Posted tagged ‘Barack Obama’

Is TSA Set to Become Obama’s ‘Civilian National Security Force’?

November 22, 2010

The other day I read that TSA Chief John Pistole wants to take TSA “to the next level” by expanding its reach to rail and subway travel. He said he wants “TSA workers, including 47,000 screeners at 450 airports, to operate as a “national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts.”

 When I was able to see straight again I began to wonder… could this be what Obama had in mind when he called for a “civilian national security force” back in 2008?

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Will the Blueshirts really become our version of the Brownshirts? I’m beginning to believe that is exactly the plan.

If the people who understand that TSA’s methods violate our constitutional rights are not successful in forcing changes, I am certain we will soon see TSA “security” checkpoints at every form of public transportation, every stadium, arena, major tourist destination and even schools. And at that point the notion of individual liberty will be a thing of the past.

Calling the Obamacare Line

October 28, 2009

Fact-Checking the Obama Health Speech

September 10, 2009

o-youlieReason magazine editor-in-chief Matt Welch has the best post-speech fact-check I’ve seen so far. Going beyond just the basic true/false of what Obama said about the (nonexistant) health reform plan, Welch takes measure of the president’s character and how willing we should be to trust his promises.

 

A brief excerpt:

Again and again last night, the president’s numbers didn’t add up. “There may be those—particularly the young and healthy—who still want to take the risk and go without coverage,” he warned, in a passage defending compulsory insurance. “The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don’t sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people’s expensive emergency room visits.” No, it means that, on balance, the healthy young don’t pay for the unhealthy old. The whole point of forcing vigorous youth to buy insurance is using their cash and good actuarials to bring down the costs of covering the less fortunate.

Such fudges reveal a politician who, for whatever reason, feels like he can’t be honest about the real-world costs of expanding health care. “Add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years,” he said, trying hard to sound like those numbers weren’t pulled out of Joe Biden’s pants, and won’t be dwarfed by actual costs within a year or two. “We’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system–a system that is currently full of waste and abuse,” he said, making him at least the eighth consecutive president to vaguely promise cutting Medicare “waste” (a promise, it should be added, that could theoretically be fulfilled without drastically overhauling the health care system). Any government-run “public option,” he claimed, somehow “won’t be” subsidized by taxpayers, but instead would “be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.”

Read the rest

White House Says 1 Million Jobs Saved or Created By Stimulus

September 10, 2009

o-lolAccording to the Associated Press,  the Ministry of Truth White House said today that the Obama administration’s recovery efforts have saved or created more than one million jobs so far. That should be great comfort to the more than 14 million people still unemployed.

The article also states (emphasis added):

The report is certain to draw criticism because the U.S. economy has actually lost about 2.5 million jobs since the stimulus was signed in February. Because the White House number is based on economic models, it’s impossible to say for certain what that number would have been without the stimulus.

Well, I guess so. It’s also impossible to say for certain what the number is WITH the stimulus, as the whole guesstimate is based on computer models rather than reality.

Stimulus Spending Slows to a Trickle

August 14, 2009

000-0809232947Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey reports the following:

Two months ago, Barack Obama ordered his Cabinet to pick up the pace of stimulus spending after the public began losing confidence in its ability to generate an economic recovery.  With the unemployment rate heading to 9.5%, the need for Obama’s urgency was obvious.  So the federal government must really have turned on the cash spigots, right?  Wrong:

Stimulus bill spending has slowed to a trickle, despite President Obama’s June order to his Cabinet to speed it up.

The average stimulus spending per week has dropped severely, to just $4.2 billion over the past month from $9.7 billion during the prior four months. The government spent $2.9 billion in the week ending Aug. 7.

Taxpayer groups say the numbers show spending decisions are random and prove that the $787 billion stimulus program has had no effect on the economy.

“This is a typical bureaucracy. They don’t operate in an efficient way. They can’t operate in an efficient way and make an impact,” said Leslie Paige, media director for Citizens Against Government Waste.

When Casey Stengel managed the New York Mets in the team’s debut season — a team that had as many rookies, retreads, and screw-ups as the Obama Administration apparently does — he moaned, “Can’t anyone here play this game?”  It’s been six months for Team Obama, and they keep proving themselves inept at governance.  Instead of picking up the pace, they’ve cut the flow by two-thirds.

But by all means let’s put the government in charge of health care! What could possibly go wrong?

Told Ya So

August 6, 2009

9eb1f746aedfa1a0Recent events, particularly this week’s instructions from the White House on ridiculing government-run healthcare protesters, got me thinking about some of the things I said on Barack Obama’s inauguration day.

Obama’s been president for about 200 days now.  How’d I do?

Most “Birthers” and Their Critics Missing the Real Question

August 3, 2009

Bloggers and pundits of every political stripe are calling for Barack Obama to just release the long form birth certificate and end the controversy once and for all.  Among those calling for the document are Carol Swain, Andrew Sullivan and even Chuck Norris. All well and good. Obama certainly should put the conspiracy theories to rest before the issue gets any further out of hand.

But I think there’s a larger question here than just where the president was born. For the sake of argument, if nothing else, let’s just say we accept that he was indeed born in Hawaii and is, in fact, a US citizen by birth. This means we also accept that his father was Kenyan and his mother was a full-fledged American citizen, period. Accepting all of that, does it automatically follow that Barack Jr. is a natural-born citizen? That, I think, is the question that needs to be answered.

HuffPo blogger Chris Kelly posted the following today:

I’m sorry, but I don’t think we can get Obama on the “natural born” part. I don’t know what it means and neither do you, and neither did the Founding Fathers. I think it had something to do with not letting Louis XVI be president or black people vote, but your guess is as good as mine. And guesses don’t count.

Read the rest

And there’s the rub. Natural-born was not defined in the constitution nor has it ever been clarified by constitutional amendment or supreme court decision. It seems to me the supreme court has a duty to hear any case based on this question and provide a ruling. If none of us can definitively say what it means, how can we know when the requirement has not been met?

Obviously it was important enough to the founders to include the phrase “natural-born” as something other than “citizen” alone. If it mattered enough to make it stand out linguistically then, it matters enough to decide what it means to us today when we lack the context of the revolutionary times and any written legal definition.

My humble opinion is that “natural-born” means born of two parents who are themselves both US citizens. Anything else involves multiple citizenship standing of the child and the potential (which was of utmost importance to the founders) of divided loyalties. Anything else does not really make sense.

UPDATE: A clarification – This post isn’t meant to be trying out a different approach to invalidating the 2008 presidential election results. Even if the supreme court or congress decided tomorrow that “natural born” means both parents must also be US citizens, it would only apply from that point onward. Obama couldn’t be held responsible and thrown out of office over an eiligibility requirement that up till now at least has no legal definition.

Is natural born something different than garden variety citizenship?

If we don’t ask and answer the question today we could be asking this question again someday… with a candidate who happens to be the US-born child of illegal immigrants, perhaps.

I think it’s a valid question and we better figure out an answer soon.