Publicado: 09-30-2009 03:06 PM
Publicado: 09-30-2009 03:42 PM
Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention... OBAMA has sunk the nation into this morass.Full Text Of Newsmax Column Suggesting Military Coup Against Obama
Here is the full text of John L. Perry's column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" is becoming more possible and is not "unrealistic." Perry also writes that a coup, while not "ideal," may be preferable to "Obama's radical ideal" -- and would "restore and defend the Constitution." Newsmax has since removed the column from its website.
Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention
By: John L. Perry
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.
# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to ***********///////********//////****** air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
Publicado: 10-01-2009 12:12 PM
DE NADA LE HA VALIDO A OBAMA TODAS SUS GENUFLEXIONES ANTE LOS ENEMIGOS DE U.S.A
LOS SERVICIOS DE INTELIGENCIA DE ESTADOS UNIDOS HAN ABORTADO DOS GRANDES ATAQUES TERRORISTAS, ES DECIR QUE DE NADA LE HA VALIDO A OBAMA TODAS SUN GENUFLEXIONES Y SU ACERCAMIENTO FRATERNAL A LOS TERRORISTAS Y LOS TIRANOS ENEMIGOS DE ESTADOS UNIDOS YA QUE EL ODIO DE ESOS ASESINOS ES CONTRA EL PUEBLO AMERICANO Y LOS PRINCIPIOS DE LIBERTAD Y DEMOCRACIA QUE REPRESENTA U.S.A. SIN IMPORTAR QUE EL PRESIDENTE DE TURNO SEA UN PATRIOTA O UNO QUE COMPARTE SUS IDEAS COMO CARTER U OBAMA.
¿CABE PREGUNTAR CUANTOS OTROS TERRORISTAS DE ESA REDES AUN ESTAN SUELTOS Y QUIEN VA A INTERROGAR LOS QUE HAN SIDO DETENIDOS? ¿LOS INVITARA OBAMA A TOMAR UN TE EN LA CASA BLANCA PARA HECHIZARLOS CON SUS ENCANTOS Y HACERLES QUE LE CONFIESEN TODOS SUS PLANES Y SECUACES???
OBAMA GANA AMIGOS
ARRASTRANDO LA DIGNIDAD DE USA
"Something I Dropped" - 4/8/09 - (BW)
SARKOSY FURIOSO CON OBAMA
Sarkozy’s Contempt for Obama
By Jack Kelly
The contempt with which the president of France regards the president of the United States was displayed in public last week.
Nicolas Sarkozy was furious with Barack Obama for his adolescent warbling about a world without nuclear weapons at a meeting Mr. Obama chaired of the United Nations Security Council last Thursday (9/24).
“We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth,” President Obama said.
What infuriated President Sarkozy was that at the time Mr. Obama said those words, Mr. Obama knew the mullahs in Iran had a secret nuclear weapons development site, and he didn’t call them on it.
‘President Obama dreams of a world without weapons...but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite,” Mr. Sarkozy said.
“Iran since 2005 has flouted five Security Council resolutions,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “North Korea has been defying Council resolutions since 1993.”
“What good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?” he asked rhetorically. “More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map.”
If the Security Council had imposed serious sanctions on the regimes which are flouting UN resolutions, the resolution Mr. Obama proposed about working toward nuclear disarmament wouldn’t have been so meaningless, Mr. Sarkozy implied.
“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce or own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.
The extent of President Obama’s naivete - or duplicity - was on display Friday at the G20 summit when the president, flanked by Mr. Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, revealed to the American public that Iran had a second nuclear weapons site on a military base near the holy city of Qom.
News reports indicated Mr. Obama had been briefed on the site before his inauguration. But he’s been conducting his foreign policy as if the mullahs could be trusted.
“Iran has been put on notice,” President Obama said in Pittsburgh.
Iran responded to being “put on notice” by testing Monday two ballistic missiles that could carry a nuclear warhead 1,200 miles.
It was to protect Europe from such missiles that the ABM system President Obama abruptly cancelled earlier this month was designed.
Obama administration officials said the ABM cancellation - regarded as a betrayal by Poland and the Czech Republic, where the missiles and radars were to be located - actually improved U.S. security, because it has made Russia more amenable to sanctions against Iran.
The UN Security Council has never passed strong sanctions against Iran because Russia and China have vetoed them. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said he still doesn’t like economic sanctions, but will support them if diplomacy fails. China remains opposed.
President Obama shouldn’t count on Russian support, said Soviet expert David Satter.
“Words are cheap for the Kremlin and the Iranians are aware of this,” he said. “The Russians, having endorsed sanctions, will now find hundreds of reasons why any specific sanctions package is unfair...The reason is that support for Iran is Russia’s most important trump card in foreign relations and there is little likelihood they will give it up.”
Iran has been put on notice before. At the G8 meeting in Italy in July, Mr. Obama and other leaders set a “firm deadline” of Sep. 10 for the Iranians to make a serious offer to negotiate about their nuclear program. When the mullahs blew him off, Mr. Obama quietly extended the deadline until December.
December could be too late. “Tehran soon could have humankind’s most frightening weapon if substantial diplomatic progress is not made in the coming days,” Rep. Howard Berman (D-Cal), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said Saturday (9/26).
If severe economic sanctions are not imposed immediately, in months if not in weeks, only a military strike will b e able to prevent an Iranian bomb.
But after sternly lecturing Iran on its international obligations Friday, President Obama didn’t call for sanctions. He called for more negotiations. And then, as the Iranians were spitting in his eye with the missile test, he jetted off to Copenhagen to lobby to have the 2016 Olympics held in Chicago.
No wonder Nicolas Sarkozy holds him in contempt.
Qadaffi calls Obama ‘my son’
Doesn't look like Obama is at ALL put out with Qadaffy like he CLAIMED when the Lockerbie bomber got a hero's welcome.
Another pro-terrorist fist bump from the radical socialist president.
Communist Party Members, Marxists, Communist Leaders, Marxist Leaders, Communist Party USA
Domestic bombers & terrorists, International Islamic Terrorist Organizations & Financiers, Fundamental Islamic Leaders
Black Liberation Preachers and militants, New Black Panther Party, Black Nation of Islam, Socialist Party
Publicado: 10-02-2009 11:41 AM
Publicado: 10-28-2009 04:54 PM
RETAN A O'REILLY- TO BE OR NOT TO BE- ¿ES REALMENTE OBAMA UN PRESIDENTE LEGITIMO?
Captain Pamela Barnett issues challenge to Bill O’Reilly
October 28, 2009 by John Charlton
LED PLAINTIFF MORE THAN UPSET AT FOX’S DISTORTION OF FACTS IN HER CASE
by John Charlton
(Oct. 28, 2009) — She was a captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to Military Intelligence; but now retired she’s fighting a war on two fronts.
Captain Pamela Barnett is lead plaintiff in a case that could lead to the removal and life-time imprisonment of Barack Hussein Obama on charges of high-crimes, election fraud, campaign fraud, and a laundry list of campaign financing violations.
But Captain Barnett is not shirking her duty to defend her fellow Plaintiffs in the case: no, she is rebutting the lies and falsehoods promoted by the widely followed, but often errant and politically correct, Bill O’Reilly of Fox News.
The contentions point: O’Reilly featured a short report on the case Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al. full of misinformation on the case.
One American Veteran who watched O’Reilly’s hit piece, left this comment for me at Citizen Wells Blog:
Over the 77 years of my life I have heard, and seen, some really slimey individuals. Listening to O’Reilly last night about gagged me. He along with his trained little “concupines”, spewed their insane rhetoric. All three sonded like raving lunatics. But then that is what OBOTS do best………RAVE. They CANNOT accept reality. They live in their little FANTASY worlds.
Captain Barnet, ever the warrior, is not taking it sitting down. She issued a public challenge to Bill O’Reilly and FOX News early this morning:
From Captain Pamela Barnett to Bill O’Reilly – October 28, 2009
I challenge you Mr. O’Reilly to interview me..
I am Captain Pamela Barnett U.S. Army Retired of Barnett v. Barack Obama.
I am sick and tired of you defaming our lawsuit and our attorney against the Resident in the White House Obama. 48 plaintiffs mostly military retired have brought this lawsuit to force the production of Obama’s vital records to determine if he is in fact a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN which is one of the requirements to be a legal POTUS and NOT an illegal USURPER. There is also a huge amount of information regarding fraud that Obama committed before being illegally sworn in as POTUS.
IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH AT ALL.. YOU WILL CALL ME…
FROM WHAT I CAN SEE OF YOUR SHOW, THE TRUTH DOES NOT SEEM TO MATTER TO YOU OR THE REST OF THE SHILLS AT FOX. I KNOW THAT YOU ARE ONLY A COMMENTATOR, BUT AT LEAST GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE HURTING OUR CASE AND PROPAGATING LIES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
CPT Pamela Barnett, U.S.Army Retired
To encourage others to put the pressure on FOX News, she includes contact information for Bill O’Reilly at her post.
While FOX News is daily decried by the Whitehouse for being opposition political commentary, it is viewed as many as a “Sand-box” player with Barack Hussein Obama; that is, one which joins refuses to acknowledge his illegitimacy and usurpation of office. Without that, all the commentary in the world, is worthless distraction aimed at ultimately sanctioning Obama’s crimes; since he is not even worthy of being called “the President”.
Publicado: 12-26-2009 03:05 PM
MSNBC host hails radical community organizer
By Aaron Klein
/////********//////******="FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-SIZE: xx-small">Saul Alinsky
Stated Matthews: "Well, to reach back to one of our heroes from the past, from the '60s, Saul Alinsky once said that even though both sides have flaws in their arguments and you can always find something nuanced about your own side you don't like and it's never perfect, you have to act in the end like there's simple black and white clarity between your side and the other side or you don't get anything done.
"I always try to remind myself of Saul Alinsky when I get confused," Matthews said on his "Hardball" show, speaking to guest Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, on the topic of President Obama's health care plan.
"It's complicated when liberals get to keep score. We're always arguing. Well, I'm a liberal, too," stated Matthews on the Dec. 17 program.
Alinsky is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He founded and trained community organizations to follow his methods, including organizations in South Chicago, where President Obama credits his political beginnings. The Washington Post reported Obama was hired shortly after graduating from college by a group of Alinsky's disciples to be community organizer on Chicago's South Side.
Former 1960s radical and FrontPageMagazine Editor David Horowitz describes Alinsky as the "Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States."
Horowitz writes in his 2009 pamphlet, "Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution. The Alinsky Model":
"The strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it was what sixties radicals called 'boring from within.'.... Like termites, they set about to eat away at the foundations of the building in expectation that one day they could cause it to collapse."
As WND reported, Obama approached Northwestern University professor John L. McKnight – a loyal student of Alinsky's radical tactics – to pen a letter of recommendation for him when he applied to Harvard Law School. Under the tutelage of McKnight and other hardcore students of Alinsky, Obama said he got the "best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School."
In a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, Alinsky's son praised Obama for stirring up the masses at the Democratic National Convention "Saul A...saying, "Obama learned his lesson well."
The letter signed L. David Alinsky closed by saying, "I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully."
BIRDS OF A FEATHER F.CK TOGETHER!!!
Publicado: 01-31-2010 07:35 PM
Hearing under way for Obama to prove his citizenship
The Examiner ^ | January 31, 2010 | Elizabeth Marie
There is a hearing going on right now in Santa Ana, CA. Obama’s attorneys are trying to have the case thrown out (why do you suppose that is?). The Judge, among other issues, stated that our troops need to know they are following the orders of a legitimate President and they are reviewing the laws surrounding treason.
Obama, Pelosi, Reid et.al. need to be stopped at all costs. They will ram healthcare through, although it will be in a weakened form thanks to the Massachusetts “miracle.” They are working on yet another sneaky back room deal. 52 Senators signed a letter promising to vote “yes” using reconciliation if the House passes the Senate bill as is.
That is an illegal use of reconciliation but, since when have liberals cared about the law or Constitution? Yes, Snopes.com is now supporting the birth certificate as legitimate: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertific
Here’s what the DHLL site says now: “The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”
Yet, there are a few facts that remain unexplained: The Kenyan Ambassador admitted Obama was born in Kenya on “The Mike In The Morning show” on WRIF radio, in Detroit, Michigan.
Obama estimated court costs now up to $1.6 Mil to keep records sealed. (for a $17 birth certificate?)
Hawaiian law states his mother had to of been a citizen of the United states for more than 10 years to transfer US citizenship, 5 of which had to be over 14, she was only 18, at the time of his birth.
On the copy shown to the public by Obama’s team: Where is the embossed seal and registrar’s signature?
Comparing it to other Hawaii birth certificates…why is the color shade different?
The date stamp bleeding through the document is “June 2007”. The document was supposedly released in June, 2008.
Is it possible someone in Washington is familiar with PhotoShop?
Barack Obama’s own grandmother said he was born in Kenya: “I was in the delivery room in Mombosa, Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.”
As Barry Soetoro, Obama attended an Indonesian school. At that time, only Indonesian citizens were allowed to attend. There was no dual citizenship at the time. Was he adopted by his listed father, Lolo Soetoro?
The answer is quite simple: Obama should produce the SIGNED ORIGINAL for review by neutral experts and/or produce a copy of same for Internet review by the public.
HARRIS COUNTY, FORT BEND, KATY....you NEED to vote. Let your voices be heard:
The deadline to register to vote in the March primary elections is Feb. 1. To be eligible to vote in the March 2 elections, applicants must deliver their registration application to any branch of the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector’s office by 4:45 p.m. on Monday or mail it with a postmarked date no later than Feb. 1.
To check whether you already are registered, visit www.hcvoter.net or call the county’s Tax Office Voter Registration Department at 713-368-VOTE (8683). The primary election features races for the Democratic and Republican nominations for governor, state legislative positions, countywide offices and scores of judicial seats.
It is also the election in which the local party and precinct chairs are chosen.
Applicants can register to vote if they are residents of the county, U.S. citizens, 17 years and 10 months old (but 18 by March 2 to vote in that primary)
Publicado: 02-02-2010 11:18 AM
WASHINGTON TIMES 1/29/2010
"Mr. Obama's proposals are bold only insofar as few men would offer such a transparent guarantee of disaster: It's the audacity of hopelessness."
The world turns. In Indonesia, the principal of a Muslim boarding school in Tangerang who is accused of impregnating a 15-year-old student says the DNA test will prove that a malevolent genie is the real father.
In New Zealand, a German tourist, Hans Kurt Kubus, has been jailed for attempting to board a plane at Christchurch with 44 live lizards in his underpants.
In Britain, a research team at King's College, London, has declared that the female "G-spot" doesn't exist.
In France, a group of top gynecologists dismissed the findings, asking, "What do you expect if you ask Englishmen to find a woman's erogenous zone?"
But in America, Barack Obama is talking.
Talking, talking, talking. He talked for 90 minutes on the State of the Union. No matter how many geckos you shoveled down your briefs, you still lost feeling in your legs. And still he talked. If you had an erogenous zone before, by the end, it was undetectable even to Frenchmen. But on he talked. As respected poverty advocate and former Sen. John Edwards commented, "After the first hour, even my malevolent genie was back in the bottle."
Like any gifted orator, the president knows how to vary the talk with a little light and shade. Sometimes he hectors, sometimes he whines, sometimes he demands. "We do not quit," he said. Boy, you can say that again!
So he did: "We don't quit. I don't quit," he said. But throughout the chamber, Democrats were quitting. "I quit," says Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas, declining to run in November. "I quit," says Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, doing likewise. "I quit," says Beau Biden of Delaware, son of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., choosing not to run for his father's seat.
But not Barack Obama. On he went. As National Review Editor Rich Lowry put it after the Massachusetts vote, the public thinks Mr. Obama doesn't get it, and Mr. Obama thinks the public doesn't get it. As he has the microphone, he's gonna keep talking at you until you do get it. The ever tinnier, more perfunctory sophomoric uplift at the start and finish can't conceal the hope-killing, jobs-slaying, soul-sapping message in between, which has been consistent for two years. As President Obama sees it, whatever the problem, the solution is more Washington.
Simply as a matter of internal logic, this is somewhat perplexing. After all, when he isn't blaming George W. Bush, Mr. Obama blames "Washington" - a Washington mired in "partisanship" and "pettiness" and "the same tired battles" and "Washington gimmicks" that do nothing but ensure that our "problems have grown worse." Washington, Mr. Obama tells us, is "unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems."
So let's have more Washington! That raises the question: Does even Mr. Obama listen to his speeches?
The public does - at least to this extent: They understand that when he's attacking the tired old Washington games, he's just playing the game, but when he's proposing the tired old Washington solutions, he means it. That's the only Barack Obama on offer. And everything the president proposes means more debt, which at the level this guy is spending means higher taxes.
Functioning societies depend on agreed rules. If you want to open a business, you do it in Singapore or Ireland because the rules are known to all parties. You don't go to Sudan or Zimbabwe, where the rules are whatever the state's whims happen to be that morning.
That's why Mr. Obama is such a job-killer. Why would a small business take on a new employee? The president is proposing a soak-the-banks tax that could impact access to credit. The House has passed a cap-and-trade bill that could impose potentially unlimited regulatory costs. The Senate is in favor of health care reform that would allow the IRS to seize your assets if you and your employees' health arrangements do not meet the approval of the federal government. Some of these things will pass into law; some of them won't. But all of them send a consistent, cumulative message: There are no rules.
In such an environment, would you hire anyone? Mr. Obama can bury it in half a ton of leaden telepromptered sludge, but the message is clear: more Washington, more regulation, more spending and no rules.
Mr. Obama and the Democrats have decided, in the current cliche, to "double down." What's the endgame here? Mr. Obama gave it away in his student loan "reform" proposals: If you choose to go into "public service," any college loan debts will be forgiven because public service is more noble than the selfish, money-grubbing private sector. C'mon, everybody knows that. So we need to encourage more people to go into public service?
Why? In the past 60 years, the size of America's government work force has increased five times faster than the population. Yet the president says it's still not enough: We have to divert more of our human capital into the government machine. He's explicitly telling you: If you start a business, invent something, provide a service, you're a schmuck. In the America he's building, you'll be working 24/7 till you drop dead to fund an ever-swelling bureaucracy. Mr. Obama's proposals are bold only insofar as few men would offer such a transparent guarantee of disaster: It's the audacity of hopelessness.
Mark Steyn is the author of the New York Times best-seller "America Alone" (Regnery, 2006).
Publicado: 02-02-2010 10:38 PM
Leaders: The champion of Polish freedom tells America it's no longer that shining city on a hill. As it slouches toward socialism, he warns, those yearning to breathe free in the world can no longer look to the U.S. for help.
They were the giants of their age. Together, President Ronald Reagan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II and a little known shipyard worker named Lech Walesa stood up to Soviet communism and brought freedom to the captive nations of Europe.
Last Friday, Walesa was in Chicago campaigning for a GOP gubernatorial candidate in the Illinois primary who happened to be Polish. Arguably the father of Polish democracy, Walesa knows a little bit about tyranny, socialism and the slippery path to both, and came to warn us about the path we've been on.
In a press conference, Walesa commented on an America that seemingly apologizes for everything these days, cajoles rather than confronts the thugs of the world and is embarked on a path to shackle beyond redemption the free economy that led the Free World to victory.
He no longer thinks we are the last best hope for mankind.
"The United States is only one superpower. Today they lead the world. Nobody has doubts about it, militarily," the Polish leader said. "They also lead economically, but they're getting weak.
"But they don't lead morally and politically anymore. The world has no leadership. The United States was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. There was the hope, whenever something was going wrong, one could count on the United States. Today, we lost that hope."
Walesa led the Solidarity movement in Poland. He was in a sense a community organizer, but not in the mold of a Saul Alinsky. He sought to liberate his people, not control them.
The marches and protests that led to Polish freedom were a precursor to America's tea party movement that likewise seeks to throw off the chains of a command-and-control society and restore genuine economic and political freedom.
The Soviet empire had its commissars. Our government has its czars, and Walesa definitely feels the America that was his friend is moving in the wrong direction. He sees our quest for redistribution of income as not different from the Marxist credo — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
In a video-taped interview, Walesa saw a hint of socialism creeping into America's domestic policies. He spoke of "the issue with the banks" and how "the government wastes all the money ... building a bureaucracy — just for itself."
Indeed, it seems the only growth sector in the U.S. is its government and the unions that exist not for the prosperity and freedom of their members, but for the power and influence of their leaders.
Poland had Lech Walesa. We have the SEIU's Andy Stern ,who says that if those who disagree with command-and-control government do not bow to the power of persuasion, they will bow to the persuasion of power.
It has been a long journey for Walesa from the Gdansk Lenin Shipyards to Chicago's Back of the Yards. He's the man who turned an illegal independent trade union into a force for freedom in communist Poland. He served as Poland's president from 1990 to 1995.
He has witnessed a lot of history and knows when people refuse to learn from it.
In Walesa's view, something needs to be done to restore America's strength and leadership. America, in his view, is too big to fail.
Publicado: 02-03-2010 09:47 AM
Obama’s Budget Blame Game
By Vasko Kohlmayer On February 3, 2010
Facing the brewing outrage about out of control spending, President Obama is doing what he usually does when he finds himself in trouble: He blames George Bush. He did this again in his State of the Union speech  in which he repeatedly hinted that it is his predecessor who is responsible for the country’s fiscal plight. As to his own role, there was not much he could do, since he took office with “a government deeply in debt.” Our current deficits are thus largely Bush’s doing: “The problem is that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits.”
But let’s look at some facts. When Obama took office on January 20, 2009 the national debt was $10.6 trillion. By the time he delivered his State of the Union remarks last Wednesday, it stood at $12.3 trillion. As Ken Timmerman observes , this spectacular increase represents “the biggest expansion of government spending in U.S. history.”
To be fair, the expansion is partially attributable to Bush. This is largely due to the $700 billion TARP authorization which was passed toward the end of Bush’s presidency, and part of which was spent during Obama’s term. But we must not forget that then-Senator Obama supported and voted for the measure. To now blame his predecessor for the cost of the policy he himself helped to implement is duplicitous at best.
There is every reason to believe that had Obama been in charge when the crisis erupted the national debt would have been even higher today. If anything, Obama thought the government was not spending enough. He sought to remedy this shortly after he took office with the $786 stimulus package. This was the largest spending measure in American history. The amount authorized in that single bill was more than one and a half amount the largest ever yearly deficit posted under Bush in 2008.
This is not to excuse Bush’s spendthrift ways, but only to show the extent of Obama’s disingenuousness. But apart from the cynicism of it, there is an even more fundamental question that needs be asked. Even if we accept the claim that our present over-spending is somehow Bush’s fault, why has the president done nothing to address this problem?
During the campaign Obama cast himself as someone who would boldly tackle the great problems that afflict this country. Why, then, has he not tried to introduce some sanity into federal finances and budgeting? A year should given him plenty of time to at least make a start in the right direction. And yet the president has done anything to stop the spending craze. Quite to the contrary, he has inflamed it further by ratcheting up spending to unprecedented levels. And now when a shell-shocked nation recoils at his excesses, he tries to blame another. This is not how great leaders act.
It is truly ironic that even as he tries to make the case against Bush, the president unwittingly condemns himself. For if Bush was an ignominious spender, then Obama must be triply so. The highest deficit posted under Bush was $457 billion in 2008. In a budget document released on Monday, the White House estimates  that the deficit for fiscal 2010 – the first fiscal year in which Obama is charge for the full duration – will reach $1.6 trillion. In light of these figures, for Obama to charge his predecessor with fiscal profligacy is absurd. His behavior brings to mind the proverbial man who keeps pointing out a speck in his neighbor’s eye while failing to notice a plank in his own. This is by no means to suggest that Bush’s $457 billion deficit is a speck, but only that the president’s fiscal indignation is badly misplaced.
Even as he keeps blaming his predecessor, President Obama is creating a disastrous fiscal legacy for his successor. In a little publicized document  released by the Office of Management and Budget in August of last year, the administration projected a rapid growth in spending during the rest of Obama’s term. So much so that the national debt will exceed the critical level of 100 percent GDP in fiscal 2011. This will be the highest level since 1945 and the highest ever in peace time.
When the next president assumes office, he will inherit financial disorder of catastrophic proportions. He will be handed a bankrupt government and an un-repayable national debt swollen by this president’s spending binge. But do not hold your breath waiting for President Obama to accept responsibility. After all, it’s all Bush’s fault.