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 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.

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.

The Housing Market...why it continues to stagnate

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

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

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

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

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?

I read an interesting thought earlier today by Ronald R. Cherry :

"A natural equal right to the creative pursuit of happiness can only be secured by equal law which results in natural unequal outcome. Some individuals will attain superior achievement through greater creativity or greater labor, while others work less or with lesser creativity which naturally leads to unequal outcome."


 As a thoughtful observation made, perhaps, from a quiet study or in a University setting, I found it curiously calming and reassuring.  But a sense of disquiet followed that made me sit back and mull a bit on the comment, and then on the exact words used and finally on what was NOT said.

I concluded that there are a number of problems with the proposition.

First, there is no such thing as equal law.  By its very nature, it is always attempting to reach and equality, to be sure, but that definition is always changing in a dynamic society.    It is not a separate absolute knowable goal exactly because of that dynamic.

Secondly, the law in any event is not controlling, responding after the events where a perceived desirable outcome is not reached or reachable.The second sentence, while accurate, leads the trusting reader to assume definitions of terms where the definitions are not present, making it possible to adopt the premise of the thought...a mistake indeed.  For example, what some people will define as a "greater creativity" would be defined by others as a "con" or "twisting the rules."  As an example, how do you define the creation of default swaps in the midst of the run-up to the economic turmoil in which we find ourselves struggling today?  What about the definition of government decisions and collective bargaining agreements which results in protecting the incomes and fortunes of those clearly not earning and deserving of such benefits?

And finally (for now), it is not at all clear that there is any "natural" equal right to the pursuit of happiness.  Our Fore-fathers declared it so...and attempted to protect it in the Constitution.  But consider:  If it is a natural right, why does it need artificial protection in any government document and why hasn't it been evident in other ages and other countries down through history?

More logically it can be identified as a desirable privilege founded in moral thought and principle...but certainly not evident in history as having the standing of being "natural", much less a "right."  Humans with a sense of purpose, a competitive spirit, a moderate willingness to and understanding of  "taking a chance" and, most importantly, an understanding and belief in and willingness to accept consequences will always act and support a sytem that allows for the pursuit of happiness as a right, natural or otherwise.  But there are many of the human persuasion who prefer to be cared for, to not make hard decisions, to not take chances, and to accept a lower level of happiness (for now, at least) that is guaranteed and not the product of taking chances and of hard work.

The mutual existence of these groups is made problematic by the fact that the product of the first group must of necessity by taken, at least in part, to fund the existence of the second, but...details, details, details.

The quote is useless and irrelevant to any practical application to the human condition in America. The fact that it can be read by anyone and interpreted by them to support any particular vision of life is the very fault that would make it the centerpiece of virtually universal disagreement  in any attempt to apply it to real life.  It's sole benefit is as a centerpiece for discussion in a University or professorial setting...a good mental exercise indeed.

Why protecting our borders IS important

Why is it important?  Bear with me, and consider the following:

People are wrong when they say that the current problem amounts to Hispanic bashing. The anger is not at Mexicans or any other Hispanic group because they are Hispanic, it is because they are Illegal.

My father was an immigrant. My mother's parents were immigrants. They waited for years to be granted the opportunity to come here. They had to prove that a job awaited them. They had to have a sponsor who guaranteed that they would have a place to live and who also guaranteed that they would support them for one year if they lost the job that was promised.

In other words, they found out the rules, obeyed and lived by the rules, and were rewarded by the legal right to come to America. They felt honored by the opportunity, and they proved their own honor.

How does that have  any connection with illegal entry to the United States? Does Mexico care what the nationality is, of ethnic background, of those who attempt to enter Mexico illegally? If you do not know, the answer is, "No, they do not care and treat all the same...harshly.

Our government has forgotten or decided to abdicate its main responsibility...protecting its citizens. If illegals were coming over the border wearing uniforms and carrying guns, would you expect the government to send in troops or do whatever was necessary to protect our borders? I suspect that you would say yes, but if not then you certainly do not value the existence of the United States. So, what is the difference. We are still being invaded. And, while shooting invaders who do not carry guns may not be appropriate, stopping them is still very appropriate, and rewarding them for invading is absolute insanity.

Not stopping them is virtually inviting the overthrow of the government. This administration, and the one before that, is doing exactly that and, in my mind, is the very epitome of seditious behavior.

But...there is another major reason why we should protect and close our borders. We are telling the children of this country, as well as the American public generally, that our laws don't mean anything. Really. They are discretionary and can be ignored if they are inconvenient. No, you say? Prove it. Ask anyone you come across whether a law has to be obeyed if you do not like it. I will bet that the answer that you get the most time is “it depends.” Our government passes laws that they don't read, hold protecting our borders hostage to getting illegals in this country on a citizen track so they can vote the “right” way, allow one race to picket a voting place while preventing others from even questioning the citizenship of voters and allowing felons to vote. And we wonder why our youth has no moral standards? How can they...we don't have them ourselves.

In the 60's, when protests meant something, civil disobedience meant that you were going to be arrested and that you were going to be in jail.  You had decided that going to jail for breaking a law that you believed should be changed was a price...a consequence...that you were willing to meet in order to make a point.  There was no expectation of being let out or not serving the punishment...you had broken the law, and you expected to pay the price.  After all, if the law meant nothing, why change it?  We respected the law and wanted laws to be changed so that they were Just in addition to being the law...we believed in law.

Today?  No one expects to be arrested after breaking laws in protest.  Even the courts act disrespectful to the law...they do not enforce them.  The Government clearly does not respect the law or the Constitution...if does not honor the commitments the law or the Constitution puts on it.  You disagree?  How about the obligation to protect our borders?  How is that going?  When instead of protecting the borders, the government puts up signs warning citizens that travel in an area of the United States of America is prohibited because of illegal activities that come in over the non-protected border, that raises a question of how my government is acting in accordance with the constitution...at least in my mind.

Why doesn't someone write about that?  Why don't we as citizens impeach our "representatives" (that is a joke) for non- and malfeasance?  Why don't we explain that when Reagan gave amnesty, the deal was that the government was going to close and control the border and it hasn't been done...the government lied.  And we are not going to accept promises again...Close and Protect the border, prosecute employers who hire those in the country illegally, stop spending public money to aid those who did not respect us enough to get legal authorization to come to this country or to stay here.  Respect the Law...and stop selling us lies.