Total Pageviews

Wednesday, January 23, 2013


I traveled today on a UN airplane from Kinshasa to Kisangani, Democratic Republic of the Congo.  To be more precise, I left the hotel this morning at 0500, after spending late into the evening trying to get my laundry back from the hotel so I could use it on this week-long trip.  I was to retire at 2000 to get eight full hours of sleep.  I finally got to bed at 2330.  Four and one-half hours of sleep.  It took forty-five minutes to drive to the airport, another two and one-half hours processing and waiting for the flight.  Ninety minutes in the air, and then I had to wait for my rental car and driver to arrive for another two hours.  Then a forty-five minute drive into town before getting into my hotel room twelve hours after I started the day.  Traveling in a dysfunctional, failed state is exhausting, even when it is traveling in the finest accommodations available.  Kinda like taking public transportation in a large city in order to get to work.  Gotta start early and pay a lot. 

Former Senator Chuck Hagel, wounded and bemedalled VietNam combat veteran, former critic of Israel, and liberal Republican while on the Hill, will be confirmed as the new Secretary of Defense when the Senate meets to do so.  Why?  The Republicans know that a nasty fight to keep him out of the office would be too expensive a fight to enter into in terms of public opinion.  There are too many other issues that are much bigger right now.  The Republican Party hasn’t enough backing in the public arena to fight a losing battle here and also fight bigger budget and debt battle simultaneously.  I personally would fight the battle; but, I enjoy the fight for the fight’s sake. Fortunately, Secretary Hagel will probably do an acceptable job as SECDEF.  An initial comparison—a hope, rather—would be if he were to perform similarly to another liberal Republican senator chosen as SECDEF by a partisan, liberal president in 1997:  William Cohen, (R-ME).  I would not expect any more of a reach across the aisle than this anyway from the ideologue President Obama.  Let’s take it and go. 

The House of Representatives has predictably kicked the debt limit crisis can down the road just one more time.  It probably was an acceptable thing to do, given the contrived confluence of tax increases, sequestration, and the debt limit expiration at this time.  President Obama predictably has endorsed the move.  Any decision on such serious issues as this one that the president can avoid until tomorrow, he will avoid it.  The Senate predictably twiddles and sucks its thumb, happy that it doesn’t have to make a real decision either.  If I could change one thing in our government, it would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and force senators to be accountable to state legislatures.  They thereby would act as the voice of the states, as the Founders designed them to do.  Right now, they are simply super representatives who don’t have to pass budgets and who don’t have to represent the people except for a few months every six years instead of every two.  But, I wander.  Back to the debt limit:  another contrived, media circus is gearing up for May when the debt ceiling will again be addressed.  Meanwhile, money flows unabated. 

Secretary Clinton testified today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  She took full responsibility for the Benghazi debacle.  Her words were straight forward and blunt, a disingenuous swipe at the softballs offer up by her former colleagues in the upper house.   The sad joke is that nobody will take her up on the unspoken challenge to hold her accountable for her abysmal performance.  The Benghazi debacle is over because the election is over.  The bad guys in the debacle got reelected, partly by taking the sting out of the Benghazi incident by delaying the analytic processes until after the election.  Any smack-down now of a departing SECSTATE won’t get any sympathy from the biased press and will not carry a warning to future fiddlers-while-Rome-burned in high public office.  In fact, it probably won’t hurt Ms. Clinton’s chances for winning the Democratic Party’s nomination to run for president in 2016 or for winning the election.  Two thousand sixteen is too far from now for an electorate that increasingly is made up of generations who think that all issues older than last year are so, you know, like, so last year.  Perhaps, when Secretary Clinton testifies later today in front of the House Foreign Relations Committee, someone will insist on hitting her hard.  Unfortunately, that may just give her a sympathy vote from people who will look at her only as a woman and not as an irresponsible stateswoman. 

I heard that Beyonce lip-synched the Star Spangled Banner at the inauguration festivities on Monday.  How many metaphors and puns can I tease from this slip-of-the-tongue?  The president and his friends still don’t understand what is appropriate respect at appropriate times for this great nation and its institutions.  After all, it took the president until he was running for president to learn how to stand at attention with his hand over his heart when the national anthem was being sung and Old Glory was being presented.  He deserved what he got from his friend.  The rest of us didn’t; but he did.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013


22 January 2013 –

Below is President Obama Inaugural Speech 2013 Full Text Transcript.  I have read the speech several times.  It is progressive liberalism to its very core.  I wished for better. 

The President hies back to the credibility of the founders’ documents, but, he then fails to be consistent with their intent.  The President stresses collective approaches to issues, and he then mentions only federal government approaches to the issues.  His version of the people focuses only on the federal government’s picking of winners and losers in the economy—in the name of ensuring competition and fair play.  His version of taking care of the people means federal government programs that do not reward risk, hard work, and individual initiative.  They instead waste incredible amounts of hard-earned taxes, and they have proven to perpetuate lower-economic class stagnation.  His version of the people means the federal government knows best how the individual citizen should live his life to ensure his basic “right” to “security and dignity”.  Nowhere did our President mention the states, the local governments, the churches and other private organizations, and most important, the family with mothers and fathers who raise their children together.  These are the organizations that create the societal cohesion necessary to keep this nation strong and free.  For a progressive, such a no-federal-government-approach is frustrating because it doesn’t give him anything by which to garner power.  Sadly, when he listed specific issues important enough for a world-wide speech, he chose issues that ranged from contentious, to wrong, to complex but doable, to unachievable; and, by mentioning the horror of Newtown, he rendered his speech unseemly.  His framing of these issues definitely makes bipartisan solutions—all the people—difficult. 

In true progressive style, he warns us that we are following worn-out programs that are inadequate to the needs of our time.  This is the classic progressive attitude toward anything that has gone on before, of decisions made by anybody in the past.  Unfortunately, this also includes rejecting a literal reading of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. 

Finally, President Obama says that perpetual war is not the answer.  He was right.  President Bush blew it by using the military to nation-build in places where it simply would not work.  But, then the President assumes that his brilliance on the international scene will create friendships and trust that will, in effect, build stable nations.  A classic progressive thought process.  It seems that he wants his personality of trust and friendship as the basis for international actions.  History has shown that this is a foolish way to protect a nation’s interests.  The world will always be a dangerous place, even for brilliant people like President Obama.  The world is full of people who are just as power-hungry as he is. 


Full text of the inaugural speech as released by the White House...

Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

For more than two hundred years, we have.

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it – so long as we seize it together.

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully – not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice – not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.

That is our generation’s task – to make these words, these rights, these values – of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time – but it does require us to act in our time.

For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today’s victories will be only partial, and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years, and forty years, and four hundred years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction – and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.

They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope.

You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course.

You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.

Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

Thank you, God Bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America.

Monday, January 21, 2013


21 January 2013 - 

There are interesting events in the ongoing budget and debt limit crisis.  First, President Obama’s latest framing of the debt crisis irritates me.  Military.com reported on a forty-minute White House press conference last week, in which the President said, “I’m willing to find compromise and common ground (with Congress) on how to reduce the deficit…but, there’s no room to debate about paying bills Congress has already racked up.”  Whoa!  What does this mean, “bills Congress has already racked up”?   President Obama is range-gate stealing on one topic to keep from being shot at on a related one.  If you don’t know what that term means, you either haven’t been around combat aircraft or you haven’t lived in our house.  He cleverly framed his overall assessment of the crisis a way that leaves his prior, contributing actions conveniently out of the picture. 

The contention that Congress alone is responsible for the crushing debt would be laughable if it weren’t so self-serving and obfuscating.  When the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress earlier in his first term, President Obama enthusiastically spent money like the proverbial drunken sailor—whom he threatens now not to pay.  But, I get ahead of myself.  He championed almost a trillion dollars in emergency bail-out spending, pushed for and received large increases in federal employee numbers, praised his fellow profligates in Congress when they expanded—and he happily signed—unemployment and welfare benefits, prolonged the expensive war in Afghanistan to make it his war, pushed through a liberty-squashing, fiscal albatross called Obamacare, and proposed such idiotic budgets every year that he fell in league with the Senate to enable four years of money-bleeding continuing resolutions, which nefariously substitute for constitutionally mandated budgets.  Only now that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is trying to use its role as the constitutional originators of spending legislation in order to put some semblance of accountability back into the budget process does the President try to lay this mess at the feet of Congress.  Nice try.  It probably will work with those who benefit personally from government largesse with tax-payer money.  After all, they don’t really care what happens to the nation, as long as they get their Obamamoney!  To me, it is dishonest to perpetuate such conditions.      

Speaking of who gets what from the government and why, it is not surprising that Military.com highlighted the issue of who among those who receive money every month from the government will be affected if the debt ceiling is not raised in March. 
“Though the Department of Veterans Affairs and Pentagon were not discussed in any detail during the roughly 40-minute White House press conference, veterans and troops – along with Social Security recipients – topped the list of those Obama said will be adversely affected by a government shutdown….’If congressional Republicans refuse to pay American bills on time, Social Security benefits and veteran’s checks will be delayed,’ he said. ‘We might not be able to pay our troops…’”  “
Someone should tell the President that such scare tactics are beneath the dignity of the office.  What is more foolish is that the President cavalierly and ignorantly exploited the deadly serious issue of nonpayment of soldiers to threaten opponents in the political arena.  He should be far more careful with such topics.  I doubt many of his political advisors have any idea what the threat of not paying soldiers, if continued for any length of time, can do to the cultural stability of a nation. 

How important is paying soldiers on time and paying them everything you contracted to pay them while on active duty and later in retirement?  Let me explain what I have seen and experienced during my travels throughout the world. 

I am in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) right now.  You can find the country by looking at Africa and going right to the center of the continent under the hump.  There is the place that only one-in-a-thousand American high-school graduates can find on a map. I am under contract with the Department of State as a Government Technical Monitor.  I oversee and report on five DEPSTATE-funded military training contracts in one of the most dysfunctional countries on earth.  Why is the U.S. spending good money on such a project?  Because a functioning, professional, and loyal military force is one of the vital pillars of strength and stability of a country.  It doesn’t matter how large the force is, it matters how professional its culture is and how loyal the soldiers are to their country, its constitutional processes, and its people.  If they are such soldiers, their loyalty extends to the point where they will accept the unlimited liability of the profession and be ready to die for their political masters’ goals and objectives.  Without such a military, a country is ripe for collapse into squabbling and self-serving regions, tribes, ethnic groups, and political-economic criminal gangs.  A military where mothers of all stripes are proud to send their sons to serve the greater good keeps a country together.  That’s the ultimate goal of our training; it is a lofty one.     

Les Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo (FARDC), those we are trying to professionalize, consist of 120,000 to 140,000 soldiers.  Nobody knows for sure how many soldiers there are.  Why?  For the fifty years since independence from Belgium nobody has trained, paid, fed, garrisoned or inoculated soldiers regularly enough to amass reliable records.  As well, and this is important to the reason for my rants, the military in the DRC consistently has been used as a political, propaganda, and economic pawn by national and local “leaders” in their attempts to seize  and maintain political and economic power.  Under such abuse, the FARDC, officers and individual soldiers, have largely abandoned a culture of allegiance, loyalty, and personal sacrifice to any noble cause they may have once embraced.  I know first-hand that they now are mostly just a bunch of hungry guys with guns.  It is a proven recipe for tragedy. 

Any military, no matter how great the country from which it springs, can quickly arrive at such a state if its soldiers aren’t paid, fed, housed, and kept healthy.  Even killing the soldiers at a regular rate on an ill-conceived and foolhardy battlefield does not have the same effect on soldiers’ morale as their country not honoring its contract with them.  Napoleon said that an army marches on its stomach.  I would say today that a soldier commits only as completely as his or her country commits in return.   There are many reasons why a soldier enlists.  There is only one reason he or she commits to serve for any length of time: his country’s proven commitment in return.  Soldiers are soldiers are soldiers, no matter what uniform they wear or what language they speak.  Abuse them and it is your loss. 

Jason K. Stearns refers to this strongly in his superb book on the Congo, “Dancing In the Glory of Monsters, The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa.”  He quotes a Congolese lieutenant colonel, “The real challenge in the Congo…is not how to reform the army, but how to reform the men in the army!  There is a serious problem with Homo congoliensis.”  What the rest of the book strongly confirms is that the problem is not congenital; it is learned and could be resolved if the soldiers were fed, paid, housed, and kept healthy.  Otherwise, today, the training we provide from the outside will have little effect on the abysmal state of affairs here.  The wavering commitment of the government to the military is 95% of the military’s problem.    

We should never use soldier’s pay as a political negotiation chip, or as a threat to the society, in order to win political games.  I believe, and my experience throughout the world in the last three-plus decades has borne out, that nothing is as sacred an obligation for a nation as honoring its contractual commitment to those who are and have honorably committed to the defense of that nation.  It is a sacred contract, unlike any government entitlement, benefit, or promise made to anybody else.  To possibly undermine the assurance of this sacred contract with such remarks, Mr., President, is to play the same game that the monsters of the Congo play so very well.   Shame on you.   

Saturday, January 19, 2013

19 January 2103 - I am back


19 January 2013 –

I am back.  I think I shall be back for some time to come.  

Here are two quotes from two articles pulled from Foxnews.com:
“House Republicans say they will allow a vote next week on a short-term increase in the debt ceiling, a move that could avert a stand-off with President Obama -- at least for now.” 

“More than eight in ten American voters (83 percent) think government spending is out of control, according to a Fox News poll released Friday.  That’s up from 78 percent who said so in 2010 and 62 percent in 2009.  Some 11 percent think spending is being managed carefully. 

Next week’s vote to increase the debt ceiling temporarily is probably necessary to avert the U.S.’s immediate default on its debts.  That is important to every person in America, whether he votes or not, whether she is in personal debt or not, or whether he follows the news or not.  If the U.S. can’t keep up with its debt repayment schedule and cannot be trusted by lenders with new debt, then we are busted.  Most important strategically:  Others, not necessarily our friends, will make our decisions for us.  

Greece, the cradle of western democracy, is not sovereign anymore.  Now, others, in Germany, Brussels, and elsewhere, make decisions for Greece, no matter how many protestors there are in the streets of Athens who think they have a voice.  How long America remains sovereign is up to those who decide how much we spend and where we spend it.  This is the single most important strategic decision the U.S. has to come to grips with.  It is more important than anything else: illegal immigration and borders; the results of the flow of petrol dollars to those who support terrorism; anything else.  

Every financial planner I have ever talked to has agreed on one thing:  When they analyze someone’s troubled personal or business finances, the first thing they look at is where to cut spending.  Increasing revenues never solves the systemic problems that cause debt and financial insolvency.  It is almost never a revenue issue.  It is almost always a spending issue.  The planners first determine the fundamental purpose of the company:  what the company does.  They then cut spending on everything that does not directly contribute to that purpose.  Then, the company can survive.  Then, the company can eventually thrive because it takes in more than it spends. 

We must use that model to tame the U.S.’s insolvency crisis.  What is the U.S.?  What are the fundamental missions of the U.S. federal government, specifically declared in the Constitution?  What are the other, universally-accepted programs or missions assumed since our founding that should be continued? After this list is written, cut off everything else and reduce our obligations to a level that can be covered with existing revenues.  Simple to do on the back of an envelope.  Extremely difficult to do in the political arena by pandering politicians. 

How important is it to resolve this fiscal crisis?  Well, I grew up poor and not in control of my future.  I know what it is like to have others dictate what and who I am.  I am convinced that now is the critical time for the wise judge Deborah to rally our nation’s fiscal forces.  She must lead us to cut down the modern-day Jabins and their Siseras and thereby stop them from overrunning our nation with their profligate ways.  She can still save our system of government and economy if we act now.  Or, should we wait until our weak, effeminate leaders desperately cry to Cincinnatus to rise up and save us from the Aequians, Sabines, and Volscians to whom we are in staggering debt?  And when the crisis is over, can we trust Cincinnatus to give up his dictatorial, executive powers and go back to his farm?  Yeah, right.  We have a choice.  Are we strong enough to make it correctly?

Are we so far removed from the events of our founding that we no longer care to follow the brilliant wisdom of our founders: limited federal government; fiscal responsibility; local solutions to local issues.  Cut spending now.  Forget about President Obama.  He has never built, lived by or understood budgetary processes anyway.  The key is the United States Senate:  It must pass a budget for the first time in five years and live by the consequences of its restrictions.  Until now, it has forced the country to live with no budget; the results have been a fiscal disaster.  A budget constrains and limits and appoints accountability.  No wonder the ill-disciplined Senate refuses to pass one. 

Enjoy your weekend.  

Friday, June 29, 2012


29 June 2012 –
It has been a while since I have written anything on my blog.  I actually tried to squelch my desire to keep the blog going.  The effort worked for almost seven months.  Now that I find that events of this last week overwhelmingly corrosive to the Constitution, I have to write something.   

In the 1930s, when Social Security was first debated and pushed through Congress, President Roosevelt and his administration went to great lengths to sell the program as a pay-in-and-take-out-program.  They sold the program by saying that it would be a government retirement fund that would operate even better than a private retirement fund.  What the public didn’t know was that it was a tax from the beginning because it was never constructed to be, and certainly was not confined later to be, a self-sustaining retirement-only fund.  As history has shown, it was expanded to become another way to redistribute income, funded through a tax.  It has been sustained through payroll taxes for decades now, with little attempt to hide the fact.    
Obamacare was pushed through Congress and foisted on the American people by calling it anything but a tax.  Read the following excerpt from an interview in Sept 2009 by President Obama and George Stephanopoulos.

Sep 20, 2009
Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax
ABC News Interview

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: ...during the campaign.  Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA:  Well, hold on a second, George. Here - here's what's happening.  You and I are both paying $900, on average - our families - in higher premiums because of uncompensated care.  Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that.
That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances.  And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's ...
STEPHANOPOULOS:  That may be, but it's still a tax increase.
OBAMA:  No.  That's not true, George.  The - for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.  What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS:  But it may be fair, it may be good public policy ...
OBAMA:  No, but - but, George, you - you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase.  Any ...
STEPHANOPOULOS:  Here's the ...
OBAMA:  What - what - if I - if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that's not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don't want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then ...
STEPHANOPOULOS:  I - I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax - "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."
OBAMA:  George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now.  Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.  I mean what ...
STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, no, but ...
OBAMA: ... what you're saying is ...
STEPHANOPOULOS:  I wanted to check for myself.  But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA:  My critics say everything is a tax increase.  My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy.  You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but ...
STEPHANOPOULOS:  But you reject that it's a tax increase?
OBAMA:  I absolutely reject that notion.

President Obama used all sorts of justification—but clearly saying it wasn’t a tax—to push his mandate through Congress and on the American people.  But, when the people and the states pushed back and the case went before the Supreme Court, what did President Obama’s legal team use as a justification for the forced mandate?  They knew they couldn’t get it past the court through the use of the Constitution’s commerce clause; therefore, in the tried and true methods of congenital doublespeakers, they suggested that the program also acted as a tax.  Yup, they called it a tax and justified the program under the government’s right to tax the people.  Unbelievably to sensible and honest people, it worked on the Chief Justice.

Here’s problem number one, in my view—to say nothing of the cost this program will cripple the economy with:  Either President Obama lied to the American people in 2009 when he clearly denied allegations that Obamacare was a tax or his team lied in front of the Supreme Court when they argued that Obamacare’s mandate could be called a tax.  Or, what is more probably the fact of the sad situation:  President Obama and his team have used whatever lie, excuse, terminology, shading, and stilted collection of statements necessary to get what they want, even if the majority of the American people want otherwise.  Why else would they have passed a law that would not be implemented until 2014, after the 2012 elections?  It has been proven to that they are like military recruiters; whatever they say is a lie because it comes from their mouths.  Another way to say it:  Two plus two equals four is a fact.  But, when they use that fact, it turns into a lie because their motives and methods for using the fact are underhanded.  

Problem number two resides in the Supreme Court.  Didn’t Chief Justice Roberts know that he was being played like a flute by this nefarious team of left-wing hucksters?  Didn’t he know that his court’s reputation as a guardian of the Constitution and his court’s place as the supreme land of the land have been sorely wounded by his codifying of a set of arguments that the administration used to get through the day and will change again tomorrow if the President thinks it will get him through the next day?  If the Supremes lead singer was so enamored with making his opinion sound good as to be seduced into validating the administration’s newly minted arguments, then we are in dire straits in this country.  We can get rid of this president in November; the court is a permanent product of power and hubris.  Maybe the singing group by the same name would do a better job as the ultimate arbiter in the land.  At least their self-important lyrics would probably come with a catchier tune.    

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

4 December 2011 –

Bumper Sticker Of The Day – If you are reading this, what aren’t you doing?

The legal issue of abortion in the United States is a classic Tenth Admendment and separation of powers issue. Discussing the legal aspects of the issue divides limited government, original intent or text interpretation advocates from big government with expansive, particularly judicial, powers advocates. Legally, the question is quite simple: Who among our governmental branches and layers decides such an issue?

The Tenth Amendment text is simple: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” If the Constitution doesn’t specifically say that the federal government can do something, it can’t (An even more blunt statement is that if the Constitution doesn’t specifically say the federal government can do something, it SHOULDN’T try to do it. But, that is an argument on corruption for another day). Like almost all crimes, abortion’s legality and restrictions are an issue for the individual states to decide.

Specifically, the critical issue about abortion is the beginning of human life—which determines, in turn, whether an abortion is the premeditated taking of human life, i.e., murder as defined in most states. There is not specific proof when such life begins in the womb; therefore, the issue is one of philosophical, religious, and moral policy. Under our system of separation of powers, such policy questions are left to the legislatures to decide—the states’ legislatures, each state acting according to the will of its people. To elevate such questions to the federal level corrupts the system, and, by definition, those who operate therein.

Tragically, the US court system, ending with the Supreme Court, corruptly seized legislative powers to decide when a mother’s rights end a fetus’s rights begin. The moral courage for the collective Supreme Court to issue a simple “It’s not our job,” ruling in Roe V. Wade simply was not there. The separate and enumerated powers, clearly stated in the Constitution to warn us of and to protect us from such corruption, were ignored by the very body that should have championed them. Shame on them in 1973. hame on their successors who care more about the power of their institution than the rights of the people, as clearly stipulated by the very document they take an oath to follow.

Why would such accomplished jurists do such a thing? I repeat my contention that there have been only two men in the history of the world who, when offered all power, refused it and returned to private life at the end of a crisis: Cincinnatus and George Washington. While there are many in government on all levels who daily eschew power, there always seem to be more who, when offered the chance to exercise power, garner it carefully and then abuse it to their own aggrandizement. What power is garnered in a simple “It’s not our job” ruling for Roe V. Wade? None. But, what power resides in the precedence of a long anticipated ruling—in the assumed brilliance of the dissection of a complex legal, and now, moral policy, issue? More than almost all men can resist.

The legal issue of abortion policies is and always has been a state legislature issue. It should be returned to the states by an honorable and courageous Supreme Court. How can that be done? It will require a committed populace that demands that its legislators to “cowboy up” and act like the representatives of the people that the Constitution dictated that they be. To do this requires our active participation in the larger, moral, arena where WE must determine the societal framework of our lives. A return of the legal machinations to what the Constitution dictates will surely follow.

More on this tomorrow.

Monday, January 2, 2012

2 January 2012 –

Bumper Sticker Of The Day – Can you handle the 10th Amendment?

There are two primary arena where one must fight the battle over abortion practices and policies in the United States. To be decisive, one must win in both arena; and, importantly, every question on the subject can be adequately answered in one or both arena.

The first battleground is a jurisdictional conflict. There we must determine again the proper venue for abortion legislation and its inevitable legal review. There are advantages, disadvantages, and dangers in deciding this question on the federal or the state level. The Constitution is clear on who has jurisdiction in such matters, but zealots on all sides have been wont to abuse the Constitution while pursuing a result—the unescapable, unintended consequences be damned.

The second arena is a larger, moral one. We must do at least the following in our own lives and in the political process that extends outward from the individual, the family, and the group of the like-minded: clearly prioritize the competing rights of the unborn, society, the individual, and the family; precisely determine the moral obligations our society has to protect, honor, and sustain life; and, consistently display the moral courage required to maintain those positions in the fray

More tomorrow.