Daily Archives: November 3, 2014
Democrat’s Call for Straight GOP Federal Voting, an Incremental Step
By: Arlen Williams
Article of the Hour
Obama always pointing the finger of blame at someone else
Columnist Michael Goodwin, admittedly a registered Democrat, distinctly makes the case for voting GOP, to Americas of at least limited vision. His entire New York Post commentary, published this Sunday morning, just before the General Elections of 2014, is recommended. Here is much of it.
The extraordinary pile-up of crises has turned the usual White House blame game into something more lethal: a shootout in a lifeboat. The presidency is sinking, but we are expected to believe that only the president is blameless.
It won’t wash. The problems cannot be fixed by firing one or two members of the president’s team, or all of them. Something else, something more fundamental, is happening.
We are witnessing the total collapse of a bad idea. Obamaism, a quasi-socialist commitment to a more powerful government at home and an abdication of American leadership around the world, is being exposed as a historic calamity. It is fueling domestic fear and global disorder and may well lead to a world war.
If there is a smidgen of a silver lining, it is that the unraveling, complete with Obama’s shameless attempts to duck responsibility, is playing out on the eve of the midterm elections. Fortunately, voters seem ready to respond by giving Republicans control of both houses of congress.
I second that emotion, and not just because Obama is a failure. For all his narcissism, he didn’t make this mess alone.
He was aided and abetted by every Democrat in Congress. They marched in lockstep with his cockamamie policies, from ObamaCare to open borders. They protected corrupt leaders in numerous federal agencies, from the IRS to the Genera Services Administration. They stymied efforts to find the truth about Benghazi and the Fast and Furious gunrunning debacle.
They ceded their constitutional obligations and allowed Obama to crash the system of checks and balances. The vast majority stood silent while he gutted the military and abandoned our allies, including Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and courted Iran, the most menacing nation on earth.
With painfully few exceptions, Democrats put their loyalty to him above their duty to America.
And now they must be punished. All of them.
“This is a national emergency,” the crier calls, “and the only responsible action is to vote Republican for every federal office.”
Sadly, even this essay fails to deliver comprehension of the depths and extents of our emergency. No mention is made of the global, imperialist tyranny at work against our freedom, nor the leviathan tentacles of that beast, including but not limited to:
- cultural Marxism
- UN sovietization of all nations
- Agenda 21 and transnational trade agreement usurpations
- the surveillance state
- fascistic government intimidation, nor
- the new internal militarism as weaponry against The People.
Left unaddressed are many direct violations of not only right of property and our overall liberty, but of the very right to life of astoundingly so many, in state condoned, even taxpayer fed abortion on demand throughout gestation.
The broad brushing required, this general election is not necessarily a pleasant scenario for those who would prefer much better choices, plural, on the ballot. Neither is it the most propitious for the Sovereignty Campaign’s nascent work of adding new authenticity to the process. But we will continue to demonstrate individual candidates’ electoral advantages and their all too common disadvantages, for the pressing of America’s governing principle: each citizen’s sovereignty under God, with state then national sovereignty to guard it, to protect our natural rights.
This general election’s state of urgency underscores that what we are doing now must prepare for a much better effect in the party nominating season, next election cycle — much better than the very unfriendly historic trend, as indicated by this result, borrowed from the term limits movement:
That is why we must continue to demonstrate the gaps that exist in the process, through and well after our general elections. We are digging into existing conservative and libertarian candidate surveys, to show what they do and do not effectively address, or address at all. Findings will be reported, hand to the plow.
Churning through that data will not only show where elected officials are not being measured well, by some of their key criteria for office, but also not informed of them. Then, in harmony with the patriotic efforts of others, we must fill those essential gaps, adding to a more powerful popular sovereignty applying coalition, ground continuing to be gained with no time to spare. An infantry with gaps in the line is easily defeated. A broad phalanx is not.
Thanking this thinking Democrat, sentient outside their collectivist hive mind, we catch Mr. Goodwin’s conclusion.
Sparing even a favorite Democrat or two could allow Obama to spin defeat as a minor loss. Most worrisome, if Dems keep the Senate, the election will further entrench a corrupt government and further erode America’s strength and influence.
That is not a chance worth taking. Six years is enough. Collective punishment is the appropriate answer.
If there were any doubts the Obama Democrats cannot be trusted, look at their scurrilous campaigns. From coast to coast, their message is uniformly odious: Republicans are waging a “war on women” and they are racists.
That’s it. They can’t defend the legislation they passed, the economy they produced or the foreign policy they supported. Most don’t want to be seen with Obama, yet they take the money he raises and follow his lead in exploiting race and gender fault lines.
Scraping the bottom of the rancid barrel, they prove they will do anything to hold on to power. They cannot be allowed to succeed.
It is time for them to go.
And always now – before and after office holders are again elected, is time to keep coming to the office ourselves, getting The People’s authentic work done. In this particular election there is so little to gain, yet so much to continue to lose. Let us keep our stride and upend the emergency trend.
Refusing to Vote for ‘the Lesser of Two Evils?’ A Thought Experiment for You
By: Arlen Williams
One inclined to turn up his nose against “lesser of two evils” voting might consider a thought experiment. For the sake of clarity, consider what would appear to be a more extreme case than what we are currently experiencing in America. Want to consider evils? Let’s do.
What if you were one of the many citizen sovereigns charged by God to rule your nation, but it deteriorated so badly that the general election for president (or your senator) consisted of only two candidates who had a chance to win:
One of them is collectivist Pol Pot, who in Cambodia quite effectively fulfilled notions of evil by directing the systematic murder of up to two million of his own people, typically by starvation. That was approximately one-fourth of the population. Now there is someone on the “progressive” end of the spectrum who tends to clear the air. He did other evil things, but let us leave it at this.
The other is Josip Broz “Marshal” Tito, the relatively benevolent, however corrupt, communist leader of the former Yugoslavia, who set up buffers between his people and the brutal hegemony of the USSR.
You realize your vote is likely to make the difference in the murder of up to twenty-five percent of your fellow citizens in your country. What would you do?
Whatever you think of candidates who enable and enforce America’s own death culture, including the murder of over a million unborn children per year, consider the following. Please reflect that the comparative circumstances of our conditions now in the good ol’ U.S. of A. and this hypothetical may seem very different, but a critic of the direction America has been headed would say the difference is essentially by degree, not quality, would he not? And if it were a qualitative difference, that would still make the voting dilemma in the reality of our America a matter of dealing with candidates less evil, not more.
What would you do?
(I mean for the general election — besides becoming very involved in one of the two parties’ candidate nominating processes, while getting state constitutions changed to mandate the runoff electoral system — hints.)
For more on the subject, I would humbly suggest, “The Sting of ‘Lesser of Two Evils’ Voting; a Case out of Montana,“ October 18. Let us make the difference we can make and buy ourselves some time, in order to restore authenticity to the United States of America. At the very least, as we say in Twitter, #FlipTheSenate.
Forum: Is There a Case For Impeaching President Obama?
Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture or daily living. This week’s question: Is There a Case For Impeaching President Obama?
The Razor: If there is, I haven’t seen it.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof and the impeachment of the president rises to this standard of evidence. I do not take impeachment lightly and continue to believe the GOP’s attempt at it in the 1990s was a terrific blunder. Sure, Clinton
was a weasel in his personal life and sure, he disrespected the Oval Office by turning it into his mini-porn studio, but his behavior hardly constituted a high crime.
I really dislike this president. I haven’t decided if he’s as bad as Jimmy Carter or worse, but the case grows for the latter. But for impeachment? I can recite a litany of scandals over the past six years, but none directly tie the president to them. If we had a press that was as antagonistic to this president as they were to Nixon 40 years ago, then perhaps that evidence would have been publicized. But at this point, it’s still buried. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t there, just that we don’t have it to move for impeachment.
Impeachment is really the nuclear option in politics. It devastates our electoral system and should only be used when it is absolutely necessary. I don’t like the way the party out of power throws the term around so loosely like a drunk in a bar waving a gun. When the Democrats begin talking about it and taking it seriously, then we’ll know we have what we need to move forward. But I don’t see it in the immediate future and there’s only 2 years left.
I only hope that IF the GOP wins that they investigate each scandal, especially those associated with the DoJ, Benghazi and the IRS. I want to know the complete truth.
GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Technically, maybe so – though one certainly hopes GOP will have tons of stuff to fix without going through the motions of a bitter divide for the nation. The misery merchants and tons of community agitators would raise pure heck.
Best to work through a GOP controlled House and Senate to limit, undo and repeal.
JoshuaPundit: Is there a case to be made for impeaching Barack Hussein Obama? I think there very well might be, but first we need to find out.
President Clinton, one of the most personally corrupt presidents in our history, saw to it that naming a Special Prosecutor in the future would be all but impossible. Mr. Bill’s last ‘gift’ to the country before he left office in 2000 was to eliminate the Office of the Independent Counsel totally by executive order and replace it with the very different Office of Special Counsel, controlled by the Attorney General as part of the Justice Department.
One would hope that with the GOP controlling congress and new leadership in the House, they would hire their own Independent Special Prosecutor to investigate a number of scandals and clear violations of law by this president. In fact, I think they’ll have to if they plan to show they can govern effectively in the run up to 2016.
After the elections, President Obama has been quite open that he plans a number of actions during the Lame Duck session aimed at antagonizing the incoming Congress, including amnesty for between 5 and 6 million illegal aliens by executive order, the naming of a new, radical attorney general (most likely Thomas Perez), as well as other nasty surprises. Moreover, based on his track record of working with Republicans in Congress, rest assured that he will play politics by vetoing anything constructive or even remotely bi-partisan once the new Congress is seated, counting on the need for a 2/3 majority to create gridlock that he can then blame on Republicans. So, it will be necessary to counter that with an investigation of the president’s conduct in areas like these:
The president’s illegal war in Libya, which violated the War Powers Act of 1975, specifically Section 4(a)(1), which requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities, Section 5(b) which requires that the use of forces must be terminated within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes a longer period and Section 3, which requires that the “President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing” U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. President Obama did not do any of these things.
The apparent violation by the White House of federal laws prohibiting the offer of White House jobs to politicians seeking to primary an incumbent, namely 18 USC 600, 18 USC 211 and 18 USC 595. Joe Sestak, who primaried Arlen Spector for his Senate seat in 2010 after Spector switched parties, said openly that he was offered a position at the White House in exchange for withdrawing his candidacy, which is clearly illegal. Daryl Issa of the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to AG Eric Holder which was ignored and in the flurry of other business and other scandals there was no real followup.
Pharmagate, in which President Obama reportedly made a deal with the huge pharmaceutical companies to stop ObamaCare from bargaining with them to get lower volume prices on drugs for the American people, import drugs from Canada, to pursue Medicare rebates and to stop any shifting of certain drugs to different Medicare plans, which would save Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements. The quid pro quo was a cut by Big Pharma limited to $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years, plus $150 million from the pharmaceutical companies to be spent on advertising for Obamacare. Aside from this being what amounts to an illegal campaign contribution, the president is not allowed to make these kinds of deals without the approval of Congress. And no one has ever tracked what became of the money.
President Obama’s possibly illegal use of executive privilege. Under existing laws, communications and documents placed under executive privilege by a president must include a catalog that references the exact name of the document in question and details why it is being put under executive privilege. It’s known that President Obama shielded hundreds of documents relating to the Fast and Furious gunrunning scheme under a blanket order without a catalog.
President Obama’s illegal arming of Syrian rebels without Congressional approval. This is the same sort of thing President Reagan was pilloried for in Iran-Contra.
This president and his attorney general’s refusal to defend or enforce U.S. laws on immigration, the Defense of Marriage Act or prosecuting individuals guilty of material aid to terrorism. And his use of executive orders to circumvent Congress, as in the case of the Dreamers.
There’s lots more, but this will give you an idea of the sort of things that need to be investigated and the truth brought to light.
If our Republic means anything, it means that no one is above the law, Thus far, President Obama has been protected by his media allies and by his race. If an investigation proves that the White House was involved in these sordid episodes (and in at least three of these items, there’s no doubt that he was) a duty is owed by Congress to the American people. If President Obama is not investigated and confronted on these issues, it will create a dismal cloud of cynicism in America that will do immense harm to the country.
As for the actual mechanics, if the case is made properly and the American people allowed to see the evidence for themselves, I doubt that enough Democrats in either house will be able to vote against impeachment without suffering political damage – in fact, given how popular Barack Obama is with his own party these days, some might even welcome the opportunity. Actually, if the case is made clearly enough, I would expect President Obama to resign before an actual trial, in an exchange for a pardon by Joe Biden.
The Glittering Eye: Technically, “high crimes and misdemeanors” means breaking the oath of office. The word “high” does not refer to the nature of the crimes, but to the high nature of the office. That’s from English common law. Practically it means whatever the House thinks it does.
I think there are plenty of grounds for the House to vote for impeachment, but no prospect whatever that 2/3s of the Senate would vote to impeach. Consequently, I think voting to impeach the president would be a strategic error, more likely to injure Republicans than the president or Democrats.
I think a more interesting question is whether Congress should hold one or more cabinet or other administration officers in contempt. That can be done (at least using parliamentary maneuverings) by simple majority. There are so many to choose from: Eric Holder, John Brennan, several former heads of the IRS, etc.
If the new Republican Congress is bound and determined to show their disapproval of the president, they should vote to censure him. Again with parliamentary maneuverings, it’s something that could be done with a simple majority. If they do, they should do it as early as possible to get it out of their systems and out of the headlines long before the 2016 campaign begins in earnest.
Quite to the contrary, I think a new Republican Congress should extend an olive branch to the president and do so publicly. If the president rebuffs their overtures, they will appear gracious and he churlish.
The Right Planet: Personally, I feel there is more of a case for the impeachment of Barack Obama than for any other U.S. president in history. Consider the IRS scandal: one of the articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon was his alleged misuse of the IRS against his political enemies. Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon claimed he “endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.” The keyword here is “endeavored;” he didn’t actually follow through with it.
Another abuse of power by Barack Obama worthy of impeachment is his handing of illegal immigration. One of the main responsibilities of the President of the United States is to enforce the laws Congress has written. Regardless of whether a president likes the laws or not, he is charged with enforcing them. Yet Obama ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton to prohibit ICE officers from enforcing US immigration laws. Obama also allowed Attorney General Eric Holder to ignore the violation of US immigration laws in so-called sanctuary cities like San Francisco, Denver, Houston, Portland, etc.
Obama served as president of the UN Security Council and presided over its 6191st meeting on Thursday, 24 September, 2009, in gross violation of Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution — another impeachable offense.
One of the more egregious abuses by President Obama was his illegal war in Libya, which was a blatant violation of the War Powers Act. Obama never requested Congressional approval for the military action in Libya, but instead cited a United Nations security resolution as his legal justification for waging war. Despite how one may feel about George Bush and the invasion of Iraq, Bush did obtain the required Congressional resolution, yet many on the left called Bush’s action an “illegal war,” while the left remained noticeably silent on Obama’s actions in Libya.
I really don’t have space to cover all the scandals, such as the Fast and Furious gun-walking operation, the attack in Benghazi, spying on journalists, etc., etc. and numerous other reasons why Barack Obama should’ve been removed from office long ago. Perhaps impeachment is too good for Obama; I would prefer prosecution.
Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: There are numerous incidents during this Administration where many of us believe President Obama could and should be impeached. I would define “high crimes and misdemeanors” as an abuse of power by one who holds an office of high position.
The President’s oath of office binds the president throughout his tenure, and as such, any public statement he makes that is a lie can be considered perjury. His statements regarding the Affordable Health Care Act alone, in which he stated emphatically and repeatedly that everyone who liked their current doctor and health insurance would be able to keep them, was obviously a lie. The challenge is in proving in a court of law that he perjured himself when he made these statements.
The Constitution also states that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” We see how President Obama has acted unilaterally in not enforcing the law on the rollout of Obamacare, waiving some rules and delaying others for reasons he deemed politically or personally beneficial. In this case alone there is enough in my opinion to impeach President Obama.
However, in today’s political climate, for anyone to consider impeaching President Obama, they must be certain that he can be convicted of the crime or crimes for which he is impeached. It is not enough that he be impeached; proceedings must result in his removal from office.
I believe if Benjamin Franklin were alive today he would agree that President Obama has rendered himself “obnoxious” and call for his impeachment.
The Independent Sentinel: I am not a lawyer and don’t know if Barack Obama’s behavior rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
He has constantly undermined the separation of powers, states’ rights and the Constitution using his pen and phone. He only follows the laws he wants to follow in violation of his oath. He has violated immigration law and his own healthcare act.
He misuses laws to suit his ideological pursuits.
He has lied frequently. He lied to the American people about keeping their doctors and healthcare plans.
He has fired top military leaders and probably targeted innocent Americans using his agencies.
Mr. Obama has alienated our friends and caved to our enemies.
He can probably claim incompetence.
Impeachment is a remedy for usurpation or abuse of power or serious breach of trust. He has certainly done that.
A case might be made for impeachment based on his abuse of Obamacare.
But let’s face it, the Senate would never get the votes needed, so it’s better to not even go there. A lot of Republicans wouldn’t even vote to impeach him.
There isn’t anything he could do that would get the Senate to vote for impeachment, except if he murdered Michelle or something like that.
In any case, he needs to have his funds cut off.
Rhymes With Right: Let’s begin by accepting the premise that it there is no point in impeaching Obama if it it is unlikely to succeed in removing him. After all, the Democrats have reached the point where they put party before country and platform before Constitution. Getting 67 votes to remove Obama is therefore virtually inconceivable and renders the exercise pointless.
That said, I do believe that there are grounds for impeachment.
The most obvious grounds would be the same as part of what was found in the second article of impeachment passed against Richard Nixon by the House Judiciary Committee.
1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
But there are other grounds.
Obstruction of justice charges might well be considered in light of his failure to order Eric Holder to produce subpoenaed documents.
Obama’s usurpation of congressional war-making powers in Libya also seem appropriate fodder for impeachment articles.
The President’s creation of paid positions unauthorized by and rejected by Congress might be considered as well, as might his abuse of the recess appointment power.
Multiple articles could be related to his failure to see to the faithful execution of the laws, both by ordering his subordinates to ignore statutory obligations and by issuing executive orders purporting to override and replace statutory law when he could not get legislation through Congress. Many of these would relate to ObamaCare and to immigration matters.
The most critical and compelling charges would grow from a single incident. At least three charges could grow out of the Benghazi fiasco. The first would involve his abandonment of his post during the Benghazi attack, so that he could get rested for a campaign fundraiser. The second would involve his scapegoating of the maker of the Muhammad video and misuse of the Justice Department to arrest and imprison him for exercising his First Amendment right to criticize Islam. The third would be treason, given that he and Secretary Clinton offered a groveling apology to our enemies for the exercise of First Amendment rights by Americans, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
But as I said, I believe that impeaching Obama would be fruitless. Instead the House and Senate (presuming a Republican takeover of the latter body) should offer a joint resolution censuring Barack Hussein Obama over these matters and noting that a clear majority of both the House and Senate believe that impeachment and removal are the appropriate course of action save for the partisan refusal of the Democrats to hold their own president to account. Such a move would be a weaker one than what is merited, but would still put every member of both Houses on the record as to Obama’s lawlessness.
Well, there you have it!
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!
And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.
It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… >or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.
And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?
Qatar Awareness Campaign – The American Public @StopQatarNow
QATAR AWARENESS CAMPAIGN
To the American Public:
Over the course of the last month, the Qatar Awareness Campaign has issued 25 letters, addressed to people, companies, organizations and universities who profit from their relationship with the state sponsor of terror, Qatar.
Why? Despite their official denials, Qatar is the nation that funds Hamas, Fatah, Boko Haram, al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Qatar, as the host country of the revolutionary Muslim Brotherhood and one of the wealthiest countries in the world, attracts these fanatical, murderous groups like a magnet, showering them with endless funding and resources.
Looking back, it is an astonishing list of power players in the political establishment, influential institutions and big business that support Qatar in their quest to establish a regional, and eventually global, Islamic Caliphate.
News outlets like CNN and the Qatari-owned Al Jazeera regularly promote the Qatari viewpoint on television, directly and by virtue of the guests they choose as analysts, such as Brookings Doha Center scholars.
Universities such as Georgetown, Texas A&M, Carnegie Mellon and Cornell each have satellite campuses in Qatar’s capital city, Doha, fully funded by the Qatar Foundation. Harvard has partnered with the Qataris to establish a Sharia law school in Doha. The Brookings Institution in recent months has come under enormous scrutiny for their close ties to Doha and their curious omission of criticizing the Qatari state.
American defense contractors and arms manufacturers such as Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, have multi-billion dollar deals with the Qatari Ministry of Defense. Boeing provides most of the commercial airliners for Qatar Airways, which has been implicated in numerous cases of narcotics and human trafficking.
American industrial giants such as ExxonMobil have developed the natural resources in Qatar, providing the Qatari state with virtually limitless revenue. Meanwhile, in a country of 2 million inhabitants, only 278,000 are citizens with full rights; and there is a burgeoning slave population, whose rights are non-existent, as these migrant workers have their passports seized and are routinely denied exit visas. In preparation for the FIFA 2022 World Cup, it is estimated that 4,000 migrant workers will die constructing soccer stadiums. This is double the number of casualties in the Hamas-Israel war over the summer.
Notable politicians in both parties have not deviated even an inch from official Qatari policy. In the Republican Party, John McCain stood squarely behind Egyptian “democracy” in the form of Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brother who encouraged violence and terror against Egypt’s Christians. As Commander-in-Chief, President Obama abandoned Hosni Mubarak when the Arab Spring came to Egypt and used American military might to depose non-Islamist Gaddafi in Libya. Today, according to PBS, the American government is training Syrian rebels in Qatar to defeat Assad, despite the glaring and undeniable fact that the Islamic State grew out of the Syrian rebels in concert with Al Qaeda in Iraq.
These actions suggest political approval; or, at least, looking the other way while Qatar willfully funds genocidal and slaving terrorist groups that target religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East and Africa. Additionally, the official Washington relationship with Qatar has led to dramatically degraded diplomatic ties with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.
For those who have followed the news stories promoted by the Campaign, another trend has become evident. It is not only the United States that backs Qatar, but also the United Kingdom. The Emir of Qatar recently visited London, where he was received by Prime Minister Cameron and Queen Elizabeth. Shortly after the Emir left, Cameron’s Tories announced planned legislation to ban criticism of Sharia (and gay marriage). Is this surprising when Qatar has a reported £30 billion invested in England, with plans for much more?
Word of this campaign has reached millions of people across the world, from Europe, to the Middle East, to Africa, to Asia and South America. All civilized peoples are threatened by the Islamic doctrine and practice of conquest: Jihad. Concern has mounted in the media and Qatar’s financing of terrorism is now regularly a topic in the daily press. Indeed, there is a growing backlash in some political circles as well, as calls for boycotts and divestment from Qatar are heard from England.
Although their influence, wealth and reach are staggering, the Qatari’s will ultimately lose in the court of public opinion. Free people reject America’s associations with a slaving, state sponsor of terror, regardless of the blood money they pay our governing elite.
What can you do? Sign the petition, make your position known. Visit the website, www.stopqatarnow.com, and send a link to your friends and family. Pay closer attention to the root causes of violence that have disrupted a relatively peaceful world since 2008 and spawned a dozen or more religious wars that show no signs of stopping.
The Qatar Awareness Campaign will continue to report on Qatar and their influence in the United States and around the world. In the end, as always, it will be the American people who force our government and politicians to correct course and stand up for what is right!
Lt. Col. Allen B. West (US Army, Ret)
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Center for Security Policy
Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret)
Chairman, Stand Up America
New Zeal **
& the entire Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.
Qatar Research Report: http://www.stopqatarnow.com/p/research-report.html
Sign the Petition! Visit www.stopqatarnow.com
Facebook: Stop Qatar Now
** Select signatures as of 9/27. The Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition is comprised of more than 25 journalists, national security experts, publishers, and independent researchers. To view all Coalition participants, please visit the Campaign’s website.
Selling the Illusion of Economic Success to Salvage Elections
By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media
President Barack Obama is trying to salvage what most polls indicate is about to be a dismal election for Democrats by focusing on his administration’s supposed economic successes. It makes sense, in a way, since his foreign policy—to the extent that there is one—is a complete disaster; the administration is caught up in a series of scandals (Benghazi, IRS, Veterans Affairs, to name a few) that fortunately for them, the media choose to ignore; and the administration’s incompetence, or worse, in managing crises such as immigration and Ebola, and even the safety and security of the President, has become glaringly obvious.
But the public doesn’t appear to be buying this narrative of economic success. The recent Associated Press poll shows that 58% disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy, while only 42% approve. The RealClearPolitics average is a little better than that, showing that the disapproval gap is more like 12.5%, rather than the 16% reflected in the AP poll.
While almost no incumbent Democratic senators want him anywhere near their state, President Obama claims to understand their desire to keep their distance, but acknowledges that his policies are on the ballot in virtually all of these elections. He says that the important thing is, while they may be distancing themselves from him personally, they support his agenda.
At least with the economy, the administration can conjure up and cherry-pick figures to tell a fairly positive sounding narrative. “10 million—that’s the number of jobs American businesses have added over 54 straight months, the longest streak of private-sector job growth in American history,” writes Tonya Somanader for the Whitehouse.gov website. “10 million marks more than strengthening job growth, it is a sign of the industry of the American worker and the strength of an economy that made 10 million jobs possible.”
It’s a positive talking point for an ailing economy, and the Obama administration has been using this same tired rhetoric over and over again.
In fact, President Obama used the same talking point at a Wisconsin campaign rally this week, saying, “When I came into office, the economy was in free fall. The auto industry was on the verge of collapse. But over the past four and a half years, America’s businesses have created more than 10 million new jobs.” When he made that claim in September, the UK Daily Mail criticized the President for forgetting to mention the 4.3 million jobs lost along the way.
“The right measure and comparison for Obama’s record is not to compare the recovery to the recession, but to compare Obama’s recovery with other recoveries from other recessions since the Great Depression,” wrote Peter Ferrara for Forbes last year. “By that measure, what is clear is that Obamanomics has produced the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression, worse than what every other President who has faced a recession has achieved since the Great Depression.”
Ferrara noted in June last year that the “unemployed or underemployed [were] at nearly 18 million Americans in January, 2013.” Currently the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) places the number of unemployed or underemployed at 18.6 million as of September this year, which means that the economy is worse off in a key marker of prosperity. In fact, Ferrara calculated last year that President Obama’s economy had a shortfall of about 10 million jobs. How many jobs are we missing now?
The U.S. national debt has reached nearly $18 trillion under President Obama as of October 29th, according to The Washington Post. But the paper dismisses the idea that we should be worried about this at all: “So it’s official: No one is worried about the U.S. debt anymore. Not even Moody’s, one of the nation’s top ratings agencies,” writes Lori Montgomery. Apparently the national debt can’t be a political issue in an election year, either, if it can be attributed to the Obama administration. Remember, when Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he said that George W. Bush had added $4 trillion to the national debt, and that it was unpatriotic. So what does that make the $8 trillion that has been added to the debt under his watch, with two years left to go? Where’s the accountability?
The BLS data also shows that the labor participation rate is at 62.7 percent—the lowest participation rate since 1978.
And let’s not forget about disability benefits, which can also be influenced by a recession, according to CNN. But the disability benefits increase under this administration has been dramatic. “The number of Americans receiving Social Security disability payments has increased 20 percent since President Barack Obama took office and the influx of new recipients has pushed the program close to insolvency,” reported Newsmax in 2013. According to the Social Security Administration, the number of workers on disability was 8.5 million in 2008. It ballooned to 10.9 million by 2013, according to Newsmax.
This is some recovery! Perhaps it’s consolidated in the red states. The Washington Times reported last year that, according to an American Legislative Exchange Council report, “Bright-red Texas ranks first on economic performance, followed by purple Nevada and then a string of red states: Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, Idaho, Arizona, Alaska and Montana. Only one blue state—Washington—appears in the top 10.” This year, the 2014 ALEC report finds that some blue states are getting in on the trend: “During the last legislative session, we witnessed a growing number of states shift on tax policy,” writes ALEC. “This reflects the understanding that catching up with their fast-growing free market and pro-growth counterparts is a necessity.”
But on a larger level more economic bad news for the nation is likely racing down the pike, although it won’t surface until after the elections in order to shield the President’s party from its political consequences. For example, the Treasury Department announced last July that the government would put off enforcing the employer mandate under Obamacare until 2015. “The delay not only allows the Administration time to alleviate concerns among business owners, but also takes a controversial component of the law off the table before the midterm elections,” reported Time magazine at the time.
This wasn’t the first—or the last—of such politically motivated maneuvers by the administration on Obamacare. “Last night at 8:29, [Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services] put out a notice that it is shifting the start of open enrollment next year from October 1, 2014, to November 15, 2014,” commented Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in an official November 2013 statement. “That means that if premiums go through the roof in the first year of Obamacare, no one will know about it until after the election.”
“The Obama administration is hiding insurance companies’ requested rate increases from the public in violation of Obamacare, according to a lawsuit from a former Obamacare official,” reported The Daily Caller. And, indeed, premium increases are not yet available for the exchanges this year; we have only preliminary data and assurances.
The reason for these maneuvers is incredibly clear: the delayed provisions I’ve mentioned will lead to more job losses or weaken the economy. And we are suffering the ill effects of Obamacare regulations right now. Mortimer Zuckerman writes for The Wall Street Journal that Obamacare has already resulted in an increase in part-time jobs as a result of the perverse economic incentives written into the law. “Many employers cut workers’ hours to avoid the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to provide health insurance to anyone working 30 hours a week or more,” wrote Zuckerman. “The unintended consequence of President Obama’s ‘signature legislation?’ Fewer full-time workers.”
As an example of how misleading some of these figures are, Zuckerman pointed out in July that the latest figures at that time showing a monthly increase of 288,000 jobs created were actually based on the loss of over a half-million full-time jobs, and an increase of some 800,000 part-time jobs. The dropping unemployment rate is more a function of the number of discouraged job-seekers—which Zuckerman cited as 2.4 million people—who gave up looking for jobs.
“I am not on the ballot this fall…But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them,” asserted President Obama in early October.
The President’s policies are on the ballot insofar as he hasn’t been able to punt them to the next election cycle, when the electoral results won’t, supposedly, reflect on his administration. In the meantime America must struggle through its “longest streak of private-sector job growth in American history.” Why won’t the media tell us this story?