Sunday, July 4, 2010
He seems to have graduated from blaming all his failures on Bush to now claiming that laws cannot be enforced and our borders cannot be controlled. At first blush he appears to be a colossal weenie, but I don’t think that is the case. I think instead that he is indeed way over his pay grade when it comes to leadership, so he defaults to the only thing he is good at and that is lying to people to get their votes. It is more important to him to stay in office and be supported by fellow Democrats in Congress than it is to do his job, which is to abide by his oath:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Maybe he is doing it to the best of his ability, and his best just isn’t good enough.
Article !V, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States says:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
After swearing to uphold the Constitution and then having the audacity to deliver a major speech in which he states that the borders of the United States cannot be controlled and some laws are not enforceable is tantamount to saying I cannot or will not enforce Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution. If an employee of a company said that about a company’s policy or a military commander said that about a direct order, he or she would be immediately relieved of responsibility. For our President and Commander- in- Chief to make such and outrageous statement is so un-American and so repulsive that is warrants impeachment.
But he will not be impeached because everyone knows why he said it. He simply gave illegals hope that our borders would not be controlled and they may still obtain blanket amnesty. For extending that hope, Obama expects to win back the Hispanic voters. Now any rational person would see right through Obama’s strategy. He is obviously playing politics with the borders of the United States. He is sacrificing our integrity and our safety for votes. This is the lowest of the low in terms of crass politics. And yet, where is the major media outrage? Not only has Obama abandoned his responsibilities in regard to our borders, he has literally given over thousands of acres of public lands that border Mexico to illegals and drug cartels.
When I enlisted in the United States Air Force on 15 March 1960, took the following oath:
I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
I took that to mean the entire Constitution, not just the parts I felt like defending. How can we abandon our Constitution, our property, our public land, our rights and our safety to Mexican criminals? How can we do such a thing? Are we not men and women of honor? Do our laws mean so little to us that we let foreign criminals trample them with impunity? I am ashamed that we do not have the will to put an end to this madness – this absurdity – this obscene misinterpretation of duty. “Our borders are too big to defend and some laws cannot be enforced,” so says the Commander- in- Chief. Obama is no Commander- in- Chief and he is no leader. He is a coward and a phony. He is certainly not Presidential material. He is the slimiest of politicians.
I can only hope that Americans will repudiate this man’s policies via ballot box in the coming elections. For if we do not have the will to stand up and demand that our Constitution be respected, then we have no right to demand that we be respected.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
There is a prescription drug called Soma. It is manufactured by MEDA pharmaceuticals for the relief of muscle and skeletal pain. It is available in 250 mg tablets. But I am not interested in this product. What I am interested in is the fictional Soma used in the novel “Brave New World,” by Aldous Huxley which was published in 1932. Why am I interested in Huxley’s Soma? Because, the real MEDA drug notwithstanding, I believe we are addicted to a much more powerful Soma, which may even surpass the Soma in Huxley’s novel, which he described as having:
All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects."
SOMA is the recreation drug of the future as “Brave New World” takes place in the year 2540. But, it is more than that, it is the drug that keeps the mass of humanity manageable. Soma is mentioned in ancient Sanskrit as being a ritual drink derived from unidentified plants that had energizing qualities. So Huxley did not invent the word Soma. Neither did he coin the phrase, “Brave New World.” That distinction belongs to the famous bard, Shakespeare. In his play, “The Tempest,” in Act V, Scene I Miranda says:
How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world that has such people in it!
Brave new world also appears in Rudyard Kipling’s poem, “The Gods of the Copybook Headings,” published in 1919, which includes the following lines:
“And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins..”
I find that quote rather spooky, because here we are 91 years after it was published and it appears uncannily prophetic.
So, I will get to the point. I believe our national Soma is our national debt, which allows us to live beyond our means, to provide entitlements otherwise unaffordable, to subsidize entire segments of the economy, to fund grandiose programs otherwise beyond our financial grasp, to allow us to eat our cake today and never worry about paying for it. It is the national credit card that we use with zero regard to ever paying down the debt. Indeed, all we do is pay the interest due each month. Our national debt is so huge no one can define it. It is beyond comprehension and it will never be paid off. But, the interest due each month will consume an ever increasing percentage of the national income until it reaches the breaking point where the interest will exceed the income. No one knows when that will occur, but no one denies that it will occur.
Whereas with other national issues, we tend to err on the side of conservatism. We may have global warming, so let us cut green house gases. We may be running out of fossil fuels so let us find alternatives, we may be running out of fresh water, so let us conserve it. And so on. But not with the national debt. It may bankrupt the country and cause a depression that will make the one in the 1930s look like child’s play, but lets ignore it! It is too unpleasant to contemplate. It gives us a headache, so we will worry about it another day. Besides if we stop taking our Soma, we will be uncomfortable and that is unthinkable.
Our elected leaders know this and they feel compelled to keep us well supplied with our Soma. More goodies to keep us happy and subdued, lest we rise up and smite them out of office. As long as our guy or gal brings home the bacon, he or she is secure in office. It is those other undisciplined spendthrifts that are causing anguish amongst the economists. Smite them.
And so it goes as it has gone since we first learned to vote for the candidate with the most promises of Soma. As the years have gone by our addiction has reached absurd proportions. We want beautiful and plentiful highways, so we borrow money to build them, we want people to have homes even if they cannot pay for them so we borrow, we want health care for everyone so we borrow, we want the finest schools so we borrow, we want the largest and finest military so we borrow, we want the government to bail us out of natural disasters and our own follies so we borrow. We want, we want, we want. And we borrow and borrow and borrow. But what we don’t want is to have to save and wait for what we want. We want it now. So we toss our common sense on the same discard pile as frugality and thrift. After all, they are such funny old habits best forgotten. And we turn our heads from reality to fantasy. To embrace a dream from which we hope we never have to awaken. As Huxley says in “Brave New World:”
"And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there's always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there's always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your morality about in a bottle. Christianity without tears-that's what soma is."
We, who are otherwise mature, are willing to live a charade, a farce - indeed, the human comedy because we are addicted to debt. We haven’t the national will to live within our means and being the world’s greatest debtor nation I fear we'll one day face worse than a debtor's prison. And that’s how I feel today.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Prodigal Prince
A “prodigal” is a person who is a spendthrift, who spends money recklessly and wastefully; in other words, a person who squanders his or her resources. That Obama is a prodigal, I have no doubt, that he is a prince I have no doubt that he thinks he is. Probably his most valuable asset is his silver tongue. He has a talent for obfuscation, which can certainly be an asset for a politician, especially one who wants to mislead. But his employment of his talent is nothing new. In 1826 James Fenimore Cooper (1789 – 1851) published “The Last of the Mohicans.” The most despicable character in the book is a gifted orator and after one of his speeches, is described by Cooper as follows:
“In short, he so blended the warlike with the artful, the obvious with the obscure, as to flatter the propensities of both parties, and to leave to each subject of hope, while neither could say it clearly comprehended his intentions.. ..The orator or the politician, who can produce such a state of things is commonly popular with his contemporaries, however he may be treated by posterity. All perceived that more was meant than was uttered, and each one believed that the hidden meaning was precisely such as his own faculties enabled him to understand or his own wishes led him to anticipate.”
That description fits President Obama to a “T.” Obama and his speech writers are masters of the art of deception. Even his winning campaign slogan, “Change you can believe in,” defies definition. And his use or should I say abuse of the word “hope,” appealed to enough of the gullible to get him elected. No one can deny that we certainly have change and we can only hope it is for the better in the long run.
I will say this for Obama, he is quick to seize an opportunity and he has been incredibly lucky in politics. The Republican who would have won the senate seat in Illinois, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race after the details of his divorce from his actress wife, Jeri Ryan, were made public - even though both parties signed legal documents agreeing to keep the details confidential. A California judge overruled the agreement at the request of the news media. Then, after serving in the U.S. Senate for less than a year he sensed an opportunity that only comes once in a lifetime. It was almost a given that a Democrat would be elected to the Presidency. It is rare in American politics for the same party to keep the White House more than 8 years. So, he went for it and as luck would have it his competitors for the democratic nomination made so many mistakes they made him look good. And then the Republicans were dumb enough to nominate McCain, a man who just could not energize the party. He only did as well as he did because of Sarah Palin.
But the press, for reasons I will never understand, looked over the facts that Obama belonged to a radical church, that he had many radical friends, that he really considered himself a Muslim, that he would not or could not produce a birth certificate, that he refused to open his college records, and that he could not point to any significant accomplishment in his life, except to vote “present” for every controversial vote when he was a state senator, and so on ad nauseum. When looked at as a whole, his career has been almost magical. He has had all the breaks fall his way. How many times in the history of this country has one party had a commanding lead in the House, had the magic 60 seats in the Senate and held the White House at the same time?
It is almost too good to be true. He has everything going for him, but I think he will turn out to be the Prodigal Prince. Prodigal, because he will squander it in self-indulgence and a prince because he acts like one. He has already lost his 60 seat margin in the Senate and even if the Democrats keep control of the house and Senate after the November elections, he will have lost his ability to pass everything he wants. So, the question to ask ourselves is what will the remainder of his term be like and does he have a chance for a second term? My guess is that the remainder of his term will be very frustrating to him. He can no longer ignore the Republicans and therefore will have to reduce his expectations. Plus, he has managed to enrage so many people that he now faces nationwide opposition not seen since the Viet Nam protests.
As for a second term, that depends more on who the Republicans nominate than on what Obama does. We can expect more of the same from Obama, but his oratory will wear thin as his ambitious goals fail to succeed. If the Republicans can find another Reagan out there, who has the courage to take off the gloves, Obama will be history. So, I think the Prodigal Prince will ultimately fail as all prodigals do, but Obama will not seek forgiveness. He’ll never be able to get past his own pride. And he will never understand that he is President of all the people, not just the far left.
And that is how I feel today.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Protection of the States
Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
On Friday, April 23, 2010, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed into state law the toughest illegal alien law in the nation and was immediately berated by President Obama for doing so. The state of Arizona, acting well within its rights as a sovereign state, took action to control its borders and protect its citizens from invasion and domestic violence caused by illegal aliens from Mexico. For a state to take such action is shocking, not because it was done, but because the Federal Government failed to carry out its Constitutional responsibilities.
What is wrong with the United States Government when it cannot or will not act even when, by its own admission, it has tolerated millions of Mexicans who have illegally entered the United States? There have been many answers to that question, but none are acceptable. We have been told we need cheap labor, that we need people to do work Americans will not do, that it is the moral thing to do, and probably the dumbest reason is we don’t want to offend the Mexican government or the Mexican people. The Mexican government has already responded to Governor Brewer’s action. They stated that the new law may affect border relations. Well, hurray for them. It’s past time to affect some change to border relations. It is past time for the Mexican government to quit encouraging illegal immigration to the U.S. It is past time for the Mexican government to control its drug wars and it is past time for the Mexican government to stop blaming the U.S. for its inability to protect its own people.
It is time for Americans to have the resolve to take charge of our own borders and enforce our right to protect those borders. If we don’t respect our own borders, how can we expect anyone else to do so. An international border, like any property line has privileges and responsibilities. These were recognized by Henry David Thoreau, 1817 – 1862, in a very telling statement:"Who are bad neighbors? " asked H. D. Thoreau, for the sole purpose of answering his own question.
"They who suffer their neighbors' cattle to go at large because they don't want their ill will,—are afraid to anger them. They are abettors of the ill-doers." Thoreau could have as readily asked, "Who are good neighbors?" Whereupon, following his reasoning, one could answer, "Those who build and maintain walls which keep out their neighbors' cattle."
Why do those in Washington have so much trouble understanding such a simple concept? Because as Thoreau points out, they are afraid. They are afraid to anger the Mexicans and therefore, by doing nothing, they become the abettors of the ill-doers. It is that simple and that disgusting.
Well, I don’t care if the Mexicans get angry. Their anger can’t be any worse than the present situation. And besides, we have a right to take action. Believe me, if we take action we may not be liked, but we will be respected. And respecting the property rights of United States citizens is very important to me. I like my property rights. I worked hard for my land and I don’t like trespassers. This is my land and my home and you may not enter without invitation. It is as simple as that. If I have to, I will build a fence to protect my rights and make clear to my neighbor where that property line is located. Over the years, I have owned several pieces of property and I have never had a problem with a neighbor over the installation or maintenance of a fence. Robert Frost (1874- 1963) said it very well in his poem, “Mending Wall,” published in 1914.
“…….He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbors."
I agree. Good fences make good neighbors. It is a mark of respect that each neighbor observes. So, I say to Governor Brewer and the good citizens of Arizona: Thank you for standing up for your rights and may the President of the United States now realize his responsibilities under the Constitution.
And that’s how I feel today.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Recently, policy makers in Washington, D.C. let it be publicly known that our government is trying to assassinate an American-born cleric, who preaches anti-American terrorism. Anwar Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico, studied in Colorado, preached in San Diego and Virginia before going overseas. He was briefly detained in Yemen and then resumed his preaching online with a new political theme, stressing that “America is at war with Islam.” The United States, according to Al-Awlaki, is at war with Islam due to its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and must be fought on its homeland by any means. The news of Al-Awlaki’s pending assassination circled the globe and included long discussions in the media about whether or not such a murder is “constitutional,” if it even constitutes “murder” and on Al-Jazeera it was dissected as a possible window into the Obama administration’s decision making process.
Is this incredible news or not? The Obama administration has issued an order to summarily assassinate another Islamic extremist, who is also an American citizen without reading him his rights or granting him a trial. While at the same time Attorney General, Eric Holder, wants to try the architect of the 9-11 attack in federal court, grant him his miranda rights, grant him a tax payer paid attorney and grant him the opportunity to spread his version of extremism on national media. What is going on here?
The answer is obvious. First, Obama still does not have a handle on his own administration. His subordinates continue to do their own thing. His staff of Czars is such a collection of left wing extremists and misguided zealots, who all supposedly report to him personally that he can't possibly supervise them all. Even a freshman business major learns in Management 101 about the limits of span of control. Second, democrats do what they want to do and rely on the media to back them up. If this assassination order had been issued by Bush, there would be calls to impeach him. The democrats are oh so sanctimonious when they are criticizing republicans, but oh so sure of themselves when they get caught violating the law. Basically, democrats are so blatantly repulsive in their behavior that nothing seems out of the ordinary with them. It is just the way they are. Its the old adage. If you have no standards you certainly can't be held accountable for violating any.
My description of a democrat? One who is frequently wrong, but never in doubt. Are we really a nation of sheep being fleeced daily and told it is a shampoo? The truth I suspect is that the vast majority of Americans are too busy earning a living and raising a family to find the time to delve into the intricacies of political shenanigans. Most don't even rely on the news anymore. The more I watch politics the more I am convinced that 99% of democrats are going to vote democrat even if the proverbial yellow dog is the candidate. And conversely, 99% of republicans will vote republican for the same reason. The reason being that my family has always been - fill in the blank. That leaves the independents and the one percenters who really determine who gets elected. And these people tend to alternate between voting republican or democrat, just to be fair. Take the last election for example. Bush, a republican had been in the white house for 8 years. Its time to give the other side a chance. That kind of thinking is taking a chance. And look what taking a chance got us. If the election were held today, Obama wouldn't have a chance.
I am told that public schools no longer teach civics. If this is true, it explains a lot about the ignorance and naivety of the American voter. Leaving politics to the professional politician is worse than letting the fox guard the hen house. It is the worst kind of hypocrisy. Is it not hypocritical to hold one party accountable and not the other?
Does he not understand the concept of "Peace through Strength?" I call Obama and people who think like him, "Woodstock Warriors." Instead of the Marines motto of Semper Fidelis or Always Faithful, or the Army motto, "This we will defend." Or the Navy motto, "Paratus Et Potens," or Ready and Able, or the Air Force motto, "Un ab Alto," One over all, or the Coast Guard motto, "Semper Paratus," Always Ready, the Woodstock Warriors motto ought to be, "Primoris Fugio," or Run Away First. Do I think Obama is a coward? No, but I do think he is delusional. His experience in the real world has been so limited that he just can't conceive of anyone who doesn't love and adore him and his pacifist leanings. It frightens me to the core to think we have a commander in chief, who is afraid to command.
But perhaps the most frightening thing about Obama is that he represents a huge percentage of American citizens who have the most distorted view of what I call "physical reality." Oh, they understand politics, and economics and social issues, but what they lack is experience in what it takes to keep us fed and clothed and warm in the winter. I am talking about people who live in cities and have always lived in cities. They live in a pampered environment that shields them from the harsh realities of what it takes to obtain food, clothing and shelter. I dare say that the vast majority of city folks have no idea where their steaks come from, or their pasta or their leather shoes for that matter. I live in the country - in one of those flyover states I guess. I have butchered chickens, turkeys, and deer, not for sport, but for food. I frequently get my hands dirty growing food. It doesn't seem cruel to me to kill and animal for food any more than it seems cruel to kill and animal so I can wear leather shoes or boots. And yes I have guns, several guns. I have no qualms about killing a rattle snake that threatens me or my family or a bobcat that wants to kill livestock. I guess the difference between those of us who live close to blood and guts is that we know a filet minon doesn't miraculously appear in an upscale restaurant in Chicago. It came from a slaughtered heifer or steer. And I am not ashamed of that and I make no apologies for it. If people want to live in a city as far as they can get from the blood and guts, more power to them, but don't criticize me for facing reality and being willing to live with it. I'm not a Woodstock Warrior. And I have no qualms about telling the rest of the world that I will not hesitate defend my country, and my culture with my guns.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Various dictionaries have various slants on reparation, but the common thread in all definitions is repayment of a debt. In this case, the romantic and fictitious debt that America owes to descendants of American slaves. I do believe that part of Obama's complex agenda is righting what he and his advisers perceive as wrongs committed against various populations within the United States, primarily, but not limited to descendants of slaves. How else can one explain the expenditure of billions of dollars in support of so many organizations dedicated to providing assistance to those who are perceived as having been abused in the past or shut out from the great American dream. These organizations run the gamut from ACORN to Urban Renewal and lets not forget Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, that guarantee home loans to anyone who can fill out a form. Freddie and Fannie may just be the largest and most disastrous welfare program in the history of the United States.
I'm not saying that there aren't deserving people in America, who need help, but I am put off by generation after generation of welfare dependent families, who would rather accept charity from the great plantation massah in Washington than get up, grow up go for self reliance. Being the descendant of a slave is no excuse for wallowing in self pity and demanding welfare "rights." After all, if we go back far enough in European history, I dare say we would find that tens of millions of us anglo-saxons are also descendants of slaves. Slavery is as old as the Old Testament and was rampant in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas a thousand years before Christopher Columbus was born. And another factor that is overlooked when reparations are mentioned is that the slaves brought from Africa to the Americas were "purchased" in Africa from African slave owners. The belief that Africans were chased down by white slave traders is just myth.
I think reparations, the R word if you will, should be banned just as the N word is. It makes my blood boil just to think that anyone in his or her right mind would entertain such an idea as reparations for more than a second. Would these descendants rather their ancestors were never brought here? Would they rather be living in Africa today. I think not. Yet, I do believe the righteousness of reparations is ingrained in Obama and most of his advisers. Don't get me wrong, I am not racist. I think it is wonderful and profound that we have a black President. It shows that Americans are enlightened in social matters and it shows how trusting we are in our government. But, I am convinced that our trust has been abused by a very manipulative and charismatic Pied Piper.