RFFM.ORG

Social Security COLA Freeze: Obama To The Rescue? I Told You So!

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

On August 24, 2009 I wrote a commentary titled, "COLA Freeze for Social Security Recipients: Part of an Obama Ruse to Keep Senior Voting Bloc?"  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/08/cola-freeze-for-social-security-recipients-part-of-an-obama-ruse-to-keep-senior-voting-bloc-.html.  

 

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.  Barack Obama has proposed Congress approve a one-time $250 payment to seniors and handicapped meant to offset a freeze in the Social Security Cost Of Living Adjustment for the next two years. 

 

Fuel prices are predicted to go up.  The cost of food has skyrocketed in recent weeks.  And if Congress passes health care reform and Cap and Trade legislation, the cost of living index will go through the roof.  But a one-time $250 payment should cover it, right?  Political bribery anyone?

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: Dan@rffm.org   

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Health Care Reform Bill Will Eventually Provide Benefits To Illegal Immigrants, If Congress Has Its Way

EDITOR'S NOTE:  The column below was first posted on the Illinois Family Institute's website on 10/1/2009.  http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34569 

 

Today, the Senate Finance Committee will vote on a health care bill.  Here is another reason why Senators should vote "NO".

 

 

Liberal Media Does Not Tell Whole Story

By Daniel T. Zanoza

 

The issue of President Barack Obama's proposal that would reform America's health care system has certainly received a great deal of attention. However, sometimes, it's what the liberal press doesn't reveal that is most telling.

When Obama recently addressed a joint session of Congress, he said illegal immigrants would not be covered under any health care plan he would sign into law. If we split hairs, the President's statement was accurate. It would be political suicide for both Democrats and Republicans to sign any bill that would provide taxpayer funds for those who are in America unlawfully. Well, technically, the language in one of the health care reform proposals tries to have it both ways.

According to a CNN.com article   http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/obama.heckled.speech/index.html 

...noncitizens who can be considered "resident aliens" under tax law -- which doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants--would be required to buy health insurance.

Yet the proposal clearly says that federal subsidies would go only to U.S. citizens and immigrants who are in the United States legally.

Sound confusing? Well, perhaps that's how it's meant to be.

But here is something you won't learn from the liberal media. High on President Obama's agenda is the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. This was legislation that was backed by George W. Bush and members of both sides of the political aisle in 2008. The bill faced a firestorm of criticism from the American people primarily because the comprehensive immigration reform legislation would have granted amnesty for an estimated 12 to 20 million individuals who are now residing in the United States illegally.

Now here's the catch. If a health care reform bill, including a public option, is passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama, illegal immigrants would technically not be eligible for public-subsidized health care. But Obama's plan that would grant amnesty to "undocumented aliens" will soon come on the Congressional docket and Americans can expect legislators, both Democrat and Republican, to be in favor of the bill.

If health care reform with a public option becomes law, together with a bill that would provide amnesty to those who are in America illegally...POOF...illegal immigrants and their health care will become the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers.

As usual, as far as Congress is concerned, the devil is in the details. Bush's plan for comprehensive immigration reform was put on the back burner when the lines of legislators were deluged with phone calls from the public. For the first time in memory, the American people got their way. Bush and immigration reform supporters were intimidated by the response from citizens who believed in the rule of law.

But don't be fooled. There are politicians on both sides of the political aisle who are yearning to make comprehensive immigration reform a reality. Republicans see the influx of illegal immigrants as a cheap labor force which helps big business. Democrats view illegal immigrants as a huge potential voting bloc.

Conveniently, the liberal press is not giving Americans all the facts concerning Barack Obama's political agenda. The health care reform issue does not stand alone. The issue is inexorably tied into a plan which most Americans are not aware of.

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org     

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Obama With The Sound Off: The Face Of An Angry Man?

Guest Commentary by Nancy Cahalan

 

On the radio station I listen to each morning, 97.1 Talk in St. Louis, a regular contributor to the "Allman in the Morning show", Dr. Randy Tobler (who also has his own time slot on Saturday mornings) suggested several times that people watch President Obama's speeches with the sound off and just watch his body language and facial expressions.  It is Tobler's assertion that Obama without sound appears to be a very angry man.

After reading Dan Zanoza’s interview with Debbie Revor [http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/09/obama-acorn-i-worked-with-the-community-organizer-by-debbie-revor-.html]--who at one time was a legal secretary working in the same law office of Mr. Obama--I commented to Zanoza about Dr. Tobler's assertion.  Zanoza wrote back, wondering if anyone had ever written about the topic and invited me to do so.  Since this was just before the weekend of the "Big 5", Obama’s five appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows, I agreed, knowing I would have plenty of sound off/watching time.

I recorded three of the shows and the following day, I viewed them.  I must admit that the three shows did not tell me much at first.  The only time I saw anger, I decided to review this particular segment with the sound on.  I listened to what was asked of Obama by George Stephanopoulos that had elicited the angry response.  The question had to do with the definition of tax.  It was obvious that Mr. Obama was not pleased with the implication that any part of "his" health care plan is a tax, even though it fits the dictionary definition of such.

I then decided that I would access You Tube and look at other Obama speeches over the last couple of years.  I viewed speeches from 2008 and 2009 which included a part of Obama's weekly address from 9.5.09, his labor day speech to union members, his eulogy for Ted Kennedy, a speech about patriotism on 7.4.09, something from an AME church on 6.5.08 and the short four-minute sound byte from his health care speech in front of Congress which can be found on the White House website.

 

But I also thought, in order to be completely fair, I should look at other presidents in similar speeches.  So, through the wonderful portal of You Tube, I found George W. Bush speaking at the funeral of Gerald Ford and Bush's post 9/11 speech; Bill Clinton when he spoke at Richard Nixon's funeral and Clinton's farewell speech; Ronald Reagan’s farewell speech; George H. W. Bush’s inaugural address and a speech he gave on 12.20.89.  Finally, I watched Jimmy Carter speaking about the Iran Embassy hostage situation.

It was when I was watching Mr. Reagan that it finally dawned on me what was clearly apparent concerning Obama’s facial expressions and body language.  Obama seems to only have two facial expressions...pre-scowl and scowl.  Basically, his face never changes expression.  I went back to the speech in front of the union members thinking, "Gee, he is really pro-union, surely there will be a friendlier look on his face there."  But I was wrong.  Even during that speech there was not much change in his expression.  During the snippets of Obama's recent address to a joint session of Congress, his face looked like a parent who was greatly displeased at having to tell a child, yet again, something that has been told to said child many times before and why in the world do I have to tell you this again? 

 

I have always found Obama's body language to be stiff and somewhat choreographed, but watching his speeches without sound really brought attention to the stridency behind his hand movements.  He points, sometimes with his whole hand, in a very strong, jerky motion that reminds me, once again, of an upset parent scolding a child.  I also found that the angry looks are particularly noticeable when Obama is using the teleprompter and therefore never looks down at notes.  When he uses the teleprompter and is looking straight into the cameras or the crowd to whom he is speaking, the never-changing expression seems particularly stern and angry.

What I saw on the other President's faces were true expressions of emotion:  Carter's obvious sadness over the events in Iran and Bush 41's positive emotion as he has just been sworn in as President.  I also saw faces that were mobile, eyebrows raised at appropriate times, smiles occurred appropriately as well--smiles that made it all the way to the speaker’s eyes.  Hand movements were fluid or hands were folded calmly in front of the speaker.  None of the other Presidents seemed to have a chip on their shoulder like Obama seems to have. 

 

Now, again, to be completely fair, I have seen still pictures of Obama smiling, including his eyes and those pictures are pleasant.  But when I was watching his speeches with the sound off, I found that I agreed with Dr. Tobler, Obama looks very angry.  He looks like someone who expects to just have everyone agree with him and is greatly displeased to find out that so many people do not.  The health care speech seemed particularly angry to me as it included the whole parent-scolding-a-child thing.  This, coupled with his strident, pointing, stiff hand movements combine to communicate to myself, and I'm sure others, a man who has a chip on his shoulder who seems to think that he just has to say something and people will believe him and he becomes quite upset at anyone who dares to even suggest that things are other than what they are (as in the tax question posed by Mr. Stephanopoulos).

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org   

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Andy Martin Blasts Durbin + Burris for Support of ACORN in Senate

OP-ED by ANDY MARTIN * 

SENATORS DICK DURBIN AND ROLAND BURRIS VOTE TO CONTINUE FINANCIAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY ACORN 

Barack Obama has received incalculable help from ACORN over the years. In fact Obama’s political career, from his earliest days in Chicago, was linked to ACORN. 

Obama “flirted” with socialists and radicals as a student at Occidental College, at Columbia University and after his arrival in Chicago. In 2008 the media pretended not to see Obama’s radical history and avoided asking probing questions about his radical associations. Sean Hannity was alone in exposing Obama.

This week two Illinois U. S. Senators were among the “Sinful Seven” that voted against denying federal funds to ACORN. Senators Dick Durbin and Roland Burris voted “no” on the suspension. The good People of Illinois have been shamed by the votes of their senators.

Why do Durbin and Burris grovel to ACORN? Because ACORN’S parent/affiliate, the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”) is the largest union in Illinois. Period. And the SEIU is an increasingly radical and unprincipled union. Period, again.

The Democratic Party’s public officials are in a SEIU chokehold.

SEIU is also strangling the City of Chicago’s economic life. SEIU campaigns have been waged to elect radical socialists to the Chicago City Council. The SEIU has tried to make it all but impossible for Wal-Mart to open stores within the city limits despite the obvious public demand for low prices.

And yet, and yet despite the SEIU’S chokehold and ACORN’S criminality, time is running out for Barack Obama. He can delay the inevitable fall of ACORN, but it is doubtful he can prevent the organization from being prosecuted and eventually disbanded.

ACORN’S criminality has become too pervasive and public to sweep under any carpet, even Obama’s

ACORN and I go back along way. I tried the first bank holding company case at the Federal Reserve Board in 1973. I often petitioned on behalf of the public interest in Federal Reserve Matters. Eventually, I saw the name of a new group start to appear in filings with the Fed: ACORN.

I came to find out that ACORN was petitioning to be heard so that the organization could ultimately extort money from bank holding companies. I kept my distance from ACORN. Their “public interest” was purely an interest in “private profit,” for ACORN.

In 2008 ACORN became notorious for vote fraud in major states such as Ohio. There is no secrecy about the group’s goals: de facto socialist revolution in America, something which I predicted on Sean Hannity’s America during the 2008 campaign:  www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8zj_Fj3QpY&annotation_id=annotation_259119&feature=iv

And so nothing that Obama & Co. are now doing surprises me. I predicted it all last year. I was criticized for my predictions last year; no one is criticizing me now.

Still, the enormity of the fraud being orchestrated by ACORN, and the blatant and brazen efforts to loot federal funds for their own operations, are no secret. So why did Durbin and Burris blind themselves to ACORN’S abuses and surrender to the ACORN “bordello?”

Because Durbin and Burris are both political prostitutes.

And because Illinois has become America’s rogue’s gallery of radicalism.

The Chicago Way? A disgrace to the People of Illinois.

* Andy Martin is seeking the Republican nomination for the Illinois U.S. Senate seat that will be vacated by Roland Burris.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Kennedy Health Care Reform Bill? Senator's Death Used To Create Support For Obamacare: Shame On Them!

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

I would like to offer my condolences to the family of Sen. Ted Kennedy who passed away earlier this week, though I strongly disagreed with most of the values espoused by the late Democratic Senator from Massachusetts.

With the praise of Kennedy for his service to the nation must come the facts regarding an individual who had deep flaws of character, but I will leave judgment regarding such matters to others.  I am troubled concerning the rush by the far left to use Kennedy's death as a political tool.  Liberal extremists--who now control both Houses of Congress and the White House--will do practically anything to advance their political agenda.  And never let it be said adherence to moral principles should get in their way.

It is clear the American people oppose the Democrats fervent desire to put the nation's health care system under government control.  In town hall meetings across the country held during the month of August, legislators who were on break caught more than an earful from their constituents.  Democrats and much of the mainstream media tried to dismiss the voices of individuals from all sides of the political spectrum.  But this only served to antagonize the public in its opposition to a proposal which would put one-sixth of the nation's economy in the hands of government bureaucrats.

It appears the Democrats are considering a new strategy, in order to get their way.  The Congressional majority seems to be planning to title the unpopular effort to reform the nation's health care system after Ted Kennedy--before his body is in the grave.  Some may claim the idea to name a health care reform bill after Kennedy would be meant to honor him.  However, it is an obvious attempt to play on the emotions of Americans.  This is a tactic the left is known for. 

For example, Cap and Trade--which would represent the largest tax increase in U.S. history--was titled the "American Clean Energy and Security Act" by the bill's sponsors.  The legislation was given the moniker for a purpose.  What American wouldn't want clean energy or, in a post-9/11 world, security?  The bill was given this name by the Democratic-controlled Congress to obscure its true purpose--which is to penalize the energy industry, provide a financial windfall for special interests and advance the radical agenda of environmentalists who desire to turn back the technological clock when it comes to the use of fossil fuels.

Fortunately, the public has come up to speed regarding exactly what Cap and Trade really is and how it would effect their lives, especially their pocket books.  Subsequently, the U.S. Senate is reluctant to vote on Cap and Trade and that's a good thing for the country.

So now, since the left is being met by considerable opposition, as far as health care reform is concerned, Kennedy's death will probably be used in the effort to play on the sympathies of those who may not be up to speed on the issue.  The Democrats are playing a dangerous game.  Hopefully, the American people are not that naive.  In fact, there may be a collective "shame on them!" response to an obvious ploy meant to give positive momentum to something most of the public does not want. 

However, what can we expect from a party which takes its marching orders from radical leftist groups like MoveOn.org and the ACLU?  How can we expect morality or the demonstration of positive values from a party which is controlled by groups who believe in abortion on demand, the removal of any reference to God in the public square and the suppression of dissent?

Therefore, I guess the use of Ted Kennedy's death to advance a leftist political agenda is consistent with a value system which adheres to no values at all.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

COLA Freeze for Social Security Recipients: Part of an Obama Ruse to Keep Senior Voting Bloc?

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

On Monday, August 24, 2009, the Social Security Administration announced a freeze of the annual Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) would go into effect in 2010 and 2011.  Seniors and the handicapped receiving Social Security benefits are given an annual cost of living increase.  For example, in the year beginning January 2009, Social Security recipients received a 5.8% increase in their monthly checks.  Although the COLAs have varied in percentage, recipients have always seen their benefits go up during the past 30 years without fail.

In the past, some have suggested the Social Security Administration could save billions of dollars by eliminating COLAs, but usually such proposals were considered the third rail of politics.  With the decision to freeze COLAs for the next two years, many believe there will be a heavy price to pay by the Barack Obama Administration. 

The President has already come under heavy criticism concerning his plan to reform national health care.   Seniors have turned out in droves at town hall meetings across the nation, voicing their opposition and outrage regarding $500 billion of projected cuts to Medicare.  Many seniors feel the reform of America's health care system would primarily by paid for on their backs.  According to data, 25% of Medicare's budget is spent on the last year of an individual's life.  Even the most steadfast supporters of health care reform admit one day medical services to the elderly would eventually have to be rationed with the outcome being government bureaucrats, instead of doctors, making life and death decisions regarding health care services for the elderly and handicapped.

For decades, senior citizens have represented a solid voting bloc for the Democratic Party.  However, groups like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) were out front in their backing of a move to nationalize health care.  But recently, the AARP has taken a huge political hit and loss in membership totaling 60,000 since July 1st of 2009.  While AARP still supports health care reform, the organization has changed its tactics of late, taking a more low key approach to the issue. 

I believe the freeze in COLAs is a political ruse.  The Democratic Party fully understands the loss of the senior voting bloc would ultimately result in a sea change in American politics.  This, combined with the fact baby boomers are now approaching retirement age may spell doom for the Democratic majority and change the fortunes of a Republican Party which seemed to be on the edge of political viability.

The elderly will certainly blame the Obama Administration after they receive their first Social Security check in 2010.  Even those who do not follow politics closely would associate the COLA freeze with the Party in rule.  The Obama administration is fully aware of this fact.  This may sound cynical to some, but I believe Barack Obama will attempt to spin the financial freeze facing seniors to his advantage.  Obama will do so by feigning outrage, while at the last minute riding in to "save the day."  He will turn this fiasco into a positive opportunity, designed to bring straying seniors back into the Democratic fold.  The President will find a way to undo the freeze on COLA's, thereby projecting himself as the defender of seniors and handicapped.

It is foolish to think there has not been (and will not be) an increase in the cost of living during the past fiscal year.  Energy prices have gone up, along with the cost of food, shelter and the necessities of life.  We are expected to believe the cost of living has remained stagnant and will do so for the next two years.  But even economists who stand by Obama's "tax and spend" fiscal policies agree there will be considerable inflation in the very near future.  Indeed, some project hyper-inflation is just around the corner for the American economy, due to the existing record deficits and projected mass debt for the future.

Usually, bad news of the political nature is saved for release on Friday's; the mindset being many Americans do not pay attention to news stories over the weekend.  However, isn't it strange the announcement regarding the freeze in COLA's was made at the beginning of a news week?

If senior citizens are the victims of cuts in Medicare related to national health care reform and see their cost of living increases vanish, the combination would spell doom for the Democratic majority and the President.  If there is one absolute regarding Barack Obama and those who surround him, they are not political neophytes.  I believe the freeze in COLA's was politically manufactured, in order to head off the growing displeasure the elderly have with the Democratic Party.  Obama will fashion himself as Democrats have in the past.  He will once again demonstrate his supposed compassion for the downtrodden, disenfranchised and less fortunate by creating the illusion of a crisis for seniors and then solve it by removing the freeze on COLA's.

Part of Barack Obama's stimulus package included a one time only payment of $250 for those receiving Social Security benefits.  But the President's plan to "save the day" for seniors will be a stroke of dastardly proportions.  It is a plan some might call genius, while others will say it is meant to play on the emotions of our nation's elderly and handicapped, many of whom solely depend on their monthly Social Security income.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Cap and Trade Passes U.S. House: Kirk, 7 other Republicans, Vote for Greatest Tax Increase in U.S. History

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

"Cap and Trade".  The official name for the bill is the "American Clean Energy and Security Act".  HR2454 passed in the U.S. House of Representatives late Friday evening, June 26th.  The bill--which will be the greatest tax increase in American history--received 219 "aye" votes and 212 "nay" votes.  211 Democrats and eight Republicans voted "yes", 44 Democrats and 168 Republicans voted "no".  Therefore, it can safely be said, the votes of eight Republicans may lead to a legislative disaster of the greatest proportions.

 

The title of the bill is misleading.  In reality, the legislation will not benefit the environment.  HR2454 is solely designed to further redistribute American wealth, give more control to big government and put the U.S. economy on a path towards total destruction. 

 

The vote was very close because--under close inspection--the so-called "Clean Energy and Security Act" will drastically change the way Americans live into the foreseeable future. 

 

One of those who voted for "Cap and Trade" was Congessman Mark Kirk (Republican--Illinois--10th District).  Kirk, whose legislative voting record more closely reflects that of a Democrat, continued his pattern of support for big spending and government irresponsibility.

 

In essence, HR2454 will require all Americans to pay for a commodity (units of CO2 emissions) which was dreamt up by radical environmentalists.  In reality, the beneficiaries of "Cap and Trade" will be well-connected companies and politicians, like Kirk, who have made (and will be sure to make) investments in companies which are advancing misleading promises regarding alternative energy sources.  The promise of alternative energy is a reasonable goal.  Yet the implementation of such technology is far down the road and individuals, like former Vice-president Al Gore, have already made millions of dollars in what is essentially inside trading by those politically-connected.  

 

In a way, this may sound like a noble cause--from afar.  All of us want "clean air", all of us want our nation to be less dependent on foreign sources for our country's energy needs and all of us believe American know-how can help reach these goals. 

 

However, what those who support "Cap and Trade" legislation do not tell us are the facts regarding how the United States and the American public itself will be impacted by a strategy which has been rejected by much of the industrialized world. 

 

The vote leading to the House passage of HR2454 has more to do with putting the United States in an economic straight jacket.  The legislation--which, if passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Barack Obama--will lead to the loss of jobs totaling in the millions and result in draconian increases in costs that will drastically effect every U.S. business and citizen.  An untold number of businesses will leave the United States in the process, leading to higher unemployment in the short term and this will possibly drive our country far beyond economic recession.

 

But why would Mark Kirk, a so-called social moderate and fiscal conservative, support such a bill?  Perhaps Kirk believes some of the more progressive-leaning members of his district will see him as a visionary.  Obviously, Kirk thinks jumping on the (for now--popular) Obama bandwagon will help him politically in an affluent district. 

 

Kirk's "yes" vote regarding "Cap and Trade" should make one thing crystal clear to both Democrats and Republicans who truly care about their country.  Kirk's allegiance to political expedience should be a wake-up call to reasonable members of both political parties and the public in general.  Kirk must be defeated whether he decides to run as a Republican in the 2010 primary or whether he decides to switch political parties and run as a very liberal Democrat--which his past voting record certainly reflects. 

 

There is a reason the "Cap and Trade" bill was brought to a vote by Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, just before the weekend.  Its supporters wanted the bill to fly under the radar of the American public.  The less attention paid to what "Cap and Trade" would really mean for our country, the better.  This was a bill which needed vigorous debate and transparency.  Instead, HR2454 was rushed through the legislative process...like a thief in the night, rifling through the things which make America a great nation.  It is a type of thievery which will put more power in the hands of politicians and damage the well-to-do, middle-class and poor.

 

There have been hundreds of columns reporting on just what "Cap and Trade" will mean to us all.  But, for the most part, the left-leaning mainstream media has failed in its charge to accurately report on one of the most important bills in American history. 

 

Most certainly, individuals like Mark Kirk, are aware of the bill's ramifications.  Kirk cannot claim he was unaware of what HR2454 stood for.  Kirk cannot claim HR2454 adheres to Republican principles of smaller government and less taxation.  Therefore, the question must be asked:  Why is Mark Kirk in the Republican Party?  Better yet, it can be queried:  How fast can Illinois Republicans get him out of the GOP?

 

To see how all members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted on "Cap and Trade", go to:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml#Y 

 

To read related article, titled "Cap & Trade: Political Alchemy, Economy Buster & Disaster for Poor", go to:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/06/-cap-trade-political-alchemy-economy-buster-disaster-for-poor.html

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Cap & Trade: Political Alchemy, Economy Buster & Disaster for Poor

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

According to Webster's Dictionary, one of the definitions assigned to the word alchemy reads, "a method or power of transmutation: esp., the seemingly miraculous change of a thing into something better."

 

Indeed, for thousands of years, some of the greatest minds in world history dabbled in the pseudo-science of alchemy.  Such great thinkers as Leonardo DaVinci held to the misguided belief that substances of little value could be changed into precious metals, like gold and silver.  In fact, this was the life work of many.  And why not?  If a near worthless substance like lead could be transformed into a precious metal, untold wealth would come to the individual who invented a formula that would change the world.  Of course, not much thought was given to the concept because if lead could be altered into a precious substance like gold, gold would lose its value.

 

ASSUAGING LIBERAL GUILT

 

During recent years, with the support of radical environmentalists, a form of political alchemy is being foisted upon the public.  Some might say it is the result of liberal guilt by the affluent left or a diabolical plot to radically change the way we all live.  The left has successfully manipulated their collective angst and it will have a disastrous impact on the world around us in many ways.

 

During the last two decades, liberals have developed a way to demonize fossil-burning fuels.  This strategy included the turning of carbon emissions into a commodity which can be assigned monetary value.  Former Democratic Vice-president Al Gore--who has become extremely wealthy in the process--has helped promote the idea of carbon offsets from which revenue, supposedly, can be used to help "save" the environment.  Just one of Gore's palatial estates in Tennessee sucks up a great deal of energy for one family.  Indeed, the environmental impact of just one of Gore's homes on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere far exceed those of dozens of average American families combined.  But liberals, like Gore, had to develop ways to assuage their guilt.  Therefore, supposedly, Gore and his liberal brethren, feel they can make everything okay by paying for their extravagant lifestyle by simply offering up cash for each "evil" unit of carbon they use.  It can be called a type of secular indulgence whereby the progressive sinner finds relief.  That is, if that liberal environmental sinner can afford it.

 

Now this would be all well and good, if those who were tormented by such guilt voluntarily sent a check in to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) or any other governmental body which would be more than happy to take their money.  However, an upcoming vote on Friday, June 26th, in the U.S. House of Representatives may force a struggling American economy into further recession.

 

WHAT IS CAP & TRADE?

 

Cap & Trade, one of President Barack Obama's primary political initiatives, will be considered by Congress.  Cap & Trade would impact all U.S. power plants which supply the nation's homes and businesses with energy through the use of fossil fuels.  In laymen's terms, a utility company which operates a coal-fired facility would be required to pay the government for each unit of CO2 emissions which result from the burning of coal, natural gas, fuel oil, etc.  The more carbon units utility companies use, the more they will be charged.  The more they are charged, the more these costs will be passed along to the public.

 

Though Obama refuses to call Cap & Trade a "tax", he admits the cost regarding the energy needs of an average household will increase from $1,500 to $3,000 per year.  But this would only be the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  Every business in America would also see a drastic rise in operating costs which will be passed along to the consumer.  Billions of dollars in American wealth will change hands as a result of a "tax" which literally will come out of thin air.

 

THE AGENDA

 

Liberals claim Cap & Trade is designed to benefit the world.  The thinking being, due to higher costs related to Cap & Trade, America will be forced to wean itself off of fossil fuels.  But, if passed into law, Cap & Trade will result in the largest tax increase ever imposed on the American people.  The huge hole in Obama's Cap & Trade policy is obvious to all who have a rudimentary understanding of how America generates electricity and other forms of power--which will not change for decades to come.  For example, one of America's most abundant energy resources is coal.  But, at the same time, coal-burning power plants, including those which currently burn clean bituminous coal, will feel the greatest financial impact from Cap & Trade and those costs will be directly passed on to the consumer.  These increased costs will include the heating and cooling of individual American households and an even greater expense will be incurred by businesses.  Again, those who will suffer most from Cap & Trade legislation will be the American public.  There will be higher expenses at the grocery store, at appliance dealers, hair salons, auto repair shops...it goes on and on.  Every business in the United States will see its costs go up significantly, resulting in grossly accelerated inflation, a loss of thousands of jobs in the energy industry alone and other untold millions of Americans will suffer a direct financial impact because of Obama's misguided Cap & Trade legislation.

 

THE REALITIES OF CAP & TRADE UNTESTED

 

Perhaps the greatest misnomer regarding Cap & Trade is the idea America will quickly shift from the use of fossil fuels--like coal, natural gas and fuel oil--to alternative energy sources, including wind, thermal and solar power.  Here again this is either wishful thinking on the part of radicals who are trying to take control of future government policies regarding energy or, as many believe, a diabolical plot to help redistribute America wealth--which is totally consistent with Obama's admitted political agenda which he alluded to prior to his election.  However, many Democrats themselves are also having questions about such radical political agendas, including Obama's plan to nationalize health care.

 

IMPACT ON MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS & THE POOR

 

Obviously, a yearly increase of $1,500 to $3,000 per household, will have the greatest impact on those who can least afford it, including middle-class Americans, the elderly and handicapped.  In a time when many are struggling to make ends meet, for the sake of a flawed policy not yet backed by the means to provide alternative energy, it is widely predicted Cap & Trade will send the American economy into a further tailspin.  Most affected will be a vast number of the population residing in states that depend on power plants which use fossil fuels, including a large swath of the country from Virginia to Pennsylvania and many Midwestern states.  But Obama claims there will be relief offered for those most hard-pressed by the draconian increase in energy costs.  His resolution?  An increase in funding of programs which offer assistance to low-income Americans.  The result?  A greater dependence on the government by the American people which will lead to even higher taxation and more government bureaucracy.

 

AGENDA, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY and THE ENVIRONMENT

 

Many believe there is a more sinister aspect behind Obama's Cap & Trade legislation.  Faltering companies, like General Electric, have been awarded or promised huge government contracts regarding the research and development of alternative energy sources.  NOTE:  General Electric is expected to receive billions of dollars in government contracts.  General Electric owns NBC and MSNBC and they have been some of Obama's biggest supporters in the mainstream media, both prior to and after his election.  But even the most ardent environmentalists admit the predictions of an easy and early shift in the way America derives its energy is Pollyannaish.  Indeed, there are serious problems concerning the environmental impact of facilities which are developing possible alternative energy sources.  The construction of sites in the West--which would be targeted for the development of solar and wind power--would have a tremendous environmental impact on millions of acres of now pristine desert--which would turn into vast forests of windmills and never-ending arrays of solar panels.

 

The proposed technology to transform the way energy is supplied in the United States may not be feasible for decades.  At the same time, the use of vast reserves of natural gas, oil shale and America's most abundant resource (coal) will be discouraged and penalized.  Therefore, while many on the left discourage drilling for oil offshore and in places like ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) in Alaska because of concerns for the environment, it is clear there will be a battle looming in the not too distant future regarding the environmental viability of solar and wind power.  It must be remembered, much of Obama's policies are being advanced in order to wean the U.S. off its dependency on energy from foreign nations.  However, if destroying parts of the American desert--rather than drilling for oil in other parts of the nation--sounds counter-intuitive, counter-productive and short-sighted, this would be a reasonable assessment of an energy policy without foresight.

 

Cap & Trade must be defeated.  Yet there is a reason why this legislation is on the fast track.  Obama's hope is to advance this bill into law before the American people come up to speed on its dire ramifications for the country.  Cap & Trade is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation to be considered by Congress in a generation.  The onus now falls on the American people to contact their legislators in the attempt to head off a radical policy which will change the American way of life in many ways.

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Obama on Tiller Murder: Not Presidential, Inappropriate and Politically Motivated

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

Just hours after the murder of late-term abortion doctor George Tiller, Barack Obama, the President of the United States, felt it necessary to issue a statement.  At the time, there was a media frenzy concerning Tiller’s death.  The killing of Tiller was a national story which prompted saturation coverage by the mainstream media.  In fact, an act of terrorism--which led to the assassination of an American soldier--was virtually ignored by the dominant press.

The same day Tiller was killed, Obama issued a press release stating, “I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.”

While Obama was “shocked and outraged” regarding the Tiller incident, when the President finally got around to addressing the killing of Pvt. William A. Long--at the hands of an enemy of our country--Obama told the nation he was “sad” over the death of the 24 year old soldier.

But besides Long’s tragic death and the wounding of another, 18 year old Pvt. Quinton I. Ezeagwula, outside a recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, it was clear Obama’s true concerns centered around the Tiller case.

Perhaps I am mistaken.  However, I cannot remember when a President of the United States took time to acknowledge the unfortunate demise of any American citizen.  Tiller was not a prominent statesman.  Tiller was not a champion of civil rights or a leader for the advancement of the human condition.  Tiller was a “doctor” who presided over the deaths of as many as 60,000 innocent unborn children during his so-called career as a physician, along the way, making millions of dollars while doing so.

There were other tragedies which seemed to escape the attention of Mr. Obama on May 31st.  The same morning of May 31st, while eating breakfast with his family in Chicago, a 15 year old honors student was struck by a stray bullet.  The shot--which was fired by a gang member and intended for a rival--ended the life of this young man and shattered the dreams and hopes of an entire family.

Just about the time Obama was crafting his response to the Tiller murder, the lifeless body of a 24 year old woman was found in rural Pennsylvania.  The victim had been raped and apparently brutally tortured.

At the moment Obama was ending his remarks on Tiller, a search was under way for a three year old who was kidnapped from her home near Detroit.  Sadly, the toddler was eventually found in a shallow grave covered over with cement, disposed of like a piece of trash, leaving a whole community to grieve.

Unfortunately, President Obama did not feel it necessary to address the aforementioned tragedies with the vigor he did over the death of Tiller.  But why?

Obviously, the President’s unprecedented comments regarding the murder of Tiller was politically motivated.  Obama--who has proven his support for abortion rights since the first day of his administration--felt it was necessary to appease some of his most steadfast political allies.  Those who promote and support the killing of the innocent unborn clearly took precedent over a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, a 15 year old honors student, a 24 year old woman and a three year old who never had a chance to experience a full life.

Was Dr. Tiller more important than Pvt. Long and these other victims of senseless crime?  Or, dare I say, the unprecedented mention of Tiller’s murder served Obama’s political agenda.

Most certainly an American president cannot speak to the families of every murder victim in a country of over 300 million.  In the same breath, the life of Tiller did not have greater value than any other individual who met the same fate on that day.  Yet Obama and his mention of the late-term abortionist gave the impression Tiller’s life and death were of more significance than the aforementioned others--and hundreds of those like them--whose lives were cut short.

But Obama was not alone in his hero worship of Tiller.  The mainstream liberal media could not devote enough time to Tiller’s life and life’s work depicting him as a hero.  However, to many of us, Pvt. Long was the real hero and the 15 year old Chicago honors student was truly someone American youth should emulate.

The coverage and reaction to the Tiller story should give us all pause.  Clearly, the values which have made our nation great in the past have been lost to those who control the images which help define our society.  No, Tiller was far from a hero.  Of course, his murder was not justified.  Yet, at the same time, the media’s ignoring of Pvt. Long’s death comes as no surprise.  It is a demonstration of how our priorities have been set eschew by those whose job it is to report on matters, without political motivations.

Related article: Tiller Murder Wrong:  But He Still Was A Baby Killer--Not A Hero http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/06/tiller-murder-wrong-but-he-still-was-a-baby-killernot-a-hero-.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Obama The Antichrist? Response To Tongue In Cheek Column Shocking

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

Editor's Note:  When I wrote the following piece, it was meant to be tongue in cheek.  Indeed, the column could have been written about Fidel Castro, Vladimir Putin or Alec Baldwin.  However, those on the left were calling the surprisingly popular candidate, Barack Obama, the "savior"--a man who would supposedly put the world back on track and establish the United States as a moral beacon once again, if he were elected.  I never expected to receive over 70,000 hits to this one column on RFFM.org.  In addition, there are literally millions of results on the Yahoo search engine alone for the terms Obama and antichrist.

 

Now before the head of the Dept. of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, puts me on a list of possible terrorists, she needs to know I wrote a follow-up column on March 12, 2008, titled "Christians Need To Be Careful About Antichrist / Obama Comparisons" http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/christians-need.html in which I warn of such speculation.  After all, Jesus Himself told the Church to watch for the signs and to rely on Scripture itself before coming to conclusions about the End of Days.  Writing the first piece in February of 2008, I marveled at how so many Americans and people from around the world were praising a man who they loved, but knew little of due to liberal media bias; it was a phenomenon which played a significant role in my writing the commentary.  The bottom line is millions of Christians came to their viewpoint on Barack Obama's sudden rise to power, his seemingly mystical influence on the world and how many believe his presidency is, in part, the fulfillment of Scripture.  Obama may be the "savior" to some, while at the same time he is the dread of others.

 

***************

 

Are these the end times?  Judeo-Christian Scripture tells us there will be signs and wonders at the end of the age, but I'm not sure the Bible had hard core politics in mind.

 

Some may be shocked at the title I have given this piece.  To be honest, it took me about ten seconds to decide whether asking the ultimate question would violate some kind of Christian ethic.  Let's just say I wrote this column with my tongue almost firmly planted in cheek.

 

The truth is, during the last six months, I have been searching for a rationale to describe the phenomenon concerning the meteoric political rise of Barack Hussein Obama.  I have heard Republicans say they could vote for the junior Senator from Illinois in the November presidential election.  I have witnessed the veritable dismantling of the Clinton political machine by a man who does not have the experience of most serving in the U.S. Congress.  I have heard of women swooning just by being in Obama's presence and, quite frankly, I don't get it.  I won't even admit Obama gives a good impression of the late Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., as some people swear he does.

 

It's as if a significant portion of the American public is under some sort of ungodly spell when it comes to Obama and someone needs to give me a good explanation for it.  There is one thing I do know and that is Obama's popularity is similar to the cult of personality which surrounded a number of past leaders, many of whom were not exactly perfect citizens of the world.  But I'm not going to go there.  Let's stick with some striking comparisons given to us in Scripture.

 

The antichrist is mentioned in 1 John 2:18-19, 1 John 2:22-23, 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 1:7.  Without going into the darker meaning of the antichrist's existence, for a moment let us talk about how he will come to power.  Judeo-Christian teachings tell us the antichrist is a man who will have unbelievable charisma.  This man of perdition will claim he is an emissary of peace and hope.  The entire world will buy into his lies and deception.  The antichrist will be given great spiritual powers by dark forces.  However, he will also be given great political power by men who see him as a type of secular messiah.  Eventually, the antichrist will reveal his true nature--after he has assumed authority over the entire world--and it will take God's intervention alone to defeat him.

 

Scripture goes one step further by saying, even those who know the truth will have the potential to be deceived by the antichrist--and some will.  Now many will scoff at my commentary, saying I'm just another goofy Christian, playing out some sort of forecast of spiritual gloom and doom at the expense of a great man.

 

That's just it.  Though a lot more would have to happen before I would truly believe Sen. Obama was a key player on the road to Armageddon, the nay-sayers would still have to "show me" even though I don't hail from Missouri.

 

Obama talks about bringing our nation together, but he doesn't explain how he would accomplish this lofty goal.  For example, those who support abortion rights believe women should have access to this procedure upon demand.  In contrast, people like myself actually believe the taking of an innocent unborn child's life is murder--or something very close to it.  Indeed, Obama seems to be the person least qualified to bring unity over this subject because he and Hillary Rodham Clinton were arguing about which one of them would allow the killing of more unborn children.

 

Obama would grant "amnesty" or "a path to citizenship" to over 12 million who are in this nation illegally.  Meanwhile, over 75% of Americans are against such a plan and want our nation's borders with Mexico secured.  The Senator from Illinois has lofty aspirations regarding health care that would cost American taxpayers billions of dollars.  Most Americans oppose any tax hike.  Therefore, such a plan would be impossible to implement.

 

The litany goes on and on.  Obama offers hope and change, change and hope, but, in reality, the political atmosphere in the United States says something completely different.  There would be "hope" if only all Americans would agree with the practice of abortion.  Will we finally experience change when a vast number of U.S. citizens say there should be no border with Mexico?  Will we all come together, if we simply create dialogue with people who have sworn to kill us, like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as Obama suggests?

 

These are some of the reasons why I have made the Obama antichrist analogy.  It would take some sort of mesmerism to get me to believe that killing babies in the womb is a Constitutional right.  But I don't think that is the way the antichrist will operate.  Those who fall under his spell won't think about such subjects; the world will simply look at an aura which exists around an individual, but the aura will have no substance.  There will be light, but no heat.  There will be mass, but no form.  The message will have a spiritual resonance, but be lacking in spiritual quality.

 

Doesn't this describe Barack Hussein Obama to the nth degree?  No, I don't really think Obama is Satan's main man on the planet Earth.  But until someone gives me a reasonable explanation for his popularity, I'm going to leave the door to this thought open, just a crack.  Even if I am wrong, at least this will let some light shine through.

 

To view the original posting and comments from readers, go to: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/02/obama-the-antic.html

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org.

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.