What Happens When an Ambassador is in Peril?

Trying to be neutral, but given the current administration’s record, I find myself a little cynical.

I will note, there was sensitivity this weekend in face of impending Hurricane Sandy this week – of course there was money to be given away and potential votes to be bought.

Political Arena

Political Arena Editor Chuck Norton

Each consulate has a virtual panic button called the “Imminent Danger Notification System” that is hit whenever an ambassador is put in peril. This has been in place since after the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

This works as a virtual instant message that goes to the Intelligence agencies such as the CIA Director and the DNI, the Sec of State, the Defense Secretary, local
military assets are notified and it also goes to the White House situation room and
protocol says that this flash traffic MUST be acknowledged and someone in the situation room MUST go and physically contact the President. Again, this happens instantly.

In the absence of orders the standing order is for local assets to preserve American life. So someone had to STOP that AC130 gunship from firing and someone had to STOP local assets from responding as they were responding as they would…

View original post 203 more words

Advertisements

Are we no longer a sovereign republic free from outside intervention?

English: Woman standing, as America, facing sl...

English: Woman standing, as America, facing slightly right; holding U.S. flag and flag pole. Illustration in: Draperies in Action. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Desperation among the democratic party has risen to new levels as Foreign Observers are invited to “monitor” 2012 Presidential election results for democrats

International Monitors at polling places

I actually thought this was a joke the first time I was told about it.  Too ridiculous to be true, right?  Turns out that it may be ridiculous, but it isn’t just a rumor.

I think it ironic that America, the most successful, longest living democracy in recorded history may potentially have international monitors.  I would find it less offensive if this were perhaps an instructional exercise – an opportunity for the observers to see how a free election should be held.  However, it is not.

This is arguably the most important election in generations; perhaps in our history.   Nothing less than the continued existence of a free, democratic, free market society and the devolution to a socialist, managed society hangs in the balance.  A few things I find interesting about the situation:

  • The countries involved are Socialist democracies at best, pure socialism or totalitarian at worst.  Kazakhstan?  Really?
  • The proposed monitors are from countries with overwhelming socialist support for Obama, or a vested interest in Obama’s re-election.  How neutral do you think these observers will be?
  • These international observers are challenging the rights of individual states within the republic.  Talk about outside interference.

Ironically, the very same parties who are dead set against laws to restrict voter fraud or voter identification are the ones asking for this “international monitoring”!  What are they looking for?  We know they are not interested in ensuring that only registered voters submit their vote in a legal manner.  So what is it?  The fact that your candidate is dropping in the polls is not an indication of voting fraud.  If your candidate is not elected – that also is not an indication of fraud.  Manipulating results, subjecting United States Citizens to the laws of other countries, or interference from other nation in our internal election certainly is.  Remember, this is the party that took a vote on a change to the Democratic Platform on television for the world to see.  Three times they took a vote.  Three times they didn’t get the answer they wanted.  So finally, they simply did what they wanted anyway.  These are the people worried about a fair election?  You have to wonder what fair looks like to them.

If we have to submit to outside monitoring for fraud, here are a few of suggestions:

  • Make sure the voters are actually legal, registered voters
  • Make sure the voters are voting on their own free will, not bussed in and told who to vote for
  • Make sure there are no quid pro quo’s – you vote, we will give you a ____ (Fill in the blank)
  • Make sure that the voter only votes once
  • Look into the error that delayed absentee ballots to our military serving overseas.  A group that just coincidentally is disenfranchised with the current Administration.

I personally hope every legal registered voter participates in this election.  I hope every single citizen takes this duty seriously and shows up to vote.  However, as with almost every single moderate or conservative voter I know, I do want them to vote legally – I am not sure why this is such a problem?

What does it tell you when a party is so concerned with ensuring ineligible or illegal voters have a chance to cast a vote that they are willing to sacrifice our nation’s sovereignty?   I am a little concerned that a political party is dependent on illegal or unregistered voters – aren’t you?  Shouldn’t this election be determined by American Citizens?  This would seem to be a serious issue to me.

Please take the time to vote on November the 6th.

“It is error alone which needs the support of government.  Truth can stand by itself”

–          Thomas Jefferson

What Politicians Don’t Want To Say About The Middle East

This is perhaps the best written discussion I have come across to date regarding the middle east, the issues there and the value of middle east exports to the world at large.  Succinct and brilliantly written

A Brilliant Discussion On The Neurotic Middle East

Take the time to read it and pass this on to everyone you can think of.

It really is a must read.

The Day After – The media really just doesn’t get it

That’s right, it isn’t only the Democratic Party that is completely out of touch with the moderate voters. If you spent any time what so ever looking at commentary after the first Presidential Debate, you will have noticed the desperate tone of much of the mainstream media trying to salvage something out of the debate for the Democrats. But it just wasn’t there. That behavior isn’t so unusual, so why am I saying the media doesn’t get it?

https://i1.wp.com/www.geeveeapps.com/clueless512x512.jpg

The general lamentation is that the President would have done so much better had he only mentioned:

• Caiman Islands and Tax Breaks
• Bain Capital
• The 47 percent

• Tea Party

Really? Look, I really don’t think folks in the middle have any beef with folks who comply with the tax law. As I have written in my previous blog post Would you pay more?, we have all had the opportunity to see Governor Romney’s taxes. He complied with the law. Would you pay more? Right, so lets just move on.

Bain Capital? So the man was successful in business. Now is that supposed to be a liability? Governor Romney has been just as successful in business as he has been in politics. Lets not pretend that success and experience is a turn off for the moderate voters. They want to see someone in the Oval Office with a track record of success and inspires confidence in the ability to actually make things happen.

The 47 percent. Yes, this resonates with the liberal voters. What the media is overlooking is that the liberal voters are going to vote for Obama anyway. There are people in the so-called 47% that are planning to vote for Governor Romney. Why? They might be in 47% due to business bankruptcy or for other reasons, but they understand what he was saying. And they still believe in a meritocracy, true freedom of speech, and want their children to have a shot at the American dream because they worked hard and earned their way to success – they don’t believe in an entitlement society. The 47% wins points only with people that have already made up their mind. And that was Governor Romney’s point.

Tea Party? Huh? I feel like I am watching Monty Python and “Knights Who Say ‘Nie’” scene! If you say Tea Party three times fast, are all conservatives supposed to quail in fear or something? What does the tea party have to do with anything that Governor Romney has been saying?

Joshua Green of BloombergBusinessWeek posted the following:

“The effect was mainly impressionistic—he did it without offering any new details. And he did it by emphasizing his “beliefs” (“great schools, great teachers”), which don’t necessarily align with his policies.”

What? Joshua did you do any research? Governor Romney has strong views on education and has taken steps as a governor to boost the education levels within the state of Massachusetts. I would expect better from a business periodical.

The fear that we will make a move away from the path of trickle down government control, and toward a more open society that includes a thriving business sector and a free, democratic process and has the possibility of strengthening the ties that bind us together, instead of the differences the democrats have emphasized in their attempt to divide us, has the left and much of the media in a panic.

A difference of opinion – collaborate on bipartisan solutions or “fight”

a house divided...

a house divided… (Photo credit: tray)

During the debate last night we saw so very clearly the two dramatically differing philosophies on how to make things happen in our government.  The difference between the experience of Governor Romney who successfully navigated a democratic legislature contrasted with the lack of results posted by the current President of the United States.

Perhaps the most powerful indicator of the President’s philosophy was demonstrated after Governor Romney described how he worked cooperatively with a Massachusetts legislature dominated by the Democratic Party to produce many successful results.  President Obama’s follow-up discussion was laced prominently with the term “fight”, describing how he had his fights with the legislature; fights President Obama said needed to happen.  The President views these exchanges as fights to be won rather than solutions to be developed together.  For President Obama, “open to reason and debate” means “I will explain my position so you can agree with me.”  Even within the President’s own party he has very few allies.  Eleanor Clift’s recent post in the Daily Beast contained the following statements :

“… Obama doesn’t have many friends on Capitol Hill in either party. He has allies for sure but hasn’t worked to develop personal relationships. Some think this is a fatal flaw…”

“One adviser who did not want to be quoted recalls gently suggesting Obama might want to invest more personal time in courting members of Congress. “He looked at me like I was telling him to do 10 root canals.”

Nancy Pelosi has even muted the President during meetings while he was speaking to the room!  Russell Berman of “The Hill” posted:

“In one scene during negotiations over the 2009 economic stimulus package, Woodward reports that when Obama called then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to discuss the bill, she put the president on speakerphone so that the group of Democratic lawmakers in her office could hear him, according to a report in The Washington Post.

But when Obama began making an “uplifting speech” over the phone, Pelosi pressed the mute button.

Why has the President failed to develop relationships and why has he alienated so many democrats and republicans alike?  Simply, because he doesn’t think it is important and he hasn’t been willing to sacrifice his work-life balance to forge these relationships and help move our country forward.  Work-life balance is commendable, but every President should know going into the job how demanding it will be.  That is part of the sacrifice expected from our President as part of his service to us, the voters.

“Fight” and ram through legislation only when you have a majority?  Or work together to craft lasting, bilateral solutions.  It seems like an easy choice to me.  I will take the person who is willing to work with an individual regardless of his or her political inclination and respects the opinions of all.  America deserves it.

No Middle Ground?

The partisan nature of our recent political history raises a question as to whether there is any middle ground remaining? Left and a right, Republican and Democrat – only one can win, right?

There is no doubting the fact that one party, one candidate must win and one must lose. The middle ground isn’t necessarily the parties or party lines, but rather the voters. I do not believe the voting public is so clearly polarized as the political party extremes. People are complex. Their needs, thoughts, questions, desires and life experiences vary, often dramatically. It is entirely possible to have someone who believes strongly in abortion, is against drilling in national parks and is open to raising taxes; but is a hawk on military matters, is a fiscal conservative, believes that entitlement programs must be trimmed and the government needs to get out of people’s private lives, and wants to see greater controls on immigration. Truly. So do you exclude these people from your party?

I don’t believe this to be a rhetorical question. I think there is a group of people in that middle ground who believe in a meritocracy, true freedom of speech, and want their children to have a shot at the American dream because they worked hard and earned their way to success – they don’t believe in an entitlement society. How many families have a registered Democrat and a registered Republican? I am sure there in some middle ground happening there.

So here is the opportunity. Some of the folks I mentioned above probably voted for the current President last time around. Without a doubt the positions the Democratic Platform conveyed at their recent convention alienated some of those voters. They missed out on the key issues, and instead drove home conversations about special interests, class warfare and dependency. The current administration’s policies have left some of the voters I mentioned above feeling mislead, disillusioned. Alienated. The Democrats have built a party line that is totally dependent on fear, division and anger. They are close minded and exclusive.

This is an opportunity for the conservatives to capture that middle. I have written previously that every election comes down to choices. We have a choice between a party led by President Obama that wants to keep moving forward on the same path, is delusional about whether we as a country are better off and wants to consolidate and centralize their power and build dependency. The other choice is a party led by Mitt Romney who believes that our country needs a drastic change in direction including fiscal reform, a robust private economy and a democratic process.

democracy's chorus

democracy’s chorus (Photo credit: howard.hall)

So in reality, “the middle ground” is the battleground. That middle ground is full of the people who can and will make a difference in this election. Believing there is no middle ground is a slippery slope. Once you believe that, there is no reason to “reach across the aisle”. There is then no reason to have constructive conversations and plant the seeds of hope and change. Instead, people tend to get lost in the focus on “winning the argument” or getting in the best insult; something we see all too often in the partisan environment today. Every “smackdown” of an undecided voter is a small battle lost. There is plenty of middle ground out there and it is ours to take.

Does the Law Really Matter?

United States Capitol

United States Capitol (Photo credit: Phil Roeder)

This question has come up more frequently with this President than any other President that I can recall. Why? Well, for starters, remember this is a President who talked extensively about “transparency”. But, on an even more basic level, the real reason may be because we have rarely, if ever, had a President so divisive and polarizing. I also doubt we have ever seen a president more willing to utilize the government’s assets and his position for his own gain. Wait! Why do I say this? This President has been accused of:

Violating the War Powers Act
Hatch Act Violations
Unconstitutional Recess Appointments

In addition, the President is using United States assets, your tax dollars, to buy votes through a variety of entitlement programs

Cell Phone Program
Promoting usage of Food Stamps

Questions abound regarding the President’s view of the U.S. Constitution and the application of United States Law to President Obama. Do the laws of the United States apply to President Obama? Can he unilaterally decide to rewrite federal law?

Now we have the current administration encouraging employers to ignore the WARN Act. In case you are not intimate with the WARN Act, here is a quick overview. The WARN act (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) requires employers to give notice to employees and others within 60 days of a foreseeable mass layoff. The government’s position is that the roughly $500 billion cuts in defense spending that will kick in due to the automatic budget cuts if congress is unable to come to agreement on a new Budget is not a “given”. Meaning any job cuts can’t be “foreseeable”. Given that the President has not been able to pass a budget or work collaboratively with anyone, in or out of his own party, why would we think that suddenly we will be able to constructively avoid these cuts? The only way I can see a bi-partisan, functional budget being enacted is if there is a new President in the White House.

But this gets even better. The administration not only asked companies to violate federal law, it also offered to use federal funds, your tax dollars, to cover the legal fees to defend against subsequent legal challenges? So we are going to use federal funds to help defend people who violated the federal law?

Do you think that maybe the administration doesn’t want the public to understand the frightening impact of Sequestration Transparency Act? How far is President Obama willing to bend, or break, the laws to ensure he is re-elected? How far are you willing to let him go?