Obama administration will advance their political agenda at any cost, even American lives

It's difficult for anyone reading about Operation Fast and Furious to follow the logic of the federal government. To what end should we ever knowingly allow straw purchasers to buy high-powered weapons? The government claims that it was to build a bigger case against the ultimate end-users. In other words, they were letting the "little guys" go about their business in order to build a better case against the bigger fish. That's pretty hard to believe, considering the possible implications of this strategy. This stated strategy just doesn't make sense and often when something doesn't make sense, it's simply not true.


The operation was in direct conflict with the official DOJ policy, which is to everything possible to reduce the number of illegal guns traveling south of the border. Email trails and other documentation in this case show a disturbing trend of doing the wrong thing on every level of this operation. Those running OFF were repeatedly reminded that all actions should support the DOJ mission statement yet they purposely continued to run their operation contrary to those goals. Field agents were repeatedly ordered to stand down in situations that would normally warrant action and even threatened with repurcussions should they insist on acting responsibly. The whistleblower was summarily terminated by the ATF as the investigation into the scandal grew.


The Congressional investigation is bringing disturbing new information to light. One example shows that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress. Holder testified in May 2011 that he had merely heard about OFF a few times in recent weeks as the investigation into OFF got underway but proof shows that he was aware of the operation and regularly briefed on it from at least June of 2010 on. The White House has also denied knowledge of this and similar operations, claiming that high-level officials in the administration were not made aware of these cases but proof shows that at least one of Obama's National Security officials, Kevin O'Reilly, had knowledge of these operations.


Exactly how much O'Reilly knew is not known at this time because as the scandal heated up, he was transferred to the State Department and as the Congressional investigation picked up speed, O'Reilly was suddenly sent to Iraq as part of his new duties and unavailable to testify. The administration should recall O'Reilly immediately for testimony to avoid any illusion of impropriety. Anything less looks like an obvious and clumsy attempt at a cover-up. That O'Reilly is still in Iraq is not only obstruction of the Congressional investigation but is also fueling speculation among conspiracy theorists that the Iraq mission may be so dangerous that O'Reilly won't survive.


What has happened to the most transparent administration in the history of the nation? For all of his campaign rhetoric about accountability and transparency, Obama hasn't improved anything on those fronts. If anything, his administration appears to be doing everything in it's power to cover-up, destroy evidence and obstruct the investigation. How else can they explain missing the Congressional deadline to turn over subpoenaed documents by a full week? The public deserves to know everything that happened, the offending parties must be punished to the full extent of the law and procedures need to be revised to ensure such a debacle never happens again. But these things can't happen so long as the investigation is hampered by all of the offending parties.


To what end did anyone support OFF and the similar operations? The stakes were high, after all. Loss of life was guaranteed and there was no reason to believe that the majority of these weapons would ever be recovered so the potential repurcussions are exponential. The only thing that makes sense is that this administration wanted to support it's spurious claims that drug cartel violence is fueled by illegal American weapons purchases. After all, Hillary Clinton and others in the Obama circle like to claim that most of the guns used by the cartels come illegally from America.


Despite the fact that this claim is easily proven to be false,  the administration appears to love to insist it's a fact. The folly of these operations is easily explained by the goal of "proving" this falsehood. After all, if they can facilitate a way to allow large volume buys by known straw purchasers, then track the guns across the border to seize the cache at a later date, they could easily spin it as "proof" that they've been right all along in their assertions about illegal guns in America fueling the Mexican drug trade. No matter that the evidence would be anecdotal and based on faulty premise, all that matters is that large seizures would take place and the confiscated weapons would be easily tracked back to US dealers.


The intent to further a partisan agenda here trumped the responsibility of the government to perform it's most basic function. Rather than stopping the purchases, the government coerced gun dealers into cooperating. At least one dealer expressed concern that the firearms would be used for illegal activities, especially to bring harm to law enforcement in border areas, but was continually assured that the best course of action was to continue selling guns to criminals. Rather than arrest the purchasers and recover the weapons, the government insisted on doing nothing in the hopes that they would later recover the firearms in a manner that would allow them to grandstand.


This is a complete failure of government in every possible way. They have intentionally put guns into the hands of criminals in order to further a partisan agenda. They are obstructing the investigation on various levels. There is nothing even close to transparency from this administration, as this may actually be one of the darkest corners of our government. Additional details of the Congressional investigation will be posted soon in a follow-up, so stay tuned.

'Green' also means other people's money

FEMA may run out of money in less than a week but Democrats can't live with cuts to questionable 'green' initiatives even in the midst of the Solyndra scandal. That about sums up the priorities and incompetence of Congress. There's an immediate need to more than $1 billion in disaster aid and that money has to come from somewhere. The GOP crafted what they characterize as a bill with bipartisan appeal that would divert more than $1.5 billion in loan monies slated for 'greener' vehicles to disaster aid. Democrats refuse to divert the money and voted down the bill, leaving many Americans in limbo.


What the Democrats don't seem to understand is that our supply of money is finite. If we have to pay for something important right now, the money has to come from somewhere and the government loan program for automakers is a fine choice. Higher fuel efficiency is not an equal priority to helping people recover from a natural disaster. This begs the question: How many union jobs are tied to this loan fund? Union jobs are the obvious impetus because what else would put loans for R&D at private companies (who are generally making money hand-over-fist) ahead of Americans devestated by a natural disaster except big-money campaign donations to the Democratic party?


The Democratic opposition is wholly political in that it refuses to prioritize needs in our country. While some GOP members also voted against the bill because they felt the off-setting cuts weren't deep enough, only 6 Democrats voted in favor. It's hard to give the GOP naysayers hell here because the off-setting cuts are in fact insufficient. There are plenty of frivilous funding examples that should be cut anyway but especially right now in the midst of our record debt and deficit and even moreso due to the shortage of disaster funding. But unlike the GOP opposition to this bill, which has a reasonable opposition in light of the current financial situation, Democratic opposition is not just politicial but completely self-serving. It's a blatant statement to the nation that political power is the party's only concern: Getting elected, getting re-elected and continuing to advance an agenda that fails America even in the face of widespread disapproval from citizens.


In the midst of the Solyndra scandal, many of the Democratic party's 'green' initiatives should be scaled back or put on hold entirely as this adminstration's utter incompetence has been bared for all to see. That the deal was bad for taxpayers is evident from the very beginning. That the company didn't meet the standards to receive the loan seems to have been evident to everyone involved throughout the process, all the way up the chain of command. The White House closely monitored the entire process and can't play dumb on this one as they have tried (quite unsuccessfully) with other recent failures of enormous proprtions, like Operation Fast and Furious. From rushing the approval so that Biden could grandstand for the cameras to the restructured agreement giving private investors precedence ahead of the DOE to recoup money in the event of Solyndra's collapse, everything about this is obviously saturated with cronyism and political payback.

Government shouldn't be exempt from accountability

A newly sworn in President Obama made a point about executive salaries back in 2009. He said:

"We don't disparage wealth . . . But what gets people upset -- and rightfully so -- are executives being rewarded for failure."

Unveiling a plan to cap executive compensation for companies receiving federal bailouts, Obama had some choice words regarding banking execs who received lavish bonuses from institutions receiving billions of our tax dollars:

 "(Such behavior) is exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions that brought about this crisis: a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else,"

Regardless of where a person stands on this issue, we must all question why such edicts apply only to the private sector. Obama's sentiments are just as applicable to our elected officials, none of whom have seen a decrease in compensation during America's economic crisis despite their obvious culpability for our exponentially increasing debt and deficit. Why aren't members of Congress conributing towards their own healthcare and pensions? Why haven't they taken a salary cut, reduced staff, found ways to reduce expenses across the board? Why hasn't his administration reduced expenses for staffing, travel and other non-essential perks?

Obama's Justice Department doing it's best to move as many jobs overseas as possible

The DOJ is working hard to get as many manufacturing jobs out of America as possible. They raided Gibson Guitars for the second time in 2 years, seizing material alleged to be illegal under foreign laws without filing any charges. If a company is breaking any law, even a foreign one, it's safe to say we have the appropriate regulations in place to charge them somewhere in the myriad trade laws, import laws, business code and criminal code in this country so why no charges against Gibson? Without charges, the feds are just stealing inventory and stopping production for no apparent reason except to enjoy throwing their weight around.

Gibson maintains that they have all of the appropriate documentation to prove the purchase was legal and furthermore that the DOJ is misinterpreting the foreign law in question. Why isn't this headline news? Federal seizures stopping are a big deal, yet this is hardly mentioned. It's an even bigger deal if the DOJ may be misinterpreting the law. Stay tuned for updates as the story unfolds.

Vanity Fair: Unprofessional & misleading

A February 23 article in Vanity Fair offers some interesting insight into how publication sales are affected by the nation's political climate. During the height of the Bush administration hatred, sales of liberal rags rose considerably. Similarly, they are now losing readers and more conservative magazines are gaining readers. Surely the nation's economic problems have affected the numbers but all in all, it's an interesting little article.


There's just one problem: The headline is Hate Sells: Why Liberal Magazines Are Suffering Under Obama. This is sensationalized and extremely misleading. The article doesn't give readers any reason to believe that hate has anything to do with sales figures. In fact, the piece actually contradicts its own headline, as it offers a sound and reasonable explanation for how sales of magazines change during political eras.


It seems as though the writer had an interesting little report but couldn't come up with any relevant headline for the piece, thus decided to use some attention-grabbing line no matter how ridiculously inappropriate. Don't be surprised to see readership decline at Vanity Fair due to bad writing and unabashed bias. Although, they'll blame it on hate or the GOP even though they're own research might contradict the claims.

The New York Times: Obsessed, deranged and totally unapologetic

A recent New York Times editorial went to great pains to associate the IRS plane bomber with the Tea Party Movement, even though the evidence offered by the editorial actually contradicts that very point. The Times deftly dodges bald-faced lies by replacing facts with fantastic conjecture and peppering the entire diatribe with caveats – “. . . it would be inaccurate to call him a card-carrying Tea Partier or a Tea Party Terrorist. But . . . “. This style of writing shall henceforth be deemed ‘Hiding in Plain Sight”, as in the lies are printed right there in black & white, yet the writer pretends to have credibility by hiding behind all sorts of equivocations, rationalizations and amateurishly crafted inferences.

The Healthcare Debate

The hot topic for months has been universal healthcare in the US. Most of the arguments in favor of it are pretty far off the mark. There are lots of things the government could do to improve access & lower costs for all Americans, yet they’re not even entertaining such action. Our leaders choose to ignore all practical solutions, forego simple fixes & acknowledge their own role in the exponential rise of healthcare costs. There are intelligent, efficient, safe & sensible ways the government could make change to benefit everyone. They could increase funding for R&D, thereby limiting the ultimate costs to providers & consumers. They could increase the length of patents; Companies developing new drugs & technology have a very short time to recoup costs & profit from their hard work & investment before generics are allowed. If we lengthen that window, it will help to keep costs in check. Of course, lack of tort reform is a big part of the problem as well. The law can allow reasonable compensation for negligence without allowing unlimited damages but the legal lobby is apparently too generous to our politicians for this to be considered.

A Unicorn in Every Backyard

Just a reminder: I'm no fan of McCain. There were at least 4 other primary candidates (from both parties) that are better for the job. However, none of them are Obama. I'm sick & tired of hearing that only racists & elitists refuse to support him. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Obama is the worst kind of elitist because he wants you (the voter) to hate the wealthy while supporting his campaign but the Obamas aren't exactly poor. He wants you to blame the middle- & upper-class for all of society's ills, when in fact the businesses they own & the taxes they pay are the only things that keep this nation from being a third-world country.

Health Care Courtesy of the Fourth Reich

Continuing our series of pointing out the flaws in Obama's Blueprint for Change, there's some pretty scary stuff about health insurance coverage here. Let me preface my criticisms by stating that I am more than superficially qualified to critique health care proposals. I've been without coverage due to assinine reasons (having had a non-malignant freckle removed from my arm 5 years prior made me "uninsurable" according to BCBS). I have paid both ridiculously high premiums & ridiculously expensive bills when I was without coverage.

I also have family members & friends who have been driven to bankruptcy (or the very brink) due to medical costs. I'm studying for an RN degree so have knowledge from the perspective of both a consumer & a health care professional. Perhaps most significant, I've had sole responsibility for all benefits at a small business for almost 10 years. This has led to an extensive education in the different types of insurance, premium levels, coverage inclusions/exclusions & much more. It has also allowed me to become intimately familiar with problems, obstacles & costs both from the employee's view & the employer's.

That being said, some of the most basic tenets of his plan are disapointing at best & sometimes frightening. For instance on page 6: "Guaranteed Eligibility: No American will be turned away FROM ANY INSURANCE PLAN because of illness or pre-existing conditions." By forcing insurers to cover people they would ordinarily decline, one of two things will happen: Either tax dollars will be spent subsidizing premiums for a select few while the rest of us continue to pay our own way OR the insurers will rape us all with even grossly higher premiums thanks to the government mandates. Most likely, both will happen to some degree.

"Subsidies: Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need
financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public
plan or purchase a private health care plan."

"National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend on how healthy you are. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and
make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

(3) Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.

(4) Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents’ plans.

(5) Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve as a critical safety net."

So we have a plan that will expand Medicaid & SCHIP at the expense of taxpayers in addition to creating new options for young adults. On top of that, federal money will be spent to subsidize coverage for people in other plans in addition to the 3 mentioned above. Then on top of that, even more federal money will be spent to create a new bureaucracy (never a good thing) which will impose rules & regulations outside of the letter of the law by circumventing our existing system of creating federal regulations.

This bureaucracy will also infringe on the rights of business owners by defining what is a "meaningful" contribution & enforcing financial penalties. This is a half-step away from that same government agency deciding that middle-class taxpayers aren't doing enough to help the rest of the country make ends meet. Such a plan would open the door not only to socialized medicine & insurance in the US but also to the socialization of the insurance industry, private healthcare providers, all privately owned business in the nation & our tax money.

It isn't the government's place to force businesses to change their client base. Our tax money should not be spent infringing on the rights of private business owners, providers or healthcare instutions. Reform should come through tort laws & consolidation of services, not through federal laws & excessive spending of taxpayer money. First we need to recognize that throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it if the plan of action is foolhardy. Then we also need to acknowledge that increasing bureaucracy is the opposite of efficiency, change, hope or accomplishment. Glaciers melt faster than bureaucracy works & global warming has nothing to do with it.

Finally, we should acknowledge that some states have already fantastic plans in place that show Obama's plan for the joke it is & these plans don't cost taxpayers a single cent. Massachusetts leads the nation in comprehensive, efficient, affordable blanket coverage for all but the Dems can't acknowledge the success of Romney's administration since it contradicts everything the Dems propose on this issue.

In MA, people both above & below the poverty level receive free coverage. A single person earning up to $30,000 and a family of 4 earning up to $60,000 are eligible for subsidy. The state has created a clearinghouse for insurers that drastically lowers administrative costs, allowing insurance companies to offer significantly reduced (read: reasonable, affordable) premiums. The clearinghouse works with residents & employers to offer single & group coverage on an income-sensitive sliding scale.

This keeps all freedoms intact without infringing on the rights of private business, healthcare providers or the backbone of our economy, the taxpayer. Rather than waste tax money, MA has "fixed" this complicated problem in their state without increasing spending or taxes. Romney proposes using it as a model for other states to create plans specific to their residents & leaving the federal government out of it entirely.

That seems like a win-win for everyone so why won't the Dems acknowledge this gem?

How Could Anyone Want This?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of McCain. He wasn't my first choice for presidential candidate - or even my second, third, fourth or fifth. However, he's the least of the evils because at least he isn't a radical Marxist while Obama may well be their poster boy.

At first I dismissed the chatter as typical talk radio fodder. But as I learn more, I become increasingly concerned. And my concern is twofold: Not only are the facts disturbing but that fact that they're being ignored by the mainstream media is downright chilling.

The simplest way to address these pressing issues is to go the source. I've downloaded Obama's Blueprint for Change to take you through the inconsistencies one by one.

The foundation of his platform for "change" is lobbyist reform & transparency in government. This is a direct quote from the summation of the document: "Obama will close the revolving door between the executive branch and K-Street lobbying shops. Obama’s appointees will serve the American people, not their own financial interests." This quote is taken from page 5: "A High Standard Unlike other candidates Obama’s campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees."

The problem here is that much of his life & his ties are shrouded in secrecy while all of these facts are being ignored by the media. Responsible news sources such as the Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, Slate & many others have repeatedly provided factual evidence not only that Obama isn't living up to his own campaign finance claims but also that he's accepting money from sources he beats up in the media.

The GOP has a compelling compilation of quotes & sources here. I've read all of the cited articles to verify for myself that every quote is complete & true. For a quick synopsis of some of the major points in this discussion, there's a great summary posted here on Yahoo Answers. I've only tracked down about half of these claims so far but all of them have panned out as completely true & verifiable. Here are the main points:

The Obama campaign employs former federal lobbyists & uses volunteer advisors who also happen to be current lobbyists.

The campaign has steadfastly refused to release a list of outside advisors.

Obama accepts donations from spouses & partners of active lobbyists, as well as holding campaign functions in the offices of organizations engaged in lobbying.

He also refuses money from groups lobbying for specific industries, like pharmaceuticals, but does accept money from executives of the corporations who hire those same lobbyists.

This entire issue is a new platform created for his Presidential bid, as he always accepted money from lobbyists & PAC's (as well as worked with them) during his time as an Illinois state rep & also as a federal Senator. In fact, his state campaigns were about 2/3 funded by these sources.

Some of the super delegates pledged to Obama are current federal lobbyists.

He's making a whole Presidential bid out of crucifying his opponents in the media while he's doing the same damn thing & has been for a long time. At least everyone else owns up to it. By hiding the facts, he's preventing voters from making an informed choice. Since we know that all of the candidates are tied to special interests, we have a right to know exactly what those special interests are & the degree of the ties before casting our vote. Yet the Obama campaign is going to great pains to withhold this information.

Only the candidate benefits when voters are uninformed or misinformed so it's an extremely self-serving tactic. I don't appreciate any candidate presupposing what I do or do not need to know. Surely such an attitude isn't helping the Obama disciples dispel the self-appointed messiah myth the like to whine about so much.

And don't think for a minute that these are the only frightening hidden ties of Obama. Stay tuned for further information on Rev. Meeks, Public Allies, George Soros, William Ayers & many of the other questionable allegiances this would-be President would force on this country, none of which are in the best interests of America or the American people.