New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) said that he plans to request federal funding for body cameras. It’s unclear whether Obama, who has made the most high-profile push for body cameras, will get congressional support for his proposal.
Archive for the ‘administrative power’ Category
Posted by revkharma on December 4, 2014
Posted in administrative power, Big Government, change, Civil liberties, Constitution, distraction | Tagged: Big Government, civil rights, deception, democracy, Federal Government, nyc, police | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on November 9, 2014
We have seen a new name floated for AG, Loretta Lynch is a prosecutor from NY.
Posted in administrative power, Attorney General, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Cabinet, Civil liberties, condron.us, Constitution, Democrats | Tagged: Attorney General, Bill of Rights, civil rights, Clinton, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Obama, race politics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on August 12, 2014
As the Obama Administration muddles through one more vacation, they take some military action which is completely representative of the entire regime and it’s mindset.
In a story posted to Stars And Stripes Lt. General William Mayville says the following:
“We assess that U.S. airstrikes in northern Iraq have slowed ISIL’s operational tempo and temporarily disrupted their advances toward the province of Irbil. However, these strikes are unlikely to affect ISIL’s overall capabilities or its operation in other areas of Iraq and Syria,”
So, we will send our military to make lots of noise and flash, but the administration knows, in advance that is all for appearance, and no long term effect. They seem to believe that there are no real enemies which require engagement and long term attention.
Time and again this regime ‘pivots’ and applies a ‘laser like focus’ to a new issue, a new geopolitical crisis, only to move on once the headlines shrink away and the network cameras are pointed into another direction.
They believe their own hype, and are confident that we are in a ‘post-modern’ world. The US secretary of state blusters that the Russian leadership simply will stop, because ‘One simply does not do that in the twenty first century’.
You see, they just know more, they are better, they are undeniably more moral than any previous administration, or the hoi polloi over which they must rule.
Obama and his team simply imagine because they think it, because they want it, the world will bend to conform to their statements and judgments. ISIS is ‘The JV team’ and not worth attention.
Syria will comply with Obama’s demands, because they simply must.
This regime believes their own hype and acts as if all the evil in the world will stop merely because they will it. They act as if there are no bad actors on the world state, and if only John Kerry can get a ‘sit down’ then every tyrant and dictator will see the inherent wisdom of his words and follow the lead of Obama the Great and Powerful.
Recently I came across something written by WH Auden, which I think poetically reflects my thoughts better than my ramblings above.
So an age ended, and its last deliverer died
In bed, grown idle and unhappy; they were safe:
The sudden shadow of a giant’s enormous calf
Would fall no more at dusk across their lawns outside.
They slept in peace: in marshes here and there no doubt
A sterile dragon lingered to a natural death,
But in a year the slot had vanished from the heath;
A kobold’s knocking in the mountain petered out.
Only the sculptors and the poets were half-sad,
And the pert retinue from the magician’s house
Grumbled and went elsewhere. The vanquished powers were glad
To be invisible and free; without remorse
Struck down the silly sons who strayed into their course,
And ravished the daughters, and drove the fathers mad.
We cannot simply ignore evil, it will not vanish simply because we ‘don’t believe in it anymore’.
Another shorter quote which I also believe is appropriate may be more familiar.
In the words of Louis XV:
Après moi, le déluge
Keep the Faith!
Posted in administrative power, corruption, deception, Freedom, Global government, Government Power, International, Iraq, ISIS, islamism, Obama, Obama Administration, Russia, White house | Tagged: administration, Al Quaida, America betrayed, American collapse, Barack Hussein Obama, change, civilization, collapse, corrupt politics, corupt government, cowardly US, Global government, government deception, Hubris, incompetence, International conflict, Islam vs Christianity, islamofascism, obama government, politicians, Radical Islam, religion of peace | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on June 20, 2014
It was all a political ploy!’
According to Jay Starkman, writing in the Wall Street Journal, the Sixteenth amendment was merely a trick, employed to allow the Congress to pass an excise tax on business.
The Senate boss, Finance Committee Chairman Nelson Aldrich, together with President William Howard Taft concocted a compromise to stop the income tax bill that the House had passed. Congress would immediately pass a 1% “excise” tax on corporate income over $5,000—in effect the rich were being taxed. As a further sop to income-tax advocates, Aldrich would sponsor an income-tax constitutional amendment.
Aldrich was quite candid about his scheme to block the House bill that had been passed, declaring to the Senate: “I shall vote for the corporation tax as a means to defeat the income tax.”
But of course it was not something which those who imposed it had any desire subject themselves to :
After the tax law was passed, judges embraced it—for everyone else, just not themselves. Judges across the land proclaimed that the Constitution prohibited diminishing their salaries (and those of the president and state employees) through taxation. They emphasized the point by issuing court rulings in their own favor, excusing themselves from the tax. This lasted until the Depression, when the force of public opinion essentially shamed them into relenting. Under a law passed in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt became the first president subject to the income tax, but he refused to pay an increased rate that he helped enact in 1934. FDR insisted on paying the lower 1932 rates.
Now they just use the IRS to attack enemies and destroy those who oppose them.
Posted in 16th Amendment, administrative power, Big Government, Civil liberties, Constitution, deception, Fair Tax, Freedom, Government expansion, Government Power, IRS, laws, liberal court | Tagged: Big Government, Constitution, deception, Fair Tax, Federal Government, Government Power, IRS, Leviathan, Politics, Sixteenth Amendment, Supreme Court, unfair taxation | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on December 28, 2012
We all hear over and over about the famous “Checks and Balances” built into the government by the Constitution. Supposedly each of the three branches are separate and equal, in order to prevent any one branch from gaining too much centralized power and moving the nation back toward tyranny. In recent times we have seen over and over that the balance is portrayed as a balance between the “Two Parties” so one political party does not gain overwhelming power over the levers of government. The last is the most risible of all, as there were no real political parties when the Constitution was written, and as most have heard, outgoing President Washington warned about the danger of parties as he left office.
All of this addresses the balance of power within the Federal Government. All of this also fails to address one area of balance which was intentionally removed, and all but forgotten. This loss, and loss of memory is perhaps the most destructive to our republic.
The loss I speak of is the loss of any check or balance of the power of the Federal government against the states, which was erased by the 17th amendment.
Read the entire thing here:
Keep The Faith
Posted in administrative power, Big Government, congressional representation, Constitution, Founders, George Washington, Government expansion, Government Power, Gun crimes, Gun Laws, liberty, Obama Care, Political parties, Politics, Senate, State Supremacy, states rights, Uncategorized | Tagged: Big Government, Constitution, deception, Democrats, Federal Government, Freedom, Government Power, Leviathan, liberty, Politics, Second Amendment | Leave a Comment »
Posted by brotherkharma on November 3, 2010
Once again I will pop out of nowhere, fire off a post and return to normal life. This time I am cheating a bit. The following is an essay written by a student in a public high school. There is hope that despite all efforts to indoctrinate, some students can see the truth. Let’s call the author…….nephewkharma? It is long but it was an assignment and I think you too will be a bit more hopeful for the next generation.
Why Deregulation Works Better Than Regulation
In his book, Arguing with Idiots, Glenn Beck writes as if he is having an ongoing conversation with a friend whom he has dubbed an idiot. One particularly amusing passage comes in his chapter about Capitalism where the idiot makes the argument, “We need a new kind of capitalism, one where the government has more control.” To which Beck responds, “Thanks for buying the book, Stalin.” While the exchange was intended for humor, it also makes a point. With that statement Beck says that there is no room for government in private enterprises and business, and he is right. While government regulation is generally harmful to the economy, deregulation provides for a much more profitable economy. There are several proofs of this. One is how regulation is harmful to the economy by restricting a company’s ability to adapt and placing hardships and financial burdens on the working class. Another proof is that deregulation brings more profits and companies to the market and is beneficial to consumers and the working class. Finally, there is proof in the fact that while the New Deal and other government programs were failures, private sectors achieved far greater success. When the facts are examined, it is hard to believe that anyone still believes in regulation of business.
The first fact to be examined is how regulation restricts a company’s ability to adapt to a changing market and to consumer needs. The airline industry is a prime example of regulatory harm to companies. This is because it has experienced complete regulation until 1978, when it was partially deregulated (Hamrin 245). While it was regulated the government controlled prices. The result was that airports couldn’t adjust prices, and the prices set by the government were too low to cover some basic maintenance costs. They had to close a few gates, which limited the number of carriers they could bring in, which cut their profits even more (“Airline Deregulation: The Concise”). Conditions would have been better if the government had allowed them to set their own prices, as will be shown. Yet the prices would not have been too high, because competition in the market would have driven them down. They would have started off initially higher than government prices, just so that the airports could cover the maintenance cost of the gates. After they had a steady income, they would have been able to open more gates. The additional gates would bring in additional carriers, bringing in more profit. Competition in the market would make them lower their prices so that consumers would choose them over their competitors, and the increased profit from the additional gates would allow them to. As previously stated, the airline industry is a great example of how regulation hurts businesses, but it is not the only example. Another prime example would be the United States housing market and the crash.
Many people say the collapse of the housing market was caused by a deregulated, free-market economy, but when the facts are examined the opposite holds true. The United States housing market was far from deregulated. The government wanted to increase home ownership to paint a better picture of the economy and the American dream, and so they began to regulate and set interest rates. (“Price”) According to economist Walter E. Williams in his paper, “The House that Uncle Sam Built,” interest rates provide potential investors with clues and signals as to whether or not to invest. When the investors saw the low-interest rates, they believed this was because the public was becoming more interested in the housing market, when in reality the rates were artificial and manufactured by the government to entice people to buy homes. Investors then made mistakes in investing in the market when public interest was not as high as they were led to believe, and these investing mistakes led to the housing crash. So it is quite apparent that if the government had left the housing market alone and allowed the economy to run the way it should, the housing market crash, which many cite as the cause of the global recession, would never have happened. Interest rates would have been based properly off of market factors, and that many investors would not have made bad investments in the market at the same time, which is what caused the crash. Rather, any poor investments would have been spread out, not doing as much damage to the market. Regulation hurts business in more ways than this, however. It also causes numerous other problems.
Among these problems is a decreased competitiveness between companies, which is essential to operating a business in a free-market economy. Once again, the airline industry is a prime example. As previously stated, airlines were very heavily regulated up to 1978. When deregulation finally came, some of the larger companies that had existed under regulations were hurt by their lack of competitiveness. Up until this point, these companies were not used to having to handle competition. The government had regulated almost everything in the industry, including prices, flight times, and carriers providing which flights. When competition came, large companies such as Braniff had no idea how to change their business plans to be competitive with smaller, more localized airlines. They had plans built around the fact that they flew at these prices at these times, and they were the only ones who flew at those times. So when smaller companies came and offered flights to the same destinations at the same time, but with lower prices or quicker routes or both, Braniff did not know how to properly adapt. Reliance upon government regulation caused Braniff and several other companies to collapse when smaller carriers entered the market (“Airline Deregulation: Lessons”). Without government regulation, these companies would not have become dependent on the government for support. They would have been able to properly adjust their plan and cost structure to compete with the smaller companies. With previous regulation taking away all competition, they had no idea how to do this, nor would they have been able to because of their business structure and cost structure. Because of this, their companies collapsed, costing many American jobs. Regulation does more than just decrease a company’s competitiveness; it also places hardships on many people.
The group most affected by government regulation is the consumers. For this example, the automobile industry is a good reference. From 1967 up to 2001, there were government regulations in the industry that mandated certain safety features, among other things. In that period of time, average cost of a vehicle rose about twenty-two thousand dollars. The mandated safety equipment was expensive, and the only way companies could compensate for costs was to raise the price of their vehicles. Now if the government hadn’t stepped in, the prices would not have gone up that high. Some argue that prices would still have risen, and although that may be true, we’ll never know for sure, but it is true that government regulations and requirements contributed to about a third of vehicle cost increases. (“Price”) So while the regulations maybe made cars a bit safer, it also placed an economic burden on the consumers. If the market had been deregulated, but people wanted safer cars, they could have opted to pay the higher price for the more expensive car. Instead, the government mandated the safety regulations and therefore indirectly took that choice away from the public. The automakers had to raise the prices, placing a burden on the consumers. Another example of how regulation places a burden on the working class can be found in the electricity industry in Texas. In 2001, the electric industry was regulated in Texas. The government deregulated the industries, and prices plunged. The average price of an electric plan in 2009 after deregulation was substantially lower than the average in 2001. Across the board in all companies and in all companies’ plans, every single rate for every plan went down (“The Success”). Obviously, the deregulation helped the market immensely. It is important to deregulate fully, as the Texas electric industry was. If an industry is only partially deregulated, there will only be partial success. Full deregulation has many benefits, as does even partial deregulation, though there is less success there.
One of these main benefits is a generally more profitable business environment, characterized by higher profits and more companies. For example, railroads were partially deregulated in 1981. As previously stated, partial deregulation will bring only partial success, but even this partial success brought a profit increase of forty-four per cent by 1984 (Hamrin, 246). After the airline industry was partially deregulated, fares have fallen twenty-five per cent. Economists say that if they continued under regulation, the fares would have fallen only three per cent. (“Airline Deregulation: Lessons”) Also, while regulated, no interstate carriers were granted permission to open, but after deregulation twenty-six new carriers opened from 1978-1988 (Hamrin, 246). The change in the railroad industry was drastic. A profit increase of forty-four per cent in only three years, and that is only under partial deregulation. Based on those numbers, the profits under full deregulation would be incredibly high. Some argue that full deregulation would mean an increase in control of the top companies, and a growth in “Big Business” but the airline industry proves quite the opposite. Rather than smaller companies being forced into bankruptcy, twenty-six new carriers were formed. Now it is apparent that deregulation is beneficial to companies, but many people are mistrustful of business in general. Deregulation does not only benefit companies, however.
Deregulation also benefits consumer and the working class. With an increased freedom for competitiveness, deregulated airlines resulted in more choices and even more services offered to consumers. Among these choices were city-pairs, which are flight direct from one city to another with no stops or connecting flights. After deregulation, there was a fifty-five per cent increase in city-pairs, which are quicker and more convenient for flyers (Hamrin 245). Obviously, quicker service and more convenience are positive aspects for consumers, and what is positive for the customer is positive also for the provider, as the customer will be more likely to return and do business again. Many supporters of regulation say that regulation protects small business and keeps Big Business in check. This is a common misconception. In fact, the opposite holds true. In an article “Big Business and Big Government” published on the CATO institute’s website, Timothy P. Carney points out this flaw in thinking. He writes, “The facts point in an entirely different direction . . . Enron was a tireless advocate of strict global energy regulations supported by environmentalists. Enron also used its influence in Washington to keep laissez-faire bureaucrats off the federal commissions that regulate the energy industry.” Enron would not try to keep laissez-faire politicians off of federal commissions if deregulation increased its control over the business. So clearly, it must be that deregulation threatens its power. Carney goes on to explain that newer, smaller business cannot keep up financially with all the government regulations, whereas big businesses have the resources to easily afford whatever regulations the government puts in place. They use government regulations to keep their smaller competitors one step behind and struggling financially under the burden of the regulations, which usually are not quite big enough to do any real damage to big business (“Big Business”). It is not good for consumers or for an economy to have the majority of the financial power residing with a group of large corporations. It reduces customer choices, and prices are more likely to rise, placing a burden on the people. With less competition, business can and will slowly raise their prices. This is the point of business; to make a profit. A free-market economy ensures that these prices do not go out of control. Simply put, if two companies offer the same service or good with similar quality, but one offers it a lower price, consumers will go to the company with the lower prices, forcing companies to have fair, competitive rates. With regulations and restrictions, companies are either forced to raise these prices to cover the cost of these regulations, or they have the freedom to raise them with less competition, as proved above. So it is clear that regulation ultimately ends in failure.
There is no better way to show just how and why these regulations end in failure than to examine government run economic programs such as the New Deal and other programs that amounted to nothing. According to Glenn Beck in his book Arguing with Idiots, the reason that government is ineffective in areas involving economics and business is simple. He writes:
Their motives are completely different. Private companies exist to create wealth, the government exists (at least in theory to provide protections critical to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Private companies closely manage expenses and ensure every dollar has a return; the government attempts to spend every dollar it’s given and measures returns in campaign donations and polling data.
If one disagrees that government is incompetent in the business and economics field, he or she need only look over previous regulations and programs and find the proof. During the New Deal, Roosevelt thought it would be a good idea to seize all the banks and make them close during a national “banking holiday” as it was called. After the so-called holiday, five thousand of the banks did not re-open. The majority of failed banks were in states with unit banking laws, which forbade a bank from opening new branches to lessen risk. Now this could be circumstantial, but further evidence proves otherwise. In Canada, there were no such laws, and banks could feel free to open new branches wherever and whenever they like. The number of bank failures in Canada at this time was a grand total of zero (“Great Myths” 8). The logical conclusion is that the unit banking laws caused the banks to fail. The banks were not allowed to open new branches, so when there was an opportunity to make more profits in another area, they were unable to seize that opportunity. Obviously, these banks needed the extra profit badly, or they would not have failed. In Canada these banks could open new branches when they got into financial troubles, and the new revenue could save their company. So it is clearly established that government regulation and government programs ultimately end in little or no success.
In contrast, private sectors have achieved far greater success. When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, both government agencies and private charities rushed to help. The government also put forth numerous recovery plans. The majority of these failed miserably. For example, Ray Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, put forth over three hundred public projects and rebuilding efforts. Almost three years later, only six were complete. Conversely, Wal-Mart was having incredible success. One hundred and twenty-six of Walmart’s stores had been severely damaged in the hurricane. Within ten days, one hundred and ten of them were up and running (Arguing). It is hard to believe those numbers. In less than two weeks, Wal-Mart had completed recovering eighty-seven per cent of its stores, while in over three years less than two percent of the government programs were completed. Obviously the private company had much better success than the government; the facts do not leave room for any interpretation. New Orleans recovery is not the only example of the government versus private companies though.
For an additional example of how private sectors achieve greater success than government-run operations, the National Center for Educational Statistics offers this interesting report. Private school students in the fourth grade outscored public school students by 14.7 points in reading, and 7.8 points in math. By the eighth grade, private school students were outperforming their public school counterparts by 18.1 points in reading and 12.3 points in math (“Comparing Private Schools”). As the students in the private school advanced through the grades, their scores over the public school students increased by 3.4 points in reading and 4.5 points in math. The longer the student remains in a private school, the more his or her scores improve. Clearly, the private-run schools provide a better education than the government-run schools. Financially, the private schools were better also. Competition in the private, less regulated sector drives efficiency and lower cost. According to that same report, the average annual cost per public school student in 1996 was $6,857. The average tuition in private schools that same year was about half that, at $3,116. Obviously, the government is doing something to raise costs that the private sectors are not. This same basic effect occurs whenever the government attempts to regulate private industries that it should not be involved in.
So it is obvious that government regulation hurts the economy, while deregulation provides for a more profitable business climate. This can be seen in the way regulation restricts companies and places financial burdens on consumers. It can be seen in how higher profits accompany deregulation and the effects of deregulation on the working class. It can be seen when government is directly compared with the private sector. The Founding Fathers drafted our Constitution with distinct goals in mind. Among these goals was the decentralization of power, keeping the federal government as far detached from citizen’s day to day lives as possible. Through regulations and restrictions, however, the federal government has inserted itself into areas it does not belong, with complete disregard for the Constitution. It is time for a change; it is time for the government to realize that the welfare of the economy is more important than its own power. Deregulation can bring many benefits to the economy where regulation can only cause more harm. It is time to deregulate, before it is too late.
Posted in administrative power, bailout, bank takeover, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Constitution, corruption, Democrats, economics, federal reserve, Federal reserve bank, gold, gold standard, international money, monetary policy, Obama, Obama Administration, Political parties, TARP, Tea Parties, unconstitutional | Tagged: Arguing with Idiots, Deregulation | Leave a Comment »
Posted by brotherkharma on January 6, 2010
Warning – This is long (for me), meandering, and quite possibly incoherent. Please do not mistake this for an official White House briefing or proposed legislation.
It is amazing to me, although I thought I was finished being shocked by the left. I Googled the phrase “Obama’s Guantanamo/al-Qaeda remarks” and it took me 10 minutes to find the actual remarks. I had to search Whitehouse.gov to find the text of the speech. All that came up on Google (at least the first 2 pages – which is all my attention span will allow me to look through) was the same silly blog being reposted all over the place. The blog was “Just Watch the Right Distort Obama’s Guantanamo/al-Qaeda Remarks”. They claim the President was saying Guantanamo was a propaganda and recruiting tool, and that the right has begun to twist his words. The same way the head of Homeland Security had her words twisted by being quoted? Maybe the same way Supreme Court nominees have their words twisted, by repeating them in their entirety with contextual explanation? Now I’ll grant them that President Obama said:
“For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo…. There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. …. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.”
The problem is he said that in May, 2009. What he said in January of 2010 was:
“But make no mistake: We will close Guantanamo prison, which has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for al Qaeda. In fact, that was an explicit rationale for the formation of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. And, as I’ve always said, we will do so — we will close the prison in a manner that keeps the American people safe and secure.”
Now the phrase “explicit rationale for the formation of al Qaeda” seems to my untrained ears to mean the reason they are there. If he wanted to say Guantanamo helped them recruit or helped raise sympathy in the Islamic world, I think he would have said it like that. You know, the way he did in May. Both speeches do a lot to tell you his mind set in dealing with this threat. Following the “explicit rationale” comments, he went into detail on how he will address security. The President warns us that al Qaeda is “constantly evolving and adapting their efforts to strike us”. The White House site also says what I hope is a typo: “As they refine our tactics, we’ll enhance our defenses”. People tell me I am overly critical of the President on this issue, so here I am going to rush to his side. He did not mean that al Qaeda is refining our tactics! They are not wondering into the White House, uninvited, and offering their opinions. I mean, no one gets in there like that! The President promises us “smarter screening and security at airports, and investing in the technologies that might have detected the kind of explosives used on Christmas”. Well, I am willing to help my country. I have an old laptop that is kind of slow, a little buggy, and needs an external keyboard attached to it, but it can run e-mail, a web browser, and word. I will happily provide this 21st Century anti-terror technology to the TSA so they can see if someone on multiple watch lists, buying a one way ticket in cash the day of the flight without a valid passport should be searched as thoroughly as I was the 3rd time I flew round trip from Philly to Colorado Springs in the same month.
In May, he really laid down the gauntlet. In that speech he stated “We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates”. Hoo-rah! (Can’t you just hear R. Lee screaming that out maggot?) He followed it up with the caution on how to prosecute this war. “But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.” Hoo-hah!
I don’t recall FDR demanding lawyers and checks and balances to combat the Nazi threat. I do not recall a stirring speech to Congress promising to bring Admiral Yamamoto to justice. I have spoken to many WWII vets, none of whom have ever issued a Miranda warning on the battlefield. But wait, he leans on some quasi historical precedent. “…the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions…” . Can anyone tell me what war the US waged with a reliance on “our legal traditions and time-tested institutions”? The American Revoloution? No. Civil War? Hmmmm, nope. Either World War? Don’t think so. Wait! I have it. The closest we came was in Vietnam. That’s the model we want to follow, right?
Well, if that didn’t strike fear in the hearts of our enemies, they did it today. They revoked the Visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man who tried to blow up 300 people on Christmas day. 12 days later, they revoked his visa. The Administration is sending a STRONG Clear statement! If you are a failed terrorist, we don’t want you here! And Gitmo, which of course is the main reason that al-Qaeda flourishes on the Arabian Peninsula, will ABSOLUTELY be closed! Sometime. Soon. Probably. We think, just don’t send them to Yemen. Or to Illinois because we can’t afford to buy lights and a new fence at the vacant state prison – fiscal responsibility is part of the new change in Washington remember!
Now there are some who will point to the cooperation of the Yemen government as evidence that Obama is gaining support around the world. It might seem like the approach to this as a legal issue and closure of Gitmo has garnered support in the Middle East. However, let’s take a deeper look. Since 2001, US military, not prosecutors, have driven the Taliban into the mountains. They have ripped Saddam from power and wrought havoc on the terror organizations that attempted to move into Iraq. The war was pushed away from our shores and towards the heart of Islamofascism. But why the sudden support of Yemen? There has also been support of the Saudis, who have launched air strikes against al-Qaeda on the Saudi/Yemeni border. In August of 2009, for the first time in decades, there was an attempted assassination of a member of the Saudi Royal Family. Al-Qaeda sent a suicide bomber tried to kill Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, assistant interior minister for security affairs, in his palace in Jeddah. Somehow I think this is far more likely to cause Saudi and Yemeni cooperation than a guarantee that someday Gitmo will close and the threat to deport every failed terrorist.
BTW – if anyone is still reading this, I feel sorry for you but wanted you to know one more thing. The reason I gave it the title I did was to hopefully get it in the mix of those other brain dead blogs that made me go on this rant. Have a nice day and go J-E-T-S-Jets Jets JETS!!!!
Posted in administrative power, Afghanistan, chaos, Christianity, deception, Democrats, fascism, Freedom, Homeland Security, International, Iraq, Iraq Victory, Islam, Just talking, Justice, laws, Middle East, Military, Napolitano, Obama, Obama Administration, Oil, Pelosi, Political parties, Politics, Russia, Tea Parties, Terrorism, Torture, US Army, US Navy, USMC, White house | Tagged: al-Qaeda, Arabian Peninsula, assassination, Bin Laden, bloggers, deception, Democrats, gitmo, Government Power, Guantanamo, Homeland Security, Hoo-Rah, Islam, islamofascism, Jets, liberals, liberty, media coverage, New York Jets, Obama, Obama Administration, Obama Gitmo, Obama Guantanamo al-Qaeda remarks, Obama’s Guantanamo/al-Qaeda remarks, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Royal Family, society terrorism, Tea Parties, White house, Yemen | Leave a Comment »