Wednesday, June 29, 2011

What's Wrong With Parents? How SAD Is This?

(Note: I've purposely blurred the faces to protect their identity)

Parents are AWOL from their kids' lives all across our country. The picture above speaks volumes. We were in this bagel shop the entire time the mother in this picture was there with her son. The ENTIRE time she was there she had her face buried in one of those internet tablets. Most of the time her son just sat there and looked at her.

How sad for the boy to have a Mom who's more interested in what she wants to do than having some fun time with him. What will this do for his self esteem? What does it tell him about how important he is to his Mom? What will he remember about these times 'together' with her? That it was fun and he felt loved and important? Sadly, it's not likely!

How sad for the Mom who chose to connect with the internet rather than connect with her son. She missed an opportunity to share some laughs with her son, get to know what's going on in his life and give him a chance to know her better. Actually, he WAS getting to know her better, eh?

Sad. Sooooooooo Sad!

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

You're Correct Mr. Sowell. The Constitution DOES Matter And It IS Relevant!

Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell says it pretty well folks:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270584/constitution-matters-thomas-sowell

The Constitution was exceptional because we were at the time of our founding. It very well may be true that America isn't exceptional today as progressives are wont to say. I don't happen to believe we're that (yet) but, to the extent it's true, it's a measure of how far we've gone astray from those EXCEPTIONAL words and concepts contained in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States and from the exceptional wisdom and character of the American people in those times.

There can be NO doubt we were exceptional in founding times. If we're no longer exceptional, that's not a good thing for our country or the rest of the world.

(Lack Of) Military Support For Afghanistan Withdrawal Plan

Do you, like most everyone else, respect General Petraeus and his ability as a top military commander? He's primarily responsible for conditions in Iraq that are allowing us to withdraw troops there according to the timetable President Bush agreed to with Iraqi leadership. General Petraeus is also primarily responsible for the success we've had in Afghanistand getting control over the Taliban and for kicking terrorist butt in the region. I doubt that there's a more respected high-level commander in our armed forces. Good judgement and excellent leadership are his proven legacy.

Considering that, do you REALLY think it's simply a coincidence that General Petreaus retired just before  the president announced his Afghanistan withdrawal plan?

Saturday, June 25, 2011

The President Needs To Take Some Economics Classes

This demonstrates pretty amazing ignorance of basic economics by a person in such high office:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43526626/ns/business-going_green/

Healthy industries exist where their products are competitive on their own merit. The reason those industries don't exist here any more in the country that built those industries is because whatever product we could produce is either just undesirable or too expensive for people to want to buy. Our steel industry and its jobs went overseas because steel made here became too expensive. It had nothing to do with anything else.

I remember very well back in the day when the cost to produce many of our country's products began to be more expensive than those made overseas. I and others argued loud and long that the loss of heavy industries like steel would create big problems for us in the future. Those who encouraged generous pay and benefits packages that in turn drove up the price of products said we were overreacting. Many liberal economists said(!) that even if we lose some industries that way we'll just be switching to a service economy and there's no reason why that won't work for us just as well. We argued that loss of hard manufacturing would hurt our economy because making useful products is what creates healthy growing economies. They said nonsense!

Well, once again we nutcase knuckleheads on The Right have been proven correct. It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to say I/we told you so ... we cannot have a healthy growing economy unless we keep manufacturing healthy by whatever means necessary. Driving up the cost of products with expensive pay and benefits gives the workers a temporary feeling of a better life while eventually robbing them of their jobs altogether. What would you rather have? A job with a bit lower pay and benefits or no job at all?

Take a look at ALL the industries that have left this country. Steel, clothing and many others. Automobiles too to a great extent. They were ALL heavily unionized and in every one of them unions pushed hard for increase after increase in pay and benefits. In fact, we could have lost our auto industry altogether if we taxpayers hadn't poured billions of dollars into propping up their unaffordable retirement plans last year.

Such products ceased being manufactured here because we couldn't make them price-competitive. Period. There was nothing wrong with those products except their price to consumers. Liberals will say it's just a coincidence that those industries had strong unions but they're wrong. Simple economics dictated that the production of such things would move overseas. Just as simple economics guarantees that will, in turn, cause problems for an economy. We need a health manufacturing sector, THRIVING ON ITS OWN MERIT, for our economy to remain healthy.

If you don't understand the cause of something you're likely not going to fix it correctly. So it is with the current administration. Moving those industries back to the USA by ANY means other than finding a way for them to complete on their own (without government propping them up) is a fool's errand that will further drain the financial resources of our country. Look at who the president says must fix this problem: Universities, industry and the government. No mention of the root cause (I'm not sure he even knows) and fixing that. And no mention of unions. To fix a problem, an intelligent person tries to understand the root cause and fix THAT. Fixing the root cause is the least expensive, the least painful over time and will fix it permanently not temporarily.

Liberals in general and progressives in particular always want to fix things NOT by addressing the root cause but by ignoring it but by attempting to fix it with taxpayers' money instead. Watch what happens on this. President Obama will want to throw taxpayer money at it somehow and rebuild/create industries that are dependent on infusions of money from The People rather than succeeding on their own ability to become and remain competitive. That's socialism folks! The more government controls things and confiscates The People's money in order to steer it into the production of goods, the farther you're moving into socialism.

Friday, June 24, 2011

No Letup In Distorting The Truth About The Root Causes Of The 2000-2003 Recession

Multiple times I've described how the mortgage crisis and resulting recession was caused by irresponsible actions in congress and at Fannie and Freddie. But liberal arguments persist that the 'cause' was financial shennigans. Yes, irresponsible people in the financial industry made lots of money off the irrespsonsible mismanagement of and deregulation of the mortgage industry.

However, it was congress that enacted laws and rules that not only encouraged people to buy unaffordable mortgages but made it possible for banks to ignore borrowers' lack of qualifications by allowing Freddie and Fannie to back up loans with taxpayers' money. Congress removed all risk to lenders who chose to loan money to unqualified borrower. Remove a lender's risk to lend money and guess what they do? Lend money irresponsibility because it looks like any consequences of making bad loans won't fall on them! DUH!

That unscrupulous fat-cat financial wizzards found a way to make money off this deregulation nonsense and impending national misery is no surprise but that was an outgrowth of a problem (created by congress) and was NOT the cause of it. Here's another article describing what really happened, contrary to what you read in The Media and hear from liberals:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270366/real-culprits-mona-charen

Rapidly Increasing Price Of Used Cars And Older Car Parts

Have you like many, many Americans found yourself needing to replace your car but can't afford new car prices? Of course, the solution is to keep repairing your current one or buy a better used car, right? Hmmmmm. Not so fast.

There's a new report out describing how used car prices and car repair parts prices have skyrocketed the past year or so. Why do you suppose that is? Look no farther than President Obama's "Cash For Clunkers" program from two years ago.

That program gave people cash for their old cars so they could then buy new cars. The administration wanted to prop up the auto industry (while many of us said they should just be allowed to go through reorganization bankruptcy). What did they do with those used cars that were turned in? Remember, they scrapped all of them! Those cars and the parts they could have provided for future car repairs were permanently removed from the market. Fewer used cars and parts => higher prices for used cars and parts.

Who was helped by that clunkers program? Mainly the middle class who couldn't afford a new car otherwise. Who was hurt the most? Those among us with incomes below the poverty level. We haven't been able to afford new cars for a long time. Now we can't afford to buy used cars or to repair our current ones either ones thanks mostly to that clunkers program. Basically, that program made those below the poverty line subsidize (by way of paying more for used cars and parts) car purchases by those above the poverty line. That sounds like redistribution of wealth all right. From those below the poverty line to the more affluent.

The fact that GM went through bankruptcy ANYWAY seems lost on most people who support this administration. We were sold this "clunkers" and "bailouts" bills of goods based on the argument that not doing those and allowing GM bankruptcy would be a disaster for our country. But many of us said reorganization bankruptcy was exactly(!) what they needed so they could get out from unaffordable contracts. We citizens poured all that money into the auto industry and GM went bankrupt anyway. Where exactly did all our auto bailout money go then? (Not where you think but that's a subject for another day.)

This is the kind of stuff that happens when the government nonsensically involves itself in our country's economic activities. They CANNOT do a better job than the private sector left to its own devices. And this administration is NOT the friend of the economically disadvantaged Americans that most people think they are or that this administration likes to claim. It's just like health care reform. The reform a vast majority of Americans wanted was a lower cost of health care. What we got was a higher cost of health care because this administration had a progressive agenda to fulfill rather than what we wanted. Who can afford $10,000/year in health care premiums and deductables? I can't! Any more than I can afford even a used car now.

By the way, many of us said at the time the clunkers program was implemented what would happen with used car and parts prices and I blogged about it. Sorry to say, I told you so!

Thursday, June 23, 2011

The Left's Myopic Avoidance Of Truth Re Tax Cuts; The Real Agenda; VP Biden's Task Force In Trouble

Vice President Biden's task force, Obama's SECOND task force charged with the responsibility to get this economy started generating jobs again, is running into trouble today. Cantor refused to continue in the discussions if Democrats continue to insist on tax increases. Cantor's (and other Republicans') claims that tax CUTS help the economy more than tax increases are not just anecdotal partisan claims lacking proof.

Progressives use tax increases to 'redistribute wealth'. That's a fact that even President Obama acknowledged. Tax increases used to take money from 'The (Evil) Rich' and simply give it to the less rich accomplishes redistribution of wealth for sure but to also claim it results in a net increase in jobs outside government has no basis in actual facts while there is ample evidence that tax decreases DO help.

The facts(!) prove that Bush's tax cuts for the rich resulted immediately in a sustained decrease in unemployment and a sustained increase in federal revenue. Just over one month after Bush's biggest tax cut for the rich (80% of it went into effect May 28, 2003) unemployment topped out and began a sustained decrease to 4.4% (ie, technically "Full Employmnet"). A couple of months later the increase in employment began increasing federal reveues steadily to a record $2.5 Trillion, 25% higher than Clinton achieved for the same unemployment rate. It's irrational to claim that Bush's tax cuts hurt either unemployment or revenue when the actual data says the opposite. I know The Left wants to believe the opposite is true and that it makes for a politically useful partisan talking point but it's a claim that is factually incorrect.

As a matter of actual fact, both unemployment and revenue turned around immediately after Bush's biggest tax cuts for 'the rich'. To claim they did otherwise is to deny actual facts and claim something that is factually a lie.

Yes, the tax decrease reduced revenue by $1 Trillion but ONLY if you IGNORE some facts ... ie, that those tax cuts resulted in increased employment to such an extent that, overall, revenues went up, not down. The number of people put back to work and now paying taxes more than compensated for the per capita decrease in taxes paid. The math is simple but one has to use ALL the data to know the truth.

Our economic troubles are far too great to allow partisan talking points rather than truth determine what steps we take to fix this mess. The trouble we're in has everything to do with out of control spending, not inadequate revenue. After all, Bush got revenues up to a record $2.5 Trillion before the housing collapse caused this recession. The problem he helped create is in spending wayyyyyyy too much. Increasing taxes and, therefore, taking money out of the productive sector of our economy simply makes no sense when we need the productive sector to create more jobs. We cannot take resources away from them and expect them to increase the number of jobs. That's just common sense isn't it? Make them less profitable AND expect them to hire MORE people? Are you kidding me? How is that in any way logical?

By the way, do you remember that this is Obama's SECOND task force that he created with the same responsibility? Do you remember he completely ignored the recommendations from the first one? Do you understand that this current task force is coming up with the same kind of recommendations? What's he going to do? Keep creating task forces and ignore their conclusions until they come up with conclusions that match his progressive objectives ... regardless whether they actually help the economy?

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Ignoring The War Powers Act Re Libya: Disturbing? Well, DUH!

This administration's ignoring congress IS disturbing. It is a violation of the constitution in principle if not in fact and it's a violation of founding principles. It's disrepectful of The People who are, in constitutional principle, represented by congress. It's the vehicle by which we're constitutionally empowered to control an over-reaching executive branch. So much for principle. Disdain for the constitution, separation of powers, congress, and The People is this administration's hallmark.

If you don't understand from my previous blogs how the War Powers Act is being violated and ignored, check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43474045/ns/politics-white_house/

AMAZINGLY(!), the wording of The War Powers Act is SO clear compared with most things that come out of congress that even someone with less than a high school education can understand it. Armed with only the Act and a dictionary one cannot logically deduce that the president is acting in accordance with the Act.

Please consider this in as unbiased way as possible. This administration tends to think that rules and conventions do not apply to them if it's inconvenient to advancing their progressive agenda. They think they're always correct and acting in the right ... by definition. The arrogance of this administration is disturbing for its affront to the constitution and founding principles.

Clearly, they do not believe in the separation of powers principle whereby each branch exercises its powers and authority within limits that are supposed to keep them from trampling on the responsibilities and authority of other branches or on the rights of The People for whom they work. If such rules and principles get in their way, they ignore them and find other ways to implement their programs. There are many examples how they've done this. I shouldn't need to explain them because there are so many that are patently obvious.

Principles mean something folks. Many on The Left excuse what this administration does with a shoulder shrug saying well, if that's what it takes to advance OUR agenda then it just HAS to be done. What? Regardless what the constitution says? Regardless of founding and constitutional principles? Regardless of the fact that you chastised the previous administration for even thinking about doing similar things? Regardless whether most citizens oppose what you're doing? Are you kidding me?

We get it. You don't think rules apply to you if they're inconvenient to your objectives. Hmmmmm. But you've created a staggering number of rules for the rest of the country that we must follow ... or else. We have to live by rules you created but you don't have to live by rules that we and our representatives created constitutionally? HUH?

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Chris Matthews ... Funny Without Even Trying To Be

During Chris Matthews' intro to his program on TV today, he said he was wondering whether Huntsman's and Romney's religion (Mormon) might start being discussed in the media and followed that up with 'so we'll discuss it on today's program'. Chris, I think you just answered your own question! Does anyone else find that humorous?

Even The Official Executive Branch Legal Office Says Obama Is In Violation Of The War Powers Act In Libya

As I've said before, the Obama administration is in clear violation of the War Powers Act. Now we find out that even the official White House legal counsel said so before we went into Libya. That's what this administration does when it hears advice and opinions different from its own agenda. They just ignore what they're told or what they're asked to do.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43447824/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

This administration's first denial on this which they tried using to defend not getting congress' okay was that this isn't a "war" so the War Powers Act doesn't apply. Well, if only the title of that law defined what he's restricted from doing that may be a reasonable argument. But the TEXT of that law defines it clearly ... it says this law applies anywhere we're engaged in "hostilities".

That first denial (ie, it isn't a war) was shot down so resoundingly that they had to come up with a different rationale. So their second take on this which their press secretary told the media is that these are not "hostilities" that we're engaged in. The reason this is an important distinction is that the War Powers Act applies wherever and whenever we're engaged in "hostilities". They argue that these aren't hostilities because we didn't and don't have "boots on the ground" there. First, that's an outright lie because we've had special forces on the ground there since before we started bombing their country. But even if we didn't have special forces on the ground there, how can any rational person think, much less declare, that these aren't "hostilities"?

Look up the word hostilities. The first def'n in Merriam-Webster is "an unfriendly state or action". Bombing the crap out of a sovereign nation certainly qualifies don't you think? The second def'n is "over ACT of war". While we haven't declared this to be an official war, that's not what this second def'n even talks about. That def'n says "ACT" of war. Again, bombing the crap out of a sovereign nation certainly qualifies as an act of war whether there is in fact an officially declared 'state' of war.

This administration's third defense was that, even if these are hostilities, we haven't picked sides. For one thing the War Powers Act MAKES NO SUCH EXCEPTION (regarding picking or not picking sides)! They're saying we're "ONLY keeping the government there from killing its own citizens". Problem is, a significant percentage of their citizens support Gadhafi and his war against the rebels there. What's gong on in Libya is a CIVIL WAR, period! And we're injecting ourselves into it. Why? Because the REBELS (only!) asked NATO to help. Therefore, we've chosen to protect the rebels. Of course we've picked sides. Don't you remember that Obama said at the beginning of this that Gadhafi had to go ... period. We do NOT simply want him to stop killing some of his citizens. All this means we HAVE taken the side of the rebels who are trying to get rid of him, not the citizens who want to keep him. The administration's defense in this regard is such a lame rationale! It completely defies logic.

NOW this administration is saying that because NATO authorized this action that, as NATO members, we must do what NATO agrees to do. Huh? Not only does the War Powers Act make NO SUCH EXCEPTION to its applicability, since when do we let other countries determine what we should do in the use of our military and in the interests of our national security? This argument is SO full of holes that it's hard to believe this adminstration has any smart people in it at all. Even IF NATO agrees to help a country in trouble does NOT mean the NATO member countries ALL have to contribute. Don't you recall the many times NATO has chosen to do something (like Afghanistan!!!) and one or more member countries chose NOT to participate?

If presidents don't like the restrictions in the War Powers Act they MUST find a way to get the law changed. Can YOU simply ignore laws you don't like? Of course not! And according to the constitution, EVEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH MAY NOT(!!!) IGNORE LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS. If anyone, including the president, doesn't like a law they MUST change it OR follow the law. THOSE are the ONLY choices ANYONE has! NO ONE MAY SIMPLY IGNORE A LAW. Regardless whether any of us like that Act, it IS law and presidents are obliged under the constitution to implement, support and follow ALL laws created by congress. Laws are created in The People's House (of Representatives) and the executive branch's JOB is to implement them. Our founders set up our country this way for a reason. They did not want ONE MAN to be able to take our country to war in any way or to be able to disregard lawful laws created by congress. The People, by way of The People's House, have ALWAYS been who says what we do in such regards. Read the constitution if you don't believe me.

There's a reason why congress put this restriction on presidents. World Wars started over far more insignificant actions/circumstances between countries. And this is well beyond trivial. Bombing the crap out of a sovereign nation IS and "ACT" of war (whether actual war has been declared or not). C'mon folks! Do you REALLY want ANY one person in our country committing acts of war regardless what Congress says? History has PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that World Wars CAN start over less of an offense. Because ANY such action as this Libyan thing can lead to FAR WORSE problems for our country and outright DIRE consequences, it behooves us as a country for such decisions to be made involving all three branches, the House, Senate and Executive Branch. It doesn't mean we wouldn't have gone in there anyway but we would have gone in there having thought it out as thoroughly as we could. We very well might have done a better job too. After all congress is full of some pretty bright and knowledgeable people. Many have served in the military in real wars and understand the hazzards and risks better than an administration full of people who have never served or have been in a position of responsibility during a real war. Engaging congress in decisions to commit 'acts' of war is not only the law, it's simply smart to do.

Bottom Line: ours was created as a government of CHECKS AND BALANCES because HISTORY HAS PROVED BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT that too much power in the hands of just one branch IS a very, very dangerous thing.

To me, the president's actions and disregard of a lawful law passed by congress that was specifically passed to apply to him and other presidents, is a technical violation of both that law and of his oath of office to uphold the constitution (which says he is to obey and execute all laws passed into law). That makes it an impeachable offense by the way.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Time To Man-Up Men!!!

For the past 50 years in America we've been allowing our values to erode with respect to in-tact families and the role of fathers and fatherhood. It is helping to create a two-caste system in our culture. In one caste you'll find signficant poverty caused by absent or disengaged fathers and a lack of importance given to becoming better educated and ensuring their kids are too. In the other caste you'll generally find the exact opposite.

For a better description and analysis of the problem and its cause please read these links:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/16/spotlight-on-civil-society-courageous-film-highlights-importance-of-fathers/

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Married-Fathers-Americas-Greatest-Weapon-Against-Child-Poverty?query=Married+Fathers:+America%E2%80%99s+Greatest+Weapon+Against+Child+Poverty

 Of course the problem is more complex than that kind of generalization I made above states but the effects of what's happening to/with fathers are undeniably catastrophic to our society and culture. There can be no doubt that absent or disengaged fathers is causing enormous damage to our culture that cannot be fixed with welfare or, for that matter, with government 'control'.

That doesn't mean government cannot do something positive. Our leaders ought to set a good example in several ways. They should unanimously proclaim what's happening unacceptable and a looming disaster for our country. They should do so with a frequency and intensity that gets people's attention. Also, they should work much harder to be good role models. They should also ensure that all government agencies and programs impinging on families in any way include in their objectives encouraging in-tact families and responsible parenting.

Our churches need to make this a priority too. Churches permeate our country and we're still mostly a faith-based society. Because of that churches may be in the best position to be the most effective turning this around. It's appropriate for churches to make this a top priority for several reasons. First, religions (in their various ways) emphasize family values. They emphasize the importance of marriage, families, husbands, and fathers. They emphasize the importance of responsible living. There is nothing about this that makes it inappropriate for churches to handle. In fact, church leadership ought to be the most outraged by what's happening to/with fathers and families. That justifiable outrage ought to be motivating them more than anyone to do more. The problem demands their outrage as well as their involvement to do whatever they can to fix it.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Pakistan: More Opponent In The War On Terror Than Partner.

This says a lot about whether Pakistan cares about fighting terrorism or doing much more than feigning support while in their back rooms plotting how to keep us from accomplishing much in their region.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43404265/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

Do we really need to know any more than this to justify stopping all the aid we send to them? This is absurd!

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

More Doctors' Perspectives On ObamaCare ... And It's Not Good

Just providing the following link for you. No additional comments needed.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269496/doctors-patients-and-obamacare-marc-siegel

Whiner In Chief: It's Unbecoming The Office

The latest from our Whiner In Chief:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43391677/ns/today-today_news/

I've NEVER heard a president whine so much about things. The incessant whining about what he inherited from Bush is tiresome. Worse, much of it isn't even true! Now he's finding it difficult to force a progressive agenda down the throats of Americans who, instead, want our economy fixed like he promised during his campaign and during his first months in office. At some point a man has to MAN-UP and just take care of business. Life hands you circumstances you don't like and that you didn't want or cause but, when it's up to you to deal with it, you suck it up and deal with it. A real man does.

I remind you sir that Bush inherited his recession from his predecessor and you'd be hard-pressed to find comments from him complaining about what Clinton handed him. (In case you don't remember, the so-called Bush Recession actually began in March 2000, when the NASDAQ began it's unprecedented 77% loss ... a full year before any of Bush's policies took effect.) By comparison, hardly a day goes by, certainly not more than a week, that Obama doesn't in some way complain about the recession he was handed. It's unbecoming the holder of his office to keep complaining about his predecessor and his own circumstances. It's un-manly as well.

One of the things apparently lost on Obama is that congress is responsible for the debt, spending and mortgage mess. Democrats were in charge of congress for two years before Obama took office. In fact, Obama was a member of the Senate the two years before he became president. So, not only did he inherit this mess significantly from a Democratic congress but from also himself as a member of that body that made this mess worse, not better. Congressional Democrats created twice as much budget deficit each year as Republicans did when they were in charge the previous 6 years. Just as there is no doubt Republicans started us down this spending/debt path, there is absolutely no doubt that Congressional Democrats made it much worse with Obama participating in it.

So, pardon me if I don't buy his whining. He and his Democratic colleagues in the Senate contributed to making it as bad as it was when he became president.

Now he's even whining about how difficult his job is. Sir, that's what happens when you run your office in a way that completely shuts the opposition out of participation. YOU set up a confrontational and combative environment. Remember, your administration told all of us "we won so we get to do it our way". And you famously told us on 'the right' to "sit down and be quiet" so you could move your progressive agenda forward without having to defend it. Sorry sir but that is NOT how a republic works! It is NOT how ours was set up to work! You have no one to blame but yourself for the difficulty your attitude created for you.

This, of course, is what progressives do. They blame all the bad stuff on other people. You will rarely IF EVER hear them take responsibility for mistakes and misjudgements. (They're never wrong by definition you know.) You will rarely IF EVER hear them take responsibility for promising one thing and doing something entirely different. Promise you will reduce the debt but then don't. Promise you will keep unemployment low but don't do it. Promise you will get us out of Iraq 6 months earlier than Bush but end up using the same withdrawal time table. Promise you'll reduce the citizens' health care costs but, instead, increase it. Promise you'll fix our southern border security problem, then when it becomes clear it's not getting fixed brag about increases in border patrol when it was Bush who ordered those increases, not you (which made Bush policies there also responsible for increased arrests and increased drug capturing that Bush made it possible for you to claim). As Senator, you castigated your predecessor as being an irresponsible/incompetent president for raising the debt ceiling and then had no problem doing it multiple times yourself. You criticized Republicans for blowing budgets (even though it was Congressional Democrats who did that during Bush's last two years in office) then had no problem not even making budgets even though it's REQUIRED by the Constitution. (Isn't that a violation of your oath to uphold and enforce the constitution? Hmmmm.)

Now President Obama says he's tired of the battles he faces in office and isn't sure he wants to run for a second term. For the first time in his life he's in a job that REQUIRES he work WITH those who disagree with his policies. Now he has to find ways of reaching compromise in order to move the country forward. But he'd rather refuse to work with them and ram his progressive agenda down our throat and he's tired of the opposition that CHOICE results in? Stop whining sir. YOU created this contentious and polarized atmosphere. It's a problem of YOUR OWN creation. If you had tried to work with the opposing party it would have been a much less contentious and difficult time for you. Mr. President, YOU created much of the problem you're complaining about (contentiousness and divisiveness) so you have no right to whine about it. Besides, it's unbecoming a president of the USA.

What does he say about what might motivate him to go for a second term? This weekend he said "the work that we started in 2009 is not yet complete". Huh? My first thought is, what exactly has he actually gotten started (other than health care cost increases that nobody wanted)? AGAIN it's all about him and his agenda!!! Is his first thought about the suffering of others in this economy? Nope! Note the use of the pronoun "we" ... the collective version of "I", his favorite word to utter. Is it about you the people? NOPE! It's about what "we" (he and his progressive administration) want to do. He's concerned about his progressive agenda. You don't need to hear it expressed that way to know what his focus really is. You can tell that by the lack of results.

We have serious, serious economic problems developing as a result of the unsustainability of social security, medicare, medicaid, and sub-prime loans. These are ALL programs created by Democrats and then were mismanaged into insolvency by them. How one can keep blaming all these problems on Bush and Republicans is unfathomable to me. How so many Americans actually believe that nonsense is mind-boggling and saddening.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Future Spending Cuts To Offset Immediate Tax Hikes: Broken Promise After Broken Promise

Note To Congress: We're not STUPID! Here's an honest accounting for those of you who, like lemmings and sheep, fall for The Promise:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269397/read-my-lips-won-t-happen-again-ryan-ellis

When it comes to promises of slowing spending or implementing spending cuts you have no backbone to honor your promises. Your actions (or, rather, lack thereof) make you cowards and liars. READ OUR LIPS OR LOSE YOUR JOBS! NO MORE SPENDING! SPENDING MUST BE REDUCED! REAL REDUCTIONS THIS TIME!

Many times in the past twenty five years you have begged us to let you increase taxes on ourselves based on the PROMISE of curtailed spending. We've ALWAYS done our part ... allowed you to pass tax increases multiple times but you've NEVER done your part. So, don't act all surprised or claim we're unfair when we refuse to accept another promise like those of the recent past. You have NO basis for claiming WE are being the unfair ones. YOU are the ones who got us into this debt problem. Now FIX IT! IT DOES IN FACT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE SPENDING CUTS! Or doesn't saving our economy matter to you at all?

Do your stinking job for a change. Your job is NOT to just spend, spend, spend. It's to maintain a balanced budget by rational control of BOTH spending and taxes. Democrats have steadfastly refused to even pass a budget in recent years. Even though it's their constitutional(!) duty to do so. They're not only failing at their jobs. In fact, it's in their job description (ie, the constitution!). They're in violation of the constitution and, therefore, their oath of office every day they don't propose and seriously work on a BALANCED budget! And Democratic citizens don't think that's a big deal? I don't get it!

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Detroit: A Shining Example How The Liberal Approach To Things Works. NOT!

I feel sorry for the citizens of Detroit. Liberal policies can't even keep the lights on during two measly days of 90-degree weather. Check it out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/269352/obama-goes-green-and-detroit-blacks-out-henry-payne

Unions are a good thing. I'm a firm believer. But they can be irrational entities, sacrificing the future for a more materialistic now. Make wages and benefits so costly that people who'd otherwise buy your cars can easily find comparable or even better cars at a cheaper cost from overseas companies. Guess what happens when nobody wants to buy your town's products because they're too expensive (due to wages and benefits)? Lower sales => lower profits => higher unemployment. It's nothing personal, just economics. Folks in the rest of the world, when they want to buy an automobile, don't care a hoot about about any perceived responsibility to subsidize the wages and benefits you want much less help keep the lights on in your house. Sacrifice the future for 'wants' of now. Guess what that gets you? What you have my friends. Nothing personal. Just economics.

Same with Detroit's electricity needs. Detroit was supposed to be a model for how green energy will not only prevent polution but secure the citizens' prosperity via green jobs now that automobile jobs are going elsewhere. Liberal leadership poured money into green energy for the future but Detroit cannot afford to keep their dilapidated energy structure running. It takes just two days of 90-degree weather to bring it to its knees, leaving citizens without any power whatsoever.

Unions forced them to create their own energy company and the cost of delivering electricity doubled versus what the region's power grid can provide. So Detroit's citizens pay twice as much as they would being on the region's energy grid and they can no longer count on even having electricity in the summer. I'd ask the citizens of Detroit, what is really more important to you? Green and costly energy in the future at the cost of no energy now when you need it? You can buy air conditioners to make your summers more comfortable but you'll have no electricity to run them. Sounds all rational to a progressive I know but, I'm sorry, I don't get it.

Citizens of Detroit, do you think it's your government's and unions' higher responsibility to give you something unaffordable now or is it to keep the lights on? Unions control your town so I suggest you demand from them a fix for these problems you have with power and jobs. Maybe you need to divert even more money into green energy and more control to unions? It has worked so well so far that you just need to do more of that.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

We're On A Road To .... Where Exactly?

Pardon me if I'm confused about where our country is headed. Of the things for which President Obama criticized President Bush, Obama is maintaining most of the Bush policies. He promised lots of change. Yes, he gave us ObamaCare and Bin Laden was killed on his watch. But what has he changed in many other areas?

Don't get me wrong, we conservatives are fine with his not changing much. Patriot Act, Iraq, Afghanistan, GITMO, military trials for terrorists, tax rates. We are a bit upset that he's violating The War Powers Act vis a vis Libya. But there are two big problems with his not doing most of what he said he'd do.

It leaves us wondering exactly where he really wants to take our country. We don't like the uncertainty. Having most of a country's citizens totally confused about where our leaders are actually going to take our country is not a good thing.

Liberals and others who voted for him are confusing me too. Why aren't they really, REALLY upset he's not making good on most of his campaign promises? Since you were so mad at Bush for doing pretty much what Obama is doing, why aren't you just as mad at Obama? It looks to us like you really didn't mind Bush's actual policies all that much and only criticized his policies because of blind and irrational hate of him, not because his policies were that much of a concern to you. If the problem actually were his policies I'd expect you to be even more upset that your own man is doing so much of the same thing.

Yes, democrats have one confusing party on their hands. As mad as they were at Bush do they really think what we have now is better leadership? Any leadership at all really?

Here's a good article on this subject:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269361/obama-s-road-nowhere-mark-steyn?page=1

Friday, June 10, 2011

Palin EMail Feeding Frenzy: Are You Ready For 20 Billion (Or More!) Media Writings/Postings About This? How Lame ARE We?

Look, I'm not a big fan of Governor Palin but the intensity of the media's fanatical obsession with finding dirt on her is just insane. If you think the media has paid too much attention on the subject of 'all things Palin' which is of rather marginal REAL importance, fasten your seat belt.

Now that they have their hands on thousands of her EMails during her tenure as governor we will no doubt be subjected to TORTUROUS amounts of comments, analyses and criticisms of Palin's actions, thinking, even her grammar no doubt. Just imagine how bad this will be!

We have thousands of people out there who'd like nothing more than to spend the next two years commenting on how stupid they think she is and being otherwise critical over every statement and all the grammar. So multiply, say 8,000 people by 12,000 EMails (they'll all have something to say about each one) and you get, at a minimum, some 100 MILLION analyses and commentaries. Add to that all the bloggers who'll reply to all those analyses and we could be faced with a deluge of some 20 Billion things posted in newspapers and on-line. Probabaly more than that!

I have three questions. When has anything remotely like this been done to anyone? Isn't the reaction to this one human completely ridiculous and insane? Don't we have more important things to discuss?

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Amazing New Space Station Photos; The Roles Of American Exceptionalism And Education

The space station is a remarkable accomplishment. Check out some amazing photos of it here:
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/07/6805662-ultimate-space-portrait-unveiled

While a variety of countries contributed significantly to it, it was American exceptionalism that made it even possible. Much credit goes to the Baby Boomer generation that is much maligned for a lot of reasons. Look what their sense of personal responsibility, can-do spirit and work ethic accomplished. Those were the engines behind a lot of American achievements in the second half of the last century.

There couldn't be clearer proof that science and math matter! Just as that generation's exceptionalism resulted in uprecedented accomplishments, including unparelleled economic growth, the current generations' failures to keep up in science and math will be our undoing if we don't fix it.

The 'old school' approach to education wasn't so bad was it? How are all those new enlightened approaches to education the past 30 years working out for us by comparison? Maybe it's time to go back to the basics in teaching, local control and parental responsibility to ensure our kids become educated?

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Government Incompetence At Running Just About Anything

How many times and in how many ways does government have to screw up national 'programs' before we understand they're incompetent to 'run' much of anything and then, based on understanding that reality, stop letting them do it? This article pretty much says it all:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268982/results-matter-thomas-sowell

President Obama On The War Powers Act: Hypocrite and Nixon-Like (Gasp!)

The following column is a good addition with historical context to my previous description how President Obama, contrary to his predecessor, is not adhering to The War Powers Act.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268973/obama-kills-war-powers-laugh-rich-lowry

How can one honestly, much less believably(!), claim that this president is a man of principle(s) when he keeps flip-flopping on them?

Monday, June 6, 2011

The Truth, If You're Interested, Behind Obama's Auto Bailout Results

President Obama recently made a speech about how much his GM and Chrysler bailouts helped the auto industry. He created lots of jobs via his policies, right? Well, not so fast there sir. Yes, the auto industry in America has added somewhere north of 100,000 jobs as you claim but most of them are in foreign car makers' facilities, not at GM or Chrysler. Here's the full story if you care about truth:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268847/obamas-funny-auto-jobs-math-john-berlau

Rep Weiner (D-NY) Is An Arrogant A**

Look, I'm a pretty forgiving and patient person among Tea Partiers I've known. I'm not bashful about stating my position on things but I make a strong effort to do so honestly based on provable facts and history. I also work hard at showing respect for those on the opposite side of the political spectrum and respecting their opposing views. But I've gotta draw the line here with this guy.

I was even saying about Representative Weiner that he deserves a fair shake (no pun intended) in the claims we've heard about lewd photos someone claimed he sent. Innocent until proven guilty I've said. After all, politicians, especially powerful ones and ones who've made a career of harsh criticism of others, have become targets of some pretty nasty stuff with no basis whatsoever.

But he just proved he's a jerk of the highest order. Check out his revelation:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43299964/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

If you've followed his political positions and comments, you know that he has been very, VERY harsh in his claims about 'The Right' and what Fox News says. VERY harsh without an ounce of give and take. Certainly NO forgivenss. And he has been one of the MOST impatient members of congress with tough questions from The Right and from Fox. He's been on the offensive against us on The Right for standing up for what we believe is right and what we believe is wrong with our country. I guess his revelation means that he's been taking what we said justifiably personally.

This man who is intollerant toward and devoid of forgiveness of others is no doubt going to ask for our forgiveness of him. I have to admit that's going to be very difficult for me because he's been very unfair in his attacks on beliefs of folks like me among the Tea Party crowd.

He is an immoral man and a total hypocrite. Oh, and he's a liar too. Add to that a poor excuse for a husband. He has surrendered all moral high ground that he has arrogantly claimed for so long. You want to know what's wrong with America? You don't have to look any farther than what men such as he who gather power to themselves do with that power. It disgusts me!

He says he doesn't believe that he has violated his oath to his constituents. Hey folks! He violated his oath to his wife!!! Even if he hasn't violated his oath to his constituents (which I think he has in principle if not in fact), he has proven that oaths mean nothing to him. He violated one important oath. Why should we believe he wouldn't violate others if it suited him? After all, he has also just proven himself to be a liar too.

It's time for politicians on both sides of the political spectrum to stop with the completely nonsense claims of moral supperiority and enlightenment. What are we citizens to conclude except that they're mostly morally corrupt liars who are unfit to work for us in government, especially in congress? What reason do we have REALLY(!) to believe that their oath of office means anything to them? Or, for that matter, the constitution? When do we stop forgiving them and pretending that their lying, immorality and unprincipled behavior don't matter?

Saturday, June 4, 2011

Unlike His Predecessor, President Obama Is In CLEAR Violation Of The War Powers Act

President Bush asked Congress to authorize the wars in Afghanistan AND Iraq before going in there. The language in the authorization he sent to Congress was VERY clear that he was asking for approval to go into both countries at a time and means of his choosing should he feel the threats from either justified it.

Democrats who authorized it have long argued "we didn't know he'd actually do it!" to back their opposition to those wars, especially in Iraq. That's pretty lame isn't it? A responsible person would have ensured any additional requirement had been added to the authorization but when someone asks your permission to do something in a way and time of his choosing then does it, who's fault exactly is it if he goes ahead and does it but in a way that, after the fact(!), you don't like?

Anyway, my  point is, President Bush followed the War Powers Act to a tee. Even though he didn't feel it was necessary(!) at the time, he took the advice of the Democratic leaders in Congress and asked for the authority. Note that he asked for it because Democrats wanted him to!!!

Now President Obama has entered us into a country's civil war and we are clearly operating in support of only one side in this conflict. It is a war! We are in it on one side of the conflict. Ergo, we ARE at war with Gadhafi. I surely think Gadhafi believes it don't you? After all we bombed the snot out of his forces and eliminated his air force. While we're not involved in actual bombing any more, we're still engaged in that war are we not?

Here is the president's authority as declared and limited by section 1541 of The War Powers Act:
"(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Note that it governs ALL use of US armed forces "INTO HOSTILITIES". That means there doesn't have to be an actual declaration of war for these war powers rules to apply. When President Obama and his representatives have justified the Libyan actions because we're not really "at war", that was a nonsense argument because the War Powers Act applies to any situation where our forces are "introduced into ANY hostilities".

Here's what the War Powers Act says in section 1544 about notifying Congress and the REQUIREMENT to get out of the conflict after 60 days:
"(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. "

Note that it says the president shall terminate ALL use of our military after 60 days unless he has extended it "by law" (ie, officially notifying Congress of the extension". Those 60 days have passed (about 4 days ago) and a legal 60 day extension has NOT been given by Congress. Therefore, he is NOW REQUIRED TO DISENGAGE and begin withdrawal which he has no more than 30 days to complete.

Contrary to law, our forces are not being withdrawn. They are still there providing actual support but the president won't tell us the details. No doubt we still have special forces engaged in Libya. What else is going on one can only guess at ... because IN SPITE OF a requirement that he tell us exactly what he's doing he's keeping that information from us. That's in violation of the War Powers Act too.

Maybe you thought Bush didn't handle the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as he should but he handled them completely(!) legally and in STRICT(!) compliance with the War Powers Act, including getting full authorization simply because Democrats asked him to. And Bush met the requirements BEFORE action against either country. President Obama is in violation of The War Powers Act in many ways. WHY IS THAT OKAY WITH EVERYONE? If Bush had done this can you imagine what Democrats and the media would be saying? Good Grief!

By the authority of The War Powers Act, Congress now has the authority (moral responsibility to The People in fact) to REQUIRE President Obama to remove our military forces immediately. Technically, it's now too late for President Obama to get authorization. Congress is now under no obligation to grant it because the president stands in violations of The War Powers Act and has therefore surrendered the authority to do anything more there other than withdraw.

Democrats ragged on Bush incessantly about his plans and exit strategy but Bush followed ALL laws as required. What exactly have we gotten from Obama? Nada! No compliance with The War Powers Act! He had legal obligations to Congress (ie, to The People) that he's disregarding! That isn't okay folks! I'm not advocating impeachment but this IS an impeachable offense. It's akin to a citizen ignoring a subpoena from Congress. WE can't ignore something Congress tells US to do. How come the president who theoretically works for us(!) can ignore something Contress has required (in writing via The War Powers Act) that he do?

BTW, if you want to check out The War Powers Act yourself here's a link to the info:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html

Friday, June 3, 2011

Congress Lies To And Steals From Us

Of course we know about various ways congress has used their powers to take money from The People, in the process misrepresenting what they were doing with it. One of the most grievous and dastardly acts of lying and outright thievery is the TARP money repaid by those who borrowed it.

First, remember that the TARP money paid out was a LOAN. It was NOT some kind of gift. It was meant to be repaid assuming those borrowing it regained sufficient financial stability to do so. You know that MOST of the TARP money has, in fact, been repaid. The important question is what the treasury has the authority and responsibility to do with the money returned or with any 'profit' earned from those who borrowed it.

The text(!) of the TARP bailout legislation said what, by law(!), must be done with the money returned, including any profit from the interest on those loans:

Section 106 part D: "TRANSFER TO TREASURY.—Revenues of, and proceeds from the sale of troubled assets purchased under this Act, or from the sale, exercise, or surrender of warrants or senior debt instruments acquired under section 113 shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt."

NOTE that money received back SHALL be paid into the Treasury's general fund FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE PUBLIC DEBT!!!

Of course there was an escape clause elsewhere that they had up to five years to pay it back to the Treasury and that, in the meantime, the Secretary of The Treasury had authority at his(!) discretion to use returned money elsewhere. That escape clause has been used to justify turning the returned money into congress' own slush fund.

It's also a FACT that the TARP fund was set up so as NOT to add to the national debt. It should not have been counted as debt since it was created but Democrats have seen fit to count it that way. If they hang onto it in their personal slush fund, they can do whatever they want with it. Although Republicans have control of the House now and, therefore, spending and debt, the returned TARP money is NOT under their control ... it's under the control of the president's administration (ie, Sec'y of the Treasury Geitner).

NOT returning it to the Treasury has two important advantages for President Obama and the Democrats in general:
  1. They have some $800 Billion 'extra' of OUR money to spend however they want and
  2. They get to count it as Bush DEBT as long as they don't use it to pay that debt back down.
Of the $1.4 Trillion deficit created in Bush's last year, $800 Billion of it was this TARP money. That permits Democrats to demagogue Bush for $800 Billion of debt when it's not really debt at all, most of which is currently sitting in the hands of and under control of Democrats. Pretty cool, eh? If you're a Democrat!

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Time To Man Up America!

'The Left', facilitated by a complicit media, has expended much energy criticizing the policies of leaders on 'The Right'. That's no secret. But, to a great extent, they do so in ways lacking in integrity. Check this out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268575/factory-selective-moral-outrage-victor-davis-hanson

Yesterday's moral outrage against a conservative president's policies turns to blind acceptance when the same policies are followed by a liberal one. That's the very definition of a lack of integrity. It's also fundamentally dishonest.

Why this is okay with Americans is both puzzling and disturbing. Don't integrity and honesty matter any more? It's possible to imagine that politics could be full of both, perhaps (cynically) by the very nature of politics. But how is it that most Americans aren't outraged by the extent of it now? It is so contrary to the principles upon which our country was founded. That it has always been part of our politics is undeniable but hasn't it gotten to a level and extent that should shock us into doing something about it?

Why don't you care any more? Don't you understand the cost of a lack of vigilance, accountability and control over this kind of behavior? Have you no conscience, no respect for our country's founding and foundation? It appears that America has substantially lost its conscience, its moral compass. Those of us who'd claim to be patriotic are appalled by this. It's not the America we've loved and supported with loving and freely given sacrifice. This is not the kind of country I volunteered to serve during the Viet Nam era. I didn't do that so we could become complacent and indecent.

Please don't make us veterans regret what we did out of selfless love for you and our country.
We stood for something. Now it's your turn.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Border Security Increase: Obama and Napolitano Taking Credit That Bush Deserves

You've heard President Obama and Napolitano (facilitated by an in-the-tank-for-Obama media) taking credit for beefing up patrols on our southern border. Before you fall for that nonsense I recommend you read the truth:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obama-administration-boasting-about-border-security/2011/05/10/AFj71ZkG_blog.html

Just as we're getting out of Iraq according to Bush's agreement with Iraq (remember that Obama campaigned on getting us out 6 months earlier than Bush would have then, shortly after taking office moved his date out to match Bush's?), the work done beefing up our southern border with Mexico has been according to Bush's presidential directives/actions.

All Obama can legitimately claim about beefing up patrols on our southern border (OR leaving Iraq!) is that he hasn't gotten in the way of Bush's policies and executive orders.

Blaming This Death On Budgets Is Insane: Handcuffed By Policy? You've Gotta Be Kidding Me!

Check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984/ns/us_news-life/

What's happening to us? Where have the people gone who used to do the right thing simply because it was the right thing to do regardless of policy, preparedness or budgets? Regardless of 'standard safety' precautions?

Truly, I understand the rescue issue here. I had Red Cross swimming safety/rescue training. I know the dangers associated with rescuing someone in water, including cold water, whether they want to be rescued or not. I also understand that if someone really wants to kill themselves they'll find a way that works in spite of anyone's best effort. But, trust me, there are lots of people who'd have done the right thing and tried to rescue the man. Unfortunately, such people of the kind of courage we're known for weren't there that day.

Where, in this picture, was something called a best effort? A mediocre effort? An attempted effort? A valiant effort? Where was a person we used to read about who'd have said this is insane ... I've got to do something simply because it's the right thing to do? Someone finally went in there and got the man but too late. That alone suggests that people can do what needs to be done no matter how cold the water is. It can be done because a person with the will to do something difficult or even dangerous can pull it off. If they're motivated strongly enough to try simply because it's the right thing to do.

C'mon now! We've all read stories of people diving into much colder water to rescue someone. You and I both know it CAN be done. But where was the person or people with the will to do it? Good Grief folks, a rescuer wouldn't even have had to swim! The guy was wading out there!!!

I don't think the 'news' here has anything to do with budgets or policy. It's more a question of moral fiber. It's also a question of becoming dependent on 'someone else' to do the really hard thing. It's not my job. It's too risky. I don't know how. It wasn't that long ago that concerns like that didn't matter when someone's life was at stake.

Face it folks! We're becoming dependent on having someone else do the hard stuff or just the stuff we don't feel like doing. We pay the government to do this so it's their job, not mine. Becoming dependent on the government to do things does diminish much of the good stuff in human nature. The value of human life comes into question too.

It's interesting to me that this happened in the San Franciso area. I lived there long enough to observe first hand how people have become disinclined to get involved in something that requires real effort, difficult physical work, real risks or real personal sacrifice with no obvious person gain. People isolate themselves from unpleasant things and avoid doing something in which there's no personal gain. Safe. Secure. Gotta be something in it for me. Let others do it because I don't want to. I have something I have to do that's more important. Never mind whether it's simply the right thing to do.

I think this says something truly sad about us. Maybe President Obama and other progressives are correct ... we are no longer exceptional ... no longer inclined to do what's the right and/or moral thing simply because it's right to do it. Where's the 'hope' in that?