The Hippies Are In Charge

Pro Gun Democrats SC The Hippies Are In Charge

With all the recent scandalous information coming out regarding the Obama administration, it appears the Hippies are in charge. In the not too distant past, we as conservatives were called the “Silent Majority”. Well, silence may in fact be complicity. I do understand the approach that has historically marked the difference between conservative and progressive approaches to distrust of the government and our different reaction to that distrust; I did live through the 60′s and 70′s.

We, as conservatives, who watched the street protests of the 60′s and 70′s referred to them as “That Bunch of Hippie Trouble-Makers”, out in the street causing problems again. While I did not personally see the Chicago riots of 1968, I was serving in the military at that time, having enlisted in August of 1968. While I was not in Haight Ashbury for the 1967 summer of love, I followed enough of the reporting to be able to comment. To myself and many of my contemporaries, they were unwashed, undisciplined, dope-smoking, unpatriotic, mostly rich college kids. Kids who did just enough college courses, usually of the socialist type, to keep their draft exemptions. I suppose that is why the photograph of Obama holding an obvious joint, while appearing high, upsets me so much. I am also aware that by and large, he has appointed those of a similar mindset. A mindset we felt undermined our American values, our view of ourselves as Americans, and what we represent to the rest of the world.

Personally I think it fits in completely with my view of Eric Holder, the uncourageous radical who denies any complicity with any armed groups during his radical college days. A denial I find hard to accept knowing the popular phrase, “If you ain’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

I also have my doubts about Hillary, given the company she kept. I remember the phrase from Bill: “I NEVER INHALED”. While I have no doubts about her greed, lust for power, and prestige, I doubt she could have been accepted as a part of the group she associated with and not had the same view of the world as they did.

I was part of the military during those troubled times, times when you questioned your country’s motives under Lyndon Johnson and the motives of Richard Nixon for different reasons. I questioned as well (and yes, during a phase of my life, partook in the rebelliousness of the times and the infamous weed and the more powerful cousin hashish.) I understand the philosophy of free thinking while under the influence. That was cut short when I was part of a group that had a reel to reel tape enthusiast as a member. One night while expounding our thoughts as a group passing stuff around, he recorded our session. The next day, in a clearer state of mind, he played it back for us. We were perhaps more fortunate; we had the chance to listen to ourselves. Perhaps our leaders did not and may not have listened to themselves yet. That may be the root of the problem. Though personally, I think Hillary may always remember the line, “What difference does it make”. May that line follow her unto death. If I had my way, it would be inscribed upon her tombstone.

After being abroad for many years, I have often heard the leaders of the opposition parties in different countries express the same sentiment. You see, in Europe, there are many parties. They are not just confined to two similar parties; they have groups with many differing views. So, after losing an election, the party left out of government (or left out of the coalition that forms the ruling group) represents what is called the opposition. Their views are nearly always reported when the ruling parties make an unwelcome decision. Many times, the opposition leader will state quite honestly “It’s very easy to have a different policy when you are not ruling the government and don’t have to implement that policy.”

That is the problem that I believe confronts the “Hippie” government of today under Obama and his administration. They learned long ago that the riotous actions of their demonstrations, their groups (such as SDS), and the more radical splinter groups that followed would not attract the following they needed for change. Remember, Obama promised a complete change to the way the government of the USA operates. They are finding that as the ruling party, it is a different matter altogether to implement those policies.

Yes, the “Hippies” are in charge. The problem is that their form of government does not conform to the Constitution. They are trying to put a square peg in a round hole. This is why their lies keep unraveling, and this is why their methods are just wrong; they are in the wrong part of the world. We who make up what was once known as “The Silent Majority” must be silent no longer. We, as our forefathers before us, must pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our scared honor to stop them from bringing about the downfall of our nation. They are in the process of infiltrating our schools through Common Core. The are attacking our 2nd Amendment rights, they are attacking our 1st Amendment rights (through freedom of expression being targeted by the IRS), and they are assuming so many powers not listed in the Constitution it is beyond listing in a short article of this kind.

Just as when Nixon used his powers of office to spy upon and intimidate George McGovern, Obama is drunk with power. He has moved them in; the Hippies are in power. But we should remind them that they only have a short lease, and one that can be terminated at our pleasure.

 

 

 

 

Obama’s Woodward And Bernstein

Bob Woodward SC Obamas Woodward and Bernstein

Where are Obama’s Woodward and Bernstein? We, as a society, are 40 years beyond the time of the Watergate Scandal. The information age, whether for good or bad, is upon us. The 24 hour news cycle is part of our lives. The lifespan of a story today, even important stories, are normally only a few days. In the seventies, during Watergate, the information dripped out. It was this slow mounting drip that built into the flood of public opinion (and the force behind that opinion that brought down the Nixon Administration.)

It was seen at the time, through the pressure of the coming certainty of losing the midterm 1974 elections, that if the Republicans lost control of both houses (as turned out to be the case), then Nixon would face near certain impeachment. In my mind, that is what caused the resignation of Nixon. He was resigned to the fact that facing a Democrat controlled legislature, he would be the first President removed from office by impeachment. Nixon opted for the resignation and probable pardon (which did in fact come through) rather than face impeachment and probable jail time.

Yet, with the importance of the events unfolding surrounding Benghazi, where are the reporters who keep the fire burning? Where are the reporters who fan the embers to hold the feet to the fire of the government officials charged with oversight? Where are the reporters who would risk everything to find where the witnesses are, or to find and get an interview with the people who were on the ground the night of the attack? The duties of this work has fallen to us by default. The television reporters of today, who are paid millions, have a vested interest in keeping the status quo (or have, as exampled by those working for such media outlets such as MSNBC and their kindred souls, a predetermined political agenda that prevents them from going after their heroes.) The talking heads who work for outlets such as Fox News, or the many conservative talk show hosts on radio, have little investigative experience or little knowledge of speaking to sources. Instead, they have staff who take phone calls or read articles and put talking points together, much the same as those they are speaking against. We who work for little or no monetary reward are the last bastion of representative government. Our concern is not for the Pulitzer or the high value TV appearances; ours is a deep abiding concern for our nation, our country’s honor, and for an honest government. We, as writers, can continue to fan the embers of justice that keep the fires burning to uncover the truth. When told that was a long time ago, we need to say we remember. (As Hillary Clinton said, “What difference at this point does it make?!”) We need to say that it wasn’t a burglary; it was four Americans who died. We have a responsibility to continue to ask the questions. We need to give our officials choices: find out what happened, or you lose the next election to someone who will.

Our elected officials, by and large, are followers. Mostly, they will only respond to what they believe will get them re-elected or elect other members of their party. I am of the belief that they will usually do trades to benefit themselves, their constituents, or their positions on committees; they will not act in the best interest of our country. They can be influenced by pressure from other committee members (or worse, by the leaders of their own party.) These politicians know that it is a long time from now to the elections in 2014; and the public, especially Obama supporters, will normally accept excuses. We need to make this the exception, the time where we will not rest until we know every detail; we need not worry about the amount of time it takes to uncover the truth. We are not worried about how much these hearings cost; that is the function of government, to answer to the taxpayers. The reporters such as Woodward and Bernstein had only their editors to worry about (and the number of people following their articles.) The Watergate burglary occurred on June 17, 1972; Nixon did not resign until August 8 1974. Woodward and Bernstein and several other reporters knew that if they continued the pressure, if they continued to drip out the story with a follow-up as often as their editors would allow, the drip would turn into a flood (and that would break the dam holding back the truth.)

A fine example of how legislators tend to follow the party line was shown in this week’s hearings by the Democrats present. A majority of these Democrats chose to use their time to either attack the witnesses without giving them a chance to respond or to reiterate the findings of the ARB (Accountability Review Board), a body set up to (in my mind) facilitate the cover-up. According to the Democrats now, there is nothing to see here folks; just move along. The ARB has been conducted: the President had nothing to do with this, and the Secretary of State had nothing to do with this. We have found the failings and are doing what we can to make sure this never happens again.

Review the stories and the manner in which the momentum built between June 1972 and August 1974. Review how the Republicans and the Nixon administration played down all the stories that were reported. The was just a low class burglary, which in truth it was. “Nothing to see here; move along.” It was not the break-in that was the problem; remember, it was the cover-up.

The choice is ours. Do we keep the pressure up on these legislators to find out the truth, or do we just move along and do as we are told?

 

Obama’s War Is Coming

General Obama Forward Stand Down SC Obamas War is Coming

Obama’s war is coming. President Putin warned him. Prime Minister Netanyahu told him it was likely to happen. Now it may be here. Over the weekend, the Israeli Air Force launched missiles and jets at Damascus, Syria, the second bombing attack in the last forty eight hours.

First, on Friday, the Israeli Air Force bombed a military convoy inside Syria, which they said was transporting weapons to the Hezbollah group of fighters in Lebanon. This was caused, according to the Israelis, in response to the deal that Hezbollah has struck with the Syrian regime. By the account of the Israelis, Hezbollah is providing fighters to assist the regime against the rebels in Syria’s civil war. In return, Syria provides Hezbollah with rockets to use against Israel. The second strike on Saturday was against a military research site inside Syria on the outskirts of Damascus. This second strike has reportedly killed as many as 400 Syrians and injured an unknown number of others.

I am by no means a supporter of the Socialist Government in Syria. What I am warning of are the implications that are below the surface of this conflict. Syria’s primary ally in the region is Iran. Iran, as everyone knows, is no friend of Israel. The Russians have strategic interests in Syria as they have several sea ports there for resupplying their warships and support ships. The Russians have also had a long-standing relationship with Syria. While they do not support the regime’s actions often, they have always been able to depend upon the regime’s support for their needs in the region.

In order to understand how delicate the situation really is, one only needs to look at the last six weeks of activity in the region. Turkey and Syria recently had a stand-off concerning possible deployment of the Patriot Missile systems in the region. Israel and Turkey also recently (supposedly in conjunction with Obama’s trip to the region) patched up their differences over the deaths of Turkish citizens on the Mavi Marmara aid ship. When Turkey called for the deployment of the missile system to establish a no-fly zone over Syria, Russia responded with unscheduled military exercises in the Black Sea off the coast of Syria and with long range flights from Russia into Syria with its nuclear capable bombers. At the same time, China conducted unscheduled exercises in the China Seas. This was just after the conclusions of the BRICS meeting in South Africa, where they discussed the formation of an alternative to the IMF and committed to forming a new international monetary system of exchange that would not include the IMF. China is also currently in a deal with Iran for the country’s oil export for use in China.

It would not be the first time Israel was used as a surrogate operator for the furthering of the US policies in the region. In 1956, when Egypt annexed the Suez Canal, the UK and France conspired with Israel under the direction of (or at least the acquiescence of) the US. They got Israel to attack Egypt; and then once the war had started, they intervened under the premise of taking control of the canal to keep it safe for international trade.

No one at this stage knows if there is a replay of that method of staging an event to ensure the intervention of international forces to assert control over the region. What is evident though is that the world has changed greatly since the US and its allies through NATO and the UN could operate unrestrained to further their empires. The US and their allies have been warned by the increasingly strong BRICS against further interference in the Syrian Civil war. The stage is set for the conflict to begin at any moment. The future is in the hands of the leaders of the West. Will Obama’s plan to bring about the fall of the USA become a reality?

The US has a nearly crippling national debt; should an international conflict of global proportions come to pass, where would the US government acquire the funds it needs to operate the government on a day to day basis, let alone finance a global conflict? Would confidence in the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency be sustained? If the US Dollar should lose its position, the consequences could be catastrophic for the western world.

 

 

Obama Is Not King

King Obama SC Obama is not King

On May 1st 2013, Obama proclaimed this day to be National Loyalty Day. But Obama is not a King, nor should he be regarded as one.

We as a people owe our allegiance to: first, the community where we live; second, to our State; and lastly, the Constitution. Admittedly, this springs from the trials of the early founders of our country. They were faced with far greater difficulties regarding the work needing to be done, the difficulties in transportation and the distances involved considering the the time and hardships encountered in covering those distances. This sequence of loyalty also caused some of the impetus for starting the revolutionary war.

How could a King at such a distance rule over subjects he had no knowledge of, or have any regard for how his rulings would impact those who had to live under them? The distance from London to New York is approximately 3400 miles. It took weeks and often (considering weather and hardships) possibly months to travel that distance. The King had never lived or even visited the land that he ruled and had certainly never experienced the hardships of the land far away.

So, the people of the land felt loyalty first to their community, then to their colony, and only lastly to their King and country. The people had no representation in the court of the King or in the Parliament that served him, so hence the cry of “No Taxation without Representation”.

But Obama is not a King; he has no divine claim to such a throne as King George III could claim. Yet, in many respects, we face some of the same dilemmas today. The distance from New York to Los Angeles is approximately 2800 miles, a scarce 600 miles less than the distance from London to New York. Yet these cities are worlds apart, just as the cities then were worlds apart. Many will say that Obama has visited all of the 50 States (or as he once said all 57). But has he really visited, or just stopped through while in a motorcade? Has he experienced any of the hardships of the citizens in the diverse portions of the country? From my own point of view, he has experienced very little. Yet he and his appointed administration reign ostensibly supreme. No, I say we are back at square one, Taxation without Representation.

But, you attempt to correct me, we have elected representatives in both the House and the Senate. But do we really? They are, by effect of the amount of money required, pert of the ruling elite. In order to be elected to the House, the typical campaign (according to some estimates) costs upwards of $1.5 million, perhaps as much as $10.5 million to be elected to the Senate. I understand that much of this money is raised by Political Action Committees and even more from corporations, and that is the problem. Does anyone really believe these groups act with any altruism? No, they act in the interest of those who created them or those corporations that benefit from the election of their chosen ones.

The founders created a different system. A system by which as people of a State, they would be represented by their Senators, elected by their state legislators who are closer to their people and responsible to them more readily. The progressives throughout the 19th century sought to overturn this system. Finally, only when William Jennings Bryan was the Secretary of state did they succeed. The 17th amendment was formally adopted in 1913, supposedly to better represent the will of the people. But, with the influence of corporate and political action committees, we again find that it is a game of money, power, and influence.

The Senators by and large owe no loyalty to their states but only to their political masters who control the money. They no longer act under the direction of their home legislatures or Governors, I doubt that John McCain even consults with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, to list but one example. While I hold his service in the US Military with high regard, at times it has given me the impression he holds himself above criticism as a result of what he suffered. I have watched his so-called “town hall meetings” and seen his contempt of those who disagree with him. I also understand that his family ties go all the way back to the revolution, which to me should give extra importance to the will of the people. Yet, he has repeatedly scorned others who invoke the constitution, most recently calling them “Wacko Birds”.

For me, it is time to return to representation of the states in the Senate. Time for “The Man Who Would Be King” to remember that he is not and to take advice from the states, the original founders of the Republic.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

An Inexorable Slide To Tyranny

Obama NDAA SC An Inexorable Slide to Tyranny

With the passage of the NDAA and his use of executive orders, Obama has managed to bring about an inexorable slide to tyranny. On March 16, 2012, he signed executive order 13603 about “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” This act provides Obama with the authority to control food, water, production, material, and labor of almost unimaginable proportions. This, of course, is not the first time it has been done. Like it has been said, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

In 1933, just shortly after his election, Franklin D. Roosevelt declared a state of emergency. His actions were covered by the NIRA (National Industrial Recovery Act), which essentially gave him the same scope of power that Obama now has. In his inaugural address in January 1933, Roosevelt said, “If we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a scared obligation and with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife. With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.”

In the same year, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. In many ways, Hitler and FDR faced similar problems with high unemployment, inflation, a lack of consumer confidence, a lack of industrial output, and a country in the depths of depression. Hitler also managed to unite his countrymen into one unified people under his total control, just as Roosevelt through executive order managed to command the entire nation’s economy. In Germany, this act was called “The Enabling Act”, another name but essentially the same function. For example, after the Enabling Act, Hitler declared public holidays for workers in all industries, while at the same time banning all workers’ unions.

Throughout much of the late 1920′s and into the late 1930′s, Mussolini in Italy enjoyed support and adulation from liberals and progressives in the USA. So great was his support that an image resembling him was contained within a sculpture representing Atlas in Rockefeller Plaza. He was being revered as having unified and put the labor force of Italy to work, creating a fast-growing Italian economy through collective means.

In January 2013, Obama in his second inaugural address said”But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.”

While Obama, when he signed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), pledged he would never think about using the indefinite detention portion of the act upon American citizens, it would be legal under the provisions of the act. He also signed the executive order as stated in the opening of this article and has yet to activate it, although as it stands it would be legal. Remember, we are still under a state of emergency begun after Sept 11th by George W. Bush and extended by Obama. Are we to awaken one morning after another attack (another Boston perhaps) and find this act also activated?

Remember (as many historians have found), under German law as it stood at the time, everything Hitler did was legal. Are we also on that inexorable slide to tyranny? Do we wait for these acts to come into play before we respond even to their existence? Will it be too late if we do? Will we as a country who under the Constitution are the true rulers of our nation allow this to happen?

Spain has just announced that their unemployment rate is over twenty seven percent, and they are developing extraordinary measures to combat the situation. How long before the collapse of the dollar, or another oil embargo such as what happened in the 1970′s (or another war perhaps with Syria, Iraq, or North Korea) plunges the United States into such turmoil as Europe is now toiling against? No one know the fate of the European Union at the moment. But are the foundations of the United States any more sound than that of Europe? Or is it simply being held together by the perception of unity, the notion that our once-great nation could not be brought down by economic rules that have stood for all time? The Obama administration seems to eschew the notion that the United States is an exceptional country. Can a country that is not exceptional hope to avoid the rules that have applied to all other economies throughout all time?

Personally, after watching the martial law (whether declared or not) in Boston and the calls by Bloomberg and others for “modifying” our rights under present conditions, I think we have started the inexorable slide into tyranny.

Photo credit: watchingfrogsboil (Creative Commons)