1. Suing Arizona. The Department of Justice claims that Arizona's new illegal immigration law "preempts" the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. Hmmm. That argument might be a bit more compelling if the federal government actually WERE enforcing immigration laws. As a matter of fact, interior federal enforcement of immigration laws is down 75% since 2008. It's also a fact that the Arizona law was carefully written to be consistent with federal immigration law. States assist the federal government all the time in enforcing federal laws; this is nothing unusual and certainly nothing unconstitutional. I note that Obama made a big deal about how the AZ law amounted to racial profiling, yet there is nothing in the lawsuit about that. He knows that false claim would not stand up in court. This lawsuit is all about playing racial politics to get his base fired up in an election year. If he cared about the immigration problem, he would fulfill his constitutional obligation to secure the border and enforce existing immigration law, as well as working with Congress to come up with an acceptable bi-partisan immigration reform law.
2. Appointing Donald Berwick to Head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. It is disgraceful that Berwick was snuck in under the public's radar through a recess appointment, which enabled him to avoid being confirmed by the Senate. Of course, previous presidents have used recess appointments too, including Bush, but this is the first time that a top Cabinet-level official has been confirmed without even a hearing! No hearings had even been scheduled in the Senate, and 11 weeks after his nomination his Senate paperwork still had not been completed. In other words, he has had no public vetting whatsoever, yet he is going to have power over a portion of the government that is 4% of GDP (and has a bigger budget than the Dept. of Defense)! Obama would make a great third world dictator.
Of course there's a reason why Obama didn't want this guy to face confirmation hearings, even in a very Obama-friendly Senate. Berwick's views would not be very well received by the public. Here are some very revealing quotes about his views:
"[I am] romantic about the National Health Service" [the government agency
that controls the government-run health care system in Britain]. It is
a "seductress" and a "global treasure."
"The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether
we will ration with our eyes open."
One of the "primary functions" of government health care laws is "to
constrain decentralized, individual decision making" and "to weigh public
welfare against the choices of private consumers."
"Any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane
must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and
the less fortunate. Excellent healthcare is by definition redistributional."“As many as 80% of hysterectomies are scientifically unnecessary, so are more
than a quarter of the drugs used for ear infections, most of the ultrasounds
done in normal pregnancies, and half of cesarean sections in the United States.
Isn’t this, with all due respect, some form of assault and battery, however
unintended?”“Don't trust market forces." Trust "leaders with plans."
“One over-demanding service [to be cut] is prevention; annual physicals,
screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch disease
early.“Only a minority of patients, families, and clinicians support prolonged use
of life-sustaining procedures and dramatic interventions in the terminal states
of illness, yet substantial use of these procedures continue.”
This all sounds great -- if you want unelected bureaucrats making your health care decisions for you.
3. Politicizing NASA. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden gave an interview with Al-Jazeera. In this interview, Bolden said that Obama himself had instructed Bolden that his "perhaps foremost" requirement was “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science . . . and math and engineering.” (!) Wow. And all this time I thought NASA was about space exploration. Is there anything that this president touches that he doesn't turn into a vehicle for his radical ideology?
4. Politicizing the Justice Department. Christian Adams, a voting-rights lawyer who recently resigned from the Justice Department, recently testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission about the New Black Panther voter intimidation case in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008. That case, which was filed by the Justice Department in January 2009, said that two members of the New Black Panther party stood in front of a polling station, wearing military garb and brandishing a nightstick. The two men hurled "racial threats and racial insults at both black and white individuals" and "made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements, and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters." No defense was offered by the two individuals or by the New Black Panther party, which means that the case was a guaranteed win for the Justice Department. Yet, the Obama Administration suddenly dropped the case in May 2009, claiming insufficient evidence.
Adams stated in a Washington Times article that "if the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls." He went on to say that the case was dropped because there is an "open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.... Some of my coworkers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation.... Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the [Justice Department's] Voting Section." Not surprisingly, the Justice Department is stonewalling and has refused to allow attorneys involved in the case to respond even to subpoenas.
When Obama's done with our country, there won't be much left.
6 comments:
I've only skimmed this post as of yet, but RE: #3- I'll take the easy way out and defer to Jon. http://tv.gawker.com/5581963/jon-stewart-blasts-fox-news-for-anti+muslim-rhetoric
Radical Ideologist,
There's no denying Jon Stewart can be very funny at times, but there's a lot of misinformation in that clip you sent. Virtually anyone who is not utterly in the grip of the "defend Obama no matter what" mentality recognizes that it is ridiculous for the president to make Muslim "outreach" a primay goal of NASA. Reagan believed that our space exploration program could have a resulting side benefit of improved international relations, which is very different. Kudos to Fox News, which is once again covering a legitimate news story that the other networks are ignoring. If it weren't for Fox, most stories that reflect negatively on Obama would never see the light of day.
And BTW, Fox is not anti-Muslim. The network is the only one willing to tell the truth about a religion that has consistently spread throughout the globe using violence and force, thanks to the example set by Muhammed himself who forced people to convert or die. Islamic jihadists use a mainstream, widely held interpretation of the Koran to justify their militant actions. Most Islamic countries are highly repressive places with zero tolerance for "infidels" and zero rights for women and minorities. Much of the radical Islamic ideology spreading around the globe today is disseminated through mosques, so it's understandable Americans would be a little concerned about what is going on inside those mosques. Remember, Muslims in America are treated far better and have far more rights and freedoms than Christians in any Muslim country in the world. In fact, Muslims in America have far more rights and freedoms than MUSLIMS have in any Muslim country in the world.
The new NASA Czar says U.S.A. will land on the Sun - SHOCKING details at:
http://spnheadlines.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-czar-ali-baba-says-nasa-will-land.html
Peace! :-)
I find it very interesting that Obama will sue the state of Arizona for a law that mirrors the Federal Law and are, in essence, assisting the Feds in enforcing a law already on the books, yet not sue those "santuary cities" for NOT enforcing the law. It appears to me that once again Obama has everything backwards.
As for the whole NASA thing, once again Barack "The waters will recede and the planet will heal" Obama makes himself look like a child as he designates NASA to giving out gold star stickers to muslim nations for being such a great contributor to science and engineering. This guy is a complete joke!
Natedawg,
". . . a religion [Islam] that has consistently spread throughout the globe using violence and force . . ."
I know you went in to a little more detail in the subsequent sentences, but I think this statement is unfair. There have been holy wars in many different religions. The crusades, the inquisition (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!) and the IRA come to mind.
@Radical Ideologist:
I know my comment about Islam was politically incorrect -- but I nevertheless believe it is true and accurate.
It is true that the Crusades and the Inquisition were appalling acts of violence committed by professing Christians. I think you could point to many acts of violence and injustice committed by people from every major religion in the world, as well as by people who are non-religious. However, when you compare Islam to Christianity, for example, you see some important differences. Jesus, the "founder" of Christianity, taught that we should love our enemies, turn the other cheek, and forgive those who trespass against us. He advanced His Kingdom by preaching and dying on a cross for His enemies. Muhammed, on the other hand, not only taught that Islam should be advanced by force; he did it by example. He conquered a city and forced them to convert or die. The Koran advocates jihad which includes conversions through force and conquest; the Bible advocates conversions through the preaching of the Gospel. "Christians" who have used force and violence to spread their religion are doing it in opposition to the teachings and example of Jesus; Muslims who have used force and violence are simply following Muhammed's example and teaching. (I am NOT claiming that there are no peaceful Muslims, because there most certainly are.) And this fact is evident when you compare the predominantly Christian West with the predominantly Muslim Middle East. Islamic countries, almost without exception, offer virtually no personal freedoms and no tolerance of other religions; nearly all predominantly Christian Western countries offer significant personal freedoms and religious tolerance. Islam has a virtual monopoly on international terrorism, and survey after survey have indicated that a significant percentage of Muslims, even in Western countries, sympathize with terrorist bombers. Who is blowing up innocent people in the name of Jesus? Nobody that I know of. In my mind, the only reason that people don't see the vast difference is because they are committed to a philosophy that considers truth to be relative and believes that all religions are equal. I think the evidence indicates otherwise.
Post a Comment