Economic Realities

A couple of predictions for the economy over the next two years - both of which will have a potential impact on the Obama Republicans:

1) The expiration of the Bush tax cuts will lead to an immediate, but temporary influx of new cash to the government and a decline in private capital. This will be followed within a year with an increase in unemployment as privates small businesses lay off employees. The deficit will not go down because government spending will most likely increase - the Obama Republicans are probably not going to do anything about the Obamacare.

2) What little funding increase cuts the Obama Republicans do push through, right now a measly $100 billion, could lead to a decline in the economy because so much of it is now dependent on government spending - a la FDR.

The fact is, the government does NOT need more money to function, it needs to cut spending and not just increases in spending, but the baseline - whole programs and agencies need to be cut from the federal budget. By revoking completely and not replacing it with Republican Care - Trillions of dollars can be saved, but it doesn't decrease our current spending levels.

The sad fact is that none of the programs proposed by the Obamacrats or the Obama Republicans does anything to help the middle class. The majority of the Obama economy has been about wealth redistribution - from the middle class to the welfare class. The top 1% - the small percentage that are really wealthy - are relatively immune to the Obama's shenanigans, they have their wealth and new money doesn't change that much so you could take a few extra bucks out of their paychecks to help pay for government. But since the majority of the 1% are small business and not zillionairs then you do risk increasing unemployment in both the welfare class and the middle class.

No economic policy should be about keeping individuals happy where they are - the intent is for people to strive to move up the economic ladder and not stay where they are. By not taxing the welfare class the government provides no incentive to move up. By increasing taxes on the middle class and upper middle class then they become trapped, unable to move up, and in many cases they move downward as the upper class hold more and more of the country's wealth.

We could always go back to the pre-Reagan taxes for the upper income brackets (top 1%) - 70+% tax rates. This won't change their wealth much - not talking about small businesses which make up most of the upper 1% - as they have their money. It will, though, create an effective permanent barrier to upward movement from middle class to upper middle class to wealthy. It will also effectively stop the upward movement of the welfare class to the middle class.

The apparent stagnation in the welfare class has nothing to do with the current tax structure but everything to do with the government's continued policy of aiding and abetting poverty. Poverty is not caused by rich people, especially in a country like ours where everyone has the opportunity to succeed.

the Hubris of Government

"Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive."

- Joe Biden, Oct. 26

This is the type of hubris that has led to the continued decline of American preeminence around the world. The notion that without government we as a people, as a nation would be nothing is the central cause for poverty, immorality and nearly every other malady that has plagued this once great nation. The Founders of this nation understood that a central government was indeed a necessity but they saw that government as being limited in scope and power. No one can name a single great idea of the last 3 centuries that required the government. I will not say that government has not been important to bringing some of those ideas to fruition - after all having access to a nearly infinite pile of cash can and does go a long way. Had it not been for government Bell Labs would still be pumping out great ideas and GM would not be producing one of the 21st Century's biggest technology failures - the Volt. Biden and the Obama are Socialists, socialists of the worst kind - almost evil in their ignorance of reality.

The idea for the Atomic Bomb did not originate from some government paid science wonk, no it grew in the minds of brilliant scientists from the academic worlds of Europe and America before the massive insinuation of government funding. The Bomb itself is the product of a zealous government - there is a difference. One of the things that disturbed me most about working at Los Alamos was here was the collection of some of the country's smartest scientists gathered to work on the National Security Problems that troubled our nation and yet too many of them were engaged not in research vital to our security but in pet projects funded by American Tax Dollars. These are scientists being paid salaries and having access to the finest state-of-the art equipment in the world doing research for publication in scientific journals with absolutely no relevance to National Security - if only a University professor had it so good - no responsibility for classes and students and struggling for tenure. I do not attack the notion of Science for Science's sake but I do have a problem with its funding with Tax Dollars at government institution that have a responsibility to the nation as a whole and not to the individual scientist. If government must fund science and they should, then I would like to see tens of thousands of National Laboratory scientists competing for university jobs and an increase in NSF funding with a huge decrease in DOE funding.

the Obama picked a Nobel Prize winning physicist to head up the Department of Energy Dr. Steven Chu, a brilliant scientist. Surely his appointment to Secretary of DOE is a signal that a brilliant career was sacrificed for ideology - a socialist ideology at that. Dr. Chu is one of those scientists among many that I know and know of that made a choice that I do not understand. For some reason truly brilliant people are drawn to the nonsense notion of a Utopian world - the kind of world that an the Obama type espouses. There appears to be no correlation between intellectual ability and leadership - the Obama is a prime example - a man with supposed intellectual capacity but absolutely no clue on how to lead. The left attacked George Bush but he was a leader, by every definition of the word and only near the end of his stint in office did we see the chinks in his armor and only then because he strayed from his principles.

Real Hope for this Country

Wishful hoping (my fingers, toes and eyes are crossed): Deathly Midterms.

No Mandate

the Obama came into office believing that he had a mandate to "Change" America. In fact he had no such thing. What he considered a mandate was (while a significant percentage of the voting population at that time) made up of two groups, 1) socialist lefties suffering the side effects of liberal white guilt and for whom money was not an issue (ie rich Hollywood types) and 2) what Andrew Wilkow has dubbed, the "Zero Liability Voter." The first group is a small minority of America and as such their vote could hardly be considered a mandate. The second group really should not even be allowed to vote in the first place. They are the population that either pay no income tax, and the majority get a return (earned income credits) that offset their payroll taxes. So, they are essentially voting more benefits to themselves without the liability of having to pay for those benefits. This is the group of people that the Founding Fathers did not want to vote because they have not stake in the outcome. So, where is the mandate? Take away the welfare class and you are left with a tiny minority of voters for whom a few extra bucks out of their pocket in the form of increased taxes is really not a big deal. They create few jobs (exceptions being the Gates and Buffets) and in fact like the welfare class really have no stake in this country. The rest of us, the ones that are stuck paying for the Obama's largesse have a great deal at stake and as such represent the true mandate.

Don't Blame Me, I Didn't Vote for Me!

I screwed up, so I blame the voters.

Cal Thomas: GOP 'pledge' is a test of Republican character | Washington Examiner

Cal Thomas is one of those columnists that you always read or listen to when he talks. While you may not always agree - he has the credibility to demand respect of his opinions.

Cal Thomas: GOP 'pledge' is a test of Republican character | Washington Examiner

"Republicans should make weaning them from dependence on government a patriotic duty and the essence of liberty. Focus on those who have overcome poverty and let them serve as examples of what others can do.

Let's talk about individuals demonstrating more responsibility for their lives and ensuring their own retirement, with Social Security returning to the insurance program it was originally designed to be: a safety net, not a hammock"

Science and the Search for Truth

Harold Kroto, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry 1996: Treat science right and it could help save the world.

Before you come unhinged at his subtle attack on the Texas school board for including religion in texts books (by the way he is right about this), this piece is aimed just as much to the Obama and his ignorant gang as it is at the Rush Limbaughs and Mike Church's. Science and Religion are not the same thing and neither are the mutually exclusive but they don't mix well. Both are about seeking the truth and if you openly accept both you will find that there is no conflict - both require that you drop all pretensions about what you think you know and accept what you don't.

Temporary Halt in Using Murdered Babies for Stem Cell Research

Not really that opposed to stem cell research but finally a Judge that stands up and says that there is no such thing as "settled" law when it is an executive order trying to circumvent a Congressional Law. NYT: U.S. Judge Rules Against Obama’s Stem Cell Policy.

Now Let me be Clear, I own this Economy, but it's Bush's Fault

THE HILL: A year after claiming the economy as his own, Obama points finger at predecessor.

Can't have Corporations outspending Unions

Professor Bainbridge: Obama's Anti-Corporate BS.

File Under: Toss Them All Out

John J. Pitney Jr.: The GOP and the Temptation of Hubris.

What's $4.4 Trillion Among Friends

WSJ: $4.4 Trillion.

File Under: Don't Hold Your Breath Too Long!

Is Barney Fwanks having a change of heart? WSJ: Barney to Fannie: Drop Dead.

What a Bloody Mess

Rove: Deconstructing Harry Reid.

The Enumerated Powers - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress. Beyond those enumerated powers Congress has no others. Critical to our discussion of the Enumerated Powers is to first establish the Original Meaning and intent of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This is probably one of the most hotly debated Clauses in the Constitution. From the liberal point of view the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, and to pay Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States stand as two separate powers granted to Congress - thus their view that Congress and Government have unlimited authority, regardless of the Enumerated Powers of the following clauses. We turn to

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution for our answer:

§ 904. Before proceeding to consider the nature and extent of the power conferred by this clause, and the reasons, on which it is founded, it seems necessary to settle the grammatical construction of the clause, and to ascertain its true reading. Do the words, "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," constitute a distinct, substantial power; and the words, "to pay debts and provide for the common defence, and general welfare of the United States," constitute another distinct and substantial power? Or are the latter words connected with the former, so as to constitute a qualification upon them? This has been a topic of political controversy; and has furnished abundant materials for popular declamation and alarm. If the former be the true interpretation, then it is obvious, that under colour of the generality of the words to "provide for the common defence and general welfare," the government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers, notwithstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers; if the latter be the true construction, then the power of taxation only is given by the clause, and it is limited to objects of a national character, "for the common defence and the general welfare."

§ 905. The former opinion has been maintained by some minds of great ingenuity, and liberality of views. The latter has been the generally received sense of the nation, and seems supported by reasoning at once solid and impregnable. The reading, therefore, which will be maintained in these commentaries, is that, which makes the latter words a qualification of the former; and this will be best illustrated by supplying the words, which are necessarily to be understood in this interpretation. They will then stand thus: "The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, in order to pay the debts, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;" that is, for the purpose of paying the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. In this sense, congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but it is limited to specific objects,--the payment of the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objects, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legislative authority. In what manner this is to be ascertained, or decided, will be considered hereafter. At present, the interpretation of the words only is before us; and the reasoning, by which that already suggested has been vindicated, will now be reviewed.

§ 906. The constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers. This is apparent, as will be presently seen, from the history of the proceedings of the convention, which framed it; and it has formed the admitted basis of all legislative and judicial reasoning upon it, ever since it was put into operation, by all, who have been its open friends and advocates, as well as by all, who have been its enemies and opponents. If the clause, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," is construed to be an independent and substantive grant of power, it not only renders wholly unimportant and unnecessary the subsequent enumeration of specific powers; but it plainly extends far beyond them, and creates a general authority in congress to pass all laws, which they may deem for the common defence or general welfare. Under such circumstances, the constitution would practically create an unlimited national government. The enumerated powers would tend to embarrassment and confusion; since they would only give rise to doubts, as to the true extent of the general power, or of the enumerated powers.

§ 908. On the other hand, construing this clause in connexion with, and as a part of the preceding clause, giving the power to lay taxes, it becomes sensible and operative. It becomes a qualification of that clause, and limits the taxing power to objects for the common defence or general welfare. It then contains no grant of any power whatsoever; but it is a mere expression of the ends and purposes to be effected by the preceding power of taxation.

Thus, we see from Story's commentaries that the intent of the Founders was in fact not to create a government of general and unlimited powers. Paragraph 908 is essential to our understanding, the last sentence says it all: "It then contains no grant of any power whatsoever; but it is a mere expression of the ends and purposes to be effected by the preceding power of taxation." For Story's complete discussion please see the following link: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.

To further bolster the view held by Story is the following letter of James Madison to which I will add some emphasis:

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell

30 Oct. 1828Writings 9:324--25

2. A history of that clause, as traced in the printed journal of the Federal Convention, will throw light on the subject.

It appears that the clause, as it originally stood, simply expressed "a power to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," without pointing out the objects; and, of course, leaving them applicable in carrying into effect the other specified powers. It appears, farther, that a solicitude to prevent any constructive danger to the validity of public debts contracted under the superseded form of government, led to the addition of the words "to pay the debts."

This phraseology having the appearance of an appropriation limited to the payment of debts, an express appropriation was added "for the expenses of the Government," &c.

But even this was considered as short of the objects for which taxes, duties, imposts, and excises might be required; and the more comprehensive provision was made by substituting "for expenses of Government" the terms of the old Confederation, viz.: and provide for the common defence and general welfare, making duties and imposts, as well as taxes and excises, applicable not only to payment of debts, but to the common defence and general welfare.

There follows this the next 17 powers specifically granted to Congress. In my next installment I will address the Commerce Clause: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The Constitution: An Introduction

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. The debates that led to the creation of the Constitution, primarily the work of James Madison, and those within the originals 13 States of the Union are beyond the purview of this series, but are important to our understanding of the Constitution and especially its original on only intent. As needed I will refer to those necessary to drive home a critical point.

Despite all of the hoopla over the Bill of Rights - originally 12 Amendments to the Constitution that were winnowed down to 10 - the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution; it is part of but not the the most important part. In fact many, as I do, believed that including the Bill of Rights would lead, as it has, to the limitation of our rights. I will not delve into this in detail here but will reserve the discussion for a later post; the point being that given the nature of Government delineating a subset of our fundamental rights could, and has, lead to the Government to infringe on rights not listed in the Bill of Rights. It should also be noted that the Constitution is also, NOT, the tens of thousands of legal opinion - Constitutional Case Law - that has been generated and spewed by 200 years of Supreme Court rulings. These opinions are just that, opinions, they are not law and can be changed whenever necessary - they are flawed interpretations of a document that really is hard to misinterpret. Supreme Court opinions represent not adherence to the Constitution but political attempts to circumvent the law to the benefit of special interests. The purpose of the Supreme Court was not to give the citizenry or the government a venue for overturning laws with which they disagreed.

It is also important to understand that the Constitution does not grant a single right (it does grant the privilege to vote). Our rights do not derive from men or governments of men - as the Declaration of Independence says: "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." It cannot be any clearer than that yet this is one of the most misunderstood - especially by liberals - notions about the Constitution - The purpose of the Constitution is to define a government that has limited scope and powers, the most critical of which is to secure our rights. So, it is a misnomer to refer to our fundamental rights as Constitutional Rights. This is a point that Elena Kagan could not grasp - thus the real reason she should never have made it to the bench.

Fundamental to an understanding of the Constitution is to understand that the majority of our country's Founders distrusted government and understood far better than our current rulers do, that government is a necessary evil to be taken in small doses. Thus the Constitution is a document intended to define carefully and clearly a government of limited extent and limited power and balanced against the rights of the states and the individual.

The Constitution consists of 7 Articles that define the structure and powers of our government. If a power is not specifically specified as belong to the government authority then the government does not have that power. That is a critical point to understand - The Government does not have ANY implied powers. Another way of saying that is, just because the Constitution does not specifically prohibit or grant a power that does not imply that the Government can claim that power. A reading and understanding of the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly spell this out:

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: 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.

As we go along we will see how purposeful misunderstandings of the 14th Amendment have gone a long way toward stripping the IX and X Amendments of their important purpose.

So, let's reiterate: The Constitution does not Grant the Government any powers not specifically specified in the text of the document.

Article I of the Constitution defines the Legislative Branch of our Government and Section 8, Clauses 1-18 specify the enumerated powers of that Branch - beyond those listed in those Clauses Congress has not other powers, real or implied - PERIOD.

Article II defines the Executive Branch and other than those limited powers granted the Executive - none of which involves making laws - the President has limited authority - as intended by the Founders.

Article III defines the Judicial Branch of government and specifies that its job it to uphold the Constitution, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." Again not anywhere in Article III is there a granting of authority to make law and more importantly, there is no authority to grant rights to the Citizenry.

The remaining Articles of the Constitution discuss Full Faith and Credit, Debt obligations, etc. Article V, which will be discussed later is very important in that it defines how the Constitution is to be changed if needed to adapt to changing situations. "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate." An interesting thing to note here, is that no where does it say that the Judicial Branch has the authority to modify the intent or meaning of the Constitution.

In summary: The Bill of Rights is not the Constitution - it is a list of prohibitions on government toward a subset of our rights; The Constitution does not grant any rights; Supreme Court Opinions are not the Constitution but flawed misinterpretations of the Constitution. The Constitution really does mean what is says, it is just that simple.

The Constitution

For regular readers and maybe some new ones, beginning either Sunday evening or Monday evening - some personal events taking place will determine which evening - I will begin Gordian's Introduction to the Constitution. It will be a series of blog posts presenting the Constitution, its history and its meaning and some of the critical Amendments and their misinterpretation and abuse - 1st, 14th and the often overlooked 2nd. Obviously this introduction will be mine - but it is directly from the Constitution as it was written not from Case Law as it has been interpreted. We have to remember that the Constitution is the law, the rest is just opinion and most of not such good opinion. So, stay tuned and please do not hesitate to jump into the middle of the discussion and let's get the debate going, after all the Founders intended for us to understand this wonderful document and they would be highly displeased at its current misunderstanding by our men in black.

Revenge of the Nanny State

Banning the Happiness in San Fransisco. Look, feeding your kids an endless stream of fast food isn't a good idea, but it is the business of the parent so keep your mitts off my Happy Meal!

Morning Bell: The Gulf Recovery Obama Does Not Want to See | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Morning Bell: The Gulf Recovery Obama Does Not Want to See | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Why I'm Not Hiring

Excellent column by Michael P. Fleischer, small business owner on how the government is helping his business: NOT!

Sometimes being Intelligent makes you Stupid

Hat tip to El Greco for this one in the Boston Globe.

File Under: Even if it is Wrong we are going to do it anyway

Harry Reid blames the republicans for his inability to get the 60 votes needed to pass an energy bill in the wake of the Deep Water Horizon incident. Question: Why is it that Congress feels they need to do something? It was an accident. Analyze the causes; develop a solution and move on. Congress isn't needed. This is an engineering problem not a lack of regulation problem. I am, though, waiting for congress to pass a bill to deal with baby burbs - a known source of the green house gas Carbon Dioxide.

Can You Hear Me Now? | Washington Examiner

Can You Hear Me Now? | Washington Examiner

A Move in the Right Direction

In the Wall Street Journal today: Yes, Virginia . . . ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

Also, go to Mark Levin's page, his Landmark Legal Foundation wrote an Amicus Brief in support of Virginia's suit. Levin links to the opinion and the brief.

A pair of silly ADA news items

With no disrespect to those with disabilities but not everything is about them and the world should not be revolving around them. The Americans with Disabilities Act, though noble in intent is just another insidious form of socialism.

Why did feds claim Kindle violates civil rights? | Washington Examiner

Chipotle in violation of disabilities act - Washington Times

The Constitution

A great piece on the Constitution by Charles R. Kesler at NRO.

It’s not just Rangel — Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., to be tried on ethics charges | Washington Examiner

It’s not just Rangel — Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., to be tried on ethics charges | Washington Examiner

Wouldn't it be great for America if they bumped this one out also. What an airhead she is.

Eight congressmen now calling for Rangel to give up his seat | Washington Examiner

Eight congressmen now calling for Rangel to give up his seat | Washington Examiner

Eight really isn't enough, the entire Republican block should be howling for his resignation and Nancy "I am going to drain the swamp" Pelosi should have already called him into her office and demanded his resignation.

Orin Kerr's Guide to Reading Legal Opinions

For those of you who like to read legal opinions, Orin Kerr his How to Read a Legal Opinion: A Guide for New Law Students.

Go download it, it is worth it.

The Obamacrats Still Win by Getting Lefty Republicans to Vote With Them

Democrat Senator Ben Nelson plans to oppose the Kagan nomination to the Supreme Court. But it won't matter 5 Senators that call themselves Republicans, but in fact are just Democrats in disguise plan to vote for her: Snowe, Collins, Lugar, Graham, and Gregg.

It is in fact a brilliant strategy by the Democrats - get lefties to register as Republicans then win Congressional races and vote Democrat!

Follow up: Over at the Washington Examiner short piece: Republican Sen. Gregg says he will vote for Kagan.

Honest Discussions About Race Are Not Actually Possible

the Obama makes a valid statement but Volokh shoots it down on practical grounds.

Over the side Hayward goes; bad news, the Obama stays

WSJ, Hayward tossed overboard.

In private business the man at the top, regardless of who causes a mess, is tossed over - that's the rule. It heralds back to the notion that regardless of who ran the ship aground, the Captain goes down with the ship. The explosion of the Deep Water Horizon oil platform cost the lives of 11 men and billions in cleanup and retribution costs - sums that BP has willingly stepped up to pay. On the other hand, the man most, in fact entirely, responsible for what became the gulf disaster still holds his $400K a year job; still plays golf; still hobnobs with the New England elite - (don't let anyone convince you that oil or no oil on the beaches in the gulf had anything to do with the president's decision to go to New England - why would such a fat head sink to associating with the common folk of Florida) - and yet no one is calling for his resignation. As usual another corrupt leftist elitist skates. the Obama's dallying while millions of gallons of crude flowed into the gulf and began destroying the gulf state shores is criminal and at the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Even Carter tried, though disastrously, to free the Iran hostages. the Obama sat on his hands and did nothing for 70+ days while a huge oil slick washed into the marshes and onto the shores of Louisiana destroying the livelihoods of those that rely on the bounty of the oceans. For the most part the liberal (State Run) media have ignored or downplayed the Obama's role in the disaster, preferring instead to blame Bush and his oil friendly policies. Sadly, given the state of the Obama's economy, most Americans are kind of in a state of shock and what goes on outside of their immediate world is not considered of much interest - after all they have to feed their own families in the Obama socialist world. Let's face it, with millions out of work and millions more expected to lose their jobs as the Obama economic policies begin to fully kick in, except for those people in the gulf region directly impacted by the spill, most Americans have enough on their plates to worry about. The oil spill in the gulf is just one of a multitude of the Obama caused disasters that Americans are having to deal with.

Brietbart takes on the leftist group Media Matters of Sharrod on Good Morning America yesterday with George Stephanopoulos on Thursday, via Power Line.

Race is an Issue for the Right

If I were a political strategist for the right the first thing I would do is to mandate that from here and now until the elections are over in November 2010 and in 2012, Race has to be central to every issue we discuss. The left has been doing that for 40+ years and have been admirably successful in doing so; the majority of the Obama's political agenda is race-based. Now, rather than taking the leftists position that the right are a bunch of racists, we take the opposite tack - how has the black community and majorities in general been hurt by the race-based programs of the left. Not one "equal opportunity" law passed by the leftist congress in 50 years has been about providing equal opportunity for minorities. Every single one has actually been about providing shortcuts for minorities to an equal outcome. The result - all have been utter failures and have led to a permanent underclass - and as you would guess - dominated by the blacks. The right thinkers need to point out that every equal opportunity law started out as quota laws, attempting to modify the work force to reflect the racial makeup of society. This led to a flood of race based hiring in the 70's through much of the 90's. The result, not a single black employee is judged on the merits of their work but on the color of their skin, whenever they advance up the ladder. Schools with the race-based entrance requirements have led to a disproportionate drop out rate of blacks from not just the "Ivy" League schools but all colleges. The reason, it takes more than skin color to succeed in college. Bush Jr. said it best, "The soft bigotry of low expectations." When the American voter, desperate for change voted for the Obama, they lowered their standards - everyone - even those on the left that put him into the White House - knew he was unqualified to be president, hell he wasn't even a good senator, but the bigotry of low expectations won over and he became president. The RESULT: probably the most disastrous presidency in American History and he is not even half way through his first term. People - the left - got caught up in the euphoria of race-based thinking, otherwise known as Groupthink, and now we have this mess in the White House. Every single the Obama initiative is tainted with his personal racial views of America. He is so entrenched in the racial pit of thought that he probably doesn't even understand that he cannot see the world any other way. Most Americans, not on the left, have been trying to move away from the issue of race for decades and just when we think we may have succeeded, along comes the Obama and his merry cadre of racists - Axel Rod, Reid and Pelosi. And here we are again - debating the same old issues over and over and over again.

So now it's time for the Right to pick up the race baton and beat the left about the head - let's make it a real issue - not this shady implied issue that the left is pushing, that the right are a bunch of racists - no, let's put it right out front, by pointing out that every single law passed by the left has, as intended, kept slavery alive and well through the welfare state, through never ending dependency on government, and by pointing out that the left doesn't think that minorities can stand and succeed on their own - "The soft bigotry of low expectations." It is time the Right stop rolling over on Race and face it head on - the data are on our side not the lefts.

It's the Thought That Counts

This Open Letter to Matt Bai points out what I have said earlier, that the accusations against the Tea Party are now defacto reality. When it comes to race once the accusation is made by the left, it sticks regardless of the massive quantity of evidence to the contrary - it is the implied racism of those outside the leftist mainstream that is in play here. Next, once the left has painted itself into the corner over this issue, we will be reading and hearing everyone talk about how it was not necessarily what the Tea Party members said, but what they were thinking that really counts and they were thinking racist thoughts.

Please, No More Government Spending!

Please, No More Government Spending!

That's NOT Proof!

On Hot Air, Breitbart hits NAACP with promised video of racism!

Update: Justice served, USDA official Shirley Sherrod fired after video surfaces!

Obamacare - One Big Pack of Lies

In the July 16th NYTimes:

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

Kagan and the Constitution

Lets face it, Kagan is not a Constitutional lawyer, anymore than the Obama is. She is just another left wing crank with a law degree - All Animals are Equal, but Some are More Equal Than Others - type of socialist. Stossel: Kagan's Exception to the First Amendment.

Race is a one way street for the left

It is one of those interesting inconsistencies that plagues the whole race debate in America: If someone on the left, ie a black person in this case, accuses someone on the right of making racial attacks regardless of the lack of evidence to support the accusation, the accusation stands; the media pick it up and run like hell with it and everyone associated with the accusation is tarred and labeled as co-racists. Of course I am talking about the accusations made against the Tea Party that they made racial slurs against John Lewis and other blacks at a DC rally last year. To date, not a single shred of evidence has been produced to support the claim of Lewis and the others. The one piece of evidence that does exist clearly disproves Lewis' claim: Video of Tea Party Rally. On the other hand, there is ample evidence of the racist diatribe by the New Black Panther Army and the NAACP and yet, that doesn't count by the left as racist. That is politically protected speech.

Next comes the beard tax

The making of a true Soviet style bureaucracy: Lost in Taxation.

Ms. Olson also exposed a damaging provision that she estimates will hit some 30 million sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations, two million farms and one million charities and other tax-exempt organizations. Prior to ObamaCare, businesses only had to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase. But starting in 2013 they will also have to report the value of goods they buy from a single vendor that total more than $600 annually—including office supplies and the like.

This may kill a lot of small businesses that are already overburdened with reporting requirements.

The Hijacking of the Black Dream

The infamous organization the NAACP has passed a resolution calling on the Tea Party to denounce racism. The Tea Party has been called a racist organization based on unfounded accusations that some of its members made racial slurs at members of the Congressional Black Caucus during a rally in DC this past spring. No evidence that any racial remarks were made during the rally has come to light and the accusations are based on claims made by the supposed recipients of those remarks. Which side does one believe? Well, the NAACP has a long and questionable history, itself on the issue of racism among the black community and has not come forward to condemn all racist remarks made by the black community. I am still waiting for the NAACP to condemn the recent racist remarks by the leader of the Black Panther Army, King Samir Shabazz. If they have I must have missed it so someone can send me the link.

I remember the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's that started out with the noble goal of integrating blacks into mainstream America by working to ensure that their rights as Americans were guaranteed. The goal was to remove color from America's eyes, to make us color blind, when it came to the rights of our citizens. Recall the famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Somewhere along the way that Dream was hijacked by the left and the Social Engineers and instead of an integrated, color blind society, we ended up with a segregated, hyphenated society, in which color has become a crutch for all that has gone wrong with the Black community. Blacks are as a group performing at a lower level than other minority groups save maybe Hispanics. Seventy percent of all black children born today are born to single mothers. The politically correct reason for this is still racism - whites are just racists and they are holding the blacks back. The reason is, though, the blacks themselves. The political left hijacked the Civil Rights movement and diverted it from its path toward racial equality and a color blind society and turned it into a form of indentured servitude to the state. Blacks have been educated to believe that without the continued assistance from the state they will never become equal (outcome equal) with the majority population. Most of what passes for Civil Rights legislation in the country today is nothing but race preference laws designed to keep blacks dependent on the government and to ensure their continued failure as a community. Those blacks that have wandered from this state dependence view have been labeled "Uncle Toms," and are considered outside of mainstream black thought. Hacks like Al Sharton and Jesse Jackson and groups like the NAACP continue to stoke the racial fires and through threats and intimidation have forced liberal congress members to push racial preference laws. Under the Obama we were as a nation supposed to have pushed beyond racism, but it has only gotten worse. The Attorney General Eric Holder and his Justice Department have instituted a racial preference approach. The recent dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Army is a case in point.

Unfortunately with presidents like the Obama and groups like the NAACP leading the blacks around by their noses, race will remain an issue for a long time.

Buy America - just not GM or Chrysler

I agree - TOLD YOU SO. Next time the State Run Media comes out with a report about out of control foreign automobiles it might do to call the local UAW phone to see if they are behind the reports - end result of all the bad press against Toyota - they are doing nicely thank you - Toyota 1, Obamamotors 0: Big Runaway Toyota Surprise.

United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island?

Hat tip to El Greco for this one: United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island? The Corner - National Review Online:

United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island? [Andy McCarthy]

Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegals to the feds for deportation. Besides the usual profiling blather, critics have trotted out the now familiar saw that such procedures hamstring police because they make immigrants afraid to cooperate. But it turns out that it’s the Rhode Island police who insist on enforcing the law. As Cornell law prof William Jacobson details at Legal Insurrection, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the state police commander, “refuses to hide from the issue,” explaining, ”I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.”

If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.

Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?

Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?

So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect.

File Under: They knew he was a Snake when they let him in

One can understand businesses concerns, but it is also hard to feel sorry for them because they knew the Obama was a snake when they got into bed with him on Obamacare. the Obama basically says, every single day, don't trust me, and yet some still do. You have Apple and Google, both the Obama subsidiaries sitting on piles of cash, not hiring, and claiming it is because of the Obama induced economic uncertainty. A better reason is that they are going to get some special deal from the Obama.

Lack of jobs increasingly blamed on uncertainty created by Obama’s policies | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

“Much of the language is vague and will need to be implemented through regulation; uncertainty surrounding the specifics of those regulations is inhibiting growth right now,” the letter said, estimating that the financial regulation bill will cost the U.S. economy about 100,000 jobs per year.

the Obama, Great???

There were obviously no really standards for this poll ranking the Obama 15th best president, Obama the Great:

In a Siena College poll of 238 presidential scholars, Mr. Obama emerges as the 15th most highly rated president, trailing Bill Clinton (13th place) but finishing three spots above Reagan (18th place). Mr. Obama's immediate predecessor, George W. Bush, was ranked number 39th among 42 presidents, and bested only Warren Harding in one category, intelligence.

Siena poll director Douglas Lonnstrom notes that Obama scored highest in the categories of imagination (6th), communication (7th) and intelligence (8th). His only poor rating was "background," where he placed 32nd, perhaps because of his relative inexperience before taking office.

For either Clinton or the Obama to come in ahead of Reagan is remarkable, and quite telling, and rather disturbing given that the history departments of most universities are dominated by leftists. The reality is, if you rated FDR on his terms in office before the war and were serious about it, with real standards and criteria - not feelings - then he would finish near the bottom of any list along with Carter and soon the Obama. The only saving grace for FDR was his ability to talk to the people and that gave them a sense of false hope even as the country's economy kept falling because of his economic programs. the Obama lacks even that ability - he does not talk to the people he attempts to talk over them with big sounding ideas and empty platitudes. It is hard to reassure people when you have not even taken responsibility for your failures. Likewise, to rate a president without considering traits like Leadership is mystifying to me and thus nullifies any results based on touchy-feely qualities. He got high marks in areas that he really has no skill in - imagination - what imagination, for 40+ years we have heard the same socialist drivel flow from the mouths of presidents like Johnson and Carter and to some extent Clinton - nothing new there. Intelligence - well he is intelligent but he isn't smart and being a Theorist is even worse. Communication - he never says anything - but in today's 30-second sound bite world nothing said is considered communicating.

Now contrast the Siena silliness with this assessment of the first 17 months of the Obama's administration:

"Seventeen months into office, Obama is increasingly isolated -- from his party, from American voters and from the world. Though he was sworn in amid great expectations to transcend partisan, racial, cultural and economic divisions, the country is more polarized than ever and Washington is even more a target for voter anger than it was under President Bush. Polls show majorities of Americans do not believe Obama has a clear plan for creating jobs, or to deal with the oil spill, and they oppose remaining in Afghanistan. . . . Obama is so politically toxic in battlegrounds he can't campaign for most Democratic candidates and his relationships with Democrats outside his intimate circle of mostly Chicagoan advisers fall somewhere between faint and frosty" -- A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, a newspaper covering Congress.

McDonald - good bye Independence

Happy Independence Weekend all - and thank you NRA for destroying our basic rights - States Rights, Conceal Carry and any number of rights we had before McDonald. I believe that the right to keep and bare arms is as fundamental as the right to breath and live free and say what is on my mind - but apparently the NRA doesn't - despite their now panic cleanup mode attempt to assure American gun owners that their rights are still intact. Before McDonald, every state could decide things like Conceal-Carry - now, Congress can - and, well, since they got away with the Assault ban, it is quite likely, Conceal-Carry for all states, will be relegated to the dustbins of NRA stupidity.

Here is the essence of the whole discussion, if it is more important for you to have a handgun than live in Chicago, with its great culture and Blue bars and whatever, then move to another city or another state where guns can be owned - it is always a trade off when it comes to rights and majorities. Let's face it when it comes to self defense shot guns (which are not restricted in Chicago) are better than handguns - most people could not hit the side of a barn with a handgun when under duress - get a shot gun they hardly ever miss.

Old McDonald

Regardless of our view that the right to keep and bare arms is a fundamental unalienable right - granted to us by our Creator, the McDonald decision was not a good decision. That Chicago passed stupid laws the restricted ownership of guns is not at issue - what is at issue is the rights of States to regulate what goes on within their borders. The Constitution was originally meant to be a safeguard against the Federal Government from infringing upon our rights and the 9th and 10th Amendments left it to the individuals and various states to control what went on within their own domains. Along comes the 14th Amendment and all of the subsequent misinterpretations - including McDonald - and now we have a situation wherein Congress can now tell us, with regard to guns and quite likely Obamacare, what we can and cannot have or have to do. You may have disagreed with Chicago's handgun ban but under the Constitution's protections it was wholly within their right to prevent individuals from possessing handguns. The NRA and their stooge lawyers are now in full campaign mode trying to convince us that no state will get away with the one-gun-per-person laws or one-a-month-laws, but we know that those laws do not "infringe" by definition - and sadly, we now know that Congress can just flat out make them laws of the land, because the Second Amendment is "Incorporated." The NRA got lazy, instead of letting Chicago voters do their job, by voting out those Aldermen that supported the handgun ban, they, the NRA, trampled on the responsibilities of the electorate. It would appear that the majority of Chicagoans have not issue with the ban or they would have voted out those that passed the ban. So, here is my prediction - the NRA's favorite conceal-carry law, will be one of the first the goes when Congress wakes up to realize that they can now ban it, as they did assault weapons - because that does not qualify as an "infringement."

Now is the Time to Assurt Our Independence.

This will be our second Independence Day under Chairman Maobama and as the Kagan hearings have highlighted our Constitution and our Fundamental rights are under siege by this Socialist government. Under questioning from Senator Tom Coburn Kagan would not even affirm that we have Natural Rights outside of the Constitution, those delineated in the Declaration of Independence. Kagan responded by saying, "To be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution." Coburn pressed, asking Kagan if her response meant "you wouldn't embrace what the Declaration says, that we have certain God-given rights, and that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Kagan replied that "my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws." She emphasized that she was "not saying that I do not believe there are not rights pre-existing the Constitution and laws." Kagan dodges and weaves on natural rights.

Obviously for her to admit that our rights do not derive from the Constitution and thus from will of men, would be a defeat of the Obama agenda. The goal of he and his merry band of socialists is to subsume our rights to the will of those that govern. A court that views rights not as Natural will have no problem inflicting more rights upon us - like the right to have to buy health insurance or taking away rights that they do not like or that are not popular.

Obama disappoints even lowered expectations | Washington Examiner

Obama disappoints even lowered expectations | Washington Examiner

Hayek, No not Selma

Words from the wise, Russ Roberts: Why Friedrich Hayek Is Making a Comeback.

The Triumph of Socialism

On today's WSJ Opinion page: The Triumph of the Regulators.

We could go on, but perhaps the best summary is to hail Dodd-Frank as the crowning achievement of the Obama "reform" method. In the name of responding to a crisis, the bill greatly increases the power of politicians and regulators without addressing the real causes of that crisis. It makes credit more expensive and punishes business without reducing the chances of a future panic or bailouts.

If they only had a brain!

From the Washington Examiner's Susan Ferrechio, Under fire on deficits, Dems try budget alternative

"It's an election year and the problem is, to keep the economic recovery going, you have to keep spending money," said another Democratic aide close to the budget process. "You can't really cut back and keep the economy going but when you do that, you keep running up the deficit and people don't like to vote for budgets with big deficits."

That first line pretty well sums up the Demo's lame economics.

President Obama's Vuvuzela | Washington Examiner

President Obama's Vuvuzela | Washington Examiner

Job Creation the Obama Style

the Obama urges his minions in congress to pass a $50B emergency bill to save public sector (mostly union) jobs, police, firefighters and teachers. In the mean time the private sector is still bleeding jobs at an alarming rate - the Obama's solution to that is to put a bigger bite on job creators and already severely pinched tax payers to save his beloved unions.

Other Peoples' Money

So, the Obama bilks BP out of 20 Billion to put into a trust fund to help out people affected by the Obama's inaction. He has absolutely no Constitutional authority to do what he's doing - oh, I forgot, he doesn't pay attention to the Constitution. I'm wondering, though, is the Obama going to kick in a few buck from his own wallet - after all, the blow may be BP's fault, but the resulting mess is his.

A total lack of leadership

So, the president gives a speech to the nation about the gulf disaster - a day(60 days) late, and a dollar(billions) late). All politics and no plan of attack.

Stranger in a Strange Land

From Mark Steyn, an apt view of our so called president: The Very Model of a Modern Major Generalist.

And so the Gulf spill was an irritation, but he dutifully went through the motions of flying in to be photographed looking presidentially concerned. As he wearily explained to Matt Lauer, “I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain, talking . . . ” Good grief, what more do you people want? Alas, he’s not a good enough actor to fake it. So the more desperately he butches up the rhetoric — “Plug the damn hole!”; “I know whose ass to kick” — the more pathetically unconvincing it all sounds.

Not a leader the Obama

As a follow up to my previous post on the Obama and his failure as a leader to handle the crisis in the gulf is a column by Mitt Romney in USAToday, a great read: We need a leader, not a Politician. There are so many great quotes in this column that it would do it injustice to put one here, read it and you will know that I am not the only who thinks that the Obama is not a leader but just an amateur politician.

The Politics of Oil Spills

From the beginning of the gulf oil disaster, the Obama administration rather than mounting an all hands on deck response to the disaster he has instead attempted to leverage the event for political gain. the Obama team swung into full campaign mode and began full frontal assault on the oil companies and the former Bush administration. In the mean time thousands of gallons of crude continued to spew into the gulf and has begun to wash ashore on beaches and marshlands. In concert with the Obama's bleating Waxman and company have began marshal their forces to start the "Truth" hearings. It is very important that they divert blame from the Obama and his minions and place squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration. Meanwhile, the oil continues to flow and BP is doing everything it can to stem the flow. States are pleading with the government to allow them to take action against the monstrous oil slick approaching their shores. In what can only be called a comedy of errors dozens of government agencies are tripping all over themselves claiming jurisdiction for this and that and at same time pointing fingers and passing blame whenever something goes wrong. This is the very definition of liberal-big government. Not even the Three Stooges could match the buffoonery of the Obama Administration.

The economically ignorant Left

In today's WSJ a column by Daniel Klein: Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

"...percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly."

the Neophite Obama

As all of us predicted and as it was pointed out time and time (and time and time) again during the campaign that led to the Obama's election, he has no experience - and now in the face of the Gulf disaster, in light of the health care debacle and the immigration catastrophe, there can no longer be doubt, the Obama is way in over his head. The real disaster for this country is that he is the president. On the Washington Examiner page this morning a Byron York piece: Spill reveals Obama's lack of executive experience. And last week Peggy Noonan whacked the ball out of the field with this column about the Obama's incompetence: He Was Supposed to be Competent. The left has really done a disservice to the country by electing this disaster of a man. At this point, the Obama's political career is totally untenable - a wreck. He is too arrogant to resign and let a politically more astute (I could have said stupid - but Biden is not) politician step in - Biden. Sadly the political triad at the top - the Obama, Biden and Pelosi is the worst in American history. There is nothing redeeming about any of them. the Obama will be there in 2012 running for his political life - but if the Pelosi is still there - that is if the Repubs don't gain control of the House in 2010 - then he certainly will not be president in 2013. I think at that point the Repubs (or Tea Party) could run a cat against the Obama and he wouldn't win. Fred Barnes has a great column in yesterday's WSJ on the potential impact of Pelosi on the Obama's 2012 presidential bid.

The decline of America

Once upon a time, America used to be a nation of producers. We built things, cars, buildings, televisions, steel, we were industrialized. People got up in the morning, they went to work and at the end of the day there was a product for the American consumer to buy. Now, now, we are a nation of servants. The majority of all products consumed are imported from other countries - mostly China and other countries of East Asia. All of our electronic products are produced overseas. Our economy is based almost entirely on providing services. Yes, we still have an auto industry - but not one that can stand on its own without government aid, the exception being Ford and those foreign companies that build cars here. The growth of wealth is no longer based on items of value but on the production of paper based on "wished" value. Today our government and its economists talk of "too big to fail." This very phrase should send a chill down the spine of every American. We used to talk about mom and pop businesses, small businesses, people dedicated to providing a quality product at a decent price. Remember when you could go to a Hardware store and find the widget you needed, made in an American factory and the owner/operator when asked just about any question could answer it. Now you go to a Home Depot or Lowes and rarely do you find the item you need because everything has been over standardized and when you ask one of the sales persons a question 90% of the time they don't even know what you are talking about. We used to dominate the world in steel production now we import all of that. I admit that I shop at Wal-Mart, because it's cheap - in all ways.

What happened? It has been a long and slow decline certainly and we have yet to reach bottom. Both sides of the political spectrum have their pet theories but neither side is entirely correct. The left wants to blame the greedy capitalists and the right wants to blame the unions and socialism. The rise of the environmentalist movement has contributed to the decline of our industrial base - death of the steel industry. The politicization of the Unions has contributed to the movement of our production based society overseas and in turn has led to the consolidation of a large part of the remaining industrial base - mostly the Aerospace and Military Industrial Complex industries. The lack of real enforcement of existing Banking Laws has led to the consolidation and growth of the large bank/investment houses. The economy is driven by large businesses paid for by small businesses. The government bailout of the banks (TARP) and GM and Chrysler was a slap in the face of small business because it was small business' money that was used to pay for the bailout. One can argue that there is some benefit to be gained from consolidation of businesses but not always. The large Aerospace companies are no longer the innovative entities they once were. The Boeing's and Lockheed's innovate by buying up small businesses then sucking the life out of them. The decline of our economy can be attributed almost entirely to the growth of our government. Tax laws have forced companies to be valued primarily by their stock rather than real tangible assets. Over regulation and under enforcement of critical regulations have allowed companies to take risks that they would not have taken when real value was at risk.

Much as it pains me to say this, but it is time to start breaking up the large conglomerates and reinvigorate competition. The left will love this but I am not talking about driving the companies out of business, because along with the breakup will come massive, real, changes in government including a decline in corporate taxes, and changes in how corporate profits are taxed that promote reinvestment, a change in the laws that protect unions - repeal of the Wagner act, in other words. Also, there has to be real regulation not this faux crap that passes as regulation. Every major economic hiccup tied to corporate collapses, Savings and loan, Telecom, Enron, now the bank and house markets have been shown to be not a result of deregulation but the lack of enforcement of existing regulations. Had the government actually done its jobs then the listed events would never have occurred. Likewise large companies like the banks and the auto companies, when they get into trouble have to be allowed to fail and if necessary go out of business. Only when you inflict severe pain on the work force will they be willing to toss off the fake security that they think unions provide. Also, if large investment firms collapse then investors will stop taking a passive involvement in the investments. the Obama talks about "skin in the game" when he attacks businesses, but that term has also to be applied to the workers and Americans in general. The current economic turmoil is entirely the fault of Americans and their lack of involvement - which has led to the massive growth of the government nanny-state. I am not opposed to Wal-Marts, but it would sure be nice if the goods they sold were made right here in America. It is too bad that too many Americans think that social evolution means working less, producing nothing and living on credit - ie being lazy.

The Mouse in the White House

In this time of global economic turmoil this country and this world needs more than just a windbag, it needs a true leader. Sadly, there is no one currently in power, anywhere, that can step up to the job. America's miserable excuse of a president is, as always, passing the buck onto the previous administration - blame Bush - and dodging every chance to take control of the rudder and guide the US and the world out of this current mess. One might ask why that is, well the obvious answer is - he is a socialist and as a member of the last years of the Baby-boomer generation - the blame others sub-generation. the Obama is every bit as immature as he is young. Being a lawyer has given him that arrogance of ignorance that plagues most lawyers from his generation - we went to a prestigious law school so we know better than you, what is good for you. Just because someone is stupid enough to sit down and attempt to read Joyce's Finnegan's Wake and then pretend they understood it, does not imply intellectual fortitude. Most of the people in the Obama's administration are of this ilk and most probably barely got C's in Physics for future the Obama administration appointees. They are barely qualified to wipe their own asses, and yet there are millions of Americans willing to let these same people wipe their asses. the Obama Administration is an unmitigated disaster all because the person (note I don't use man) in charge is not really in charge at all - (apparently Bush is still in charge, given all the blame that still flows his way). To be the President of the United States of America, requires more than ability to read a Teleprompter, it requires real courage to stand up, take charge, and when the S**T hits the fan, take responsibility - something this current mouse in the White House can't do.

The Hypocrite in Chief

On today's WSJ op-ed page, Karl Rove, says, in essence, that the president needs to practice what he preaches when it comes to Politics of Civility. Rove's article is a reminder the for the most part the Obama could well be termed the "Hypocrite in Chief." He does very little of what he chides others for not doing. This the Obama trait is one of the Hallmarks of a generation - tail-end-of the boomers - that has reaped so much benefit from this country and the efforts and sacrifices of previous generations. In return the Obama and his ilk have done nothing but complain and whine about how "unfair" America is to those who don't bother trying. A few mornings ago, I was listening to Bill Bennett's "Morning in America," and he had legal immigrants calling into the show and giving testimonials about how much they have reaped from coming to America and taking advantage of its infinite opportunity to succeed and the majority of those that had called in had succeeded - not by living off the dole but by hard work and by the sweat of their brows. One of the sad statistics that is little talked about is that relative to black populations that have been in this country for generations - the Vietnamese boat people here since the mid to late 70's - have succeeded by orders of magnitude over the blacks. The primary reason that the Vietnamese succeed as such high rates is that they are not being held back by the government's welfare state, which encourages many minorities - like blacks - to sit back and let the government take care of them.

So, coming back to my main point - the Obama has reaped much from this country - given opportunities to succeed not offered to his contemporary Anglo Americans and he, the Obama has taken advantages of those leg-ups to do well. He should, instead of whining all of the time, be thankful and say thanks to all of the "white" Americans that helped make his life a success and he might learn to stop being such a hypocrite.

Winning the Battles and the War

On every single issue since the Obama took office the Right has won the debate against the left - and we have not just beaten the left, we have trounced the left. On the health insurance issue, we stomped them; on cap and tax, we creamed them and now on immigration we are in the process of pounding the left into the ground. Not once, on any of the critical issues has the left, the Obama, put forward substantive justifications in support of their policies. During the health care debate the right beat the daylights out of the left on every single critical issue and the left did was turn the debate into a sob-athon by parading before the public a seemingly endless stream of individuals who's very lives depended upon passage of the health care bill. What did the right do in response - they went forward and dug up the truth that demonstrated that in ever case those individuals that the left put forward were in fact either covered by insurance or previously covered by insurance at the time of their illness or had access to the care they needed and in the majority of cases their current plight was not because of lack of health care coverage but their own laziness and irresponsibility. The left got their health welfare law - not by fair vote but by pulling a series of shenanigans in congress. They lost the debate and the public (70 to 20+ percent against the bill) knew more about it than the Obamacrats - but the left were bad losers and cut off their noses to spite their faces. On immigration the left has attacked Arizona's law that forces law enforcement officials to uphold the Federal immigration laws. Not a single attack by the left has been the truth - even the Obama went before an audience and basically and launched an ignorant attack against the law. He never read the law, none of his advisers read the law and yet he had not problem attacking it and making untrue statements about it. the Obama has to be the most ignorant president in American history. Not even Carter was that clueless about what is going around him. the Obama has underestimated the American people by assuming that we are just a bunch of uneducated hicks. Sorry to inform you Mr. the Obama - we may not have skated through Harvard like you but we are certainly orders of magnitude smarter than you.

Smart Aleck-in-Chief

I guess I am not the only one that has noticed that the Obama has been acting like a typical street punk. Daniel Henninger in the WSJ: Smart Aleck-in-Chief?

Taxes and Liberals

Interesting facts: the Obama made over $5 million and gave to charity about $300 thousand - ~6%; the Bidens made around $320 thousand and gave $5000 to charity - 1.5% of income; my wife and I struggled this year making about half of the Bidens and we gave to charity nearly 10% of our income. This next year under the Obama we intend on not giving anything because of the increase in taxes we are paying.

A follower (Lee) reminds me that for conservatives, Charity is what I do with MY to help other, for liberals, Charity is what they can do with MY money to help others.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

LA Times said it - Quote of the Week

Who would have thought that the LA TIMES would even allow it on their pages??

Quote Of The Week:

"Frankly, I don't know what it is about California , but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine , even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington , we're number one. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on 'Macbeth'. The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words."

--columnist Burt Prelutsky , LA Times

The Joke's on the Obama!

From a follower, a great compendium of jokes from the late-night shows:

The liberals are asking us to give Obama time. We agree . . . and think 25 to life would be appropriate. Leno

America needs Obama- Care like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask. Leno

Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it. Conan O'Brien

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser. Leno

Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for housing prisoners. Letterman

Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it started to sink, who would be saved?
A: America ! Fallon

Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers. Kimmel

Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for clunkers" program?
A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road. Letterman

Reinventing the Wheel Award

And the Award for Reinventing the Wheel, given by the Department of Redundancy Department and the Institute for Short Memory, goes to the Obama for calling for another Summit to talk about securing Nuclear Weapon's materials. It is as though the Obama woke up one morning and had a brain fart, "Hey, why don't we have a summit to do what we have already been trying to do for 30+ years." the Obama thinks that he will get brownie points with other narrow-minded dimwits by having just another summit to discuss another topic that has been discussed into the ground. He is relying on the short term memory of the disengaged liberal left. Since the end of the Soviet Union the US has been actively involved in trying to control and secure nuclear materials around the world. Unfortunately not a single leftist policy has helped - North Korea has the weapon and soon Iran will, both are terrorist states. The US has been sending billions to the former Soviet Union and billions in technology to help them control their nuclear stock piles. So, what does the Obama think he is going to accomplish by holding yet another photo op with a bunch of world leaders will be at the summit. Critical allies Australia and Israel will not be there.

Sorrow for Poland

Sorry to have been so late with this but our prayers go to the people of Poland for their loss. Their President, Lech Kaczynski and his wife, along with many others from the Polish government died when their plane crashed in Russia. What a tragic loss to a country that has suffered so much throughout the 20th century - first under the brutality of the Nazis then under the Soviets. Their country helped lead the way to the end of the Soviet empire. Recently, the Obama gave a back of the hand slap to the Polish people over missile defense and his desire to appease the Russian government. America has a huge Polish presence and they have over the decades been the brunt of so many jabs - Polock Jokes, etc, and then they are basically dismissed, as so many hard working American's are by our socialist president. God bless Poland and the Polish People.

the Obama

So as an excuse for not being in church on Sunday, the Obama claims that it is disruptive. It never stopped the Clintons or the Bushs. No the reality is the Obama is not a religious man. If he believes in anything it is his own transcendent self - the messiah. So, why doesn't he just say that - oh, I forgot he lies like beat down rug.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The 1960s and Vietnam - Liberal Failures

I grew up during the 1960's and Vietnam. The 60's was a strange decade for America. It was a decade of both great achievement and disappointment. In 1969 Americans walked on the moon to close a decade of great hope for mankind and in particular America. It was also the decade of Civil Rights - which ended with the murder of Martin Luther King. Unfortunately it was also the decade of Vietnam, the entrenchment of the Welfare State and the rise of radical liberalism. The world has only been living under the threat of radical Islam for about 30 years - and only in the last 20 years or so has it become extreme - but America has been living under the even more destructive force of radical liberals for over 40 years. It started in the 1960's with a generation of boomers unappreciative of the sacrifices their parents made during the Great Depression and WWII. It is the era that spawned the Clintons and now the Obama; people so unappreciative of being Americans and ungrateful for all that has been down for them to provide a free and safe country to live in. The 1960's also marked the beginning of decline of the democrat president - first with Johnson and his monstrous welfare state, the Great Society and his failed foreign policy in Vietnam; followed by Carter and his failures around the world and his tossing of the Shah of Iran under the bus of radical Islam; Clinton and the rise of the Nuclear North Korea and the continued spread of radical Islam and now the Obama. Every major failure in foreign policy can be tired to the Democrats - a democrat congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam. We had won that war and had forced the North Vietnamese to sign the Paris Peace Accords in 1973, that were completely an acknowledge of defeat. It was the liberal congress 2 years later that refused to fund and support the South Vietnamese when the North began its efforts anew to take the south - eventually succeeding in 1975. There was an influx of nearly 500,000 Vietnamese to this country in search of American freedom and opportunity - the Boat People. One should note that these Vietnamese immigrants have, as a whole, been far more successful than the African-Americans in this country with none of the vast benefits and opportunities given the African-Americans. Another testament to the failures of liberalism.

We lost Iran under Carter and that inevitably led to 9/11 and all that went wrong in Iraq. Had Carter been a strong world leader rather than a sappy domestic failure most of the middle mess would never have happened - even Afghanistan.

As a big amateur historian - especially American history - the 1960's are a hard era for me to study. I have personal experiences of that time - I remember where I was and what I was doing when man stepped on the moon. My office is full of Apollo era stuff. But it was also a decade that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I remember the war protests and the draft dodgers and I hated them. The 1960's also saw the beginning of the truly biased media - the news refused to report the successes of the war but were more than willing to make sure everyone knew the daily death count and any atrocity that our troops committed whether on purpose or accidentally. Most of the history from the 1960s and most of what we think we know of the Vietnam war has been written and thus tainted by liberal revisionist historians so I have a hard time even reading about the 1960s unless it is about the Apollo project. Bill Bennett had on his Morning In America radio show this morning Bruce Herschensohn talking about his new book, "An American Amnesia." I immediately ordered the book as it promises to be one of the few true histories of the Vietnam war. I don't even watch movies about Vietnam - except the John Wayne movie, The Green Berets. As I am discovering most history written by the libs are basically empty and full of downright lies.

Socialists in Action

Several large corporations, Caterpillar, John Deere, AT&T and several other companies have come out with their estimates of the immediate costs to their profits that the Obamacare will have. Unsurprisingly the socialists, led by the Obama, have attacked the companies and are now calling for hearings to get to the bottom of this blasphemy against the Messiah. Should any corporate CEO change their story under pressure from the Obamacrats they should immediately be told to step down, because they have lied, either by saying there would be severe financial impact or in front of the Truth Squads when they change their stories.

Lip Lock

I am still wondering, after Biden's nauseating speech eulogizing the Obama, how long it took to remove his, Biden's, lips from the Obama's ass. Must have taken most of the rest of the day and well into the night!

The plight of minorities in America

On the drive down from Santa Fe this morning I was listening to Bill Bennett's Morning in America radio show. At the end of his last segment of the morning he spoke briefly about the drug legalization movement, which seems to be on the upswing again. Bennett mentioned a forum that he attended when he was drug czar. At that forum was Charlie Rangle and all Rangle could harp on was the need to identify the root causes. While Bennett didn't totally disagree with Rangle's position but the most important thing to do first was to get the drugs and dealers off the streets and in prison - to free the communities from the dealers that were preying on them. Yes there are problems in the ghettos that need to be addressed - root causes that are blamed on poverty by the social engineers. Actually, the real root cause of problems in the ghettos is the lack of personal responsibility and the government and its armies of social engineers that continually tell the minorities and poor people, that fill up the ghettos, that they cannot stand up on their own and succeed without the government and that all of their problems can be blamed on hardworking non-minority Americans. Interestingly, if sadly, the drug dealers themselves are the counter to this argument. They epitomize the American entrepreneurial spirit - even though it is illegal. They are very much like the original Italian Americans that became the roots of the Mafia. The downside to this drive to riches is that these dealers are victimizing their own people - minorities and families of their communities. The liberals over the decades have convinced blacks and other minorities that they are incapable of succeeding without the government. They have convinced blacks that if they just depend on the government their lives will be better. Too many black babies are born out of wedlock - a result of liberal undermining of moral standards - give condoms and we all know that they are going to have sex anyway - it is the lazy way to solve a problem. Rather than teach them responsibility we give them condoms and toss them over. Pop culture tells young blacks that the route to success is to become a rapper or a sports star - these are the 0.01% people - rather than working hard in high school and college or learning a vocation. Minorities are led to believe that these are not glamorous routes to riches. Well, maybe they are not but it is rare for a carpenter or plumber or lawyer or doctor to be shot by another carpenter, plumber, lawyer or doctor. The mortality rate among young black men is through the roof and most of it is a result of other young black men. So, how do we help the plight of the minorities - stop giving them crutches to use as excuses for failing - to paraphrase George Bush, "We need to stop the soft bigotry of low expectations." We need to get drugs out of the ghettos - we need, as Bill Bennett says, "Send in the sheriffs," and clean up the drugs and get rid of those who prey on their fellow community members. Then we start teaching these children that their future is totally depended on their own initiatives and willingness to work hard and succeed. If you cannot teach them that then they will never succeed and get out of the debilitating environment of the ghettos.