Tag Archives: Obama

State of the (dis)Union

Posted on by
Reply

In his first official State of the Union address, our president treated us to an oratorical smorgasbord, rife with ethos and filled with heart-rending stories of children upset by the economy, small business owners on the rise and moving towards a new hope.

Our president has long made his mark by speaking of hope and nonpartisanship; this speech was no different. However, the policies he has advanced show his mark to be quite the opposite: an unfair representation of the will of the American people, who have clearly shown opposition to his agenda through in polls and at the polls. Perhaps his lack of response to a general change in the American public may be some of that “stubborn resilience” that he attributed to all Americans showing through. He speaks about sweeping economic recovery as if we are almost out of the tunnel, as if all that is left to us is to step out. Factual evidence suggests otherwise. When a government spends billions of money it does not have to “create” 2 million jobs (this term being White House doublespeak for jobs salvaged or saved via the Recovery Act), that is not a sign of recovery. It is a sign of a government gone out of control.

Despite this, the president feels no need to be bound by checks and balances or the petty restrictions of the Constitution.
When the Senate blocks a bill, he passes an executive order to override it (although the Constitution dictates that only the Congress may create and legislate law). For a man whose job is to enforce the law that Congress passes with the consent of the American people, he manages to use his charm and intellect to make people forget that he is flagrantly stomping on the principles that make this country great.

The president says he hates the bank bailouts, but his actions dictate otherwise. He says he has gotten the stimulus money back, but reason indicates otherwise. He says government must create conditions for business to grow, but sound economics say otherwise. He says he prevented a great depression, but an ever-mounting deficit and a still-rising unemployment rate show otherwise. He says all men must be treated decently, but his treatment of doctors, wealthy Americans and Islamic countries tell otherwise.
All in all, his every statement is laden with contradictions. While he tells not direct lies as some Republicans would allege, Obama’s rhetoric simply puts a pretty face on an ugly situation that will only get worse should this cycle of government expansion continue.

It is unfair to criticize one man for the failures of a country. However, it is imminently fair to criticize the president for not being what he makes himself out to be. This president has grossly overstepped the duties outlined for him in the Constitution; if he chooses to make himself a legislator rather than a leader, then we must treat him as such.
There is no easy way out, but blindly going in the wrong direction gets us nowhere. Spending money we do not have to get out of an economic collapse caused by big government expansion is like giving heroin to an addict to make his withdrawal symptoms better. It helps in the short term, but in the long run the problem worsens until it is incurable. Deficit spending and regulation have failed us utterly. To think that any group of human beings can predict the subtle oscillations of the market is lunacy.

There is, however, a fix for these massive deficits. The solution is to move towards an Austrian-school, free-market system of laissez-faire economics and limited government (à la Ludwig Von Mises). That is the only way to stop the endless boom/bust cycle. Those ideas and the ideas of our Founding Fathers hold the keys to lifting America out of this crisis and returning us to a position of prominence. It is only then that we can rise from the ashes and be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Man is not free unless government is limited…. As government expands, liberty contracts. -Ronald Reagan

 

–Austin Parker

In his first official State of the Union address, our president treated us to an oratorical smorgasbord, rife with ethos and filled with heart-rending stories of children upset by the economy, small business owners on the rise and moving towards a new hope. Our president has long made his mark by speaking of hope and nonpartisanship; this speech was no different. However, the policies he has advanced show his mark to be quite the opposite: an unfair representation of the will of the American people, who have clearly shown opposition to his agenda through in polls and at the polls. Perhaps his lack of response to a general change in the American public may be some of that “stubborn resilience” that he attributed to all Americans showing through. He speaks about sweeping economic recovery as if we are almost out of the tunnel, as if all that is left to us is to step out. Factual evidence suggests otherwise. When a government spends billions of money it does not have to “create” 2 million jobs (this term being White House doublespeak for jobs salvaged or saved via the Recovery Act), that is not a sign of recovery. It is a sign of a government gone out of control. Despite this, the president feels no need to be bound by checks and balances or the petty restrictions of the Constitution. When the Senate blocks a bill, he passes an executive order to override it (although the Constitution dictates that only the Congress may create and legislate law). For a man whose job is to enforce the law that Congress passes with the consent of the American people, he manages to use his charm and intellect to make people forget that he is flagrantly stomping on the principles that make this country great. The president says he hates the bank bailouts, but his actions dictate otherwise. He says he has gotten the stimulus money back, but reason indicates otherwise. He says government must create conditions for business to grow, but sound economics say otherwise. He says he prevented a great depression, but an ever mounting deficit and a still-rising unemployment rate show otherwise. He says all men must be treated decently, but his treatment of doctors, wealthy Americans and Islamic countries tell otherwise. All in all, his every statement is laden with contradictions. While he tells not direct lies as some Republicans would allege, Obama’s rhetoric simply puts a pretty face on an ugly situation that will only get worse should this cycle of government expansion continue.

It is unfair to criticize one man for the failures of a country.

Tech Prof Wrong on Obama

Posted on by
Reply

Evidently, Georgia Tech Professor Thomas “Danny” Boston looks at President Obama through rose tinted glasses. In a recent interview on CNN, the economics professor gave President Obama a B overall grade for his first year in office. For a student of economics, Professor Boston surely missed the mark on this one. Let’s dissect his presidential report card more closely.
For financial stability: A. According to Boston, the president was able to avoid a complete disaster because he stabilized the collapse via spending programs. However, many critics believe that the worst is yet to come since the markets were never allowed to “bottom out” and recover through the free market structure. But, Boston did give Obama a C+ on bank loans because the banks are “hoarding cash”. This grade more accurately reflects the inability to acquire a loan when money is tight and guarded.

On fiscal stimulus: A. Professor Boston: “[It was] the right thing to do at the right time in the right amount.” Boston criticized the stimulus because not enough money was given to small business. Well, wasn’t that the whole point of the stimulus, to help America get back to work? The unemployment rate has only increased since the stimulus bill was passed. Boston said Obama had “stopped this tremendous and mammoth collapse of jobs… We didn’t go into a great Depression, but we don’t have new jobs.” Curiously, Boston admits that the bill failed its mission, but he still gives the president an overall B, and an A+ for attention to the economy.

I wish I got an A+ for simply paying attention in class. To top it all off, Boston gave the government a B- for its activist role that has “caused some investor uncertainty.” Who wants to borrow and spend when Obama is spending all your money for you?

Boston’s grades for Obama received are based on his intentions, not actions. Obama similarly won the Nobel Peace Prize because of his intentions. I bet the professor doesn’t grade his students for their effort, so why does he grade the President on his good intentions? If I ever need to take another economics class at Tech, remind me to choose a professor who grades for accuracy and achievement and who actually looks critically at our government’s ill-advised actions, not our president’s rhetoric and failed policies.

–Kristen Greig

Georgia Fights Healthcare Bill

Posted on by
Reply

As I ride home from a victorious evening in Tallahassee, I can’t help but love my country, complete with football, beautiful fall weather, and hospitable Southern folks. However, amidst this beautiful, sunny afternoon, the rays of our capitalist sun provide our country with great prosperity are being blocked by the storm brewing in our nation’s capital. Instead of preserving and defending our Constitution, politicians are focusing on how to get reelected by hastily passing a health care bill to fulfill liberal, socialist promises of old.

Is there hope to prevent an intrusive and unwanted healthcare bill? Senator Judson Hill thinks so. At his town hall on Monday, October 5, he made a case for protecting Georgians from an unwanted healthcare bill by enacting the natural defenses found in our Constitution: States’ Rights in the Tenth Amendment.

Does Georgia have the Constitutional ability to successfully reject a federal health care plan? By enforcing the Tenth Amendment and passing a Georgian constitutional amendment to preserve the freedom to choose to purchase or abstain from purchasing a health care plan, Georgia can protect itself from further economic damage that this healthcare bill would create.  The 10th states: “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the States.” Certainly, the right to health care is not included in our Constitution, and the federal government arguably has no right to create such a bill. The state can use Constitutional law to reject ObamaCare.

Currently, health care accounts for one third of Georgia’s budget. Under ObamaCare, the state would assume a $1-3 billion responsibility that would kill our state’s economy. The state already must make huge program cuts and radical program transformations. Hill says that tax raises are not an option.  Instead, we need to focus on free market solutions for health care reform. To make health care more affordable for all Georgians, Georgia must open it’s borders to interstate commerce when purchasing a health care plan.  This means allowing individuals to buy their health care plan from Alabama or Florida. While this may harm insurance companies located in Georgia in the short run, the competition will force companies to adapt and reformulate their policies to cater to the consumer’s preferences. Prices will drop when the insurance companies feel the natural stress that a free market creates. Competition in the market place is always good for the consumer and sparks innovation. The health care market will respond to this competition in the same manner.

As the nation’s leader in conservative health care reform, Georgia has taken steps to prevent unfunded mandates from being shoved down the throats of Georgian tax payers like you and me. For example, in 2005, Hill co-sponsored a tort reform bill that impeded frivolous lawsuits against doctors that incur huge costs for these doctors, which trickles down to the consumer. Additionally, Georgia must enforce the law that require health insurance providers to partially refund its customers for insurance premiums if they are healthy. This incentive is a proactive way to promote a healthy lifestyle and lower health care costs.

Senator Hill and others are taking proactive, business-minded steps to true, conservative health care reform.

 

The GTMO I Know

Posted on by
Reply

When I was seven years old, I moved to an American Navy base called Guantanamo Bay (GTMO), Cuba.  I moved there in 1998, at that time not many people knew that it existed. Then, on September 11, 2001 my life changed. I was young at the time, but I knew that something bad had happened and that there were going to be many changes in Guantanamo Bay (GTMO), Cuba.  The following December I was told that the people who crashed planes were going to be imprisoned in GTMO. Ever since then I saw GTMO all over the news, I used to think it was the coolest thing in the world, until I saw what they were saying. It’s true at first the prisoners were treated horribly when the prison first started, but all of that changed when the government sent the JTF there, the Joint Task Force.

They are soldiers from all branches of the military who are stationed there for 6 months maximum. When we lived in GTMO, my father was scuba diving instructor and a lot of soldiers decided that while they were there, they might as well get a scuba diving license. They were always at our house, sometimes they would tell us about their horrible days. They would tell us how the prisoners would spit on them and yell at them. I know for a fact that on the news, they were broadcasting a different story. They would say that GTMO was a torture camp where human rights didn’t exist.

Why would American news companies create stories that put our military, our heroes as they call them at times, in a bad light? What they are not telling the American people is how the prisoners really get treated. Each prisoner receives special treatment such as free healthcare, special meals, and plenty of other things. One of the translators that we befriended while we were there use to tell us that these prisoners would always say that they never wanted to leave because they receive better treatment than they would receive in their home countries. They received better treatment than the people who actually called GTMO home! For example, if a prisoner needed a special doctor because they needed surgery, the American government would fly one down immediately.

However, at the same time, my friend’s mother needed the same type of doctor, and instead she had to wait for a helicopter to fly to GTMO just to get her to Miami to seek medical treatment. I just don’t understand why the news would not report on this, the American people should have the right to know what their tax money is used on. Would you pay taxes if you knew it was to feed a terrorist good quality food? What really happens in the prisons in GTMO is as good material as a torture facility, so why doesn’t the news let the American people what is really happening.

–Cristina Lara

Obama and Reelection– What’s going to happen?

Posted on by
Reply

President Obama faces several important decisions in the coming months. With oil prices soaring, with unemployment still near 9 percent, with major conflicts occurring abroad and major fiscal decisions to be made, Issues vital to domestic and international security remain unanswered by President Obama. More importantly, he confronts these issues now lacking a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. So the question on the table is: will the President handle these matters pragmatically or will we see the divisive liberal he was in his first two years?

It is worth noting that Obama was the most Liberal Senator during his tenure in the United States Senate. He voted on his party line 95 percent of the time, more than notable liberals such as Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Hilary Clinton, and Joe Biden. So compromising and negotiation have never been a strong priority for Obama. But most importantly, Obama ran a campaign in 2008 centered on a moderate approach to help our country, rather than a divisive one. Needless to say, this was not true of his first two years as President. While racking up trillions of dollars in national debt, forcing a healthcare bill that 67 percent of Americans did not want, and implementing stiff regulations on businesses, the American people decided that we should take a page out of the Obama campaign book and “change” our House of Representatives.

President Bill Clinton faced a similar dilemma in 1995. After a divisive first two years in the White House, he moved to the center after the Democratic Party faced disastrous mid-term elections in 1994. Similarly, President Obama needs to make the decision: is it another 2 years of hard-left or is it time to move to the center? With unemployment rates resting at 9%, it is difficult to imagine President Obama will be able to excite Americans the way he did back in 2008. It will be difficult for President Obama to show all the good he has done for America since taking charge while unemployment has worsened, spending is out of control, and our energy “independence” is about as independent as our need to borrow from China.

This past month, Obama has taken on a more centrist role by signing a bill that extended the Bush Tax cuts and unemployment benefits. This was a pragmatic move on his part because it gives businesses the reassurance that the tax cuts are here to stay—for now. However, many foreign policy decisions remain on the table that he has very little experience with. How is America to know that Russia will cooperate with the START treaty? What is Obama’s real solution with North Korea’ s developing missile program? What are the new objectives in Afghanistan?

Anything short of a major national security disaster, Obama’s reelection rests entirely on the economy. If unemployment shrinks and the economy revives, reelection will most likely come through for the President. If things keep going the way they are, he will be voted out of office. President Obama has many important decisions to make in the coming 2 years; I hope he makes the best and most pragmatic decisions for the development of our great country. This is not a time to root against our leaders, but a time to hope they make the right decisions.

 

-James Padget

Mexico’s Immigration Laws: The Untold Story

Posted on by
Reply

As shown on The Foundry

There is no shortage of criticism of our immigration laws from detractors who contend that they are unjust and immoral. And though criticism of U.S. immigration laws can be fierce – particularly in the case of Arizona’s SB 1070, the Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Acts – Mexico’s much harsher immigration laws rarely get noticed.
Upon Arizona’s passage of SB 1070, critics attacked the law with claims of racial profiling. Among the opponents were the open border lobby, including the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF), other liberal interest groups, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.  In addition to critics here at home, the bill also found an enemy in Mexican President Felipe Calderon.  He famously lectured our country in his address to Congress in 2010, declaring that the law “ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree” and “[that it] introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement,” he said to cheers from some in the House chamber.
The speech and Calderon’s remarks received considerable media attention, particularly from a largely sympathetic Hispanic media. But receiving far less scrutiny was how President Calderon and his country are dealing with illegal immigration.  Upon closer examination, Arizona’s SB 1070 looks like amnesty compared to Mexican law.
The Law Library of Congress released a report in April 2006 titled, Immigration Law Sanctions and Enforcement in Selected Foreign Countries: Brazil, Egypt, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, and Switzerland. The report observed how Mexican law considers “[i]legal entry a federal crime … penalized with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine from three hundred to five thousand Mexican Pesos, and deportation.” Repeat offenders receive even harsher sanctions of 10-year imprisonment and a fine of up to five thousand pesos and deportation.
Although Mexico recently reformed the Ley General de Población (General Law of the People) in January 2011, our neighbors to the south continue the policy of maintaining fines at the current level of five thousand pesos, or $418.10 in March 2011, for those who don’t follow deportation orders (Chapter 8, Article 117).
Among the other findings of the Library of Congress, through its “enforcing arm, the National Institute of Migration –INAMI” (the equivalent of ICE here in the USA), the Mexican Police Force, may carry out the following:” (Chapter 10, Article 151)

  • Perform verification visits
  • Cause a foreigner to appear before immigration authorities
  • Receive and present complaints and testimony
  • Perform migration inspection operations on routes or at temporary points different from established inspection locations
  • Obtain such other elements of proof as may be necessary for the application of the Act, its regulation, and additional administrative provisions

Lastly, “the authorities of the country, whether federal, local, or municipal, and the notaries public and commercial brokers are required to request that the foreigners whom they deal with prove their legal presence in the country” and illegal immigrants who wish to get married to Mexican citizens “must request authorization from the Secretariat of the Interior.”
In contrast, let’s look at the far less complicated17-page Arizona legislation that caused so much uproar last year, even though it’s clear that many of the fiercest critics neglected to read it. Law enforcement officials can only check on the immigration status of an individual after a lawful stop, detention, or arrest for “any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”  And they can only check on the immigration status if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States.  Further, the Arizona law specifically prohibits racial profiling – race and ethnicity cannot be considered by law enforcement officials.  The Arizona law also states that:

  • “Except as provided by federal law, officials…may not be prohibited or … restricted…for the following purposes”: (8.F)
    • Confirming the identity of any person who is detained (8.F.3)
      • If the person is an alien, determine whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by Title II, Chapter 7 of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act. (8.F.4)
    • Transport any convicted alien who has been released from jail to the “custody of the USICE or the USCBP. (8.C)

In other words, the law simply makes it a state crime to be in the state of Arizona illegally and requires law enforcement officials to check on the legal status of persons who have been detained or arrested for other reasons – but only if there is a reasonable suspicion that they are in the United States illegally.
The law specifically defines who is considered an illegal alien. The person in question must meet both of the following: be present in “any public or private land in the state” and be in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1304(e) or 1306(a). If a person is arrested in violation of this new law he is not eligible for “suspension or commutation of sentence” and, along with facing penalties for any other law he may have broken, must pay a fine of at least $500 for a first violation and twice the amount specified in the first sentencing. The entire bill can be read here.
As our country tries to enforce the rule of law with sensible immigration laws, it is worth remembering how other countries are also grappling with the national security, economic, political and social concerns that come with illegal immigration.  With nearly sixty percent of illegal immigrants originating from Mexico, it is particularly helpful to remember that our neighbor to the south is dealing with illegal immigration in a much harsher manner than the United States, a fact that illustrates the hypocrisy of Calderon’s criticisms of Arizona’s new law.
###
Andres Celedon, an intern at The Heritage Foundation is a junior at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he is studying public policy with a minor in history.

You LIE!

Posted on by
1

You Lie!Only in Obama’s America could a congressman who made the right statement at the wrong time be called a racist. But that’s exactly what happened to South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, herald of the now infamous “you lie!” interjection that sent on-call Washington hyper-partisans into a raving frenzy after the president’s big health care speech to Congress a few short weeks ago.

No sooner had those untimely words left the congressman’s mouth than did liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd insert her own addendum (“an unspoken word in the air,” she called it) to the shout-heard-‘round-the-world: “boy.” As in, “You lie, boy.” As in, good ol’ Southern white country club gentleman talks down to black president. As in, Joe Wilson and all those who stand in opposition to President Obama are racists.

Well, if the debate (if we can even dignify it as such) over health care reform in Washington hadn’t reached a boiling point already, it’s safe to say that it now borders on lunacy.

Add to Dowd’s preposterous fantasy this tidbit from Atlanta’s own, Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson (heir apparent – once figuratively, now literally – to Cynthia McKinney’s title as the most outrageously outrageous character in the Capitol): “I guess we’ll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people. [...] That’s the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked, and Congressman Wilson represents it.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

This latest D.C.-manufactured outrage, far from helping the Democrats promote the president’s reform agenda, has instead distracted from the matter at hand: health care reform and its many manifestations. Rather than debating the merits of the president’s reform agenda, Congress and, in particular, Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats, was content with drudging up the ugly specter of racism at a time when it should have been focusing on giving ObamaCare the PR push it truly needed.

But back to Wilson’s remark, err…inflammatory objection. All partisan feelings aside, “You lie!” was at a minimum unbecoming and without a doubt inappropriate for the setting. That being said, enraged Democrats like Rep. Jim Clyburn weren’t exactly crying foul when the entire Democratic Caucus booed President Bush during his 2005 State of the Union Address. The pot, it would seem, is calling the kettle black. But, no matter.

What should be at issue – what has thus far the political class and media alike have failed to adequate address – is the validity of Wilson’s claim. Was President Obama, in fact, lying when he said that illegal immigrants would not receive coverage under the health care reform plan currently before Congress? In his own defense, “that’s not true” was the president’s response to Wilson, emitted amidst a clamor of audible gasps and sheer horror on the part of the Speaker. Logic would indicate that both President Obama and Congressman Wilson can’t both be right, at least not completely. So who was telling the truth and who was playing a little Washington-style fudgery with their choice of words?

On the surface, the president appears to be in the right, referencing as he did the leading Democratic proposal, H.R. 3200, which states explicitly in Title II, Subtitle C, Section 246: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” Naturally, in following with the text of the bill itself, no illegal aliens would be provided with health coverage under the Democrats’ plan, right?

Not exactly. It doesn’t take a first-rate constitutional legal scholar to know that a statement without the backing of force has no meaning whatsoever. In other words, just saying that illegals won’t be covered under ObamaCare doesn’t guarantee anything without delineating a mechanism for enforcement. And, to no one’s surprise, there is no such mechanism in H.R. 3200. (Bare with me as we dissect the minutiae of federal law to categorize President Obama’s assertion as fact or fiction.)

Because there is no enforcement mechanism specified in H.R. 3200 to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining government health care benefits at law-abiding taxpayers’ expense, the federal residency definition as it applies to the bill is equivalent to the definition of resident and nonresident aliens as stated in the Internal Revenue Code (Section 7701, Subsection B-3). Under the IRC, residency for aliens is determined by the “substantial presence test.” In plain English, for federal tax purposes, the IRC views those who have resided in the U.S. for 183 days out of the last year no differently than any other foreign nationals who reside here. That’s because there is no rule in the code that directly talks about residency requirements for undocumented and unauthorized persons; it only addresses “nonresident aliens” like temporary workers and visitors.

That’s why, according to the Congressional Research Service (a nonpartisan government agency that reports to Congress): “It would appear that unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance.” That is straight from the mouth of the government bureaucracy itself, folks. Illegals, just like you and me, will fall under ObamaCare’s mandated universal health care coverage (i.e. government tax) plan.

So where does that leave Joe Wilson, that vexatious purveyor of white-power racism, and the president, whom he singularly accused of lying before a national television audience?

Perhaps more appropriately: what of the Democrats in Congress who raised hell over his malapropos yet factual declaration? Instead of effectively answering his and other Republicans’ questions, they were more satisfied with arousing 1950s-era tensions in an effort to promote discord and dissension than invent logical responses to the criticisms that have struck a chord with the U.S. public-at-large.

It’s a sad day in America when there can’t be sincerely two-sided political debate without resorting to childish mudslinging, rhetorical absurdities, or misleading, truth-bending proclamations. But then again, Washington is, as Mark Twain so aptly described it, “the grand old benevolent National Asylum for the helpless.” Hapless, more like.

-Chandler Epp

A Snapshot of Obama’s Czars

Posted on by
Reply

We hear a lot about how President Obama has bypassed the senate judicial process to appoint czars to control sections of public policy, but, unless you watch Fox News, you have not heard the full extent of the controversies.

I am simply providing a snapshot of just a few of Obama’s 38 czars to give you a glimpse into what this administration, and liberals in general, are really like.  We heard so much about Obama’s cabinet appointees riddled in scandals and owing money to the IRS, but those guys had to be approved by a bipartisan Senate, and are pikers compared to these czars.  The first czar to receive the spotlight, mainly by Fox News, was Anthony Van Jones, Obama’s “green jobs” czar.  He was a self-proclaimed Communist, and 9-11 conspirator.  He believed that 9-11 was an inside job done by our own country.  He supported several high-profile and controversial criminals, and started several socialist oriented groups, among those were a racially motivated group “Color of Change” and an environmentally motivated group “Green for All.”  After nobody, not even Obama himself, could explain Van Jones’ past, he resigned on September 5 of this year.

In addition to Van Jones, Obama has a car czar named Ron Bloom.  Bloom has a very long history with the United Steel Workers union and the Service Employees International union.  He has no technical experience running a company and no experience with cars, but he has plenty of experience with unions.  The Energy and Environment czar worked on the Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a collectivist and socialist organization.  While working for the EPA during the Clinton administration, she destroyed files that demonstrated research with evidence against man-made global warming, and after her time there her personal records were destroyed.  A federal judge is currently looking into it and holding her personally responsible for the debacle.

Stunningly, the science czar, John Holdren, who was confirmed by the Senate, has authored a book in which he argues for female sterilization.  He has written about compulsory abortion in his book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment.  This book dates back to 1977, before these lunatic ideas even became more mainstream.  He may have received a great education at Berkeley, Stanford, and MIT, but his views are anything but sane.

There are so many more czar positions that have not even been explored yet, like the AIDS czar, the climate czar, the California water czar, the domestic violence czar, the faith-based czar, government performance czar (who clearly is not doing his job), great lakes czar, information czar, pay czar, intelligence czar, and the list goes on and on.  Most of these czars have three things in common, they donate heavily to the Democratic party, they hold socialist or collectivist views, and they hold an Ivy League degree.

For something to sit on and contemplate, while not a czar, Obama’s energy secretary Steven Chu is pushing heavily for a federal mandate to force everyone to paint every roof in America white.  We are not even mentioning the fact that his Berkeley friend’s company would receive the contract for overseeing the work.  If this is all eye-opening to you, the reader, then you either need to start watching the news or you are watching the wrong news.  The fact that we, the taxpayer, are footing the bill for an unprecedented expansion of the executive branch in the form of these czars who are not even accountable to us (we do not know how much they get paid) and who do not represent our best interests is a sign we need to pay more attention and let the administration know we will not take it anymore.

 

-Johnny Simmons

The REAL Latino State of the Union

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier this year, MALDEF hosted its 5th annual Latino State of the Union (LSOTU), which talked about the issues that worried Hispanics the most, or at least that’s what they planned on doing. The panel spoke about issues like gay marriage, [illegal] immigration reform, and education reform that consist of throwing more taxpayer money at the current system. They forgot to a couple of unimportant issues, the economy and job growth.

The Hispanic community is not concerned with the issue of gay marriage; we are worried about more pressing matters like immigration and the economy. Even if we were worried about this issue, only 31% of Hispanics support it and 35% oppose both marriages and civil unions.

We Hispanics care more about the economy and job creation than gay marriage. The most recent figures (October 2011), show that 11.4% of Hispanics are unemployed. This is more than the national average of 9.0% and 8.0% of whites. Maybe we can all agree that gaining economic freedom should be at the forefront of any group, because with it comes prosperity, liberty, and political freedom. The Heritage Foundation released its most recent version of the Index of Economic Freedom in February. What is economic freedom? Heritage defines it as “the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property.” The notion of economic freedom is about American as it gets and it is at the foundation of the American dream, which is what all people who move to this country wish to achieve.

The majority of Hispanics, 86%, support a path to citizenship “if they pass background checks, pay a fine and have jobs”, so we do not agree with full on amnesty. Hispanics do believe that reform is needed, the difference lies on the type of reform. We are not in line with illegal immigration and here at Heritage we have come up with various solutions to the problem; stronger border patrol and reinforcement of current laws to start off. A true immigration reform must focus on those topics and have a strong emphasis on legal immigration.

Education is an issue that affects the country as a whole, poor academic performance translates to a weak country and economy in the long term. Earlier this year we celebrated “National School Choice Week.” While Heritage calls for a change of pace and a word of warning against the national academic standards, MALDEF continues to give support to an unsuccessful education policy, with the Hispanic dropout rate at 18.3% (average of 8.0%), known as “No Child Left Behind.”

Finally, MALDEF is in need of congratulations for admitting what they are, a progressive activist organization, which can also be called a special interests group. And as such, they have to promote their own interest, which is fine, but not when they claim to represent almost 16% of the US population. The strategy of the progressives is to scare people into thinking something (i.e. – Republicans hate all Hispanics) and MALDEF is no different.

The main problem with their comments and suggestions is that they claim to be fighting for equality, while making sure to separate the Hispanic population from the rest of America. Why must they pursue policies that only target Hispanics? Are we that disenfranchised that we need special assistance? I’d like to say we’re not, if that’s wrong, then the LSOTU is much worse off than I feared. Conservatives do not strive towards finding solution that only help a segment of society, but society as a whole.

Obama’s Secret Conference Calls

Posted on by
Reply

In the light of President Obama going to campaign, er, give a speech about immigration in El Paso, TX let’s look at the president’s long history of “cooperation” with Hispanic organizations, namely the National Council of La Raza (NCLR).As we know, Obama’s political beginnings were in Chicago, a city and state know for giving political favors, so all this should come as no surprise.

The Obama White House held a “secret conference call with Hispanic leaders” on May 5th, a fitting day. The call was hosted by Cecilia Muñoz, Obama’s current director of Intergovernmental Affairs and former senior vice president of NCLR. The conference call was to try to appease Obama’s critics on immigration reform by stressing to them the hard work the administration has being doing to “fix the ‘broker’ immigration system (read amnesty).”

But this isn’t the first “off-record” phone call this administration has made and it probably won’t be the last, so much for the promise of being the most transparent administration in history. The administration held another conference call, hosted by Ms. Muñoz, calling for Hispanic activist to show their support for the DREAM Act during the lame duck session this past winter.

This is odd– dare I say, illegal?– because in 1939, legislators passed the Hatch Act, which regulated and restricted the political activities of all federal employees, including, but not limited to: endorsing candidates, organizing political activities and holding posts in partisan organization (which has been easily circumvented by the creation of “non-partisan” organizations).

If these secret conference calls don’t do it for you, then perhaps if we look at a list of the president’s appointees for various positions, we find a clear tie to various Hispanic organizations, namely NCLR and MALDEF. For starters Obama appointed two Judges to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Marisa J. Demeo and Florence Y. Pan, both of which have an extensive history with MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund). He also nominated Mary H. Murguia, sister of the president of NCLR, to serve on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Obama also appointed Maria del Carmen Aponte to be the next American ambassador to El Salvador. Aponte, who was nominated in 1998 by then-president Bill Clinton to be the American ambassador to the Dominican Republic (before it was found that she had ties to the Cuban equivalent of the CIA), is a former board member of NCLR. To top it all off Obama’s Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, appointed the president and general counsel of MALDEF, Thomas A. Saenz, along with MALDEF board member, Jesse Ruiz, to the recently created Equity and Excellence Commission of the Department of Education.

But don’t take my word for it; take President Obama’s word (even though his words fall on deaf ears) for it. At one of his many camping stops in 2008, he addressed the NCLR and remarked that “being here with all of you today feels a little like coming home,” ending the speech by assuring them that “when I’m President, I’ll be asking many of you to serve at every level of government.” And hey, what do you know, that’s something he didn’t lie about.