I came to America longing for freedom and now I’m getting Obama’s ‘revolution’

I came to America longing for freedom and now I’m getting Obama’s ‘revolution’

Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972. His columns are today read in both English and Russian. To learn more about Mr. Navrozov’s work with the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, click here.

By way of propaganda, in the early 1970s, the “Soviet Union” permitted several thousand of its inhabemigrated (with my family) to the U.S.A. because this is the most powerful of the free countries and hence most capable of survival, defending freedom anywhere in the world.

As far as freedom in the United States is concerned, I am not disappointed. Since the day of my arrival, I have been writing and publishing what I have wanted to. But will the U.S.A. be able to survive and defend freedom anywhere in the world?

America achieved Independence as a result of the war with England. The latter stopped the war, since in the 18th century it was impossible to deliver enough timely supplies to the British army across the Atlantic during the war. Ironically, the Atlantic and the Pacific have defended the U.S.A. in the 19th and 20th centuries as well.

Canada is not independent-it is part of the Commonwealth of Nations. But it is as free as the United States.

I still remember my surprise when I saw the engravings and cartoons of America at the time of its struggle for independence, with this inscription in the middle of them: “The American Revolution”. So it was a revolution! Against a British autocracy? So Britain remains a pre-revolutionary autocracy!

Here is a text from the Britannica article about how a British official named Winston Churchill, who described Nazi Germany as a mortal danger without any compromise or reservation. Here is my Britannica article (vol. 5, 750):

On May 10, 1940, with the news of the German invasion of the Low Countries, [Neville] Chamberlain [the Prime Minister], resigned . . . Chamberlain advised the king to call Churchill to be prime minister.

Possibly, this appointment of Churchill influenced Hitler in his decision to switch his war from Western Europe to the invasion of Stalin’s Russia (he was routed and committed suicide).

In the U.S.A., the president is elected by a majority of all psychiatrically normal adults who want to vote for him. Thus, President Obama was elected possibly because those who favored his healthcare program constituted sufficiently many extra voters for him (while my neighbor called it scornfully “socialism”).

In any case, possibly none of those who voted for Obama and least of all Obama himself have spoken about the “People’s Republic of China” the way Churchill spoke about “National-Socialist Germany.”

So instead of the American Churchill of today to be in charge of the survival of the U.S.A., elected was a young man who called the U.S.A. a “partner” of the “People’s Republic of China,” which killed several times more people without any legal process than did Hitler’s “National-Socialist Germany.”

The expected Obama’s “revolution,” evidently to change the Constitution, possibly aims ultimately at absolutism inside the U.S.A. with him as the permanent dictator, subservient to the “People’s Republic of China.”

Here is another important fact in the survival of a country versus its non-survival or death:

I do not know of a single American who has heard of Chi Haotian, the Minister of National Defense of China up to 2003 (he is now 80 years old), who has read his explanations as to why China should annihilate the U.S.A. and lead the world before the U.S.A. tries (of which Chi was convinced) to annihilate the People’s Republic of China.

What about the U.S. universities, which produce more professors and other degreed graduates per one million inhabitants than the universities of any other country?

Way back in 1987, Allan Bloom, a “professor of social thought” of the University of Chicago, published a 392-page book entitled The Closing of the American Mind and subtitled How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students.

My question is: If this is what higher education in the U.S.A. has been doing, how is Allan Bloom or his books or his University of Chicago different and why?

Social thought or any other thought may be a thought of a person of genius or a cliché.

My uncle Yakov Mints used to publish in Russian and in French a magazine entitled Genius and Insanity. According to the studies in the magazine, no one except another genius can tell the difference between genius and insanity, since both may be equally beyond the understanding of anyone except another genius. Let us recall Einstein (1879-1955). Who understood his thought, when he expressed it, that there is no time in general, since every point of space has its own time?

It may also be relevant to note that it was Einstein who drew the attention of President Roosevelt in 1939 to the probability of the production of nuclear bombs by Nazi Germany.

What if Hitler was smart enough first to produce (secretly) atom bombs and then attack England, the U.S.A., and Russia. They would have surrendered as did Japan to the U.S.A. after the latter’s nuclear strike.

But how has Allan Bloom contributed to the “opening of the American mind” and has otherwise been the opposite of today’s American “higher education” he criticizes on the 392 pages of his book? Displayed on the first (unnumbered) front matter page are the titles of his own four books. The first book is Plato’s Republic (translation and editing), the second book is the translation and editing of Politics and the Arts: Rousseau’s Letter to d’Alembert; the third book is the translation and editing of Rousseau’s Emile, and the fourth, Shakespeare’s Politics. Is this not “academic education” at its most conventional, trite, and belated?

Predictably, I have on my shelves The Republic of Plato, translated by Francis Cornford (Trinity College, Cambridge), and published by the Oxford Universitiy Press in 1941, 1945, and 1973. So what should a reader like me do? To read Allan Bloom’s translation, as superior to Cornford’s? What if I found Plato’s book of little interest despite all the worship of him in Western “academic education” for many centuries?

Senator: Jamming through health care ‘a real mistake’

Posted: August 23rd, 2009 06:00 PM ET
Sen. Leiberman said Sunday that using a special budgetary move in the Seante to pass aspects of health care reform would be 'a real mistake.'

Sen. Leiberman said Sunday that using a special budgetary move in the Seante to pass aspects of health care reform would be ‘a real mistake.’

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Pushing a health-care reform package through Congress without significant Republican support would be “a real mistake” for President Barack Obama, Sen. Joseph Lieberman warned Sunday.

Lieberman, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, said trying to “jam through” a package “that the public is either opposed to, or of very, very passionate mixed minds about” would be bad “for the system.”

He added, “Frankly, it won’t be good for the Obama presidency.”

“He has got other fights to fight,” the senator from Connecticut told CNN’s “State of the Union,” citing climate change, financial regulatory reform, and the war in Afghanistan.

The warning from Lieberman — who supported Obama’s opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain, in last year’s presidential election — came as some Democrats signaled increased willingness to consider ways to push through a plan.

“We prefer a bipartisan approach,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Democrats led by Obama have “bent over backwards” to win support across the aisle, Schumer argued.

But, he said, “We are now looking at the alternatives because it’s looking less and less likely that… the Republican leadership in the House and Senate will want to go for a bipartisan bill.”

The tactics being considered, Schumer said, “include just getting 60 Democratic votes and maybe an occasional Republican here or there… They include looking at reconciliation, which only needs 51, and they include a combination.”

In the spring, Democrats put a health care “reconciliation” into the 2010 budget. Reconciliation, a type of budget maneuver that requires only a simple majority, can pass with only 51 votes, instead of the 60 needed to break a filibuster.

The possibility of resorting to such a maneuver infuriates some Republicans. “That is really sort of denying democracy,” Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin told “FOX News Sunday.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told NBC it “would be an abuse of the process.”

Still, Hatch said, he expects it to happen. “I said from the beginning that they’re going to go reconciliation.”

Some Democrats expressed discomfort with the idea Sunday. “I think the vastly preferable way is to go the 60 route — and with 60 Democratic senators, I think that can be done,” Sen. Arlen Specter, a former Republican who switched parties this year, told “FOX News Sunday.”

“I think the 51 approach is not desirable. As a very last, last, last resort, if you can’t get anything else, I would consider it. But I think that is undesirable.”

And Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, one of the Democrats working to hammer out a bipartisan bill, argued that using the reconciliation tactic “does not work very well.”

“When you examine the way reconciliation works, it was designed solely for deficit reduction… It never contemplated substantive legislation,” he told CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

While the debate has been raging, one of the most prominent figures in the Senate, a Democrat who has fought for health-care reform for decades, has been absent. Sen. Ted Kennedy suffers from brain cancer.

His absence is felt, said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, last year’s Republican presidential nominee.

“No person in that institution is indispensable, but Ted Kennedy comes as close to being indispensable as any individual I’ve ever known in the Senate,” McCain told ABC’s “This Week.”

“He had a unique way of sitting down with the parties at a table and making the right concessions, which really are the essence of successful negotiations.”

Obama’s Team Is Lacking Most of Its Top Players

Obama’s Team Is Lacking Most of Its Top Players

WASHINGTON — As President Obama tries to turn around a summer of setbacks, he finds himself still without most of his own team. Seven months into his presidency, fewer than half of his top appointees are in place advancing his agenda.

Of more than 500 senior policymaking positions requiring Senate confirmation, just 43 percent have been filled — a reflection of a White House that grew more cautious after several nominations blew up last spring, a Senate that is intensively investigating nominees and a legislative agenda that has consumed both.

While career employees or holdovers fill many posts on a temporary basis, Mr. Obama does not have his own people enacting programs central to his mission. He is trying to fix the financial markets but does not have an assistant treasury secretary for financial markets. He is spending more money on transportation than anyone since Dwight D. Eisenhower but does not have his own inspector general watching how the dollars are used. He is fighting two wars but does not have an Army secretary.

He sent Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Africa to talk about international development but does not have anyone running the Agency for International Development. He has invited major powers to a summit on nuclear nonproliferation but does not have an assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation.

“If you’re running G.M. without half your senior executives in place, are you worried? I’d say your stockholders would be going nuts,” said Terry Sullivan, a professor at the University of North Carolina and executive director of the White House Transition Project, a scholarly program that tracks appointments. “The notion of the American will — it’s not being thwarted, but it’s slow to come to fruition.”

Mrs. Clinton expressed the exasperation of many in the administration last month when she was asked by A.I.D. employees why they did not have a chief. “The clearance and vetting process is a nightmare,” she told them. “And it takes far longer than any of us would want to see. It is frustrating beyond words.”

The process of assembling a new administration has frustrated presidents for years, a point brought home when George W. Bush received the now-famous memorandum titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike U.S.” eight years ago this month but still did not have most of his national security team in place when planes smashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

All parties vowed to fix the process, and Mr. Obama has a more intact national security team than his predecessor at this point. But even in this area, vital offices remain open. No Obama appointee is running the Transportation Security Administration, the Customs and Border Protection agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Mr. Obama still does not have an intelligence chief at the Department of Homeland Security, nor a top civilian in charge of military readiness at the Pentagon.

Mr. Obama is far enough along in his presidency that some early appointees are already leaving even before the last of the first round have assumed their posts. Among those who have left already is the person charged with filling the empty offices, Donald H. Gips, who quit as presidential personnel director to go to South Africa as ambassador last month.

The consequences can be felt in small ways and large — from the extra work for appointees on the job to the slowdown of policy reviews and development. For example, Mr. Obama’s promised cybersecurity initiative to improve coordination among government agencies and the private sector has stalled while he looks for someone to lead it.

“There’s every reason to be concerned,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader. “The president deserves to have his full complement of staff in the different agencies.”

But the White House expressed less concern because by its count it has matched or surpassed past presidents in putting together its government. “Given that we’re ahead of where previous administrations have been, we feel we’re moving at a fairly quick clip to get everything done,” said Bill Burton, a deputy White House press secretary.

Measuring the progress in appointments depends on what positions are counted and who is doing the counting. The White House Transition Project counts 543 policymaking jobs requiring Senate confirmation in four top executive ranks. As of last week, Mr. Obama had announced his selections for 319 of those positions, and the Senate had confirmed 236, or 43 percent of the top echelon of government. Other scholars have slightly different but similar tallies.

The White House prefers to include ambassadors, United States attorneys, marshals and judges, who are also subject to Senate votes but are not counted by the scholars. By that count, Mr. Obama has won confirmation of 304 nominees, compared with 301 for Mr. Bush, 253 for Bill Clinton and 212 for the first President George Bush at this point in their administrations.

If lower-ranking senior executive service officials and political appointees who do not require Senate approval are counted, the White House said it had installed 1,830 people, at least 50 percent more than any of the last three presidents had at this stage.

No matter how the counting is done, though, hundreds of senior positions remain empty with 15 percent of Mr. Obama’s term over. While appointments linger, those jobs are generally filled with acting officials — and the White House says that has not slowed its ability to effect change.

But acting officials do not have the full latitude that confirmed appointees do. “It’s just not the same thing,” said Paul Light, a professor at New York University who specializes in appointments. “They don’t have the same authority. They don’t feel the same loyalties or freedom to exert control. And what you get is drift in the agencies.”

Blame is being freely passed around. After several early nominees were discovered to have failed to pay some taxes, the White House tightened its vetting. The Senate Finance Committee has a former Internal Revenue Service official helping to go through many nominees’ taxes. And Republican senators are holding up nominees like John McHugh for Army secretary to influence what happens to the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The Finance Committee argued that fault lay elsewhere. Scott Mulhauser, a spokesman for the panel, said it had approved 14 of 16 nominees whose paperwork was received before July. But officials said the process had become so intrusive that many candidates declined to be considered.

“Anyone who has gone through it or looked at this process will tell you that every administration it gets worse and it gets more cumbersome,” Mrs. Clinton said last month. “And some very good people, you know, just didn’t want to be vetted.” She added: “You have to hire lawyers, you have to hire accountants. I mean, it is ridiculous.”

START A BILL TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOCIAL SECURITY

KEEP IT GOING!!!!

Propose this in 2009:

START A BILL TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOCIAL SECURITY 
  ———————————-
SOCIAL SECURITY:

(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:


When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die..
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments

For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7, 800,000.00 (that’s Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000..00 during the last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an
average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA!!! ZILCH!!!

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them.
You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;

“OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK”!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer), We can expect to get an average of
$1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley’s benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to

Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen.. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us

Then sit back…..

And see how fast they would fix it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?

Better yet……

How many people WILL you send this to

Letter to Nancy Pelosi

LetterFromVet

Dear Ms. Pelosi:

I write to you out of utter disdain! You are as despicable and un-American as the traitor Jane Fonda.

I am a soon to be 65 year-old who has voted in every state and local election since 1966. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats alike. I have worked on campaigns for both Republicans and Democrats, white and black. I served the country that I love in Vietnam, as my son did in the Middle East. I was awarded two bronze stars. I have been involved in politics since age 6 when my father was campaign manager for a truly great American Congressman, Charles Raper Jonas, who worked for his constituents and his country, and was to be admired, unlike you.

You obviously haven’t read the Constitution recently, if ever, the Federalist Papers, or even David McCullough’s book on John Adams. You ought to take the time while riding around in your government provided luxury executive jet to do just that. You represent Socialistic and even Marxist principals that our founding fathers tried to avoid when setting out the capitalistic republican form of government represented by our Constitution.

I find it interesting that you and your husband are multi-millionaires with much of your fortune being made as a result of your “public service”. You have controlled legislation that has enhanced your husband’s investments both on and off shore. At the same time you redistributed the wealth of others. Our system of a free market economy is being destroyed by the likes of you, Harry Reid, and now our President. You ride around in a Gulfstream airplane at the tax payer’s expense while criticizing the presidents of companies who produced something for the economy. You add nothing to the economy of the United States; you only subtract therefrom.

I would like to suggest that you return to the city of fruitcakes and nuts and eat your husband’s canned tuna and pineapple produced by illegal immigrants and by workers who have been excluded from the protection that 90% of the legal workers in the United States have.

I await your defeat in the next election with glee.

Don’t ever use the term “un-American” again for protesters who love this country and are exercising their rights upon which this country was founded. By the way, while I served in the Army, I was spit on by the same type of lunatics who support you and who you probably supported in the 60’s and 70’s. You are an embarrassment to all of us who served so that you would have the protected right of free speech to call us un-American. But at the same time, I have the right to write you to notify you that I consider you to be un-American, as do the majority of the people of this formerly great country. You are a true disgrace to most of the people who served this country by offering themselves for public service in the United States Congress.

I feel certain your aides will not share this letter with you, but I intend to share it with many.

Sincerely,

Dennis L. Guthrie

This is a legitimate Lawyer and his Law Firm.  Check his web site at:
www.gdhs.com/index.htm

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Obama Dropping Fast

 

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Sunday, August 23, 2009

 

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. These figures mark the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President. The previous low of -12 was reached on July 30 (see trends).

Prior to today, the number who Strongly Approved of the President’s performance had never fallen below 29%. Some of the decline has come from within the President’s own party. Just 49% of Democrats offer such a positive assessment of the President at this time.

At the other end of the spectrum, today’s total for Strongly Disapprove matches the highest level yet recorded. The 41% mark was reached just once before and that came one week ago today. Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans now Strongly Disapprove along with 49% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Check out our review of last week’s key polls to see “What They Told Us.” Topics include health care, the deficit, stimulus package, state polls and more.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) now disapprove.

Of the priorities outlined by the President earlier this year, 40% of voters say cutting the deficit is most important. Twenty-one percent (21%) believe health care should be the top objective. While deficit reduction is seen as the most important, 67% say it is the least likely to be achieved.

(More Below)

 

Scott Rasmussen has recently had three analysis columns published in the Wall Street Journal. The most recent was on health care. Earlier columns were on the President’s approval ratings and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you’d like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott’s favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama’s numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That’s because some of the President’s most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. Other factors are also important to consider when comparing Job Approval ratings from different polling firms.

For more measures of the President’s performance, see Obama By the Numbers and recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

(More Below)

 

A Fordham University professor has rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters–is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past four years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.

Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 38.4% Democrats, 32.7% Republicans, and 28.9% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.

A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

This Would be funny if it were’nt true

ob and nan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Would be funny if it were’nt true