Tag: Barack Obama

Posted on

Pressing Questions About Benghazi

By Jim Spiegel

Four Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador, were killed over six weeks ago, yet we still have not been told the truth regarding the circumstances surrounding their deaths, no thanks to news media that seems willing to let the story fade.  But the Benghazi story won’t go away, and for good reason.  President Obama has been asked a few questions by news journalists, but he consistently stonewalls, such as he does here in response to the question whether the Americans in Benghazi were denied requests for help.  In other interviews Obama has similarly avoided answering the question, which suggests that, indeed, the requests were denied.  After all, as commander-in-chief, he would know whether such requests were made, and if they weren’t, he would say so.  But if the requests were not denied, then actions would have been taken to protect the Americans.  But no such actions were taken…for seven hours.  Obama cannot feign ignorance on this one.  Thus, other pressing questions need to be asked as well, including the following:

  • Who gave the order to the U.S. counterterrorist forces not to defend the Americans under attack?
  • If someone beneath you disobeyed your orders to protect the Americans, then why have you not fired them or at least told us who is responsible?
  • Since it was clear from day one that this was a terrorist attack, not a mob protest of the film, then why did the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, and the UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, give the media the “film protest” line for several days?
  • Who directed Carney and Rice to tell the media it was about the film and not a terrorist attack?

These are potentially damning questions, of course.  Yet the news journalists from the mainstream media who have had the opportunity to question Obama have failed to ask these questions.  They are not doing their job, and the only plausible explanation is that they are protecting Obama.  Perhaps protecting him from some extremely serious charges, including treason.

In recent decades we have seen some major presidential scandals, such as Nixon’s Watergate and the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.  But there were no deaths involved in those scandals, let alone murder of a high-ranking U.S. official.  In Benghazi four Americans died, apparently because of the abject failure of the President to act on their behalf.  If ever a story deserved aggressive media scrutiny, this is it.

Fortunately, some members of Congress are keeping pressure on the President to clean and answer some of these questions.  At least they are doing their job.

Posted on

Obama’s Birth Certificate a Forgery?

By Jim Spiegel

We thought we had heard the last of the questions about the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.  Now, armed with new information, Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio is calling upon Congress to look into the matter as a matter of national security.  Arpaio is making his appeal based on an official study, led by Michael Zullo, chief investigator with Cold Case Posse, which has concluded that Obama’s birth certificate is actually fraudulent.  One major indicator concerns the box on the form for “Race of

Photo Credit: AP/Ralph Freso

Father.”  The number “9” appears there, signifying “no information,” yet the box is not empty.  The word “African” is printed there.  This is also problematic because that term was not used as a racial indicator until the late 1980s, almost three decades after Obama’s birth.  Additionally, the birth number on the form is discrepant, according to the investigation.

So…the plot thickens.  We can expect the ad hominem attacks on Arpaio to grow more intense.  He has been a controversial sheriff, and some complain that his motives in undertaking the investigation were self-serving, specifically to draw attention away with problems with his agency.  Others will continue to politicize the investigation, arguing that the whole thing is motivated to undermine Obama’s re-election bid.  Of course, all of this might be true, but none of it is relevant if there really is significant evidence that Obama’s birth certificate was forged.

Posted on

Pre-emptive Strike on Iran?

By Jim Spiegel

Last week Israeli cabinet minister Moshe Yaalon reasserted the danger of the Iranian nuclear threat, noting that a pre-emptive military strike might be necessary.  Of course, such remarks have been made before, but given the steady advance of Iran’s nuclear program and the abiding menace of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the situation grows more urgent every day.  Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier and has gone on record as desiring that Israel be wiped off the map (or “vanish from the pages of history,” as his statement is sometimes translated).

So at what point, if ever, will a pre-emptive strike against Iran justifiable?  One of the criteria for a just initiation of war is that of “just cause.”  There must be sufficient grounds for a military attack, the paradigm case being that of self-defense.  But, of course, just what counts as “self-defense” is disputable.  Should this be limited to instances where a nation has already suffered military attack?  What about other forms of “attack,” such as cyber-terrorism or economic attacks?  And what about imminent threats?  How likely must the coming attack be?  And how severe?  These latter questions are the salient ones when it comes to the Iran question.  It does appear the threat is imminent.  Moreover, the severity could hardly be greater, since we’re talking nuclear attack, the occurrence of which could result in the elimination of Israel envisioned by Ahmadinejad.  But just how likely this attack is, once Iran is nuclear-ready, well, that’s not at all clear.  Perhaps only Iran’s president himself knows.  Of course, the civilized world could take a wait-and-see approach.  But at what potential cost?

These are hard questions, as hard as they get when it comes to international affairs.  We now know that President Obama agonized over the decision to send a Navy Seal team in to Pakistan to take out Osama bin Laden.  As difficult as that decision was, it doesn’t compare to the agony Obama faces when it comes to the Iran question.

Posted on

Hodgepodge

By Jim Spiegel

1. Budget Deal in Perspective: This past week our leaders in Washington struck an “historic” budget deal that cuts Federal spending by a whopping $38.5 billion.  Awesome, right?  This will put a dent in our national debt, right?  Wrong. To put things in perspective, the national debt climbed over $650 billion since October, and in just the previous ten days it grew by more than $50 billion.  Its going to take much more drastic measures to get serious about our financial crisis.  So while Congress and the President are patting themselves on the back, we continue to move steadily toward national bankruptcy.

2. The President and Religious Freedom: Check out this excellent piece by Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute on how President Obama is dropping the ball when it comes to promoting religious freedom.  But, as Bandow explains, its not too late for Obama to rectify the situation, if he and his Ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom, Suzan Johnson Cook, act quickly and decisively.

3. Another Non-win for Woods: I’ve never been much of a golf fan, but I think I’m becoming one.  This weekend I followed the Masters tournament like never before.  Why?  Because I was rooting for Tiger Woods…to lose.  That’s right.  I’m an enthusiastic anti-Woods fan.  Or, more positively put, I’m a fan of all PGA golfers minus one.  And today one of my rooting interests was victorious, in the person of South African Charl Schwartzel.  Ugly name.  Great golfer.  And, as far as I can tell, a much better role model than Woods.

Posted on

Why Government is Stupid

By Amy Spiegel

I realize that being a libertarian these days has become the cool way of disengaging from the political scene without looking entirely apathetic. However, after having recently spent more than a dozen hours trapped—uh, I mean bonding—with my two youngest kids in the car with nothing but the voices on the radio to distract me from their incessant whining—uh, I mean playful chatter—I continue to be drawn to the idea that most of the things the government does these days is really stupid. National defense? All for it. Basic infrastructure? Sure. Umm…coming up blank for any other major problems I trust either side of the aisle to tackle with some semblance of competence. Here are a few examples that have me ready to pack up and head for the hills:

Number One: I recently heard a report on the crisis facing many states regarding their unemployment insurance programs. With so many unemployed, the states don’t have the money to continue benefit payments and several are faced with raising taxes in order to help fund their programs. Not only are they looking to raise everyone’s taxes (a sure fire way to stimulate the economy) but it has also been suggested that businesses could be forced to contribute more to the fund. So rather than taking money that could be used to hire new employees, employers will be paying into a fund that will filter the money through goodness knows how many levels of bureaucracy until a portion of it finds its way into the hands of those who really just need a job? I certainly don’t want to straw man our complex system of economics or look upon the unemployed with a heart of stone, but I simply don’t see the government as the most efficient distributor of wealth.

Number Two: Last year, NASA was called in by the Department of Transportation to investigate the connection between unexplained accelerations among Toyota vehicles and possible flaws in their cars’ electrical systems. (Personally, I think the DOT only asked NASA to help so they could include such phrases as “rocket scientists” and “well, the experts from NASA say” in their reports but that theory has yet to be proven.) Ten months (and goodness knows how many millions of our dollars) later, nothing is wrong with the electrical systems! Well that must be such a relief to the hundreds of people who actually experienced this problem. As opposed to the millions of us who helped pay for this study. Again, I don’t want to seem cold-hearted, but this seems more like a private matter between the consumer and company. Let them work it out between themselves or, if needed, use the court system. I think there is a long laundry list of concerns that outrank this one. If Toyota has a defective product, don’t buy it and leave the rocket scientists to study, I don’t know, rocket science.

Number Three: President Obama recently announced “new investments” in a high-speed rail system. Now I love trains and am convinced that people in Europe are better informed simply because while we are all stuck in our cars inhaling carbon monoxide, they are reading books and periodicals on the train. Nevertheless, I have two objections to this idea. First, until the federal government can prove its efficiency in any areas other than collecting taxes and spending more than they collect, how about we forego flushing more money down the public toilet of Amtrak subsidies? If the country needs high-speed trains, let someone else figure out how to make it profitable. When that happens, I will gladly sit smilingly beside Joe Biden and yell “All aboard!” My other objection stems from the dysfunctional relationship government creates between its “consumers” and the “company.” An example? Libraries. Again, I love libraries but when I am annoyed by their policies or rude attitudes where do I go for recourse? There are times when I would gladly pay for additional privileges (longer hold times, extra renewals) but since the library has no profit motive, why should they care if I am satisfied or not? If video rental stores can turn a profit, why not private subscriptions to libraries?

Perhaps these are oversimplifications of highly complex issues, but if our government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, then perhaps we the people need to be out there doing for ourselves and giving the government a bit of a federal holiday.

Posted on

Wolf at the Door

By Jim Spiegel

On Monday Anita Dunn stepped down from her position as White House communications director—the culmination of recent controversy over her remarks that Chairman Mao was one of her “favorite political philosophers.”  Two DUNNmonths ago, Obama’s so called “Green Jobs Czar,” Van Jones, resigned from his post following furor over his sympathies with Marxism.  Fox News, more particularly conservative JONEScommentator Glenn Beck, led the charge in exposing the Marxist stripes of these two Obama appointees.  And it has been interesting to observe how among other media sources more attention has been given to Fox’s “outing” of these two Marxist sympathizers than to the fact they were in the Obama administration in the first place. 

How many other Obama appointees have Marxist convictions?  And what are we to think of the President himself in light of this, especially given the fact that he has had numerous other Marxist associates throughout his career, including his early mentor, Frank Marshall Davis?

It wasn’t long ago that public figures avoided any linkage to Marxism, whether or not they actually subscribed to the principles of this foolish and oppressive ideology.  Even in the days of McCarthyism it was generally agreed that the Reds were evil.  The controversy concerned Joe McCarthy’s tactics, not his concern to root out communists from the U.S. Federal government.

It wasn’t long ago that nearly all U.S. citizens agreed that Marxism fundamentally opposes the American system of government and recognized that to the extent that socialist ideals are taken seriously by those in power our basic constitutional rights are threatened.  Indeed, the very fact that we have a Constitution which guarantees the freedoms it does seemed to be a reliable firewall against Marxist infiltration.

And it wasn’t long ago that the Marxist belief in the necessity of government force to institute a classless society seemed either innocuously ensconced in the pages of The Communist Manifesto or, practically speaking, restricted to distant lands from which we are safely buffered by both great oceans and great moral wisdom.

But things have changed, and a political destiny that was once so unthinkable in our country now seems a distinct possibility.  Fellow lambs of constitutional polity take note.  The Marxist wolf is at the door.

Posted on

Shifting Legos and the Sands of Time

By Amy Spiegel

I must confess that when I woke up on January 20 to the usual sounds of shifting legos and pounding feet (Don’t let them fool you, there is no such thing as the pitter-pattering of little feet unless you own a cat.) I wasn’t thinking about history being made. I was running through the subjects the boys and I needed to get through before lunch and whether or not we should go to Fazoli’s for $1.00 kids’ meals after Maggie’s gymnastics lesson. When Jim reminded me that it was Inauguration Day, I did a head slap and then went back to thinking about the previously stated subjects. Then Jim dropped the bomb that he wanted me to be sure that the kids witnessed the swearing in of Barack Obama as our forty-fourth president. Ugh.

It isn’t that I wanted to deny my kids the privilege of witnessing history. It’s wasn’t even that I resent the fact that Obama won the election, at least not entirely. It’s that witnessing history is often inconvenient and time-consuming. After all, I had lesson plans to complete and leotards to wash. Still, I begrudgingly agreed to plant the kids in front of the computer at snack time and even offered a cookie to anyone who would sit still and watch. Unfortunately for us, the event was delayed, so snack time had came and went and the kids’ attentions spans were stretched and snapped by the time President Obama was sworn in. They did come running when I bellowed “More cookies! Quick!” and thus they became observers of undoubtedly a momentous event in our nation’s story. So for my kids, January 20, 2009 will stand out as the day mom went crazy and surprised them with cookies—twice. 

The day held a few surprises for me as well. I was surprised at the tears and emotion which rose in my eyes and heart as the kids and I prayed for our new president, for his safety and leadership and for our nation as a whole. I was surprised by the wave of cynicism that swept through my heart, especially anytime I turned on NPR. I felt left out and marginalized. This wasn’t the guy I voted for. He doesn’t represent my perspective or viewpoint, so why even bother to tune in? But other thoughts struggled against these dark clouds of pessimism. I have spent the last eight years wishing people would just give the President the benefit of the doubt, wishing that they would just listen for a minute before giving a knee-jerk, partisan response. And here I was on day one, full of suspicion and ready to pounce. At least now I understood the urge—you always sound cooler being against something than for it. 

The final surprise of the day was how quickly this moment was lost in the rhythm of the day’s ordinary events. As easily as you change the channel, we switched from history in the making to lunch making, naps and video time. I felt a bit chagrined at my fickleness, but perhaps this is the way it is meant to be. Perhaps we aren’t meant to dwell in the big picture for too long. We are creatures of the immediate, if for no other reason than because to linger on the large scale too long is to begin to feel terribly insignificant. After all, we are all history in the making, all starring in the role of our lifetime. So what to do? Shrink in the light of the massive scope of history or magnify the size of our own small world until it’s all we see? It is my intention to do a bit of both. To wake up each morning, whispering a small prayer for my President, my leaders and my country, taking a moment to stare the big picture head on. But then listen to the call of those pounding feet and legos at work and take on my part, one unmemorable day at a time.

Posted on

Why I Can’t Vote for Obama OR McCain

By Jim Spiegel

We are now just five days from Election Day, and most Americans have decided on the presidential candidate for whom they will cast their vote next Tuesday.  I have decided who will get my vote, but it will be neither Barack Obama nor John McCain.  And the reason in both cases boils down to personal integrity.  For all of their considerable talents and leadership skills, the moral character of both of these men is too flawed to justify my support.

In the case of Obama his character flaws are apparent in his questionable associations, the most astonishing of which is his long-time pastor, Jeremiah Wright.  Wright is not just a liberation theologian.  He is a radical anti-American racist, whose rhetoric is more venomous than anything I’ve seen in public life.  Yet Obama sat under his preaching for twenty years?  Unbelievable.  Another disturbing association of Obama’s is Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist with whom Obama served on a Chicago education board. Obama’s claim that he didn’t know about Ayers’ terrorist past at the time is implausible.  Finally, there is Obama’s utter insensitivity to sanctity of life issues.  Set aside his unyielding pro-choice position and his breathtaking assertion that determining when human life begins is “above my pay grade.”  (Come on, Barack.  As difficult as that might be, you must have some belief regarding the matter.  And surely anyreasonable person must admit that a pre-born child is human at least by the point of viability.)  The most astounding thing is Obama’s refusal (four times) to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which simply mandated that babies which survive abortions should receive medical attention to keep them alive.  Intentionally allowing a baby to die is, of course, infanticide.  And Obama’s refusal to support legislation to prevent such is complicity with this heinous act.  To say that this reveals a character flaw on his part is, well, an understatement.

As far as McCain is concerned, I do appreciate the man’s honorable service as a soldier, especially his heroic commitment to his fellow servicemen while a P.O.W. during the Vietnam War.  I also appreciate McCain’s respect for the sanctity of life and his take on several other issues.  But he, too, has a seriously chequered past.  McCain was unfaithful to his first wife, leaving her for his current wife, Cindy, even while his first wife was recovering from a serious automobile accident.  Yes, this was nearly thirty years ago, but there have been whiffs of questionable behavior since, such as regarding McCain’s inappropriate relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman.  Adultery is no small matter, as it demonstrates a person’s willingness to flout the most sacred vow two human beings can make.  If a man is willing to break that vow, then why should we trust him when it comes to his commitment to the American people?  And if the Clinton years taught us anything, it is that the so-called “private life” of a President is never just that.  So I cannot cast a vote for McCain.  (In fact, I have a personal rule never to vote for a known adulterer.)

But I do plan to vote in the presidential election.  So for whom shall I cast my ballot?  At this point I plan to write in the name of someone who is consummately qualified and has impeccable character:  Condoleeza Rice.  I will refrain from extolling her virtues here, otherwise this post might never end!  Suffice it to say that she has the moral integrity that I wish either Obama or McCain had.  Oy vey.

Posted on

Straddling the Aisle with Violet Beauregarde

By Amy Spiegel

I have never been terribly interested in politics. This might seem a strange confession coming from someone who graduated with a degree in political science. I am not sure what exactly drew me to the major originally, perhaps the fact that I really liked arguing–or, well, thoughtfully discussing issues with people. After serving as a summer intern in Washington D.C., however, I lost all hope that politics actually accomplished anything. Seeing the partisan biases and territorial attitude of so many politicians day after day was a clarifying moment for me both as a student and citizen. I felt quite immune to Potomac fever. (I loved the city itself, though. So many great restaurants!).

My apathy has remained fairly well intact until recently. The presidential election has captivated my attention, as it has so many Americans, in a way that I find quite surprising. It feels a bit like when you are waiting for your oil to be changed and pass the time by watching some random soap opera provided for your IQ-lowering entertainment. Thirty minutes ago, you didn’t know who Trish and Buff were and now suddenly you are breathless to discover if the Siamese twins Trish had are really Buff’s or those of his evil brother, Duff. I suddenly find myself utterly enthralled by the whole drama that is our election process. I’m completely hooked. But living in a fairly conservative area–this is like saying that penguins live in a relatively frigid environment–I have been carefully seeking all sides of the issues, not wanting to end up like one of our feathery Antarctic friends, huddled together with my kind, more concerned with the survival of my species than the greater good.

Fortunately for me, Jim and I do have a few friends that we greatly respect who lean a little farther to the left than ourselves. The day Barack Obama announced his running mate, I ran into one such couple at Bailey’s soccer game. While serving Cheerios to the youngsters, I asked our friends what they thought of Obama’s choice. I asked with a genuine desire to know, not in the way we so often ask questions of those who disagree with us. Per Jim’s recent post, I want to be strengthened in my own convictions through the thoughtful arguments of others or discover where my view is flawed and change my mind. One of our friends shook his head and expressed disappointment at the choice of Senator Joe Biden. He said that he had really believed that Obama wanted to reach across the aisle and start to change things. The phrase stuck with me through the rest of the day–“Reach across the aisle.” I can’t count the number of times I have heard commentators use that phrase. What struck me, though, was the fact that I don’t live on one aisle or the other. Jim and I would both consider ourselves social and fiscal conservatives but on other issues such as gun control and the death penalty, we would be more sympathetic with liberals. Our friends are greatly concerned with social justice but they are pro-life. So where does that leave us–straddling the aisle? What if you are neither red nor blue, but more purple? Where is the purple party–hanging out with Violet Beauregarde in Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory? When you can identify with both parties to some extent (and neither completely), how do you go about deciding whom to vote for?

I believe I found the answer this past weekend, sitting on the floor of a Denver book store. Jim and I were attending a wedding in the Mile High City and made the most of it with a date night consisting of cruising Barnes and Noble and a dinner of Indian food. Jim called me over to check out a book on Barack Obama. I can’t remember the title but it was clear the author was not a fan of Obama’s. I skimmed it with an open mind, on the lookout for the glaring exaggerations and misrepresentations I find intolerable from any party. What I read, however, was chilling. It was related to Obama’s views on abortion and specifically the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I recently learned about this act and the work of a former nurse turned public speaker named Jill Stanek (www.jillstanek.com). I have been shamed by my ignorance and apathy regarding this act and the abortion issue as a whole.

Jim and I really wanted to refrain from making this blog political but what Obama is supporting through his opposition to this bill isn’t political; it’s permission murder. I don’t want to use our blog as a forum for demonizing one political party or another, but I will say that I cannot in good conscience vote for this man. I strongly urge you to be your own means of persuasion, to look at the issues–and not just from the mouths of the candidates but by looking at their records. Whatever the results of your investigation, at least you can pull the lever with confidence in whom and what you are supporting. Who knows, if enough of us who are neither blue nor red decide to straddle the aisle, Violet Beauregarde just might win.