President Trump is hated by those who disagree with him. It is a visceral hatred, and extends to those who support him. In the last seventy (70) years no other President has been the target of such violent hatred, vocal disrespect, and harassment. The harassment has been public ( directed at those who work in his administration), private ( mob confrontation at the homes of those who support and work for him), and in Congress (through the contrived and partisan investigation(s) and impeachment actions). What makes President Trump a target of such intense, virulent, physical attacks?
Is it his performance in office? Considering that prominent Leftists were calling for his impeachment even as he was taking the oath of office, that doesn't seem likely. And since taking office, he has actually kept more of his campaign promises in just three (3) years than all the Presidents combined from FDR up to an including Obama. So his performance cannot be the added element.
Can it be because he came to office as an"outsider," with no political background. That also seems to fail upon examination and reflection. We have had Presidents that came to office with no, or insignificant, political experience; Presidents Eisenhower and Obama come to mind.
How about getting along with people? Could his combativeness in speech and "tweets" be the cause? Not since Grant and Roosevelt (Teddy) have we had a President that was so ready to do battle with opponents and the "Press" (whatever "press" stands for these days...but that is a subject for another day). But while that is mentioned often by his opponents, those opponents are themselves just as guilty of extreme language, so that also seems lacking as an explanation.
Is this "hatred" simply a symptom of American Society's slow but inexorable slide toward "un" civilization, loosing dedication to civil behavior in the striving to eliminate all who disagree with us? Well, I'd suggest that this may be "partly" to blame, but it doesn't really account for the quantum leap between the treatment and attitude toward President Trump and that of President Obama. Both were intensely disliked by those who opposed them, yet there was no outcry in public of general disrespect,and in particular not public harassment or hatred, of President Obama...yet it immediately surfaced toward President Trump even before he took office. So...why? Why indeed!
Perhaps it is the "Left" versus "Right" political ideology? With the accelerated slide to the Left of the Democrat Party, has the gap grown so large that neither can abide by even the existence of the opposite point of view? A careful analysis suggests that that doesn't hold a hope of an explanation; the "Right" has been sliding Left also, so the gap hasn't grown appreciably...although some small numbers of Republicans speak up in opposition from time to time, but with no significant effect.
Considering that Presidents have limited shelf lives (after all almost anything and everything can survive and carry on for a maximum of eight (8) years and come back) the extreme hatred seems to maintain its mystery. All Presidents have lied, so the accusation of not telling the truth is neither unusual nor the lying (when it occurs) seem to mark a deviation from the actions of other Presidents.
What is it that makes President Trump, and his administration, different? I suggest two (2) primary factors.
President Trump is the first President in at least the last seventy (70) years to come to office and to Washington, D.C., having neither desire to join the Washington Political "old boysl' (now "girls" also) club" nor respect for the "go along to get along" practices that have built up in Washington over the last two hundred and fifty (250+) plus years. Certainly others have been elected as outsiders, campaigning strongly on disrespect for and derision of the "Washington Establishment," but upon arrival went to bent knee and swore secret allegiance to the God of "Government" as the only true constituent they served. President Trump was the "Mr. Smith" in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" with the exception that President Trump was not and remains not naive about just what sort of corrupt operation that the Federal Government has become. He was NOT concerned with making small improvements; he was and remains intent on bringing to the surface and rooting out the corrupt practices that have become ingrained in the Federal Government over the years. He STILL represents those who elected him...NOT the elected and appointed officials who surround him.
That puts fear into the hearts of those who feel threatened. And that in cludes those who exist outside of Washington who have benefited because of who and what they know, rather that because of what they have earned or deserve. And FEAR GIVES RISE TO HATRED!
The developing discovery of the use of our FBI and Intelligence services to aid in political campaigns, the failure of the FISA court(s) to deliver on promises to protect our Constitutional Freedoms, the lies perpetrated by elected members of Congress to hide malfeasance and misfeasance are all signs of illegality that would arguably never have poked their ugly heads into public consciousness if President Trump had not been elected. Those who are, as a result, at risk are, in order of progression: concerned, fearful, desperate, and full of active, actionable hatred.
For myself, any expression of this hatred is reason to believe that the person exhibiting it must be inappropriately benefiting from some Federal Program (or one that is funded by the Federal Government) and worthy of investigative questioning.
Beware of "haters," they have something at risk and something to hide.
The secondary reason for the vitriol is that those who lean Left politically have slowly been gaining power since President Reagan left office. They became used to this gradual assertion of control and became convinced it was their divine right. So enamored did they become that they ignored signs throughout the country that there was a growing annoyance turning into anger as they became aware that their elected officials were not only lying to them about their intentions in Washington, but ignoring them except for the short season for election campaigning. The Left saw the election of Ms. Clinton as the final cap the signaled total power and control of the Federal Government. President Trump's election was like an unexpected cold shower in a one room efficiency instead of the Wedding Suite at the Ritz-Carlton.
So surprise turned to fear, then to hate. President Trump responded to Press attacks, so they felt fear...then hate. And the Republicans in office felt rejection of their invitation to join the "Washington Insiders Club" and felt hear than a slightly less hate. And all that have been getting "paid off" in various ways, as well as their lobbyists, felt fear...and then some level of hate. All this is the source of the group known as the "NEVER TRUMPERS."
Disagree? Tell me why...give specifics.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, February 2, 2020
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
This Fall's election doesn't really matter...
It can be argued that this Fall's election is either the last chance to save America or that it is already too late. These two possibilities have absolutely nothing to do with ideology. They are based on simple financial considerations.
Consider that neither candidate likely to be elected in the Fall has spoken much, if at all, about the need to get our budget under control and to reduce the national deficit. Consider that no party, no campaign group and no significant organized group of citizens have spoken of spending as a problem. Note that no media outlet of any sort has mentioned anything about a need to get our finances under control.
All that one reads, hears or watches has to do with control and contributing more in the way of funds or benefits to those in our country...legally or otherwise.
One hears nothing about the constant flow of lies coming out of Washington, the clear failure of Justice to apply to those in power, and the lack of accountability of those in the Federal Government. You can even hear a reporter suggesting, in the form of a question to an elected official, if honesty is overrated in government.
One argument suggests that the last clear chance to save our nation in the form that it holds today was in the 2012 election. It was clear by then that our finances were out of control, that our government's elected officials were lying to its citizens, that the economy was not recovering at a pace that would provide needed jobs and that the upper echelons of government were failing to fulfill their administrative and oath of office duties.
In 2012 the citizens of the United States chose more "free" stuff over taking for themselves and demanding of their elected officials the taking of responsibility to balance the budget and start down a path of fiscal responsibility. At that time they saw an out-of-control spending that was most of the way to the present almost 20 Trillion Dollars. All but several trillion was created in those first 4 years from 2008 to 2012...and much of that first one and a half trillion had been voted for by the person holding the office of President. Nonetheless, the voters approved another 4 years of more of the same fiscal insanity and lying and inept administration.
Certainly should Ms. Clinton be elected in November, it is unlikely that the nation will survive past 2020. Why? Well, interest rates cannot stay close to zero forever. As the National Debt rises toward 25 Trillion Dollars and interest rates also rise, the cost of the debt will meet or exceed the amount of tax revenue. leaving no money to actually run the government. Seniors will find their checks either not being honored or just not arriving. As payments to police, firemen and soldiers are first delayed and then not issued at all, public safety will cease to exist. If SCOTUS has approved laws allowing the confiscation of firearms in private ownership, there will be few, if any, to attempt to enforce those laws...and with the proof of the government's failure becoming so obvious, there will be actual revolt throughout the country...and those who will be positioned to be in power will be those who possess firearms, have planned for such a disaster and who have little respect for those who for decades have been belittling and insulting them. It will not be pretty.
But one thing will be for certain: who is President and who controls Congress or SCOTUS will no longer matter.
Consider that neither candidate likely to be elected in the Fall has spoken much, if at all, about the need to get our budget under control and to reduce the national deficit. Consider that no party, no campaign group and no significant organized group of citizens have spoken of spending as a problem. Note that no media outlet of any sort has mentioned anything about a need to get our finances under control.
All that one reads, hears or watches has to do with control and contributing more in the way of funds or benefits to those in our country...legally or otherwise.
One hears nothing about the constant flow of lies coming out of Washington, the clear failure of Justice to apply to those in power, and the lack of accountability of those in the Federal Government. You can even hear a reporter suggesting, in the form of a question to an elected official, if honesty is overrated in government.
One argument suggests that the last clear chance to save our nation in the form that it holds today was in the 2012 election. It was clear by then that our finances were out of control, that our government's elected officials were lying to its citizens, that the economy was not recovering at a pace that would provide needed jobs and that the upper echelons of government were failing to fulfill their administrative and oath of office duties.
In 2012 the citizens of the United States chose more "free" stuff over taking for themselves and demanding of their elected officials the taking of responsibility to balance the budget and start down a path of fiscal responsibility. At that time they saw an out-of-control spending that was most of the way to the present almost 20 Trillion Dollars. All but several trillion was created in those first 4 years from 2008 to 2012...and much of that first one and a half trillion had been voted for by the person holding the office of President. Nonetheless, the voters approved another 4 years of more of the same fiscal insanity and lying and inept administration.
Certainly should Ms. Clinton be elected in November, it is unlikely that the nation will survive past 2020. Why? Well, interest rates cannot stay close to zero forever. As the National Debt rises toward 25 Trillion Dollars and interest rates also rise, the cost of the debt will meet or exceed the amount of tax revenue. leaving no money to actually run the government. Seniors will find their checks either not being honored or just not arriving. As payments to police, firemen and soldiers are first delayed and then not issued at all, public safety will cease to exist. If SCOTUS has approved laws allowing the confiscation of firearms in private ownership, there will be few, if any, to attempt to enforce those laws...and with the proof of the government's failure becoming so obvious, there will be actual revolt throughout the country...and those who will be positioned to be in power will be those who possess firearms, have planned for such a disaster and who have little respect for those who for decades have been belittling and insulting them. It will not be pretty.
But one thing will be for certain: who is President and who controls Congress or SCOTUS will no longer matter.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Madoff for President!
Bernard Madoff is in jail. He is in jail for running a Ponzi scheme that resulted in taking money from investors to pay off earlier investors to satisfy their expectations of his achieving tremendous benefits for those investors. That is illegal in America...in the private sector. Those investors who had received the returns that had been promised by implication were very, very satisfied...lauding Mr. Madoff's abilities and worthiness to others and recommending him to their friends...until the law came after them and making them return the money because it had been originally obtained fraudulently and therefore could not be passed on to them or anyone else. Oh, the anguish and gnashing of teeth...they had believed that, even with the discovery of the con, they had been "lucky" and won the equivalent of a financial game of musical chairs.
So, you ask, what is this nonsense of Bernie Madoff being President?
Both History and current events hold the answer!
For over 3 Presidential terms, the individual in the Oval Office in the White House has "bought" things for the American people. Benefits of money, influence, real and imagined power, and insulation from the rule that regular people thought needed to be followed. All to provide the profit to the person in the Oval Office of election, re-election, power and status. Those, it can be argued, are the equivalent and even superior in the minds of some, of ill-gotten money. Our leaders have lied to us...and that is a moral lack. But...we have received benefits that we have not invested it, that cost money that we will never pay. As with Bernie Madoff, that money is expected to be paid for future investors in...the future taxpayers of...the United States of America: the children and grandchildren of the current citizens.
We have people running for election to the American Presidency who are promising "free" stuff to many, vowing to take the money from current citizens who have legally acquired their riches. But those riches, even if taken completely away by the government and applied to the cost of the promises, both past and future, would not even make a small impact on reducing the debt. Consider that the National Debt at present exceeds Nineteen TRILLION Dollars; There are about 400 Billionairs in the United States at present...if you took all of their wealth you would not net more than just over ONE Trillion Dollars. Where is the rest of the money coming from? FUTURE taxpaying INVESTORS.
Bernie Sanders is making these promises. Hillary Clinton is promising to continue the benefits that President Obama has granted over more than seven years in office that added more than Fifteen Trillion Dollars a sum that current citizens expect will be paid by LATER taxpaying INVESTORS.
And yet...like the earliest Madoff investors...today's citizens accept the "investment returns" promised by Mr. Obama, and currently promised to be continued and extended by Sen. Sanders and Sec. Clinton. And no one seems to even consider that our national financial game of musical chairs is subject to the stopping of the music at any time...or even that we imagine and talk ourselves into even believing that there is any music at all, much akin to the Emperor's New Suit of Clothes.
When Congress passed the RICO statutes that made it possible to really attack and more successfully prosecute those involved in "Organized" crime, they exempted themselves from its application. Why?
President Bush waged a war that wasn't paid for...its cost was just added to the national debt. The amount was huge...Trillions of Dollars. But the actions of our Presidents and of Congress since then make that amount look like chump change.
Honest and well-meaning people can discuss and argue over governmental policy and ideology endlessly. That is valid, and experimentation with different approaches based on the will of the people is to be expected...even encouraged.
But to steal from innocent taxpayers not yet born to fund benefits wanted as a "right" and not earned, is the very essence of corruption, crime and immorality at any level, sectarian or religious.
IF THE ACTIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS, PRESIDENT AND THE PROMISED ACTIONS OF SEN. SANDERS AND SEC. CLINTON OCCURRED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BE RESIDING IN CELLS ADJACENT TO BERNARD MADOFF. AND CURRENT CITIZENS ARE COMPLICIT, AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THE "INVESTING TAXPAYERS" THE VALUE EQUIVALENT TO THEIR UNEARNED "PROFITS!"
But I fear that our citizenry has become so narcissistically oriented that they knowingly refuse to acknowledge the truth, their greed, and their disregard for their children and grandchildren. so....
MADOFF for PRESIDENT.
Might as well go all the way and acknowledge our corruption and greed as a nation!
So, you ask, what is this nonsense of Bernie Madoff being President?
Both History and current events hold the answer!
For over 3 Presidential terms, the individual in the Oval Office in the White House has "bought" things for the American people. Benefits of money, influence, real and imagined power, and insulation from the rule that regular people thought needed to be followed. All to provide the profit to the person in the Oval Office of election, re-election, power and status. Those, it can be argued, are the equivalent and even superior in the minds of some, of ill-gotten money. Our leaders have lied to us...and that is a moral lack. But...we have received benefits that we have not invested it, that cost money that we will never pay. As with Bernie Madoff, that money is expected to be paid for future investors in...the future taxpayers of...the United States of America: the children and grandchildren of the current citizens.
We have people running for election to the American Presidency who are promising "free" stuff to many, vowing to take the money from current citizens who have legally acquired their riches. But those riches, even if taken completely away by the government and applied to the cost of the promises, both past and future, would not even make a small impact on reducing the debt. Consider that the National Debt at present exceeds Nineteen TRILLION Dollars; There are about 400 Billionairs in the United States at present...if you took all of their wealth you would not net more than just over ONE Trillion Dollars. Where is the rest of the money coming from? FUTURE taxpaying INVESTORS.
Bernie Sanders is making these promises. Hillary Clinton is promising to continue the benefits that President Obama has granted over more than seven years in office that added more than Fifteen Trillion Dollars a sum that current citizens expect will be paid by LATER taxpaying INVESTORS.
And yet...like the earliest Madoff investors...today's citizens accept the "investment returns" promised by Mr. Obama, and currently promised to be continued and extended by Sen. Sanders and Sec. Clinton. And no one seems to even consider that our national financial game of musical chairs is subject to the stopping of the music at any time...or even that we imagine and talk ourselves into even believing that there is any music at all, much akin to the Emperor's New Suit of Clothes.
When Congress passed the RICO statutes that made it possible to really attack and more successfully prosecute those involved in "Organized" crime, they exempted themselves from its application. Why?
President Bush waged a war that wasn't paid for...its cost was just added to the national debt. The amount was huge...Trillions of Dollars. But the actions of our Presidents and of Congress since then make that amount look like chump change.
Honest and well-meaning people can discuss and argue over governmental policy and ideology endlessly. That is valid, and experimentation with different approaches based on the will of the people is to be expected...even encouraged.
But to steal from innocent taxpayers not yet born to fund benefits wanted as a "right" and not earned, is the very essence of corruption, crime and immorality at any level, sectarian or religious.
IF THE ACTIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS, PRESIDENT AND THE PROMISED ACTIONS OF SEN. SANDERS AND SEC. CLINTON OCCURRED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BE RESIDING IN CELLS ADJACENT TO BERNARD MADOFF. AND CURRENT CITIZENS ARE COMPLICIT, AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THE "INVESTING TAXPAYERS" THE VALUE EQUIVALENT TO THEIR UNEARNED "PROFITS!"
But I fear that our citizenry has become so narcissistically oriented that they knowingly refuse to acknowledge the truth, their greed, and their disregard for their children and grandchildren. so....
MADOFF for PRESIDENT.
Might as well go all the way and acknowledge our corruption and greed as a nation!
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Iran Nuclear "Agreement": final comment
Our Congress is going to repeat the their abdication of their oath's of office. Just as they passed the Healthcare Bill without reading it, they now are going to allow an agreement that was fashioned in a manner designed to give Iran an express lane to both nuclear weapons AND ICBMs while also releasing Billions of Dollars to help Iran fund terrorism around the world.
The Administration continues to claim how tough this agreement is. Really? Even they acknowledge that they have not read ANY print, much less fine print, of the side agreements that the IAEA and Iran have signed and which are incorporated by reference into the multi-party agreement now being considered by Congress. So, if Congress were really doing its job, it would refuse to even consider the matter as the entire agreement has NOT been submitted to Congress and the Administration admits that neither they or anyone on the negotiating team have seen these "secret" agreements.
No sane person would ever sign an agreement that did not state in writing ALL the conditions. Would you sign a car loan that didn't say what constituted being late on a payment? If you were told you had 30 days, but suddenly two days after it was due and while your payment was en-route they repossessed your car, would you be happy? But it would be your own fault for not insisting that ALL the terms were there for you to read and understand. But this is what Congress is doing, however, and they are being pushed by our Administration, which is saying, in effect, "Trust me...and them!"
Viewing Iran's behavior over the last 35 years, there is no basis for any degree of trust. And this agreement has nothing in it that can be verified as requiring timely effective inspections. So it is toothless and ineffective until or unless provisions to the contrary are shown in writing.
Yet our duly elected representatives are going to drink the Kool-aide; they will fail to over-ride the President's veto of their probably disapproval of this farce of an agreement. And Iran has already stated, through their leader, that Israel will not exist within 25 years. That is NOT an empty threat. And with the ICBM development that this "agreement" allows, America will also be in range.
When the mushroom cloud does occur, a proper memorial should give credit to every administration member and elected member of Congress who did not vote to stop this farce.
The Administration continues to claim how tough this agreement is. Really? Even they acknowledge that they have not read ANY print, much less fine print, of the side agreements that the IAEA and Iran have signed and which are incorporated by reference into the multi-party agreement now being considered by Congress. So, if Congress were really doing its job, it would refuse to even consider the matter as the entire agreement has NOT been submitted to Congress and the Administration admits that neither they or anyone on the negotiating team have seen these "secret" agreements.
No sane person would ever sign an agreement that did not state in writing ALL the conditions. Would you sign a car loan that didn't say what constituted being late on a payment? If you were told you had 30 days, but suddenly two days after it was due and while your payment was en-route they repossessed your car, would you be happy? But it would be your own fault for not insisting that ALL the terms were there for you to read and understand. But this is what Congress is doing, however, and they are being pushed by our Administration, which is saying, in effect, "Trust me...and them!"
Viewing Iran's behavior over the last 35 years, there is no basis for any degree of trust. And this agreement has nothing in it that can be verified as requiring timely effective inspections. So it is toothless and ineffective until or unless provisions to the contrary are shown in writing.
Yet our duly elected representatives are going to drink the Kool-aide; they will fail to over-ride the President's veto of their probably disapproval of this farce of an agreement. And Iran has already stated, through their leader, that Israel will not exist within 25 years. That is NOT an empty threat. And with the ICBM development that this "agreement" allows, America will also be in range.
When the mushroom cloud does occur, a proper memorial should give credit to every administration member and elected member of Congress who did not vote to stop this farce.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Iranian Nuclear "Deal": Part III
If you wrote this as a fictional novel, not one publisher would touch it; they would claim it is too unbelievable for any reader to think that any leaders of any major country could possible be so blatantly naive...or inept.
Apparently News Reports that one of the major "side" agreements to the overall "agreement" provides for the Iranians to self-inspect their military sites. Perhaps a review of past history of Iranian adherence to promises made might be in order? Feels a little bit like the Police allowing a known Drug Distributor checking his own premises and/or warehouse and assuring them that there are no drugs being moved in or out of there...it leaves a shock of disbelief at the core of your being.
Yet...this is precisely what Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are approving as sufficient assurance that Iran will not develop a nuclear device. What they actually are trying to get approved constitutes an express lane for Iran to develop the "bomb."
There are only three possible explanations for this:
1. As previously suggested, everyone on our side of the table is naive and inept;
2. America's representative at the table are anxious to have Iran eliminate all opposition to controlling the Middle East; or
3. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are so blinded by their narcissistic need for a legacy that it is the creation of any agreement that is important, not the content of that agreement.
If the reports of this side agreement's contents is confirmed, then it strikes me that the act of recommending approval of our government to the "deal" would constitute treason.
I further suggest that if confirmation is obtained, the same charge would be in order against any Representative or Senator who votes to approve the "agreement."
Each of my Senators and Representative have been put on notice by me in writing that I will hold them directly accountable for the results if they vote for the United States to accept this agreement. And I suspect a lot of folks around the country will be watching and noting their own Senators' and Representatives' vote on this matter.
Apparently News Reports that one of the major "side" agreements to the overall "agreement" provides for the Iranians to self-inspect their military sites. Perhaps a review of past history of Iranian adherence to promises made might be in order? Feels a little bit like the Police allowing a known Drug Distributor checking his own premises and/or warehouse and assuring them that there are no drugs being moved in or out of there...it leaves a shock of disbelief at the core of your being.
Yet...this is precisely what Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are approving as sufficient assurance that Iran will not develop a nuclear device. What they actually are trying to get approved constitutes an express lane for Iran to develop the "bomb."
There are only three possible explanations for this:
1. As previously suggested, everyone on our side of the table is naive and inept;
2. America's representative at the table are anxious to have Iran eliminate all opposition to controlling the Middle East; or
3. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are so blinded by their narcissistic need for a legacy that it is the creation of any agreement that is important, not the content of that agreement.
If the reports of this side agreement's contents is confirmed, then it strikes me that the act of recommending approval of our government to the "deal" would constitute treason.
I further suggest that if confirmation is obtained, the same charge would be in order against any Representative or Senator who votes to approve the "agreement."
Each of my Senators and Representative have been put on notice by me in writing that I will hold them directly accountable for the results if they vote for the United States to accept this agreement. And I suspect a lot of folks around the country will be watching and noting their own Senators' and Representatives' vote on this matter.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Only the government wins...
Our President, and the current leading contender for the Progressive Liberal Democrat Party nomination for President in a year or so, Mrs. Clinton, have come out in favor of increasing the minimum wage for all workers in the United States. They claim that this would at least partially solve the pressure of the cost of living for people who are apparently "stuck" in entry level positions historically known for their minimum wage levels.
They suggest two things: 1. That the plight of these workers is the fault of the opposition; and 2, that this increase will benefit the poor and the middle class. Both assertions are demonstrably wrong.
As to the first assertion, for the last 22 years, Progressive Liberal Democrats have held the Office of the Presidency for almost 64% of the time (14 years). During most of that time, they controlled the Congress and had the opportunity during that period to both discuss and create an action plan to solve the now declared plight of the Middle Class. As our current President stated with such smug, quiet impudence when he first took office and was rejecting the suggestions of the opposition regarding the health care plan, "We won." Yet, the Middle Class has not progressed during his time in office either. Looking, as an example, at the plight of the Black community we see that the unemployment rate for them is higher than when Mr. Obama took office. Previously, Mrs. Clinton's husband held the office of the Presidency yet the middle class did not increase or gain economically. The same is true for Mr. Carter's sojourn in the Oval Office. Yet, with all that opportunity, Mrs. Clinton wants the nation to believe that the fault lies with the opposition! That is patently absurd.
The second assertion is similarly flawed. And the reason is so obvious that one is tempted to call the assertion a purposeful deceit. Consider the following:
When the minimum wage is forced higher by government action, all other pay levels must be adjusted to keep the step system defensible to all employees. When the cost of labor goes up, prices rise. This increase in the price of goods and services, eliminates any apparent gain in wages. It is a wash.
Well, that is not actually true...both the business sector and the Middle (and all other working) Classes lose. Why? Because the Federal Government Income Tax is a graduated tax...as you earn more money, you pay a higher percent of your income to the Federal Government. So everyone but the Government loses when wages go up. But the Federal Government wins big time! And they have the nerve to tell you, "Hi, I'm from the Federal Government. I'm here to help you!"
Hypocrites all...and in this case, especially Mrs. Clinton.
They suggest two things: 1. That the plight of these workers is the fault of the opposition; and 2, that this increase will benefit the poor and the middle class. Both assertions are demonstrably wrong.
As to the first assertion, for the last 22 years, Progressive Liberal Democrats have held the Office of the Presidency for almost 64% of the time (14 years). During most of that time, they controlled the Congress and had the opportunity during that period to both discuss and create an action plan to solve the now declared plight of the Middle Class. As our current President stated with such smug, quiet impudence when he first took office and was rejecting the suggestions of the opposition regarding the health care plan, "We won." Yet, the Middle Class has not progressed during his time in office either. Looking, as an example, at the plight of the Black community we see that the unemployment rate for them is higher than when Mr. Obama took office. Previously, Mrs. Clinton's husband held the office of the Presidency yet the middle class did not increase or gain economically. The same is true for Mr. Carter's sojourn in the Oval Office. Yet, with all that opportunity, Mrs. Clinton wants the nation to believe that the fault lies with the opposition! That is patently absurd.
The second assertion is similarly flawed. And the reason is so obvious that one is tempted to call the assertion a purposeful deceit. Consider the following:
When the minimum wage is forced higher by government action, all other pay levels must be adjusted to keep the step system defensible to all employees. When the cost of labor goes up, prices rise. This increase in the price of goods and services, eliminates any apparent gain in wages. It is a wash.
Well, that is not actually true...both the business sector and the Middle (and all other working) Classes lose. Why? Because the Federal Government Income Tax is a graduated tax...as you earn more money, you pay a higher percent of your income to the Federal Government. So everyone but the Government loses when wages go up. But the Federal Government wins big time! And they have the nerve to tell you, "Hi, I'm from the Federal Government. I'm here to help you!"
Hypocrites all...and in this case, especially Mrs. Clinton.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Is President Obama right?
I read recently, with dismay, that President Obama has declared that race relations in the country have improved, even as polls show people believe the contrary. But...after some quiet reflection, I have concluded that there is at least a reasonable argument to be made that he is correct.
Consider that if a person, a group, or a race feel at risk, they will tend to work at "flying under the radar", so to speak, to avoid problems in their lives. If one can exist peacefully for the most part, even if not possessed of total equality, it is hard to make a decision to put your sustainable life style at risk without a guarantee of improvement. If this is Mr. Obama's belief, then he could be arguing that the current crop of demonstrations and the ongoing out-cry by black and other minorities is proof of an improved self-image that not only allows, but requires, the demand for further improvement.
It should be noted that there are myriad black and minority families that have succeeded and achieved great position in our country. I would argue that the vast majority see only occasional challenges that could even be remotely assigned to race...and those could just as easily be written off as individuals just able to get along. That happens among all groups and has nothing to do with race.
So, on reflection it would seem that if there is any credence to Mr. Obama's assertion, then it only applies to a select group...a minority of a minority, as it were...that now wants to be treated with respect, regardless of their behavior. Only time will tell if their claims resonate with the vast majority. And it would help if their claims were clarified and not related to or based on distorted views of events.
Consider that if a person, a group, or a race feel at risk, they will tend to work at "flying under the radar", so to speak, to avoid problems in their lives. If one can exist peacefully for the most part, even if not possessed of total equality, it is hard to make a decision to put your sustainable life style at risk without a guarantee of improvement. If this is Mr. Obama's belief, then he could be arguing that the current crop of demonstrations and the ongoing out-cry by black and other minorities is proof of an improved self-image that not only allows, but requires, the demand for further improvement.
It should be noted that there are myriad black and minority families that have succeeded and achieved great position in our country. I would argue that the vast majority see only occasional challenges that could even be remotely assigned to race...and those could just as easily be written off as individuals just able to get along. That happens among all groups and has nothing to do with race.
So, on reflection it would seem that if there is any credence to Mr. Obama's assertion, then it only applies to a select group...a minority of a minority, as it were...that now wants to be treated with respect, regardless of their behavior. Only time will tell if their claims resonate with the vast majority. And it would help if their claims were clarified and not related to or based on distorted views of events.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Selective Anarchy supported by Government Leaders
So one group of people can disregard the law with impunity, blocking traffic, interfering with normal business activity on private property, attack police and chant that police should be killed. One group of people can burn down major part of a town without any punishment. A person can chant, "burn it down" and not face consequences when, in fact, many business building in the area are burned down. One group of people can ignore the demonstrated facts that show that a young, huge thug attacked a police officer and attempted to take that officer's gun and as a result was shot dead, and take that same thug and hold him up as an innocent martyr...and the main stream media parrots that claim as a fact, endorsing the activity.
The United States of America used to be law abiding. Now our President, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Mayor of one of our largest cities disrespect and accuse our Police Officers of malfeasance. And they do this while seeming to endorse minority anger and violence toward Police.
And now we have the assassination of two NYC police officers by a guy messaging, "they got one of ours, let's take two of theirs." Seems a clear connection to the ongoing demonstrations; and the permissive attitude of our top leaders to the law-breaking actions of demonstrators while criticizing police sure contributed to these killings. And I note myriad "tweets" and other social media comments that commend these killings.
Too bad the police cannot withdraw from all those communities that seem so angry with the police presence for a period...say a month or two...and that would include all of NYC and include the protection detail for the Mayor. Clearly he feels that NYC would be the utopia he desires if only the police would either be absent, or simply issue verbal suggestions to law breakers.
Show the proper respect to the uniformed Police Officer and problems are rare. A policeman usually had a valid reason for any given command; how much intelligence does it take to simply obey and wait for the matter to be resolved? When not questioning me, a cop is protecting me, my family, and my property, as well as that of my neighbors and friends...why should I want to give him "attitude?" But I see some people actually look to provoke anyone, much less police, for entertainment. These are the same people who disrespect their elders, their neighborhood and, unrecognized, themselves. Yet they seem to believe that they are "entitled!" None of us is entitled. All of us have to earn our respect by showing that we can learn from experiences and schooling, hold a job by being on time and doing what we are hired to do, and respecting those around us...not sitting a corner talking trash at anyone who goes by. Yet our country's leaders seem to be taking the sides of the trash-talkers and throwing law abiding people and the Police who protect us under the bus. That is NOT acceptable and it is time the majority of America speaks up and puts a stop to it.
The United States of America used to be law abiding. Now our President, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Mayor of one of our largest cities disrespect and accuse our Police Officers of malfeasance. And they do this while seeming to endorse minority anger and violence toward Police.
And now we have the assassination of two NYC police officers by a guy messaging, "they got one of ours, let's take two of theirs." Seems a clear connection to the ongoing demonstrations; and the permissive attitude of our top leaders to the law-breaking actions of demonstrators while criticizing police sure contributed to these killings. And I note myriad "tweets" and other social media comments that commend these killings.
Too bad the police cannot withdraw from all those communities that seem so angry with the police presence for a period...say a month or two...and that would include all of NYC and include the protection detail for the Mayor. Clearly he feels that NYC would be the utopia he desires if only the police would either be absent, or simply issue verbal suggestions to law breakers.
Show the proper respect to the uniformed Police Officer and problems are rare. A policeman usually had a valid reason for any given command; how much intelligence does it take to simply obey and wait for the matter to be resolved? When not questioning me, a cop is protecting me, my family, and my property, as well as that of my neighbors and friends...why should I want to give him "attitude?" But I see some people actually look to provoke anyone, much less police, for entertainment. These are the same people who disrespect their elders, their neighborhood and, unrecognized, themselves. Yet they seem to believe that they are "entitled!" None of us is entitled. All of us have to earn our respect by showing that we can learn from experiences and schooling, hold a job by being on time and doing what we are hired to do, and respecting those around us...not sitting a corner talking trash at anyone who goes by. Yet our country's leaders seem to be taking the sides of the trash-talkers and throwing law abiding people and the Police who protect us under the bus. That is NOT acceptable and it is time the majority of America speaks up and puts a stop to it.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
President Obama...and ISIS
At the moment, many are concerned about the ongoing actions of the group known as ISIS (or, as the current administration curiously labels it, ISIL). There are really only two major concerns: 1) why the apparent delay or failure of this administration to have a strategy already prepared for a group who's existence and power is no surprise; and 2) what should that strategy be.
The first answer is fairly straightforward. Mr Obama has shown himself to have little or no interest in devoting the hard work necessary to be an effective President. There is a reason all of our Presidents have looked so worn down after their period in the Oval Office. It is hard, worrisome work. Mr. Obama prefers raising money, making speeches (often including totally unacceptable lies and never followed up on by hard work to make promises a reality), and playing golf while enjoying the image and perks of being President. Also, while he might have proven that he can play well with others, he also has shown a very thin skinned inability to work well with others. He simply doesn't want to do the work of being President, and doesn't want to be hounded or found fault with for that lack of work.
The second question is much harder: what to do. This country...and the world, really...has often shown little initial interest in people being subjected to genocidal and other treatment. The Nazi's are on point, and there are many instances on the African continent and in Asia that come to mind. We need a personal threat that smacks of reality or an actual attack to get our attention and inspire purposeful action. I would think that a lot of governmental people are very nervous about the depleted condition of our military, so I think the first step should be a re-evaluation of needs and purposes and a concomitant authorization of funds to make our military capable of responding to any number of threats.
Additionally, our military and Homeland Security should already have (and if not, to quickly develop) plans on how degrade the military abilities of ISIS (or, as the administration prefers to call them, for reasons unfathomable to me, ISIL) and screen those coming to the U.S. (including finally a securitization of our borders so that we actually know who is arriving) to prevent individual terror acts. And finally, it would seem obvious that any comments that are made by the President...or his "people"...should avoid phrases that seem limiting. One doesn't have to threaten; just indicate a willingness to do "what must be done" to protect and defend. Declaring that no military action involving "boots on the ground" may be true...but you are absolutely insane to verbalize it. Let those who would harm us worry about what we will and will not do...don't hand it to them on a silver platter.
Anyone have a better idea?
The first answer is fairly straightforward. Mr Obama has shown himself to have little or no interest in devoting the hard work necessary to be an effective President. There is a reason all of our Presidents have looked so worn down after their period in the Oval Office. It is hard, worrisome work. Mr. Obama prefers raising money, making speeches (often including totally unacceptable lies and never followed up on by hard work to make promises a reality), and playing golf while enjoying the image and perks of being President. Also, while he might have proven that he can play well with others, he also has shown a very thin skinned inability to work well with others. He simply doesn't want to do the work of being President, and doesn't want to be hounded or found fault with for that lack of work.
The second question is much harder: what to do. This country...and the world, really...has often shown little initial interest in people being subjected to genocidal and other treatment. The Nazi's are on point, and there are many instances on the African continent and in Asia that come to mind. We need a personal threat that smacks of reality or an actual attack to get our attention and inspire purposeful action. I would think that a lot of governmental people are very nervous about the depleted condition of our military, so I think the first step should be a re-evaluation of needs and purposes and a concomitant authorization of funds to make our military capable of responding to any number of threats.
Additionally, our military and Homeland Security should already have (and if not, to quickly develop) plans on how degrade the military abilities of ISIS (or, as the administration prefers to call them, for reasons unfathomable to me, ISIL) and screen those coming to the U.S. (including finally a securitization of our borders so that we actually know who is arriving) to prevent individual terror acts. And finally, it would seem obvious that any comments that are made by the President...or his "people"...should avoid phrases that seem limiting. One doesn't have to threaten; just indicate a willingness to do "what must be done" to protect and defend. Declaring that no military action involving "boots on the ground" may be true...but you are absolutely insane to verbalize it. Let those who would harm us worry about what we will and will not do...don't hand it to them on a silver platter.
Anyone have a better idea?
Friday, October 7, 2011
"Dreams" one key to Mr. Obama's performance...
Did you ever interact with someone who seemed the most kind, caring and considerate person while also impressing you with his intelligence and perspective, only to find another side to that person...leaving you disillusioned, disbelieving, and hurt? That is how I feel about our current President. It isn't the first time, and I could claim an excuse this time because I have never personally met Mr. Obama...
He is much like an actor on film or stage, having learned his lines and very good at presenting the image...and falling into the trap of confusing the role with his own existence. And also like an actor, he is very much concerned with his image and protecting it. He can act kind, caring, knowing and accept all kinds of turmoil around him, as long as it doesn't criticize him or harm what he sees as his image...which is extraordinarily high.
Well, this is true of a lot of Presidents. But what is interesting is how Mr. Obama's perception of what his image...and therefor himself...really is, and how he came to that perception.
As an example, President Johnson had a very high opinion of himself and his perception was that he was a good administrator, a good wielder of power, and a good judge of character...as well as one born to tell others what to do. He set about proving all of those things by working and developing those skills. By the time he became President, most of those visions of himself had been proven through "doing" those very things. So...his image, his perception, his concept of himself was grounded in reality. True, it wasn't perfect...nothing ever is...but reality and his version of it were roughly parallel. And many other President could be cited, but I won't waste the time here.
President Obama is different. He clearly sees himself as a visionary. Even his book, "Dreams of my Father", is based on dreams...on a vision...only occasionally rooted in reality and almost never on accomplishments. It is the stuff dreams are, and should, be made of and totally desirable and acceptable. But I would suggest that a person growing up with dreams to become an airline pilot would not be hired to actually perform in that capacity by any airline without proving through accomplishments and ability that real ability and training supported the appointment to a position with so much at stake. Dreams just aren't enough.
Mr. Obama has proven accomplishments in one area only...campaigning. He is seasoned at it and very good at it...even though he is still developing the skill. It is his best and highest skill. A couple of years in State Government and as a junior Senator don't really qualify anyone for the office of President. His education seems absolutely wonderful...except no one seems to know how he performed or what courses he took and how he did, other than to pass.
Yet Mr. Obama clearly has an image of himself that is high, positive, and exalted. All of this is desirable as a means of motivation to strive to achieve and learn and press on toward fulfilling that image in reality. But the dream, the aspiration, is not enough to achieve. It is a starting point only, not a qualification. Yet our country has chosen to honor Mr. Obama with election to the highest post in the land on the basis of a dream and the quality of campaigning.
By so doing, we have encouraged and condoned Mr. Obama's dream as reality. Can we fault him for accepting the coronation? I cannot. But that doesn't mean that he is a good President or a good administrator or a qualified leader. And, like many a young person immersed in and believing their dreams, he feels criticism of him or his policies are direct affronts to his person, to his image, and he reacts emotionally and badly. See him when confronted, he deflects blame (if unavoidable) to others and otherwise denies any failure or culpability. Always. It is NEVER his fault. He shows this so clearly in his posture and in his facial expression that it is sometimes embarrassing to watch.
The good news is that it is there to observe and note. The bad news is that so many in the media and in his party are so tied to his success or failure that they cannot acknowledge his inability to perform without damaging their own image or threaten their own jobs.
Dreams. Such a good and indispensable element with which to start. But so incredibly inadequate as a basis for performance!
He is much like an actor on film or stage, having learned his lines and very good at presenting the image...and falling into the trap of confusing the role with his own existence. And also like an actor, he is very much concerned with his image and protecting it. He can act kind, caring, knowing and accept all kinds of turmoil around him, as long as it doesn't criticize him or harm what he sees as his image...which is extraordinarily high.
Well, this is true of a lot of Presidents. But what is interesting is how Mr. Obama's perception of what his image...and therefor himself...really is, and how he came to that perception.
As an example, President Johnson had a very high opinion of himself and his perception was that he was a good administrator, a good wielder of power, and a good judge of character...as well as one born to tell others what to do. He set about proving all of those things by working and developing those skills. By the time he became President, most of those visions of himself had been proven through "doing" those very things. So...his image, his perception, his concept of himself was grounded in reality. True, it wasn't perfect...nothing ever is...but reality and his version of it were roughly parallel. And many other President could be cited, but I won't waste the time here.
President Obama is different. He clearly sees himself as a visionary. Even his book, "Dreams of my Father", is based on dreams...on a vision...only occasionally rooted in reality and almost never on accomplishments. It is the stuff dreams are, and should, be made of and totally desirable and acceptable. But I would suggest that a person growing up with dreams to become an airline pilot would not be hired to actually perform in that capacity by any airline without proving through accomplishments and ability that real ability and training supported the appointment to a position with so much at stake. Dreams just aren't enough.
Mr. Obama has proven accomplishments in one area only...campaigning. He is seasoned at it and very good at it...even though he is still developing the skill. It is his best and highest skill. A couple of years in State Government and as a junior Senator don't really qualify anyone for the office of President. His education seems absolutely wonderful...except no one seems to know how he performed or what courses he took and how he did, other than to pass.
Yet Mr. Obama clearly has an image of himself that is high, positive, and exalted. All of this is desirable as a means of motivation to strive to achieve and learn and press on toward fulfilling that image in reality. But the dream, the aspiration, is not enough to achieve. It is a starting point only, not a qualification. Yet our country has chosen to honor Mr. Obama with election to the highest post in the land on the basis of a dream and the quality of campaigning.
By so doing, we have encouraged and condoned Mr. Obama's dream as reality. Can we fault him for accepting the coronation? I cannot. But that doesn't mean that he is a good President or a good administrator or a qualified leader. And, like many a young person immersed in and believing their dreams, he feels criticism of him or his policies are direct affronts to his person, to his image, and he reacts emotionally and badly. See him when confronted, he deflects blame (if unavoidable) to others and otherwise denies any failure or culpability. Always. It is NEVER his fault. He shows this so clearly in his posture and in his facial expression that it is sometimes embarrassing to watch.
The good news is that it is there to observe and note. The bad news is that so many in the media and in his party are so tied to his success or failure that they cannot acknowledge his inability to perform without damaging their own image or threaten their own jobs.
Dreams. Such a good and indispensable element with which to start. But so incredibly inadequate as a basis for performance!
Friday, May 6, 2011
California could become our Greece
It is both entertaining and hopeful to focus on the now open Presidential Political Season. We will, of course, tire of it in time and whine about just getting it over with, but for now it is a chance for renewed hope and optimism...for some of us,at least. But there is an ugly threat on the horizon that threatens to make the storms in the South seem minor by comparison and that we have been "helped" to ignore by both the media and the politicians: the failure of California to take any steps to solve their insolvency.
If we are not careful, California will become to America what Greece is about to become to the European Union...a death knell and cause of economic catastrophe...we won't have to wait for the deficit bills to overwhelm us, California's failure will kick us over the cliff way earlier than that.
We all should follow what is happening in and with Greece if we want to see our own future. The European Union (EU) has rules against bailouts and debt restructuring, but that is apparently going to happen shortly. They (the EU) have already done this with Portugal...against their own rules. What does this mean? Well, Germany has indicated that they, if the process continues, will abandon the EU. Whether that happens or not (and the odds are that the German Electorate will demand it), the value of the Euro will plummet.
Consider then our own beautiful state of California...
Known by some as "the land of fruits and nuts", they do not have a balanced budget. They have no (realistic) plan to balance their budget, and, if they were a public company, would no be rated as a penny stock with no value whatsoever. Yet they continue on unafraid and promising a continuation of the "free" lunch...oh, excuse me..."free" everything.
Guess who they will ultimately expect to pay for it? Yep You and Me! The rest of the United States. And we do not have the money to do it even if we decided it was right. But the worst thing (for California) is that we don't think it is the right thing to do. But...will Obama and the Congress declare that "California is TOO BIG TO FAIL." Where have we heard that one before.
Just think...a political decision that would accelerate our financial demise. Think it won't happen under President Obama? Really? What are you smoking...because I want some! And if you thing this can turn out well for the United States of America, just keep following the developments in the EU and Greece (and the other PIGS [Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain]).
It is absolutely as important to us as is the Presidential campaign.
If we are not careful, California will become to America what Greece is about to become to the European Union...a death knell and cause of economic catastrophe...we won't have to wait for the deficit bills to overwhelm us, California's failure will kick us over the cliff way earlier than that.
We all should follow what is happening in and with Greece if we want to see our own future. The European Union (EU) has rules against bailouts and debt restructuring, but that is apparently going to happen shortly. They (the EU) have already done this with Portugal...against their own rules. What does this mean? Well, Germany has indicated that they, if the process continues, will abandon the EU. Whether that happens or not (and the odds are that the German Electorate will demand it), the value of the Euro will plummet.
Consider then our own beautiful state of California...
Known by some as "the land of fruits and nuts", they do not have a balanced budget. They have no (realistic) plan to balance their budget, and, if they were a public company, would no be rated as a penny stock with no value whatsoever. Yet they continue on unafraid and promising a continuation of the "free" lunch...oh, excuse me..."free" everything.
Guess who they will ultimately expect to pay for it? Yep You and Me! The rest of the United States. And we do not have the money to do it even if we decided it was right. But the worst thing (for California) is that we don't think it is the right thing to do. But...will Obama and the Congress declare that "California is TOO BIG TO FAIL." Where have we heard that one before.
Just think...a political decision that would accelerate our financial demise. Think it won't happen under President Obama? Really? What are you smoking...because I want some! And if you thing this can turn out well for the United States of America, just keep following the developments in the EU and Greece (and the other PIGS [Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain]).
It is absolutely as important to us as is the Presidential campaign.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Why are we interfering in a Civil War?
After all these years American Foreign Policy in the Middle East still resembles the early years of American business expansion into the world that earned us the name, "Ugly American" because of our assumption that everyone thought like us and would make decisions the same way plus have the same values and goals. How utterly stupid that was. American business learned...and prospered. American Foreign Policy is still seemingly unaware that not all the world wants to be like us.
Consider if Obama had been in power in England (or France, or Spain) during our Civil War. How would we have felt if he come out with the command, "Lincoln must go" and set about organizing the other European Countries to bread the Northern blockade of Southern ports? Sounds decidedly inappropriate when looked at from that point of view, doesn't it? And where was this purposeful resolve when people took to the streets in Iran? Bahrain? Syria?
The inconsistencies are bad enough...and this article discusses them well. But there is more to be concerned about...and that is the nature of the Middle East itself. Up until now the countries have been run by heads of state with their own interests, and often at odds with one another. The President's actions are opening that up to a change that most certainly harbor more danger for the United States.
Not one American pundit, in or out of Government (much less the President) has considered that multiple secular leaders with self-interest at heart is much less a threat to the United States interests than a Middle East unified in a religious/political sect that sees Western Values (read, "American") as evil and to be overcome and destroyed. Many of the rebels in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain are Shi'ites and operate with the same attitudes and goals of those in Iran. And we are now the tools of their attempt to gain unified power.
It is bad enough to be wrong...but to be stupidly wrong is both an embarrassment and a horror.
Consider if Obama had been in power in England (or France, or Spain) during our Civil War. How would we have felt if he come out with the command, "Lincoln must go" and set about organizing the other European Countries to bread the Northern blockade of Southern ports? Sounds decidedly inappropriate when looked at from that point of view, doesn't it? And where was this purposeful resolve when people took to the streets in Iran? Bahrain? Syria?
The inconsistencies are bad enough...and this article discusses them well. But there is more to be concerned about...and that is the nature of the Middle East itself. Up until now the countries have been run by heads of state with their own interests, and often at odds with one another. The President's actions are opening that up to a change that most certainly harbor more danger for the United States.
Not one American pundit, in or out of Government (much less the President) has considered that multiple secular leaders with self-interest at heart is much less a threat to the United States interests than a Middle East unified in a religious/political sect that sees Western Values (read, "American") as evil and to be overcome and destroyed. Many of the rebels in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain are Shi'ites and operate with the same attitudes and goals of those in Iran. And we are now the tools of their attempt to gain unified power.
It is bad enough to be wrong...but to be stupidly wrong is both an embarrassment and a horror.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
OBama State of the Union Speech Reaganesque?
A significant number of media outlets have repeated some pundits comments to the effect that the speech was Reaganesque.
The SOTU speech was NOT Reaganesque...nor was it Shakespearian oratory. The Delivery was competent, but there was no substance to the hour. What made Reagan special was the years he spent honing his beliefs and message, learning what worked and what did not...all while talking to and arguing with those on both sides of the aisle to find and eliminate weaknesses in his positions.
By the time Reagan was President he had something to say. The icing on the cake was that he had the skill to communicate it effectively to friend and foe alike. President Obama can come close to delivering a speech as did Reagan, but he utterly fails to have the deepth and breadth of content that President Reagan delivered.
President Obama's story...his narrative...has no continuity and no substance. Not really his fault...he does not have the requisite experience...but it is not there and will never be there. He was given the office too soon...too early in his development. Ten years from now, if he had been left to mature in the Senate and learn, he would have possible made a superior President. At this time in his life, however, he is all flash and no substance. He is a smart man. Too bad he wasn't smart enough to bide his time and allow himself to mature and gain the experience to match his intelligence. Sometimes a guy can be too smart for his own good.
The SOTU speech was NOT Reaganesque...nor was it Shakespearian oratory. The Delivery was competent, but there was no substance to the hour. What made Reagan special was the years he spent honing his beliefs and message, learning what worked and what did not...all while talking to and arguing with those on both sides of the aisle to find and eliminate weaknesses in his positions.
By the time Reagan was President he had something to say. The icing on the cake was that he had the skill to communicate it effectively to friend and foe alike. President Obama can come close to delivering a speech as did Reagan, but he utterly fails to have the deepth and breadth of content that President Reagan delivered.
President Obama's story...his narrative...has no continuity and no substance. Not really his fault...he does not have the requisite experience...but it is not there and will never be there. He was given the office too soon...too early in his development. Ten years from now, if he had been left to mature in the Senate and learn, he would have possible made a superior President. At this time in his life, however, he is all flash and no substance. He is a smart man. Too bad he wasn't smart enough to bide his time and allow himself to mature and gain the experience to match his intelligence. Sometimes a guy can be too smart for his own good.
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.
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.
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 happened...in 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?
So...here 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.
“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 happened...in 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?
So...here 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.
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. Now...here 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?
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?
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Greek Orthodox Church gets pushed behind the Mosque
Everybody seems to have forgotten that a small Greek Orthodox Church was flattened by the disaster on 9/11. The Port Authority reneged on an agreement to provide some money for rebuilding the church, and have refused to meet with the church representatives to get everything on the road to restoration. Have you seen the Mayor, any NY representative or Senator, or the President or anyone in his administration speak out on behalf of this Church? No? Neither have I.
How can this be?
I guess that they will be playing ice hockey in Hades before President Obama will be celebrating a dinner with the Greek Orthodox and speaking out for THEIR right to rebuild (not build, mind you but REBUILD their church. Of course, the President wasn't raised in a Greek Orthodox home, so perhaps it is unreasonable to expect his recognition, much less support, for their interests. And the ACLU is seemingly only interested in groups that attack, verbally or actually, the United States, so they have no interest either. And apparently the Mayor of NY has no interest either...perhaps he doesn't see the Greek Orthodox as part of HIS "inclusive" city. Do we all have to convert to Islam to get "equal" treatment?
How can this be?
I guess that they will be playing ice hockey in Hades before President Obama will be celebrating a dinner with the Greek Orthodox and speaking out for THEIR right to rebuild (not build, mind you but REBUILD their church. Of course, the President wasn't raised in a Greek Orthodox home, so perhaps it is unreasonable to expect his recognition, much less support, for their interests. And the ACLU is seemingly only interested in groups that attack, verbally or actually, the United States, so they have no interest either. And apparently the Mayor of NY has no interest either...perhaps he doesn't see the Greek Orthodox as part of HIS "inclusive" city. Do we all have to convert to Islam to get "equal" treatment?
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Debating Ahmadinejad may be Obama's Best move
He does this every chance he gets, but Iran's President has once again offered to debate our President on...how did he phrase it...”to see who has the best solutions for the world's problems,” I think it was. He was quoted in a Reuters' article as saying, “Toward the end of summer we will hopefully be there for the (U.N.) General Assembly and I will be ready for one-on-one talks with Mr. Obama, in front of the media of course."
He has done this before, of course. Specifically, he challenged President Bush the same way. Of course, one of his statements in the course of the challenge included claiming
Bush was scared to talk, but Iran preferred it, “We have always favored talks, Iranians have never, ever favored war."
On the face of Iran's continued provable terrible record on civil rights, Ahmadinejad's statements and position is laughable, undeserving of response, much less serious consideration.
But...
Maybe...just maybe...President Obama should take on the challenge. Why? Well, things have not been going well for the President recently. He campaigns well, but people are starting to talk. Why isn't he staying in the Oval Office and improving the still stagnant recovery? Why haven't his promised improvements in job development happened? Why are we perhaps on the verge of a “double-dip” recession? And other questions, still un-asked by most of the media remain quietly considered by voters. He is clearly not an accomplished administrator, so staying in the office is not his best option. So...what to do?
Perhaps he could turn support for him into a patriotic thing. Take on Ahmadinejad directly...at the UN...in a debate. He could put the clear facts that Ahmadinejad denies into a presentation that would be an “in-your-face” moment that would rally all of America to his side...at last, the President standing up for the inherent exceptional-ism and good of America and, in the process, making the idiocy of the Iranian President's claims clear to all...once and for all.
Doesn't it sound great? Of course, it will take a bit of work and preparation. Mr. Obama will first need to get all of his facts in order, memorize those facts and be able to talk on them from many different points of view and in different contexts, all without the aid of a teleprompter...this, after all, will be a no-holds debate, not a formal speech. And he will need to get used to getting into the face of his opponent at close range, dealing with yelling and challenges coming from close range and being able to show his emotion while remaining in control of his argument and presentation while avoiding his proven tendency to calm others by giving them what they want...approval or silence. But...if he can get that part down pat...what a show that would be. Single-handedly, he could bring American's back on board his bandwagon...and he might find out that he likes it, that being and acting strong has more going for it than waiting for others to play "nice."
Just think of it...I had a dream...a President standing up for America and all that is right in the face of one of the proven rights-denying representatives of a dictatorial regime.
Someone should call Rahm.
He has done this before, of course. Specifically, he challenged President Bush the same way. Of course, one of his statements in the course of the challenge included claiming
Bush was scared to talk, but Iran preferred it, “We have always favored talks, Iranians have never, ever favored war."
On the face of Iran's continued provable terrible record on civil rights, Ahmadinejad's statements and position is laughable, undeserving of response, much less serious consideration.
But...
Maybe...just maybe...President Obama should take on the challenge. Why? Well, things have not been going well for the President recently. He campaigns well, but people are starting to talk. Why isn't he staying in the Oval Office and improving the still stagnant recovery? Why haven't his promised improvements in job development happened? Why are we perhaps on the verge of a “double-dip” recession? And other questions, still un-asked by most of the media remain quietly considered by voters. He is clearly not an accomplished administrator, so staying in the office is not his best option. So...what to do?
Perhaps he could turn support for him into a patriotic thing. Take on Ahmadinejad directly...at the UN...in a debate. He could put the clear facts that Ahmadinejad denies into a presentation that would be an “in-your-face” moment that would rally all of America to his side...at last, the President standing up for the inherent exceptional-ism and good of America and, in the process, making the idiocy of the Iranian President's claims clear to all...once and for all.
Doesn't it sound great? Of course, it will take a bit of work and preparation. Mr. Obama will first need to get all of his facts in order, memorize those facts and be able to talk on them from many different points of view and in different contexts, all without the aid of a teleprompter...this, after all, will be a no-holds debate, not a formal speech. And he will need to get used to getting into the face of his opponent at close range, dealing with yelling and challenges coming from close range and being able to show his emotion while remaining in control of his argument and presentation while avoiding his proven tendency to calm others by giving them what they want...approval or silence. But...if he can get that part down pat...what a show that would be. Single-handedly, he could bring American's back on board his bandwagon...and he might find out that he likes it, that being and acting strong has more going for it than waiting for others to play "nice."
Just think of it...I had a dream...a President standing up for America and all that is right in the face of one of the proven rights-denying representatives of a dictatorial regime.
Someone should call Rahm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)