Tuesday, December 25, 2012

I Love Christmas

I love Christmas.  Well, more precisely, I love the idea of Christmas.  That is my current feeling.  Over the years it has changed...a lot.  In my old age I can sit back and mull over my feelings over the years and the evolution of my thoughts and emotions with a bit more detachment.  And...I love the idea of Christmas.

The start of it all is that I believe in God.  Of course, I started out as a child being taught...some would argue, indoctrinated...that there was a God and that included moral precepts and standards.  Well, I grew up in a disciplined home where there were rules and there were consequences when the rules were broken.  I didn't much like that...then.  But as a grew up, even in my teens, I came to appreciate the presence of rules...and of consequences.

When young, God...and religion...was represented by men and women: Ministers and teachers who claimed to tell me what God wanted and what was right and wrong.  I didn't much like it...I had other ideas...often.  But when those "adult" representatives of God were proven to be less than honorable, honest, and consistent, I came to be an agnostic. I spent years exploring other established faiths and religions.  I found much to admire...and the same failings in all of them: People ran them seemed to get in the business of profiting from declaring God's Will.

I came finally to a point where God and I seemed to work out a dependable relationship...as long as I didn't allow other human beings to get in the way.  All organizations, including and perhaps especially religions, lose their way and purpose over time and become more interested in their own power rather than in helping people find, know, and communicate with God.

But through it all was Christmas.  A time when all the people with whom I came in contact were happier, more kind and seemed to re-set their moral compass...for a time.  At least until mid-January.

Everyone uses Christmas for something different.  Evangelicals use it to re-focus their hearts and souls in the manner of their belief and hold all the various symbols of the time of year dear: the creche, the tree, the star of Bethlehem, the Wise Men and all the rest are dear to them, as they are to the other Christian faiths.  To Atheists  Christmas is just as important, as they point to the pagan elements that have been folded into the Christmas Story and the probability that Jesus was not born on Christmas as proofs of their point of view.  And Businesses love Christmas because it promises increased sales and profits.  Those lukewarm about Christmas as a religious occurence even love it because it means time off and a paid holiday.

Christmas, however, for me has become an opportunity to sit back and ponder on my belief in God and to appreciate the guidance that, when I take the time to listen for and to it, has benefited me all of my life.  I don't worry about the proofs about the Bible...or Christmas...or Science in general; my life experiences have unexplained events that can be explained by no other concept than God exists and...my age and experience notwithstanding...I can always benefit from guidance from a higher source.

I have discounted those who argue humanism as a guiding standard; humans have proven themselves over the ages to be notoriously inhuman to their fellow man at  the most trivial of excuses.  The natural tendency of man is to be narcissistic and care not a wit for anyone unless there is self-benefit involved.  So...the only excuse for those who act with love and kindness toward others is that they are guided by God.

But, while I criticize often what I decree to be the excesses of the Christmas Season, I do not really object too much.  Whatever the motivation, the more people who support the celebration of Christmas, the better.  I want that opportunity to sit back and reflect on the year, my decisions, my foibles and my good fortune to remember... albeit all to seldom...to sit back and listen to that small voice before embarking on any significant effort.

It is the idea...the Faith...in Christ and in Christmas Spirit that sets me up to start yet another year.  Other points of view are fine with me...as long as I am not forced to embrace them: I won't proselytize and I will not allow other to proselytize me in return.

Merry Christmas to all.

Monday, November 12, 2012

"Cliffs" sometimes mean climbing, not falling

There is so much bleating about the "Fiscal Cliff" that faces us at the beginning of 2013 that one would think that the end of the world is imminent. Maybe a calm step back and reality check are in order here.  Really.

First, everyone is clamoring for the President and the Congress to "do something."  Really?  Seems to me that they have already done it.

In order to insure that we got our finances under control, the President came up with the idea...and Congress voted in agreement...that Congress would try to find a kinder, gentler way to achieve fiscal sanity, but if they were unable to agree, that taxes would go up and spending would go down.

That is a "balanced approach", to quote the President, and in line with his campaign mantra.

Second, not all cliffs mean a fall.  I mean, try imagining that the cliff in front of us involves a climb UP, not a fall down.  That doesn't seem quite as daunting, does it?  It never does, although once you start, you can get quite a shock when and if you look down instead of concentrating on your goal.

But, we have been digging ourselves a fiscal hole for years, so I maintain that the cliff coming in January is one going UP and that we can choose to successfully climb it.  And in the process, everyone goes back to the tax rates that the Democrat party found so desirable during the campaign;  it would be nice to know that more people receiving benefits from the government were actually contributing to them in a current fashion even as the amount being paid by the government-proclaimed "rich" also went up.  Balanced billing is good.

Some of my Progressive "friends" don't like that, but my response is that my father really didn't like it when they started taxing the interest on his savings, insisting that he had already paid taxes on that money and that they were hitting him twice.  he insisted that if they couldn't try him twice for the same crime, they shouldn't have the right to tax him twice...it wasn't fair.  In later years, he acknowledged that expecting the government to be fair was a fantasy.  I disagreed then, but totally agree now.

Anyway, we all could save a lot of time, anguish and "agida" by simply shutting up and getting our climbing gear on; let's just get on with the necessary climb...ALL of us.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

The Founding Fathers' America died Nov. 6, 2012

Some of my friends and acquaintances insisted 4 years ago that America had turned away from the precepts of our Founding Fathers, that there was no going back.  I insisted that, to the contrary, America had rejected what the government had become and wanted to see what then-candidate Obama promised come to fruition.  True, he had no track record or identifiable accomplishments, but he spoke well and promised what every American wanted, so we needed to see how it worked out.

Four years later, we find ourselves with a President who is: a proven liar; a partisan, ideologue; an inept administrator; a Progressive Socialist at best and a fan of Communism at worst; and a voyeur rather than a practitioner of governing.

And America chose to keep him in office for an additional 4 years.

And it wasn't as if they had no choice.  They had, as an alternative, a man with a proven record of administrative and job-creating accomplishments in both the governmental and private sectors, a man with a proven record of personal kindness, and truthfulness, as well as an record of being able to work in the political world in a bi-partisan way. But they rejected this candidate in favor of a divider, a partisan, a socialist, and a liar.


Apparently the American people have chosen to pursue the illusion of "free" stuff over the reality of personal freedom with the accompanying reality of "consequences."  Apparently the American people have chosen a path of guaranteed mediocrity over the non-guaranteed right pursue ultimate success with the companion of possible failure.  Apparently the American people have opted for a guaranteed existence without the obligation of "earning" it over the right and obligation of self-sufficiency.

The Founding Fathers' America died last night.

President Obama will now exercise the additional freedom to act that he referenced to Russian President Putin.  He will continue to spend.  He will continue to ignore the deficit as much as he can.  We will continue to spiral out of control financially and by the end of his term the current difficulties being suffered by Greek, Spanish and other citizens in Europe will look like a minor pimple on the back end of an elephant.

And the American people will go on (most of them) with their lives totally ignoring these developments, accepting the reassuring blandishments of their President,...until the "free" stuff stops coming.  And then they will look to blame someone other than themselves for the catastrophic times that will have arrived.

My America died last night.  And my grandchildren will suffer for it.  I apologize to them for not being able to do more to stop it.


Thursday, September 27, 2012

Cybersecurity: achievable or a Conundrum?

I use the internet a lot...for communication and other things.  I am not at the cutting edge of knowledge like my grandchildren, who seem to be prescient as to how to handle stuff that I haven't even yet discovered exist, but it doesn't scare me.  It is just another tool, like the phone or a hammer.

But I have read articles lately about what is described as the threat of lack of cyber-security, which I interpret to be the possibility of purposeful interference with the ability of folks to communicate and do business over the internet and even the possibility of bringing targeted businesses and even the system itself down in total collapse.

That is scary.  Sort of.  Although there are times when I watch young people text each other when sitting in the same room that maybe the total elimination of the internet and electronic "communication" might not be the worst thing for the long term survival of mankind...but, I digress.

I used to have to write and mail a check to pay my bills.  I used to have to write a letter and communicate with others, if they didn't live in the same town.  I used to actually meet and discuss things with folks face to face.  It was a good thing...it encouraged civility and mutual understanding, because there was no electronic anonymity.  This could be a useful thing to re-acquire, I think.

But, assuming that we can never go back...even if there would be a benefit...what is the logical approach to this cyber-security problem?  I am not an expert.  I don't know what is possible.  But logic...even from an old fogy like me...suggests a few things:
1)  Legislation is not...and never will be...the answer.

Folks who bread the law are not impressed by legislation; their activities are neither influenced nor controlled by right or wrong.  You aren't hitting the target.  Likewise, those using the internet for lawful purposes aren't protected by legislation; they hire smart people...sometime people who can solve the problem (surprise) without government "help."

2) Perfection and providing 100% reliability is impossible.

Systems sometimes crash for reasons having nothing at all to do with ill-intent of others.  "Stuff happens."  There is no need to focus on security...except for personal records and fraud...as more than an inconvenience.

3)  We have enough laws for fraudulent behavior now.

Certainly we should inspect and where necessary amend current laws to include electronic and internet activity within the covered purview of current laws, but that aside, there is no reason to add another volume to the already voluminous Statutes of the United States.

4) I would guess that the answer is in technology and trace-ability.

Perhaps our electronic information systems gurus could develop some useful things:
a) an electronic "trap" that would prevent a hacker from erasing traces of their entry into systems; b) an automatic shut down of a system if there is an overload of requests (demands for service) to prevent damage to the system. (this may already be in place); and c) a means of limiting the number of cut-outs available to users of the internet so as to make it impossible to utilize multiple routing origin points, making it easier to locate the source of activity.  This last would make it much easier to zero in on miscreants and apply the penalties of existing law(s).

5)  For Nation-State activity in this area, I would thing that a declaration of the old cold-war, nuclear threat policy of Mutually Assured Destruction might have the same effect here as it did then; if an attack occurs, it will result in the same response, leaving both entities totally at the mercy of the rest of the world nations.

These are ideas, not declarations of solutions.  I don't know if they are workable, either now or in the future.  But they have the attractive element of not inviting additional governmental activity and attempting to target the problem, not create another bureaucracy or further limit individual freedoms.

What do you think?

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Is loss of guilt a stepping stone to self-destruction?

I read still another article today on riots in Greece in response to austerity implemented by the Greek government, including comments by rioters agreeing with the same type of reactions in Spain to the same sort of government actions.

The question that arose was..."what rights and privileges does any human being have simply as a part of existence" followed by "How does any government entity of any type of ideology claim any more power to provide than does the individual?"

Early on in our lives, we all come to realize...sometime belatedly, I grant...that there is no such thing as a "free" lunch.  We recognize the need to work, not just as a fulfillment of our need to do something soul-satisfying, but as a means of survival.  Modern mad likes to ignore this second fact, and does a remarkably good job of it, but at our very center we all realize that need...to eat, to live, to exist we need to earn it somehow.

Now...enter government.  The reasons are many and not for this discussion, but governments want to provide us with "stuff."  And they do: apparently "free" stuff, like tax relief even as the government continues to do thing for us that require funding and increased unemployment benefits for NOT working which haven't been paid for either.  I could go on and on.

Receiving something which you haven't worked for is a gift, and is nice.  ONCE! Or maybe on your birthday or at certain holidays.  But if it happens continually; if it becomes the source of your existence, you start to feel guilty and you resent that feeling of guilt...even as you continue to take the easy road and accept the benefits.

Some people haven't a choice: they are disabled in some way, or circumstances prevent them from taking a different road.  Those are understandable and not to be criticized.  I don't.  But do not doubt that those people develop a certain resentment of both their situation and the reliance on that un-earned support (with the exception of disabled veterans who have earned every single benefit...and more...that they receive).  And even those feel a certain ambivalence about it.

Life is difficult.  And guilt adds to the level of difficulty.  The constant receipt of unearned benefits, and the developed reliance on them, becomes unmanageable over time.  Two things will happen: either there will be violence from the build up of anger an resentment...or there will be a mental re-definition of the benefits into...not unearned, but....a deserved right to live at a level commensurate, not with our work effort or product but, with our desires.

Problem solved!

No more guilt and now no embarrassment in either receiving or demanding more "free" stuff.

That, of course, leads to the question asked above...if the individual cannot provide for him or herself, how can the government...which only operates with a portion of the funds earned by that same individual, provide what hasn't been earned?

Well of course the answer is that a portion of the money taken from those that do...in fact...work and earn is taken and given to those that do not.

Fine...so far.  But...what happens when those that take outnumber those that earn?

Our...and most...government(s) is directed by those elected by majority vote.  If the majority are "takers" and not "earners", then those elected will be those that promise more and more "stuff."

Logic suggests that eventually the government will take more and more of the earnings of those that work until there is no more to take.  Not only that, it is entirely logical to predict that at some time those earners will decide that they need to live elsewhere, and that many who would otherwise be inclined to be earners would decide that the benefits are non-existent and that they were better off choosing to be "takers."

Ultimately, the system runs out of money and collapses.  But...note that since the takers have fostered a self-serving amnesia as to the fact that their "benefits" have been and are not now earned, there is a violent, indignent reaction to suddenly being presented with a cessation of those benefits until and unless the bill is paid.

The world can be an ugly and cruel place...but ultimately justice prevails.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

We're back...with a question...

Wow.  6 months go by fast.  Well, politics in general have turned me off so much I couldn't see any point in writing.  It seems to go into a great void and it wasn't making me feel any better.  But...I have managed to loose a bit of my hard won cynicism and am back.  Sorry about that.

Finally I have gotten far enough away from politics to look at the competing ideologies as a study of systems, questioning them from a bit of a distance.  And the basic question I have for anyone is this:


I would suggest that history proves that answer to be NO.

Democracy in one form or another...Greece in ancient times comes to mind...has not lasted, crumbling in the face of challenges from without the country's borders.

Communism, a world-conquering ideology, has never succeeded in sustaining itself.

Dictatorships have, likewise, only lasted for limited periods only to be destroyed...usually from within.

So, my own (and your) preferences aside, what does historical perspective say about governance?

It seems to me that the problem is not with ideologies, and it is not with the form of government. They all have much to offer various people with various points of view that seemingly make the existence of mankind either better or more organized.


Consider the dichotomies.  Man universally utters cries for justice, fairness and kindness.  But man's actions show a general disregard for justice, fairness and kindness unless it is directed at oneself...at least in a constant sense and never when it involves self-deprivation.  We can be kind for awhile, but when push comes to shove, its number one, baby.

And different individuals have different genetic tendencies for defining what is "good" and "pleasurable."  A Mother Theresa sees helping others as "good" and "Pleasurable" and turns away from any other existence.  A Manson sees hurting and killing others as "good" and "pleasurable."  And the rest of us fall somewhere between these two extremes, but never settling on an enduring majority view of where we stand on those definitions.

And that leads us to the governmental choices we make, first as to form, then as to those that will act as the representatives of whatever form we settle on...for now.

So...with that in mind let's briefly consider the benefits and practicality of the various governmental ideologies from the standpoint of practicality and efficiency (I will hold for another time a discussion of the reasons for having government at all).

The two most practical and efficient would be the Dictatorship and the absolute Democracy.  Why? Because they can dispense with contrary arguments and problems immediately, providing a sense of responsiveness and eliminating strife.  A Dictatorship would eliminate (that means "kill") all opposition to his points of view, leaving a society and group in complete (at least outwardly) agreement.  The Democracy, unfettered by any concern for minority "rights", would respond to that majority by eliminating (yep...that means "kill" too) all non-conforming points of view.  These two approaches have the advantage of affecting a genetic disposition to a point of view, since those not in conformity would be killed, preventing any non-conforming progeny.

Well...if so efficient, why haven't any pure democracies or Dictatorships survived?  Well, Dictatorship is hard work and there is no vacation.  Putting someone else in charge while you take a vacation is libel to leave you out of a job when your return...and as I have always said, the best form of government is absolutely a Dictatorship...providing I am it.  So...dictators make enemies, fail to kill all those enemies, and one of them eventually takes over.  But that is short lived because by that time the masses have become disillusioned with the form of government since they are not universally happy;  they don't want a replacement, they want to try something new, so the replacement doesn't last long.

Absolute democracies fall to the same fate and for the same reason; unhappiness with the status quo leads to experiments, all of which weaken the government because of expanded an fractured direction...until it collapses under it's own weight.

How about Lenin/Marxist/Communism (world-wide ideology), or Socialism (nationalistic form of communism)?  These identify the dangers of individuals at the top and try to focus on universal "fairness" and "goodness."  The problem is that a majority of mankind is oriented only to those ideals when it applies directly to themselves.  Over time, all people see themselves as "fairly"deserving more than others.  That, of course means that ultimately all see themselves as being the recipient of unfair treatment.  That leads to working less and ultimately to everyone sinking to the lowest common denominator...which itself keeps sinking.  That is why the U.S.S.R. ultimately failed; it combined all the weaknesses of both the commune and the dictatorship with socialistic overtones.

Capitalism is not, strictly speaking, a governmental form, but it is an ideology of which government plays a resented and inefficient part.  It has always survived, even in communist regimes...although in badly kept secret while officially being prohibited.  Why?  Because it feeds on the human nature to benefit oneself.

Government in any form lasts...and, arguably, grows more acceptable and becomes stronger...when it honors and encourages Capitalism.  It allows man to strive, overcome others, and that results in kindness to those less avaricious, greedy or able which is then defined as "justice" and "good" by the majority.  It allows the appearance of moral virtue even as it acts in other directions.

Governments of all kind start their inevitable slide to destruction and oblivion when they lose sight of their secondary position in the existence of mankind; when they start thinking that they are in control instead of being supportive they interfere with the capitalistic nature of man and that leads man to destroy that government.

It has happened throughout history...and, absent some scientific discovery, and implementation,  of some genetic operation that can be done to all of mankind...it will continue.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Obamacare and the Supreme Court: any good options?

There was a reasonable argument from the very beginning that the Mandate in Obamacare made the whole Act unconstitutional.  And the line of questioning recently by the Supreme Court Justices suggest that they see the same problem.  But...that is only the beginning of the morass.  If they see the mandate as unconstitutional, what is the next step?...and why?  Whats the problem, you ask?  Well, there are two follow-up directions to determine if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional:  it that mandate severable from the rest of the act, or not.  If it is, then the rest of the Act could continue to stand.  If not, then the whole Act must also be ruled unconstitutional.

The Court in the past has bent over backwards to sever parts of bills, and they will undoubtedly look to do the same here.  But there are considerable problems with this, however.  And those problems go back to the clear language of Congressional deliberations prior to and construction of the final ACA.  Specifically, the original draft provided for a severability clause; it, as most bills do, indicated that if for any reason a portion of the bill were to be ruled unenforceable, the rest of the the bill could stand and be severed from the failed portion.  However, Congress removed that clause.  And, in addition, the Congressional Record shows that the Democrat majority which passed the final bill both understood and agreed that without the mandate the bill would be a financial disaster.

So, both logically and logistically, it would seem that Congress intended that the entire bill should and would fail if the mandate failed.  Ah, but enter the illogical and thoughtless process that so pervades our Capitol and its inhabitants:  as it passed, some desirable things were tacked on as a quick, expedient way to get them passed when it was suspected that they would not be enacted on their own merits...and then consider that some of the provisions in the Act are actually desirable, such as the elimination of limits on benefits and raises in premiums after purchase in response to developed claims.

The clear...and neat...way would seem to not severe the mandate and rule the entire bill unconstitutional as the Congress clearly intended.  That way, Congressional negotiations could begin immediately to formulate a way of re-establishing those particular insurance rules that most people would agree should be re-enacted and thus preserved.  And I earnestly hope that will come to pass...but in the meantime, the spectacle is absolutely riveting.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Public Schools: their Prussian and Progressive origins remain active today...

I have posted ad nauseum on the background of our educational system as an off-shoot of the Prussion model designed to indoctrinate in the guise of education, so I will not repeat that here.  But there is a story in the news that not only supports the continuation of that emphasis in the public schools of today, but also provides still more evidence on how completely the Progressive Ideologues have taken over control of our schools

Consider the case of Liberty Middeschool in Fairfax County, Virginia, where early in January a Conservative who found himself in the back of the eighth-grade class being taught by one Mr. Michael Denman might have been excused for hearing etherial music and thinking he had been transported to the Twilight Zone, either into some point in the far future or into a 1930's classroom in Germany.  Because, Mr Denman was in the process of assigning, as a learning (dare I suggest, "training") project the following:  You will devide yourselves into 4 groups; each will choose one of the Republican's currently running for the nomination to run against President Obama in the fall and research the flaws and weaknesses of your chosen candidate; you will then determine how to best attack those weaknesses; and finally, you will research who in the Obama campaign would be the right person to send your findings to as well as how to accomplish that.

Public School children 1)being trained and indoctrinated to investigate non-Democrat seekers of public office, 2)trained how to look for and exploit perceived weaknesses for the purpose of attacking the candidacy, including contacting operatives in the actual Democrat campaign with that information and, most importantly, 4) no consideration of investigating corresponding matters and the manner of exploiting them on the part of the current office holder.

It was only when some parents expressed concern and the matter was made public that the Superintendent and the Principal claim that they had conversation with Mr. Denman and indicated he should have made Mr. Obama available as a person of interest as well.  Now, curiously, there is a policy that no teacher should further any political point of view in class but this policy was not deemed to have been violated to a degree that resulted in anything more than an alleged direction for future assignments.  Absent nothing more than this (which, it should be noted, is merely claimed by the Superintendent but not confirmed by either the Principal or Mr. Denman [both of whom refused to comment]), apparently there are no consequences for violation of the stated policy...which suggests that if there is no public outcry, the policy is not enforced.

Why am I not surprised.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Perhaps Foreign Policy SHOULD be a factor this year....?

As we get into the mentally dangerous election season, we focus quite correctly on our domestic lack of jobs as well as our unwillingness to be financially accountable. In so doing, we logically reflect our most immediate concerns about personal and familial well-being; we (apparently unlike the Federal Government) need to balance our budgets while providing subsidence and pleasure (in that order) for our families. The result of this targeting of concern, of course, leads to the quite unsupported conclusion that foreign policy is either “fine” or “not important.” And that is, quite frankly, not only wrong...it is disastrous, particularly long term.

Consider the acts and attitudes that this administration has taken and expressed:

The missile shield for easter Europe was scrapped for what was claimed to be an equally effective (but later shown to fall short) mobile system;

Support has been shown for regime change in courtries where the result was either unknown, or guaranteed to put Islamic militants in power;

Support has been denied to uprisings in Iran where the result would be guaranteed to put less theology-based rule in effect;

The U.N. Has received both financial and vocal support for plans to place control of small arms under treaty-based International Control under the aegis of the U.N., thus abrogating the United States Constitutional protections of such ownership within the United States;

Support continues to be expressed for Agenda 21, which would decimate the rights of personal property ownership, and remove state and local control of land and natural resources;

And the one democratic country in the Middle East, Israel, has found that the official administration support for its safety and well-bing is illusory at best, and non-existent at worst.

Some of you might argue to the contrary, quoting the statement of Mr. Obama while still a U.S. Senator in 2008, to AIPAC on June 6th, “That is the change we need in our foreign policy.  Change that restores American power and influence.  Change accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike: that America maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakable commitment to its security."

Sounds great, right"  No doubt what he said or the plain meaning of his words...
However, might I suggest we look at his, and his administration's, words and actions since then to see if those wonderfully clear words translated into consistent action?  Or did they prove an easily voiced dis-ingenuousness on the part of Mr. Obama during an election season?

Consider the following:

!. Without any "heads up" to Israeli leaders, he calls for Israel to unilaterally return to 1967 borders as a precondition to starting negotiations with the self-proclaimed "Palestinians";

2. Mr. Obama makes a speech in Cairo in 2009 in which he equates Israeli and "Palestinian rights;

3. The President then compounds the insult by failing to include a visit to Israel and it's leaders as a continuation of that same trip;

4. Mr. Obama reveals his true feelings about Israeli leadership in a conversation with French President Sarkozy when he respond to a complaint from Mr. Sarkozy with the infamous reply, "You're Fed up, but I have to deal with him every day" as reported on November 8th, by CBS News (and how painful must that have been for them!);

5.  And in December, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was quoted as telling the Israelis, regarding peace talks, "Just get to the damned table."

Now, any one of these acts and/or words would be considered merely a "hiccup", a stumble if you wish, in our relationship with Israel.  The administration has claimed just that, and the media has accepted them as such, looking at each of these occurrences in isolation and as a minor glitch.  But...when looked at as a whole they show not only a constant degradation of the importance placed by this Administration on the American/Israeli connection but rather a disregard that is diametrically opposite of Mr. Obama's words back in 2008.

Now, any one of these acts and/or words would be considered a "hiccup", a stumble if you wish, in our relationship.  But when taken together they reveal a pattern of both disregard and greatly reduced (and, perhaps, even the absence of) concern for the well-being of Israel;  there is, instead, evidence of a greater concern with ameliorating and placating those who oppose the well-being and welfare of the United States in the world, encouraging Islamic-themed theocracies in the Middle East, and reducing the stature and power of the The United States of America throughout the world even as he personally acts in a manner designed to further his own self-aggrandizement.

So, while all of the elements noted above can and have been written off as relatively insignificant and/or meaningless indicators of diplomatic direction if viewed individually, when viewed as a whole they reveal a disquieting pattern...one that surprisingly has failed to garner the attention of either the public or the media.  The United States is likely to pay dearly for this lack of interest.