Obama’s Speech on the NSA – Like Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic to Avoid the Iceberg

by Richard H. Frank

Today President Obama spent the first 20 minutes of his speech lecturing us on the nation’s need for intelligence since the Revolutionary War up to and including the attack upon the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Five minutes into his first shaking finger-pointing lecture I wondered just how stupid he thinks “We the People” really are.

Every thinking American understands that our nation’s security and spying on our enemy is not only necessary but paramount in protecting us and our families against the unthinkable; a nuclear attack on some U.S. city or major event. In fact, We the People also know that it is one of the few authorities that the President has been delegated by an Amendment to the Constitution. Additionally, we are aware that in today’s cyber world intercepting communications between potential enemies, foreign or domestic, must be part of our arsenal for use by the NSA. The balance, however, between protecting individuals against unreasonable search and seizure (the 4th Amendment of our Constitution) and providing for the nation’s security was not dealt with in Obama’s lengthy speech today. He danced all around the topic but never directly addressed the wholesale collection of our telephone and text messaging by the NSA. He expects us to believe that only telephone numbers associated with suspected terrorist activities and those contacting those numbers are examined for trends and suspicious frequencies without access to the actual conversations or texts themselves. His claim that the investigation of the NSA by his Administration has found no instance where access to our communications have been unlawfully violated. That statement is worth as much as his saying “If you like your health care plan you can keep it.” He also never mentioned what was going to happen with the multi-million square foot data storage compound being built in Utah by the NSA if they were in fact going to stop collecting all this data and outsource much of it.

Now listen to his proposed changes:

1. A Presidential Directive to every agency having access to our information that in essence must not house that access.

2. That the NSA will continue to collect data on every America but not store that data by the Government with a caveat that the Government will look at the data collected when it needs to.

3. He would appoint yet another Commission of public advocates to determine and make recommendations on where and how the data mined was to be stored.

4. Congress in consultation with Attorney General Eric Holder would determine what changes require a Legislative action in order to be Constitutional.

5. He was requiring annual updates by the NSA and Holder on the status of implementation of its proposals and directives.

6. Lastly his Presidential Directive made off-limits spying on foreign leaders of our allies.

Some in the mainstream media, Democrats in Congress and Obama’s Administration will hail this speech as a major initiative to keep America safe while protecting our Constitutional rights to privacy.

In fact it was none of the above but just another diversion to distract the public from those “phony scandals” according to Obama like the IRS, Obamacare, the NSA spying scandal and Benghazi which he hopes to bury once and for all.

Everything he said today is virtually meaningless since nothing will change in the end. It’s all about Obama attempting to shroud the truth from us using tactics from his most “transparent administration” in history. This speech is akin to the analogy of “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” in hopes of avoid the iceberg.

Three cheers for Barack Pinocchio Obama and his Administration of half-truths!

The Color of Barack Obama’s Character!

By: Richard H. Frank

Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. in his “I have a dream speech”, stated that we should judge a man not by the color of his skin but by his character. Each of us may define character differently. Although the dictionary defines “character” in vague adjectives that cover a wide assortment of situations and conditions, there is one definition upon which I feel we can all agree upon. Character among men is embodied within the action you take to carry out the “Values, Ethics and Morals” you believe in.

  • Consistency between what you say you will do and what you actually do.
  • Championing and putting ethics into action.
  • Moral strength. It takes moral courage to do what is right when it may cost you more than you are willing to pay.
  • Who you are and what you do when no one is looking.

William Penn put “character” in terms we can all understand when he said, “Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it. Right is still right, even if no one else is doing it.” So what may we conclude from the above? Character is predicated upon the values and principles which a person’s beliefs are founded.

Politically, we use terms such as ideology, the rule of law and transparency to measure our leaders’ character against. Unfortunately, most politicians fail to live up to these measures and the values and principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. The latest and most revealing look into Barack Obama’s character and that of his administration is evidenced in their explanation of what occurred in the Benghazi, Libya consulate the evening of 9/11/2012 leading to the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

It is amazing how quickly our President and his administration placed the blame for uprisings on September 11th in more than 20 middle east countries on a video trailer mocking the Islamic prophet Mohamed. Any evidence to the contrary was suppressed for over one month as it would prove to undermine the Presidents foreign policies in the region. One month following the attack as the truth continued to emerge we see that there was no uprising in Benghazi resulting from the video trailer and that the attack was indeed a planned coordinated terrorist assault upon the consulate. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice even in the face of undisputed evidence continued to insist the killings were the result of a mob gone out of control protesting the video.As the truth emerged the spin merchants in Washington began to construct their smoke screen to protect the President and his administration against voter retaliation with the general election just under 4 weeks away.

Following the explanation given by Obama and Clinton on September 12th the President boarded Air Force One to attend a fund raiser in Nevada leaving family members of the murdered Americans with a myriad of unanswered questions. So much for what the President says and what he does.

This week, a full month following the terrorist attack, the professionals within the State Department decided to come clean and admit they knew the attack was a planned terrorist assault from the outset and not the result of any video trailer. They apparently decided they would not become the fall guys for Obama, Clinton and the administration’s flawed foreign policies. Now that the can has been opened the administration is scrambling to keep the worms from escaping  before the election takes place on November 6, 2012. Unfortunately for Obama and his administration the lid has been removed from this scandal and the truth will be pursued beyond the election regardless of the outcome of the November vote.

Those of us that experienced the Watergate scandal and the eventual resignation of President Nixon for covering up a burglary know that the breech of the consulate in Libya and resulting murder of four Americans is much more serious than any break-in. No one was murdered as a result of Watergate but we have four dead patriots as a result of Obama’s policies in Libya. Congressman Issa’s oversight committee must diligently pursue the truth and hold those in government accountable for not providing protection to our men and women overseas in service to this nation.

If the color of Obama’s character and that of his administration were to be defined by the events on 9/11 in Libya, I believe it would be labeled as “YELLOW”.

Who will President Obama blame when Iran acquires nuclear weapons?

by Richard H. Frank

In case it may have slipped by without you noticing, our President Barack Obama, always manages to place the blame for  America’s problems on someone or something other than himself.  For instance:

  • The War in Afghanistan, the “good war,” now not so good, is all the fault of George W. Bush.
  • The collapse of the financial institutions has been solely the responsibility of Wall Street not having enough regulation.
  • The $878 billion dollar bailouts  – largely a failure to stimulate our economy is because the problems went much deeper than we realized.
  • Job creation has failed largely due to the private sector’s reluctance to invest as they hoard massive profits for their greedy investors
  • Failure to implement and proceed with his socialist, progressive agenda is the fault of the Republicans in Congress, even though he held the majority in both houses during the first two years of his administration.
  • His latest rejection of the Keystone Pipeline was caused by the Republicans in Congress imposing an unrealistic timeline for his Administration to study the projet.  Three years for his State Department to do so is apparently not enough.

The pattern is all too apparent and I could go on and on with additional examples.

This week, however, events in the Middle East may expose Obama for the Master of Insulation and Diversion that he really is.

On  Sunday, March 4, 2012 he stood before the AIPAC convention in Washington and pledged America’s unconditional support of Israel and their attempt to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  He insisted “all options are on the table.”  From his words you might expect he was including “military force” if necessary.  He only stressed, however, diplomatic initiatives and sanctions specifically and went on to claim that he “had Israel’s back!”

On Monday, March 5, 2012 Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, met with Obama to discuss the Iranian nuclear program and to seek assurances of the U.S. support for his Country.

Following that meeting, remarks made to the news media indicated the President was convinced pursuing diplomatic negotiations and continuing sanctions was the appropriate course of action in light of the present situation and Iranian advances made toward acquisition of nukes according to intelligence sources.

The same evening, March 5, 2012, Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed AIPAC, and in my estimation sent an emphatic and timely message to Barack Obama.

The message wa delivered as follows:

“Some commentators would have you believe that stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb.  They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already underway; that it would be ineffective; and that it would provoke an even more vindictive response by Iran.

I’ve heard theses arguments before.  In fact, I’ve read them before – In my desk, I have copies of an exchange of letters between the World Jewish Congress and the United States War Department.

Here are the letters:

The year was 1944.  The world Jewish Congress implored the American government to bomb Auschwitz.  The reply came five days later.  I want to read it to you.

Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our force elsewhere, and in any case, it would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources…

And, my friends, here’s the most remarkable sentence of all, and I quote:

Such an effort might provide even more vindictive action by the Germans.

Think about that – “even more vindictive action” – than the Holocaust.

My friends – 2012 is not 1944.  The American government today is different.  You heard it in President Obama’s speech yesterday.

But here is my point:  The Jewish people are also different.  Today we have a state of our own.  And the purpose of the Jewish state is to defend Jewish lives and to secure the Jewish future.

Never again will we not be masters of the fate of our very survival.  Never again!

That is why Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, and against any threat.

We deeply appreciate the great alliance between our two countries.  But when it comes to Israel’s survival, we must always remain the masters of our fate.

His message to Obama is quite clear.  In 1944 America was fighting WWII on two opposite sides of the world and resources were scarce.  Also, history now leads us to believe our government thought the atrocities by the Nazis against the Jews was exaggerated and mostly propaganda much of which came from Russia.

One year later, we learned the truth as our troops entered concentration camps like Auschwitz and saw the horror of the Nazi effort to exterminate a race of people from the face of the earth.

Today, the leaders in Iran have vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and unlike 1944, America has the means to prevent this action.  Benjamin Netanyahu questions whether Barack Obama possesses the resolve to stand behind Israel as he asserted in his speech to AIPAC.

On Tuesday, March 6, during a news conference, Barack Obama was asked to define his commitment to “have the back of Israel.”  The President responded that having Israel’s back entails diplomatic negotiations, crippling sanctions and sharing of intelligence and our surveillance capabilities.  “All options being on the table” apparently means  he no longer includes military support, just a few days after making his speech.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a very astute, intelligent and courageous leader who recognizes political doublespeak when he hears it.  He certainly recognizes it whenever Obama opens his mouth and said as much to AIPAC when he stated: “For the last decade, the international community has tried diplomacy.  It hasn’t worked.  For six years, the international community has applied sanctions.  That hasn’t worked either.  Israel has waited patiently for the international community to resolve this issue.  We’ve asked for diplomacy to work.  We’ve waited for sanctions to work.  None of us can afford to wait much longer.”

Today, March 8, 2012 we got a further look at how the Obama Administration conducts foreign affairs with one of our closest allies as newspapers in Israel are reporting that the Obama Administration agreed to supply “bunker buster” bombs and refueling support to Israel aircraft if they agreed NOT to attack Iran until after the 2012 Presidential election.

Coincidence, I think not.  Political extortion, of course.  Provable, probably not; however, not beyond the realm of possibility within the Obama inner circle.

Obama himself would never propose such a deal. Although he is not above having someone else do it for him.  That will give him “plausible deniability” or the means to blame someone else.

So in the interim, should Israel not take military action, and Iran acquires nuclear weapons, who will Obama have to blame then?

Eric Holder’s Double Talk Under Oath!

by Richard H. Frank

November 8, 2011 Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the Senate Judicial Oversight Committee and testified under oath regarding the Justice Department and the ATF involvement in the “Fast and Furious” scandal.  For those of us having the stomach to endure over two hours of questioning by the Senate Committee and sort out serious inquiries from partisan rhetoric, I must conclude the exercise was a waste of time.

Following a lengthy statement by Holder listing the numerous achievements of the Obama Justice Department, he described “Fast and Furious” as a ill-conceived, poorly executed operation communicated within the DOJ through inaccurate information.  Specific questions from Senator Grassley were answered with typical Washington double talk and excuses including the following:

  • information was inaccurate as previously communicated in writing to the committee.
  • “Tactics” is the new buzz word to deflect responsibility for possession of knowledge about the operation.
  • “A few weeks” is now a substitute for describing months regarding  Holder’s knowledge of “Fast and Furious”
  • Holder contends he has acted in a “manner consistent with other Attorneys General.” Whatever that means.
  • He regrets actions of subordinates yet has held no one responsible.
  • DOJ personnel did not know information on “Fast and Furious” was inaccurate.
  • He denied any knowledge of “retaliation against whistleblowers.”
  • It “pains me” that private communications with Senator Grassley would be introduced as a question by the Senator in the hearing.
  • Holder refused to comment on details of any ongoing investigations.
  • “Political payback” was evident by inferring information being requested constitutes classified data.
  • “Fast and Furious” bothered, concerned and offended Holder. Holder refused to accept responsibility for “Fast and Furious” stating the AG cannot be expected to know details of ongoing operations by every department under the DOJ.
  • He stated that it was not fair to assume that “Fast and Furious” led to the death of Border Patrol Agent Terry, and readily admitted that he had never  personally spoken to Terry’s family.

Next the ever partisan Senator Schumer participated in the “blame game” contending that “Fast and Furious” had its genesis under the Bush Administration in the form of a program called “Wide Receiver.” His questioning placed the blame for walking guns over the border directly on the Bush DOJ and through inference directly on the Republican Administration although the program had been previously cancelled .

The real politically- driven agenda became apparent in answers to Senator Graham’s question about Guantanamo Bay and any possibility of closure, a  U.S. prison replacement or sequestering enemy combatants being held in either  Afghanistan or Iraq.  Holder’s answers were right down the Obama Administration’s talking points which are 1) all options were on the table, and 2) Administration decisions were being viewed from a practical viewpoint. Doesn’t anyone in the Obama Administration take responsibility for anything they do?

Our Founding Fathers would be aghast to see the divisiveness between the branches of Government, and the overreaching to the powers enumerated in the Constitution granted to those branches.

Viewing the Organizational Chart of the Department of Justice is a prime example of “Big Government” run amuck.  It becomes more evident each day that the individual states could do a better job of law enforcement than can our Federal Government.  We need to return to the principles under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution if the Republic is to survive.

Media Manipulation of Bin Laden Death!

by Richard H. Frank

The national news media in the United States is intent on setting the agenda of importance for news commentary for the American public.  The editors of reported stories in today’s 24-hour/7 day reporting by both national, international and cable news outlets has created an atmosphere of creative, speculative and entertainment reporting as opposed to presentation of fact.  Even Fox News that reports under the banner of “Fair and Balanced” has fallen into the trap of presenting the sensational and “one-upsmanship” in an effort to capture viewer ratings.

The latest example is the announcement of the killing of Osama Bin Laden on May 1, 2011.  Certainly this story carries a significant level of importance for the families of those killed in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or Shanksville, PA as well as for those brave people who spent a decade in pursuit of this despicable terrorist.  Unfortunately, those persons that choose to politicize the killing for purposes of advancing their individual careers, ideology or personal gain as opposed to having served the principles of justice demean the accomplishment of America’s brave military personnel.

For the past three days, mainly due to the insatiable appetite of the media, we have set aside reporting on all major issues confronting this nation and focused on the killing much as with a continuing soap opera.

Little, if any, reporting has taken place regarding national disasters from fire, flood and tornadoes occurring here in the United States. What of the Government actions with regard to the 2012 budget, soaring deficits and the impending debt ceiling deadline?  Oil prices continue to soar resulting in record high gasoline prices that translate to punishing increased costs on the very survival necessities for life in America.

Emotionally the death of Bin Laden is something to be celebrated.  Practically, it does little, if anything, except create a martyr for terrorists to affect the war being waged against radical islamic terrorism.

The media loves to embrace the practice of distraction from the real issues facing America when it comes to the Obama Administration. The most recent examples are the week spent reporting on Obama’s long form birth certificate now followed by the incessant, unrelenting reporting on the Osama Bin laden attack and his subsequent death.

The media needs to pack it up and get on to reporting the important issues of the day.  Like it or not, following the liberation of Kuwait, President Bush “41”  ‘s approval ratings were in the 90% range.  Sixteen to 18 months later the dismal economy cost him reelection. The same forces are present today to a greater extent but are not reported by the media.  Distraction from the economic, fiscal and Constitutional issues are the agenda of the media.  Their attempt to manipulate the news will fail as the facts of continuing unemployment, deficit spending, the foreclosure crisis, high taxes, and soaring energy prices are felt by every American family.

Obama Defies the Constitution and Congress!

By: Richard H. Frank

The Constitution of the United States of America is crystal clear with regard to Presidential powers as they relate to war. Specifically, only Congress has the authority to take this nation to war via congressional declaration. Only after such a declaration is the President, as Commander-in-Chief, authorized to conduct war against a defined enemy.

In 1973 Congress passed “The War Powers Resolution” which placed restrictions upon the President to make war. Those restrictions included  evidence required of an attack on the united States, its possessions and protectorates, or armed forces. The President is required to consult with Congress prior to committing troops and continue such consultation until our forces are no longer involved. Also, he is required to file a report to Congress with in 48 hours seeking authorization and after 60 days from the time the report is filed must withdraw such forces.

Further, it has been specifically documented that United Nations Security Council approval does not constitute authorization by Congress pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

President Obama addressed the nation on March 28, 2011 attempting to establish his authority and leadership role by leading the NATO coalition against Muammar Qaddafi of Libya for crimes against his own people. According to President Obama his leadership and that of those of his diplomats resulted in a swift formation of a coalition of 28 nations and the placing of sanctions against the Libyan regime. Those swift steps took 31 days during which Gaddhafi’s armies devastated the revolutionary forces.

Obama stated that it was not in our national interests but would be against our values should we not have initiated action against the Libyan forces. During his entire speech he failed to identify the conflict in Libya as either a war, or a civil war, which in either case does not constitute an attack upon the U. S., our possessions or protectorates, or our armed forces. Thus his intervention in this civil uprising is unlawful and unconstitutional.

The President contends that his actions have freed 700,000 people seeking freedom from fear, unwarranted arrest, assault and slaughter and having stopped the deadly advance of qaddafi’s forces against the Libyan people. He attempted to couch his position by stating he had consulted with members of Congress before committing American forces to the conflict although this remains to be confirmed. The estimate that the initial dollars spent is more than one billion in unauthorized treasure for the conflict to date.

He stood before the nation and declared that genocide would not be  allowed to take place as long as he was President and Commander-in-Chief. If that statement is meant to define the Obama doctrine then what about genocide taking place in Uganda, Kenya, Darfur, Jordan, Syria, Iran and on and on all over the middle east and Arab countries? The truth is that we have a President worried about his prospects for reelection in 2012 because of his dismal record on domestic matters and sees Libya as a pawn to use in his never-ending election campaign.

If ever there was a situation that shows his contempt for our Constitution and the rule of law it is this reckless venture into Libya under Obama’s leadership. Perhaps our President needs to be reminded of his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”

Make no mistake regardless of the outcome in Libya Barack Obama will have sufficiently insulated himself from bearing any responsibility for failure but is sure to take the credit for any success.

Don’t Exploit the Giffords Tragedy!

by Jayne Frank

Having had a sister with brain trauma, I spent yesterday in prayer and agony thinking of the pain that is now being felt by the families of Congresswoman Giffords and the others who either died or are hospitalized in Arizona.  That pain and the long  journey towards recuperation is something that cannot be known by many Americans.

Within hours of this massacre by a deranged young man, we had the Sheriff’s office saying that it is the result of the vitriol in America and especially in Arizona.  The news media outlets and journalists are burning up their pens and computers at this very moment on stories indicating that Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement and “angry” Americans are to blame and should be investigated and stopped before this becomes a regular occurrence.

This was nothing more than a derelict act of a bored, manipulated, mentally unstable young man, who was in fact obviously angry, but blame must lay squarely where it belongs.  This is a country with massive unemployment, and many of those people have been unemployed for years and some will not find steady employment again.What happens to idle hands and minds that have nothing to do each day but think and spend time on social networks?  This is a country where our borders are so porous, allowing millions of illegals and drug/weapons smugglers to come across our southern borders every year and where people are reading every day of dozens of beheadings just across our border.   This is also a country where our freedoms are being assaulted every day by our own government where many people feel afraid for their futures.

So, rather than blame this event on Sarah Palin, who doesn’t have a violent bone in her body, or on the Tea Party Movement, I ask for positive action from our Government to help solve this problem.  The old saying about “idle hands and idle minds” is never more true than it is today.   Get people back to work and give young people the incentives and encouragement to finish their higher educations to be able to think positively about their futures. Take the shackles off Corporations in this country so that they will start hiring again.  And most importantly, you can quell some of the anger in Arizona by securing our borders and stop pitting one group of people in Arizona against each other.    This morning, I awoke not to thoughts and prayers for the Arizona victims of yesterday’s violence, but to headlines that our President is considering internet ID directives in the name of “password ease” for all Americans, and now his resolve will only be heightened by what happened yesterday and any such action will punish all Americans for the actions of just one.

As a final thought, even though this young man was 22, he was in his parent’s home.  What happened to personal responsibility of them for allowing this young man to become so mentally disturbed?  It was reported that there was a shrine in the back yard with a skull on it made by Jared Lee; there were dream journals, he had a history of pot use, there were letters, envelopes and other evidence found in his room, and of course, he bought the gun in November.  The father indicated, according to news sources, that he didn’t know what to do with him because he was “out of control.”  The father evidently knew about how troubled and more violent his  son was becoming.  Even though an adult, those parents had some options and rights available to them:  1) go through his room for evidence of something wrong, 2) call the authorities, 3) get him help, or 4) throw him out of their home.  They did none of these and now 6 people are dead, a couple dozen injured, and many other lives in their communities are changed forever.   For those of you that say they couldn’t invade his “privacy,” you are sadly mistaken and obviously part of our country’s problem.  He lived in their home.  Responsibility has to be also shared by these parents.

I hope people give some “real” thought to why this young man did what he did yesterday.