Followers

Friday, May 31, 2013

Treason


I copied this from wikipedia:

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.

Treason in this definition is a very specific offense requiring involvement of a foreign government. In the case of Benghazi, the foreign government involved is not recognized by any modern entity. Islamic terrorists are fighting for an Islamic government that does not formally exist. So, if you support them against your own country, is this being a traitor? By this definition, the answer is no.

In this definition, the concept of foreign government is what is causing the issue. What if it was a business, or some other organization that has as a goal the destruction of your government? Would that not qualify as well? I believe so.

I look at Treason as being a citizen's actions to help a foreign entity overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the parent nation. The only word change in this sentence is to change foreign government to foreign entity. I look at it as being any organization that is waging war against my country and you are helping them in any way, qualifies.

The intent here is to include Islamic terrorist organizations into this category. Why? Because Islamic governance is at war against us as was demonstrated in attacks upon our sovereign assets in 1993 (First world trade center bombing) 1998, (twin embassy bombings), 2000( USS Cole), 9/11/01 and 9/11/12.

ANY organization that can wage organized warfare qualifies as a government for this definition, even if not formally recognized. The real reason why I expand this definition is because I am a loyal American. I missed Vietnam by a few years, but if I had been old enough, I would have gone. In other words, the United States comes before my family and before myself, including my own life. NO other entity, particularly foreign, outweighs this duty. Benghazi has demonstrated that President Obama does not have this loyalty. He places his own personal interests in front of our country. Hiding the enemy from the American public is aiding the enemy. President Obama did it intentionally. 

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Ignorance of the law is no excuse


You cannot argue in court that you did not know that the law made whatever you did illegal. Yet the argument that President Obama is presenting to the American public in all these scandals is that he did not know about any of them. I guess we are not to hold him accountable for the actions of a few 'crazy' 'low level bureaucrats'. Apparently, “the buck does NOT stop here” on the Presidents desk. These 'low level bureaucrats' must really like President Obama because they can do so much without oversight into what they are doing. Very poor command and control at best. Not to mention dangerous.

These 'low level bureaucrats' have powers over you and I that can easily ruin our lives. The financial implications of the IRS running without accountability is bad enough. With Obama Care, these 'low level bureaucrats' will be able to do just about anything that they want to you (Including 'pulling the plug') and our President will know nothing of it. Not that a sitting President will need to know everything, but not being informed or being enabled to make and enforce major policy initiatives?

Corporations are required to follow the law, just like everyone else. And their executives are held accountable and can be sent to jail. You can bet that the executives know all about ALL major policy initiatives. And they are not able to plead that they did not know the law. This is one major reason as to why private ownership works so much better than 'public' (Government) ownership.



Friday, May 24, 2013

Listening


    In yesterdays speech, President Obama replied to a comment to not shut down Gitmo by telling a person who commented that in a Democracy, you have the right to free speech, but you also need to listen. He was implying that it was time for her to listen. As if he is listening himself. And the crowd applauded.

The implications of listening is that you end up compromising in some way. I struggled with this for most of my life, and I still do. This must be list a ex-smoker. They tend to be really sensitive when someone else lights up. I feel that I can spot a poor listener a mile away, and President Obama is a classic example.

President Obama is a really poor compromiser. He is nothing like a stereotype Republican deal maker. We would have seen far more deal making throughout his Presidency if this was not the case. He is not alone. The classic example is when the Speaker of the House said that we had to pass the Health Care bill so that the American public can find out what is in it. This is not listening, and President Obama signed the bill the next day. In another example, President Obama said that he did not know all the facts, but the police acted stupidly. Yes, this is really listening and it is typical.

President Obama is “Fundamentally CHANGING” America. And he is not listening to you or I about it. He stated that is what he is going to do and he is doing it. No butts about it.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

President Obama must go




Fast and furious, the government seizing records from the AP and the IRS going after conservative organizations are excellent examples of government exceeding its accepted limits of power. The consistent attacks on whistle blowers is an excellent way to stop transparency. A good example of how President Obama is doing the opposite of what he told us before he became President. And then we have Benghazi.

Our President lied to us when he attempted (so far, successfully) to persuade us that the spark for the attack in Benghazi and Egypt were spontaneously generated from an obscure video, instead of the planned, coordinated acts of war by an external enemy that resulted in the murder of our ambassador and the raising of enemy flags over our country's sovereign territory. Hardly being the most transparent administration ever. In fact, Benghazi can be argued to have been treason, covering up an overt attack by an external enemy upon our country for your own political gain. If President Obama was a Republican, he would most likely be removed from office. But this is not the case.

If President Obama survives this, we are done. The CHANGE that he wanted to implement would be permanent. Placing your own personal gain over that of our country, at any level, leave alone the Presidency, is a pattern of decline that is at such a point that our basic ability to defend ourselves will be determine by political advantage instead of national interests. This was a trait of the late Roman Republic and of the Roman empire. This, along with exposure of unwanted babies on the mountainside were major indicators of the decline of the Republic and the growing need for authoritarian power.  

Thursday, May 16, 2013

IRS failure and AP were caused by low-level bureaucrats?


The new scandals with the IRS targeting conservative groups and the AP scandal with information that should not have been available are being blamed on “lower level bureaucrats”. This is a lose – lose reply by the Obama administration.

Bureaucrats are not risk takers. If they were, they would be employed in the private sector where risk taking is much better rewarded. The private sector is where the real risk takers go simply because they can prosper there. It is BS to state that low level bureaucrats went out on a limb like this. It goes against the institutional nature of bureaucrats in government. But lets take President Obama at his word.

At the very best, the idea that this type of decision making is being made and implemented without oversight by the highest levels of ANY organization is indicative of very lax and poor management. This demonstrates a serious lack of control of some of the most powerful organizations within the entire United States, private or public. In either case, the responsible party is the President.

This blaming of lower level 'management' for these major policy initiatives is just more proof that private organizations are much better at managing just about ANY financial function than government. And this is the BEST CASE scenario? The worst case or even the middle case (And the most probable) imply that President Obama encourage and approved of these actions.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Benghazi: It does matter


Despite my view that without the U.S. Senate, the Benghazi hearings will likely come to nothing, Benghazi DOES matter.

Secretary of State Clinton, in response to attacks about how she handled Benghazi, said that it did not matter if some people walked around and decided to attack Americans or reacted to a video. The people were still dead. Yes, Mr. Secretary, it does matter. Because it was neither and both you and President Obama knew it. In other words, you lied about it. And are still attempting to lie about it.

No wonder she became angry. Anger is all she has left to defend herself with. I guess it was OK for her husband to lie to her about all the affairs that he had. I have always felt that was between the two of them. And I understand how much people give up to be public figures. Politics is a tough life, and I get that too. But this was an attack upon the sovereignty of our country while she was on duty and she lied about it. And her boss is no less culpable.

Only three days before the attack, President Obama had proudly announced that our enemies were on the run. Their leadership had been 'decimated'. It would look badly on him if only a few days later that very same enemy launched a coordinated attack upon the government of the United States. So they lied about it to blame some obscure video. For something like two weeks they claimed that this was the source of the attack when they knew better. Our ambassador was killed and our enemy raised their flag over our sovereign territory. Well, maybe it does not matter to our Secretary of State the events that actually led up to it, but it matters to me. It was on her watch.

Maybe Hillary does not understand the meaning of this event, but I am certain that our enemy does. It mattered enough for them to plan it out and execute it while President Obama and she had the watch. I guess it does not matter to her who these people were or where they came from. In this case, her holding that post did not matter because she was certainly no worthwhile obstacle for them to overcome. It does not matter to her, but it matters to me. It matters to the United States of America when our ambassador is killed and our sovereignty is violated by an overt enemy attack. Killing is as loud a message as you can send and we are not listening. (What does it mater?) President Obama and his Secretary of State are not defending out country from external enemies. Instead they are covering up the real threat and inventing something else for personal political gain. This is called lying about winning the war when you are actually losing.

Our enemy in this case is an irregular one. Guerrilla warfare has been around since long before the Romans and the Greeks. Irregular forces typically do not match up well against regular troops. The overrunning of our embassies is an usually large and very real victory for them. This is symbolized by the raising of their flag on our sovereign territory. Obviously, these two embassies were not well defended. They could not have been in order for something like this to occur against an irregular enemy such as we have today. Even if they had surprise. It is a major sign that we are NOT winning the war like President Obama said that we were back in September.

Yes, Mr. Secretary, losing in war does matter.    

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Benghazi is no Watergate


Despite the fact that what President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton did in the Benghazi cover up, no way is the final result going to be anything like the result of Watergate.

I have seen lots of arguments supporting this view, many of which are valid. However, one word says it all. Senate. Control of the U.S. Senate is NOT in the Republicans hands. I just do not see the Democrat party dumping the top two leaders that they have. No matter what they did or did not do. Without the Senate, Republicans are going to be stopped cold.