WITH THE NEW YEAR APPROACHING, and certainly many more executive orders to come before President Obama (hopefully) leaves office after the 2012 election, here are the top 5 most outrageous and bizarre executive orders issued by the President in 2011. Links are also provided.
"Where Congress is not willing to act, we're gonna go ahead and do it ourselves..."
- President Barack Obama
1. Establishment of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Doesn't every free-market need one of these? The supreme leader was proud of this one, as it got the most attention in the media (not that the others weren't great). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-03/pdf/2011-2577.pdf
2. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations. He declared a National Emergency...who knew? Pay attention to sections 4 & 5. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-27/pdf/2011-19156.pdf
3. Delivering an Efficient, Effective and Accountable Government. Cool, like the one described in the constitution?! Oh wait...nope...more rambling crap. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-16/pdf/2011-15181.pdf
4. Establishing a Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity in the Federal Workforce. The Federal Government is racist? I thought hiring was based on qualification not race. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-23/pdf/2011-21704.pdf
5. Instituting A National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. I don't really understand it...but it's weird. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-23/pdf/2011-33089.pdf
The right side is up.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Obama Finally Admits He's Not A Capitalist.
IT'S TAKEN THREE YEARS, but president Barack Obama, in his speech on Wednesday, finally admitted he isn't a capitalist. "Here's the problem", he said, "it's never worked". He doesn't like to pat himself on the back too much, but I'm sure he wouldn't support a system he doesn't feel has ever worked...he's waaaayyyy too smart to do that.
To all those who try and defend the president and say he's just about equality and is a capitalist but just wants to fix things, we told you so. And by "we" I mean any Obama skeptics out there...if there are even any left.
So, the question as to whether or not Obama is a capitalist is answered. The only question that remains is, if he isn't a capitalist, what is he? There's really only two choices: socialist and communist. Neither are good and neither work. Based on how fast he's pushed us down the road to socialism, I believe that the road he's speeding down ends at communism. After all, that was Marx's plan.
Now that he's admitted to not being a capitalist, I only have one request of the president. He's come this far to admit that he doesn't think capitalism works. Will he finally, for once in his time in office, be honest with us all and explain what economic system he really supports? It sure isn't capitalism.
To all those who try and defend the president and say he's just about equality and is a capitalist but just wants to fix things, we told you so. And by "we" I mean any Obama skeptics out there...if there are even any left.
So, the question as to whether or not Obama is a capitalist is answered. The only question that remains is, if he isn't a capitalist, what is he? There's really only two choices: socialist and communist. Neither are good and neither work. Based on how fast he's pushed us down the road to socialism, I believe that the road he's speeding down ends at communism. After all, that was Marx's plan.
Now that he's admitted to not being a capitalist, I only have one request of the president. He's come this far to admit that he doesn't think capitalism works. Will he finally, for once in his time in office, be honest with us all and explain what economic system he really supports? It sure isn't capitalism.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Obama and Israel
DAVID HOROWITZ, one of the strongest proponents of Israel, released this video about the Obama administration and his complete anti-Israel policies. This video is pretty shocking, but not surprising. Coming on the heels of the Obama statement that he "doesn't like to pat himself on the back, but has done more for the security of Israel than any other administration", this video puts to rest that notion and does a better job than I could at explaining his anti Israel policies.
Here is a link to the video:
http://frontpagemag.net/obamaisrael/
Here is a link to the video:
http://frontpagemag.net/obamaisrael/
Special Committee on Aging?!?!?!
How's that for too much bureaucracy? The senate held a hearing on the 30th of November on the issue of antipsychotic drugs in nursing homes. "The government must also examine the marketing" of these drugs. Really? It must? That is what the Health and Human Services Inspector General, Daniel Levinson thinks. Is the federal government really going to get into the marketing business? While it may start with regulating the marketing of drug companies, it won't stop there. Soon, the all-mighty federal government will regulate any marketing it doesn't think is for the "common good".
Also, Mr. Levinson said "maybe diagnosis information on the label of a prescription" would be beneficial? Wait a minute, don't doctors prescribe drugs? Don't doctors take some sort of vow to a code of ethics so that they don't diagnose improper drugs? In the very next exchange, the chairman of the committee asked this: "is there any reason, other than our inattention, for patients to be prescribed improperly?" Of course, the "doctor" on the committee ignored the question to push the committee's agenda. Do bureaucrats ever give a straight answer? Nope.
So I'll answer that question for him: no. There is no reason other than inattention, or possibly incompetence, for a doctor to improperly prescribe a drug. Of course, that's much too hard for the government to figure out, and answering that question would eliminate the possibility of more regulation. Unless, of course, they wanted to put a federal agent in every doctor's office to make sure every doctor in the country is paying enough attention so as not to prescribe the wrong drug.
Another member on the panel raised the issue that despite FDA warning labels on the same type of drugs in question, doctors were still prescribing those medications. So, if the doctors are already ignoring warning labels and prescribing improper drugs, surely more warning labels would help right? If there was maybe two warning labels instead of one, surely that would eliminate the chance that a doctor would miss the warning label. That sounds like an issue with bad doctors rather than insufficient regulation to me.
We're going off the cliff at an alarming rate. As Congressman Ron Paul stated in a recent speech in the House, the final nails in the coffin of our republic are being placed. Things are getting scary.
Also, Mr. Levinson said "maybe diagnosis information on the label of a prescription" would be beneficial? Wait a minute, don't doctors prescribe drugs? Don't doctors take some sort of vow to a code of ethics so that they don't diagnose improper drugs? In the very next exchange, the chairman of the committee asked this: "is there any reason, other than our inattention, for patients to be prescribed improperly?" Of course, the "doctor" on the committee ignored the question to push the committee's agenda. Do bureaucrats ever give a straight answer? Nope.
So I'll answer that question for him: no. There is no reason other than inattention, or possibly incompetence, for a doctor to improperly prescribe a drug. Of course, that's much too hard for the government to figure out, and answering that question would eliminate the possibility of more regulation. Unless, of course, they wanted to put a federal agent in every doctor's office to make sure every doctor in the country is paying enough attention so as not to prescribe the wrong drug.
Another member on the panel raised the issue that despite FDA warning labels on the same type of drugs in question, doctors were still prescribing those medications. So, if the doctors are already ignoring warning labels and prescribing improper drugs, surely more warning labels would help right? If there was maybe two warning labels instead of one, surely that would eliminate the chance that a doctor would miss the warning label. That sounds like an issue with bad doctors rather than insufficient regulation to me.
We're going off the cliff at an alarming rate. As Congressman Ron Paul stated in a recent speech in the House, the final nails in the coffin of our republic are being placed. Things are getting scary.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Sources of Radicalism
FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUS POST, here is a list of videos and news stories verifying the radicalism of the Muslim Brotherhood, the radical Islamic victories in Middle Eastern governments and a complete denial of our government as to what is happening around the world.
Also, a bonus video of the comments Bill Ayers made to an FBI agent.
Yusef Al-Qaradawi praising Hitler's anti-semitism:
More anti-semitism:
Also, a bonus video of the comments Bill Ayers made to an FBI agent.
Yusef Al-Qaradawi praising Hitler's anti-semitism:
More anti-semitism:
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper ignoring Islamic ideology of Muslim Brotherhood:
Russia Today: Muslim Brotherhood lead polls in Egypt's new government, as was expected?:
Egypt's Islamic Candidate: 60% of Jews are Evil:
President Obama on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (around 2:30):
Honor attacks on the rise in Great Brittain:
Bill Ayers to an FBI agent:
Muslim Brotherhood leading Polls in Egypt's election:
The Muslim Brotherhood and Radical Islam
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT a range of opinions exist on what is happening in the Middle East. The mainstream seems to be picking up on some of the radical sentiment that is coming from the Middle East, but has yet to present an accurate context as to what it really means, or what is really happening in the region. As is probably obvious by now when looking at this blog, I feel that Glenn Beck plays a pretty important role in helping to understand what's truly happening around the world. No matter what skeptics say about him, he is usually right. He is not a conspiracy theorist, but looks at facts and people's own words to base his ideas, and in doing so usually presents a pretty accurate projection as to what the plans are for the radical left and radical Islam...or anybody that is radical.
My idea with regards to what is currently happening in the Middle East is based on facts that Glenn Beck has presented, as well as my own opinions and readings. I think that even Glenn Beck has missed one important factor that is playing a part in the Middle East and could have some consequences here in the US.
In an article from the International Studies on the Middle East titled "The Metamorphosis of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers" it was said that the Muslim Brotherhood has essentially evolved from a radical ideological group, to a reformed political party. This seems to fall in line with the view that our director of national intelligence James Clapper holds, which is that the Muslim Brotherhood is a "largely secular" group that has, for the most part, "eschewed violence". I think some of this is true, but fails to recognize a crucial aspect. The brotherhood will never separate from ideology and revert to secularism. It will change in the way it presents that ideology and achieves the goals for that ideology.
In Van Jones' book "Storm", he states that he must drop the radical pose to achieve the radical ends. This, in effect is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood has realized and is acting upon. Just as the communists and other radical leftists from the 60's have grown up and played roles in our governments and schools today, the radical Islamists have done the same. In the article previously cited, some of the leaders and key components of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood are no longer radical ideologues of the 40's, but are college professors and academics who were radicalized in the 60's as students, and now act within the political systems of a country rather than as fringe organizations.
Sound familiar?
This is virtually the same thing that has happened in the United States, and is exactly what Van Jones was referring to. The events we are seeing today are the re-organization and in a sense, resurgence of the efforts of the groups that acted in the 60's. The days of radicalization of the 60's are over and we are now witnessing the results of that radicalization. They have evolved as their numbers aged, and have became "reformed". Take, for instance, the co-founder of the Weather Underground Bill Ayers. Once a leftist terrorist that carried out bombings across the U.S., Ayers is now a college professor and helped to start our current president's political career. As exposed by the Glenn Beck program, an undercover FBI agent once interviewed Ayers and asked what would happen to the millions of Americans who couldn't be radicalized. Ayers' response was that they should be killed, and he has never retracted that statement.
I believe this sort of activism and ideology is exactly what is taking place in the Muslim Brotherhood and the fruits of that labor are the events of the Arab Spring. The founder of the Brotherhood, Hasan al-Banna, envisioned the Islamization of society ruled by shari'a. Over time, the Brotherhood has gone through transformations not in ideology, but of tactics. Just as the groups of the 60's have dropped the radical pose to achieve the radical ends, the Brotherhood has sought to infiltrate society rather than act with violence in order to achieve their goals.
The direct result of this can be seen in the events of the Arab Spring. Largely dismissed by the mainstream and the left as a peaceful democratic movement, the Arab Spring, I believe, was nothing more than a way to infiltrate governments in the Middle East to achieve Banna's overall goal of the Islamization of governments. In recent news, the mainstream media has finally picked up the fact that radical Islamists are winning elections in countries touched by the Arab Spring. Tunisia, Libya and even Morocco are seeing the Brotherhood play a major role in elections. The most important win, however, will come in Egypt which is the one country our government wanted regime change most, and the country in which the Muslim Brotherhood is most prevalent.
Also ignored by the media is the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood played a huge role in staging the events of the Arab Spring. The Brotherhood, I believe, helped organize the events and insight the riots that helped overturn regimes in the Middle East. This happened in much the same way as the Occupy Wall Street protests have here in the U.S. Faces of regular working-class people appeared on the news stream throughout the beginning, and toward the peak of the protests. This helped keep the movement "organic" and "grassroots". Only when it was exposed, at the height of the protests, who was behind them, that they weren't actually grassroots, did the radical figures appear from all corners of the movement.
This tactic is verified in a recent documentary I saw about revolutions in Eastern and Northern Europe. Protest organizers put "grandma's" and peaceful faces at the frontlines of the protests in order to stave off violent action by the police. The media also would pick up the inviting faces and in turn popular support for the movement would be achieved.
To keep this post at a reasonable length (this is a fairly deep topic, and I don't expect to solve the debate here), this is what I believe will play out in the Middle East, or at least what I believe the goal is of the Arab Spring. As stated by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as current high-ranking members of it, I believe the Brotherhood will seek to sweep elections not only in the Arab Spring countries, but in the entirety of the Middle East; certainly as much of the Middle East as they see attainable. In addition to Middle Eastern countries, the Brotherhood will seek to infiltrate our government and society in order to achieve the Islamization of the West.
Glenn Beck was viewed as crazy for presenting this theory, and while I don't hold nearly the following as Glenn, I expect that anyone who reads this article might be extremely skeptical of this notion. However, in their own words, members of the Brotherhood are seeking an end to Western Judeo-Christian values, and instead Islamization of the whole world. The beginning of this goal can be seen in the recent elections in Egypt, and I believe that is in-fact just the beginning. More elections like the one in Egypt will come wherever the Middle Eastern strongmen fall, and in their place will come a much different form of the same oppression.
My idea with regards to what is currently happening in the Middle East is based on facts that Glenn Beck has presented, as well as my own opinions and readings. I think that even Glenn Beck has missed one important factor that is playing a part in the Middle East and could have some consequences here in the US.
In an article from the International Studies on the Middle East titled "The Metamorphosis of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers" it was said that the Muslim Brotherhood has essentially evolved from a radical ideological group, to a reformed political party. This seems to fall in line with the view that our director of national intelligence James Clapper holds, which is that the Muslim Brotherhood is a "largely secular" group that has, for the most part, "eschewed violence". I think some of this is true, but fails to recognize a crucial aspect. The brotherhood will never separate from ideology and revert to secularism. It will change in the way it presents that ideology and achieves the goals for that ideology.
In Van Jones' book "Storm", he states that he must drop the radical pose to achieve the radical ends. This, in effect is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood has realized and is acting upon. Just as the communists and other radical leftists from the 60's have grown up and played roles in our governments and schools today, the radical Islamists have done the same. In the article previously cited, some of the leaders and key components of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood are no longer radical ideologues of the 40's, but are college professors and academics who were radicalized in the 60's as students, and now act within the political systems of a country rather than as fringe organizations.
Sound familiar?
This is virtually the same thing that has happened in the United States, and is exactly what Van Jones was referring to. The events we are seeing today are the re-organization and in a sense, resurgence of the efforts of the groups that acted in the 60's. The days of radicalization of the 60's are over and we are now witnessing the results of that radicalization. They have evolved as their numbers aged, and have became "reformed". Take, for instance, the co-founder of the Weather Underground Bill Ayers. Once a leftist terrorist that carried out bombings across the U.S., Ayers is now a college professor and helped to start our current president's political career. As exposed by the Glenn Beck program, an undercover FBI agent once interviewed Ayers and asked what would happen to the millions of Americans who couldn't be radicalized. Ayers' response was that they should be killed, and he has never retracted that statement.
I believe this sort of activism and ideology is exactly what is taking place in the Muslim Brotherhood and the fruits of that labor are the events of the Arab Spring. The founder of the Brotherhood, Hasan al-Banna, envisioned the Islamization of society ruled by shari'a. Over time, the Brotherhood has gone through transformations not in ideology, but of tactics. Just as the groups of the 60's have dropped the radical pose to achieve the radical ends, the Brotherhood has sought to infiltrate society rather than act with violence in order to achieve their goals.
The direct result of this can be seen in the events of the Arab Spring. Largely dismissed by the mainstream and the left as a peaceful democratic movement, the Arab Spring, I believe, was nothing more than a way to infiltrate governments in the Middle East to achieve Banna's overall goal of the Islamization of governments. In recent news, the mainstream media has finally picked up the fact that radical Islamists are winning elections in countries touched by the Arab Spring. Tunisia, Libya and even Morocco are seeing the Brotherhood play a major role in elections. The most important win, however, will come in Egypt which is the one country our government wanted regime change most, and the country in which the Muslim Brotherhood is most prevalent.
Also ignored by the media is the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood played a huge role in staging the events of the Arab Spring. The Brotherhood, I believe, helped organize the events and insight the riots that helped overturn regimes in the Middle East. This happened in much the same way as the Occupy Wall Street protests have here in the U.S. Faces of regular working-class people appeared on the news stream throughout the beginning, and toward the peak of the protests. This helped keep the movement "organic" and "grassroots". Only when it was exposed, at the height of the protests, who was behind them, that they weren't actually grassroots, did the radical figures appear from all corners of the movement.
This tactic is verified in a recent documentary I saw about revolutions in Eastern and Northern Europe. Protest organizers put "grandma's" and peaceful faces at the frontlines of the protests in order to stave off violent action by the police. The media also would pick up the inviting faces and in turn popular support for the movement would be achieved.
To keep this post at a reasonable length (this is a fairly deep topic, and I don't expect to solve the debate here), this is what I believe will play out in the Middle East, or at least what I believe the goal is of the Arab Spring. As stated by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as current high-ranking members of it, I believe the Brotherhood will seek to sweep elections not only in the Arab Spring countries, but in the entirety of the Middle East; certainly as much of the Middle East as they see attainable. In addition to Middle Eastern countries, the Brotherhood will seek to infiltrate our government and society in order to achieve the Islamization of the West.
Glenn Beck was viewed as crazy for presenting this theory, and while I don't hold nearly the following as Glenn, I expect that anyone who reads this article might be extremely skeptical of this notion. However, in their own words, members of the Brotherhood are seeking an end to Western Judeo-Christian values, and instead Islamization of the whole world. The beginning of this goal can be seen in the recent elections in Egypt, and I believe that is in-fact just the beginning. More elections like the one in Egypt will come wherever the Middle Eastern strongmen fall, and in their place will come a much different form of the same oppression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)