A bit old but still relevant is yet another open letter to President Barak Obama from a prominent figure in business in America. This time Lou Pritchett, former Vice President of Proctor & Gamble, shares why President Barak Obama scares him and I think his thoughts are shared by many.

There seems to be an unending supply of people from with in the business world that are coming out to share their concerns with how the current administration is handling things.

Just last week I featured an open letter from Ronald S. Lauder, the President of the World Jewish Congress. It can be found here. In it, Lauder expresses his deep concerns on the Administration’s about face turn on policy concerning Israel and President Obama’s lack of action with an impending entrance of Iran into the nuclear club.

This from Snopes.com concerning the authenticity of the Pritchett letter.

Lou Pritchett is a former Vice President of Proctor & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated “open letter”…

“I did write the ‘you scare me’ letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.”

And the letter authored by Mr. Pritchett:

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of
the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy
League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible
signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing
up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t
understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with
radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce
these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’ crowd and
deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country
where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a
government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on
our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that
lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the
world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against
certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you
on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing
points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and
omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh’s,
Hannitys, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of
view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not
feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

I couldn’t have said it better, Mr. Pritchett

Recently, an open letter by Ronald S. Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress, has been circulating the Internet concerning new US policy on the Israeli/Palestinian peace process and the current Administrations new found lack of support for Israel in the face of the rising nuclear threat coming from Iran.

The United States has been a strong supporter of Israel and their establishment of the Jewish State in the region since it’s inception in 1948. Before the liberation of Iraq, Israel was the only democratic nation in the region that we could call a strong ally. The support afforded Israel not only came from the US Government but also from a large majority of the American People.

Since entering office in January of 2009, President Obama has largely ended this support both in the peace process with the the Palestinian Authority and militarily as well, greatly reducing arms sales and support for Israel’s ability to defend itself from the numerous nations surrounding it bent on it’s destruction.

Because of the current Administrations lack of support for Israel, both Russia and China have made it increasingly clear that if a military option was implemented to resolve the current issues with an impending nuclear Iran, they would respond and have stated that any attack on Iran by Israel would start a new “world war”.

Alienating our allies by appeasing our enemies has become a regular tactic for Obama in his foreign policy. The missile defense shield debacle is a great example of how Obama believes that appeasing Nations like Russia in the hopes of furthering his agenda has backfired and only served to worsen relations with other Nations; Poland and the Czech Republic. After committing to the  canceling of the missile defense program in the hopes of more Russian cooperation with sanctions in Iran, Russia backed off and stated that the desired direction of the White House was “not within it’s best interests”. This not only weakened our ability to provide additional layers of defensive missile protection for our allies and US military bases and personnel but made the US appear weak to our enemies.

Now, in an effort to improve relations with Muslim Nations in the Middle East, Obama seems to be using the same tactic of appeasement; alienating Israel, our long standing democratic ally, in an effort to gain favor from Nations that more than likely will never become a true ally of the United States and have historically been increasingly hostile to democracy and human rights.

At some point, someone should let Mr. Obama know that France tried similar tactics 70 years ago and it didn’t work. The difference here is that, if the same result as what befell France happens to us, there will be no one to step in and liberate the American People.

We are on a dangerous road today. We don’t need appeasement and apology tours. We need a strong national defense and we need to send a message to those that would challenge our sovereignty, allies and interests abroad that you don’t F with the United States of America, period.

A great man once said, “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the United States was too strong.”

We need to return to a stance of strength and steadfast support for those Nations who subscribe to the rule of law and natural rights.

If you desire more information about Ronald S. Lauder or the World Jewish Congress, click here.

Dear President Obama:

I write today as a proud American and a proud Jew.

Jews around the world are concerned today.  We are concerned about the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime that brags about its genocidal intentions against Israel.  We are concerned that the Jewish state is being isolated and delegitimized.

Mr. President, we are concerned about the dramatic deterioration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Israel.

The Israeli housing bureaucracy made a poorly timed announcement and your Administration branded it an “insult.”  This diplomatic faux pas was over the fourth stage of a seven stage planning permission process – a plan to build homes years from now in a Jewish area of Jerusalem that under any peace agreement would remain an integral part of Israel.

Our concern grows to alarm as we consider some disturbing questions.  Why does the thrust of this Administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks? After all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate.

Israel has made unprecedented concessions.  It has enacted the most far reaching West Bank settlement moratorium in Israeli history.

Israel has publicly declared support for a two-state solution.  Conversely, many Palestinians continue their refusal to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

The conflict’s root cause has always been the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.  Every American President who has tried to broker a peace agreement has collided with that Palestinian intransigence, sooner or later.  Recall President Clinton’s anguish when his peace proposals were bluntly rejected by the Palestinians in 2000.  Settlements were not the key issue then.

They are not the key issue now.

Another important question is this:  what is the Administration’s position on Israel’s borders in any final status agreement?  Ambiguity on this matter has provoked a wave of rumors and anxiety.  Can it be true that America is no longer committed to a final status agreement that provides defensible borders for Israel?  Is a new course being charted that would leave Israel with the indefensible borders that invited invasion prior to 1967?

There are significant moves from the Palestinian side to use those indefensible borders as the basis for a future unilateral declaration of independence.  How would the United States respond to such a reckless course of action?

And what are America’s strategic ambitions in the broader Middle East?  The Administration’s desire to improve relations with the Muslim world is well known.  But is friction with Israel part of this new strategy?  Is it assumed worsening relations with Israel can improve relations with Muslims?  History is clear on the matter:  appeasement does not work.  It can achieve the opposite of what is intended.

And what about the most dangerous player in the region?  Shouldn’t the United States remain focused on the single biggest threat that confronts the world today?  That threat is a nuclear armed Iran.  Israel is not only America’s closest ally in the Middle East, it is the one most committed to this Administration’s declared aim of ensuring Iran does not get nuclear weapons.

Mr. President, we embrace your sincerity in your quest to seek a lasting peace.  But we urge you to take into consideration the concerns expressed above.  Our great country and the tiny State of Israel have long shared the core values of freedom and democracy.  It is a bond much treasured by the Jewish people.  In that spirit I submit, most respectfully, that it is time to end our public feud with Israel and to confront the real challenges that we face together.

Yours sincerely,

Ronald S. Lauder
President
World Jewish Congress

On April 7th, the Obama Administration announced it will be striping terms like “Islamic Extremism” from the central document defining the United States’ stances on national security. Evidentially, the Administration is afraid of alienating Islamic nations. Members of the Administration said that defining the war on terror as a war against Islamic extremism would be viewing Muslim nations through a lens of terror. I am of the opinion that doing so may not entirely be a bad idea. It wasn’t the IRA who killed almost 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001.

More and more these days, Islamic leaders are seeing a climate of tolerance in the western world. This climate of tolerance is creating an environment where they are no longer afraid to come out and publicly share their views on subjects like Jihad and the killing of non-Muslims. Below is a video of British Mullah Anjum Chaudri describing how he believes the killing of “non-believers” is justified. This is not an isolated thing as video after video of major players in the Muslim world have come out in support of the “convert or die” mentality.

Calling for Global Jihad…

Espousing the killing of the Jews.

These are but a few examples of what we are dealing with. These people believe that their religion gives them the right to subjugate and or kill you for not believing in their God. This fanaticism has driven thousands to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up taking as many as possible with them. This “Religion of Peace” convinced men that blowing up the World Trade Center and killing 2800+ Americans was justified because they didn’t believe in Muhammad. It convinced Nidal Hassan in Texas to massacre 13 Soldiers and wound another 30 while screaming “Allah Akbar” in the name of his religion.

In the month of March, 2010, there were 165 attacks abroad perpetrated by extremists in 15 different nations. These attacks killed 1300+ innocents and critically wounded another 2000+. They call it the “Religion of Peace” but as a friend of mine, Angelo of ConservativeRule.com, likes to put it, Islam is the “Religion of Pieces”. We know where these people came from and we know their motivations.

Islamo-fascism is sprouting up all over the globe. Most people understand that countries like Yemen and Pakistan are hotbeds for terrorism, providing cover for jihadist training camps and affording known figures in the terrorist world aid. What most people are not aware of is that this fanaticism is spreading everywhere like wildfire. Along with the Middle East and Northern Africa, groups like al-Qaeda now have a strong presence in Asian nations like Japan and the Philippines and there are known Islamic terrorist organisations in Chile, Honduras and Columbia as well.

Countries like Russia know the threat well. On March 29th, 2 “Black Widow” female Chechnyans with bombs strapped to their bodies bombed 2 Russian train stations killing 38 people and wounding another 64. An Islamic group from the Northern Caucasus region claimed responsibility for the acts. Russia is a country that has been hit especially hard over the last 10 years. Back in September, 2004, Islamic terrorists took 1,100 hostages at The Beslan School in in the North Causasus. The resulting bloodbath left 334 hostages dead, 186 were school children, and hundreds injured and many reported missing.

What happened in Russia was horrible and inexcusable but no one was hit harder in one single terrorist action than the United States. It’s amazing to me how quickly some forget that day. I remember it well; I watched it live on the television unfolding before my astonished eyes.

Our current government is so quick to denounce these facts that they weaken us. We are no longer to call an act of terrorism for what it is but instead, a “man made disaster”.

Nations like Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia claim to be against violence in the name of Islam but time and again have been proven to harbour, finance and spread terrorism. Whether it be through direct support or a lack of action, nations that allow terrorism to propagate should be held accountable. If a terrorist act was perpetrated by individuals from Yemen, trained in Yemen and allowed to live in Yemen then Yemen has some responsibility in the situation.

If we don’t hold these nations accountable for their complicity then the war on terror will never be won. Mr. Obama’s willingness to be soft on terror with his warm and fuzzy policies, entertaining civilian trials for those that conspire to kill us and his refusal to confront nations like Iran and their nuclear ambitions will only serve to weaken our ability to protect our homeland.

Iran is an example of how disastrous Obama’s policies could be. Because he drug his feet on the issue of Iran becoming a nuclear state, the material and technology they are developing could very well end up in the hands of a terrorist group bent on detonating a nuclear or dirty bomb on US soil. The resulting loss of life would be staggering and possibly reach well into the hundreds of thousands. Because of his lack of support for Israel, our only ally in the Middle East, nations like Russia and China have now come out saying that an Israeli attack on Iran would result in a “world war”. With the support of the United States, Russia and China would not have been so willing to attempt to tie up Israel’s ability to protect itself from the threat of a nation who’s leader openly calls for the total annihilation of their country.

The Obama Administration’s stance on terror is weakening us and could very well result in another 9/11 style attack on US soil. I pray everyday that it never happens but it seems inevitable.

We need hard lined policies designed to combat this threat to our security and to freedom and liberty world wide. Now is not the time to join hands and sing Kumbayah. Now is the time to take the fight to those who would hurt us. Now is the time to tell these terrorist harbouring nations that we will not allow them to stand by as Islamic terrorist organisations train and prepare on their soil. I can’t remember ever reading about any non-Islamic group detonating anything on US soil unless you include Bill Ayers or the Black Panthers. I don’t need to point out the connections there.

Now is the time to do what ever is necessary to ensure the security of America and free people everywhere. I don’t know about you, but if I knew someone wanted to kill me and I saw them rushing at me with a knife, I’d put em down first and worry about everything else later. This is life or death, not foreign diplomacy.

Washington (AP) – Timothy Geithner thinks it’s completely unfair how large businesses that were the recipient of bailout funds have emerged in much better shape than the average American.

“As the President has said, we had to do some very unpopular things,” he said. “People looked at what happened.”

“It’s not fair. It’s Deeply unfair,” he said. “He had to look whether he was going to act to fix it or stand back, and that would have been calamitous for the American economy.”

“Just because this was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, a huge amount of damage was done to businesses and families across the country and it’s going to take us a long time to heal the damage.”

I wonder if he feels the same way about all the corporations and banks that didn’t get the funds needed to save their skins because he was funnelling money out the back door of AIG while head of the New York Fed.

If the current administration was so overly concerned with the plight of the American People, maybe they would have used the Tarp funds to bail out the individuals now losing their homes.

Here’s an even better idea; how about taking the remaining 560 billion dollars of unallocated funds from the TARP program and apply it to small business grants and loans to do what they should have done in the first place, stimulate the backbone of our economy. Small to medium sized businesses now feeling the crunch of less revenue intake and upcoming higher taxes and fees related to the new health-care bill are the ones that are going to need our help.

I wonder if those businesses hit hardest on the lower end of the size scale have any hope of gaining assistance. After all, if you don’t actively lobby Washington, it seems you don’t get any play.

As Obama was campaigning in 2008, I seem to remember something he said over and over again about the lobby culture in Washington.

Most businesses in this country don’t have the resources to lobby in their best interests in DC. Most larger businesses, 30 years ago, had a limited number of lobbyists in Washington because they didn’t see a need.

Microsoft is a great example of how businesses seem only as interested in politics as politics is interested in them.

Before the DOJ went after Microsoft for “non-competitive practices”, they had one single lobbyist in Washington. Now they have hundreds and have become one of the largest political contributors on the Hill.

Mr. Obama has done a great job of setting up the tit-for-tat culture on Capital Hill. One only has to look at how many of his “saved and, or created” jobs have gone to union labour while the average American gets stiffed and is forced to collect unemployment benefits.

It’s pretty plain to see that the squeaky wheel gets the Obama-grease. while Congress was in recess this last week, he appointed 11 positions in his cabinet, none being vetted and most either tied to or working directly for lobby firms.

While the number of lobbyists fell by over 500 individuals in 2009, the amount of money actually spent increased to over 3.46 billion dollars.

It makes me wonder, If I had the cash to buy a ticket, could I spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom or maybe join the Obamas’ for dinner unlike a certain Prime Minister who visited last week? From what’s been shown over the last few months, it seems everyone in DC has a price.

To many, altruism is a selfless state of mind where you give up your own needs to meet the needs of others. Altruistic acts are the stuff of Saints and Nobel Peace prizes. The Webster’s Dictionary defines it as “Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; – opposed to egoism or selfishness.”

To give of ones self in order to benefit those you love without regard to your own needs is a compassionate endeavour to say the least. Individuals like Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela come to mind when looking at the meaning of the word. These two people gave to others and, in the process, sacrificed much of their own needs and desires in order to better the world around them. They worked to change the evils of their surroundings for the betterment of mankind. Change was needed in order to feed starving children in poverty stricken nations and end race related discrimination in South Africa. They fought for change and gave of themselves immeasurably to get it.

Change is a funny word these days. It gets thrown around quite a bit. There is an individual in all of our lives here in America that is espousing change to combat what he perceives as wrong with our society. He coins the term self sacrifice and talks about the hard choices we need to make as a nation. The thing about his version of change and sacrifice is that they do not fit the definition of altruism. Well not exactly. It’s more like altruistic collectivism.

Barak Obama wants to give unselfishly to the poor in this nation and he doesn’t care who has to sacrifice to do it or how big that sacrifice will be. The current administration is now in the process of throwing threw everything, including the kitchen sink, at getting their monstrous 2000+ page takeover of our medical industry through Congress. Obama and his ilk almost went as far as directly violating the Constitutional process of the passage of laws in order to ram it through, even though an over whelming majority of Americans said they didn’t want it. Thousands protested on the steps to the Capital in DC while the vote went down.

Is he asking too much of us? Is providing insurance to the poor above what is already offered worth the utter destruction of our constitutional republic? He says it’s because we all have to make “sacrifices”.

Verizon, Caterpillar, AT&T and Deere and Co. have all announced the “sacrifices” they will have to make with AT&T announcing the largest loss to the tune of almost 1 billion dollars in additional expense in the next quarter because of added costs associated with the newly passed Healthcare bill.

AT&T receives a tax subsidy that offsets their costs associated with providing retirees with insurance and the new bill kills that tax break.

As many called it before the passage, this bill will most certainly not improve coverage and lower costs. Verizon has announced it will have to review existing coverage levels for their retired and current employee base because of the giant new costs they will incur as a result of the legislation.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) has released a statement calling for the attendance of these four corporations. This from the Daily Herald;

Representative Henry Waxman called the chief executive officers of AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Co. to provide evidence to support costs the companies plan to book related to the new health-care law.

Waxman of California, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak of Michigan released letters they wrote to the executives, saying their plans to record expenses against earnings as a result of the law contradict other estimates. The lawmakers requested the executives appear at hearing Stupak plans on April 21.

“The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern,” Waxman and Stupak, both Democrats, wrote in the letters yesterday. “They also appear to conflict with independent analyses.”

It seems the savings come at a cost. And they say trickle down economics is a fairy tale…

Both Howard Dean and Max Baucus have admitted to the bill being about redistributing the wealth in America.

So there you have it.

Obama wants 300 million people to sacrifice their freedom and liberty in order to “give” to the other 20 million -by liberal statistics- who don’t have insurance. He may sacrifice the United States Constitution and everything this nation was built upon. This is the “fundamental transformative change” he was always talking about on the campaign trail.

Altruism by proxy is not altruism at all. It’s called socialism, Marxism, communism; three things that have never worked in the history of organised government and have always led to tyranny. You are being told to lay down your future and your liberty so others may rise and be damned the consequences of it all. The collective must rise above the individual and become “altruistic” even if it kills them.

The Russian government asked something similar of farmers after the turn of the 20th century and it led to one of the worst famines in recorded history. Hitler asked similar things of the German people in the late 30’s and it led to a World War and millions of deaths. Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, Idi Amin, Pasha; the list is long of individuals through out history that sought the sacrifices of the individuals of their nations in order to further personal ideologies and causes.

Obama is not asking us to turn over our crops, guns and land yet but that is because the Constitution is still alive and kicking for the time being. If this keeps up it won’t be doing anything for very long.

The line must be drawn and drawn soon. Our government is growing impatient with us. After the destruction of our Constitution, what do we have left? After the framework of our great republic is trampled underfoot in the name of altruistic sacrifice during “crisis”, we will see real crisis in this Nation like never before.

We have an opportunity now to educate those who we love and deal with daily and then another opportunity in November. Even though we may have lost the battle last week, the war rages on and we must continue to fight.

Obamacare was signed into law on Tuesday, March 23, 2010. I guess it’s all over except for the shouting, right? Well, not exactly.

It might be important to compare this gargantuan entitlement program with another program; one which supposedly would “solve all the problems of the elderly”.  Yes, I am referring to FDR’s Social Security Act of 1935.  You might be asking yourself what the similarities between a program that deals with health care and one that grants retirement benefits could possibly be.  The similarities are NOT in either of the bill’s language.  Instead, the similarities are with the Congressional and Presidential PROMISES that were made in order to pass both bills.

In light of the Un-American Health Care Bill that was passed Sunday, here are several things for you to think about in going forward. We might as well compare this health care monstrosity with another entitlement program that the government sang high praises for and then bastardized. Do you hear the promises that the Democrats are making now in regard to your health care? Well here are some other promises that Democrats made when Social Security was enacted. Feast your eyes on this.

Here is a list of the promises that were made by then President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the US Congress in reference to the Social Security Act.  Notice the outcome of EACH of the promises.

Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program in 1935. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.
*No longer Voluntary*

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program.
*Now 7.65% on the first $90,000*

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.
*No longer tax deductible*

4.) That the money that the participants were to program would be put into an independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.
*Under Johnson the money was moved to the general fund and spent*

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
*Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed*

In light of the fact that many of us have paid into FICA for years and a few might be receiving a Social Security check each month (after the government takes 85% of the money), here are some other interesting facts that many may be unfamiliar with.

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
*A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.*

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
*A: The Democratic Party.*

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
*A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US*

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
*A: That’s right!  Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!*

So, let’s take a look at just some of the PROMISES that Obama and Congress have made in regard to Obamacare (I’ve only listed 10 but there are several others):

1) If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.
2) If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
3) There are no such thing as “death panels”.
4) This program will be deficit neutral.
5) Obamacare will not provide for government funded abortions.
6) The program will reduce the cost of health care across the board.
7) The program is NOT a government take-over of your health insurance.
The entire process of reforming health care will be televised on CSPAN.
9) All bills will be available for public review for 72 hours before they are voted on.
10) The program will not be paid for by cutting Medicare benefits for seniors.

Have all of those promises been kept?  Already, we can say that a few of them have blatantly been broken (8, 9 & 10).  And with what happened with the promises of Social Security, do you believe that the Democrats or Obama intend on fulfilling any of the others?  Their record is not what you would call “stellar”.

It will be up to us, the American citizen, to either A) hold the politicians ACCOUNTABLE for the promises that they have made to each and every one of us, or B) get their democratic behinds OUT of office and repeal this legislative abomination.

Personally, I prefer the latter.

Monday, the day after the Health-Care vote and subsequent passage of the monstrosity, Bart Stupak, arguably the deciding vote, went on FoxNews with Megyn Kelly for an interview.

After watching this video, I find it amazing that this simpleton made it to such a high position within his party. On one hand he admits that the executive order that was promised him prevents tax payer funded abortion and then on the other hand, acknowledges that it has no teeth and is meaningless. His fall back to the cancel or repeal of said executive order is to count on pro-life groups to sue the federal government? Like that hasn’t been tried before with failure as a result.

Stupak has been purchased like a second hand paperback book at a garage sale. At least Landreau and Nelson got value out of their bribes. All he got was a meaningless piece of paper and 980,000 dollars to fix up an airport or two in his home state.

This video does a fairly good of job explaining why the executive order is flawed while Megyn Kelly does a great job of forcing Stupak to acknowledge the fallacy of the whole situation. After the video, be sure to read the full text of the executive order.

Executive Order

- – - – - – -

ensuring enforcement and implementation of abortion restrictions in the patient protection and affordable care act

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (approved March ­­__, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment.   The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges.  Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Section 2.  Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014.  The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance.  The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges.  In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office.  Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Section 3.  Community Health Center Program.

The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program.  Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language.  Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions.  I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law.  Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Section 4.  General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:  (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Speaker of  the House, Nancy Pelosi declared that, “We have been very effective in terms of passing the full Obama Agenda in 2009.” This begs the question; does she have an inkling of what the Constitutional Separation of Powers is? Has she even read the Constitution? Last time I checked, the three branches of the Federal Government were designed to be separate and somewhat at odds with each other. They stand as checks against one another to prevent one branch growing disproportionately more powerful than the others. So when the Speaker of the House openly admits that her party has just simply been enacting the agenda of the executive branch, I would say that’s a direct violation.

In one breath, Pelosi exclaims,

“This will be the most honest, and transparent Congress in history” and vows to end the “culture of corruption that has thrived under this Republican Congress.”

And later, in front of the White House Press Corps,

“We have been very effective in terms of passing the full Obama Agenda in 2009. So we know that when you’re effective, you’re a target.”

The only thing the Democrats have been successful in doing is expanding the TARP program, quadrupling the deficit and fording scandal after scandal as of late. The Speaker of the House openly declaring that the Democrats are in the tank for Obama should worry the American people on many different levels.

The Founders of this Nation knew how important checks and balances were in government. These checks and balances serve to prevent those who govern from having too much power over those who are being governed. Just as the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is the biggest single check to prevent tyranny against the people, the Separation of Powers ensures balance.

The nation that our Founders immigrated from actually had a system very similar to ours but it was missing a few key elements which were later built into our founding documents, namely the U.S. Constitution.

In Britain, Parliament was split into two sections, quite similar to our Congress. The House of Commons was comprised of Members of Parliament that were elected by the British People. The House of Lords was comprised of appointed men of nobility who served for life and often gained their seat out of lineage more than ability or political affiliation.

While the House of Commons was democratic in nature and purported to represent the common man, the House of Lords was the right hand of King George and that relationship stymied and limited the power of the people.

A similar situation almost came about in America when Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme Court. He was elected on the premise of “change” and a chicken in every pot. Sounds familiar, right? His New Deal promised wide spread taxpayer funded entitlement programs and manufactured work for the unemployed on the tail of the most dire economic disaster this Nation has ever seen, the great depression of 1929. Unfortunately for him, the Supreme court didn’t share his sentiments. This court, unlike the Democrat majorities he enjoyed while in office, was mostly Republican appointed.

During his first term the court began to undo his work by ruling his New Deal laws unconstitutional on close votes. This angered FDR to no end and after starting his second term, he made the decision to tackle the “problem” head on. He saw the super majority in Congress as an opportunity and was determined to take advantage of it.

Introducing legislation that forced Supreme Court justices over the age of 70 to retire, he wanted to swing the balance. If they refused to do so, the new law would allow the current President to appoint judges to sit in tandem to them. 6 of the 9 judges where 70 years old or older and FDR knew he could count on the his super majority to approve his appointments to the court. He would have been able to effectively raise the number of judges on the court to 15 and negate any “problems” he was currently dealing with. This would have been the worst abuses of the Separation of Powers in this Nation’s history.

It failed because his supporters in Congress and even his closest friends and political allies saw it for what it was; an unconstitutional play at blurring the lines between the Branches, thereby instilling in the executive branch disproportionate power over the rest. The bill crashed and burned on a 70 – 20 vote, got sent back to committee and was reintroduced with no teeth and all FDR’s language stripped. Back then, even Democrats believed in the sovereignty of our founding documents.

Although the Supreme Court is not “stacked”, I can see strong correlations between What happened during the FDR years and what is going on now in D.C.

Back then it was a possible collusion between the Executive and Judicial branch that was thwarted by Congress. Now we have close the same thing but the branches involved have changed.

The democrats in both houses of Congress are one senator short of a super majority and we also have a Leftist radical President in office. We’ve seen this kind of majority rule in the Government on both sides before. What’s different this time is that we have The Speaker of the House openly declaring that her party is simply enacting the Executive Branch’s agenda. We also have a President who thinks strong-arming stock investors during bankruptcy proceedings for Chrysler to take .29 cents on the dollar but allowing the UAW to receive a 55% return on their money is good governance.

These are just a few examples of many that again begs a few questions.

Where in the constitution does the President get awarded the power to dictate anything being deliberated on by the Judicial branch? Why, for any reason, is it OK for Congress to simply “enact the Obama Agenda” instead of representing the desires and needs of the American People?

Without term limits in Congress, the House and Senate are looking more like the House of Lords every day. Come to think about it, we might as well throw a cape and crown on Mr. Obama as well.

The separation of powers were built into our constitution for a very important reason. I think it’s time we remind them of it.

Contact Congress and let them know how you feel by using the links below.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Viva La November!

February 17th, 2010

Last month, The Senate shot down a plan backed by Mr. Obama to create a bipartisan task force to address and reduce the U.S. deficit. Although it did garner 53 votes, 7 shy of the 60 needed to pass, lawmakers said they didn’t want to be “railroaded” into how they legislated their spending from outside sources. I’m left to assume the American people are included in that statement as well.

Obama has decided to create the commission anyway through an executive order and without the teeth of the original proposal. Law makers would not be required to even acknowledge the recommendations proposed by this panel let alone vote on anything.

This from FOXNews.com

Former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senate Whip Alan Simpson would lead the panel, a senior administration official said Tuesday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president’s executive order creating the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform had not been announced.

The deficit spiked to an extraordinary $1.4 trillion last year and could top that figure this year as the struggling economy puts a big dent in tax revenues. Even worse from the perspective of economists and deficit hawks, the medium-term deficit picture is for deficits to hit around $1 trillion a year for the foreseeable future.

Obama and his economic team have said repeatedly that this is not sustainable. He told lawmakers during his State of the Union address that he would go around their vote and appoint a version of a deficit commission.

Obama’s version of the commission is a weak substitute for what he really wanted: a panel created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.

As rejected, the bipartisan 18-member panel would have worked for much of the year and, if 14 members agree, report a deficit reduction blueprint after the November elections that would be voted on before the new Congress convenes next year. The 14 would have to include at least half of the panel’s Republicans.

That idea crashed in the Senate, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans — some of whom initially supported the idea.

Although Obama’s commission will lack any requirement for Congress to act on its advice, it will provide some political cover and big-name backing.

Bowles, the president of the University of North Carolina, served as Democratic President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff from 1996 to 1998. Simpson, a senator from Wyoming from 1979 to 1997, was the No. 2 Republican and the top GOP member of the Social Security subcommittee.

So as Mr Obama plans to raise the deficit to record levels and then raise them again over the following year, he’s calling for a minuscule 15 billion dollar spending freeze and a panel to tell congress how to reduce spending. One must wonder if the cost of paying these panel members is going to exceed the actual net gains from any cuts congress actually agrees to.

This is nothing but one more cog in Mr. Obama’s political machine that just refuses to run out of gas even though he won the election a year ago. He’s not looking to bust the deficit, he’s looking to put more capital into his political coffers. Just one more of many on the list of empty promises this man has made both on the road to the White House and after he moved in.

It is pretty plain to see Mr. Obama has no intentions of curbing what he himself calls, “unsustainable spending”.

What we need is jobs and a gross reduction in the size and scope of the federal government. We don’t merely need cuts in spending; we need to cut out programs altogether. The government is simply too big and too wasteful. 90% of what is done on the federal level needs to be moved to the States. We shouldn’t have some states contributing grossly more in tax revenue to the federal government than they get back while “donor” states take more than they give. The responsibility needs to be more localized and tailored to meet the needs of Americans on a targeted basis the way that was intended by our Founders; localized representation and action in the hands of the people, not bureaucrats in Washington and not corporate lobbyists sweating about the next set of overbearing federal regulations and taxes.

If this commission comes out with any findings other than the need to kill Mr. Obama’s gross deficit spending agenda then it will be clear that they are simply tilting at windmills in an effort to further the current Marxist agenda.

If you want to increase tax revenue intake to the federal government, Mr. Obama, try putting people back to work with meaningful, long term employment. More private wealth equals more tax revenue collected. It’s pretty simple. Grossly cut the budget and freeze all discretionary spending outside of the military budget. Cut the corporate tax rate by 10 to 15% and put a 7 to 10 year moratorium on all capital gains across the board. Take what is left of the Porkulus and apply every penny to small business grants and 0% interest loans to encourage growth in targeted locals and industries.

But, as we’ve clearly seen, Mr. Obama’s agenda doesn’t seem to take into account anything but redistribution through tax and spend policy, union pandering and carbon credit programs.

Mr. Obama is right about one thing. Now is the time for drastic change, just not the kind of change being espoused in Washington today. We have never been able to spend our way out of a recession or depression but the never ending line of Democrats who can’t seem to grasp this concept is out the door and around the corner.

We need jobs.

February 8th, 2010

While Mr. Obama requires a teleprompter for every speaking engagement, even when addressing a group of 6^th graders, the MSM has all but crucified Sarah Palin for having a few short crib-notes written on the palm of her hand. I mean, come on! How dare she be ready with a short list of things she wants to cover during the question and answer session? Cha?! In the mean time, Mr. Obama has Boeing and NASA working on a light weight chest mount for a scaled down version of the Official Teleprompter of The United States so he doesn’t have to worry about alignment at the podium.

From the *puke* The Huffington Post

Crib Notes? This potential presidential candidate and “movement” leader was using crib notes to answer basic questions?

This would mean:

A) That she knew the questions beforehand and the whole thing was a farce. (Likely.)

and

B) That she still couldn’t answer the previously agreed-upon questions without a little extra help.

If true, this is supremely rich coming immediately after a speech in which Palin took a shot at President Obama for using a teleprompter to read his prepared speeches.

You can bet that the President wasn’t reading scribbles off his extremities while he sparred with Republicans and Democrats in an unscripted format in his recent Q&As.

Palin, on the other hand, seems to need a cheat-sheet just to get through a contrived lovefest with a smitten interviewer and an adoring audience.

I’m no fan of the Tea Party movement – if it can be called such – but if this is their leader I actually sympathize with them.

I am sure we could all come up with a C) or D) in that list of hypothesis but that would negate the credibility of what the author was saying.

Now for a little fun from the guys over at The Onion.

EDIT: More fun. Obama’s almighty teleprompter fails and the ensuing “deer in the headlight” reaction.

While I understand the importance of the President of the United States sounding credible and articulate, Mr. Obama’s use of the teleprompter borders on ridiculous.  While addressing a group of 6^th graders on the importance of education and raising the bar to close the achievement gap, he couldn’t manage to set the example for these young minds by memorizing his speech. This coming from a Harvard educated Constitutional Lawyer and professor.

While writing crib notes on her hand was asking for comments from those who would be detractors, it is amazing how the MSM latched onto this with absolutely no mention of Mr. Obama’s addiction to the clear screen. There have been 2000+ articles on the internet about Sarah Palin’s hand notes and this is in less than 24 hours from the discovery.