The Church of Kharma Futures

The Rev's views on politics, events,faith, and the world. All content copyright Church of Kharma Future 2007-2015 All rights Reserved

Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Paris Burns: DC Remains Too Cool

Posted by revkharma on November 16, 2015

Paris is burning, and DC is chilly. We have seen a well planned, well executed and devastating attack in Paris. Islamic fanatics have killed scores and it appears to be a direct result of the plans and achievements of the leaders of the West.
“Refugees” from Syria, and radicalized Europeans have struck in the heart of France with bloody results.
In the US, reaction is mixed. Our president has resolutely refused to change course, with his administration standing firm in their plans to import tens of thousands of those very same refugees.
After years of minimizing the role of ISIS, and refusing to even say ‘Islamic Terror’ President Obama on Friday, the day of the massacre, was quoted once more with noted ignorance, claiming that ISIS was now contained, and not a growing threat. At the gathering of world leaders, the American president was noticeably late for the formal gathering for a memorial moment of silence to honor the dead from the ISIS assault.
Even today, when pressed by media, President Obama has steadfastly refused to respond forcefully, with this the most telling exchange:

“CNN’s Jim Accosta said…’I guess the question is, and if you’ll forgive the language is”Why can’t we take out these bastards”?
Obama scoffed at the question: “What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of ‘American Leadership’ or America winning’ He said firmly”

Via Breitbart

 

This, then is pretty decisive and clear. This man, the president of the USA is NOT interested in victory by America.

Immediately following the attacks, Obama announced that he was releasing five Yemeni prisoners from Guantanamo, including the man who was Osama Bin Laden’s body guard. He appears bent on  showing he cares more for Islamists than Americans.
Why is this? What can possibly be the answer?

Our president has sometimes been portrayed as being an islamist. He has denounced those who have questioned his Christian credentials. Recall the scrambling to rephrase and reframe this famous quote in an interview with George Stephanopolis, where he responded to a question with an answer about ” My Muslim Faith” ?  If in fact, Obama had been raised as a Muslim by his father, then later in life he became Christian, then according to the Sharia law, he is an apostate. If this were the case, he would be subject to death by true believers.  As it happens, there have not been calls for his death for this crime.  Yet he continues to show more concern for defaming Islam than defending Christianity.
Answers range from his leftist upbringing, racialist philosophy, to Al Taqiyya.
But, in truth, the answers are irrelevant. The truth, the facts, are plain enough. As long as he is in command, Obama will not lead, will not permit America to win. He has stated plainly such. He must be thwarted, his successor must be someone capable of reversing his damage.
Keep the Faith!
The Rev

Posted in Big Government, Border, Christianity, Civil liberties, corruption, Culture of Death, deception, fascism, Freedom, Global government, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, International, ISIS, Islam, Obama, Obama Administration, Presidential race, religion of peace, Terrorism, transnational law, unconstitutional | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Vanquished Powers Were Glad

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!

The Rev

Posted in administrative power, corruption, deception, Freedom, Global government, Government Power, International, Iraq, ISIS, islamism, Obama, Obama Administration, Russia, White house | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Fast thoughts on the Mittens lost election

Posted by revkharma on November 20, 2012

Ok,I have wasted some time reading some stuff, more post election whining and finger pointing. Just a couple of fast thoughts.
First: it’s time to eliminate any and all Bush admin folks from the ranks of any party that wants to win. Personally I think the elephant party should just go away, basically THEY SUCK.
Next, stop all the crap about ‘Swing States”. If you want to run to be President of the United States, then campaign in ALL of the United States. If you want to be president of Ohio, then put that on your ads and shut the fuck up.
Way too many states were taken for granted. This year there was a case to be made, and Romney and the elephants just didn’t bother. Since they only concentrated on swing states, and critical issues, then they abandoned the case that they SHOULD have made.

Run for president, not for marketing executive.
Make a case, present ideas, and tell me why you DESERVE to be my president.
If not, well, then people will stay home and you will continue to lose over and over and over.

Posted in Big Government, Just talking, media coverage, Obama, Obama Administration, Political parties, Politics, Presidential race, Republican Platform, states rights, Tea Parties, Uncategorized, White house | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

I don’t recognize my country today… or Has Carter been Reelected?

Posted by revkharma on September 13, 2012

I don’t recognize my country today.

The last few days have presented a clear and obvious choice. Our Embassies, sovereign territory placed within other nations, have been attacked and defiled. Our ambassador has been killed, along with several others in planned coordinated attacks on American facilities.

While the government of Mohammed Morsi permitted his thugs to invade the grounds of the American Embassy in Cairo, the US state department was issuing apologies to Islam, condemning those who would dare to ‘Hurt the feelings’ of Muslims anyplace in the world.

When a candidate for the office of president challenged the appropriateness of this apology, he was roundly criticized, not for saying something untrue or incorrect, but for ‘the timing’ of his statement. All this while the State dept. repeated and reissued the same statement even while the flag of our nation was being pulled down, set ablaze and replaced by a flag representing the very Al Qaeda groups which have attacked us repeatedly.

Following that atrocity in Egypt, Libyan ‘extremists’ assaulted the consulate and the American Ambassador. He and others were escorted to a ‘safe location’ by Libyan guards… apparently we had no US Marines available to protect the representative of the United States in a dangerous area…

Once ensconced in said safe location, the Libyan ‘protectors’ then took to the streets, to inform the ‘small band of extremists’ as to the location of the American delegation.

Upon this felicitous discovery, the Ambassador and his aides were murdered, and their bodies carried, as trophies, through the streets in jubilant celebration of the pinnacle of Arab Muslim civilization.

To this point, there have been as many differing explanations and causes given for the death of these people as questions about ‘the motives’ of the assault.

It must have been that cheap movie; the clip was shown on YouTube. That’s why they attacked. Not because they want to extend their reach globally. So, in order to prevent them from attacking again, and to refute the statements of those who claim this is all about extending Sharia law in our modern world as it has been in their pre historic caliphate, many journalists have called out for the arrest and trial of a nominally Christian pastor who has supported the movie. He must be made to pay. We must curtail his right to speak, lest he offend some Islamic man of peace and drive him to behead someone in The Levant. We must implement the rules of Sharia in order to prove that the Islamofascists are not trying to implement the rules of Sharia.

Then our President makes his statement.

He uses one of his most useful collections of weasel words, telling us to “Make No mistake”

(This is a phrase he generally uses to ensure that we know he is about to make an intentional forced error)

“Justice will be done” Our president has promised that “Justice will be done”

This is step one. Justice, as in the Department of Justice. That great bastion of integrity and fairness which upon winning summary judgment against a group ( The New Black Panther Party) which used force to intimidate voters at polling places in Philadelphia, abandoned the case, and surrendered, dropping all charges against those who had just been convicted. That Standard Bearer of brilliance, which has stonewalled the investigation of the killing of a US agent by foreign nationals using guns purchased through a program managed by that very justice department, and denied by the head of that august body. That kind of justice.

Today after two devastating attacks, carried out on the eleventh day of September, (does that day ring any bells anyone??? Hello???) Our President, our leader, the most powerful man on the planet, has dispatched…….

The FBI to investigate and determine the motives of the attackers.

THE FREAKING FBI????? We are attacked by forces under the control of foreign governments, our representatives are murdered, our embassies defiled, our flag burned and REPLACED by the flag of our enemies, and we send in the cops???

Of course we will investigate, we will debate, and we will take an overt act of war and magically transmogrify it into an act of civil criminal disobedience, to be explained by root causes, and oppression by the evil conservative Christian right wing hate groups.

 Soon enough we will see that the attacks in Cairo and Ben Ghazi are actually the result of actions by Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and Paul Ryan, abetted of course by the Koch brothers, enabled by the Citizens United decision. The only way to prevent such attacks from happening again will be to suspend the first amendment, and permit the government to support and affirm the rights of Muslims to impose their will, to eliminate the second amendment to prevent ‘right wing terrorists’ from attacking us from within, and to ensure that Obama and his administration remain in power to protect us from the Israelis who are the real source of terror in the middle east.

Of course, that last paragraph is a farce, a parody of reality. Absurd words, meant to dramatize the reality which is much nicer and safer. It is, I promise, … or at least I pray it is.

Keep the Faith!

The Rev

Posted in Attorney General, chaos, Christianity, Civil liberties, Culture of Death, eric holder, Free Speech, Freedom, islamism, Justice, media coverage, Middle East, Military, Obama, Obama Administration, Politics, Presidential race, religion of peace, Terrorism, Uncategorized, White house | Leave a Comment »

There is hope for the future

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: , | Leave a Comment »

Just Watch the Right Distort Obama’s Guantanamo/al-Qaeda Remarks

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is The White House Compiling An ‘Enemies List”?

Posted by revkharma on August 6, 2009

Day after day, this administration seems to push things further and further. During the Bush years, we saw the adoption of the Patriot Act as a direct response to an attack on our country. Many questioned, some quite loudly if the danger was sufficient to justify the curtailing of liberty which accompanied the new rules. While many objected, there was at least some rational purpose, an attempt to find and stop those who would attack us again.

The danger was, and is clear. In addition to the short term infringement of our freedom, the use and abuse of the Patriot Act powers by any future administration, with perhaps a less than pure motivation was always lurking.

Now we see that even more than just abusing existing statutes the Obama Administration is moving toward using ‘snitches’ to gather information on those who ‘spread misinformation on Obama’s health care plan’. Look here to see Byron York’s essay in the Washington Examiner. CBS says the following:

The White House in recent days has taken pro-active steps to combat the misinformation spreading about the president’s health care plans…

Senator John Cornyn of Texas has send a letter in which he puts it plainly and clearly:

“By requesting that citizens send “fishy” emails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House,” Cornyn wrote to Obama. “I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House.”

The Dallas Morning News has more detail, including the entire letter from Senator Cornyn.

When all of the actions of this administration are put out for view, in the clear light of reason it is difficult to avoid reacting in fear. Recall  his plan for  Obama 2.0, to continue his own separate campaign organization. Recall the statements from his administration on the need for a separate ‘ civilian organization’ to equal the military.  The press secretary calls those who are angry at their representatives at town hall meetings angry mobs.

This most recent request is just far too similar of tactics used by past administrations to collect information on ‘dissidents’ in National Socialist Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or Castroist Cuba. Use fear, use neighbors to rat out others, and you will rapidly silence opposition.

How long before this secret list is used by the Obama Justice department, or the IRS to target those who have opposed him.

We are in dangerous times folks. We all need to step up. If you are not afraid to have your name and e-mail added to the list, then why not try this. Send an e-mail to the following: ( I am following the lead I read here, it’s brilliant)

flag@whitehouse.gov

and ask that you be reported as opposed to Obama care. By the time I post this I’m willing to guess that I’m already on the list, but I’ll send a copy of this post just to be sure.

Don’t forget, send your polite, friendly and courteous message to Macon Phillips, the White House Director of New Media at this e-mail address

flag@whitehouse.gov

Keep the Faith

The Rev

Posted in administrative power, Big Government, change, Civil liberties, corruption, deception, Democrats, fascism, Free Speech, Government Power, Health Care, media coverage, Obama, Obama Administration, Politics, regulations, unconstitutional, White house, White House Enemies List | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

More State Media Lies

Posted by revkharma on August 5, 2009

Elkhart, Indiana has been the major manufacturing site for Motor homes and RV’s for years. This has put the industry in the cross hairs of the environmental movement and the leftists in government for a long time.  We see how the drive to demonize auto industry has slammed the industrial base in Elkhart.  Shortly after inauguration, President Obama visited Elkhart, promising to help.  Subsequently he took over the auto industry, and further bashed the industry, putting a spike into the heart of the employment base in good old Elkhart.

Today Obama returned to Elkhart, hoping to puff up his economic plan in front of a friendly crowd. With a fawning supine media present he got most of what he hoped for. Driving home from work today, I heard the report from  taxpayer funded NPR  ( should be called National Propaganda Reporting). First the on air reporter states that the local economy has been hurt, Obama’s economic plan has produced only ‘sluggish job growth’. Immediately after, they stated that “unemployment has increased 1.6%.” Even while on air reporters were shading the numbers to make Obama look good, the following was reported on NPR’s own website:

Despite the positive jobs creation message, the day’s economic picture was mixed with one survey by a business services firm showing job losses slowed in July, while another suggested that there are more layoffs to come.

The labor market shrank by an estimated 371,000 jobs in July according to a report by ADP Employer Services.

and:

But another survey by outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas was more ominous. That survey found a 30 percent jump in planned layoffs

Further in the report, we hear from a local, who tells of being laid off for seven months. Now he’s coming back to work. He says, of Obama, I guess he’s doing something right, cause now I have a job.  The NPR report glowing uses this as a praiseworthy example of the good things from Obama’s plan. Unfortunately it is not President Obama that man needs to thank for his job. It seems the parent company of his employer has gotten a multimillion dollar federal grant to subsidize its foray into manufacturing electric trucks.  So it is tax money that has employed this man. That means he should call and thank me, and you, and anyone else who works and pays taxes. This is not employment, it is simply another form of welfare. $39 million worth of welfare in this case. Obama is taking money from every working American  across the nation and sending it to Elkhart.

Yet somehow this is reported as ‘Job growth’ on the Federally funded radio station. Somehow an ‘ uptick of 1.6% in unemployment is reported as ‘sluggish job growth’.

President Obama is moving steadily toward a system every bit as repressive and controlled as that run by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.  NPR is probably the worst offender in the media, and they are  supported by federal tax dollars. This is unquestionably government propaganda. The privately owned networks are simply going along to ensure they get their cut of the pie.  The established politicians are doing all they can to cement their place in power regardless of which party holds majorities in Congress. We are fast moving away from the ideal of representative government and establishing a system of power brokered by barons and those with inherited wealth. Without direct pressure from every voting, taxpaying citizen we are on the way to surrendering the republic bequeathed to us by the founders of the nation.

Posted in administrative power, Big Government, change, chaos, charity, deception, Democrats, economics, Government expansion, Government Power, media coverage, nationalization, Obama, Obama Administration, Oil prices, Political parties, Politics, Spending, Uncategorized, White house | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Politics of Distraction

Posted by revkharma on July 24, 2009

So, the last question of Obama’s  ‘Health care ‘ press conference changed everything. In what almost seems to be a planted question the president was asked to address the recent arrest of Harvard Professor Gates. The Great and Powerful Obama began by admitting his own bias, then waded in and called the actions of the police ‘stupid’.  Predictably, this has once more put the debate on racial division on the front page of newspapers and top discussion topic of many news programs. See, it’s all about race, and if we believe the template the only reason this happened is because the cop in question was white and the professor black.

Let’s dig a little and see if this holds water.

First, any time Obama takes a question there has got to be a political calculus involved. By taking that one, and responding the way he has, Obama has been able to shift discussion away from his losing performance on nationalizing health care, andshift it to another topic. Reviewing his answers that night one can see he simply has no answers to any questions. His health care plan is a mess, and it is likely to fail if it is examined in any detail. He stumbled and mumbled, with as many ” umms’ and ahhs’ as real replies to questions. He indicted doctors, claiming they are ‘removing tonsils for higher profit’ rather than treating allergies and sore throats.  He alluded to heart rending letters he reads every day, while saying the discussion should not be about him. The senate has now decided not to vote before Obama’s clear August deadline.

So, what to do? Distract and shift attention. Make it all about race instead of his slipping plan.

The problem here is if you look at what actually happened, this is NOT about race, but about power, wealth and personal privilege.  Gates, while dealing with police  officers on the scene, was calling headquarters, apparently gaining access to ‘the chief’. Once he was arrested, he was able to throw his connections around and have charges dismissed.  If this had been any average American, who would doubt that they would have been processed and charged.  The cops on the scene responded to a call of a possible break in. Accounts and photos of the scene show that the officers on scene were actually a multi racial group. They faced an arrogant and belligerent loudmouth who simply would NOT accept anything other than confrontation. Witnesses say he continued to berate the officer long after the officer tried to disengage.  Gates was then handcuffed and arrested. Afterward he was released, and no charges were lodged against him.  Had that been an ordinary, middle class American, white or black, who had continued to shout and abuse a cop, there surely would have been charges.

Now all the media are discussing the case, the circus, and the statement which President Obama has injected, clearly and intentionally into the whole morass.

I began this essay early Friday morning, and later in the day two events took place. First, the police union in Cambridge staged a press conference to support Sgt Crowley. White House press secretary  and Chief Jester Robert Gibbs at first attempted to portray it as a political battle, stating that ” the FOP endorsed Mccain”.

Shortly after that, Obama descended to the press room and offered one of his now familiar pseudo apologies.  He professed to be stunned that his remarks generated such interest. After allowing that he had ‘failed to properly calibrate his words’ he attempted to make some humorous statements. The fawning press guffawed louder than Ed McMahon listening to a Carson joke fall flat.

Yet listen carefully to his words, and you will see that President Obama has absolutely NOT apologized for his offensive characterization.

In my choice of words, I unfortunately gave the impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically, I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Prof. Gates out of his home and to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, that Prof. Gates probably overreacted as well

This will insure a continued discussion of race, police and most importantly of all, The Great and Powerful Obama. He has made the remarks, and just by stating them has played the race card. He has also refused to actually recant.  He will, through back channels and sotto voce maintain that his credibility with the Community Organizers from which he draws his power. His allies at ACORN will stand by him. And he will avoid the discussion of his major failure to ram the takeover of the US Health care system as quickly as he wanted.

And THAT,  I maintain, is the whole and sole purpose of this.  If Obama had the votes lined up to pass the plan no comments would ever have been made about Gates and the Cambridge PD. This way, he deflects attention until either he finds a back door way to cheat his plan through the system or manages to coerce or buy enough votes to get the disastrous plan through the house.

It is, this time and every time, all about him. Don’t be fooled, this was not a mistake, or a misspeak, or a poor choice of words. He accomplished what he wanted.  Now we have to watch carefully. He’s sent the distraction, we have to wait to see the hidden secret he wants to keep us from seeing.

Keep the Faith

The Rev

Posted in corruption, deception, Democrats, distraction, Government Power, media coverage, Obama, Political parties, Politics, race relations, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Legacy

Posted by brotherkharma on July 15, 2009

Legacy.  It’s an odd word.  It used to mean, according to Merriam Webster, “a gift by will” or “something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past”.  Well, as with so many words, politicians have annihilated that as well.  Legacy now means the way today’s media would like historians to judge a current political figure.  Please don’t confuse this with their actual legacy, which is what they have transmitted to our culture and posterity.

Take for example, and I do hesitate to invoke the name, President Clinton.  I am not, in any way attempting to link the current administration to Clinton’s.  For one thing, Clinton was much better about doing a poll driven 180° policy turn and convincing a lot of people this was the original direction.  That brings me rambling along to something like making a point.  (I understand that is what I’m supposed to do with these blogs, go figure).  Enough time has passed that we can begin to honestly evaluate the Clinton legacy.

To do this, we will need to look at the “Webster” legacy, and the “Network” legacy.  First, the network legacy.  I will paraphrase a few things; sort of quote a source occasionally.  You know, real, hard hitting modern journalism.  There is a NY Times article, “Striking Strengths, Glaring Shortcomings”, that is one of many attempts to describe the former President as someone who tried really hard.  He had to overcome a public that just didn’t trust the executive branch after the 12 years before him.  They actually referred to his “modest domestic initiatives” in the same paragraph as “his effort to overhaul the nation’s health care system”.  They refer to his poll driven policies as navigating between the left and the right.  The gist of most of the major news outlets view of the administration is that he was a likeable guy, bad husband, and the only really practical person in Washington.  Their version of his legacy is that conservatives learned to move to the left because of him, and those who disagreed with his practical policies had to attack his personal life.  The impeachment was, after all, the result of Ken Starr being a pervert and a prude (with no explanation how you are both).

Watching some of the recent news of the day is what prompted me on this rambling.  I am seeing more of the true legacy.  To be fair, it is not all directly from the former President, but what I see is the result of both his actions and those who rushed to his defense.  In 1988, there were several prominent Democrats running for their party’s nomination.  In these pre-Clinton days, reports of Gary Hart’s affair on the yacht Monkey Business was more than enough to run him out of the race, and politics.   That same year, another Senator running for office was discovered to have plagiarized a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock, as well as a number of papers while in law school.  He was disgraced and withdrew from the race (although he did provide me with a good joke for my brother’s wedding toast) and was very quiet for a long time.  Now, in the post Clinton days, that man is Vice-President.  I look at the Governors of New York, New Jersey, and South Carolina and I hear people saying it’s their personal life.  In New York, Eliot Spitzer is actually being considered as a viable candidate.

We used to look for leaders, for people to inspire the nation to greatness.  I can’t stand to hear one more talking head tell me that our politicians are just like the rest of us.   That’s not leadership.  George Washington was not like the rest of us.  Most people would have taken the opportunity to become the first American King, or Emperor.  Why do we tolerate (and don’t get me started on the new definition of that word) mediocre leadership?  I see the messages battering my children that some sex is not sex, and anything you do in private is OK.  Spin is OK.  I’m sorry but spin is just a soft way to say lying through your teeth.  My kids have been told (not at home) that there are times in life when a little lie is the right thing to do.  Let me repeat that.  They have been told that sometimes a lie is the right thing to do.  As long as you avoid offending anyone, and spin it right, just say what you need to say and get past the situation.  Of course, if you botch it, there is a guaranteed fix.  If you actually do something that someone considers wrong, and get caught, you must apologize.  It should go something along the lines of “To the extent that anyone may have taken offense at what I said, although I never intended to offend them, I apologize.” Apologize for someone else’s actions too, while you’re at it.  Can’t hurt.

So in the end, I am trying to raise my kids to learn the lesson of the only legacy that truly matters.  I understand that this gets me labeled with all sorts of horrible titles, but I still do it.  It is a true legacy, a “gift transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past”.  The world has the legacy of Christ, handed directly down from Him through Saint Peter.  I will hitch my wagon to that, and let the others try to build on the media legacy.

Posted in administrative power, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Cabinet, change, Christianity, citizenship, corruption, Democrats, Faith, Faith under assault, First Amendment, Founders, Freedom of Religion, George Washington, Government expansion, governors, incompetent Clinton, Justice, liberty, Obama, Political parties, Politics, Presidential race, Senate, White house | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »