What Is Wrong With Obama Admin

Recently the writer of a local newspaper letter asked me to explain what it is I think Barack Obama and the Administration have done that is so bad – after I made the comment that Obama is destroying our freedom and liberty and we are watching it erode before our very eyes. This, mind you after he had posted that Americas issues were all the result of the previous administration, placing the blame for the country’s woes strictly and fully on former POTUS George Bush.

Since this seems to be a recurring theme of the ultra-far-left, and because it would seem a cop-out not to respond, I will attempt in my “never to be humble” style to address at least a few of the issues that I have with our current president and his administration. Hopefully, even though I have no illusion of persuading the afore mentioned writer, someone with lingering questions may come away with at least some new perspective.

First, let’s begin with a few of the more obvious problems. It is my belief that the current administration has demonstrated a clear penchant for extreme Socialist policy perhaps bordering on Marxism. This can be seen in the ideologies/policies of the President and the people Mr. Obama has chosen to surround himself with by placing them in seats of great power and influence throughout government. One example is the president’s choice in March 2009 of Van Jones who was appointed by President Barack Obama to the [newly created] position of Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, (budget unknown, but believed to be significant) where he worked with various “agencies and departments to advance the administration’s climate and energy initiatives, with a special focus on improving vulnerable communities”. The term “vulnerable communities” has yet to be adequately defined by anyone in the administration but, I take it to mean any community with a high rate of poverty and ignorance but see no connection to environmental issues. Mr. Jones’ direct ties to Marxists and his own statements that he [is a communist] make him unfit for service in government in the minds of most people. Mr. Jones is an ardent champion of the ultra-far left and dangerously radical environmental movement and has started at least 4 activist organizations to both enrich himself and advance his cause. No matter what you believe about the state of our environment (the science is far from settled) the position of individuals like Jones is that America is the chief polluter in the world and therefore must be made to suffer at the hands of the likes of the United Nations via “Agenda 21”, the very far reaching plan to create “One World Government”, relinquishing American sovereignty and control over every aspect of human activity including environment, private land use, economy and even personal behavior such as gun ownership. Mr. Jones anti-American stance unfortunately is no aberration when it comes to the far-left leanings of the individuals that President Obama has chosen and placed in powerful positions. These people, like it or not are changing the country through executive order and fiat without oversight and in many cases even without names. They push plans and policies that are both harmful to American interests and counter to the beliefs and desires of the citizenry. People such as Cass Sunstein the President’s “Regulatory Czar” who wants to (gently if possible) but ultimately by any means necessary “nudge” us into compliance with [his] view of the perfect America. Environmental regulations are merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of the changing regulatory landscape that determines directly and indirectly what life will be like in the United States for her citizens years, perhaps decades to come. You may say, “I’ve never even heard of ‘Agenda 21’” or “what difference does one individual like Jones make?” The answers are the keys to whether you believe the administration is or is not changing or (eroding) the American way of life. It is undeniable whether one chooses to believe or not that America is changing rapidly and deliberately. Remember, it was Barack Obama who campaigned on the idea of “fundamentally changing” America. He just never defined (and was never asked) what he meant by fundamental change; but now that he’s been gifted the office and time we can clearly see the result of his intention, which is to move America hard left into Socialism. The shift in his second term is likely to be much more dramatic than that seen in the first.
The list of radicals in and around the White House is astounding in breadth and shocking in its consistency. At no other time in American history have so many leftist radicals had so much power and influence and done so much damage so quickly. From Arne Duncan, Obama’s Secretary of Education, to Rahm Emanuel, now Mayor of the worst run city in America (and worse, his brother Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, White House health care policy czar and architect of Obama Care and in particular the “End of Life” or “Death Panels” portion, to Eric Holder of “fast n’ Furious” fame, to the ethically challenged tax-cheat Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, to the secretive Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and on and on and on the list goes until your head virtually explodes trying to remember all of the scandals, lies, miss-directions, obfuscations and changes in American policy and cultural direction.

Then there is the economy. A little perspective is required for the “Blame Bush” crowd. The constantly lauded argument that today’s economic woes were inherited and are the result of over-spending for wars is a fallacy. I make no excuses for the fiscal excesses of the Bush administration and Congress in the last decade. But at some point, a president has to take ownership of his own actions. Obama certainly inherited an economic mess, and that accounts for a large part of the deficit. But Obama pushed for spending increases that also have contributed in important ways to the nation’s fiscal deterioration. Clearly, a huge part of the deficit problem, about half stems from the recession and forecasting errors. But Obama’s policies represent a big chunk as well. He certainly could argue that these were necessary and important steps to take, but he can’t blithely suggest that 90 percent of the current deficit “is as a consequence” of his predecessor’s policies, and not his own. It is astonishing to see the president and his sycophants repeat this faulty claim over and over again, as if it were an established fact. Moreover, an important part of Obama’s legacy — the health-care law — has not even taken full effect yet. The CBO calculated virtually no impact on the deficit in the first 10 years after enactment, but all bets are off after that. Obama claims that “we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower.” The Washington Post, FactCheck.org and the Associated Press have all said the claim is bunk. One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):
2008: 20.8 percent
2009: 25.2 percent (Bush and Congress get some credit, but only about half)
2010: 24.1 percent
2011: 24.1 percent
2012: 24.3 percent
2013: 23.3 percent
In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II. The seriousness of this fact cannot be overestimated. When debt-to-GDP ratios rise, the cost of everything, including government rises. When the cost of government rises, inflation follows, increasing the cost of everything. The rising cost of everything on individuals erodes the American way of life. Worse, far worse, is the fact that a large percentage of this money is being printed by Obama’s Federal Reserve or borrowed from outside the US, making all of the aforementioned still worse by causing every dollar in your wallet to have less actual buying power. Some folks may not have begun to feel the pinch of these economic facts but the day of reckoning is at hand like it or not. The results of “TARPs I, II and (maybe III) are simply that the taxpayers have been fleeced by a government hell-bent on picking and choosing marketplace winners and losers such as Solyndra $535M, Abound Solar $400M, LG Chem/Compact Power $151M, Ener1 $118.5M etc. to date about 33 losers and NO winners as this administration attempts to play venture capitalist with taxpayer money. Contrary to administration claims, the government has not been “paid back in full” for the bailout gifted GM.

This administration is unquestionably attempting to lower America’s standing in the world. First there was the apology tour by our President. Trotting throughout the Middle-East genuflecting and commenting about the arrogance and dismissiveness of America undermines our ability to deal with arguably already difficult nations. Praising the likes of “Occupy” lowers public discourse as the participants defecate on police cars while law enforcement are ordered to stand down. Watching the Muslim Brotherhood take over country after country post “Arab Spring” and calling them a legitimate duly elected entity is a farce to which the administration is complicit. Calling the “Fort Hood” shooting “work place violence” rather than identifying one of the most insidious cancers on society by this government is tantamount to acceptance. Many more examples of government malfeasance exist but it makes me too depressed to go on…
If one were to pick a single thing the administration or President has done, it might not mean much, but taken together, the fact is clear; this President and this administration do not like the America they see. In their minds, the injustice and hubris of America must rectified. I have no doubt that before the second term ends, all of this will be far worse than it is today.

The contents of this column are the opinions of the author based upon research and observation and are open to modification if convinced of error.

 

Second Amendment Arguments

The level of sheer ignorance and lack of understanding surrounding all things gun is astonishing; especially from the anti-gun or gun-ban advocates.

“Ban” advocates often argue that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen advances in modern firearm technology and therefore could not have possibly envisioned a society in which “assault rifles” (I’ll discuss the definition later) would permeate the long gun market in America.  Taking this illogical line of thinking to its inevitable end means that the framers of the Constitution could not have seen the impact of the internet, digital communications, radio and television on the First Amendment; they could not have anticipated that Americans could buy a product digitally in one place on the planet and have it delivered to any other place in just a few days and the inevitable impact upon the enumerated Commerce Claus; the point being that though the Founders could not see into the future, the document endures because of the brilliance with which both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights speak primarily to preserve individual liberty and specifically limit the powers of all governmental entities.  These documents are not now nor have they ever been a list of do’s and don’ts for the individual or a list of powers granted to the government.  Conversely, they brilliantly lay out the limitations intentionally placed upon the government and the powers granted to those whom they govern.  Additionally, Alexander Hamilton explained artfully in “Federalist 28” unambiguously what was meant by including the Second Amendment to the Constitution.  He wrote: “Independent of all other reasoning the safeguard against the use of a national army against the people is because the power of the proposed government is in the hands of the representatives of the people. If the representatives betray the people then the only recourse left is self-defense where the people take up arms against the national force.”  Hamilton’s point has little to do with self-defense and even less to do with hunting.  By the logic of the afore-mentioned argument, if citizens were denied similar weapons as their government armies poses, they would over time be less and less capable of resisting the inevitable tyranny that goes hand-in-glove with political power.

The next fallacious argument that arises from the last is that the government already has an arsenal larger and more destructive than that of the citizenry so we can’t fight tyranny anyway.  This is perhaps the best argument [for] armed citizens.  Statistically there are well over 310 million guns in private hands in this country.  As the government’s appetite for control grows more voracious, it is the prospect of citizens actually fighting back that keeps them in check.  In order to take complete control, the government would have to destroy about a third of its population.  In so doing the remaining population would live under the thumb of tyranny and oppression exactly as those in North Korea, Cuba, Hitler’s Germany, China, and on and on.  It is this reality of guns in our society that checks to a degree how far the power-grabbers are willing to go. 

“Who [needs] a gun that can shoot 30 rounds?”  “You don’t [need] 10 rounds to kill a deer!”  These are simply red herring arguments meant to distract from the real issues at hand.  The Second Amendment is about personal protection of life, property and protection from government tyranny.  Folks who understand this believe strongly that it is their right to be able to fight back, protect and defend their personal property and their country if need be.  Anti-gun people are free to live gun free in their homes and businesses just the same as gun advocates are free to safely possess and defend themselves with guns.  I have ever in my life known only one true pacifist who would allow himself to be beaten to death at the hand of another rather than fight back in self-defense.  So it seems a bit disingenuous for most folks advocating the banning of guns to do so, since they themselves would indeed use any and all means at their disposal to defend themselves or those they love.  The argument about how many rounds a gun ought to have is mute when determining how much protection is appropriate for each individual.  This debate over the number of rounds is not about gun safety at all, it is [only] about anti-gun people controlling gun people; nothing more.

Even the NRA concedes that America needs to control the mentally unstable better.  But the idea that gun people are [all] nuts seems nuttier still.  There is plenty of “common ground” on the issue of improving mental health, but that argument is not about guns; it is only about mental health at the end of the day.

If guns were [only] about killing, then there would be very little left alive anywhere on the planet in a few days’ time.  The most recent analysis from Small Arms Survey by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland estimates that there were then conservatively (in 2007) 875 million “small arms” in the world.  Other recent estimates put the number of “small arms” in civilian hands in the US at over 310 million, which is just a fraction less than one for every person here.  Guns are not about killing any more than the billions of knives are about stabbing or millions of cars are about running over people.  The human race has got its share of problems and grief and tragedy, but to blame the inanimate object misses the real point, that sick people with bad intent do sick and twisted things.  The condition of the heart or mind is the source of these despicable behaviors not guns.  Reducing the numbers of guns or outlawing the look and features of some guns or reducing the number of rounds in a magazine will not prevent evil from taking place.  In fact, from history we learn repeatedly that confiscation of guns – or a means of the people to fight back – is the first step toward totalitarianism and tyranny.

Finally, there is the question of the “assault rifles” and whether we (law abiding citizens) should or should not possess them.  There has been much confusion and deliberate misinformation surrounding the term “assault rifle”.  The closest accurate definition is that a true “assault rifle” is fully automatic as those used by the military are.  Meaning, hold the trigger down and the weapon fires until empty or released.  ”Assault Rifles” or “machine guns”, under this definition have been banned since the 1934 National Firearms Act that prohibited citizens from owning fully automatic weapons, short shotguns, etc.  Lumping Semi-automatic weapons together with fully automatic ones muddies the water in the discussion, largely because they are functionally vastly different and merely [look] similar.  Semi-automatic weapons have been in the hands of the general public since 1885 when the first semi-auto rifle was introduced.  In 1894 the first semi-auto handgun and finally in 1902 the first semi-auto shotgun was introduced.  Semi-automatic guns have gained popularity ever since and are by far the most widely used guns the world over.  It is ludicrous to believe that you could effectively legislate away this class of weapon without a fight.  And just to be clear, accessories or “furniture” as some call them do not in any way change the characteristics or functionality of any gun.  If you insist that a rifle not have a pistol grip or a collapsible stock or a sling or a flash hider or whatever frightens you, the “furniture” might change but the functions of the gun will not change and bad people will still harm good ones just the same as if there had been no modifications to the gun laws at all.  The caliber of the bullet and distance from which an object is hit is the determining factor of lethality, not the type of grip.

In the final analysis it is the sickness in society that needs to be addressed, not the guns.  Our founders got it right; the Second Amendment protects all of the other ones, for without it there is no freedom of anything else.

 

California Anti-gun Legislation

As California’s progressive liberal law-makers move forward with their anti-gun agenda at warp speed I am left wondering if a single one of them has the slightest understanding of the meaning and purpose of the Constitution to which they each swore an oath.  Have any of these focused anti-gun legislators ever even read the document which they so easily disregard and willfully shred?  The answer seems as “self-evident” as the rights conferred on all mankind by their maker.  They have zero knowledge or understanding of the damage they are attempting to inflict even upon themselves as they advocate for the taking of the very liberties which so many have died to protect. 

 

The ten new laws announced with great fanfare at a press-conference, are easily the most restrictive and onerous in American history and they are in a word, unconstitutional.  However, these people crying out for “something, anything, to be done” seem blind to the law, freedom and liberty as they run headlong into the furor to “just get it done”.  The Supreme Court, Federal and State Courts alike have made very clear that it is not now nor will it ever be OK to write legislation that infringes on the rights conferred on the people in the Constitution.  An unconstitutional law is no law at all.  Following are some of the repeated comments of the Courts to which I refer.

Supreme Court decision, Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803) States “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 435 p. 442

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177. 
late 2d, Sec 256.

The facts are clear, but anti-gun proponents, progressive law-makers and tyrants want no one to know what they are.  In their rush to create their vision of a utopia where there are no guns and only sunshine and lollipops remain, these people feel as if they have a moral right and obligation to dictate laws which are repugnant to the Constitution.  The claim that they are not trying to take our guns away is laughable in the wake of this new legislation.  Once enacted, complete confiscation is but a stones throw to the left.  But “we are not bound to obey those laws nor are any courts bound to enforce them”.  That being said, there are courts (especially in California) which violate the Constitution with impunity.  Truthfully, these progressive “law-makers” may actually succeed in their attempt at destroying the one piece of the US Constitution that holds all of the rest together.  If they win, they will have torn the heart and soul of the founding document out by its roots, leaving nothing on which to stand.  Whether you own guns or not, I pray we all have enough strength to overcome this attack on our freedoms.  If we do not, we very well may lose them all.