Robert A. Teegarden's Blog

November 14, 2012

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? – Saturday Musings

Filed under: American,Civics,Elections,Government,Obama — by Robert @ 8:32 am
Tags: , , , ,

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? – Saturday Musings

A house divided cannot stand.  I was reminded of this piece of scripture during the recent election cycle.  All the signs suggest that we are no longer the “united” states of America.  We are the divided states of America.  It reminds me of the folklore about the indian father teaching his son about choice.  He teaches his son that every person has a battle going on inside, one to do the good, one to do evil.  One is hard because it requires one to be brave and often stand alone.  The other is easy because it simply means following the crowd.  But one leads to freedom and the other to slavery.  He explains that one is like the deer and the other is like the wolf.  The young brave asks his father, “Which one wins?”  The father responds, “The one that you feed.”

For me there are three pillars to America: The Constitution, “E Pluribus Unum,” and “In God We Trust.”  These are like the three legs on a milking stool.  When all three are present you cannot fall.  But if one of the legs is missing, you can balance things for a while, but once you tire you fall.  Likewise, with two legs missing, it’s only a matter of time before you collapse to the ground.

The Constitution clearly delineates the three branches of our government (administrative, legislative, and judiciary) and their respective roles and limits.  Those limits have been usurped or ignored. We have an executive making law and enforcing little, a judiciary seeking to rewrite history, and a legislature that fails to represent the people and exercise appropriate authority (such as impeachment).

We have allowed splinter and subversive organizations to dictate to the American people just what “God” means and where and when His name may or may not be proclaimed.  It’s time to buy back that sacred honor and it may require the spilt blood of tyrants and heroes.

Finally, “E Pluribus Unum,” a lowly and simple phrase embossed on the back of every red cent in America, stands for a marvelous worldview: from the many is made one.  In the recent electioneering cycle we all saw both sides to e pluribus unum.  One side said to vote for the “one”—vote for America.  That’s what we all have in common.  Americans don’t have or need hyphenated names.  Honor your roots and heritage, of course, but you are an American now.  That’s what we have in common.  That’s the good we seek.  The other side said “vote for the pluribus”—for the many—vote for the you.  Groups were identified and splintered: Jews and Catholics, men and women, religious and not, southern and northern, old and young, rich and poor, black and white and all shades in between.

One side pushed to help us see the magnificent contribution that each of us makes to the good of the whole.  One side distributed gifts to mark distinctions, separate people and ultimately make slaves—at least of their decisions, if not in fact.

Sandy Aftermath – I wrote earlier about the abominable and absurd actions by union officials in New Jersey turning away volunteered help to assist them in cleanup operations in their state.  Why?  Because they were non-union.  As I noted then, that’s like watching your house burn down and refusing to use your neighbor’s hose because it wasn’t union made.  Like so much of our government, union works have outlived their usefulness and are now toxic to life in America.

Then there’s the case of the volunteers from Tennessee who came to the shores of New Jersey to offer solace, care, food and shelter where they could.  They were turned away.  They were told that there was no place for them to set up. One of those backhoes could have cleared a spot in ten minutes—and people would have been fed.  Was it that these good Samaritans were from a religious organization?   That’s a union with which they’ll eventually have to contend.

Now New York is going to ask the military to help with electrical restoration.  But they’re not union as well.

Louisiana citizens appeal to Secede – That’s right.  The day after the election some citizens from Louisiana got together and started a petition drive to secede from the union—they want to form a government in keeping with the Constitution, obviously not the one they now experience.  They’re not alone.  Texas has tried that—twice… but for different reasons and in different times.  I think we experienced a civil war over this issue once before.  Maybe the south has right reason on their side this time.

In its narcissistic largesse, the Whitehouse (aka: Barry Soetero) added a website to “address” just such movements.  And the Whitehouse defines the rules: there’s a deadline date and there’s a minimum number of signatures necessary.  The clincher is that a signature is not valid without an e-mail address.  And you know what that means with this administration.

Imagine that!  A website where you can address your government on issues of concern.  Wow!

  • What about press conferences that spew out lies, don’t allow non-payola pundits and reporters, or simply don’t allow questions at all?
  • What about all the stone-walling over Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the real reasons why Petraeus was fired, the secret deals with the UN and Iran?

But we have a website now.  Wow!

General Petraeus is fired – You could see this coming a block away, and especially AFTER the election.He’s fired supposedly because of an illicit affair. Imagine that.  General Eisenhower had an affair and he went on to become President of the United States.  J. Edgar Hoover (of FBI fame) practiced a cross-dressing predatory homosexual lifestyle and used his office to mask his secret life, former President Clinton had a calendar of affairs in the White House even as he cried to the American people, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”  He continued in office.  And now we have the Petraeus affair.

Is Obama getting rid of Petraeus the way he got rid of Stevens?  Only this firing cannot be masked by a video or spontaneous demonstration.

Eric Holder fails to disclose his Wife’s abortion clinic – “Fails to disclose” is political double-talk for “he lied.” If this is true, I cannot wait to see what the IRS does about it.  But Eric Holder is the Attorney General.  And his family deals in death.  His wife doesn’t just work there, she’s part owner.  The wife of the attorney general is part-owner in a death factory.  They are dealers in death.  Fast and Furious, then, must not have been a far reach for this Attorney General.  Five will get you ten that there will be more fall out from the IRS than justice.

Advertisements

October 31, 2012

Who would want the Ambassador dead?

 

“I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” – Winston Churchill 

Benghazi is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.  But there are facts and there is a key.

Four very brave Americans died in Libya.

The enigma includes the painted confusion of various media reports, accusations and denials of who said what, when, where, and how.  High-ranking government officials were watching a live-feed real-time transmission of the events that killed these fine citizens—for up to nine hours! Help was just down the road.  There were enough troops and fire-power to takeout the entire city.  An armed drone might even have been air-born at the time.  But they never got the go-ahead to help.  They were told to “Stand Down.”  That literally means, “Sit down and shut up.”  (The last time I remember such an order to CIA operatives was in Dallas Texas in November of 1963.) A navy vice admiral and Army General were relieved of duty for attempting to help the besieged embassy staff.  Cries for help went out months before, days before and during the heat of battle—at least three times.  Help was watching but help didn’t come. Why?  It’s almost as if it was planned that way.

The shroud of mystery grows with every passing moment because we are all awash in the political double-speak, spin, deceit and lies; not once or twice, but for weeks.  There was even an apology by President Hussein Obama to Libya.  For what?  Even Secretary Clinton promises to the parents of one slain hero, “We’ll get that guy who made that video.”  But what drives the mystery deeper is now the silence.  A new “iron curtain” of silence exists between American citizens and Barrack Obama (and by extension, his entire administration).  Film-film, who has the film?  Forget the film. Whistle-blowers are being penalized and punished for telling the truth and living up to their oath to defend the Constitution from all assaults, foreign and now domestic.  But Americans have died and no one helped.  Maybe the real terrorist wasn’t foreign at all.  Maybe he was domestic.  Why did they ignore the warnings and the pleas?  Why were soldiers told to stand down?  Why did they lie about it when everything seemed to go so wrong?  Why try to hide an attack inside a protest (that’s like trying to hide an elephant inside a mouse).  What’s the truth?  It was planned, but by whom.

The riddle, however, is simple, just like the truth. And there is a key.  We need to step outside the box the media and government has given us to argue and believe, hopefully to contain our minds and our souls, and ask a simple question.  It’s unfortunate, depressing and seemingly harsh, but we do have to ask a very earnest question that nobody’s asking, “ Is there someone who wanted Ambassador Stevens dead?”

Speculation abounds that the ambassador’s death was in retribution for Obama’s previous bombing attack in which Libyan nationals and others were killed from a distance.  This illegal and unauthorized war may have precipitated more hatred for America (and by inclusion, hatred of Barrack Hussein Obama), but I don’t believe it was the reason for the firefight at the Embassy.  You see, the embassy attack was organized, planned and executed at a specific target.

The types of weapons used (mortars, grenade launchers, etc.) are not the typical scoot and shoot weapons that one sees in the movies.  One doesn’t just run in, prop up a mortar or grenade launcher like you would a shoulder-mounted bazooka of WWII vintage or its modern derivative, the RPG.  In order for mortar fire to be as accurate as the one at Benghazi, one has to determine range and distance equivalents in advance.  The evidence suggests that the shots fired at the embassy were dead-on in more ways than one.  This accuracy was neither happenstance nor accidental luck in the heat of battle.  The sites and geometry of these attacks had to be established, probably 24 hours earlier.  In other words, there was intelligence involved and planning.  We have the where, how and some of the who.  But why now?

Who else might want the ambassador dead?

It sure looks like this is another “Fast and Furious” deal that went bad.  And the Ambassador was duped, hung out to dry and was killed.  God Rest His Soul.

Why?  In a passion to prove one’s ego in the land of his people, Obama’s administration had the Ambassador broker a gun-running operation with supposed-Libyans in BO’s desire to take out Gadaffi.  After all, “he” took out Bin Laden in May.  Here’s a potential second feather in his cap.  Guns were supplied by the US (who else) and Gadaffi was killed (October).  But this “operation” wasn’t the spontaneous uprising of Libyan nationals wanting their country back to secure Democracy.  Just like Benghazi, this was a planned, intelligent attack by none other than Al Qaeda. Last time I looked, Al Qaeda is the very reason over 100,000 troops are fighting there.  But we decide to give them weapons.  Sound familiar?   Here’s where “Fast and Furious” became “Fear and Feckless.”

Instead of those same weapons staying in the hands of these “freedom loving Libyans,” they disappear—just like in Arizona.  They wind up on a ship going to Syria, but not directly.  This ship was heading for Turkey.  That way they could slip this armament to their friends for yet another “spontaneous demonstration” – this time from both ends of Israel.  But I think something went wrong in the process.

Maybe Ambassador Stevens found out about the Al Qaeda connection and wanted to put an end to this.  Maybe he found out that the weapons were on their way to Syria via Turkey.  Maybe that’s why he and the Turkish Ambassador were meeting in that hot spot and on such a perilous date.  Maybe Stevens wanted to short-circuit the delivery.  It was urgent that he speak to the representative of the people of Turkey. “Hell is coming and I’m afraid I sent them.”

It’s conceivable that the planned exchange was recorded.  Folks knew in advance where Stevens would be.  Folks knew to wait for Turkey’s emissary to leave (a hit with them together would make an obvious link for a few true news organizations).  It Stevens meets with the emissary and this is the story he tells, then it will get out that the US is responsible not just for the chaos in Libya, but not Syria, soon to be Lebanon and God knows where else.  The link to Washington has to be broken.

The key is this: the Ambassador and three other heroic Americans are dead.  Who wanted him/them dead?

 “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”    Barrack Obama, Audacity of Hope

September 26, 2012

Obama’s Flag: Here today… gone Tomorrow!

Filed under: Civics,Elections,Government,Obama — by Robert @ 10:09 am
Tags: , , , ,

Obama’s Flag:  Here today… gone Tomorrow!

While the title is factual for this “flag”, it might also be a metaphor for things yet to come.

Up until this past weekend, the “Our Stripes: Flag Poster” (shown to the right) was posted on the BarackObama.com website.  On the link where it was posted, one gets “an error page” notice now.  That says a lot.  While I don’t recommend shopping there for anything, a visit is worthy of note.  What you’ll see is a lot of typical political paraphernalia: buttons, other posters, t-shirts etc.  But when you look a little deeper you’ll be told a story about division, disharmony, and delusion.

When presidents take office they swear to the following: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

While a flag in itself may seem insignificant in the greater scheme of things, it does represent one’s history, beliefs and worldview.  America has had a flag for over 236 years. The roots never changed, the stripes remain constant.  While the goals have always been the same, the field of participants (stars) has grown over time.  In good times and bad it has been one constant in this Constitutional republic.

Obama has demonstrated public disdain for the American flag.  He chooses not to salute as it passes in parade.  There’s a famous photo of him on the campaign trail in New Mexico standing with arms almost akimbo as the National Anthem is played.  His disdain for the symbol seems to echo his hatred for what and whom it represents.  In our American flag:

  • 13 stripes represent the 13 original colonies
  • Red stripes represent valor and white stripes represent purity and innocence
  • The stripes themselves signify the sun’s rays of light
  • Stars are for each state in the union. (1st flag had only 13) They are a symbol of the heavens and the divine goal to which man has
aspired
  • Blue is the color of vigilance, perseverance and justice

These all say a lot about a people.

Let’s compare our flag to Barry Barrack Hussein Sotero Obama’s flag.

First, there’s a vague background.  There are no white “stripes” of note.

Second, the blue block in the corner once with stars has been replaced with a Big O.  The building blocks of America have been replaced with the “Big O.”  It’s not the states that are united anymore, it’s that we’re all under the “Big O.”  It’s like states don’t matter. So much for history.  America is no longer 50 laboratories of democracy, we’re one Big O.  No stars equals no heavens.  No heavens equals no divine inspiration or aspiration.  All roads lead to and from the Big O.

Third, the dark blue field behind the stars, representing vigilance, perseverance and justice, is also gone.  The events with Fast and Furious, the Middle East and his minions’ actions to tear down everything American seen to live up to this fact.

The 13 colonies are no longer represented; again, so goes our history.  Everything is new with the Big O.

Last, we come to the five strokes.  They’re really not stripes.  Their as vague as trying to nail jello to a tree. But each symbol on a flag means something.  What could these five strokes signify? Let’s explore:

  • The five names the Big O goes by? (Barry, Barrack, Hussein, Soetero, Obama)
  • Five of the 14 tenets of Nazism?
    • Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
    • Controlled Mass Media
    • Obsession with Crime and Punishment
    • Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
    • Fraudulent Elections
  • Five of the 10 tenets of Communism
    • Abolition of private property
    • Abolition to all rights of inheritance
    • Centralized control of communication & transportation
    • Government ownership of factories
    • Free education for all children in government controlled schools
  • The Five Commandments of Obama
    • The Big O is your God and you will have no other gods before me.
    • Thou shalt not take my name in vain
    • Honor me, not you mom and dad, you are a child of the state first.
    • Thou shalt not steal; that’s reserved for the government.
    • It’s okay to lie, cheat, steal, suborn, and fake documents to get what you want.
  • The Five tenets of the Big O’s America
    • All things and all people belong to the government
    • Free speech is speech allowed
    • Private ownership of arms is prohibited
    • The government controls all media
    • The government control of all production
  • The Five Pillars of Islam

Many families throughout the world still live under their family flag.  It’s a practice we could all learn a lot from. Define what you believe. Define your roots.  Define who you are.  Whether it’s on a flag, a shield, a coat of arms, these all speak volumes about you.

And even though this particular item was taken off the website, it still speaks volumes about the Big O.  Don’t be fooled about its absence, however; the flag lies in waiting for the opportunity to spring it on the American public.  When that flag flies, Americans will be subjects, not citizens.

September 24, 2012

Suleiman the Sad

Filed under: Civics,Elections,Government,Obama — by Robert @ 9:45 am
Tags: , , ,

America’s Muslim Heritage?

Have you ever been to a Muslim hospital…

… heard a Muslim orchestra

… seen a Muslim band march in a parade

… witnessed a Muslim charity

… shaken hands with a Muslim Girl Scout or Boy Scout

… seen a Muslim Candy Striper in a hospital

… or seen a Muslim do anything that contributes positively to the American way of life?

The answer is no, you did not.

Just ask yourself WHY?

Barack Obama (a Muslim by education and training and personal admission), during his Cairo speech, said: 
 “I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s history.”

AN AMERICAN CITIZEN’S RESPONSE:

Dear Mr. Obama:

Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first 
 landed? Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.

Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day?

Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.

Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States 
 Constitution?
 Declaration of Independence ?
 Bill of Rights?

Didn’t think so.

Did Muslims fight for this country’s freedom from England ?  No.

Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America?
 No, they did not.

In fact, Muslims, to this day, are
still the largest traffickers in human slavery.  Your own half-brother, 
 a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as “pug nosed slaves.”

Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family’s “rich Islamic heritage,”
 doesn’t it Mr. Obama?

Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country?

Not 
 present.

There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.

Where were Muslims during this country’s Woman’s Suffrage era?

Again, not present.

In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the ‘hajib’ or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband.
 Yep, the Muslims are all for women’s rights, aren’t they?

Where were Muslims during World War II?

They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from 
 the Nazi’s in killing Jews.

Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001?

If they weren’t flying planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East.  No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world 
 celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other 
 cable news networks that day.

Strangely, the very “moderate” Muslims who’s asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11.

To many Americans, their silence has meant 
 approval for the acts of that day.

And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the “rich heritage” Muslims have here in America.

Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim.

And now we can add November 5, 2009 – the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That, Mr. Obama is the “Muslim heritage” in America.

EVERY AMERICAN MUST READ THIS !!

Muslim Heritage, my ass.

America’s only Muslim heritage is you, Mr. Obama.  Advertently, you are fast becoming Suleiman the Sad.

September 9, 2012

It was a Lot to Do about Nothing

Filed under: Civics,Elections,Government,Obama — by Robert @ 4:41 pm
Tags: , , ,

A major disconnect occurred at the Democratic National Convention last week.   There was a disconnect between President Obama, the majority of US citizens, and his own Democratic Party members in the persons of their platform committee.  You see, after public criticism started to seep into the DNC inner sanctum about its obvious omission of any mention of God in their stated platform (let alone the intentional omission of any mention of the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel), delegates to the platform committee were hurried into the hall for a vote to vote for God and Jerusalem, at least that they be included in the official platform.  President Obama specifically sought the actions.

Before we advance to far into this mess, let’s settle on some facts that are undeniable:

  1. Jerusalem was named capital of Israel between 1010 and 970 BC, the reign of King David.  It was confirmed again on December 14, 1949.
  2. The planned (original) DNC platform made no mention of God or Jerusalem.
  3. There are at least four references to God in the Declaration of Independence
  4. God has been God forever. For those who don’t believe, it’s a lot to do about nothing; for those who do believe, no proof is necessary.

According to a recent Gallup poll, more than 9 of 10 Americans believe in God.  The DNC left any mention of God out of their platform (agenda).  An early release of their platform generated criticism that finally reached the Charlotte contingent.  President Obama requested the procedure to amend the party platform.  Here’s where it gets interesting.

Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, was called on to oversee the procedure to seek an amendment to the platform.  Three times he called for a voice vote to alter the platform.  The crescendo of nays grew with each subsequent vote.  Only a fine forensic analysis could give an answer to which vote carried, but many spectators indicated that they just weren’t sure which way the vote went.  The problem for Villaraigosa was the seeming factual vote against the idea was contrary to what Obama wanted.  Indeed, the television images captured showed delegates in strong opposition to both ideas.  But the vote carried.

Villaraigosa indicated that this was “a lot of ado about nothing.”  When confronted by reporters that they just didn’t hear the necessary 2/3rds vote in support, his response was a terse, “That’s nice to know.  I was the chairman and I did, and that was the prerogative of the chair.”

In essence, Villaraigosa said that he didn’t care about the vote of those citizens in the arena—he had a different agenda.  Surely both he and Obama realized the political implications inherent in a yes vote. 90 percent of the American people have a faith and it wouldn’t do well to run up against them.  But Obama’s own followers expressed their opinion; but it too wasn’t heard.  The chair overruled.  If the facts don’t agree with reality, change the facts.

Villaraigosa was also saying that in his world, might makes right.  He’s the chair and he’ll arrange the data, challenge the impressions, or even lie about the results in order to please his lord and master.  He got the job done.  He was actually proud of the “decisive way (I) he handled that.”  Facts are selective to him.  According to him, truth is relative to the power of the chair.  Imagine taking a vote on God!  What temerity.

I feel sorry for the people of El Pueblo Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula.  I felt sorry for the vast numbers of California citizens when Villaraigosa exercised these same Chicago-style tactics when he was Speaker of the Assembly.

“It was a lot of ado about nothing,” Villaraigosa ended.  The platform? The inclusion?  The process?  God?  Except for God, maybe he’s right.  All of these words, all of these promises, all of these platforms mean absolutely nothing.  If the chair can alter a vote on his own say-so, imagine the government in the mind of his party leader.

August 22, 2012

California’s Proposition 32—The Common Sense Proposition

Filed under: American,Civics,Elections,Government — by Robert @ 8:52 am
Tags: , , ,

Voting in America, in California, is the fundamental franchise for all citizens.  Being able to vote in an election is that one privilege that crosses all boundaries, all social-economic and age groups.  Whether you are a female, male, young or old, rich or poor, regardless of your background, occupation or nationality, as long as you are a legal citizen you can vote.  You should vote.

Voting allows the individual citizen the opportunity to have their voice heard.  No other government seeks to hear the voice of the citizen in a like manner.  Vote.  This the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Notice it doesn’t say government of the business, by the union and for the corporation.  People are the heart and soul of government in America. Period.

The California Constitution says the following about voting:

ARTICLE 2  VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECAL

SECTION 1.  All political power is inherent in the people.  Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

SEC. 2.  A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.

SEC. 2.5.  A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted.

It’s so very simple.   Who votes?  People.  Whose voice is heard in elections? The people’s.  Whose voice is counted in an election?  The people’s.  Notice that the Constitution says nothing about organizations, unions, or groups being able to vote.  Only individual citizens have the right to vote.  It’s their voice that is to be heard and no one else’s.

Unfortunately we’ve allowed groups to influence that process over time.  While they don’t directly vote, these organizations and groups have undue influence in the voting process.   Proposition 32 wants to return the process to normalcy.  Proposition 32 wants to return the franchise of voting to the people, not outside influences.  This only makes simple sense.  If people are the ones doing the voting, then it is only the people whom should be heard.

Proposition 32 simplifies the process:

▪       Proposition 32 bans corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates.  Only bona fide citizens can make those contributions.  It’s their voice that will be heard from the voting booth.

▪       Proposition 32 bans contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them.  This is patently common sense.  The way it stands now, businesses that win contracts from politicians for whatever reason are able to give back contributions to those very same politicians.  That’s absurd.  That’s taking government money (your money) and giving it back to the politician through an intermediary (the contractor). That’s hidden graft.

▪       Proposition 32 bans automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics.  If an individual citizen which to contribute to a campaign or a candidate, let them do so.  Don’t force it.  Don’t force the taking of one’s salary in exchange for the privilege of working there.  That’s a form of bribery.  Allow citizens to choose their causes and choose their candidates. After all, it’s the citizen who is going to vote and no one else.

Here’s some interesting facts about the current status of the Proposition 32 campaign: d

Those in favor of Proposition 32 (who contributed at least $50,000).

Donor Amount
Thomas M. Siebel $500,000
Charles Munger, Jr. $357,169
Edward Bloomfield, Jr. $300,000
Larry T. Smith $260,000
Jerry Perenchio $250,000
Citizen Power Campaign $225,000
William Oberndorf $150,000
Protect Prop 13 (HJTA) $125,000
Lincoln Club of Orange County $110,000
Frank E. Baxter $100,000
Timothy C. Draper $100,000
William L. Edwards $100,000
B. Wayne Hughes $100,000
Howard F. Ahmanson $50,000
Charles B. Johnson $50,000
Franklin P. Johnson, Jr. $50,000
Nicoletta Holdings Company $50,000
Robert J. Oster $50,000
Richard J. Riordan $50,000

Those against Proposition 32 (who contributed at least $50,000).

Donor Amount
California Teachers Association $8,185,700
California Professional Firefighters $2,100,000
California State Council of Service Employees $2,037,500
AFL-CIO/Working Families $1,300,000
Peace Officers Research Association of California PAC $965,000
California School Employees Association $550,000
SEIU $502,762
California Faculty Association $500,000
Thomas Steyer $500,000
AFSCME $450,000
California Federation of Teachers $300,000
Los Angeles Police Protective League’s Public Safety First PAC $250,000
United State Pipe Trades Council $250,000
International Association of Firefighters $200,000
Professional Engineers in California Government $125,000
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association $100,000
San Bernardino County Safety Employees’ Benefit Association $100,000
John Perez Ballot Measure Committee $100,000
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California $100,000
United Domestic Workers of America $100,000
California State Legislative Board $50,000
United Food & Commercial Workers $50,000

Notice the difference?

Those favoring Proposition (and who contributed more than $50,000)—those favoring giving citizens back their franchise–were people, were citizens.  Four of the 19 were fraternal organizations.

19 of the 21 against the proposition are unions or their PACs.  Get the picture?

So, it’s pretty much a common sense proposition.  Do you want to vote for corporate, and union graft and influence in your government?  Or do you want a government that speaks for the people?  Guess what… you get to choose… at least for now.

August 20, 2012

What Makes Him do the Things He Does?

Filed under: Civics,Elections,Government,Obama — by Robert @ 4:29 pm
Tags: , , , ,

Wyatt Earp: What makes a man like Ringo, Doc? What makes him do the things he does?

Doc Holliday: A man like Ringo has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.

Wyatt Earp: What does he need?

Doc Holliday: Revenge.

Wyatt Earp: For what?

Doc Holliday: Bein’ born.

August 13, 2012

The Ten Commandments of a Poor President

Filed under: Civics,Elections,Good Administration,Government,Obama — by Robert @ 9:14 am
Tags: , ,

The Ten Commandments of a Poor President

  1. Refuse citizens, media, cabinet members a share in the decision-making process.  Don’t let them know how you got “there.”  Use pithy remarks and slogans to hide your real agenda.
  2. Issue edicts undergirt only by one’s own presumptive authority.  Make sure these are issued in the dead of night or at the worst, late on a Friday afternoon.
  3. Suddenly change fundamental stated objectives in the midstream of your administration.  In the vernacular, this is called practicing “bait and switch,” say one thing, but do another—consistently.
  4. Permit political pressures and threats of self-serving individuals and groups to alter the practices that have been proven time and again to meet the needs and desires of the total community. Practice and promote political-correctness. Refuse to go beyond party-politics to find the “truth.”
  5. Allow the changing world to change yourself, your philosophy and your convictions such that you cease to exemplify the attributes that characterized you when first discovered.
  6. Initiate, implement through edit transforming innovation without any preliminary testing and approval through pilot programs.
  7. Place all blame for failure upon colleagues, other government agencies, predecessors and the people-at-large and demand full credit, personally, for all obvious successes.  Use an ad hominem wherever possible.
  8. In all modes of outside communication express a sense of possessiveness concerning “my” cabinet, “my” administration, “my” policies, “my people”, “my” programs, “my” ideas.
  9. Exhibit personal qualities not consistent with the behavior and character of a well-educated, roundly developed person—qualifies such as selfishness, greed, mendacity, dishonesty, intolerance, and immorality.
  10. Separate yourself entirely from  all government programs and operate only through edict and paper communication from a cloistered office.

 

Ten Commandments of a Good President

  1. Express in every word and action a high degree of integrity, honor, professional competence, thoughtfulness, intelligence, and balanced judgment.
  2. Involve all appropriate parties in policy-formation activities without surrendering  or overstepping the decision-making responsibilities that must be assumed by all involved.
  3. Develop within the country a clear and accepted understanding of the philosophies and practices which have been adopted as institutional foundations.
  4. By thought and action reveal yourself as a knowledgeable proponent and disciple of a rational governance philosophy.
  5. Be a leader and teacher par excellence with everyone you meet.
  6. Build a staff of individuals offering a varied and comprehensive array of outstanding abilities, prepared and able to press vigorously toward the attainment of designated goals.
  7. Be extremely generous with praise for others when efforts are successful, and quick to accept managerial responsibility when progress is less than admirable.
  8. Spend a large portion of your time outside the enclaves of one’s office, meeting citizens in un-planned and un-rehearsed opportunities.
  9. Exhibit courage and firm leadership when important principles are attacked, even when such defense imperils one’s own personal welfare.
  10. Be a faithful energizer of the people’s policies.

July 20, 2012

Time for Impeachment

Filed under: American,Civics,Elections,Government — by Robert @ 3:14 pm
Tags: , , ,

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. (Declaration of Independence)

The US Constitution limits impeachment to “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States” who may be impeached and removed only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.

Then President Richard M. Nixon resigned from office with only the threat of impeachment. His crime: lying to the American people about a cover-up that included all the branches of the US intelligence and justice departments.

Now we have a POTUS who has gone way beyond a cover-up, though that offense will be in the bill of particulars or in discovery.

John Adams, the second president of the United States, once stated, “Facts are stubborn things.” Well, the following facts are stubborn things. They’re stubborn because they cannot be denied.

(The italicized portions are from the Declaration of Independence.)

Treason       

  1. He asked permission of the United Nations in order for us to go to war, a war not authorized by Congress.
  2. He has made efforts (through Secretary Clinton) to subsume the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution to a UN Treaty.
  3. He was the UN Security Council Chair in 2009, while he acted as president.
  4. His administration gave British Trident missile codes to Russia.

Bribery

  1. He forced British Petroleum to pay $20 billion to a slush fund to compensate Gulf Coast businesses and residents affected by the BP oil spill. There is no Congressional oversight.
  2. Votes for ObamaCare were purchased with the “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and the Department of the Interior increasing water allocations to California’s San Joaquin and Central Valleys.
  3. He gave taxpayer funds to Solyndra (along with a few others).

High crimes and Misdemeanors

  1. He accepted millions in illegal campaign contributions from foreign credit cards.  The screening process to preclude foreign money was (somehow) turned off.
  2. Domestic donors to his campaign were able to contribute over the legal limit.
  3. He produced a fraudulent birth certificate to disclaim questions about his birth.
  4. He does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen.
    1. A candidate for the office of president (and presumptive office holders) must be natural-born citizens: at the time of birth, both parents must be citizens of the United States.

i.      By his own admission (POTUS) his father was native to and a citizen of a foreign country.  He is not eligible for the position.

ii.      Continued willful obfuscation of the facts surrounding his birth and the documents that could prove otherwise is a cover-up far and away great than that of former President Nixon.

  1. He is using a false Social Security Number.
  2. His Draft Registration number is false.
  3. He violated the bankruptcy laws by awarding the United Auto Workers with a share of GM and Chrysler during their bankruptcy proceedings.
  4. He summarily fired the Chief Executive Office of General Motors, a violation of the Constitution.
  5. He lied to American citizens about being able to keep their healthcare coverage if they went with ObamaCare.
  6.  He told the EPA to set carbon emission standards without the direction and/or oversight of Congress.
  7. He instituted the “Brown Shirts Mentality” when he instituted a website that asked Americans to report on other Americans about ObamaCare, using taxpayer money.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

  1. The appointment of “czars” (over 30) is questionable at the very least. It bypasses the Senate and the representative nature of this Constitutional Republic.
  2. He violated contractual law when he cancelled 77 oil field development contracts previously approved by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
  3. He has used tax payer funds and government offices for political gain. One such example is the use of the DHS to determine the political affiliation of Americans making FOIA requests about his administration, with subsequent DHS refusals and delays.
  4. He conducted a war against Libya without Congressional authorization, a violation of the War Powers Act of 1973.
  5. He lied again to the American people when he said there were no US troops in Libya. His later admission was that they were just “logistical troops.” (Sound familiar: “There are no US troops in Laos.)
  6. His cover-up and use of “Executive Privilege” to shield his administration about his knowledge of and direct involvement with the Fast and Furious gun-running operation.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

  1. On New Years Eve 2011, he signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of U.S. citizens.

For imposing taxes on us without our consent

  1. His role in the economic looting of America since he took office is unprecedented. Specifically, Obama violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.
  2. He authored and urged the passage of what is known as ObamaCare, telling the citizens that it was not a “tax” but a penalty for non-participation.
  3. His use of signing statements shows his desire to rule by executive fiat. This is a direct violation of Article II of the Constitution.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

  1. He has failed to defend US soil in Arizona as Mexican troops bring illegals and drugs into the USA, crossing the border doing so. This is a direct violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
  2. He has allowed US Attorney General, Eric Holder, to ignore his violation of US immigration laws by the creation of immigration sanctuary cities.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither

  1. He has directed his Attorney General to sue any state which seeks to secure its borders.
  2. He enacted law without Congress by providing amnesty to illegal immigrants by allowing ICE Director John Morton to prohibit ICE officers from enforcing US immigration laws.
  3. He and Secretary of State Clinton misappropriated $23 million in US taxpayer funds to help his homeland of Kenya move to a communist nation where the freedom of speech, private property rights, and other rights are subservient to “social justice”.
  4. He acted in April 2009, at the G20 meeting, to expand the Special Drawing Rights that now gives the IMF more control over the US economy, more authority than the duly-elected representatives of the citizens.
  5. He allowed the FCC to assume authority over the internet, in direct violation of a federal appeals court that DENIED the commission that authority. In December, the FCC voted and passed the first federal regulations on internet traffic.

He has obstructed the administration of justice…

  1. He allowed the DOJ in 2009 to stop enforcing federal drug laws in regards to marijuana.
  2. He allowed the DOJ to refuse to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, a law of the land at the time.
  3. He issued an Executive Order on July 12, 2011, attempting to restrict the Second Amendment rights of US citizens in Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona
  4. When Eric Holder refused to prosecute two New Black Panther Party members for brandishing weapons in front of a voting location in Philadelphia, He did nothing. This is a voter Civil Rights violation.
  5. There is new evidence that he obstructed justice by giving preferential treatment to his uncle, Omar Onyango, found guilty of overstaying his visa since 1989 and having received a DUI during this time; the uncle received a deportation stay from the Obama administration and, despite a court ruling to the contrary, received an “emergency” driver’s license.

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments…

  1. He attempted to bypass Congress and raise the Debt Ceiling by “reinterpreting” the 14th Amendment.
  2. He bypassed the Senate by appointing Richard Cordray to a new unconstitutional agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  3. He bypassed the Senate in order to appoint three people to the National Labor Relations Board.
  4. He allowed Education Secretary Arne Duncan to grant waivers to No Child Left Behind however, this is a law enacted by Congress and neither Obama nor Duncan have the authority to authorize that.
  5. He violated the policy of the Senate when he appointed Donald Berwick as CEO of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
  6. Obama allowed the bailouts to grant money without the authority to do so. “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7U.S.Constitution
  7. Obama allowed Operation Castaway to occur, which allowed firearms laws to be broken through coercion of legal gun dealers.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

  1. He allowed his Secretary of Defense to place US troops within the jurisdiction of the United Nations.
  2. He and his Secretary of State have maneuvered to subordinate the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution to a United Nations treaty on arms control.
  3. He allowed Interpol to operate in the US without the proper oversight by Congress, the FBI, our US courts or even local law enforcement.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us…

  1. He interfered with a high profile murder case in Florida by taking sides.
  2. He allows the DHS/TSA to routinely violate the 4th/5th Amendment rights of Americans at airports, train stations, and VIPER checkpoints.
  3. His administration changed a welfare program into a government handout to not citizens by promoting Food Stamp Assistance in alien newspapers.
  4. His Attorney General has failed to address the voting rights of American citizens on the island of Guam, an American territory.
  5. During his tenure the American Olympic committee was allowed to outsource the manufacture of team uniforms to China.
  6. He failed to rein in his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, falsified her statement, given before the entire “international community,” claiming “200 men, women, and children” were deliberately massacred, when in reality it was the Syrian military restoring order in the face of armed terrorists.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends

We, therefore… do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people… solemnly publish and declare… that they are absolved from all allegiance… and that all political connection between them …ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The Moral Dilemma and Obama

Filed under: American,Civics,Elections,Government,Language — by Robert @ 2:59 pm
Tags: , , , ,

One of the telling problems of politics is the disconnect between what a politician says and does from one moment to the next.  We hear a speech that inspires and enervates.  We then hear an off-the-cuff remark that bewilders and is contrary to the speech.  The dilemma for the citizen in 21st century America is getting to know a candidate and/or politician from the words and actions revealed.  Why they reach the conclusion they reach is as important as the conclusion itself because it reveals how the person thinks and what they value.  Why does Soetoro-Obama do this or say that?  What does he really mean?  What does he really value? Part of the problem is modern technology.

When a political leader speaks formally today, s/he often uses a teleprompter or, at least, prepared notes.  It’s very seldom that an informal give-and-take takes place.  Why?  In the formal setting the politician is working from a well-prepared script.  The problem is that this script was probably written by someone else. In the informal tête-à-tête the politician is naked before the world. These latter words reveal the real person behind the words.  You really don’t know what a person is thinking from a prepared speech. One measure of a politician’s strength would be to see how often s/he works from a script or speaks extemporaneously.  How often does this person speak directly to the people? How does Mr. Obama stack up when he working from a script versus when he’s not?  Notice a difference?  It’s obvious that the level of moral reasoning by the scriptwriter is radically different from that of Mr. Soetoro-Obama.

One such scale used to measure cognitive moral reasoning was authored by Piaget.  Piaget studied and wrote of many aspects of moral reasoning and judgment.  But all of his research narrowed down to a two-state theory.  Moral dilemmas are handled by under-10 and 11-year-olds far differently than those older. In other words, there are two stages of development: 10 & 11-years-old (and under) and all people older. Children 11 and under regard the laws and rules of order to be fixed and absolute.  These rules are handed down by God and/or adults and they cannot be altered.  The older group sees that rules are not necessarily sacred and/or absolute, but they are tools that human beings use to form social groups and get along.

The younger group measures rules by what might happen if; what would happen if I break that rule or follow that rule.  They see the world in terms of consequences.  The older folks tend to see the world of choices in terms of intentions.  For some of them, one’s intentions can trump the severity of breaking a rule/law. That’s why intentions are a major part of most capital crime investigations. What was their intention? Was there an intention to deceive?

A second author on moral choice was Lawrence Kohlberg.  Kohlberg took the extensive research of Piaget and analyzed it even further. In his famous doctoral research, he observed the responses (moral reasoning) of 72 boys from Chicago all dealing with the same dilemma.  From those interviews and subsequent research and writings, Kohlberg developed his Six Stages for Moral Reasoning.  “Moral” here doesn’t mean a bag of virtues.  It’s the intellectual value one places on why one chooses to do or not do a particular act.

Here’s a chart of those stages:

Pre-moral or Pre-Conventional Level

Stage 1: Love of Pleasure, Fear of Pain or Punishment-Avoidance   and Obedience

Decisions are made strictly on the   basis of self-interest.  Rules are   disobeyed as long as one doesn’t get caught.

Stage 2:    Egotistic-Reciprocity or The Exchange of Favors

Others may have needs, but   everything is subordinate to the satisfaction of my needs first and foremost.  

Conventional   Level

Stage 3: The “Good boy” or “Good Girl” stage

Chooses to do or not do things in   order to please others.  Very concerned   about maintaining interpersonal relationships.

Stage 4: Law and Order

I choose not to do this or choose   to do that because it’s the law of the land.

Post-Conventional or Principled Level

Stage 5:  The Social   Contract

Rules/Laws are part of social   agreements. While these laws should be followed by all, they can be changed   from time to time.

Stage 6: Universal Moral/Ethic Principle

There are transcendent principles   that are higher than or more encompassing than particular laws in time and   space.  There is a deep inner   conscience.

Subsequent stages are “better” than the previous.  “Better” here doesn’t mean “gooder” in the sense of a good/bad thing. It means more-encompassing, more intellectually honest.  A person who reasons as level 3 includes levels 2 and 1 into a higher order of reasoning.  Likewise, a person thinking at level 5, the Social Contract, necessarily includes the preceding levels 1-4.  Each stage of cognitive moral reasoning is a more encompassing level; the very “motion” of the chart itself goes from the narrowness or solitude of the “I” to the much broader idea of the “they”, the one to the many.

People don’t necessarily move to “higher” stages of moral growth simply because of age, nor can they skip a stage.  A famous 60-some-year old politician once said, “I don’t know how they can do this to me after all I did to them” the night he left office.  Clearly, that’s a level 2 kind of thinking.  But a person grows from one stage to another by intellectually dealing with moral dilemmas, that is, grappling with the moral content of an issue. If folks don’t engage moral dilemmas, they remain morally stagnant.  Most children outgrow level 2 by the time they are in second grade. This was once called the “age of reason.”  Most American adults reach level four thinking, acting at level three.  Some reach post-conventional thinking. Kohlberg noted that Socrates, Plato, Ghandi, Jesus, and some of the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., were all examples of level six thinking. They were all killed by level four type folks.  There is a price to pay for having an individual moral compass.

There are averages for the cognitive moral development of most folks, but there are exceptions.  Kohlberg found that “normal” folks usually think one level above where they tend to act. In other words, while folks might be talking about Law and Order, their actions demonstrate clearly that they’re really thinking of how they can please another. An interesting sidelight study was that Kohlberg found that criminals tend to act one level above their reasoning; that is they did a “law and order” kind of deed, but when questioned they noted their prison record and time off for good behavior. Criminal “types” think and act the opposite of law-abiding citizens.

Let’s give Mr. Soetoro-Obama a dilemma and see by his actions at what level he’s probably operating.  The dilemma is this:  He wants to run for a higher political office.  The office has a strict criteria for candidates: both of his parents must be natural born citizens at the time of his birth in order to qualify.  He knows he doesn’t qualify but he really wants this office. He’s been offered the possibility by several of the richest and most influential men in the world. If he reveals his birth certificate, he’s ineligible. Should he reveal this fact or not?

Mr. Soetoro-Obama decides to move ahead and keep that information from his constituents.  In fact he spends close to $11 million to hide that fact and avoid discovery.  He wants the job opportunity.

So the question is this: At what level of moral reasoning is this decision?

Stage 6: Universal Moral/Ethic Principle?      No.  In order to be transcendent, all actions and thoughts have to be transparent. It’s all out there for folks to see.  There’s nothing to hide.  The very act of hiding eliminates this level. His actions to secret information reveal the lack of moral reasoning at this level.

Stage 5:  The Social Contract?                       No.  An example of this Social Contract would be the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States; they reach for higher values, higher principles.  But the Constitution is the very document that outlines the expectation for this office.  If he chooses to hide the facts of his birth and upbringing, then he is not rising to this higher level of post-conventional thinking.  His actions are contrary to the expectations of this stage.

Stage 4: Law and Order?                                No.  The law of the land outlines the expectations for his office.  He submits a false document to suggest compliance with the law. He’s able to think about the expectations at this level, but his actions are not consistent with what society offers as was is legal and what is a sense of order. His choice to violate the law is not for some higher good.

Stage 3: “Good boy” or “Good Girl” stage?  No.  One might argue that he chose to do hide his eligibility in order to please his backers.  But is he very concerned about maintaining interpersonal relationships with the people this office serves?  No.  There is evidence that he’s at least toying with his level of moral development.  He did alter and amend the official histories of his predecessors in order to attempt admiration for his own supposed accomplishments to date.  He’s starting to think about this level but his actions aren’t there yet.

Stage 2:  Egotistic-Reciprocity or The Exchange of Favors Stage    Possibly. Others may have needs, but everything is subordinate to the satisfaction of my needs first and foremost.  His control of media events directs all attention to him; he continually takes credit for others’ work and achievement. He accepts awards where he has done nothing to earn them.  When others challenge the facts of his eligibility, he attacks the author with ad hominem remarks. Clearly he works at this level because of the many favors he grants to only those who have supported him.  

Stage 1: Love of Pleasure, Fear of Pain or Punishment-Avoidance and Obedience Stage?   For sure.  The very reason he spends so much money, time and energy on hiding his credentials is that he might get caught.  Then what?  Decisions are made strictly on the basis of self-interest.  And like Piaget’s early stage thinker, his decisions are based on consequences, not intentions. The egotistic love of pleasure in holding the position is more important than the honest revelation that he simply is not eligible for the same.

Kohlberg hoped that people would advance to the highest possible stage of moral thought. The best possible society would contain individuals who not only understand the need for social order (stage 4) but can entertain visions of universal principles, such as justice and liberty (stage 6). But neither of these can be obtained if, as an adult, one has the stagnated moral development at the level of a six-to-11-year-old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.