Woe to Those Who Call Evil Good and Good Evil
June 19, 2009 by Steven Ting
Filed under General
An interesting read from another website.
Obama campaigned on a promise of not bringing the same old politics to Washington. He told America that it is time for a change, and we need to look forward and not backward. With intense debate and argument taking place over the issue of alleged “torture” by the Bush administration, it seems that the Obama administration is backpedaling on its promise to look forward, and the new politics look a lot like the old politics.
Leading the charge on on this witch hunt is Nancy Pelosi who claims she was never informed that waterboarding would be used as a method to interrogate the captured masterminds of the September 11th attacks. This statement of course is in direct opposition to an article written by the Washington Post in December of 2007. Once the information was made public that clearly shows she was present when the CIA demonstrated the technique, she has now floundered around stating that she knew that they “could” use the technique, but was not informed that they “would” use the technique.
What kind of logic is that? She was present as part of a bipartisan Congressional committee during a demonstration by the CIA that outlined the plans they had to use against the most horrible of terror offenders. The reason the CIA had this show and tell was to get the approval from this bipartisan committee that held the purse strings and the authority to allow them to proceed! Clearly if Pelosi was so outraged by this, her time to speak was right then. However, reports of many in the room state that was far from the tenor in the room. In fact most present in the meetings questioned if the described techniques would be enough!
So it seems that this investigation has nothing to do with the high and mighty morals of the left against torture. Rather this stinks of nothing more than another way for the Democrats to criminalize political opponents for their own gain.
To read the rest of the article, click here.
A Kid-Gloves Approach to Iran Still Stumbles
June 18, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, International, Politics
President Obama has opted to take a very delicate, non-committal stance toward Iran and its elections, saying that he doesn’t want to alienate whichever section of the government comes into power in the face of some of the large diplomatic issues facing the region. He has not stood in support of the protesters looking for a fair election, but has seemed to step back to await the outcome. Even some of the main members of the Obama administration would like to see a stronger stance, including Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton. Here is an account of the position he has taken:
Senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.
Other White House officials have counseled a more cautious approach, saying harsh criticism of the government or endorsement of the protests could have the paradoxical effect of discrediting the protesters and making them seem as if they were led by Americans. So far, Mr. Obama has largely followed that script, criticizing violence against the protesters, but saying that he does not want to be seen as meddling in Iranian domestic politics…
But several administration officials acknowledged that Mr. Obama might run the risk of coming across on the wrong side of history at a potentially transformative moment in Iran.
The administration’s concern over how to calibrate the response to the protests in Iran reflects the competing goals Mr. Obama is trying to balance: keeping faith with democracy advocates in Iran while not staking out a position that is so tough that it kills any chance of engagement with the Iranian government on America’s national security interests, including the Iranian nuclear program and Iran’s support for militant Islamist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.
For all President’s Obama’s tiptoeing around the issue of Iran’s elections, he has also made the mistake of a comment that almost seems to disregard the election’s importance, and could crucially affect the relationship between the United States and Iran later on:
[President Obama] said in an interview on Tuesday with The New York Times and CNBC that from an American national security perspective, there was not much difference between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi, his closest competitor in the election.
“Either way,” Mr. Obama said, the United States is “going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.”
The remark struck critics as off key and dismissive toward Mr. Moussavi, when he has become a symbol of freedom and democracy in Iran. “Obama’s posture has been very equivocal, without a clear message,” said Representative Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican who is the House minority whip. “Now is the time for us to show our support with the Iranian people. I would like to see a strong statement from him that has moral clarity.”
President Obama’s policy toward Iran seems to be weak, with some critical missteps and errors throughout. If the New York Times is right when it says, “the United States is in a more delicate position than other countries because of its enormous symbolism in Iran, where ‘Death to the United States’ is still chanted at Friday Prayer,” one might think the best foreign policy would be one of strength, rather than weakness.
Obama provides weak response to N. Korea and Iran
June 18, 2009 by Steven Ting
Filed under General, International
There has been a lot of global happenings this past week. Iran recently had an election where the current president received the popular vote. But with that popular vote, there are calls of corruption and that the vote was tainted. Currently, Iran is trying to define itself and figure out how to handle the problem. How does Obama respond? He doesn’t want the US to appear as meddling in the affairs of Iran. The problem is that was not the appropriate response. As stated by the writer at www.stoptheaclu.com
From yesterday
But at the same time, Obama said it would not be helpful if the United States was seen by the world as “meddling” in the issue.
Iran accused the United States on Wednesday of “intolerable” meddling in its internal affairs, alleging for the first time that Washington has fueled a bitter postelection dispute. Opposition supporters marched in Tehran’s streets for a third straight day to protest the outcome of the balloting.
Looks like President Neophyte is getting school (yet again) on how foreign affairs works. Maybe now he will step up and call for freedom, openness, fairness, etc? Oh, sorry, that was me just dreaming a bit.
Obama is new and he’s learning on the job. This is what we don’t want or need as president. He is a disgrace. Now this morning we hear that North Korea has plans to fire a missle in the the direction of Hawaii. While the missile has a range of 4000 miles and Hawaii is 4500 miles away, that is not acceptable.   Obama doesn’t make any comment. He can only “hope” that North Korea will return to the “talks”.
What would another country do? Let’s take Israel. They wouldn’t put up with it. They’d launch their F-16′s to take out the launch site and anything else that threatened them. How about the US? We stay quiet and hope that we one day will grow a back bone. Obama is the leader of the United States and he has done nothing with regard to North Korea. He has done noting in regard to Iran. He is sitting there hoping things will get better on their own.
Obama tax on work cell phones?
June 15, 2009 by Steven Ting
Filed under Business, Economy, General
It came out over the weekend that the IRS and the Obama administration are looking to tax the use of work cell phones as a fringe benefit. This is after all of the talk of Obama wanting to tax health benefits that are paid by employers. What happened to Obama’s promise to not increase taxes for those of us making less than $250,000 a year? Obama tells us another lie, and the people keep buying his crap.
We have to look further into the issue. Why is Obama wanting all of these taxes? It’s not really a matter of want. Obama actually needs these taxes. He needs these taxes if he is going to fund his government run health care program. All of the sheeple out there think this Obama health care is going to be great. They think it’s going to be free or less expensive. While you may not pay money when you visit the doctor, they’re paying for it with higher taxes. That’s the only way things like this work.
While I generally dislike taxes, this type of tax would be more regressive than progressive, affecting those that make less money. As Stacey Higginbotham puts it, “Cell phones are no longer the status symbols of the privileged few who work in international finance or software sales.”
Keep your health plan, keep your bailouts, and keep your hands out of my pocketbook.
Obama’s Americorps scandal — and the First Lady’s meddling
June 12, 2009 by Steven Ting
Filed under General, Politics
Below is an article from Michelle Makin, talking about Obama’s latest actions. It deals with the inspector general at Americorp and the ties to Obama’s cronies. She says it better than I could ever do.
Obama’s Americorps scandal — and the First Lady’s meddling
President Obama is hoping you won’t notice his abrupt change of inspectors general over at Americorps, the government-run, taxpayer-subsidized “community service” boondoggle (which Republicans helped expand as part of the $6 billion GIVE/SERVE Act in March despite its wasteful track record. Thanks, Republicans).
With intervention from Michelle Obama, the Americorps inspector general was given the boot and replaced — for doing his job too well, it seems, and uncovering squandering of funds by favored contributors, educational institutions, and left-wing groups.
This Associated Press article only scratches the surface:
President Barack Obama plans to fire the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other national service programs amid a controversy between the IG and Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.
The IG, Gerald Walpin, was criticized by the U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled an investigation of Johnson and his nonprofit group, St. HOPE Academy, which received hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants from the Corporation for National Community Service. The corporation runs the AmeriCorps program.
On Thursday, Obama said in a letter to Congress that he had lost confidence in Walpin. Neither the president nor deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest would give details. The president must give Congress 30 days’ notice before removing Walpin, who is being suspended with pay for the 30 days. Earnest said, “The president will appoint a replacement in whom he has full confidence as the corporation carries out its important mission.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in a letter to Obama, pointed to a law requiring that Congress be given the reasons an IG is fired. He cited a Senate report saying the requirement is designed to ensure that inspectors general are not removed for political reasons. Grassley said Walpin had identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds that were wasted or misspent and “it appears he has been doing a good job.”
