President Obama is the only president to name a day after Chavez. So who exactly is Cesar Chavez and what is his “enduring legacy”?
Cesar Chavez became a protege of Saul Alinsky in the early 1950s when he was hired as a staff member to organize Mexican-American voter registration drives for Community Services Organization–Alinsky’s organization. Chavez learned first hand from Alinsky, theself-proclaimed “professional radical,” about the tactics of revolution and community organizing.
In 1962, Chavez left CSO to cultivate his own farm workers’ union. He spent years organizing farm workers across the state of California to engage in strikes against grape growers that lasted years at a time. In 1970, after nearly three years of grape strikes, 26 California Grape Growers caved into Chavez and signed three-year contracts with UFW.
Chavez was out of luck three years later when the Teamsters Union outbid Chavez and the UFW with lower costs and less hassle. Chavez organized a second grape strike despite the circumstances (significantly depleted staff and contract supply).
While Chavez previously managed to maintain a violence-free atmosphere (the most extreme tactic being a hunger strike), a spree of violence erupted between the UFW and the Teamsters that resulted in numerous clashes and the death of two UFW members.
Radicalism, violence, scare tactics, and bullying–that’s quite a legacy.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones, originally built for overseas military operations, to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones, government documents show.
The documents provide more details about the surveillance capabilities of the department’s unmanned Predator B drones, which are primarily used to patrol the United States’ northern and southern borders but have been pressed into service on behalf of a growing number of law enforcement agencies including the FBI, the Secret Service, the Texas Rangers, and local police.
Homeland Security’s specifications for its drones, built by San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, say they “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not,” meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify “signals interception” technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and “direction finding” technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.
The sequestration question du jour is why the Department of Homeland Security, busy releasing hundreds, if not thousands, of deportable and detained illegal aliens due to budget constraints, is buying several thousand Mine Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles?
And just who are they intended to be used against?
[…] The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of these MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the U.S. They were formerly used for counterinsurgency in Iraq.
These vehicles are specifically designed to resist mines and ambush attacks. They use bulletproof windows and are designed to withstand small-arms fire, including smaller-caliber rifles such as a .223 Remington. Does DHS expect a counterinsurgency here?
It is the extreme left (Occupy, Bill Ayers, ELF) that has been involved in bombings, riots, and other violent actions. Never ONCE has there been an arrest, destruction of property, or other violent action at a Tea Party. And yet WE are supposedly who they’re worried about?
In a puzzling, unexplained development, the Obama administration has been buying and storing vast amounts of ammunition in recent months, with the Department of Homeland Security just placing another order for an additional 21.6 million rounds.
Several other agencies of the federal government also began buying large quantities of bullets last year. The Social Security Administration, for instance, not normally considered on the frontlines of anything but dealing with seniors, explained that its purchase of millions of rounds was for special agents’ required quarterly weapons qualifications. They must be pretty poor shots.
But DHS has been silent about its need for numerous orders of bullets in the multiple millions. Indeed, Examiner writer Ryan Keller points out Janet Napolitano’s agency illegally redacted information from some ammunition solicitation forms following media inquiries.
According to one estimate, just since last spring DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm. That’s sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times. Including illegal immigrants.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but neither do I trust this administration not to abuse its power if Obama believes it is in his interest to do so. Americans should be aware and prepared to defend themselves.
TUCKER, Ga. – It’s no secret government schools have put President Obama on a pedestal unlike any other national leader.
Schools have been named after him long before his retirement or death, which is rather unprecedented. Students have been led in organized chants of his honored name. There are lesson plans comparing him to Abraham Lincoln.
But sometimes school employees take the rhetoric a bit too far and wind up in propaganda territory. The latest example comes from DeKalb County, Georgia.
Rosa sat…so Martin could walk.
Martin walked…so Obama could run.
Obama ran…so our children could fly.
[…] This deifying of Obama is unhealthy for our students because we’re teaching them to look to an individual – or government in general – for life solutions. If anything, today’s kids need to be reprogrammed to remember that they are the masters of their own destinies, and they themselves make the decisions that will ultimately determine the course of their lives.
As President John Adams said, we have “a government of laws, and not of men.” The unhealthy tendency to worship the people that temporarily fill government positions is a distraction for young people who should be focused on their own efforts to find their way in life.
This is the kind of crap you find in banana republics and third-world dictatorships. In America, we we do NOT revere our elected officials. We view them with scrutiny as the temporary public servants that they are.
Now more than ever, children need to be taught to hold their elected officials accountable, not worship them!
This is why liberals keep successfully advancing their agenda…because they NEVER stop agitating and campaigning. Unlike conservatives, who go back to living our daily lives until the next election, Leftists keep the pressure on ALL THE TIME. It’s the Chicago Brown Shirt way.
If we’re going to beat them for the long haul, we can’t afford to rest on our laurels between elections anymore. We have to stay in the fight year-round.
As President Barack Obama delivered the State of the Union address, activists involved in his new non-profit advocacy group, Organizing for Action, gathered in local meetings around the country to watch and cheer him on. The new 501(c)4 organization, which is an offshoot of his re-election campaign, aims to support the president’s policies and to project the power of the White House beyond Washington into local communities and media.
[…] Immediately after the speech ended, organizers turned the sound down on Sen. Marco Rubio’s response and set up a laptop to hear a special message from president Obama, who would be addressing Organizing for Action activists on a national conference call. After a few minutes, Obama’s voice came through the speakers, telling the activists that he would be asking for their help in pushing Congress to adopt his second-term agenda.
There was something slightly different in his tone of voice. This was not a head of state addressing a nation; this was a local community organizer talking to his volunteers–not over them, but at them. The contrast in style created a feeling of intimacy, which made listeners feel he was speaking personally to them. Not everyone was convinced; one woman told me she doubted he would be able to achieve all he had set out to do.
Regardless, the very fact that the evening happened the way it did was a success for the new organization. The Obama camp believes it is less important to convince people with words than to condition them with deeds. And the deeds are not that complicated. For all the talk about high-tech voter turnout programs, the methods Obama uses to win are decidedly old-school. He wins because Republicans don’t bother to do the same.
There’s another conference call this weekend, when former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Organizing for Action Executive Director Jon Carson will be giving their foot soldiers their marching orders for advancing Obama’s economic agenda.
Republicans, where is your ground game to defeat this onslaught?
In the address itself, President Obama made the case that liberty is not timeless; that it must adjust to the times, and that “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”–not to defend those freedoms from infringement, but to give them “meaning” through government regulation and redistribution.
“There’s a moment of opportunity now that’s important,” Pfeiffer said. “What’s frustrating is that we don’t have a political system or an opposition party worthy of the opportunity.”
Note the contempt in Pfeiffer’s words–not just for the political opposition, but for the political system itself–a system designed by the Framers to include checks and balances to hold government power firmly in check.
[…] A year ago, President Obama observed: “[I]t turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes.” Back then, facing re-election, he promised to be patient. Today, he is impatient–with the opposition, and the system itself. He will destroy both, if necessary, to achieve his vision of America–one where “government alone” does not do everything, but rather dictates to individuals what they should do, and choose, and want, to serve its sweeping designs.
Throughout most of human history, transfers of power involved the coronation of a king or emperor, who’s only claim to power was either his birth or the conquest of his rival, whose reign was for life, and whose subjects were at his complete mercy.
Two centuries ago, our founders gave us a radically different system, where leaders were chosen from among the people to be public servants who were held accountable by the people, where no man (regardless of position) was above the law, where power was limited to prevent its abuse, where God alone was our King, and where government was prevented from taking that dictatorial role in people’s lives.
It is an awesome privilege to be the beneficiary of such a gift, and yet it carries a heavy responsibility of civic duty to hold our government and public servants accountable when they overstep their legitimate, constitutional authority.
Today was a day of inauguration, not coronation. We respect the results of the election, but we also remember that the constitutional limits of government power and the rule of law that protects our liberties are NEVER up for a vote.
Today, it was not just a president who is being inaugurated, but also We The People, who must shoulder our responsibility to uphold and defend the constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. May we take that solemn charge faithfully and honorably, as our founders did.
Sounding the same themes of class warfare that propelled his re-election campaign, President Barack Obama devoted his second inaugural address to laying out his second term agenda: a struggle to undo the seeming injustices of America’s past, and to overcome the army of straw men that stand in opposition to progress.
In the process, President Obama attempted nothing less than an assault on the timeless notion of liberty itself:
Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.
But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.
After praising the “collective” and mocking the notion that America is a “nation of takers,” President Obama targeted the political opposition. He targeted those who “deny” climate change, attacked those who allegedly refused to reward the elderly for their contributions, and defied critics whom he said wanted “perpetual war.” He attacked the rich–as he has done so often over the past four years–and painted a caricature of an unjust nation: “…our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it….We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.”
President Obama’s address failed to deliver on promises earlier in the day by senior political adviser David Axelrod that the speech would sound themes of national unity on a day of national “consecration.” Instead, the president sounded combative themes familiar from his divisive first term, albeit wrapped occasionally in the lofty rhetoric of “hope” and “tolerance,” and punctuated by the repeated refrain: “We, the People.”
[…] Throughout his address, the President maintained his voice in a near-shout. This was not an historic address, a reflection on a moment in history; it was an exhortation to political action, in contrast to the political reality of a divided Washington, in defiance of the profound economic challenges still facing the American people.
It was a declaration of political war on individual liberty. It was a wasted opportunity–and a warning.
Obama spelled out his true agenda: destroying founding principles about limited government to meet changing times. While paying lip service to “our skepticism of central authority,” Obama said that times have changed, and “so must we”: “fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges … preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.” This was the sheerest form of rhetoric sophistry; equating freedom with government control is an perverse reversal of language. Of course, the Constitution was written based on the notion that human nature does not change – people are not angels, nor devils, but self-interested creatures capable of greatness or evil, who must be checked against each other. But Obama doesn’t believe that. He believes that man can be made anew.
But only by government. And so Obama demonized limited government as anarchism, suggesting that meeting “the demands of today’s world by acting alone” is like forcing American soldiers to meet “the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias” – a straw man argument so blatant it appeared Obama would wheel out Ray Bolger to present it. In pursuing his agenda, Obama made clear that he will ignore basic realities – “we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.” He made clear that he will create false histories – “we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.” He made clear that he will redefine taking and giving – those who wish to save their money for their families and children are “takers,” and those who wish to confiscate the wealth of others “strengthen us.”
In the end, Obama’s argument was a collectivist one. And it was an argument designed to irreparably tear this nation apart. Obama himself said it: “Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way …”
But this renders the Declaration of Independence Obama cited completely meaningless. The founders may have disagreed on many things, but they agreed on the meaning of liberty: the right to live as an individual, without centralized planning infringing basic property rights, economic opportunities, and religious freedoms. Obama’s fundamental redefinition of liberty to include communitarianism is not merely wrong, it spells the end of the political commonality that has held the fabric of the nation together. If we define liberty differently, then there is nothing to talk about: my liberty is your tyranny, and vice versa. Our goals can never be shared. That gap can never be bridged.
President Obama will remake his presidential campaign into a massive new movement devoted to supporting his agenda, an unprecedented move that creates a brand new political organization devoted not to a Party, not to an idea – but to one charismatic leader.
The group, to be called Organizing for Action, opens for business Sunday, the day Obama is officially inaugurated.
If this type of organization has existed before in American politics on any similar scale, I’m not aware of it.
There are excellent reasons why we haven’t had mass groups devoted to powerful leaders in this country. Our whole system of government is designed to provide checks to protect against the accretion of too much power, to forestall mob rule. A mass organization that does the bidding of a single individual who also happens to be the president of the United States undermines such intentions.
[…] OFA will be classified as a 501(c)4 group, which means donors can give it as much money as they want and none of the contributors’ names need be released. Never mind that Obama has ardently opposed this kind of thing for years.
Known during the campaign as Obama for America, the group includes the millions of people signed up to receive emails from the Obama campaign and thousands of activists ready to man phone banks, knock on doors, annoy their lawmakers and otherwise make things happen for the president.
The group was superbly well organized under campaign manager Jim Messina, who will maintain leadership. Senior Obama operatives like Robert Gibbs, David Plouffe, and Stephanie Cutter will sit on the board. The group will no doubt employ many of the leftist community organizing principles Obama learned years ago in Chicago.
This is the same group that bused in union thugs by the hundreds to try to intimidate Gov. Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin. Under a new name, Obama now officially has his own official brown shirt brigade.
Why would a teacher’s association want an unrepentant domestic terrorist – who participated in three bombings and regretted that he didn’t do more – as their keynote speaker regarding educating America’s youth? This is the equivalent of inviting Timothy McVey to speak.
Is THIS the kind of person they admire, who’s advice on molding young minds they want to follow? Just imagine what they’re teaching their students if they have such little discretion and no moral compass!
The Association of Teacher Educators has recruited Chicago professor – and former domestic terrorist – William Ayers to speak at their the 2013 Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia which will be held next month.
William Ayers, a co-founder of the radical Weather Underground domestic terror group, was a key figure during the 2008 presidential campaign due to his Chicago ties to then-Senator Obama.
The organization’s executive director, David Ritchey, confirmed that Ayers would be a keynote speaker at the conference although he admitted that he wasn’t involved in the selection process.
Ritchey added that although Ayers was a controversial figure he had been invited due to his “work in the education field, apart from all the other stuff.”
The website biography makes no specific mention of Ayers’ controversial background, describing him as the “formerly Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago.”
The only “work” Ayers does in education is indoctrinating students with his radical ideas and training others how to do the same. Although this teachers’ association won’t publicly condone his actions, they don’t condemn them either, and they clearly agree with his radical leftist ideas, or else they wouldn’t have invited him to share them.
It really chaps his hide that our system of checks and balances requires him to work with other branches (and gives them the power to stop him if he goes too far). What he wants is absolute power to do as he likes with no accountability. And sadly, our spineless congress is likely to give it to him.
President Obama on Monday warned congressional Republicans again that he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling, saying Washington must increase the limit to pay its bills and that such brinksmanship would be “absurd” and “irresponsible.”
“The issue here is whether Washington will pay its bills,” Obama said in the final press conference of his first term. “We are not a deadbeat nation.”
[…] The president used the press conference to attempt to frame the debt limit issue to the American public as one about the perils of not paying past debts – not about future spending.
“Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending,” he said. “These are bills that have already been racked up.”
Republicans leaders responded by saying the debit limit debate is connected to spending, suggesting another round of intense negotiations when Congress returns later this month.
“The American people do not support raising the debt ceiling without reducing government spending at the same time,” said House Speaker John Boehner. “The House will do its job and pass responsible legislation that controls spending, meets our nation’s obligations and keeps the government running, and we will insist that the Democratic majority in Washington do the same.”
As the Heritage Foundation points out, the idea that not raising the debt ceiling means that America will not be able to pay its bills is a straw man:
Default. The only way the federal government would default on its debt in the event the debt ceiling remains unchanged is for the Treasury to choose to default—an utterly implausible eventuality. Suggestions to the contrary in the press and elsewhere are simply inaccurate and shameful.
The amount of debt the federal government is allowed to issue is set by statute. Federal spending is similarly established by law. Treasury is at once prohibited by law from issuing additional debt above the limit and obligated by law to spend certain amounts for designated purposes. The Treasury has certain tools it can use to muddle through once the debt ceiling is reached, but these terms are limited and are expected to be exhausted toward the end of February.
If the federal government exhausted its financial management tools, then government spending would be limited to incoming receipts. At that point, the law setting a debt limit and the laws in place directing government spending would conflict—something would have to give.
The legal prohibition on selling additional debt because government borrowing has reached the statutory limit does not translate into an inability to spend (because tax money is still coming in). Thus, the consequences of reaching the debt limit are quite different from the consequences of a “government shutdown” as a result of the inability of Congress and the President to agree on spending.
Government Shutdown. This means certain governmental functions are suspended because the Treasury lacks the authority to spend, not because it lacks the means to spend. Further, a government shutdown applies primarily to those activities funded by what is called “discretionary” spending, essentially the day-to-day operations of the government, as opposed to entitlement spending such as Social Security and Medicare.
Very simply, reaching the debt limit means spending is limited by revenue arriving at the Treasury and is guided by prioritization among the government’s obligations. How the government would decide to meet these obligations under the circumstances is a matter of some conjecture. Certainly, vast inflows of federal tax receipts—inflows that far exceed amounts needed to pay monthly interest costs on debt—would continue. Thus, the government would never be forced to default on its debt because of a lack of income.
Speaking Jan. 1 at the White House at 11:20 p.m., less than an hour after the House voted 257 to 167 to approve new tax hikes, President Barack Obama announced that he will assert the authority to raise the debt ceiling for spending approved by Congress.
“One last point I want to make,” said the president flanked by Vice-President Joseph R. Biden Jr., whose Capitol Hill summitry closed the deal on a “fiscal cliff” compromise. “I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills, they have already racked up through the laws they have passed.
It reads: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned…
This is the second time the administration has wielded the debt ceiling as a hammer against the Republicans in Congress.
[…] The president was direct. Either Congress raises the debt ceiling or he will go ahead and borrow the money to pay the bills on his own in order to avoid damage to the U.S. and world economies.
Last I checked, the co-equal branches of government are not required to obey one another’s commands. In fact, they are there to hold one another in check. Congress is under NO obligation to give the president the money he demands. But they are too spineless to hold him accountable for his unconstitutional power grabs and blatant disregard for the separation of powers.
An honorable congress would impeach him and throw him out the door for his flagrant assault on the constitution and grabs for dictatorial powers. Sadly, we don’t have an honorable congress.
Just days after Piers Morgan claimed that both the Bible and the Constitution are “inherently flawed” and need to be amended, a Georgetown Constitutional Law professor published a piece in the New York Times that called for abolishing the “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil” US Constitution altogether:
Georgetown Law professor Louis Michael Seidman writes that the time has come to scrap the Constitution.
In an op-ed published in the New York Times Monday, Seidman, a constitutional law professor, claimed that the nation’s foundational document is the real impediment to progress and solutions to America’s troubles.
“As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken,” Seidman wrote. “But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”
According to Seidman, the country’s insistence that it maintain the will of a centuries-old document “has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public.”
Seidman calls the Constitution “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil.” He’s wrong, but at least he expresses his contempt for the rule of law openly and honestly, instead of insulting our intelligence with insincere twaddle about a “living document.”
[…] Seidman exercises his constitutional right to miss the point when he blames the fiscal cliff on the fact that revenue bills must originate in the House, or a “grotesquely malapportioned Senate.” But those are the Constitution’s procedural restraints, the equivalent of Robert’s Rules of Order. We got into this mess precisely by flouting its substantive limits on federal power.
Put simply, if the federal government only spent money on its constitutionally enumerated functions, there would be no fiscal cliff. No $1 trillion deficit. No $16 trillion national debt. No $84 trillion in unfunded liabilities for the major entitlement programs and other federal commitments.
It is the constitutional disobedience our man at Georgetown advocates that has the country perpetually on the precipice of financial ruin. He is merely complaining about a too-slow process of dividing up the spoils.
What they’re really advocating here is a revolution to overthrow the United States as a constitutional republic, so they can replace it with a Socialist Oligarchy disguised as a Democracy. At least they’re now finally being honest about it.
Last night, all the major television networks chose not to show footage of violent union members in Michigan tearing down a tent owned by Americans for Prosperity, or footage of a union member punching Fox News contributor Steven Crowder in the face repeatedly. This is no surprise; the mainstream media is unconcerned with reports of union violence, which they apparently feel is justified enough not to warrant coverage.
“The pro-union broadcast networks are deliberately censoring footage of thuggish union violence directed at conservatives,” said Media Research President Brent Bozell. “If a Tea Partier had physically assaulted a liberal journalist or ripped down a structure occupied by a liberal organization all on video, the footage would be broadcast on an endless loop. ABC, CBS, and NBC have a responsibility to the American people to expose what’s really happening in Michigan. Their double standard is absolutely outrageous.”
White House spokesman Jay Carney declined to condemn the increasing violence and threats by union members in Michigan, merely telling reporters Tuesday that “the president believes in debate that’s civil.”
When asked by a reporter about a claim by Michigan state Democrat that “there will be blood” should Republicans pass a union-choice law in Michigan, Carney professed ignorance and then downplayed the comment.
“I haven’t see those comments, and I’m not sure they mean what someone interprets them to mean,” he said.
The union violence, which included at least one televised assault on a journalist, followed an Obama rally in Michigan Dec. 10, when he declared that right-to-work laws are a political effort to slash wages.
Obama’s Dec. 10 speech did not call for civil debate, or non-violence.
Of course the media is ignoring leftist violence, because it doesn’t fit their narrative that the left is “tolerant” and it’s those “right wing extremist” Tea Partiers you supposedly have to worry about.
Following the announcement of Obama’s reelection, Communist Party USA (CPUSA) chairman Sam Webb wrote an article in the CPUSA’s official newspaper, People’s World, expressing his contentment with the election results.
“After a long and bitterly contested battle, the forces of inclusive democracy came out on top yesterday,” Webb said. “The better angels of the American people spread their wings, as they went to the polls.”
Webb went on to reaffirm that the election results were in the CPUSA’s favor:
The Communist Party said a year ago that the 2012 elections would be the main front of the class and democratic struggle, and subsequent events have confirmed that fact. Indeed, we argued … that defeating right wing extremism was the key to moving the whole chain of democratic struggle forward in the coming period.
The key motivating factor behind the CPUSA’s support of reelecting Obama and empowering the Democratic Party under his leadership was to prevent a “victory by right-wing extremism,” according to Webb. “Had Romney won the Presidency and the Republicans the Congress, it would have accelerated to warp drive a capitalist class counterrevolution — a reversal of seventy years of social progress.”
Between President Obama and Governor Romney, the Communist Party clearly had a preference and it won on election day.