As I release this article and continue our series on the appointment of czars, there is continued debate going on in Washington over Healthcare Reform. We will begin looking at that next week. As I researched about my next subject, Kenneth R. Feinberg, who is the Pay Czar, I found conflicting information. I saw a couple of articles claiming that Mr. Feinberg was only 31 years old, drives a foreign car, and has no executive experience. Fortunately, I dug a little deeper and found evidence on the contrary.
Mr. Feinberg is actually 63 years old, born October 23, 1945 in Brockton, MA. He obtained a history degree from the University of Massachusetts and got his law degree from New York University. He worked for five years as an administrative assistant and chief of staff for U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, and as a prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney General. Before founding his own firm, The Feinberg Group, in 1993, he was a founding partner at the Washington office of Kaye Scholer LLP.
He specializes in mediation and alternative dispute resolution and was appointed by President George W. Bush to be the Special Master of the U.S. Government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. Before that assignment, he was appointed by federal district judges to help resolve several difficult product liability lawsuits. He played central roles in resolving cases involving victims of asbestos, Agent Orange and the Dalkon Shield, a birth control device that injured more than 200,000 women. He oversaw the Virginia Tech victims’ fund as well. He was also one of three arbitrators who determined the fair market value of the Zapruder film that captured the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, resolving a dispute between the heirs of Abraham Zapruder.
With his many years of experience in arbitration and mediation I don’t question Mr. Feinberg’s credentials or his motives. He worked for nearly three years on 9/11 project Pro Bono. I respect his service to this country in that regard. So, if I don’t have a problem with Mr. Feinberg, what’s the problem here?
Here’s the problem I have with the appointment of a “Pay Czar.” I don’t think the Federal Government should be involved in taking over Wall Street and the entire financial markets. As I mentioned in a previous article, the TARP bailout was just a big “Ponzi scheme” for Goldman Sachs. Why were some companies bailed out, while others were allowed to fail? The Government picked the winners and losers, on what criteria? The argument for AIG was they were “too big to fail”, yet Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, much larger than AIG, were allowed to fail. It has to do with who would benefit from the failure.
The appointment of Feinberg is an attempt, at least in appearance, to throttle the ridiculous spending and compensation going on. We shouldn’t have given them the keys to safe to begin with. Of course some people who have actually earned bonuses as compensation for selling toxic assets are getting completely shut off from justified commissions. They need to look at the abuses at the top and all the ties to Goldman Sachs. I could spend days talking about this. Maybe I’ll go further into it at a later time as more is revealed.
I also don’t believe the White House has any right to step in and fire CEO’s of Private Corporations without approval of the Board of Directors, stockholders, or creditors who are invested in the company. In the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies the labor unions were moved to the front of the line in the settlement process. That is not only unprecedented but rewrites the rule of law concerning lien holder rights. There was no purpose in giving the UAW stock in the company except paying off the debt of electoral influence and support. We also have government officials and new CEO’s and czars, who have no clue how to build a car, not only running auto manufacturing but also dictating dealerships nationwide.
Why are some dealers who have been successful for decades shown the door, while others are rewarded? Is this based on profitability or location? There have been many reports and stories about favoritism based on political affiliation. These dealerships are small local businesses with employees and economic impact for their communities at stake. They have decades of customer and vendor relationships and many are pillars of the communities they are located in. Who has the right to tell them they have no choice but shutdown or worse yet hand over the keys to a new proprietor of someone’s selective choosing.
Ford chose not to file bankruptcy or take any bailout money and actually reported a profit this past quarter. Why weren’t Chrysler and GM allowed to fail and reorganize into profitable corporations? Because this is not about profit, it is about to control; controlling the design and manufacturing of cars that will leave a smaller “carbon footprint,” in the name of Global Warming. All this is making me nauseous. I think I’ll go lay down. Maybe I’ll wake up and realize this was all a dream, or nightmare. See you when I wake up. Are you awake yet?
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Is Barack Obama King of Kings (Part 3)
As we continue this series on the appointment of czars I need to give you a prerequisite. The information you are about to read is not only alarming but shocking in many instances. It would take volumes to unveil to you all of the information I uncovered in my research. I am only scratching the surface. Feel free to do your own due diligence in verifying this information. I am confident it will lead you to many more paths of concern. We left off in Part 2 with a list of the current czar positions appointed by our President, Barack Obama. Let’s take a look at probably the most alarming to date: our new Science Czar, John P. Holdren. Let’s first look at Mr. Holdren’s extraordinary resume’ and credentials:
According to Wikipedia: Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Director of the Woods Hole Research Center. He earned his bachelor's degree from MIT in 1965 and a PhD in plasma physics from Stanford University in 1970. He taught at the University of California, Berkeley for more than two decades. His work has focused on global environmental change, energy technologies and policies, nuclear proliferation, and science and technology policy.
Dr. Holdren served as chairman of the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from February 2007 until February 2008. He was the founding chair of the advisory board for Innovations, a quarterly journal about entrepreneurial solutions to global challenges published by MIT Press, and has written and lectured extensively on the topic of climate change. He was unanimously confirmed as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on March 20, 2009. He has authored over 20 books, including many on climate change, and countless articles over the last four decades. He has also won numerous honors and awards. In 1969 he advocated (with Paul R. Ehrlich) substantial spending for expansion of nuclear power on the grounds that nuclear plants generate electricity without greenhouse gas emissions.
All of this is very impressive on the surface and regardless of your stance on “Global Warming,” most would consider him as very qualified. So where is the cause for alarm?
As far back as 1969, overpopulation was of major concern and interest to him. Again writing with Paul R. Ehrlich, Holdren claimed that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many" In 1977 he co-authored (with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich) Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, which discussed the possible role of a wide range of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning at one extreme, to enforced population controls at the other extreme. Here are just a handful of quotes from the book that are alarming:
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
“It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
“All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons.”
Here is a quote from Ben Johnson of Front Page Magazine in an article he wrote in February of this year:
“Some critics have noted Holdren's penchant for making apocalyptic predictions that never come to pass, and categorizing all criticism of his alarmist views as not only wrong but dangerous. What none has yet noted is that Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the United States as "the meanest of wealthy countries," written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the U.S. standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity. Such is Barack Obama's idea of a clear-headed adviser on matters of scientific policy.”
It appears by all of these statements that Holdren has a greater concern for the environment than the human race; even suggesting population control as a way to save the environment. Nearly all totalitarian regimes in history implemented population control. Is that what this entire “Global Warming” scare is all about? Without Congressional approval or a vote of the people can this man declare an environmental crisis that requires population control? One of the major areas of debate on the Health Care Reform issue is the rationing of care for the elderly; weighing the costs of medical procedures and treatment against the life expectancy of the patient. That sounds like more population control.
This next statement is an opinionated statement on my part:
“Isn’t that a form of abortion of the elderly? Couple that with abortion of children and you have genocide. Does that concern anyone, it sure does me. God created the heavens and the earth and all creatures in the air, land and sea. He is the giver and taker of life. We can’t control our own stubborn wills and selfish desires let alone control the environment. I believe in Global Climate Change, it’s called WEATHER. It’s going to change whether we do anything about it or not. Attempts to control population growth alone is playing God, let alone trying to control the weather. Maybe these scientists need to spend more time studying why the temperatures on Venus and Mars is rising. Is that proof that there is life on those planets? Who is causing their climate change? Maybe Al Gore has a vacation home there. We don’t have Global Warming, we have Universal Warming and it’s caused by the SUN.”
Take a deep breath, Jeff. …..Sorry, I had to vent for a moment. Join me for the next episode of this ongoing look into the world of czars. I’ve got to go take a blood pressure pill.
According to Wikipedia: Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Director of the Woods Hole Research Center. He earned his bachelor's degree from MIT in 1965 and a PhD in plasma physics from Stanford University in 1970. He taught at the University of California, Berkeley for more than two decades. His work has focused on global environmental change, energy technologies and policies, nuclear proliferation, and science and technology policy.
Dr. Holdren served as chairman of the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from February 2007 until February 2008. He was the founding chair of the advisory board for Innovations, a quarterly journal about entrepreneurial solutions to global challenges published by MIT Press, and has written and lectured extensively on the topic of climate change. He was unanimously confirmed as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on March 20, 2009. He has authored over 20 books, including many on climate change, and countless articles over the last four decades. He has also won numerous honors and awards. In 1969 he advocated (with Paul R. Ehrlich) substantial spending for expansion of nuclear power on the grounds that nuclear plants generate electricity without greenhouse gas emissions.
All of this is very impressive on the surface and regardless of your stance on “Global Warming,” most would consider him as very qualified. So where is the cause for alarm?
As far back as 1969, overpopulation was of major concern and interest to him. Again writing with Paul R. Ehrlich, Holdren claimed that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many" In 1977 he co-authored (with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich) Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, which discussed the possible role of a wide range of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning at one extreme, to enforced population controls at the other extreme. Here are just a handful of quotes from the book that are alarming:
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
“It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
“All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons.”
Here is a quote from Ben Johnson of Front Page Magazine in an article he wrote in February of this year:
“Some critics have noted Holdren's penchant for making apocalyptic predictions that never come to pass, and categorizing all criticism of his alarmist views as not only wrong but dangerous. What none has yet noted is that Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the United States as "the meanest of wealthy countries," written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the U.S. standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity. Such is Barack Obama's idea of a clear-headed adviser on matters of scientific policy.”
It appears by all of these statements that Holdren has a greater concern for the environment than the human race; even suggesting population control as a way to save the environment. Nearly all totalitarian regimes in history implemented population control. Is that what this entire “Global Warming” scare is all about? Without Congressional approval or a vote of the people can this man declare an environmental crisis that requires population control? One of the major areas of debate on the Health Care Reform issue is the rationing of care for the elderly; weighing the costs of medical procedures and treatment against the life expectancy of the patient. That sounds like more population control.
This next statement is an opinionated statement on my part:
“Isn’t that a form of abortion of the elderly? Couple that with abortion of children and you have genocide. Does that concern anyone, it sure does me. God created the heavens and the earth and all creatures in the air, land and sea. He is the giver and taker of life. We can’t control our own stubborn wills and selfish desires let alone control the environment. I believe in Global Climate Change, it’s called WEATHER. It’s going to change whether we do anything about it or not. Attempts to control population growth alone is playing God, let alone trying to control the weather. Maybe these scientists need to spend more time studying why the temperatures on Venus and Mars is rising. Is that proof that there is life on those planets? Who is causing their climate change? Maybe Al Gore has a vacation home there. We don’t have Global Warming, we have Universal Warming and it’s caused by the SUN.”
Take a deep breath, Jeff. …..Sorry, I had to vent for a moment. Join me for the next episode of this ongoing look into the world of czars. I’ve got to go take a blood pressure pill.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Is Barrack Obama the King of Kings? (Part Two)
This is part two of the series on Czars. In this part we will look at the history of czars in this country, the reaction from more Congressional leaders, and look at more of these czars and who they are. First let’s look at the past appointment of czars.
In all fairness to our current President, he is not the first to appoint czars. Presidents from Roosevelt to George W. Bush have appointed so-called "czars". Reagan appointed a couple during eight years in office. Clinton appointed eight or nine in his two terms. George W. Bush appointed a dozen in two terms as President. They were usually appointed to head up special task forces or to work across agency lines to accelerate necessary action. We all know how ridiculously slow our government moves things through all the red tape. So, the purpose of appointing czars is to expedite things or at least give a sense of urgency to certain issues.
Everything our government has done for the last year, and that includes the end of the Bush administration, has been rushed and given extreme urgency, even passing bills without reading them. After all, it seems everything in this country is in crisis; much of which has been created by the same leaders who are now rushing their solutions through the legislature. It is hard to fix problems with the same minds that created them.
Our founding fathers designed our government with checks and balances so fast, irrational changes would be hard to implement without serious debate and discussion. These checks and balances have always kept the balance of power in check in Washington. Regardless of which party is in control, history has proven that the system works best when one party controls the White House and the other party controls Congress. Of course right now one party has complete control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. That is what is creating much of the urgency in Congress right now. They have waited for many years to be able to push their agenda through with no resistance.
Of course they claim it is all being done with bipartisanship. Eight votes on the Cap and Tax Bill from across the aisle is not bipartisanship. What was the urgency of the bailout last fall? We were told it had to happen NOW or we were doomed. The TARP bailout will go down in history as the biggest money grab conspiracy ever. The urgency was the impending change of administrations. This was Bush’s last opportunity to funnel money to take care of his crony Hank Paulson, and all his buddies at Goldman Sachs. It also gave the Democrats a final negative banner to hang over Bush’s presidency. Although the Democrats were responsible for passing it, the blame goes to Bush. It happened under his watch.
There is no question this country is in a Recession and is inevitably headed into a Depression. That is all we have heard for the last year, “It’s the worst since the Great Depression.” Yet, now that the economy is becoming more and more the responsibility of our current President, we are told by our Vice-President that “We underestimated it.” To which our President responded with, “We didn’t have correct information.” How can the economy be worse than what you have told us for the last year?
How is appointing all these czars going to fix it? Is that why we need so many of them? Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, has been a very vocal critic of President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy. Byrd says these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch. In a recent letter to Obama, Byrd complained about his decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staffs have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”
What does this mean? It means that Obama is appointing czars to oversee and run sections of government designed by our Constitution to be handled by the legislative branch. This is undermining our Constitution and usurping the authority of Congress, and the people of this country. We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The idea of unelected and unvetted czars running everything from car companies to the California water supply violates the spirit if not the letter of the law.
In only six months in office, President Obama has appointed almost three dozen czars to his administration, dealing with issues that range from drugs to the automotive industry. Is a “domestic violence” czar or an “urban affairs” czar really necessary? Are all of these czars appointments vital to our future? Of course they aren’t. The creation of these positions may be designed to expose some major problems with our government bureaucracy. Will that make things better or worse? Will it make things easier to get done or harder? Here is a list of Obama’s current and prospective Czar positions:
1.Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra, 2. Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske, 3. Copyright Czar: Not appointed yet. 4. Energy Czar: Carol M. Browner, 5. Car Czar: Ed Montgomery. 6. Terrorism/WMD Czar: Gary Samore. 7. Health Care Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle.8. Education Czar: Not appointed yet. 9. Economic Czar: Paul Volcker. 10. Mortgage Czar: Not appointed yet. 11. Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Adolfo Carrion. 12. Guantanomo closure Czar: Danny Fried. 13. Great lakes Czar: Cameron Davis. 14. Stimulus accountability attorney). 17. Intelligence Czar: Admiral Dennis Blair. 18. Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein. 19. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg 20. Iran Czar: Not appointed yet. 21. Tarp Czar: Herb Allison. 22. Middle-East peace Czar: George Mitchell. 23. Science Czar: John Holdren. 24. Green jobs Czar: Van Jones. 25. Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke. 26. Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration. 27. Mideast policy Czar: Dennis Ross. 28. Information Czar: Vivek Kundra. 29. AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley. 30. Faith-based Czar: Joshua Dubois. 31. Climate Czar: Todd Stern.
Each of these czars earn six figure salaries and have staffs and expense accounts paid for by the American people. Many of them are now overlooking departments that are already handled by Congress or a Cabinet member. Is their existence really necessary? Is our government that incompetent? Will this improve efficiency or slow things down even further? Is Obama creating a buffer between him and Congress? If so, is that for more accountability and “transparency”? Or is this a power move to set up a shadow government and team of kings and rulers to dictate the policies and agenda of Obama? We deserve answers to these questions, since we are the ones paying for it. Stay tuned as we dig a little deeper into who some of these appointees are and their backgrounds. We need to watch this closely as we move forward through the next three and a half years of this administration’s term in office. The results will definitely determine our combined futures.
Jeff Senters
In all fairness to our current President, he is not the first to appoint czars. Presidents from Roosevelt to George W. Bush have appointed so-called "czars". Reagan appointed a couple during eight years in office. Clinton appointed eight or nine in his two terms. George W. Bush appointed a dozen in two terms as President. They were usually appointed to head up special task forces or to work across agency lines to accelerate necessary action. We all know how ridiculously slow our government moves things through all the red tape. So, the purpose of appointing czars is to expedite things or at least give a sense of urgency to certain issues.
Everything our government has done for the last year, and that includes the end of the Bush administration, has been rushed and given extreme urgency, even passing bills without reading them. After all, it seems everything in this country is in crisis; much of which has been created by the same leaders who are now rushing their solutions through the legislature. It is hard to fix problems with the same minds that created them.
Our founding fathers designed our government with checks and balances so fast, irrational changes would be hard to implement without serious debate and discussion. These checks and balances have always kept the balance of power in check in Washington. Regardless of which party is in control, history has proven that the system works best when one party controls the White House and the other party controls Congress. Of course right now one party has complete control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. That is what is creating much of the urgency in Congress right now. They have waited for many years to be able to push their agenda through with no resistance.
Of course they claim it is all being done with bipartisanship. Eight votes on the Cap and Tax Bill from across the aisle is not bipartisanship. What was the urgency of the bailout last fall? We were told it had to happen NOW or we were doomed. The TARP bailout will go down in history as the biggest money grab conspiracy ever. The urgency was the impending change of administrations. This was Bush’s last opportunity to funnel money to take care of his crony Hank Paulson, and all his buddies at Goldman Sachs. It also gave the Democrats a final negative banner to hang over Bush’s presidency. Although the Democrats were responsible for passing it, the blame goes to Bush. It happened under his watch.
There is no question this country is in a Recession and is inevitably headed into a Depression. That is all we have heard for the last year, “It’s the worst since the Great Depression.” Yet, now that the economy is becoming more and more the responsibility of our current President, we are told by our Vice-President that “We underestimated it.” To which our President responded with, “We didn’t have correct information.” How can the economy be worse than what you have told us for the last year?
How is appointing all these czars going to fix it? Is that why we need so many of them? Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, has been a very vocal critic of President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy. Byrd says these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch. In a recent letter to Obama, Byrd complained about his decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staffs have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”
What does this mean? It means that Obama is appointing czars to oversee and run sections of government designed by our Constitution to be handled by the legislative branch. This is undermining our Constitution and usurping the authority of Congress, and the people of this country. We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The idea of unelected and unvetted czars running everything from car companies to the California water supply violates the spirit if not the letter of the law.
In only six months in office, President Obama has appointed almost three dozen czars to his administration, dealing with issues that range from drugs to the automotive industry. Is a “domestic violence” czar or an “urban affairs” czar really necessary? Are all of these czars appointments vital to our future? Of course they aren’t. The creation of these positions may be designed to expose some major problems with our government bureaucracy. Will that make things better or worse? Will it make things easier to get done or harder? Here is a list of Obama’s current and prospective Czar positions:
1.Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra, 2. Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske, 3. Copyright Czar: Not appointed yet. 4. Energy Czar: Carol M. Browner, 5. Car Czar: Ed Montgomery. 6. Terrorism/WMD Czar: Gary Samore. 7. Health Care Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle.8. Education Czar: Not appointed yet. 9. Economic Czar: Paul Volcker. 10. Mortgage Czar: Not appointed yet. 11. Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Adolfo Carrion. 12. Guantanomo closure Czar: Danny Fried. 13. Great lakes Czar: Cameron Davis. 14. Stimulus accountability attorney). 17. Intelligence Czar: Admiral Dennis Blair. 18. Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein. 19. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg 20. Iran Czar: Not appointed yet. 21. Tarp Czar: Herb Allison. 22. Middle-East peace Czar: George Mitchell. 23. Science Czar: John Holdren. 24. Green jobs Czar: Van Jones. 25. Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke. 26. Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration. 27. Mideast policy Czar: Dennis Ross. 28. Information Czar: Vivek Kundra. 29. AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley. 30. Faith-based Czar: Joshua Dubois. 31. Climate Czar: Todd Stern.
Each of these czars earn six figure salaries and have staffs and expense accounts paid for by the American people. Many of them are now overlooking departments that are already handled by Congress or a Cabinet member. Is their existence really necessary? Is our government that incompetent? Will this improve efficiency or slow things down even further? Is Obama creating a buffer between him and Congress? If so, is that for more accountability and “transparency”? Or is this a power move to set up a shadow government and team of kings and rulers to dictate the policies and agenda of Obama? We deserve answers to these questions, since we are the ones paying for it. Stay tuned as we dig a little deeper into who some of these appointees are and their backgrounds. We need to watch this closely as we move forward through the next three and a half years of this administration’s term in office. The results will definitely determine our combined futures.
Jeff Senters
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Is Barrack Obama the King of Kings? (Part One)
Today is the first part in a series on Czars. This is a hot topic in the media right now, because in a little less than six months as President, Barrack Obama has hand selected over thirty “czars.” Which will rule over various issues, including the private sector. So what is really going on in this administration?
President Barack Obama is in the process of seizing unprecedented power in America. He is completely ignoring the checks and balances built into our system of government. He is also undermining our freedoms and trampling on the Constitution as if it were a trivial document.
Where is the media coverage of all this? Unless you watch Fox News or listen to talk radio you probably have heard very little about this, or you heard it spun to portray Obama as making positive changes to impact our society. The mainstream media is still so enamored by his charisma that they can’t see beyond their euphoria. According to the Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, "Obama is standing above the country, above the world, he's sort of God."
Back to this issue with czars; What is a czar? According to Wikipedia: The word “czar” is a Slavic term with Bulgarian origins used to designate certain monarchs. Originally, the title Czar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is, a ruler who claims the same rank as a Roman emperor, with the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch). I know Obama recently visited with the Pope, was that to dicuss the approval of all these czars? I don’t think so, since they were already appointed before that visit. Besides, our government doesn’t answer to the Pope, it answers to the people, at least it used to.
In Russia and Bulgaria the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and, by the 19th century, it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of King. In imperial Russia, czars ruled the country and had complete power. They were imperial monarchs who were eventually overthrown by the Bolsheviks in the communist revolution. The communists who succeeded the czars ruled for over 70 years until it finally collapsed because of corruption and its own failed economic policies.
Many conservative talk show hosts have labeled Obama and his agenda as Socialist, or Marxist. He is definitely “Remaking America” as he promised. He is establishing his own imperialistic government and completely ignoring the Constitution of the United States, the United States Congress, and a vote of the people. None of these czars were vetted or approved by Congress, or the people. They answer directly and only to Obama, yet they and their staffs are paid for by taxpayer money. Obama is intent on amassing as much power as possible in the executive branch of government. Which is why so many czars are being appointed. According to U.S. Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA), the czars are part of a separate government structure that “is outside of the Constitution and the authority of Congress.”
So, if Barrack Obama views himself as the “Emperor” and he is appointing all these Czars or Kings, doesn’t that make him the “King of Kings”? As a Judeo-Christian nation, that question ought to make you cringe. I am hoping it will open your eyes. Am I going overboard and blowing this out of proportion? Consider this, Obama himself called these men czars, not liaisons, not overseers, not cabinet members or secretaries. Does anyone know who these people are and what their qualifications and agendas are? No we don’t, nor does Congress.
To say that the Obama administration has been aggressively accumulating as much government power as possible is an understatement. Without a single vote cast they have taken over private corporations, even entire industries. From Wall Street to Detroit, major entities are now owned by the federal government. This government intrusion into the free market system is unprecedented in American history.
Who gave the President all this power? The answer is, nobody, and that same nobody has offered up no resistance or rebuttal whatsoever. We have absolutely no idea what type of people the President is appointing to what will soon be the most powerful positions in government.
With no vetting or examination of their record, radicals and communists like Van Jones can slip into these offices with no opposition. Jones, the “Green Jobs czar”, is a self proclaimed communist, who worked as a black radical and has a long history as a left coast community organizer and anarchist. In 1992, Jones rioted after the Rodney King verdict and was arrested. Instead of changing his ways and becoming a law abiding citizen, Jones was “radicalized in jail.” Upon his release, Jones started a utopian organization that advocated communism and central planning. Eventually, he became a proponent for extreme environmentalism and “green jobs.”
This is just the first czar we are taking a look at. Have you heard about any of this from the mainstream media? Of course not; Fox News is spending a great deal of time on it right now thanks to watchdogs Sean Hannity and Glen Beck. The public is uninformed about this and I think they need to know, they have a right to know. Many aren’t going to find out, because they listen to the wrong people. They are blinded in the euphoria and deception of our ‘Historic President.” He is definitely going to be historic, because at this rate, he is going to be our last President. He will soon be King.
Jeff Senters
President Barack Obama is in the process of seizing unprecedented power in America. He is completely ignoring the checks and balances built into our system of government. He is also undermining our freedoms and trampling on the Constitution as if it were a trivial document.
Where is the media coverage of all this? Unless you watch Fox News or listen to talk radio you probably have heard very little about this, or you heard it spun to portray Obama as making positive changes to impact our society. The mainstream media is still so enamored by his charisma that they can’t see beyond their euphoria. According to the Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, "Obama is standing above the country, above the world, he's sort of God."
Back to this issue with czars; What is a czar? According to Wikipedia: The word “czar” is a Slavic term with Bulgarian origins used to designate certain monarchs. Originally, the title Czar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is, a ruler who claims the same rank as a Roman emperor, with the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch). I know Obama recently visited with the Pope, was that to dicuss the approval of all these czars? I don’t think so, since they were already appointed before that visit. Besides, our government doesn’t answer to the Pope, it answers to the people, at least it used to.
In Russia and Bulgaria the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and, by the 19th century, it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of King. In imperial Russia, czars ruled the country and had complete power. They were imperial monarchs who were eventually overthrown by the Bolsheviks in the communist revolution. The communists who succeeded the czars ruled for over 70 years until it finally collapsed because of corruption and its own failed economic policies.
Many conservative talk show hosts have labeled Obama and his agenda as Socialist, or Marxist. He is definitely “Remaking America” as he promised. He is establishing his own imperialistic government and completely ignoring the Constitution of the United States, the United States Congress, and a vote of the people. None of these czars were vetted or approved by Congress, or the people. They answer directly and only to Obama, yet they and their staffs are paid for by taxpayer money. Obama is intent on amassing as much power as possible in the executive branch of government. Which is why so many czars are being appointed. According to U.S. Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA), the czars are part of a separate government structure that “is outside of the Constitution and the authority of Congress.”
So, if Barrack Obama views himself as the “Emperor” and he is appointing all these Czars or Kings, doesn’t that make him the “King of Kings”? As a Judeo-Christian nation, that question ought to make you cringe. I am hoping it will open your eyes. Am I going overboard and blowing this out of proportion? Consider this, Obama himself called these men czars, not liaisons, not overseers, not cabinet members or secretaries. Does anyone know who these people are and what their qualifications and agendas are? No we don’t, nor does Congress.
To say that the Obama administration has been aggressively accumulating as much government power as possible is an understatement. Without a single vote cast they have taken over private corporations, even entire industries. From Wall Street to Detroit, major entities are now owned by the federal government. This government intrusion into the free market system is unprecedented in American history.
Who gave the President all this power? The answer is, nobody, and that same nobody has offered up no resistance or rebuttal whatsoever. We have absolutely no idea what type of people the President is appointing to what will soon be the most powerful positions in government.
With no vetting or examination of their record, radicals and communists like Van Jones can slip into these offices with no opposition. Jones, the “Green Jobs czar”, is a self proclaimed communist, who worked as a black radical and has a long history as a left coast community organizer and anarchist. In 1992, Jones rioted after the Rodney King verdict and was arrested. Instead of changing his ways and becoming a law abiding citizen, Jones was “radicalized in jail.” Upon his release, Jones started a utopian organization that advocated communism and central planning. Eventually, he became a proponent for extreme environmentalism and “green jobs.”
This is just the first czar we are taking a look at. Have you heard about any of this from the mainstream media? Of course not; Fox News is spending a great deal of time on it right now thanks to watchdogs Sean Hannity and Glen Beck. The public is uninformed about this and I think they need to know, they have a right to know. Many aren’t going to find out, because they listen to the wrong people. They are blinded in the euphoria and deception of our ‘Historic President.” He is definitely going to be historic, because at this rate, he is going to be our last President. He will soon be King.
Jeff Senters
Is the TARP Bailout already profitable?
Remember last fall, right in the middle of the Presidential campaign, when we were told that the TARP bailout was absolutely necessary to prevent a total collapse of the financial markets? We were told that it could actually be profitable for the taxpayers. We were told that the money would be used to purchase toxic assets at huge discounts and that those assets would later be sold to make a profit. All this was necessary to keep the Banking System from collapsing.
There were no strings attached to most of the money that was funneled into those institutions. As large bonuses began being paid out, along with some extravagant spending by some of these institutions, people got upset and after voicing their dissatisfaction, some strict regulations were inserted into the plan, including compensation limits for executives.
Some of these institutions began realizing the amount of control they would be giving over to the government and tried to give the money back. At first they were denied the ability to pay it back. President Obama recently announced that some financial institutions will be allowed to repay Troubled Asset Relief Program dollars. He said the massively expensive TARP bailout has made money for the federal government. "It is worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these [TARP recipients], the government has actually turned a profit," he said. Indeed, TARP supporters have long held out the hope that the program might be profitable.
Don’t hold your breath. Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, wants to spend those TARP profits rather than returning them to the taxpayers. Frank introduced a bill called the "TARP for Main Street Act of 2009." This bill proposes that the profits from the program be immediately redirected toward housing proposals favored by Frank and some fellow Democrats.
The original TARP legislation required that ALL money made from the program "shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt." Frank, however, wants to spend the money instead of paying down the debt. His proposal would take $1 billion from those dividends and apply it to a trust fund created by Frank for low-income rental housing. The unfunded trust was established as part of last year's bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In addition, Frank is also proposing to take $1.5 billion from TARP dividends for a so-called "neighborhood stabilization" fund and $4 billion to subsidize people who are delinquent on their mortgages, and to "stabilize multifamily properties that are in default or foreclosure."Spending the dividend payments now, as Frank proposes, would reduce the chance that TARP might ever be a break-even deal for taxpayers. As of June, 17 troubled institutions have not paid their dividends, much less repaid the TARP money itself. And last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that three other institutions were not paying dividends. But now, Frank is proposing that dividends be spent immediately.
Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests. By smooth talk and glowing words they deceive innocent people. – Romans 16:18 -- NLT
Republican critics have charged that these measures might allow federal dollars to be distributed to activist groups like ACORN (The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now). For those of you who may not be aware, that is exactly how this whole housing mess got started.
The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) originally drafted by President Jimmy Carter back in the 70’s was designed to “encourage” banks to lend money in lower income areas of urban cities in this country. The CRA was later expanded by both President Clinton and Bush to encourage more home ownership among minority and lower income families. To accomplish this, ACORN applied pressure to banks to make loans it would normally not make. Meanwhile, political pressure was also applied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase these “Subprime” mortgages from lending institutions to replenish the money supply.
These initiatives were successful in the short-term, but the risks were not properly covered because most of these “Subprime” products were not protected with Mortgage Insurance. Enter into the arena a new word into finance and investing, “derivatives.” These were premiums added onto these products to make them easier to bundle and sell. This “derivative market” is what largely caused the demise of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and others. The Government stepped in before it took down AIG. Largely to protect all the pension funds controlled by AIG, including the one for federal lawmakers.
I could spend many more pages going deeper into all this, but won’t at this time. The main point I am trying to get across is this. There were people who were warned about this problem the first time around. They repeatedly denied there were any problems with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. We know where that ended up. We, the taxpayers, are now the proud owners of those organizations.
You have been deceived by the fear you inspire in others and by your own pride. You live in a rock fortress and control the mountain heights. But even if you make your nest among the peaks with the eagles, I will bring you crashing down," says the LORD. – Jeremiah 49:16 –NLT
Now these same people want to start this all over again. I guess with a $10 Trillion plus federal debt load a mere $6 Billion is just a drop in the bucket that no one will miss. Why not scrape it off and help some more pet projects of the power brokers controlling Congress. The law they themselves created less than a year ago I guess doesn’t matter. It’s bad enough they gave away so much money without any rules, but now they don’t even want to play by the rules on the rest of it. When is this total disregard for the law going to stop? Not until we clean house in Washington. Get involved before it’s too late.
Jeff Senters
There were no strings attached to most of the money that was funneled into those institutions. As large bonuses began being paid out, along with some extravagant spending by some of these institutions, people got upset and after voicing their dissatisfaction, some strict regulations were inserted into the plan, including compensation limits for executives.
Some of these institutions began realizing the amount of control they would be giving over to the government and tried to give the money back. At first they were denied the ability to pay it back. President Obama recently announced that some financial institutions will be allowed to repay Troubled Asset Relief Program dollars. He said the massively expensive TARP bailout has made money for the federal government. "It is worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these [TARP recipients], the government has actually turned a profit," he said. Indeed, TARP supporters have long held out the hope that the program might be profitable.
Don’t hold your breath. Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, wants to spend those TARP profits rather than returning them to the taxpayers. Frank introduced a bill called the "TARP for Main Street Act of 2009." This bill proposes that the profits from the program be immediately redirected toward housing proposals favored by Frank and some fellow Democrats.
The original TARP legislation required that ALL money made from the program "shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt." Frank, however, wants to spend the money instead of paying down the debt. His proposal would take $1 billion from those dividends and apply it to a trust fund created by Frank for low-income rental housing. The unfunded trust was established as part of last year's bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In addition, Frank is also proposing to take $1.5 billion from TARP dividends for a so-called "neighborhood stabilization" fund and $4 billion to subsidize people who are delinquent on their mortgages, and to "stabilize multifamily properties that are in default or foreclosure."Spending the dividend payments now, as Frank proposes, would reduce the chance that TARP might ever be a break-even deal for taxpayers. As of June, 17 troubled institutions have not paid their dividends, much less repaid the TARP money itself. And last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that three other institutions were not paying dividends. But now, Frank is proposing that dividends be spent immediately.
Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests. By smooth talk and glowing words they deceive innocent people. – Romans 16:18 -- NLT
Republican critics have charged that these measures might allow federal dollars to be distributed to activist groups like ACORN (The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now). For those of you who may not be aware, that is exactly how this whole housing mess got started.
The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) originally drafted by President Jimmy Carter back in the 70’s was designed to “encourage” banks to lend money in lower income areas of urban cities in this country. The CRA was later expanded by both President Clinton and Bush to encourage more home ownership among minority and lower income families. To accomplish this, ACORN applied pressure to banks to make loans it would normally not make. Meanwhile, political pressure was also applied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase these “Subprime” mortgages from lending institutions to replenish the money supply.
These initiatives were successful in the short-term, but the risks were not properly covered because most of these “Subprime” products were not protected with Mortgage Insurance. Enter into the arena a new word into finance and investing, “derivatives.” These were premiums added onto these products to make them easier to bundle and sell. This “derivative market” is what largely caused the demise of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and others. The Government stepped in before it took down AIG. Largely to protect all the pension funds controlled by AIG, including the one for federal lawmakers.
I could spend many more pages going deeper into all this, but won’t at this time. The main point I am trying to get across is this. There were people who were warned about this problem the first time around. They repeatedly denied there were any problems with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. We know where that ended up. We, the taxpayers, are now the proud owners of those organizations.
You have been deceived by the fear you inspire in others and by your own pride. You live in a rock fortress and control the mountain heights. But even if you make your nest among the peaks with the eagles, I will bring you crashing down," says the LORD. – Jeremiah 49:16 –NLT
Now these same people want to start this all over again. I guess with a $10 Trillion plus federal debt load a mere $6 Billion is just a drop in the bucket that no one will miss. Why not scrape it off and help some more pet projects of the power brokers controlling Congress. The law they themselves created less than a year ago I guess doesn’t matter. It’s bad enough they gave away so much money without any rules, but now they don’t even want to play by the rules on the rest of it. When is this total disregard for the law going to stop? Not until we clean house in Washington. Get involved before it’s too late.
Jeff Senters
New Deal: Is it Stimulating the Economy?
http://www.examiner.com/x-16218-Nashville-Religion--Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d10-New-Deal-Is-it-Stimulating-the-Economy
Are you still waiting for the stimulus to kick in and for the economy to rebound? Trillions of dollars have been spent by our government but where are the signs of recovery? Warren Buffet, billionaire investor, says he doesn’t see recovery in sight.
Although I have always been an eternal optimist, all these recent “changes” have dampened my enthusiasm. In the past you could count on Americans to step up, work harder and pull it out. I don’t see that happening. Unemployment is still rising and will be at 10% soon, foreclosures continue to increase at alarming rates, gas prices have been inching upward again and are approaching $3 a gallon, where is the relief?
America has been the most prosperous and successful nation in history. Her greatness displayed by her generosity and charity for decades all around the world. Her character revealed by defending human rights and freedom across the globe and humanitarian aid wherever catastrophe or famine strikes. This country is the envy of the world, not the enemy of the world.
Yet our President is traveling all over the world apologizing for our past. What has America done that requires an apology or a standing down during upheaval and injustice? Why aren’t we standing to support freedom fighters in Iran? Oh, but that would be meddling. We seem to be meddling into Israel’s affairs. We seem to be meddling into the banking, insurance and auto industry.
What do you expect to see when our government is blind to the past and racing toward changing the entire foundational structure of this country, which took centuries to build. America voted for change, and the change has been coming at lightning speed.
The trillions the current administration is “Pumping into the economy,” is not going to work for several reasons. Number One: We don’t have the money.We have to borrow money from foreign countries, primarily China, to stimulate our economy. Here is what the Bible says about this:
“The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.” – Proverbs 22:7
Do we really want to be dependent on borrowed money from a Communist regime like China? We not only are mortgaging the future of our kids and grandkids, but we are selling them as slaves to China. The only economy being stimulated by that arrangement is China’s.
Number Two: What we are not borrowing, we are printing. Yes, some of that money will eventually flow through the economy. However, will it go where we need it to go to provide growth and stability for the future? Although many find the cause of Robin Hood noble; on a large scale, taking from the producers and giving it to the non-producers stifles growth.
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not take first from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half will take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it up.” – Adrian Rogers 1931-2005
How is free enterprise suppose to bounce back without any incentive in the system to do so? The rules for business are changing daily as the government takes more and more control of the free enterprise system. Are these bailouts and controls saving the impending demise or assuring it? Each liberal policy change implemented further stifles any profitability or growth.
The markets have always bounced back in the past, but the rules of investing have dramatically changed. What has always brought us back in the past no longer matters. How can we make lasting change to our standards of living and improve the lifestyles of the less fortunate? Do we expect those who we are demonizing and blaming for what’s wrong in America to pay for it? Why should they? What incentive do they have to hang around? They can afford to look for greener pastures to graze on and why shouldn’t they? We complain because we are losing jobs overseas. That’s because we are penalizing profitability and success in this country.
Why should a wealthy business owner with several plants, factories, stores, etc. in this economy, who has several thousand employees, continue to trudge along and watch their shrinking legacy? Why not just cash in the chips and ride off into the sunset or fly off with what’s left to retire in the tropics? Most of them love this country and would gladly do their part to help grow this economy. That’s hard to do when there is no incentive or freedoms to re- invest their money back into the free enterprise system. The only way to pull out of this recession or depression is to put America back to work. That won’t happen if you handcuff the free enterprise system and redistribute the money to the wrong places that won’t create more jobs than the implemented policies eliminated.
The “New Deal” didn’t bring us out of the last depression, the War did. The War united this country and put her back to work. Stealing the realized dreams of the prosperous will not fulfill the fantasies of the undriven non-producers. Nor will it provide any stable future. It will only produce a future of increased dependence. Is that not the definition of welfare, which is just another form of slavery?
We need to free up the credit markets to small business and encourage them to succeed and expand. That will put America back to work. Working Americans spend money. That stimulates the economy for further growth and expansion. History documents this clearly. There is nothing wrong with repeating what has worked in the past.
Pray for your country. Let’s get motivated and join together in unity for a common cause. United we stand, divided we fail. This is not about race, color or ethnicity. It’s about Patriotism and fighting for a country worth fighting for by each person doing their part. Rally the troops, let’s rebuild this country, not redesign it.
Jeff Senters
Are you still waiting for the stimulus to kick in and for the economy to rebound? Trillions of dollars have been spent by our government but where are the signs of recovery? Warren Buffet, billionaire investor, says he doesn’t see recovery in sight.
Although I have always been an eternal optimist, all these recent “changes” have dampened my enthusiasm. In the past you could count on Americans to step up, work harder and pull it out. I don’t see that happening. Unemployment is still rising and will be at 10% soon, foreclosures continue to increase at alarming rates, gas prices have been inching upward again and are approaching $3 a gallon, where is the relief?
America has been the most prosperous and successful nation in history. Her greatness displayed by her generosity and charity for decades all around the world. Her character revealed by defending human rights and freedom across the globe and humanitarian aid wherever catastrophe or famine strikes. This country is the envy of the world, not the enemy of the world.
Yet our President is traveling all over the world apologizing for our past. What has America done that requires an apology or a standing down during upheaval and injustice? Why aren’t we standing to support freedom fighters in Iran? Oh, but that would be meddling. We seem to be meddling into Israel’s affairs. We seem to be meddling into the banking, insurance and auto industry.
What do you expect to see when our government is blind to the past and racing toward changing the entire foundational structure of this country, which took centuries to build. America voted for change, and the change has been coming at lightning speed.
The trillions the current administration is “Pumping into the economy,” is not going to work for several reasons. Number One: We don’t have the money.We have to borrow money from foreign countries, primarily China, to stimulate our economy. Here is what the Bible says about this:
“The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.” – Proverbs 22:7
Do we really want to be dependent on borrowed money from a Communist regime like China? We not only are mortgaging the future of our kids and grandkids, but we are selling them as slaves to China. The only economy being stimulated by that arrangement is China’s.
Number Two: What we are not borrowing, we are printing. Yes, some of that money will eventually flow through the economy. However, will it go where we need it to go to provide growth and stability for the future? Although many find the cause of Robin Hood noble; on a large scale, taking from the producers and giving it to the non-producers stifles growth.
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not take first from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half will take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it up.” – Adrian Rogers 1931-2005
How is free enterprise suppose to bounce back without any incentive in the system to do so? The rules for business are changing daily as the government takes more and more control of the free enterprise system. Are these bailouts and controls saving the impending demise or assuring it? Each liberal policy change implemented further stifles any profitability or growth.
The markets have always bounced back in the past, but the rules of investing have dramatically changed. What has always brought us back in the past no longer matters. How can we make lasting change to our standards of living and improve the lifestyles of the less fortunate? Do we expect those who we are demonizing and blaming for what’s wrong in America to pay for it? Why should they? What incentive do they have to hang around? They can afford to look for greener pastures to graze on and why shouldn’t they? We complain because we are losing jobs overseas. That’s because we are penalizing profitability and success in this country.
Why should a wealthy business owner with several plants, factories, stores, etc. in this economy, who has several thousand employees, continue to trudge along and watch their shrinking legacy? Why not just cash in the chips and ride off into the sunset or fly off with what’s left to retire in the tropics? Most of them love this country and would gladly do their part to help grow this economy. That’s hard to do when there is no incentive or freedoms to re- invest their money back into the free enterprise system. The only way to pull out of this recession or depression is to put America back to work. That won’t happen if you handcuff the free enterprise system and redistribute the money to the wrong places that won’t create more jobs than the implemented policies eliminated.
The “New Deal” didn’t bring us out of the last depression, the War did. The War united this country and put her back to work. Stealing the realized dreams of the prosperous will not fulfill the fantasies of the undriven non-producers. Nor will it provide any stable future. It will only produce a future of increased dependence. Is that not the definition of welfare, which is just another form of slavery?
We need to free up the credit markets to small business and encourage them to succeed and expand. That will put America back to work. Working Americans spend money. That stimulates the economy for further growth and expansion. History documents this clearly. There is nothing wrong with repeating what has worked in the past.
Pray for your country. Let’s get motivated and join together in unity for a common cause. United we stand, divided we fail. This is not about race, color or ethnicity. It’s about Patriotism and fighting for a country worth fighting for by each person doing their part. Rally the troops, let’s rebuild this country, not redesign it.
Jeff Senters
Monday, July 13, 2009
What Is A Patriot?
The Patriot
By Jeff Senters
This is the first installment of an ongoing column dedicated to the voice of the enlightened Patriots in this country. Defining a Patriot should be easy, but lately some have tried to redefine it.
A Patriot is someone who believes that the forefathers of this country laid a foundation of traditional values that produced the greatest and most successful society known to man. A society built on freedom, liberty, and independence; with a moral compass based on the fear of God and the truth of the Holy Bible. Despite what some would claim, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
A true Patriot believes this foundation should never be compromised, but is beginning to realize that over the last few decades it has been shaken and sometimes completely ignored. The entire culture of this country has been altered and is headed in a direction that could permanently reshape our country into resembling the very cultures that our forefathers fled from.
Our forefathers fled to get away from government monarchy and dictatorship, to get away from taxation, Marxism, Communism and Socialism, and to get away from religious oppression. They set out to create a country where every individual had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of prosperity and happiness; based on opportunity, hard work, and the respect of each other’s individual freedom.
These are the core beliefs of a Patriot. These traditions have nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religious doctrine, political affiliation, hierarchy or genealogy. Everyone except the Native Americans were immigrants who wanted a fresh start. The society that developed had a common moral fiber and sense of community that created a nation of revolutionary leaders. The best term to describe those early pioneers is “Patriots.”
They would not only stand up and fight for their freedoms, but would also fight for the freedom of others. They embraced the idea that we all may have differences, but our common ground is worth fighting for.
They voted from their conscious and their heart, regardless of the letter behind the politician’s name. They supported their political leaders based on character, not because they were characters. Look at our leaders today, do they fit that mold?
We have leaders today who say it is our “Patriotic Duty” to pay more taxes. They think those who produce more should give more to help those less fortunate. Using their profits to provide economic growth, commerce and jobs is not enough, they should be willing to sacrifice even more for the common good. That is redistribution of wealth in its simplest form.
How about the leader whose very name conjures up images of a purple dinosaur driving an Oscar Meyer Weiner mobile? He is quick to point at others, because he knows his involvement in past decisions undeniably contributed to the recent collapse of the financial markets. Rather than apologize, he does what most politicians do, place blame on others to detract attention away from himself. We need to uncover his tracks and put him on a stick at the next bonfire roast. That would be the Patriotic thing to do.
Jeff Senters
A Modern Patriot
By Jeff Senters
This is the first installment of an ongoing column dedicated to the voice of the enlightened Patriots in this country. Defining a Patriot should be easy, but lately some have tried to redefine it.
A Patriot is someone who believes that the forefathers of this country laid a foundation of traditional values that produced the greatest and most successful society known to man. A society built on freedom, liberty, and independence; with a moral compass based on the fear of God and the truth of the Holy Bible. Despite what some would claim, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
A true Patriot believes this foundation should never be compromised, but is beginning to realize that over the last few decades it has been shaken and sometimes completely ignored. The entire culture of this country has been altered and is headed in a direction that could permanently reshape our country into resembling the very cultures that our forefathers fled from.
Our forefathers fled to get away from government monarchy and dictatorship, to get away from taxation, Marxism, Communism and Socialism, and to get away from religious oppression. They set out to create a country where every individual had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of prosperity and happiness; based on opportunity, hard work, and the respect of each other’s individual freedom.
These are the core beliefs of a Patriot. These traditions have nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religious doctrine, political affiliation, hierarchy or genealogy. Everyone except the Native Americans were immigrants who wanted a fresh start. The society that developed had a common moral fiber and sense of community that created a nation of revolutionary leaders. The best term to describe those early pioneers is “Patriots.”
They would not only stand up and fight for their freedoms, but would also fight for the freedom of others. They embraced the idea that we all may have differences, but our common ground is worth fighting for.
They voted from their conscious and their heart, regardless of the letter behind the politician’s name. They supported their political leaders based on character, not because they were characters. Look at our leaders today, do they fit that mold?
We have leaders today who say it is our “Patriotic Duty” to pay more taxes. They think those who produce more should give more to help those less fortunate. Using their profits to provide economic growth, commerce and jobs is not enough, they should be willing to sacrifice even more for the common good. That is redistribution of wealth in its simplest form.
How about the leader whose very name conjures up images of a purple dinosaur driving an Oscar Meyer Weiner mobile? He is quick to point at others, because he knows his involvement in past decisions undeniably contributed to the recent collapse of the financial markets. Rather than apologize, he does what most politicians do, place blame on others to detract attention away from himself. We need to uncover his tracks and put him on a stick at the next bonfire roast. That would be the Patriotic thing to do.
Jeff Senters
A Modern Patriot
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)