Is Our Government Trustworthy?

We have to begin this conversation with the revelation of inappropriate close coordination between Democratic politicians, executive branch appointees, and leftist activists. Recently discovered are emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request submitted to the Environmental Protective Agency by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute. As a result, we learn that there has been an ongoing, behind the scenes, campaign by the Obama Administration to stop construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. 

The emails seem to demonstrate that senior policy officials at the EPA are working closely with leftist environmental groups in an effort to implement a progressive agenda that does not benefit the American people.  

If we attempt to respond to the title of this post's question based solely upon what we know about these behind-the-scenes arrangements, then our answer is likely to be negative: our government is not trustworthy. It is a logical inference, but who knows if there is not far more to the story than simply a conspiracy to defeat the Keystone XL Pipeline. What we mean to say is that there is always the possibility that the Obama Administration (EPA) is merely seeking independent advice from the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the National Wildlife Fund.  Or, that pigs can fly.  

On the other hand, perhaps we should wonder why our federal government is behaving subjectively rather than objectively in the interest of all Americans and every group, whether left or right. It is enough to lead a reasonable citizen to conclude that our federal government is dishonest and corrupt.  It makes us wonder why we even have an EPA if we cannot trust its motives or have confidence in its objectivity. ( Link)  

Possibly, the basis of our concern should not be this singular question of Obama’s corruption, noting that we already offered alternative possibilities, but rather the weight or frequency of indices of corruption.  Not long ago, a former high-ranking official within the EPA told members of Congress that before he left the agency, he was working on a project examining ways to modify the DNA of our capitalist system.  (Link)

We wonder ... we really do.   And then there's THIS STORY, which also talks about environmental questions which we'd have thought deserved some conversation?   Z keeps saying "Why's the leftwing so censorial?" , and it continues on and on.

- Mustang and Z 

Trust and Confidence

We define trust as a reliance upon, or confidence in, people and organizations to exhibit good qualities, especially involving fairness, integrity, honor, and ability. Trust implies an obligation to deal faithfully with others, and it may even denote hope for the future. Confidence is a belief or abiding faith in the abilities of oneself or others to act properly, decently, and reliably.

As in the past, people today continue to use these terms and concepts to help define a particular standard in politics: can we trust this person or organization? Do these people or organizations deserve our confidence? Can we rely upon this person or this organization to do the right thing for our country and our people? These questions are problematic because, in the modern day, they are mere rhetoric. As a practical matter, we do not hold politicians accountable for their words, or their behavior.

Politicians of both parties must earn the trust and confidence of the American people. They do this by treating us with dignity and respect, by speaking to us truthfully and without purpose of evading the truth. Have Barack Obama and his wife earned our trust and confidence?

When CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin recently interviewed Obama for a forthcoming documentary; she asked the president why he did not do more to reach out to the opposition party at the beginning of his term in office. According to Ms. Yellin, Mr. Obama said that one of the reasons he did not reach out to Republicans was because he wanted to spend more time at home with his wife and children. Is this an honest statement from the President of the United States?

President Obama ran for president on a campaign pledge to unite “red America” and “blue America.” Even though Democrats controlled both houses of Congress since 2006 and in the first two years of his administration, Obama continually complains that he is running against the “Republican Congress.” He claims Republicans are to blame for partisanship and gridlock in Washington.

To be clear, there is gridlock in Washington; it was intended by the founding fathers as a check against emotionalism and poorly considered legislation affecting millions of citizens. But is Obama’s problem the Republicans in Congress when the GOP controls only one half of the Congress? Is his complaint rational, considering both houses of Congress belonged to Democrats from 2006 to 2010? Finally, in spite of Obama’s complaints, he has not once asked House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan to visit with him at the White House. Are Barack Obama’s claims true, or false?

Michelle Obama recently delivered a stately address at the Democratic National Convention. All reports from the media suggested a stellar performance, but no one seems interested in the fact that Michelle Obama was lying to the American people about the Obama couple’s early days. In spite of Obama’s claim to be impoverished, he was able to afford Columbia University and Harvard Law School —not many of us can afford to send our children to such prestigious universities. Add to this the fact that the Obama 2008 campaign verified that Mr. Obama made two overseas trips in 1981 —the same year he transferred from Occidental College to Columbia. He visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia, and then he later visited Pakistan for three weeks.

Mrs. Obama’s claim that her husband drove a rusted out car, that they struggled to make ends meet, that he searched for furniture in neighborhood dumpsters rings a bit hollow considering both attained elite educations from private academies and Ivy League colleges. Both had expensive tastes, evidenced by the fact that they purchased a two-bedroom condominium in 1993 for $277,500.00, and then a few years later, they moved into a $1.65 million mansion in Hyde Park. Is this what we heard from Michelle Obama from behind the podium of the Democratic National Convention? Was the first lady being honest with the American people when she claimed these “difficulties”?

Finally, we all witnessed the brouhaha at the Democratic National Convention over their exclusion of any reference to God from the Democratic Platform, and we heard the debate about whether the Democrats should acknowledge Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. Of course, the real issue isn’t whether Democrats recognize one city or another as Israel’s capital, it is a matter of international law —along with whoever has the most guns. But we all remember how the Convention Chairman took three votes on this issue: should the Democratic Platform remain unchanged (excluding God and any affirmation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel) or should Democrats insert these affirmations?  After the third vote, the Convention Chair confirmed he would insert these two affirmations into the Democratic Platform. The hall erupted in loud booing. Democrats clearly denied God on three occasions, after which the cock crowed and Democrats went back to sleep. They did not want God or Jerusalem into their platform.

It gets worse.

This issue of Jerusalem actually addressed important changes in the Democratic Platform between 2008 and 2012; it is important because the platform reflects the views of its principal proponent, Barack Hussein Obama. The following language, present in the 2008 platform, remains excluded from the 2012 platform.

“The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exit, and abides by past agreements. Sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient efforts and the personal commitment of the President of the United States. The creation of a Palestinian state through final status negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of the Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

Our question remains: are the American people justified placing their trust and confidence in the fidelity, integrity, honor, or ability of Barack Hussein Obama or the Democratic Party?

-Mustang Sends.

Can Obama Help?

Let us suppose for a moment that you happened to be someone who had never owned a home.  And you happen to be black.  It isn’t quite fair, you know.  White people own homes, so why can’t blacks?  This is exactly the question attorney Barack Obama asked himself some time back in his communist, uh … community-organizing days.  So he riled up a bunch of disenfranchised poor people, 99.99% of whom were black, and they sued Citibank for —oh, I don’t know, maybe loan discrimination.  And then a miraculous thing happened: Obama won his lawsuit, forcing Citibank to offer mortgage loans to 186 black American families.  What a wonderful story.  It almost brings a tear to my eyes.

Almost.

The problem, you see, is that of the 186 families who received mortgage loans they couldn’t afford, only 19 black families still own their homes.  Citibank foreclosed on the rest of those homes.  It is perfectly understandable, of course.  You see, what happens when people lie on their financial statements, when they obfuscate facts, they qualify for homes they cannot afford.  And sneaky pond scum who call themselves communist, uh … community organizers have them sign loan agreements that start off with monthly house payments of around $1,000 a month, which almost anyone can afford.  But then, within eight or so years, those house payments balloon to at or above $3,000 a month, which hardly anyone can afford.  Add to that all the luxuries every family likes to have, diminished cost of living, and staid salaries.  And let's be honest, not every family makes wise financial decisions.

Also, factor in Barack Hussein Obama's unemployment program which disproportionately hurts black workers of all ages [Source].

And this brings us to three essential questions.  First, has Barack Obama’s communist, uh … community organizing efforts helped, or hurt the black community?  Second, given the fact that almost no one can afford Barack Hussein Obama “help,” why are black Americans still lining up behind this lying dirt bag?  Finally, why isn’t Barack Hussein Obama in jail, along with Chris Dodd and Barney Frank?  Okay, I admit that last question is rhetorical.

But yes, those liberals sure do love their black folks.

[Source]

--Mustang Sends

Our Pal China?

Most Favored Nation (also known as Permanent Normal Trade Relations) status was accorded to China in 1980, renewed annually by presidential order until 1989, when China decided to run over dissidents with tanks in Tiananmen Square. Public Law accorded China PNTR status, signed in to law by President Clinton in December 2000. This paved the way for China’s accession to the World Trade Organization and, ostensibly, granted US agricultural exporter’s access to Chinese markets.

Now the Washington Post is telling us, POSING AS TOYMAKER, CHINESE MERCHANT ALLEGEDLY SOUGHT U.S. TECHNOLOGY FOR IRAN.

The article tells us, “The Chinese toy maker said he was seeking parts for a “magic horse,” a metal-framed playground pony. But the exotic, wildly expensive raw material he wanted seemed better suited for space travel than backyard play. His shopping list, sent by e-mail to a Seattle factory, started with 20 tons of maraging steel, an ultra-strong alloy often used in rockets. The buyer didn’t flinch at the price tag —$2 million— but he repeatedly insisted on secrecy. ‘This material,’ an associate confided in an e-mail, ‘are danger [sic] goods.”’

If Chinese firms are willing accomplices to Iranian agents, it is not without the knowledge or consent of the People’s Republic of China. Let’s be grown up about this, however. We should expect China to pursue its national interests, which apparently includes helping Iran to obtain American technology to use against Israel and (presumably) the United States. I seem to recall the Chinese —several of whom were associates of Bill Clinton and Al Gore— attempted to influence American elections in 1996, and according to the Congressional Research Service, actually acquired US nuclear weapons technology in 1999.

No, we get it. What we don’t understand is why China continues to warrant PNTR status. Are we that desperate to sell cucumbers to China? It sort of makes one wonder whose side our elected officials is on …

—Mustang Sends

Z:  just to throw in a thought...we need a president again who commands respect for our country...........not one who makes us look like DUPES.  Great post, Mustang.

geeez

Gridlock...........

About gridlock …

According to a recent poll, most Americans want the Senate bi-partisan debt reduction committee to focus on economic solutions rather than maintaining hard line ideological bickering.

What does this mean, exactly? 

For one thing, it suggests that the socialist brainwashing of the American people has been a very successful project.  Who decides what’s best for the country?  If you happen to support communist ideology, then the answer is one or all of the following: Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hairy Reid, Barney Frank, or Chris Dodd —but what about the rest of us?

There are no simplistic solutions to complex issues, but brain-dead Americans prefer the simple, expedient, and self-gratifying.  It is the perfect solution for their responsibility-avoidance system: spend, spend, spend —my grandchildren can pay for it.  They much prefer political fairy tales that begin with “My fellow Americans,” and end with “… and everyone lived happily ever after.”

It also means that brain-dead Americans will once more expect conservatives to move a few more paces to the left —you know, for the good of the Nation.  The problem is that conservatives have been moving left for far too long; the lines between capitalism and communism have become blurred —and this is why we are facing the devastating problems we see today.

Meanwhile, leftist media continues to shill for the communists by making sure public opinion stands in opposition to conservative principles —hawking, as they do, that the GOP are terrorists, or the Tea Party represents extremism, racism, etc..  Not once will these noddy Americans ask themselves, “What is so wrong with a balanced budget amendment?  What’s so wrong with less government?”

Why does no one expect the damn communists to give up their Marxist-Leninist principles?  In this war of ideas, conservatives must initiate a more robust public relations campaign to inform and educate the pathetically under-educated population about our time-honored values.  If we intend to win this war of ideas, then conservatives must demonstrate that conservative principles remain relevant.  If properly informed, most Americans will find they do agree with the principles that make America exceptional......................

MUSTANG SENDS

Thanks, Mustang.......we can only hope.

z 

Congressional budget Crisis...............Under my proud new feature: Mustang Sends

Mustang wrote this for geeeZ readers:   So, agree or disagree?  It's quite a piece:

Our problem in understanding the real economic situation is that we do not know what politicians mean when they suggest curtailing “entitlement spending.”  For example, do politicians refer to the billions of dollars spent on housing for illegal immigrants, and the homeless, or do they simply mean cutting back on the social security pension annuity forced on American workers since 1935?  Do they refer to the billions paid out in unemployment insurance?  Do they suggest curtailing Medicare, another mandatory program forced on the American people?  Do they refer to the grants offered to states to supplement their individual Medicaid programs, including medical programs for indigent children?  Do they want to stop making billions of dollars in SSI payments to illegal aliens?  Do they want to rescind Obama-Care?

No, that isn’t what Obama and other politicians want at all.  Obama wants to tax “the richest” Americans so that he can spend even more money on give-away programs.  It appears as if Obama is wearing down the American people, who honestly … aren’t that bright to begin with.  Obama has no plan for dealing with exorbitant spending, but remains popular among 47% of registered voters.  What is wrong with this picture?

Before continuing, let’s look at the time tested Democratic plan of action: Never let a crisis go to waste —even one we created ourselves.

The language used by the mainstream media doesn’t help.  Sorry, state-run media: America is not standing on a fiscal precipice.  Maybe it would be a good thing for the government to go bankrupt.  You know, if government under George Bush had let GM and Chrysler go into bankruptcy, they’d be back on track right now and rehiring.  Instead, Bush/Obama flushed a ton of our money down the sewer.  We find it amazing that this ineptitude gives confidence to 47% of registered voters.  Have we forgotten that we learn valuable lessons from our failures?  The failure in this case is our collective stupidity electing unqualified persons to the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives.

Speaker Boehner’s plan is a disgraceful sham.  It does cut $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending, but the problem is that there is no guarantee that Congress will cut that spending.  As to the actual spending reductions, they only offer modest reductions in publicly held debt and do nothing for reform of entitlement programs.  If the American people are going to continue to fund $250 million free-housing projects, which include free schools, free clinics, and free rent for illegal aliens, then we fail to understand how anyone is looking seriously at “entitlement” programs.

Alison Fraser (Heritage Foundation) tells us that neither Boehner nor Reid’s plan will pass Standard and Poor’s smell test, and in fact, the US government spending will increase over the next ten years … suggesting that neither Congress nor the White House are taking this issue seriously.  Realistically, why should they care if our interest payments will triple over the next ten years?  After all, it isn’t their money, so there is no reason for their concern if the holders of our debt increase interest rates.  Meanwhile, when Obama said “… every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable,” the American people smiled, and winked at one another.  All is well in River City; except, we aren’t talking about a little family credit card management problem, are we?  Aren’t we talking about $14.3 trillion in debt?  So get that stupid smile off your faces, America …

We should align ourselves with Americans who make the simple argument: forget all these idiotic and dishonest congressional plans.  Just stop spending money on things not mandated by the United States Constitution.  Naturally, those 47% of registered voters who continue to adore the communist in chief don’t quite understand all the fuss.  Not at all.

Thanks, Mustang, I'm proud to carry your work here at geeeZ and hope I can print more in the future.

z