Honest questions for our Congress and our President... updated 8/30/2009 We're concerned. The normal, average, everyday citizens of this country increasingly sense that the federal government is operating on a different agenda from their own. We don't know what this agenda is or where it leads, but we have a RIGHT to know both, and we demand answers! Following are just some of the questions that nag at us -- that in a country where trust of the federal government has perhaps never been less and where the divide between the "ruling class" and "the regular citizen" has perhaps never been more, MUST be answered. If you have an HONEST QUESTION you believe should be on this list, email it to us at hq-at-honestquestions-dot-com. What happened to the Social Security "lockbox" concept from 2000? The program continues to speed toward insolvency, and yet the national conversation today is only about creating trillions of dollars more in federal entitlements going forward without any discussion of how to pay for the old ones. How does this make sense? The budget deficit in FY2009 projects to about $1.8T, or about four times the level of George Bush's biggest deficit (FY2008). Doesn't this problem need to be addressed RIGHT NOW? How is it reasonable to respond to a towering deficits by spending more money? How can the dollar hold up? How can taxes not be raised on every single Amercan overwhelmingly in the next several years? What is our strategy now in Iraq? What is our strategy now in Afghanistan, especially now that casualties are rising? When the rest of the world refuses to lend the U.S. any more money, what will the U.S. policy be toward spending? Will it raise taxes rapidly on Americans, or will it print so much money that the dollar will rapidly inflate? How does the unelected, unaccountable Federal Reserve have any constitutional authority whatsoever? Public opinion polls are consistently against the health care reform currently being discussed by the President and Congress. The more they speak, the less support the measures get. The more aggressive the speech becomes by federal officials, the lesser still support there is. Why then are the President and Congress hell-bent on passing health care reform? Why is this health care reform so important that members of Congress will insult those who would protest against it? Why would they compare opponents to KKK members, Nazis, and the worst characters in our history? Why is passing health care reform SO important -- even when it goes against the wishes of the people? John Conyers mocks those who insist Congressmen "read the bill" (view here). Does he speak for others in Congress? If Conyers is right by saying that he needs "two days" and "two lawyers" to understand the bills, then perhaps Congress isn't writing the bills at all. Who is? Harry Reid suggests the Apollo Alliance is writing, or at least heavily influencing, legislation. As stated by the Apollo Alliance on their Web site: The clean energy focus of the stimulus was inspired by the Apollo Alliance’s vision, and the specific content of many of the bill’s provisions was influenced by policy proposals that the Apollo Alliance made last year in The New Apollo Program and the Apollo Economic Recovery Act. Reid stated to this end: "We've talked about moving forward on these ideas for decades. The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them." Moving forward on these ideas for decades? Motivating the public to support them? Wasn't the sole stated purpose of the stimulus package to spend money now to infuse growth into the economy today? What ideas are Congress working with the Apollo Alliance to garner public support for? What even IS the Apollo Alliance? Senator Reid, in crafting the stimulus package, the inference is that you partnered with the Apollo Alliance to write key pieces of the legislation -- even the Apollo Alliance Web site claims the stimulus package as 2009 "achievement". Is that true? Van Jones, the President's special advisor on green jobs, enterprise, and innovation, sat on the board of the Apollo Alliance and founded ColorOfChange, whose mission statement is: To strengthen Black America's political voice. Our goal is to empower our members—Black Americans and our allies — to make government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans and to bring about positive political and social change for everyone. Positive political and social change? What does that mean? Is it a coincidence that ColorOfChange is leading the charge to pressure advertisers to drop their campaigns from Fox News's Glenn Beck program? Is there reason to believe that Van Jones, from inside the White House, has any connection to his former organization's activities today? Is there a chance that Beck is the target of a campaign originating inside the White House? We don't know the answer to this, but it's certainly a fair and honest question. ColorOfChange seems to consider its primary demographic "Black Americans" and calls out the governors of states rejecting stimulus funding that could benefit their most "vulnerable residents" (read here). Jones also founded Green For All, whose mission statement is similar to that of the Apollo Alliance: Green For All is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through a clean energy economy. We work in collaboration with the business, government, labor, and grassroots communities to create and implement programs that increase quality jobs and opportunities in green industry – all while holding the most vulnerable people at the center of our agenda. The "most vulnerable people"? What is the overlap between the "green" cause and the "race" cause? And does it tie into positive political and social change? The overlap MAY be explained with an understanding of Jones's life (read here), which featured: An arrest in San Francisco in 1992 for being in the mix of mass riots after the Rodney King verdict was announced Stating, in reflection of his time in prison: I met all these young radical people of color - I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." A communist? His founding of a group called STORM, or Standing Together To Organize A Revolutionary Movement, which "held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia." A communist REVOLUTIONARY? His discovery through aggressive tactics with STORM that: "I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists - shudder, shudder - who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs." Capitalists -- shudder, shudder? An anti-capitalist communist revolutionary? While by all appearances Jones has relinquished his violent ways of the past, is Jones still a Communist? Is he anti-capitalist? Do those views feed hidden agendas in his organizations Green For All and ColorOfChange? Did he bring those views to the Apollo Alliance? And does he bring those views today to the White House? Was Jones vetted by the FBI? Was he NOT vetted by the FBI? Is the report true that the White House has taken over vetting of appointees itself from the FBI and started doing such vetting "in-house"? If it is true, why was this decision made? Should the public have reason for concern that appointees will not be examined by outside agencies, especially in light of the Van Jones appointment? According to the FCC Web site, "Along with competition and diversity, promoting localism is a key goal of the Commission’s media ownership rules." (read here) Why is the FCC concerned with "diversity" (which seemingly has nothing to do with the administration of the airwaves) and localism (which seemingly involves showing favoritism to stations that do not air national programming)? Is this a coded threat to conservative talk radio? Mark Lloyd, President Obama's "FCC Diversity advisor", remarked at the 2008 NCMR that he believes the media is best used as an agent of "social change" (view here). Is federal policy such as this constitutional? As a key influence to FCC policy, will Mark Lloyd seek to impose this vision on FCC-regulated communications? Is he simply carrying out the President's vision? Glenn Beck aired a video clip on his Fox News program from the same NCMR event in which Lloyd refers to Hugo Chavez's takeover of Venezuela as an "incredible revolution -- a democratic revolution" and suggests that Chavez didn't take the media seriously until privately-owned outlets and property owners of all kinds in Venezuela pushed back and sought assistance from the U.S. government (view here). If this is a veiled reference to Chavez's on-going efforts to seize and shut down private media outlets, converting some into state-owned outlets, what is Lloyd saying? Is he holding up Chavez as a model of correctness? Is he claiming the Venezuelan people sought takeover by a dictator? And is he applauding the state seizure of private media as a means to force social change? Given that the most secure federal data networks are not a part of the public Internet, under what purported type of "cyber-emergency" should the White House have the power to seize Internet connectivity from any private computer whatsoever? How is such an allowance even constitutional? (read here) Why has President Obama nominated John Holdren as a special advisor for science and technology, a man who has written all of the following: Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. (from his book Ecoscience, co-authored with A.H. Ehrlich and P.R. Ehrlich in 1977) Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. (from Ecoscience) One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption — especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. (from Ecoscience) In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? (from Ecoscience) If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection. (from Ecoscience) Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. (from Ecoscience) Does Holdren carry Obama's viewpoints? Should the public be concerned about Holdren's eugenics approach to social and environmental management? And why might the federal government have an interest to begin with in these types of policies? Do they tie in to national health care? If national health care becomes reality, do these types of policies become NECESSARY to sustain it financially? Conversely, is national health care an avenue by which to GET to these POLICIES? Both possibilities are frightening. Did Holdren pass an FBI vetting? Was he vetted by the FBI at all? When the Senate confirmed Holdren, did it simply shirk its responsibilities by failing to vet him properly? Or did the Senate not consider important (or did it AGREE WITH) Holdren's viewpoints? It's one or the other. Are the "hope" and "change" mantras that drove the Obama campaign in 2008 and led it to victory terms pulled right out of Saul Alinsky's book Rules For Radicals? What is the reason for granting amnesty to all of America's illegal aliens? We have never heard a reason discussed other than "getting folks out of the shadows" or some such. Why should we consider this action? Is it political in nature (i.e. lower-income folks obtain citizenship and vote in large order for Democrats)? Why did President Bush want amnesty so badly? What is the common motive of George Bush and the Democrats? Does this somehow transcend politics -- and even right & wrong? When George Bush stated, "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system", what did he mean? How does abandoning free-market principles save the free-market system? Doesn't this move actually prove the point that the free market DOES NOT work precisely because it cannot save itself? Does George Bush actually believe in free-market principles? Why did George Bush stand firm in his attempt to turn security of U.S. ports over to a Dubai firm? Whether friend or foe, why is any company in Dubai better suited to handle our own domestic security than we are here in the U.S.? How does this make sense in a post-9/11 world? Why did George Bush and the Republican Congress refuse to take any meaningful steps to secure the borders of the United States, even in the post-9/11 era? Was there an alterior motive at play that superceded the overriding issue of that day: terrorism? How can the nation truly be "safe" when the borders are wide open? Why did George Bush try to use a Supreme Court vacancy to nominate a crony to the post (Harriet Miers)? - HQ staff   Read It Now: Who is President Obama? An IMPORTANT look at the Obama czars, Obama appointments, and Obama associates. NEW: Liberalism, Progressive and Socialist movements unconstitutional -- documented! President "Spread the Wealth Around" Obama saddling financial industry with creating "a broadly shared prosperity" LAUGHABLE: Obama's warning on "scare tactics" is utter hypocrisy The lies and distortions in the President's health care address to Congress... documented. False Racism Honest questions for our Congress and our President Power Grab Alert: White House to get control of Internet in "cyber-emergency"? Why?! Power Grab Alert: Competition, diversity, and localism: Back door to the Fairness Doctrine? Health Care Reform: The REAL solution Education: The REAL solution Why is Charlie Rangel still in Congress? Why is John Conyers still in Congress? Why is Chris Dodd still in Congress? Contact Us Click for updates on: Valerie Jarrett Van Jones Jeremiah Wright Mark Lloyd Cass Sunstein Tim Geithner John Holdren Anita Dunn ACORN Other Obama associates Coming This Week: The basic principles for which we stand -- can you disagree? The people surrounding the Congress Central government as a necessary evil ...our view The history of the federal income tax Why slippery slope theory is REAL Our read of the Constitution   © 2010 by HonestQuestions.com. All rights reserved.