Obama fires AmeriCorps inspector general

Gerald Walpin was given an ultimatum to resign or be fired as the AmeriCorp I.G., tasked to ensure organizations receiving federal grants aren't misusing the funds. It appears that Walpin is let go because of his investigation into St. Hope, founded by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson and a top Obama supporter.

Walpin was doing his job, but somebody in the W.H. isn't happy about him digging into Johnson's papers. Definitely dirty politics in play. Welcome to Washington, Chicago style...

Universal health care as a weapon

In America power is supposed to belong to the people as the Founding Fathers intended. The three branches of government check and balance each other. Citizens elect government officials regularly. People are given the freedom to pursue their dreams, whatever those may be.

Our Founding Fathers realized the perils of too much government, and that's starting to show its ugly head with this administration...

The economy is certainly a critical aspect of our well-being and the nation's viability. The government should be involved in minimizing the adverse impact of a recession, but the Obama administration has definitely gone too far by pushing for TARP legislation without proper scrutiny, seizing control of major financial institutions, and taking over major corporations like General Motors. The White House now dictates who banks can lend money to and how much, and who becomes CEO and who sits on the board of directors.

This means American people can't get a loan to buy a house, car, or business without government approval. The other way to think about this: The government can now dictate how big of house you live in, what type of car you drive, and what type of business you operate. It's that simple! Don't be surprised when you receive notice about your house not meeting environmental standards, or your car putting out too much carbon, or your business deemed too controversial for the community.

And consider the fact that the administration is now pushing hard for a universal health care system. Yes, imagine the government in charge of your health. Imagine doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and various hospital staff absorbed as federal employees. If you think going through the airport is bad with TSA's "efficiency," wait until you need to make a trip to the clinic! But okay, you can live with some inconveniences and inefficiencies...

But what worries me greatly is the issue of privacy.

Today our medical history and data is shared by you and the doctor, and anyone you designate. Our medical privacy is protected by law. But what happens when universal health care is implemented? Your health record is shared by you and... the government! Yes, President Obama and his friends will know if you have an urinary infection or AIDS.

If you were a celebrity or politician, that's the information tabloids would pay money for to splash across the cover. That's also the information some politicians could use against their opponents or worse yet, ordinary citizens. All in the hands of the government.

Acting like school children

President Obama and the First Lady declined dinner with the French First Family even though they're staying at the nearby U.S. Ambassador's residence. The Obamas are there to attend tomorrow's D-Day ceremony at the U.S. cemetery above Omaha Beach. It's no secret that Obama and Sarkozy aren't close buddies as both have publicly and privately criticized each other. But to decline a host president's dinner invitation when you're literally staying next door... that's truly immature and ungracious, not to mention unstatemanlike.

And sadly it's not just with the French. America's relations with Germany is also rocky.

But President Obama sure took his time in Egypt, didn't he?

W.H. has so many czars that it's starting to feel like an empire

Cyber czar. Car czar. Energy czar. Drug czar, etc. And now even a pay (as in compensation) czar?! The Obama administration will name Kenneth Feinberg to the new post for the Treasury Department.

Welcome to the United States of Czars.

Obama's come-to-Allah speech

In another effort to reach out to the Muslim world, President Obama landed in Cairo, Egypt to give a speech at Cairo University. I applaud this effort as nobody can deny the tension between Islam and the West, especially after the 9/11 attacks and the Madrid and London terrorist bombings. However, I think he's preaching to the choir and although the speech is well delivered and well received, I'm sure the Islamist terrorists remain bent on destroying the West and Israel.

Seriously, the Muslims in the audience have absolutely no influence on the terrorists. How do you get a terrorist to listen to you? Certainly not through a well written speech. You get a terrorist's attention by hunting one down, lock him up, and maybe with the help of an "enhanced interrogation technique."

The New York Post makes an interesting point:

But if world peace is attained by complimenting those on the other side into submission, he made some serious progress.

Obama really buttered them up in Cairo.

He thanked them for everything from algebra to the pen, though he curiously failed to mention that they often throw people in prison for using it.

Exactly. Even though President Obama offers such praise of the Muslim world:

...share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

How come the news coming from the Muslim world are often those of gender discrimination, honor killings, and suppression of free speech? If the religion of Islam indeed share those common principles, then clearly many Muslim governments are not putting those into practice. And it is profoundly unfortunate that the West sees this dark side of Islam, but then where are the Muslim critics of his or her own unjust leaders and governments? Rarely do we hear a Muslim criticize those who pervert his or her religion.

And about Israel:

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

I did notice that there's no "(Applause)" after this part of the speech, whereas when he talked about the plight of the Palestinians, the audience clapped. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? However, I'm glad he did talk about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism as a warning to Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Yet it's clear that some Israelis see their relation with America souring -- there's currently an anti-Obama campaign that is gathering steam.

President Obama needs to be clear to the world: Israel will always be a close friend. That region is so hostile and unstable that when Israel's enemies sniff a weakened U.S.-Israeli tie, they will definitely take advantage. We must remain at Israel's side. Always.

Overall the President gave a great speech being the talented orator that he is. But parts of the speech did sound like he was talking to the American people on domestic issues rather than to an audience in Egypt. His effort is appreciated and an improved relationship with Muslims benefits everyone.

Obama's Muslim roots

Jake Tapper of ABC News reveals something most conservatives have known all along: "The emergence of President Obama's Muslim roots."

During the presidential campaign, Obama's aides would raise hell if anyone questioned the candidate's Christian belief. All efforts were made to suppress mentioning of his clearly Muslim middle name, Hussein. They tried not to bring up his Muslim father and his Muslim schooling in Indonesia.

Then after he became President, we witnessed him greet the Saudi king with a bow. One of his first speeches was to reach out to the Muslim world. His foreign policy clearly disfavors our traditional ally, Israel.

There is a definite pattern which begs the question: What else can we expect from our president in his open arms to the Muslim world?

Obama affirms Iran's nuke ambition

"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations."

Those are President Obama's words in a BBC interview about Tehran's nuclear developments.

But according to official government data from 2006, Iran's energy consumption consists mainly of natural gas and oil. The country also ranks top three in terms of natural gas and oil reserves.

So what is the President referring to? Why is President Obama so soft on Iran?

There are many reasons to keep Tehran in check:

• President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel, a longtime and important American ally in the Middle East.
• The nation has close ties with other anti-American nations such as Cuba and Venezuela, two countries right in our backyard.
• Blatant disregard for human rights -- religious persecution, abuse of women and children, and lack of freedom of expression.

Is this really a country we want to see to become a nuclear power?

A young amateur handles General Motor's disassembly

According to the NYT, it's 31-year-old Brian Deese that's handling the break up of General Motors, turning it into "Government Motors." And how is he qualified? Let's just say he can compete with President Obama for who has the thinner resume. From the NYT piece:

...Brian Deese, a not-quite graduate of Yale Law School who had never set foot in an automotive assembly plant until he took on his nearly unseen role in remaking the American automotive industry.

I feel a little bad for ousted CEO Rick Wagoner, who's received a B.A. in Economics from Duke University and an MBA from Havard, and has worked at G.M. for many years. Here comes Mr. Deese, not having his Yale diploma even and zero experience in the auto industry, but thanks to his work at the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, he now gets to decide what happens to this iconic American company.

Merely a "special assistant to the president for economic policy," he makes rounds to the Treasury to discuss and influence decision makers about the American auto industry, and even the NYT raises a point about his lack of training and experience:

Mr. Deese’s role is unusual for someone who is neither a formally trained economist nor a business school graduate, and who never spent much time flipping through the endless studies about the future of the American and Japanese auto industries.

So what does this say about the Obama administration and its handling of the trouble auto industry? Does it really have the people's interest in mind when it allows an industry amateur to influence policy?

Is there really a Dealergate?

It's now been dubbed "Dealergate" -- Chrysler's closing of dealerships seem to have a twist of political lime in it. Did Obama's Auto Task Force target Republican donors in deciding these closings? Blogger Doug Ross has some statistical insight into the whole matter:

All other factors being equal, what are the odds that RLJ's dealerships would remain open while all other area dealerships would be shuttered? The approximate odds of such an occurrence can be calculated. 789 of the Chrysler's dealerships are closing, which represents 25% of the total (according to MSNBC).

Recall that Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included "sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area."

Thus, the odds that any, randomly selected, single dealership would remain open is roughly 75%. The odds that a single dealership would close is roughly 25%.

In the Bentonville, AR territory, the odds that RLJ would remain while its competition gets axed is .75 * .25 * .25 = .046875 (4.6%).

In Huntsville, AL, the odds are .75 * .25 * .25 = .046875.

In Branson, MO, .75 * .25 *.25 *.25 = .01171875.

In Lee's Summit, MO, .75 * .25 *.25 *.25 *.25 = .0029296875.

In Shreveport, LA, .75 * .25 *.75 = .140625.

What are the odds of all of these RLJ dealerships remaining open while their competitors are wiped out? Maybe 1/10,000,000 of 1%. Yes, that's one ten-millionth of one percent.

Is there really an "enemies list" or are Chrysler dealership owners more Republican-leaning anyway as some liberal bloggers have argued?

Let's just say this: for this administration, do not be surprised if such a list exists.

If President Obama and his administration can oust CEOs of major corporations, what's to stop them from targeting specific groups like car dealership owners?

The investigative bloggers are to be applauded for their efforts in researching this possible abuse of government powers. Once again, the mainstread media has fallen behind in uncovering real news.

Ambassadorships: no change to believe in

President Obama claims to be an agent of change in Washington, but there's yet to be evidence to support his campaign message. Looking at his ambassador appointments, it's the same ol' story of pay-to-play. Here are some top Obama campaign donors getting top foreign posts:

Susman is a former vice chairman of corporate and investment banking at Citigroup. He was finance chairman for John Kerry’s 2004 Democratic presidential campaign and raised money for the presidential runs of Senators Edward Kennedy and Bill Bradley.

Besides Susman, those nominated on May 27 include:

-- John Roos, chief executive officer of the Palo Alto, California-based law firm Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, to Japan. He raised more than $500,000 for Obama.

-- Charles Rivkin, chief executive officer of Wildbrain Inc., to France. Rivkin collected more than $500,000 for Obama’s campaign and $300,000 for his inauguration.

-- Laurie Fulton, a partner with Williams & Connolly LLP, to Denmark. Fulton, 59, raised $100,000 to $200,000.

Where's the change we can believe in? Obama is still a regular politician rewarding those who's helped pay to send him to the Oval Office.

For Supreme Court pick, Obama chooses minority over quality

It's no surprise that President Obama would pick a Latina to be the next Supreme Court Justice. After all, it would re-affirm his commitment to fill more positions with minorities. But is Sonia Sotomayor the right choice as a Justice in our highest court? Is the President blinded by his desire to "diversify" the Supreme Court with a nomination of an unqualified person?

Although New York Senators Charles Shumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both Democrats, highly recommended Sotomayor in a letter to President Obama in April 2009, her experience and qualification warrant closer scrutiny. In particular, her six out of seven cases were reviewed and reversed by the Supreme Court. I wouldn't call that the result of an exemplary legal mind?

Republicans are preparing for a challenge to the nomination, but some have cautioned that grilling her in the Senate confirmation hearing would alienate even more Hispanic voters. The GOP should start focusing on getting conservative Hispanics on board to spread the opposition message. After all, the President's message is clear: He wants to place an activist judge in the Supreme Court. And it's a danger when a Justice would disrespect the Constitution for personal agenda.

The strategy should be pro-state rights

The Republicans lost badly in the 2004 and 2008 elections, handing the Democrats control of Congress and the White House. The likes of Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) dictate the legislative agenda, and a president with socialist ideology sits in the Oval Office. There was much soul searching post-elections, and even to this day some say that the Republican Party is still wandering the wilderness.

Blame Bush? Blame the media? Blame Sarah Palin? Blame disillusioned conservatives? Blame black voters? Blame young voters? Blame ACORN? Blame Iraq? ...

There's plenty of blame go go around. But as the saying goes, whenever you point a finger at somebody, three fingers are pointing at yourself.

Republican political strategists are pulling their hairs out trying to find the solution to a hard-to-define problem. Is it attracting more voters across all demographics? Or is it galvanizing the base? Or re-evaluating the overall Republican message? Or all of the above and then some...?

In light of President Obama's multi-trillion dollar budget, nationalization policies, and bankrupting America, concerned citizens have spoken out on the Internet and at Tax Day Tea Parties. Although the mainstream media paints a picture of a rightwing, conservative only movement, that is not the case. Many Obama voters are showing remorse, but you're not going to see that on CNN or MSNBC. There has been many cases of such past Obama supporters calling into conservative talk shows voicing their regret for casting a ballot for Obama.

This is not about anti-Bush and pro-Obama anymore. As our financial and automobile industries crumble in front of our eyes and our neighbors lose their jobs and homes, Americans understand that we are in a time of crisis. The majority of citizens are looking for help, not handouts, but the federal government is forcing handouts down our throats whether we like it or not. The W.H. and Congress is sending money to states with strings attached, enslaving the cash-strapped states. Bank and automaker executives are getting handpicked by the administration. Favors are still shown to stubborn unions in the midst of the turmoil.

The root cause of this unprecedented expansion of the federal government is clear: the blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution by shameless politicians.

Therefore, there is a simple and coherent message the Republican Party can adopt: state rights. Review the Tenth Amendment again and study it carefully:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Washington today has lost sight of this important amendment to secure federalism principles. Congress has morphed into an unsightly assembly of ignorant, power-hungry politicians with only one thing in their minds: votes for re-election to stay in power. Laws are drafted and passed without respect to the Constitution. Think about it -- the federal government now has control over our labor, wages, retirement, education, drugs, firearms, and even entertainment!

But there seems to be hope and the tides are turning, beginning with Montana's law exempting federal jurisdiction over firearms manufactured and used within the state stamped with "Made In Montana." The law stipulates that because these firearms never leave Montana, it is not interstate commerce by nature and therefore free of federal rules. Certainly a logical and valid point, but it's sure to be tested in court. Montana has definitely made a splash about state rights, and other states like Texas, Alaska, and Utah are following suit.

Can you imagine if all 50 state legislatures pass a similar law? That would significantly limit the federal government's control of our right to bear arms and send a strong message to Washington that people are serious about the federal government meddling in their affairs.

The consequences will have profound effects and the potential to redefine the political landscape. State rights is a cause worthy of the Republican Party's attention. After all, to paraphrase President Reagan, government is the problem not the solution. The only solution is for the states to reign in Washington.

It is a concise message that people will understand. The federal government's powers are derived by the state and its people, not the other way around! Without the states there is no United States government. The Republicans need to work with all state legislatures to find kinks in this federal armor. Any Republican up for re-election needs to campaign on the message of state rights. Most voters only go to the polls once every four years to pick a president and don't quite understand how Washington works, but state politics hit closer to home and are easier to identify with. It is also a strategy that'll attract independent voters: let the state decide on the major issues instead of relying on Washington.

Will the Republicans embrace such a game plan? Is the party leadership still struggling to find footing? The great state of Montana and its people have already stepped up to face the challenge. The GOP should mobilize its resources to get more traction and preferably make a noise that the Obama administration and Congress cannot ignore.

California gets a dose of W.H. strong-arm politics

What the federal government gives, it can also take away. The state of California is learning this the hard way as the Obama administration threatens to rescind stimulus funds if the California state government doesn't restore wage cuts to the unionized home health care workers.

Two things at play here: the intimate relationships between unions and Democrats and the White House's disregard for a state.

The unions in questions are the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and United Domestic Workers (not in the motherly sense). In fact, it was the SEIU which went to the W.H. to ask for a ruling on this matter.

This also shows the administration's disregard for a state. The wage cut is a necessary step in keeping California afloat as it's operating on IOUs already. These health care workers aren't the only ones affected by wage cuts. The state legislature passed a state law but looks like the W.H. has a problem with that. Does the administration truly have the state's interest in mind?

States which have accepted the stimulus money should take note. This money comes with strings attached -- many which aren't to the states' benefit. Be warned.

ACORN is clearly a nut

Can you believe that our President used to be a legal representative for ACORN? This is the taxpayer-funded organization with a mission to register low-income voters, but in reality many of its employees have been indicted and charged with voter registration fraud. The latest is from Neveda where the state charged ACORN workers for submitting false voter information and employing felons as canvassers. Worse yet, ACORN illegally offered an incentive program for canvassers who brought in more than 20 registrations per day.

Fox News show host Glenn Beck invited ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson to defend these charges against ACORN, but as Beck laid out the facts in front of the guest, Levenson couldn't offer any convincing defense that ACORN doesn't have a liberal agenda. And evidently during a commercial break, Levenson resorted to accuse Beck of racism and that was when he was shown the door out to the studio parking lot.

What angers me is that my tax dollars are funding this organization of leftist nuts! They are anti-America, lawless, and arrogant. And now they're partners with the Census Bureau to assist with the 2010 census effort?! An organization with a history of fradulent activities and rogue employees will play a role in helping the federal government... No, thank you! Something's wrong with this picture.

It boggles the mind that an organization with so much dirt can still get government funding and participate in a nationwide government census effort.

Israel knows it's on its own

The Obama administration is bent on the success of Palestinian statehood that it's alienating long-time ally Israel. The country faces the greatest threat from a nuclear Iran and the new Israeli government knows that America may not offer support to pre-emptively strike Iran. Rather than ask for permission from Washington, Israel will just keep us posted on the military operation should there be one.

And who can blame them? Israel has to do what's best for its people, even if that means ignoring what's going on in Washington. They need our support, and a strong Israel only helps America in its footing for a peaceful Middle East.

White House policy endangers ally Israel

The Obama administration is using peace talks with Palestinians as a bargaining chip to support Israel's efforts in preventing Iran's nuclear ambitions.

I can already hear what an Israeli may think: With a friend like Obama, who needs enemies?

Is this really the way to treat one of America's staunchest allies? The Jewish state is encircled by hostile neighbors, having the military capability to dominate the region but only uses force in self-defense and retaliation, and has shown kindness to Palestinians that's seldom reported. The leader of Iran has repeatedly issued threats to Israel, and now turned Iran into a nuclear power right in Israel's backyard. Yet the message from Washington is disturbingly clear: Sit at the table with Palestinian leadership or we'll cover our eyes and ears when it comes to Iran's nukes.

The White House is playing with Israeli lives. We need a strong friend in the Middle East, and Israel is the only candidate. Honestly, we need Israel more than it needs America. Just look at Israel's history. It has survived several wars and armed conflicts, yet it still stands. Seriously, it can do just fine without America.

But does President Obama realize it? Losing the faith and support of Israel will prove to be detrimental to America in the long term.

Curbing use of offshore havens solves nothing

In recent years more American businesses and wealthy individuals have moved their money into offshore havens and foreign banks to escape the tax consequences at home. The Obama administration sees this as a big problem -- possibly more of a "fairness" issue rather than a tax issue -- and will soon release extensive plans to curb such tax avoidance practices.

The White House clearly understands this phenomenon of an outward flow of American dollars from multinational corporations and wealthy people. But instead of understanding the root cause, it chooses to punish further this legal albeit unpopular way of keeping money by avoiding to pay American taxes.

The U.S. tax code is several inches thick and not even our Treasury Secretary can explain it. (He's not known as "Tax Cheat Timothy" for nothing.) There will always be a way to find a loophole no matter how the code is patched up. These corporations and individuals have the means to hire a team of accountants and lawyers to find a way. Trust me.

So American businesses and folks want to keep more money in their bank accounts, but the IRS takes too much. The solution? CUT TAXES! DUH. It's not to make new laws to prevent tax havens and spend money enforcing them. It's that easy. So easy that I bet the liberal Democrats in the W.H. and Congress don't even see it.

What will the President's plan accomplish? Will it raise more money for the country? Not quite. History has shown that such a plan will have a reverse effect on increasing the treasury. Only when taxes are cut there has been significant fattening of the treasury's coffers. Additionally, more taxes means less work and less competitiveness. America's auto industry has already been decimated, what's next? Will tech giants like IBM and Cisco fall next? Or will it be G.E. and Coke?

It's unfortunate, but the President is in for an unpleasant surprise, a surprise that's well-known to anyone who's studied American economic history.

Al-Qaeda used webmail, simple codes

It's been revealed that al-Qaeda terrorists in the 9/11 attacks used no sophisticated hardware or software, and employed simple codes to communicate. They depended on pre-paid calling cards, public phones, webmail, and search engines to plan and execute attacks. These items and services are what everyday Americans use in their daily lives.

So just think about the administration's plans to shutdown Gitmo, relocate its prisoners, and the possibility that these terrorists may end up in the population with easy access to these services again.

With Obama in W.H. comes the Chicago way of strong-arm politics?

President Obama's Auto Industry Task Force is fighting off accusations of bullying the Chrysler shareholders and creditors into accepting the government's bankruptcy plan. In the center of the storm is Steve Rattner, the task force's leader with close ties to the Democratic Party. According to Thomas Lauria, the bankruptcy attorney representing the hedge funds and money managers, the administration threatened to use the White House press corp to ruin his firm's reputation if he doesn't go along with the White House plan for the troubled automaker.

These are only allegations and who knows what the real story is. However, personally I will not be surprised if Lauria is telling the truth. Why? Because since Obama's campaign, he's made to be invincible with the help of the media. Once he got elected along with the House and Senate being Democrat-controlled, I'm sure he feels he is unstoppable. That's how this administration sees itself. Look at how the TARP bills were passed without proper scrutiny. Look at how the White House is picking CEOs to run companies. Look at how a tax cheat gets to become Treasury Secretary and shows no sign of grasping the economic crisis.

Remember, too much power always corrupts. Are we starting to see the beginning of abuse and misuse of the federal government?

Australia is losing faith in America

Australia, our longtime ally on the other side of the globe, is beefing up its defense forces in anticipation of a weakened America and strengthening regional powers like India, China, and Russia, on top of threats from North Korea and Islamist terrorism. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has released a report about Australia's national security issues in the coming decades and the need to reduce reliance on America.

Who can blame him? America seems to have lost something when President Bush left Washington to make way for President Obama. Look at how this President is solving the financial crisis: borrowing trillions of dollars from China. And national defense? Obama hasn't taken long to cut defense budgets and scrap military projects. All this amid China spending way too much on its military, achieving innovative milestones in weaponry and modernization of its forces, including a shadowy cyber command which has infiltrated computer networks of other governments. China also maintains close ties with rogue North Korea and Russia, and is becoming an economic and military threat to democratic neighbors like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, India, and Australia.

At least P.M. Rudd has the guts to face the problems and resolve to strengthen Australia. Meanwhile, our president prefers to go on the road to give speeches and do televised press conferences with feel-good scripts fed from the trusty (most of the time) telepromter.