What are we to think Obama is going to do? Every time he opens his mouth we hear about some new program or some sort of spending he wants to do. It gets kind of funny and scary when you start analyzing what he says vs. reality.
Below you will find what he has done vs. reality. It is written in a first person point of view to demonstarte what Obama has said and what he must have meant. Reality is far different then what he has stated.
I decided to close Guantanimo Bay Prison. I have no idea what I am going to do with the prisoners currently housed there. Maybe we can put them in US prisons and have civilian trials for them. The only problem is that no state is willing to accept them and nation secrets may be revealed in civilian court. Also we may not have civilian laws that they could be charged with since what they did was on the battle field in a foreign country. We may have to let them out into the general population where the American taxpayer will have to foot the bill for them to live. But make no mistake about it, you will be safe.
We inherited a trillion dollar deficit. Under my plan we will get rid of this deficit by borrowing even more money. We plan to borrow an additional 3 trillion dollars and then print more money then is sustainable in the economy. No worries. Rest assured that your government is working for you. When you can no longer afford the basics of life because of the coming hyper-inflations, the government will simply print more money. Don't worry, the government has got your back.
We will invest in "clean" technologies. Although this will cause over 6 million people to loose their jobs, it will create 4 million new jobs building wind turbines and cleaning up all the carcasses of the birds that have a tendency to fly into them. We will demonize industries and tax them into oblivion because their technology, even though the most efficient, is harming the planet. Just because the scientific data doesn't support this claim, it does not mean it is not true.
We will follow the lead of England and nationalize your health care. This will be funded by money that doesn't exist. Remember, I control the printing press. We will model it after the grossly inefficient Medicare system which will reach insolvency by 2016. Don't worry about having a choice of treatments or doctors. I will set up a rationing board similar to that of England's. We will decide who gets life saving treatment and who will have to wait and most likely die before receiving care.
I will oversee the reconstruction of the automotive industry. We need a plan to force people into unsafe cars that very few people want. Anyone holding the bonds of these auto companies will be demonized if they refuse to accept 30 cents on the dollar of their investment. The time for profit is not now.
I have appointed several people called czars to oversee the institution of my plans. So the Constitution says the Congress has the power to make laws. Over the last few decades, the Congress has shown itself inept in redistributing wealth to all Americans. They have show that they cannot adequately distribute economic justice. So as the chief executive, I am taking control to make sure that income is returned to its rightful owners, the people who haven't earned it.
We no longer have a "War on Terrorism." Instead I have instructed the Department of Homeland Security to turn its attention toward returning veterans, those who believe in the Constitution, people who are against abortion and people who support third party candidates. These are the true threats, anyone who disagrees with my positions.
And in conclusion I will nominate judges for for the federal courts who will uphold my philosophy and ignore the Constitution. My first choice is an exceptional example of a judge that will not uphold the Constitution, but rewrite it. Judge Sotomayor. She has been caught on tape making racist comments about white people. She belongs to a known racist organization, La Raza (The Race.) She has also been caught on tape saying that it is the job of appellate court judges to set policy and write law. She is the perfect candidate to destroy what little is left of the document that is restraining me from become an outright dictator, The Constitution.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Illegitimate President
Is President Barack Obama an illegitimate president?
Before the election evidence arose which calls into question his eligibility to be president. According to documents obtained by Phillip J Berg (D - Pennsylvania) Barack Obama may not be a natural born American citizen. I realize this has gone round and round and may sound like a crazy conspiracy theory, but why has Obama not provided the documentation to support that he is in fact a natural born American citizen? I know on his website he provided a "Certificate of Live Birth", but according to experts that is not a birth certificate, only documentation that a citizen of the US gave birth somewhere in the world. At every step, Obama and his friends have taken steps to seal all records that could answer this question once and for all.
The problems don't stop there.
Listening to his statements, both past and present, it becomes obvious that he has distain for the Constitution. In a 2001 interview on Illinois Pubic Radio, Obama admits that he thinks the Constitution is flawed. He said "While the Constitution is a brilliant political document for its time, it falls short of addressing the real needs of people." He further went on to say that "The Constitution tells the government what it can't do, but doesn't say what the government must do for people."
What is this lunatic talking about? The Constitution clearly spells out the role of government. It is to provide for the general defense and overall welfare of the people.
Now onto what he has done since becoming president.
Since taking office, Obama has taken unprecedented steps to undermine the Constitution and the principles of capitalism that have made this country the powerhouse of the world in just over 200 short years.
In an effort to usurp the constitutional authority of the congress, President Obama has made new cabinet posts calling them czars. These czars, according to Obama, have the authority to make policy. Under what constitutional authority do they have this power?
The latest czar named is the "car czar" which is "overseeing" the restructuring of US automakers. Under this administration, GM no longer should be called General Motors, but rather Government Motors. The first step taken by the "car czar" was to force out the legitimate CEO of the company. Now the administration has taken it upon themselves to "oversee" the bankruptcy of GM. The biggest problem with this is that under the guidelines set by the Obama administration, the government will own 70% of the company. Where in the Constitution does he have this authority?
Obama has used the power of the "bully pulpit" to be a bully. Everyone from Joe "the Plumber" to the Chrysler debt holders who refused to accept 30 cents on the dollar for the money that Chrysler owed them have been systematically demonized. He has even gone after radio commentators Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
One of Obama's biggest assaults on the Constitution came when he pushed for measures to be added to the reauthorization of the Americorps program. In the act that was passed, provisions were added that would make service mandated for all citizens at the will of the government. The Constitution is quite clear that only those convicted of a crime and during times of war can citizens be forced into service.
Obama has abused his position and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution and therefor, in my opinion, an illegitimate president. Hopefully, in 2010, the American people will have seen through the deception and vote in people who have the good sense to tell this president "NO, we will not let you destroy this country any further!" Then in 2012 vote this president out of office.
Before the election evidence arose which calls into question his eligibility to be president. According to documents obtained by Phillip J Berg (D - Pennsylvania) Barack Obama may not be a natural born American citizen. I realize this has gone round and round and may sound like a crazy conspiracy theory, but why has Obama not provided the documentation to support that he is in fact a natural born American citizen? I know on his website he provided a "Certificate of Live Birth", but according to experts that is not a birth certificate, only documentation that a citizen of the US gave birth somewhere in the world. At every step, Obama and his friends have taken steps to seal all records that could answer this question once and for all.
The problems don't stop there.
Listening to his statements, both past and present, it becomes obvious that he has distain for the Constitution. In a 2001 interview on Illinois Pubic Radio, Obama admits that he thinks the Constitution is flawed. He said "While the Constitution is a brilliant political document for its time, it falls short of addressing the real needs of people." He further went on to say that "The Constitution tells the government what it can't do, but doesn't say what the government must do for people."
What is this lunatic talking about? The Constitution clearly spells out the role of government. It is to provide for the general defense and overall welfare of the people.
Now onto what he has done since becoming president.
Since taking office, Obama has taken unprecedented steps to undermine the Constitution and the principles of capitalism that have made this country the powerhouse of the world in just over 200 short years.
In an effort to usurp the constitutional authority of the congress, President Obama has made new cabinet posts calling them czars. These czars, according to Obama, have the authority to make policy. Under what constitutional authority do they have this power?
The latest czar named is the "car czar" which is "overseeing" the restructuring of US automakers. Under this administration, GM no longer should be called General Motors, but rather Government Motors. The first step taken by the "car czar" was to force out the legitimate CEO of the company. Now the administration has taken it upon themselves to "oversee" the bankruptcy of GM. The biggest problem with this is that under the guidelines set by the Obama administration, the government will own 70% of the company. Where in the Constitution does he have this authority?
Obama has used the power of the "bully pulpit" to be a bully. Everyone from Joe "the Plumber" to the Chrysler debt holders who refused to accept 30 cents on the dollar for the money that Chrysler owed them have been systematically demonized. He has even gone after radio commentators Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
One of Obama's biggest assaults on the Constitution came when he pushed for measures to be added to the reauthorization of the Americorps program. In the act that was passed, provisions were added that would make service mandated for all citizens at the will of the government. The Constitution is quite clear that only those convicted of a crime and during times of war can citizens be forced into service.
Obama has abused his position and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution and therefor, in my opinion, an illegitimate president. Hopefully, in 2010, the American people will have seen through the deception and vote in people who have the good sense to tell this president "NO, we will not let you destroy this country any further!" Then in 2012 vote this president out of office.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Use Critical Thinking when Reading the News
Sometimes it is difficult to find the useful or new information in a news story. Many times journalists hide the actual news withing their own biases. Whether intentional or not, these biases come through. The trick is to extrapolate the useful or new information and disregard the rest.
Let's take the topic of global warming as an example of how biases slip into the reporting and it may be hard for some to find the useful information.
Many articles will talk about new studies which call into question some of the main talking points of the global warming alarmists.
A study conducted late last year shows that the changes in the Arctic are cause by natural variances in wind patterns and non-linear ocean currents. The study was conducted by NASA and went through extensive peer-review.
ANy sane person would consider this important information considering all the recent calls to legislation of "greenhouse" gasses. Well the information did appear in an article in the New York Times, but was buried within several paragraphs of 1 scientist talking about how dangerous "man made global warming" is. Unless you read the article carefully, you might not have seen the new information that is important to the discussion about climate change. Many people may have just read the first couple of paragraphs and then stopped reading because it seemed like just another story about how a scientist think global warming is a crisis.
When reading any article it is important to remember that no matter how hard a journalist tries, their biases always show through. The trick to getting useful and new information is to read the entire article and then make mental notes of the new information and disregard the rest of the information presented in the story. After all, you all ready know the other information.
Let's take the topic of global warming as an example of how biases slip into the reporting and it may be hard for some to find the useful information.
Many articles will talk about new studies which call into question some of the main talking points of the global warming alarmists.
A study conducted late last year shows that the changes in the Arctic are cause by natural variances in wind patterns and non-linear ocean currents. The study was conducted by NASA and went through extensive peer-review.
ANy sane person would consider this important information considering all the recent calls to legislation of "greenhouse" gasses. Well the information did appear in an article in the New York Times, but was buried within several paragraphs of 1 scientist talking about how dangerous "man made global warming" is. Unless you read the article carefully, you might not have seen the new information that is important to the discussion about climate change. Many people may have just read the first couple of paragraphs and then stopped reading because it seemed like just another story about how a scientist think global warming is a crisis.
When reading any article it is important to remember that no matter how hard a journalist tries, their biases always show through. The trick to getting useful and new information is to read the entire article and then make mental notes of the new information and disregard the rest of the information presented in the story. After all, you all ready know the other information.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Wisconsin's Statewide Smoking Ban
The state of Wisconsin recently adopted a statewide smoking ban in all restaurants, bars and work places. The ban is due to take effect July 5, 2010. The ban is most likely unconstitutional and should be challenged in court.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, referred to as the equal protection clause, the government cannot make a law that is designed to infringe on people's right to life, liberty or property. The new law infringes on these.
figure 1: The Fourteenth Amendment
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The argument is being made that these places are public and therefore are subject to rules and regulations as such. This is completely false. These are private places that are open to the public. None the less they are private property.
The government has no right to dictate to a person that they cannot allow the use of a legal product by consenting adults on their private property.
Furthermore, no one is forcing anyone to work at or patronize facilities which allow the use of tobacco products. The people entering into these facilities are doing it under their own free will and have no right to tell the property owner that they cannot allow the use of a legal product on their property.
smoke Free Wisconsin claims to have done a survey in which 70% of the people in Wisconsin want this smoking ban. The biggest problem is that no one has ever seen this supposed study. Secondly, it does not matter what the majority of people want.
During segregation most of the general population supported it. Did that make segregation legal and right? During slavery, the majority of people had no problem with it. Did that mean that slavery was right? It does not necessarily matter what the majority wants. The only thing that matters is freedom and liberty, something they want to take away from property owners and their smoking patrons.
The smoking ban is unconstitutional for the simple fact that it singles out a few particular groups for discrimination. These groups are smokers and the business owners.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, referred to as the equal protection clause, the government cannot make a law that is designed to infringe on people's right to life, liberty or property. The new law infringes on these.
figure 1: The Fourteenth Amendment
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The argument is being made that these places are public and therefore are subject to rules and regulations as such. This is completely false. These are private places that are open to the public. None the less they are private property.
The government has no right to dictate to a person that they cannot allow the use of a legal product by consenting adults on their private property.
Furthermore, no one is forcing anyone to work at or patronize facilities which allow the use of tobacco products. The people entering into these facilities are doing it under their own free will and have no right to tell the property owner that they cannot allow the use of a legal product on their property.
smoke Free Wisconsin claims to have done a survey in which 70% of the people in Wisconsin want this smoking ban. The biggest problem is that no one has ever seen this supposed study. Secondly, it does not matter what the majority of people want.
During segregation most of the general population supported it. Did that make segregation legal and right? During slavery, the majority of people had no problem with it. Did that mean that slavery was right? It does not necessarily matter what the majority wants. The only thing that matters is freedom and liberty, something they want to take away from property owners and their smoking patrons.
The smoking ban is unconstitutional for the simple fact that it singles out a few particular groups for discrimination. These groups are smokers and the business owners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
