Always in a Hurry

In case no one has ever observed this simple truth — a notion I find nearly impossible — children run everywhere. They run to the bathroom, they run up or down the stairs, they run to their friends’ houses to play. Everything to a child is a hurry despite that they have their whole lives ahead of them. Impatient and impetuous lot are children.

It is eerily reminiscent of the child currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, President Barack Hussein Obama. To President Obama, everything must be done “swiftly”. (Children seldom use that word save for the precocious ones).  Like everything he has done, speed is of the essence, including the manner in which he arrived at his current station in life. His current use of the word is in regards to Congressional passage of the raising of the debt ceiling which, he says, must be done swiftly.

Obama’s reasoning is due to the anemic jobs report for June. The president claims that the business community is not hiring because of uncertainty over whether the debt ceiling will be raised to prevent the U.S. government from defaulting on its obligations. He simply can’t imagine that it might have something to do with the fears of businesses that talk of increased taxes and the impending burden of universal health care might be somewhat of a deterrent to expansion.

It is part of a delusional mindset that seems to permeate his circle of friends and advisers. Consider David Plouffe’s recent comment that ”the average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers.” Press secretary Jay Carney punctuated that silly sentiment and added:

“I don’t know where, you know, the voters that some other folks might be talking to — but — or — but most people do not sit around their kitchen table and analyze GDP and unemployment numbers.  They talk about how they feel their own economic situation is.  And they measure it by whether they have a job, whether they have job security; whether their house – whether they’re meeting their house payment, whether their mortgage is underwater; whether they have the money to pay for their children’s education or they don’t; whether they’re dealing with a sick parent and can afford that, or whether they can’t.They do not sit around analyzing The Wall Street Journal or other — or Bloomberg to look at the — you know, analyze the numbers.  Now, maybe some folks do, but not most Americans.  I think that’s the point David Plouffe was making; that’s the point the president was making just moments ago in his statement in the Rose Garden.”

That type of rhetoric seems awfully similar to gloating over a decidedly stupid electorate, doesn’t it? In other words, in order for Obama to get re-elected, the team is counting on the notion that most Americans “only care about themselves”, all the while preaching about the virtues of “shared sacrifice”. They also wager that those they refer to as uneducated will remain so long enough to vote for Obama one more time, and hope that they remain sufficiently selfish as well.

President Teleprompter

Perhaps that is a symptom of Obama’s need for speed. After all, the magician relies on slight of hand and dexterous deftness to achieve moans of delight from the audience. So does Obama depend on lofty rhetoric — supplied on clear Plexiglas — to lure the attention of the suspicious away from proper investigation while pushing Congress to move quickly swiftly on every suggestion he makes.

It is noteworthy that many members of his early team have long departed. Rahm Emanuel; gone. David Axelrod; gone. Maybe they did their jobs so well and so, ahem, swiftly that they felt it prudent to move on in life. It might also be said that they saw the handwriting on the wall after being in such close quarters with Barack Obama for as long as they were.

As for me, I’m too old to run very fast and am ill-suited to run far at all, but on November 6th of next year, I plan on sprinting to the voting booth.

 

A Compassionate Moment

What is it with U.S. Democratic politicians and their devotion to the constituents of Felipe Calderon? And when did the American people become so timid in their collective demands on those they elect to “represent” them?

These are questions that have perplexed many in the battle for immigration reform and its conflicts with the wishes of the citizenry. It is also noteworthy that much of that citizenry is comprised of immigrants who came here properly and feel that it’s not fair for others to be forgiven for shortcuts. Yet politicians continue to flout the wishes of those who voted for them in favor of the wishes of those who could not…yet.

The Dream Act currently being sought by these Democrats — and a few sympathetic Republicans — is more in the parade to fast track illegal aliens into our population through a form of back door amnesty, and true to Democrat demagogue orthodoxy, it involves “the children”, whom none dare oppose. These children are those of adult illegal aliens (I refuse to use the term undocumented) who have come here as infants or toddlers and therefore — in the minds of the progressive — should not be penalized for their parents’ actions.

A key provision of the Dream Act essentially seeks to make a child of an illegal alien a permanent resident of the United States if they have been here for more than five years, or serves two years in the military, or four years in community service or college — with in-state tuition. Another important requirement is that these folks stay out of trouble.

What of one of these “kids” who has been here for three decades and has not only not avoided trouble, but violated the law in the most heinous fashion? Certainly his tenure here would count for something even as running afoul of the law might prove somewhat problematic. One would be forgiven for thinking so, but wrong nonetheless.

President Obama is currently asking the same Supreme Court he embarrassed at a State of the Union address not too long ago to step in and halt the execution of a vicious murderer in Texas. Sadly, he is joined by former President George W. Bush and a variety of other politicians.

This alleged “person” is Humberto Leal Garcia, convicted of the 1994 abduction, rape and bludgeoning death of 16-year-old Adria Sauceda, whom he met at a party where she was purposefully intoxicated, circled by as many as nine men, and repeatedly gang raped in the back yard. Later that night, Humberto Leal Garcia took the girl to another location where he raped her again and finally smashed her head with a 35-pound chunk of asphalt.

The objections of Obama and Bush, et al, are over Garcia’s rights as a Mexican national and the failure of law enforcement to notify him of his rights at the time to contact the Mexican Consulate during the investigations and trial. Garcia was two years old when he entered the United States and 21 when he killed Adria Sauceda. He was in this country for two decades. If the Dream Act were already in place, would he have had the same rights?

Obama is now petitioning the Supreme Court to stay the execution of this cretin until Congress can pass a law adhering to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that “the US authorities had failed to meet its legal obligations to 51 Mexicans awaiting execution in American prisons when they were not informed of their right to contact their consulates”. But the Supreme Court has already shot down the appeals of seven other Mexican-born Texas death row inmates in 2008. These include:

-Ruben Cardenas, 37, convicted of the rape-slaying of a 16-year-old girl abducted from Edinburg in 1997.

-Felix Rocha, 31, convicted of the slaying and robbery of a security guard outside a Houston club in 1994.

-Virgilio Maldonado, 42, condemned for a 1995 robbery and slaying at a Houston apartment complex.

-Robert Ramos, 53, convicted of the 1992 slayings of his wife and two children at their home in Progreso in Hidalgo County.

-Humberto Leal Garcia, 35, condemned for the abduction, rape and fatal bludgeoning of a 16-year-old San Antonio girl in 1994.

-Ignacio Gomez, 38, convicted of the fatal shooting of three people in El Paso in 1996.

So the Dream Act seeks to give illegal aliens all the rights of Americans if they’re here for more than five years. At what point do their consulates become irrelevant. Or do they?

More important is whether the Dream Act, if ever passed, will create an entire new class of “citizen” in America. What was once considered the melting pot could conceivably become a massive town square populated by people of all different ethnicity’s and protected by their own set of diplomatic standards. Diplomatic immunity is one thing where parking tickets are concerned, but quite another when capital offenses are at play.

One final point that should appeal to anyone with common sense; Donald F. Donovan, a New York lawyer who represented the Mexican government in The Hague, asked the question, “If you were arrested in Damascus and they gave you a dime would you want to call your court-appointed lawyer or the American Embassy?”

My answer would be quite simple. First and foremost, I would never be in Syria intentionally, and there is no way in hell that I would ever sneak in uninvited.

 

Let the Race Begin

Noting the fact that presidential campaigns seem to begin earlier and earlier each cycle, the silly season is once again upon us and it is starting out to be one of the silliest yet. With Michele Bachmann’s announcement that she will run, Obama’s people and local Democratic parties are already dusting off a tired mantra in an attempt to obfuscate their way back to the White House.

After Michele Bachmann formally announced her candidacy, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt had this to offer: 

“[Bachmann] voted for a budget plan that would extend tax cuts for the richest Americans on the backs of seniors and the middle class while ending Medicare as we know it. Congresswoman Bachmann introduced legislation to repeal Wall Street oversight — risking a repeat of the financial crisis — and while she voted to preserve subsidies for oil and gas companies she opposes making the investments necessary to enhance America’s competitiveness and create the jobs of the future”

There is so much wrong with every assessment made by Mr. LaBolt that reflects the Goebbels-like methods of the left in this country today. They have seized upon the notion that if they lie boldly and often, the lie will become the accepted truth.

His first point is the attack on “the wealthy”, and the notion that they got that way by virtue of stealing from the poor, combined with the equally asinine idea that tax breaks are somehow a “gift” from the government. I’m sure that many of you would not consider a carjacker’s sudden change of heart as a gift. He didn’t give you your car, he simply decided not to steal it. Why is that concept so hard to understand for a liberal when the same principle is applied to taxation?

Mr. LaBolt also infers that Wall Street — and a lack of interference by the government —  was the reason for the financial crisis we faced in 2008. As we should all be aware, the “benevolence” of the Democrats — through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the insistence that poor people own homes knowing that eventually they would default on the mortgages — is what caused the problems we now face.

Finally, Mr. LaBolt demonizes the oil and gas industries as some form of welfare recipient black hole, sucking money away from ordinary, poor and suffering people. The truth of the matter is this, however; if the government received the same amount of taxes and staple products from actual welfare recipients, this countries economy would be in far better shape.

Let’s be clear; Wall Street didn’t cause the financial crisis, the reasons for which we will explore shortly. For the time being, let’s examine another fallacy of the left. The Iowa Democratic Party also issued a statement regarding Ms. Bachmann, in which they bludgeon another deceased equine. They claim that a President Bachmann would lead us back to “the flawed economic policies that cost us millions of jobs and almost sent us into a second Great Depression”, and repeat the drumbeat that this economy is actually improving.

Unemployment Rates Since Bush

Barack Obama himself keeps blaming his predecessor for the sad state of our nation, but history indicates otherwise. As indicated in the graph, unemployment was edging downward for most of George W. Bush’s administration, and only began to rise when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006. To further complicate the Democrat talking points of today, then-President Bush had been beseeching Congress for years to act on the impending crisis that Fannie and Freddie were about to inflict. Congress not only ignored the president’s pleas, but firmly declared that there was no problem with those now failed institutions.

As far back as April of 2001, President Bush sounded the alarm over Fannie and Freddie:

The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

Bush would remind Congress many more times throughout his administration that those two institutions were headed for trouble, and that they would take a lot of others with them. Barney Frank (D-MA) would have none of it, and refused to increase oversight on them. By the end of Bush’s second term, the damage was done, and it was all too easy to lay the blame at his feet, and Barack Obama, the Democrats and the media continue to do so.

Since 2003, Barney Frank has been adamant that there were no problems with either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Strange then, that as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2010, Frank began to say that Fannie and Freddie need to be abolished. Perhaps it’s because he knows they have a problem, only this time it will affect his partiespresident.

From Heritage.org

Another problem caused the auto industry to suffer. That problem would be the unions and their staggering legacy costs to auto companies. From Heritage.org, the chart shows the average hourly labor costs of the Big Three Detroit auto makers compared with the rest of the private sector. The figures include benefits to current as well as retired employees. For a company to support former employees while paying current ones is simply unsustainable.

So as the campaign season begins to rev up, let’s all remember what is causing the misery. It is the policies of the Democrats, and we must remind the electorate loudly, repeatedly and firmly. The Democrats must not be permitted to perpetrate the lie that they will eventually make things right if given enough time.

 

McCain Tried Nice. It Failed.

Today at New York Harbor, with the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop, former governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman, announced his candidacy for President of the United States. So far, so good. Then he started speaking, and I had a feeling of dread and deja vu of the campaign of John McCain in 2008.

McCain, if you’ll recall, refused to street fight in that losing proposition, insisting that even attendees at his speeches remain “civil”, and while Obama personally remained above the fray, his surrogates — both in the campaign and in the allegedly neutral press — were ruthless. When McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, it got downright vicious.

And lest we forget, that same press was instrumental in steering McCain to the nomination. That’s our fault, America. Not again.

This time around we need a candidate and a team that is not afraid to point out Obama’s flaws, and that goes for policy as well as ideology. Obama is anathema to traditional American values, and he has assembled both a cabinet and a team of unelected appointees, or czars, that share the same disdain for what made this nation great. If we can’t muster a challenger willing to stand behind that statement, we are doomed, plain and simple.

A Mitt Romney or a Jon Huntsman, for example, will not have the temerity to remind the electorate of Obama’s past associations with Ayers and Wright, or of his murky past. They would most certainly be too timid to point out some of Obama’s appointees and czar choices. Therefore, I will now.

Let’s start with Obama’s choice of “Safe Schools” czar, Kevin Jennings. Mr Jennings is the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education. He’s also a gay activist who has been tirelessly promoting homosexuality in our public school system for over 20 years. In 1990, Jennings co-founded the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teacher Network (GLISTeN) in Boston. Two years earlier, as a teacher in Massachusetts, Jennings counseled a 15-year-old boy who had confessed to a sexual relationship with an older man to wear a condom when having sex.

That’s Obama’s “Safe Schools” czar. How does that stack up against your values?

Madman at the Helm

As part of policy, Obama has been steadfast in his belief in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), using such nonsense to promote a “green” energy agenda as a means to further subjugate our citizenry. One of his foot soldiers is his “Science Czar” John Holdren. Holdren was appointed as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, a rather lofty sounding title. One would assume that Mr. Holdren is a man of great intellect and scientific prowess by virtue of such an important role. Not so fast.

In 1977, John Holdren — who is now making decisions that affect the lives of every American — co-authored a book titled Ecoscience. According to Zombietime.com, Holdren has some extremely radical views on how to “save the planet”, and they don’t bode well for its human inhabitants. (Please do click on the link because Zombietime has documentation that refutes any potential claims of selective reporting).

From Holdren’s book, some of his bullet points include some frightening views.

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;

• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;

• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;

• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

Naturally, Holdren and his co-authors, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, cried foul over the exposure this book received, claiming that the age of the tome rendered it insignificant in light of the trio’s “changed views” over the subsequent decades. That may appear to be a reasonable defense if this was some obscure work that was perhaps read by a limited audience, but that is far from the truth. This work of horror was a collegetextbook, and therefore required reading.

That’s Obama’s “Science” czar. How does that stack up against your values?

Doesn’t This Speak Volumes?

Let’s also remember the people who support Barack Hussein Obama, including those who officially campaigned for him. Not to mention his Socialist advisors who have since departed, like Anita Dunn and Van Jones.

Any new candidate can use the current associations of the man currently occupying the White House with ease, using Ayers and Wright as seasoning if desired. The failed policies of Obama speak for themselves, but shouldn’t. Our candidate needs to have the fortitude to point out the danger facing America if they have a chance of convincing me that they actually cherish this country.

I want no part of sing-a-longs and hugging; I want a determined, no-holds-barred intervention, one by a patriot willing to sound bad early and lead well later. And above all, I want to give the press a reason to return to their senses, unafraid to actually report the truth rather than curry favor with a narcissistic ruler.

Correction…above even that, I want America back.

 

Our Future?

We’re being told that Social Security is going broke. We’re being told that Medicare is going broke. And we’re being told that the engine of economic growth in the United States — the “wealthy segment” — needs to “pony up” a bit more in order for our survival.

Economists, to a large degree (Paul Krugman notwithstanding), agree that the best use of the money from the wealthy is in the private sector. When those alleged barons are able to keep more of what they earn, they invest in new ventures which create jobs for those under them. During Reagan’s administration, it was referred to as the trickle-down economy.

George H.W. Bush, in the campaign of 1980, ridiculed his rival, Ronald Reagan, for what the candidate Bush called “voodoo economics”, but when he was defeated and ultimately Reagan’s vice president, he changed his tune. Seeing Reagan’s policies become so successful had that effect. Reagan thought it best for government to get out of the way and let the American people do what we do best; succeed and prosper.

It’s no accident that the American poverty level is head and shoulders above the actual poverty of the third world. Certainly there are very few people in America who actually suffer but for the most part, our “poor” experience the inconvenience of basic cable and slow internet speeds. Never mind that they have multiple television sets, laptop computers and several vehicles. Bad things do happen to people every day, but some can be avoided quite easily.

Imagine the following scenario:

Mom, with a solemn-looking Dad at her side: “Kids, Daddy and I want you to start looking for large boxes, like refrigerators come in when someone lucky gets a new one”.


Sally: “Why Mom?”


Mom: “Well honey, by this time next year, we will be living in some of those under the bridge on Maple Street”.


Billy (horrified): “What? But you and Dad both have jobs and seem to make a lot of money!”


Dad:  ”We do, Billy, but we give so much to the Johnson’s down the street, the Smith’s across from us, and the nice folks around the corner, that we’re going to be unable to pay our mortgage or utilities in a year”.

While the above may sound ludicrous to the sensible, consider that it is precisely what our federal government is telling us. As our social “safety nets” are slowing sinking below the figurative waves — and as the rolls of the “needy” continue to grow — our leaders declare the answer is to seize more money from the haves to hand to the have-nots, including foreign countries who may need help, but not to the detriment of our own citizens.

Drowning in Debt

Consider this, however; while our own seniors are seeing the realities of precariousness and destitution rush at them from the horizon, our tax dollars are being spent on propping up young, able people who have been conditioned to rely on hand-outs for their sustenance. But it gets worse…much worse.

This country hands out roughly $20 billion annually to foreign nations in aid. Yes, Israel and Egypt are the largest beneficiaries of that aid, but we also aid Pakistan, Bosnia and Russia, to name a few. We also give nearly $100 million to Gaza and the West Bank. Why? Well, that money is given as a token of “balance” to Israeli aid from the U.S.

It may not sound like much in the total budget, but if you were in danger of losing your home to the bank, would you be handing out twenties to your neighbors? Likewise, would you be buying two hundred dollar Nikes for your kids, or fifty dollar Keds?

I still believe that most people in this country would rather be productive and, as a result, self-sufficient rather than wards of the State. And I still believe that trickle-down economics work well. The misnomer lies in the pejorative “trickle”, which is designed to sow the seeds of envy among the classes. The question remains…would you be happier working for a wage as the beneficiary of a wealthy man’s investment, or laying about in squalor waiting for the mailman to bring your welfare check?

All the rich owe us is a modicum of gratitude for our labors in making their investments profitable. We owe them a debt of gratitude for providing our livelihoods.

That being said, if our government has its way, we’ll be living side by side in refrigerator boxes under the overpass, while the inhabitants of Gaza, et al, swim in the Mediterranean buoyed by wads of U.S. dollars snatched from the drowning Americans.

Don’t Worry, Obama’s Got a Plan

 

  Obama’s 68th Round of Golf

Lest the reader assumes that the plan is to use a 7 iron in lieu of the 5 in order to lay up short of the trap on the 15th-hole approach, that is not it. While it is difficult to resist the notion that it may be the best plan he can come up with, Obama’s plan actually has to do with his job. I think.

After almost two-and-a-half years in office, Obama is still campaigning as though he were not the incumbent, still declaring how he will “fix” the nation’s ills. In those two-and-a-half years, as the economy has floundered, as our international standing has plummeted, and as gas prices have soared – along with the cost of everything else – Obama has dithered.

But he’s got a plan!

Perhaps that plan is not golf-related but rather a plan to party like it’s 1999. There have been extravagant family vacations to Hawaii and Spain. There have been myriad soirees in the White House, and there has been general mirth on Pennsylvania Avenue, all while the people struggle to stay afloat. And the endless spending binge is destroying America from within, pushing us inexorably closer to the precipice of utter ruin.

But Obama’s got a plan!

 

  That’s a Lot of Speed Bumps

Is that plan to slow down while passing over those “speed bumps” he mentioned so that he doesn’t bottom out in The Beast? If one is to take Mitt Romney’s campaign ad literally, one would hope that Obama would at least swerve to avoid those speed bumps, which are representative of Americans.
The “speed bumps” Obama was referring to, it must be noted, were all constructed by Obama and his party. And despite his veiled umpteenth blaming of the Bush 43 administration in his internet and radio address last Saturday,  the economy was humming along under Bush despite the calamities that it faced, 9/11 most notable among them.

To be certain, Obama did inherit a sinking economy, but he was part of the problem as a member of the 110th Congress of the United States. It was in the 2006 elections that the Democrat Party regained control of Congress. Not coincidentally, it was also the beginning of the dive. Even before they had control, however, the Democrats, led by Barney Frank, posed a formidable resistance to Bush’s dire warnings on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Yet now Obama continues the claim that it “took a long time to get here”. From his Internet and radio address on 6/11:

“I wish I could tell you there was a quick fix to our economic problems. But the truth is, we didn’t get into this mess overnight, and we won’t get out of it overnight.”

True, it didn’t happen overnight; it took the Democrats less than two years to destroy Bush’s hard work and tarnish his legacy. One would think that if they could undo six years of relative prosperity in record time, then once they had total control, they could have had it all fixed better than new in even less time. Not so.

But Obama’s got a plan!

After flailing futilely at the problem for two-and-a-half years, Obama’s  now reached into the Herbert Hoover bag of tricks. Speaking in North Carolina today, Obama offered a more modern version of Hoover’s “chicken in every pot” premise, telling the crowd that he wants everyone to have a good job with security. Hooray! Such a brilliant man, he actually said:

“We’re falling behind in the very fields we know are going to be our future. … We must do better than that. I will not be satisfied until everyone who wants a good job that offers some security has a good job that offers security.”

Somehow I doubt he’ll lose sleep or a single tee time in the interim, even as tomorrow the media is likely to hail his determination. If George W. Bush had ever said, “I won’t be satisfied until every last terrorist decides that they don’t want us dead”, I’m sure the press would have slammed him as an idiot. We’ll have to wait until tomorrow to see how the media receives Obama’s new “all hands on deck” approach, but don’t expect any surprises.

After all, Obama’s got a plan!

 

 

Guns and Learnin’

Perhaps the most difficult task of the thinking person is to try to reconcile the logic and rationale of the Left in America with any semblance of sanity. Where pacifism and education are concerned, the lines become blurred when combined with the Liberal notions of enforcement and learning.

For example, our classrooms today are cesspools of festering violent tendencies, where teachers fear that their best intended lessons will suddenly fall victim to an unwieldy student upset by his single mother’s choice of bedmate the night before. In saner times, that teacher would be well equipped to either handle such a disruption or be assured that someone who could would be within ear shot. In this insane era, however, discipline by the teacher is forbidden, and corporal punishment is met with career death.

The United States Education Department (ED) was created as a stand alone Cabinet level department in 1979 when President Jimmy Carter signed Public Law 96-88, which split the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services.   Ever since, Republican candidates have vowed to dismantle the department. President Ronald Reagan tried but failed with an opposition-controlled Congress, while both Bush’s preferred to keep it with modifications. Both of them were wrong. Here’s why.

The ED is not only about helping the kiddy-poos. What was once the smallest Cabinet level department has grown into a powerful arm of the federal government. Most people believe that the ED concentrates its efforts on better education for the children and also believe that the increased funding sought by every Democrat in office is designed toward that end. Fact is, there is much more that ED requires funding for now that it has grown beyond its conceived purpose.

One of the expenses of the ED is guns. Yes, guns, as in the shotguns with fourteen inch barrels they purchased a year ago. The law enforcement arm of the ED — the Office of Inspector General — purchased twenty seven brand new Remington Brand Model 870 police 12-gauge shotguns. If you’re thinking that the acquisition of such serious firepower is somewhat incongruous with a department dedicated to learning, pat yourself on the back and give yourself a hand.

According to a blog piece by Valerie Strauss in the March 11, 2010 edition of the Washington Post the Office of Inspector General responded to her inquiry into the purchase by referring to the following statement by the office:

“The Office of Inspector General is the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Education and is responsible for the detection of waste, fraud, abuse, and other criminal activity involving Federal education funds, programs, and operations. As such, OIG operates with full statutory law enforcement authority, which includes conducting search warrants, making arrests, and carrying firearms. The acquisition of these firearms is necessary to replace older and mechanically malfunctioning firearms, and in compliance with Federal procurement requirements. For more information on OIG’s law enforcement authority, please visit their Web site at : www.ed.gov/oig”

Okay, so we’re now thinking, “what would the Education Department need with these guns”? Considering that the department is now President Barack Obama’s, the question bears closer scrutiny, particularly when one recollects then-candidate Obama’s notion of a “civilian security force” that would be just as powerful as the United States military.

On July 2, 2008, Senator Obama gave a campaign speech in Colorado Springs, CO. A quarter of an hour into the speech, he uttered these words:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Ah, a clue then! What would the well-funded Education Department need with deadly weapons? Perhaps the answer lies in the recent story of a Stockton CA man who met those guns — and the “educators” wielding them — in his home at 6:00AM.

Kenneth Wright looked out his window one morning and saw fifteen uniformed officers on his lawn. According to the resident, the garb they wore caused him to think they were a S.W.A.T. team, although he had no criminal record and therefore no reason to expect that they would be concerned with him, so imagine his shock when, descending his stairs in his boxers to investigate, the officers kicked in his door and hauled him outside by the neck.

These “policemen” were not S.W.A.T. at all, but officers of the Office of Inspector General. They were seeking Kenneth Wright’s estranged wife for delinquent student loan payments. Let’s reiterate this; fifteen heavily armed and armored officers from the Education Department kicked in a citizen’s door and forcibly removed him from his home. They cuffed the resident in his underwear, woke his young children (3,7,&11) and tossed them in a patrol car with their bound father and left them there for six hours while they searched the premises.

The perpetrator (Wright’s wife) of their focus was not at the premises, and they never knocked to show the warrant. The worst aspect of the entire affair is not the tactics of the invasion team, however; the true travesty is the fact that the “crime” was delinquent loans, and that the offender was not even at the location.

Or maybe the true shock is that this operation was carried out by Barack Hussein Obama’s Education Department. Is that segment of our federal government now the “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” force to which Senator Obama alluded on the campaign trail?

To be fair, perhaps not. Yet.

But who would dare to oppose funding for “education”? It is a sanctuary program for a potentially nefarious cause. I have seen little or no mention of the Stockton incident, though, which gives me great pause when considering such a prospect as the ED becoming Obama’s secret police force.

Something to ponder.