"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!

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.

Is Government too big?

"Is Government too big?" is a question asked over and over ad nauseum.  It is a good question, but it misleads the brain into discussing and focusing on a symptom of failure, not the cause of government excess.  The size of government is the result of it assuming tasks that are not it's responsibility and should not be made the job of government.

Government should guard our borders.  Government should build and maintain roads, power lines and water supplies.  Government should maintain a means of addressing injustice in local communities when it occurs. That is ALL.

Leave citizens free to chose their definition of happiness, and allow them to attempt to achieve it.  Don't define happiness for them...that is a personal freedom.  If someone choses to be homeless and not work, that is their right.  And it is also their right and obligation to endure the consequences of their choices...both good and bad. It is most assuredly NOT the job of government to relieve anyone of the consequences of their personal actions.  This country became strong on the philosophical foundation of self-responsibility. And it's current problems are primarily a result of it's abandonment of that philosophy.

Local towns and communities can and should regulate themselves:  decide what type of laws work for them; if police are needed and, if so, how many;  determine if someone in distress is deserving of neighborly assistance, or is a neer-do-well that never has tried to solve their own problems and deserves nothing more than benign neglect (remember the Community Chest and local Church organizations?).  And if some community mistreats it's citizens, have the Supreme Court available to be an objective arbiter.

Stop all Foreign Aid.  It accomplishes nothing.  Stop funding the United Nations...what little it accomplishes is 10 times more expensive that if the same services were done by any other entity; its primary purpose is to take money from poor and middle income people in America and transfer it to rich people in other countries while simultaneously supporting those who are enemies of America.  Expel the United Nations from New York and let them relocate it...Afghanistan seems an appropriate choice.

Require Congress to make sure our military can and does protect us and our borders.  Let the President and Congress determine how best to provide transportation, power and water nationwide.  Let the President negotiate treaties...as long as those treaties don't weaken our military and limit our choices, and do not require that our troops defend other nations...that is for those other countries to do for themselves.  We are neither the policemen nor the Community Chest for the rest of the world.

Stop all subsidies...if you cannot succeed in a free market, such supported "success" is NOT success at all...it is robbery of the taxpayers.

Congress should be required to pass, and the President required to sign, a bill that declares Congress, the IRS and all government agencies subject to the tender mercies of the RICO statutes.  Perhaps then we can eliminate corruption in government, and allow States Attorneys-General to sue any federal government officials and any federal agencies for violation of those statutes...that will keep the U.S. Attorney-General and the Department of Justice from practicing self-serving benign neglect.

Do this and the size of government will not be at issue.  But our focus will remain on the proper goals of government and the efficiency with which it pursues those goals.

The President continues to act un-Presidential

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

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

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

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

Shameful...and so disappointing.