bombing-suspect-umar-farouk-abdulmutallab

“Big Sis”Janet Napolitano reassured nervous Americans not to worry–Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to blow up a Northwest Flight 253 did not indicate a larger terrorist plot.  In an effort to respectfully restrain from jumping to conclusions, the Homeland Security Secretary refused to acquiesce to whether Abdulmutallab had a connection to al-Qaida.

Less than twenty-four hours later, Napolitano reconsidered the statement, admitting maybe Abdulmutallab “should not have been allowed on the airplane.”  Napolitano said, “What I would say is our system did not work in this instance [emphasis mine] – no one is happy or satisfied with that.”  Yes Janet, especially the 250+ people that were nearly blown to smithereens, while approaching a Motor City landing strip.

Maybe Napolitano can expound upon how a radical Islamic student, listed on a US law enforcement database was granted a visa to come to the United States from Yemen, a nation saturated with al-Qaida terrorists?  Abdulmutallab studied from 2005 to June 2008 at the University College of London and majored in an al-Qaida recruit subject that seems to be all the rage with terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammad: mechanical engineering. The only thing more absurd than what happened on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 would be if mechanical engineer Abdulmutallab was hired to work at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Napolitano stating, “…our system did not work in this instance” implies Umar Farouk’s ability to evade airport security with explosives securely tucked in his private area was an exception compared to larger security successes.  However, judging from reports, Abdulmutallab appears to be the only one trying and succeeding to smuggle and detonate high explosives on Christmas Day.   Someone should inform the esteemed Secretary that the Homeland Security system failure rate was 100%, because “this [one] instance” was the only instance.

Though thwarted in the larger mission, Abdulmutallab proved that American homeland security makes it easy to accomplish the mission at hand and for international terrorists to retain hope and stay committed to the cause.  Similar encouragement was extended to the jihad community after Abdulmutallab admitted ties to and training from al-Qaida, but Napolitano, extending deference and benefit of the doubt, refused to acknowledge the likely connection.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement on the incident also mollified terrorist concerns when Holder cautiously said, “This alleged attack on the US Airplane on Christmas Day shows that we must remain vigilant in the fight against terrorism at all times.” Emphasis on ‘alleged’ in avoidance of offending Muslim brethren and underscore “remain vigilant”as if watchfulness was in operation when Abdulmutallab boarded the flight to Detroit.  Does Homeland Security believe Americans find consolation in Holder’s pledge to persist in the same type of cautionary measures that perhaps gave Umar carte blanche access to a flight into Detroit without a passport?

Napolitano admitted that, “[h]aving a chemical detonator is also a new wrinkle…that isn’t something that a lone wolf is likely to come up with.”  If it’s ‘new wrinkles’ Napolitano is concerned about the Secretary should consider Abdulmutallab spending twenty minutes in the bathroom and review the methods of, “ass-assin, Abdullah Asieri” who, “stashed a pound of explosives and a detonator inside his body in the attack on Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, head of counterterrorism for the [Saudi] kingdom.”  In that case, the suicide bomber outmaneuvered bomb-detection in the Saudi palace and set off an explosion using a charge hidden in his rectum.

Groin terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was placed on the terrorist watch list in May after Abdulmutallab’s father, a prominent Nigerian banker, alarmed over his son’s extremism felt compelled to report his own flesh and blood to American authorities.  Abdulmutallab’s father was so disturbed over the radical nature of his son’s religious views that the elder registered concern with the US Embassy in Nigeria.   A situation so dire a parent reports his own child did not meet the criteria for “clear and present danger” ?

Could it be that Homeland Security has more pressing issues to attend to? When young Umar was in Yemen learning PETN detonation techniques, Big Sis was otherwise engaged in alerting the public to extremism, radicalization and environmental threats in the form of pro-life activists, returning veterans and conservatives.  Napolitano and company dismissed threats like Abdulmutallab’s radical and religious associations, neither of which were considered a red flag of concern, because HLS was aggressively keeping watch over true menaces like Christian groups and “disgruntled”  military personal.

According to Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE database precedence, only 14,000 people out of 550,000 cataloged terrorists, present enough evidence to require additional screening at airports.  Even more chilling, only 4,000 are registered on the no-fly list.  Which leaves, 536,000 individuals who are enough of a concern to be put in a terrorist database roster, but do not require additional screening when boarding a plane?  Moreover, 546,000 can fly anywhere, at any time without restriction?  Abdulmutallab is only one of those 546,000.  Demonstrating that the only reason 278 passengers and crew members weren’t slaughtered on Christmas day was because, like Homeland Security, Abdulmutallab’s device failed to detonate properly and brave Americans were there to tackle a fiend.

Follow the bouncing ball, according to Janet Napolitano, our system worked and then it didn’t work.  The Homeland Security Secretary doesn’t think Abdulmutallab, “…is part of a larger plot to blow up more airplanes,” but feels it would have been difficult for an individual to obtain high explosives like PETN without outside assistance.  The real question is whether the homeland was ever, or could ever be safe with Janet at the rudder?

In his statement, Attorney General Eric Holder went on to expound on the incident saying, “Had this alleged plot to destroy an airplane been successful, scores of innocent people would have been killed or injured.”  Such insight is astounding.  Yes, out of 278 passengers and crew, 277 innocent passengers would have surely been killed as well as one successful martyr for jihad.

As our nation stands on the precipice of a government takeover of health care the Northwest Flight 253 incident should confirm for Americans (whether in the air or on terra firma) that Washington, DC cannot be trusted with our safety, health or security, on any level.  Even the left-leaning New York Times admitted that, “[d]espite the billions spend since 2001 on intelligence and counterterrorism…it was something simpler that averted disaster on a Christmas Day flight to Detroit: alert and courageous passengers and crew members.” Once again, ordinary Americans put bureaucracy to shame saving themselves from the dangers government failure poses to all our lives.

Race Relation Re Deux

race-picture

Our country rightly honors great civil rights leader the Reverend Martin Luther King with a national holiday. We have also dedicated an entire month in our calendar year to commemorate and advance Black history. On November 4th of 2008 our nation, which is sixty-six percent Caucasian, elected a bi-racial President.

Disregarding the progress our nation has made in a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History month, the most inspirational and inspiring thing our first black Attorney General had to say to his audience was that, “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. It’s puzzling to me why the hope and change administration continues to attempt to stir up racial resentment in the citizenry of this country, while ignoring their own personal and career advantages. Holder’s drum beat is the same old race baiting banter that this election has proven, by its results, to be both tired and fallacious. It is true that there are “unresolved racial matters that need to be addressed”, but not the same ones our Attorney General is underscoring for political purposes and in order to secure a future voting bloc.

What politicians like Eric Holder fail to recognize is the mixed messages he sends out when he supports the policies of an administration that believes that one form of life has value and another doesn’t. To try to convince people that we’re lacking bravery in the area of race, just doesn’t hold up when your approbation is upon the destruction of the very people you are trying to gain respect for.

Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the whole left wing of their radical party can’t promote a certain philosophy for one group and then expect it to be dismissed for another. Once the value of life is diminished on any level, you give authorization to the American public, regardless of their race, to dismiss all human beings based on personal opinion, feeling and convenience at any given time, for any reason.

The same party that doesn’t want morals to be legislated by religious groups is the same one that supports abortion rights with such a religious fervor that it surpasses even a national, year-round revival meeting. Their battle hymn is, Keep your laws off my body. Liberals want God out of the public sector because they don’t want religion legislating what they feel is misplaced morality. Yet, they think racial harmony can be legislated through this same godless government by laws and edicts, which they utilize to advance a form of race relations that they hope, will benefit them on Election Day.

Liberals attempt to intimidate a nation through shame, self-reproach and racially based law to acknowledge the value and the fundamental worth of people who are different than we are in culture or color. This is based on what can only be defined as twisted sense of ethical relativism, which appears to be an obvious attempt to dispel distinct unseen remorse. In turn, liberals now become the arbitrators of a form of morality they themselves decry. They do this while at the same time encouraging the full scale slaughter of the unborn, which goes against the intrinsic human soul. Someone needs to tell them that love and respect for our brothers and sisters is not something that can be coerced on us by self-righteous politicians but comes naturally from within a pure heart regardless of what Eric Holder says.

Barack Obama’s party works hard to undermine the human worth of the unborn in the minds of the public in order to justify extreme policies. His stance diminishes the value of the life of the unborn, demeaning it to the status of a throwaway “Privacy right.” Liberals vehemently argue that individuals deserve the legal “right” to make a decision about whose life has value and whose does not. Yet, they remain blind to the possibility that they may be the ones contributing to racism by conveying a confusing, double bind message to the American public giving them undercover permission to consider a life as less than worth respecting.

Maybe Eric Holder, on behalf of his own people, should quit being a coward himself and stop advocating his own sense of morality through the advancement of racial resentment and address the following:

Blacks do, indeed, have much higher rates of abortions than whites or other minority groups. In 2000, while blacks made up 17 percent of live births, they made up more than twice that share of abortions (36 %). If those aborted children had been born, the number of blacks born would have been slightly over 50 percent greater than it was.

The comparison with whites and other minorities is striking. Whites made up 78 percent of live births, but only 57 percent of abortions. Non-black minorities had 7 percent of live births and 5 percent of abortions. If the aborted children had been born for either group, the percentage increase in the number of children born to these groups would have been less than that for blacks: 16 and 32 percent, respectively.

Data from 1973 indicate that black a woman’s share of abortions has consistently been at least twice their share of live births .

I don’t appreciate being lectured to by a representative who heads a department that is supposed to foster “justice” but supports FOCA, the most brutal form of abortion policy and the most liberal of guiding principles for a women’s right to choose. As far as I’m concerned, Holder’s support of FOCA takes away his credibility to criticize me about his conjecture that I’m not brave enough when it comes to the issue of race. If the Attorney General wants to lead the American people in the area of race relations he should start by meting out justice against a procedure that is reeking carnage upon his own people, which would exhibit on his part the bravery he thinks we lack.

Race-baiting language is a false form of secular religiosity and Holder‘s homily is misdirected and should be addressed toward the supporters of liberal abortion issues not on the citizens of this nation that respect human life, regardless of race, creed or color. We just came to the end of an administration overseen by a President who supported the “right-to-life” for the unborn and who quietly gave 4 billion dollars in aid to Africa. Bush’s generosity toward the African continent and its people goes unnoticed and unappreciated by liberals who are self-righteously focused on trying to convince us that we “… have a special responsibility to advance racial understanding.” Without fanfare and without the need for accolades or humanitarian awards Bush increased direct development and charitable aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations — Sudan, Ethiopia,  Egypt and Uganda — rank among the world’s top 10 recipients in aid from the United States.”

When the newly appointed champion of justice Attorney General Eric Holder conveys his concern that, “Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion … average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race,” maybe he should be encouraged by us to discuss the fact that for every 1,000 black babies born, there are 472 unborn black babies aborted. How about initiating a discussion like that Mr. Holder?

Attorney General Holder is the one that needs to be reminded by all thoughtful, caring human beings that as part of an administration that is dead set on “…changing the world from what it is to what they believe it should be, that millions of American’s judge the biggest act of cowardice in the area of race is being perpetrated upon the African American unborn. Maybe he should attempt to address the vicious policies enthusiastically and passionately supported by himself, his party and the first African American President and instead of continuing to point fingers maybe he should take the time to look in the mirror.

Copyright 2009 Jeannieology. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

%d bloggers like this: