Many of us are concerned, and with good reason, about President  Obama’s lack of war strategy in Afghanistan. Today President Obama met with his national security team, but refrained from making a decision on the reshaped military strategy for the Afghanistan War. During the meeting, the Obama administration dodged the question of whether the President has been stalling on Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request for more soldiers. Today the White House also reported that the President will not be making a decision on an Afghan war strategy for at least a few weeks. American soldiers are dying NOW. General McChrystal became the top General in Afghanistan over the summer, and until last night, Obama has had no interaction with him since he submitted a request for40,000 more troops. It would seem that the President does not have the Afghan war as one of his top priorities, as it should be. Instead, he has been spending his time pushing to make Chicago the location for the 2016 Olympics! And while the President wastes his time on such things, hundreds of men and women die in Afghanistan because there aren’t enough troops to win the war.

McChrystal warned that the mission in Afghanistan could fail without more troops in his Aug. 30 classified assessment, which was followed by the troop request.

This is the second installation of a three part series regarding the officials that President Obama has endorsed during his Presidency. In today’s article, we will take a look at van Jones, who recently resigned from his position as President Obama’s “green czar”, after an attack by conservatives questioning his extremely radical positions on key issues.

Some of the controversy included some of Jones’  less than decent comments at an environmental conference concerning President Bush and Republicans. I also found this video on newsmax.com, where Jones said that only “suburban white kids” shoot up schools.

Those who campaigned for his resignation pointed out that his name has shown up on a petition for the 9/11 Truth movement, an organization that questions the mainstream interpretation of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and calls for a new investigation into the attacks. Many adherents of the 9/11 truth movement suggest that there is evidence that the United States government could either have been responsible for, or knowably complicit in the September Eleventh attacks on the World Trade Center.

Most controversial was Jones’ role as a founder and leader of the communist revolutionary organization: Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM). On the night following the attacks on the World Trade Center, STORM released a document on their website entitled: Reclaiming Revolution: history, summation & lessons from the work of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM)
In this document, Jones is quoted as saying:

“Anti-Arab hostility is already reaching a fever pitch as pundits and common people alike rush to judgment that an Arab group is responsible for this tragedy,” said Van Jones, founder and national executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. “We fear that an atmosphere is being created that will result in official and street violence against Arab men, women and children.”

“Reclaiming Revolution” also blamed the U.S. for 9/11. A passage on page 45 (27 of the PDF file) reads:

“That night, STORM and the other movement leaders expressed sadness and anger at the deaths of innocent working class people. We were angry, first and foremost, with the U.S. government, whose worldwide aggression had engendered such hate across the globe that working class people were not safe at home. We honored those who had lost their lives in the attack — and those who would surely lose their lives in subsequent U.S. attacks overseas.

After his resignation, Glenn Beck, who is credited by many with playing the leading role in pushing Van Jones to resign his office, said this following the resignation:

“The American people stood up and demanded answers, Instead of providing them, the Administration had Jones resign under cover of darkness. I continue to be amazed by the power of everyday Americans to initiate change in our government through honest questioning, and judging by the other radicals in the administration, I expect that questioning to continue for the foreseeable future.”

following his resignation from office, which occurred without advance notice by the White House in an e-mail minutes into Sunday on a holiday weekend, the mainstream media, as we would all expect, largely ignored the topic.

Calvin

This article is in reply to a comment made by Jabby.

Cass Sunstein was recently nominated by President Obama to administer and head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the White House Office of Management and Budget. The Senate has scheduled the floor confirmation vote for Cass Sunstein today. No more left-wing extremists in Washington! Cass Sunstein is known for a variety of radical positions, consider this list made from an e-mail sent out by Eagle Forum that I just received:

* Expanding radical animal rights, specifically granting the right to legally sue to animals and banning hunting.
* Rationing medical care for the elderly as a major component of health care reform legislation.
* Increasing gun control legislation because he views “almost all gun control legislation as constitutionally fine.”
* Advocating federal law to provide for ‘presumed consent’ rather than ‘explicit consent’ for human organ donation to science after death.
* Censoring freedom of speech, particularly on the internet to crack down on “falsehoods” and “rumors.”

Not the ideal guy to be making decisions on how to regulate Obama’s loosely-defined health care policies you think? Let’s hope the Senate doesn’t vote him in. For more info on this creep, see Eagle Forum’s opposition letter.

These days it is hard to find honest people in Government. It seems like every time we have elections for President or Congress or Governor, the candidates always base their political platforms of of what positions will get them elected, instead of devoting their careers to serving their Country. And somehow, as time goes by, these people continue to get elected into office. Why is this? Well, I would say that it is because of the propaganda that they feed to the public. There are many good people who support President Obama because of the many campaign promises that he made on TV. Politicians like Obama rely on propaganda to rally support and further their career. They take advantage of so many different events in order to gain political support. For example, a few weeks ago I wrote an article here on the site explaining how politicians use the theory of global warming to take advantage of U.S. citizens. In order to get the economic stimulus bill passed, Obama and his supporters blamed the national deficit on former President George W. Bush. While President Bush did contribute to the national deficit, the Obama administration has only done more damage. Campaigning politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties will make empty promises in order to get elected into the desired office. For example, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson once made a promise to limit Texas Senator’s terms to two terms, but broke the promise on June 17, 2005 when she ran for reelection to the U.S. Senate. Now the Senator is running for Governor of Texas, and promising that if she is elected in 2010 she will introduce legislation that will limit the amount of time a Governor of Texas can serve to two terms. Politicians are constantly making empty promises in order to further their careers. Politicians like Obama promise to lower taxes, send us checks, and make life easy for everyone by giving us handouts. This is a trick that all too many fall for. Rather than voting for the candidate that will make the best decisions for the Country’s welfare as a whole, many Americans simply vote for the candidate that can make life easiest for them. It is a shame that our county’s leaders and potential leaders would take advantage of Americans in this way, but just as much so that there are so many American citizens who either don’t know or don’t care about our nation’s political direction in the slightest. We need to educate ourselves so that we will not be fooled by the propaganda that these people propose to us. After we start making informed voting decisions, and make them with the right motives, maybe then we can elect leaders who will work toward the benefit of the entire country. Furthermore, as Christians, we should always realize that we have an obligation to obey earthly authorities, as long as doing so does not compromise our faith. If our country is one day led into Communism, or some other form of tyranny, and our leaders tax us sore, they are still our authorities, and we must obey them as long as they do not instruct us to sin in some way or another. When it comes to taxes, I strongly disagree with taxpayers funding abortion and other sinful acts. So should I pay taxes if it means funding abortion? consider this passage of scripture:

And they send to him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites?
Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a denarius.
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

Caesar did terrible things with the money he collected in taxes, yet Jesus told them to pay taxes to him, so shouldn’t we pay taxes to our government? We live in a great country that allows us to choose our leaders, and to have a say in the direction in which our country is led. We have the freedom to come together and worship God without fear of being persecution. But if we lose these privileges, we would still have a duty to be respectful to our authorities. Please post a comment with your thoughts.

Calvin

Last Thursday, details emerged of a frightening new version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009. The bill was originally authored by Senator Jay Rockfeller D-W.Vmonths earlier. but If passed, the bill would give President Obama emergency control of the Internet, and furthermore may give him the power to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks.

“In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a ‘cyber-emergency,’ which they didn’t define,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.
This is a most frightening development. If this bill is signed into law, it will be a huge violation of the First Amendment. Proponents of the bill argue it will help prevent terrorist’s access to our water, electricity, banking, traffic lights, and electronic health records in the event of a cyber-emergency, but do we absolutely have to sacrifice our liberties in the process? It is our duty to improve our national security, and in the present day and age it is very important; but giving the President the power to shut down citizen’s access to the internet is certainly not necessary.