The Left's Book Burning Party

MoveOn. org has a interesting video titled This Is How You Beat The Tea Party . The video is smug in its message but clearly shows how the left has embraced the "end always justifies the means" approach, voiced by their mentor Saul Alinsky,  “do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”. The video is about a Library in Troy, Michigan. The city needed money so they decided they would either have to close a library or raise taxes. An initiative was placed on a ballot to see if the residents wanted to raise taxes on themselves to keep their library. The Tea party in the area organized the no argument wanting no new taxes. The yes argument was the tax would be small in comparison to the cities need for the library; but it appeared the tax initiative would go down in defeat. Then suddenly these bizarre signs signs started to appear all over town and there was even a Facebook page for touting the burning of the library books.

Now of course the Tea Party had no idea where they were coming from nor did the city. But the postures went viral, all accusing the Tea Party of wanting to burn the library books; finally just before the vote a young group of socialists took ownership of the postures. They said they wanted to get attention in an audacious manner to swing the election to force a new tax, so they decided to put a vile face on the Tea Party and came up with the idea of portraying the Tea Party as NAZI’s. Well the tactic worked. By the time the true nature of the signs had come to light the vote was over, with most the voters voting for the new tax solely because they did not want to be associated with book burning even if it was a fallacy perpetrated by the left.

But there is nothing new here. The left can never present a true accounting of their agenda to destroy capitalism, so instead of presenting their socialist agenda, they demonize their opponents, usually using rhetoric that more closely resembles their actions than that of their opponents. Typical is the left crying racism any time someone disagrees with President Obama’s socialists policies. This of course continues a false paradigm ignoring the facts that it was the Democrats who initiated a Welfare scheme that subsidized poverty by making the blacks and poor completely reliant on Government handouts and the destruction of the black family by only paying unwed mothers or families that the father had abandoned. That's right, nothing to see here just MoveOn.

Fast and Furious; Not a Bush Operation

Operation Fast and Furious may be the downfall of Obama. In 2006 the Bush administration used an Operation called Wide Receiver to try and track US guns to those in the Mexican Cartel s that were looking to buy them; this was done in coordination with the Mexican Government. Here the guns were closely followed to their destination in Mexico to arrest the buyers while carefully tracking and seizing the guns as evidence; the procedure is called a controlled delivery and is a very common law enforcement tactic. Although arrests were made and no guns were lost, the Bush administration determined the plan was not productive enough and stopped it toward the end of 2007, or a year before he left office.

In 2009 the Obama administration initiated a program Fast and Furious (funded by the Obama stimulus) with seemingly the same goal as Wide Receiver, however there were significant differences in how it was run. First the guns were not tracked but allowed to “walk”, meaning about 2000 guns were allowed to disappear and fall into the hands of murdering Cartels with no one tracking the guns or identifying suspects or making arrests. There was also no coordination with the Mexican government who rightly complained of what seemed like a sudden flood of illegal weapons into Mexico from the US. The big lie that is being spread by the pro-Obama machine is just like Fast and Furious, Bush  (Operation Wide Receiver) let guns walk also; this never happened. Congress is now investigating this debacle and  has found Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt and the President has now invoked Executive Privilege to keep DOJ documents on Fast and Furious from the Congressional investigation. www.nationalreview.com and www.americanthinker.com

The question now is what the President is trying to hide. Whatever it is it may produce another Constitutional crisis mush the same as Watergate. In my opinion I believe the there are three issues about Fast and Furious, any of which if made known could result in the downfall of Holder and President Obama. The first is the number of arms has been greatly understated. In May of 2009 President Calderon remarked to AP, We need to stop the flow of guns and weapons towards Mexico. Let me express to you that we've seized in this two years more than 25,000 weapons and guns, and more than 90 percent of them came from United States, and I'm talking from missiles launchers to machine guns and grenades. In this short statement, it appears that there is much more that meets the eye in Fast and Furious. First President Calderon described the weapons as “machine guns” (he has previously described the weapons as military grade). The fact is machine guns or military grade small arms are not generally available in American guns shops. Automatic weapons are highly regulated in the US, requiring a laborious background check and history. Even if someone qualifies for an automatic weapon in the US, the price is usually cost prohibited for anyone other than a hard core collector. As an example a civilian semi-automatic AK-47 can cost $800 to $1000; the same military grade AK-47 will cost near $5000. However if you buys a military grade AK-47 from a international arms dealers they are about $100-$200@. Because of this there is simply no way 25,000 military grade weapons could even be collected in the US never mind smuggled into Mexico. The only supply that large would have to come from the US Military itself or bought from an international gun dealer and made to look like they came from the US. One can imagine a Contragate style operation where US intelligence agents sold military grade weapons to Mexican Cartels in exchange for intelligence on Iran (it is believed that Iran has plotted with Mexican Drug cartels to carry out political assassinations).

The big lie by the Democrats, by the likes of Eric Holder, Jay Carney and Nancy Pelosi is blame Bush for Fast and Furious; that Fast and Furious was a Bush legacy operation. It's a lie, they know it's a lie, but as usual President Obama will take no ownership or responsibility for anything and the democrats just play along. Socialism is based on the the concept on the infallibility of government; that actions and information of and from government should never be questioned and should be accepted as necessary as truthful. This is what we are getting from the President and his ruling subordinates, their attempt to re-write history even as it's being made.

Why Liberals Have to Lie Part 8 (President Obama's Relection Campaign)

In recent Obama political commercials, we are starting to see the direction Obama campaign  will be headed his re-election bid. The over riding direction will again to blame Bush (43), but he also be typically deceitful claims about Gov Romney.

One Obama commercial makes a point that Gov Romney left the state of Massachusetts with an $18 billion deficit (pretty funny as the President is increasing the federal deficit by $1 trillion a year). However when one just takes a cursory look at the facts, you see once again it's the lies of the left. One fact is the $18 billion debt was $18 billion worth of voter approved bonds, the likes of which are capital improvements to pay for such things as road or bridge repair, to erect new buildings at the University of Massachusetts or to expand courthouses; further he inherited the same amount ( $18 billion debt) from the previous governor. There is also the statement that after Romney left Massachusetts as governor (2007) that Massachusetts had the highest debt per capita in the nation, however again it's worth noting that, "Massachusetts didn’t have far to go to reach the No. 1 spot. Massachusetts ranked second in 2003, the year Romney took office, according to Moody’s. And it was first in 2002". FactCheck.org

My second response is the below letter I wrote to the Santa Cruz Sentential 4/26/2012

It has recently been released that Obama was faced with two mutually exclusive agendas for his Presidency; end the recession or past ObamaCare; Obama choose that later, believing it would leave a more profound legacy. In doing so, the Democrats have not passed a budget in over 3 years. Bush managed to raise the deficit by $5 billion over eight years, including the 2009 budget that was shared with Obama; Obama has managed to increase the deficit another $5 trillion dollars in just 4 years. The end result is an economy (despite what you hear from the media) that is worse off than it was when Obama took over, with $5 trillion in additional debt. One may want to blame Bush for the recession, but if you accept the argument that a president has that much affect on the economy, you also have to accept the argument that Obama had the ability to use his political will in the first two years to bring the recession under control, when the Republicans did not have the ability to block passage of any Democrat bill. Perhaps he should have paid more attention to Ronald Reason whose enduring legacy was saving the US economy are the damage that was done by Jimmy Carter.

Third, it is time again to ask what exactly it was the Bush did to get us in this mess (this greatly simplified but still accurate). It certainly wasn't the increases in the national debt over the 8 years he was in office. Our national debt has been increasing every year since before Reagan and the country economy showed sustained growth. While I don't agree with the Keynesian economic theories, it is eactly what President Obama is doing hoping it will "kick start" the economy (this also rules out the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as causing the Great Recession as the end result was simply greater debt). As a matter of fact, most will agree that Bush had 7 1/2 good years and 6 really bad months. The Great Recession is the result of the collapse of the world banking systems as a result the Repeal of Glass Stegal (A bi partisan vote at the end of the Clinton Presidency), Franklin Reigns and America Dream Act and Alan Greenspan Chairman of the Federal Reserve reducing  Federal Interest rate to 1%  Nomenclature of a Sub-prime Meltdown  Because of these low interest rates large portfolio investors throughout the world were looking for a higher yield and like an unholy trinity, the three came together to destroy the world economy. Because these investment schemes were designed around an unending supply of homes to create new mortgages, the middle class was especially hard hit as they saw the value of their homes sky rocket and then plummet when the supply of buyers finally petered out and a glut of houses that could not be sold remained. So the middle class nest egg has now become an albatross around their necks. There is certainly enough blame to go around but since President Obama continues to complain that the problem is too big for his Keynesian plan to work, does it make any sense at all to reelect him?  Just saying.. 

Finally, I read a recent article that said President Obama’s “spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.” But when I read beyond the first paragraph, I found this is only possible if you accept a new normal for budget deficits.  As an example President Bush’s average budget deficit for his 8 years was about $500 billion until his last budget in 2009. The Bush 2009 budget had a $1.1 trillion deficit, plus $300 billion added by Obama. What Obama is now claiming is because his deficit spending is now less than the new normal of $1.4 trillion, then the rate of his spending is at an incredible slow pace. But if one accepts the 2009 budget is not the new normal and $500 billion remains the norm, then President Obama’s spending is higher than all other presidents combined.