Friday, October 29, 2010

No Morals

This administration continues to show that they have no moral compass.  Well, that may be slightly inaccurate...they have no compass at all.  But todays bit of evidence really is both moral and legal.

The 2008 Child Soldiers Protection Act specifically mandates that our government penalizes countries that use child soldiers.  And this is the first year that it has gone into effect.  Sound like a plan, doesn't it?  A good thing?  Shows our moral repugnance for any entity that would put children in the field to act as military personnel, right?  Yep.  The United States will show the world our true values and stand up for them, right?

Well, not so much, apparently.

In a Presidential memo, released today by the White House,  to Secretary of State Clinton, Mr. Obama indicated he had determined that "it is in the national interests of the United States" to waive application of the law to the countries of Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Yemen.

There are provisions in the law that would have allowed the US to target military funds while still allowing funding for professionalization of army capability, but Mr. Obama chose to grant a blanket exemption.

It is interesting how consistently Mr. Obama ignores, makes excuses for, or supports egregious behavior on the part of other countries in the world, while attempts by member states of the union are attacked in court, penalized monetarily and roundly chastised publicly by this President for something as seemingly appropriate as enforcing our borders.

There is no logical, ideological or moral consistency to his actions...ever.  Perhaps he should go to church more often...even Reverend Wright's church.  Even a misguided consistency is better than swinging in the wind with no compass at all.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

The President continues to act un-Presidential

It is one thing to disagree with any politician in office about their philosophy of government and governance.  It is common and parallels our business and personal existence.  Nobody agrees with anyone on everything...and some of the disagreements can be intense.  No matter.  It all usually works out in the end.

I admit to agreeing almost not at all with President Obama's ideological positions on the direction the country should take and how that direction should be enabled. has been said, elections have consequences.  He won, he gets to push in the direction that he chooses to believe in.  Fine.

However, there is such a thing as acting and behaving Presidential.  It involves an awareness and understanding of the position of President; a recognition that as a representative of all citizens, speaking in support of your aims and goals should not incorporate vilifying any of the countries citizens.  As a person, you may feel that some groups and individuals are, indeed, you enemies.  And if you were just a person, or just a member of an opposing group, you could indulge in all kinds of name-calling and vilification.  As President, however, it is unseemly to do is NOT Presidential.  It denigrates the office of the Presidency, papering it with the detritus of partisanship that demeans the office-holder as well as the office, leaving a long-lasting oder that takes multiple elections to remove.

President Obama's recent speech directed at and crafted to inspire Latinos to vote in his favor crossed the line with his description of opponents as enemies.  He could simply have made a case for his governance (and his party's)  being best for Latinos without demonizing those he sees as opposing his agenda.  But he was in campaign mode and could not keep himself from acting as a candidate instead of President.

Shameful...and so disappointing.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Reiner and Maher right on the money, just late.

Appearing on Bill Maher's Real Time show, actor/Director/Writer Rob Reiner prefaced his remarks by proposing:

      “you never get into a political discussion unless you bring the word Hitler in. You have to have Hitler, so let's put Hitler out there,” as if that caveat lessened the vulgarity of his impending comparison, he contended all the Tea Party needs to match Adolph Hitler is a charismatic leader: "He wasn’t a majority guy, but he was charismatic and they were having bad economic times – just like we are now – people were out of work, they needed jobs and a guy came along and rallied the troops. My fear is that the Tea Party gets a charismatic leader, because all they're selling is fear and anger and that's all Hitler sold. 'I’m angry and I’m frightened and you should hate that guy over there.'” “Right,” Bill Maher chirped in as Reiner, to applause from HBO's Los Angeles audience, declared: “And that’s what they’re doing.”

 Well, I hate to break the news to Reiner and Maher, but what they feared has already 2007 and 2008.

Remember?  Remember the fear, hatred and loathing voiced by the Progressive-Liberals toward "W" and all things Republican or Conservative?  Remember the cry for someone to lead them to the promised land?  It was palpable.  And the diatribes went on endlessly, in blogs, newspapers (both editorial and so-called "news" sections), and Main Stream Media.

And they GOT their charismatic leader...a junior Senator from Illinois...a silver-tongued ideologue that could inspire and rabble-rouse and could lead them to the promised land.  The mice fell right into step and followed him right out of town and to the voting booth

Then, just like Hitler, he turned that power back on the electorate for his own purposes to create a country in his own image and in accordance with his beliefs.  Does any student of history really believe that if Hitler had won the war, the German people would have been happy with the government and the atmosphere that would have governed Germany? we are, in the same position...except that we are not in a World War of a military nature.  But we ARE in a war of ideologies.  And the results, if Obama's power is not cut off, will be just as catastrophic to America today as Hitler's was to Germany in the middle of the last century.

Just don't wait for Reiner or Maher to get a clue any time soon.

Saturday, October 2, 2010

The Housing Market...why it continues to stagnate

     There are two concerns that the Administration has with the Home Mortgage situation: one involves helping some people keep houses that they were not economically qualified to buy in the first place, and the second one is to promote the recovery of the housing market...both building and sales of existing homes.  I strongly suspect that either goal will prevent the second and, in fact, exacerbate the problems in that area.  Let me explain.  The housing market cannot recover until it bottoms out...until the public is satisfied that home prices have found their proper equilibrium.

As long as foreclosures are pending in record numbers, the market suspects that prices will still fall, money will stay on the sidelines, and lenders will be uncertain of appraisal values.  The Administration has made a judgment that it is good to make every effort to allow as many economically unqualified purchasers as possible to stay in their homes and not be forced into foreclosure or to sell.  But the market recognizes that this artificially clouds the real state of the market: how many homes are out there, will be out there, should be out there,... and when will those questions be answered allowing a logical evaluation and setting of home prices?

Unfortunately, the administration has royally screwed up their attempts to help those homeowners who are "under water" and not able to make their mortgage payments.  The supposed "help" has been difficult to get, hard to work with, and impossible to understand for some...and that ignores the extended time taken, often with not progress at all.

The net result is that the administration is not even accomplishing what they state to be their goal, while the decision to make that a goal is preserving the state of chaos in the housing market.  The administration has succeeded in creating a truly classic "lose/lose" situation.

Friday, October 1, 2010

Does the Federal Government know what it is doing?

The Muslim Brotherhood is, as I understand it, a transnational Islamic Organization with chapters in 70 or so countries.  There is one in America, at least an organization founded by the Brotherhood. is their Motto:  "Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; jihad is our way; and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

Doesn't exactly sound like a group with a live and let live attitude, does it?

The Islamic Society of North America was founded by Muslim Brotherhood member in the United States.  The Council on American-Islamic Relations was linked to Hamas support effort organized by the Brotherhood.  Sort of sets off alarm bells, doesn't it?  It does to me.

But...apparently not to either the Bush or Obama administrations.  A Hudson Institute report last year identified the American Islamic College (AIC) as having been planned by the Muslim Students Association, a affiliate of the Brotherhood (and the MSA was once headed by AIC founder Ahmed Sakr).  The significance, you ask?  Well, President Obama's personal "envoy" to the Organization of Islamic Converence in Chicago this week appeared on stage with Ahmad Rehab, head of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)...a CAIR official and a White House aide sharing a stage.

Due to exhibits in the Hamas-support prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the FBI has declared    "until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner."

But apparently the White House has no problem with this.And it is not just one...there are a number of Brotherhood speakers on the list for this conference: Safaa Zarzour, Secretary-General of the Islamic Society of North America, Imam Siraj Wahaj, who testified as a character witness for the Blind Sheikh, John Esposito, Dalia Mogahed, Rep. Keith Ellison, and Farah Pandith, the State Department's special representative to the Muslim community.

It is arguable that such activity by the administration empowers groups whose aim is to create an Islamic Nation in the United States.  Why isn't the government explaining how this is in any way serving to protect the United States from the obvious threat?  Why?