The End Justifies The Means: The Words "Lie" Or "Failed" Aren't In Their Dictionary. It's All Just 'Relative' After All.

Politicians are increasingly living in a world where everything is 'relative'. It's convenient because it allows them to avoid the inconvenience of being wrong about ... or accountable for ... anything they say or do. In that world there's no such thing as a 'lie' because behind whatever they actually lied about is some moral or other superior relativistic notion.

In their bizzaro world there's no such thing as "lie", "failed", "truth", "wrong", or "fact (historical or otherwise)". How convenient, huh?

Politicians in both major parties are increasingly inclined to think and talk in relative terms but there's an essence about it that is fundamental to progressive thinking. Theory often trumps human nature, historical facts, and honest data analysis. It trumps reality. To progressives among our political elite, their claimed superior end justifies whatever becomes screwed up getting there. And justifies it to such an extent that even debate about problems and failures is irrelevant. As if we can't learn from mistakes? As if fixing whatever got screwed up has no value ... especially if fixing it requires undoing it?

Engaging in debate before taking a vote on a progressive bill requires defending one's position which is very difficult when common sense and/or even actual history are against one. Which explains why congressional progressives keep doing end-runs around any process that requires honest debate. End runs around the constitution become not only necessary but justifiable. The end justifies the means after all.

Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, routinely keeps Republican proposals from even reaching the senate floor for debate because defending his position against them using logic and common sense would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Besides, debate would expose the negatives contained in a progressive's bill; would expose the lack of common sense or even wisdom. Which is why over a hundred jobs bills from the House sit in his in-basket rather than being advanced in the legislative process for consideration or debate. Which is why Democrats feel justified in claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans never proposed health care reform. Not doing it their way = blocking them. Whatever happened to compromise? Those Republican bills never got to debate; therefore, they never existed ... in Harry Reid's mind. Therefore, he has a convenient (but completely false) rationalization (everything's relative, remember) for his claims that Republicans haven't done anything about health care, jobs or anything else he's of a mind to criticize them about.

It explains why it has become unnecessary for Harry Reid's senate to even consider some legislation. He can hide behind claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans are blocking him (not doing it his way = blocking him) and then let President Obama implement what progressives want via executive order. Honest debate is an inconvenient thing that would get in the way of the progressive vision for America. So they use chicanery (to circumvent the constitution and its processes) and thuggery (to bully Republicans) to avoid an honest debate and make Republicans look like the bad guys when honest analysis proves the opposite. It's congress' progressive political elites who are the bullies. Who appointed them the deciders of what's right or wrong? Who appointed them deciders of what parts of the constitution should be ignored or what legislation should even be debated?

How many Americans even understand the constitutional process that's being hijacked by progressives? The House or Senate passes a bill and sends it to the other body. That other body either passes it too, modifies it and sends it back to the originating body for signing or both sides make their own proposals that are debated in conference that produces a compromise which both sign. That's messy though. It takes time and effort. Oh, and one must defend one's position/proposals logically(!) in debate. When what one proposes is based on relativistic and theoretical arguments that completely ignore things like human nature and historical fact, common sense and logic go out the window. The proposal becomes indefensible in debate so debate must be avoided at all costs. After all, the end justifies the means (including throwing away the constitution).

Why isn't congress debating major issues/legislation? Because both sides, especially progressives, are becoming averse to honest debate or for that matter honesty in general. It's too hard to get your way when your way fails against common sense and/or true(!) facts.

Here's an article by Victor Davis Hanson that adds further analysis to this. As I said, one can find Republican attitudes and thinking that are similar in some ways but it's clearly more fundamental to the thinking of progressive political elites.

If Detroit's Recovery Is Important Then We Must Begin By Understanding The Root Causes Of Its Problems

I say it every time about our nation's troubles/challenges: The Truth Matters! It matters because we CANNOT fix our country's problems until we have the courage(!) to BOTH understand the root issues AND fix those instead of succumbing to political correctness and doing things that feel good or simply have good optics. The appearance of doing something is perceived to represent progress whether it does anything good or useful. Appearance is everything. Honesty and integrity? Forget about it! That's too old-fashioned.

There are some facts, to the extent one cares about truth, that would be irrational on a cosmic scale to ignore. This research/analysis by The Heritage Foundation is relevant and important to anyone who actually cares more about fixing Detroit's problems than political agenda or political correctness.

Is it relevant that Detroit was one of the premier cities in the US, in the world in fact, in the 50's and 60's and is now in third-world condition? What happened there beginning 40 years ago? For one thing, it has been run by only liberal politicians/policies since 1972. Is that relevant? Let me answer that by asking a question: who would claim credit if that city were still a shining example as it was 50-60 years ago? Is it relevant that our country's explosion in union control over companies' management and in union-secured benefits began there 50 years ago? Is it relevant that Detroit's leadership has been among the most corrupt of all large cities in recent decades ... leading to conviction and jail time for many of those highest in city government? Is it relevant that about half of Detroit's adults are illiterate and only 7% of the kids entering high school are 7th grade level proficient in reading? (By the way, becoming educated requires(!) personal choice/commitment. No teacher or school can 'make' one become educated if one has no interest in it. One's attitude has everything to do with it. Check out Dr. Benjamin Carson's biography if you don't believe one can overcome poverty, a broken family, peer pressure, and even racism to become educated anyway.) Is it relevant that all these ills have resulted in spite of Detroit being one of the biggest consumers of state and federal (ie, taxpayer) largesse?

On a more general note, could it be more clear that what one would call tough love is not only necessary but sufficient? Detroit needs the city equivalent of what company restructuring can do to restore a company from bankruptcy thus restoring it to self-sufficiency and success. Now that a capable-appearing city manager has been put in charge, the extent to which Detroit can be restored depends almost entirely on what unions and the state of Michigan do to help solve Detroit's problems rather than holding illogically, in fact suicidally onto proven corrupt 'deals' (people went to jail but their deals stayed in place) of the past. It's time for honest and courageous introspection independent of any(!) political agenda or political correctness.

President Obama Once Again Proves(!) He Doesn't Understand Our Founding Or Our Constitution

President Obama doesn't understand what the founding of this country was all about any more than he understands the constitution (as I explained a couple of blogs ago)

Regarding the constitution, just because he taught constitutional law doesn't mean he understands the constitution. One can attempt to teach something without truly understanding it. Just because you teach a subject doesn't mean you understand it correctly.

What he was teaching is the progressive view of constitutional law that what's lawful is not what the constitution says or was intended to mean. He was NOT teaching the constitution; rather how to change it!!! Hello People! What he was teaching is the progressive view that legal precedence trumps(!) the constitution. By that vehicle, therefore, the Supreme Court could have the power to change the constitution (the way progressives want) instead of defending its principles. Once they say something is constitutional, that makes it so ... whether either the founders or the constitution itself said so in the beginning. In effect, they can choose to define something as lawful that the founders tried mightily to prevent. It is they who can say what they want the constitution to support now whether that was supported originally or not. That is NOT what the founders intended ... AT ALL!

Now President Obama has the audacity to claim he's actually in sync with the founders. What a crazy idea that is! In a 4/19/12 article titled "The Governing Class and Us" the Heritage editors described his disconnect as follows: "President Barack Obama delivered a politically charged speech (on 4/18/12 in Elyria, OH) in which he hearkened back to the country's roots, saying that his opponents "don't seem to remember how America was built." In his view, taxpayers want their money spent in ways that will help further "the larger project we call America." In other words, more spending and bigger government paid for with higher taxes."

America was built on the principle of a small federal government with very limited power. President Obama's goal is to increase the scope, size and control of the federal government, period! As a progressive he believes there is no ill in our land that the federal government cannot fix ... if we give it sufficient money and bureaucratic power. That is what the founders worked hard to prevent!!! Even the liberals of those founding days ('old' liberalism per Herbert Hoover) understood the evils of big, powerful and controlling government. After all, they had just fought for our freedom from England over that very thing.

President Obama thinks his Republican opponents don't remember how America was built? Good grief! It is he who doesn't know our history! It's a good thing he never taught that subject ... progressives are terrible at teaching it but revising history is what they do best!!!

Learn from the evils in history or you'll be doomed to repeat them. Our founders knew that. They knew from history and their own experience with King George the inevitable results of big and powerful government. They did their best to prevent it here and they succeeded for about 200 years. Now this knucklehead of a president wants us to believe his revision of our own history. He must think we're stupid!

It's Ironic That President Obama Is Accusing The Supreme Court Of Activism

So, the Prez is accusing the Supreme Court of judicial activism should it overturn part/all of ObamaCare. That's ironic because creating ObamaCare was an act of progressive activism and of executive activism. Actually, I guess the Prez ought to know what activism is since he's the most practiced president of it in our entire history. Who better to judge what is or is not activism? ;-)

Well, if it is judicial activism, I say so be it. Sometimes it takes an act of activism to counter an activist action. One can accurately say, however, that it's not the Supreme Court that would be activist in this case. The real activism in this case was the Prez's health care law. Overturning it would be an act of patriotism and constitutional support/enforcement. It would be honoring, y'know, that pesky oath they ALL take to uphold, preserve and protect the constitution of the United States.

The Prez, by that legislation and his threats(!) toward the Supreme Court, has proved once again the irrationality of his claim that he understands the constitution. It proves his claim to knowledge based on having taught constitutional law is invalid. Just because you teach something doesn't mean you understand it correctly and he's proving that he doesn't by actions he takes nearly every day he's in office. The only thing he really understands about the constitution is the progressive agenda for changing it into something it was never intended to be.

Progressives Probably Can't Connect The Dots Between Over-Protective Parents And Over-Protective Government. Government = Our Helmet For Life!

Interesting story about crash helmets for crawlers and toddlers. It's kinda funny to read about the fairly liberal Today Show talking about that as bad for kids because they'll become risk averse and be less likely to succeed at things that have potential for being rough, physical and risky.

An over-protective government does the same thing to people's psyche folks! Too much protection robs people of the opportunity to grow to their maximum ability. Dependency creates a "I prefer safety and comfort" over doing anything that might be difficult, require real sacrifice and at which they might actually fail.

Progressives want to create an over-protective government. That might feel good to lots of people (both the provider and the recipient) but it robs the dependent ones of the opportunity to experience real things in life because it inherently encourages them not to take risks. Life can be exhilarating in both good and bad ways. Thing is, we LEARN IMPORTANT THINGS FROM BAD EXPERIENCES! We become more resilient and less likely to repeat what caused it. We become better survivors!!! Living in the government's protective bubble does the opposite of encouraging people to become survivors and experience all they can in life.

Yes, crawlers can bang their heads into things and there are probably statistics 'out there' that can show some number of crawlers hurt themselves seriously. But a far worse problem is that keeping a helmet on them doesn't teach them what to avoid in the future when they have no helmet. The only solution then will be helmets for life sold in all sizes from one minute old to the latest possible age.

Same for government. Progressives think we need government to protect us throughout our lives so we don't experience any of the vagaries of life. Under their plan, government becomes our helmet for life. Problem is, we'll never actually get to experience life that way! How boring and unfulfilling is that? Hello! Earth to Progressives!

Four Articles Dealing With Fundamental Issues Dividing Left From Right In America

There seems to be little necessity to add my own commentary to the following articles. They do much to describe and illuminate the divisiveness that's growing rapidly and, too often, rabidly in America. These aspects of the problem are important for us to consider for the sake of our future. We need to care about understanding what divides us and why it does. We can't make much progress turning away from this unfortunate trajectory on which the political left has set us until we begin to care about our country, indeed our constitution.

They (Liberals) Don't (Can't!) Know Us by Dennis Prager.

Saving Sovereignty by John Fonte.

Argument From Disparity by Thomas Sowell.

The Constitution's Comeback by Michael Barone.

Political Cage Fights Are NOT WHAT WE WANT!!! KNOCK IT OFF MEDIA!!!

The Lamestream Media is so transparent it's humorous. They're working very hard at creating a food fight among Republican candidates so that we can avoid a national discussion of the substantive issues of our times.

CNN is the absolute worst. Their moderators spend entire debates framing questions in ways that require candidates to attack each other rather than the issues themselves. I suspect CNN sees those as one in the same but they're not.

WISE UP MEDIA! What we NEED from you is to frame and present questions in ways that candidates have to explain(!) their positions, not defend them. What we want is to hear what each candidate's positions are on substantive issues presented to us clearly and directly. THEN LET US(!) decide which positions we favor. We DO NOT WANT YOU to create brawls on the stage such that the last guy standing is the winner.

Yes, we WANT to hear them each differentiate themselves from Obama so that we can decide FOR OURSELVES which one represents our interests the best relative to his administration. The more time the spend defending themselves, the less time the have to explain how they'd do better than Obama.

Somehow The Media has gotten it in their collective minds that they have to create an environment where debates become like a Survivor season. Or create a Roman gladiator kind of environment. These debates are becoming the political equivalent to cage fighting and we're sick of it.

We care more about the content of their policies than their ability to survive a cage fight on stage at these debates. Yeah, we do want a good fighter for a president but policies matter more. These debate cage fights are good theater to some but we want to know what these candidates think are the root of our problems and what they think will fix that. We're not getting that so KNOCK IT OFF!!! PLEASE!!!

Headed For The Cliff, Pedal To The Metal! Too Many Americans Don't Understand How Serious This Is!

History has proved EVERY TIME that when more than half of a society's citizens are dependent on government handouts, it leads to ruin. Literal ruin. FELLOW CITIZENS, ALARMINGLY WE ARE AT THE THRESHHOLD! Here's the latest 'status' on this problem:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/08/dependence-on-government-at-all-time-high/

As if our increasing dependence on handouts and, therefore, increasing taxes on various segments of our society weren't already bad enough, something really, really bad happens when the percentage of dependents exceeds 50% of our population. Those who are already dependent and those who want government to do more for them begin more aggressively electing only representatives who promise even more free stuff.

Can't you do the math? What logically must happen when an increasingly unproductive majority of our population takes (demands) increasingly more in handouts from a shrinking and increasingly less productive minority?

Once that happens, the dependency cycle goes into warp drive, taking down our economy and all civility and freedom with it. We are headed for a societal train wreck if congress doesn't take this problem seriously now! RIGHT NOW!

Establishment Republicans STILL Don't Get The Message From The 2010 Elections But NON-Establishment Santorum Does

Andrew McCarthy put it precisely correct in his NRO piece today:
"Forget the fratricidal warfare between two establishment soldiers [Romney/Gingrich] so harmonious on substance that their contest, inevitably, has descended into a poisonous, personal food-fight. The problem is not the GOP infighting. The problem is the GOP [Establishment]. [Establishment] Republicans are simply not interested in limiting government or addressing our death spiral of spending."

That is pure, unadulterated TRUTH! They're nothing less than a progressive wing of the Republican party. Unfortunately it's a significantly large and powerful wing. But there is no doubt they've COMPLETELY(!) lost their collective minds vis a vis republicanism.

The behavior of "Establishment Republicans" is the EXACT reason why Democrats can legitimately call out the GOP on their UTTER FAILURE to control spending and debt during the Bush years. It makes MANY of us Republicans sick to death of the nonsense going on with/from/between Romney and Gingrich. If Obama wins his reelection it will be entirely because of the nonsense going on/from this spineless bunch of politicians who have the nerve to call themselves Republicans.

Romney has never been a big secret to us. I like that he 'looks' presidential. Unfortunately we need a Republican president who will operate like Republicans used to. He's a moderate Republican in much the same way McCain was. No wonder McCain endorsed him! That endorsement completely validates the extent to which Romney is a moderate of the same (losing!) ilk. Romney is also a capitalist of the kind we're fed up with too. (Yes, many of us Republicans don't like that any more than most liberals!) It didn't take Trump's endorsement of Romney today to convince us of Romney's dark side of capitalism nature but it adds certainty where uncertainty may have existed.

Gingrich's constitution support/knowledge bona fides gave us hope that someone among the Republican Establishment really does get it regarding our ==>> Republic <<== . However, we were nervous and now events of the past couple of weeks shot that notion completely full of holes. He 'feels' every bit as much an Establishment Republican in the bad sense (although different 'flavor') as Romney.

So now what? Santorum is the only candidate acting/talking like a genuine conservative. The interesting ... and HOPEFUL(!) ...  thing about him is that he hasn't changed who he is ... ever. True, one can find a couple of important issues where he initially took the wrong position but he's now clear about what those mistakes were and why they were mistakes. He's a person I trust to genuinely(!) learn from his mistakes. I don't have a problem with people making a few mistakes as long as they truly learn from them and their values/principles are consistently conservative. Santorum seems every inch such a person. He's very appealing to me and pretty much every true conservative.

The Sinking Of The Costa Concordia: A Metaphor For A Sinking West Or For Increasingly Spineless Men?

I was going to add comments of my own but after a few failed attempts I couldn't improve on what Mark Steyn said about the sinking of the Costa Concordia this week:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288778/sinking-west-mark-steyn

I'll only add a few questions for you to ponder. To what extent is Captain Schettino's ME FIRST attitude a metaphor for much of what's going on with men all around us today? What is happening to men's sense of responsibility? To what extent has abandon ship (re. responsibility, self-respect, honesty, morality, integrity, family, neighbors, community, etc) become a man's first, if not completely over-riding, impulse? How many of the men you know or know about do you respect? Can you in all honesty say you expect them to man up when a situation calls for it or will they all look around for someone else to do what's necessary? What has been the negative role of feminism, if any, in all this? To the extent family values have eroded significantly, what percentage of it lies at the feet of irresponsible men versus women? Why are there so many out of wedlock births and single mothers? Why are so many kids not completing their K-12 education? Why do so many kids shun technical fields in college?

Having given thought to the answers to those questions, how much better off would we be in those areas if American men had better and stronger values, principles, self-respect, integrity, and morals?

Left Becoming Meaner?

Food for thought:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287648/leftism-makes-you-meaner-dennis-prager

The last paragraph is interesting: "Leftists’ meanness toward those with whom they differ has no echo on the normative right [he's talking about degree and extent ... of course meanness exists on the right too]. Those on the left need to do some soul-searching — because as long as they continue to believe that people on the right are not merely wrong, but vile, they will get increasingly mean. The problem for the Left, however, is that the moment it stops painting the Right as vile, it has to argue the issues."

He isn't saying there's no meanness on the right (of course there is meanness on the right too), just that the left is taking it to a level that's pretty disturbing. Treating people who simply have an opposing view as inherently vile, stupid, ignorant, unkind, uncompassionate, racist, haters, etc is sooooo not good for our society.

The last sentence in the quote above is the most interesting to me. What is the left so afraid of that they refuse to calm down and simply debate the issues? Could it be that they don't have a rational argument?

Santorum: Strong 'America First' Conservative Principles That Are Much Needed In America

On Family Values:

Santorum had a great response to the question last night about what each candidate thought was the single most important issue facing America. He said is was the erosion of family values.

The other candidates gave answers associated with the sorry state of our economy, national security and such. While those are certainly good answers, most conservatives I know tend to think that the erosion of traditional family values underlies most of our current problems to one extent or another. It's a 'root cause' matter, a view of things I'm usually pretty centered on.

If our traditional family values hadn't eroded so badly over the past 50 years or so, chances are we'd be better centered on the other issues in a way that could have avoided our current problems. Values, principles and morals matter in a culture. They not only define a culture's character; they guide and influence action.

Just one but perhaps the most important area in which we've suffered is the sorry state of our education. The root cause of that has everything to do with family values. Our problems in education are significantly behind increasing poverty for example. A country failing in education is doomed to fail in all the areas we're currently having problems.

Greed is pretty much absent among people who have and honestly practice strong family values. Selfishness is pretty much absent. Self-absorption is pretty much absent. More focus on one's iPad than on one's children sitting across the dinner/restaurant table is pretty much absent. Taking care of one's family financial resources and making wise savings/spending/work/education choices is well practiced.

That is not to say people who might rate low on family values (evaluated the way I have here) can't take care of business properly but I believe that they're more likely not to. And I believe that people strong on family values are more likely to do things that are good for their family and, therefore, for their community and their country.

Strong families have arguably been our greatest strength and resource throughout our history. We're far worse off for their erosion. Why do we so strongly resist returning to strong family values and why is discussing them honestly so hated, despised and ridiculed by The Media and the far left? Isn't it pretty obvious that they worked better than what's going on now?

On The Standard 'Issues' Of Our Day:

I couldn't have said it better than the author in the following link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287441/rick-santorum-conservative-stalwart-quin-hillyer

Still More Re This Imperial Presidency ... The List Of Those Lending Credibility To That Fact Grows

Now we hear from Andrew McCarthy about this increasingly imperial presidency:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287424/obama-skirts-democratic-process-andrew-c-mccarthy

He also calls out 'Establishment Republicans' who have abandoned their roots whereby they historically made strong efforts to preserve and protect constitutional principles. Their failings this century is why the Tea Party exists and it is why "moderate" Republicans (Romney, McCain and any of that ilk) get scarce support from them.

How much longer shall we deem this to be a representative democracy while, increasingly, the people in power no longer care what The People think, say or want? When those (or one) in power flaunt self-proclaimed(!), self-assumed(!) authority over and contrary to constitutional processes, principles and precedents? When one man can grant to himself whatever authority over congress HE chooses? When the president can decide he's subject to neither congressional control nor The People's will?

We're becoming a representative democracy in name only and we WILL be the worse for it if we allow this trend to continue. Under the constitution, the president is answerable to congress which is answerable to The People. However, as Mr. McCarthy laments, the constitution, The People's bulwark against tyranny (a wonderful and wonderous gift from our founders), is being subverted as congress sits idly on its collective hands and takes no interest in defending, much less exercising their authority.

As Mr. McCarthy also laments and I've noted previously, the president's oath of office (to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitution) has been rendered utterly irrelevant by our current president who unilaterally claims by his actions that there are no boundaries on what he chooses to do and he's answerable to no one he doesn't want(!) to answer to. Sounds like imperial and supremely arrogant behavior to me.

Before Being Quick To Judge The Santorum's Regarding Their Dead Baby, Please Read This

The following article puts the furor surrounding how the Santorums handled the death of their baby in a fair and compassionate perspective:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287410/left-s-so-called-empathy-mark-steyn

Mr. Steyn also uses the situation to point out some interesting hypocrisy in some circles.

More On The New Imperial Presidency

I'm adding the following reference as a post-script to my other blogs this week about the new imperial presidency.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287323/imperial-sham-jonah-goldberg

In many circles I'd be called a loon for calling out this administration in this way but it's interesting to me that I find myself in good company (in my thinking process about this) with political analysts who have earned some respect I couldn't claim separate from validation like theirs.

It is important to us as a republic and even as a 'representative democracy' (which isn't a true discription of what was founded here) that we understand what's going on and how it IS relevant to freedom and representative government. This president is in the process of hijacking our RIGHT (per the constitution and founding principles) to representation in the federal government.

That President Obama thinks he can get away with such an audacious power grab is one thing. That he appears to be getting away with it and Democratic leadership is supporting it is alarming. This is not good for our country whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. After all, remember that with such precedence set a Republican president could just as effectively do an end-run around all Democrats' representatives. Maybe you Democrats out there are feeling okay with this but how would you feel about a Republican president doing whatever he wanted regardless what congress or the constitution wants him to do?

His Majesty, King Obama Can Do Whatever He Wants Irrespective Of Congress Or The Constitution

Obama's recess appointments this week are contrary to the letter of the Constitution, to constitutional principles and to Obama/Democrat principles when Bush was in office. First, check this out:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140770647994692.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

So, when Obama says he's only doing what George Bush did, he's flat lying. When he says there's precedent for what he's doing, he's flat lying. When he says what he's doing is constitutional he's flat lying.

So, what to make of this? Under Obama the presidency is becoming imperial. That means republic principles have been thrown out the window. In fact, this is no longer even something one could honestly call a "representative democracy" (which, in case you didn't know, is not the same thing as a republic).

Obama can basically do and is, indeed, doing(!) anything he wants without congress' consent/approval. If congress won't approve something on his agenda, he appoints czars to do it from the executive branch or gives(!) authority to one of several executive branch  bureaucracies (like the EPA, FCC and others) to implement his policies without congressional approval OR oversight. That means, my friends, that this is no longer a representative democracy. Your elected representatives in congress have nothing to say about any of this, including his appointments this week in very, very powerful executive branch bureaucracies.

The way it's supposed to work is, the president's party proposes an item on Obama's agenda in the form of legislation. Then either it advances in one house and then moves to the other for approval OR each house (senate and house of representatives) produce their own versions of the legislation at which point both bills go to a conference committee to work out a compromise.

Well, this president doesn't want(!) compromise that's required(!) under our constitution so he goes forward implementing his agenda the way he wants (ie, without the compromise that's required under our constitution!) via the executive branch within bureaucracies that don't answer to congress. In other words, his agenda is implemented without consideration of, consent by or oversight by The People's duly elected representatives.

The Constitution was specifically constructed to prevent any one person having this kind of power. After all, it was such one-man authoritarian control by the king of England without representation from the colonists that led to our declaration of independence and separation from English control. We fought a revolution against one-man, representative-ignoring control over us.

Read the Declaration of Independence. In it, we outlined our grievances with him which include several along the line of these quotes:

"He has dissolved (in our current case, ignored, which is the same in effect/principle) Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasion on the rights of the people."

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our consitution (ie, czars and executive branch bureaucracies in general), and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation." Ie, without approval by the people's representatives.

"... for suspending our own legislature and (executive branch authorities) declaring themselves(!) invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." Ie, without involvement by the people's representatives.

Our Constitution was constructed to prevent such abuses of power by one man or many men. It was never(!) intended for a president to have such authority over us without congress' involvement in every respect that has significant effects on us. In fact, the constitution was constructed to give congress(!) ultimate authority over such things via their veto-override authority. Therefore, the Constitution says Congress may pass legislation without the president's approval. And the president may NOT put legislation into effect by any means outside the authority of congress. Instead, President Obama is acting like HE has ultimate authority regardless what congress will or will not support. He won't even give them a chance to work out compromise legislation because he wants to get his way 100% and has no interest in compromise as structured into our constitution.

This is becoming an imperial presidency and that's abhorent to truly freedom-loving people.

Obama And Reid Subvert Legislative Process In Order To Cast Unfounded Blame On Republicans

There are several things about what the Democrats did regarding the two-month extension of the payroll tax cut that ought to ALARM us. They should bug any American who really cares about maintaining the integrity of our Democracy, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

You need to understand how the legislative process is supposed to work in order to appreciate the subversion going on. Briefly, here's the process that Democrats subverted:

1. Either House or Senate body may start their version of needed legislation.
2. Once the bill is passed in the first body it is sent to the other body.
3. The second body either approves it as-is, amends it and send it back to the first one, rejects it and does nothing more, or rejects it and sends back a totally different version of their own.
4. If the legislation is not dead or signed as-is from the first body that means they both want some form of it passed but they're too far apart to agree yet. If they each have their own separate versions then it is supposed to go to a 'conference' committee to iron out a compromise between the two versions.
5. Once the conference committee, composed of representatives from both the House and Senate, has a version on which they mutually agree, then it goes back to both bodies for passage.
6. The back-and-forth process can continue for multiple iterations until it finally does pass in both bodies.
7. Then it goes to the president who can sign or veto it as he/she chooses.

If you need proof or further information regarding this legislative process, this link provides it: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/legprocess.htm

In the case of this payroll tax reduction extension legislation, both houses produced their own versions and neither agreed to the other body's version. At that point both of the bills were supposed to go to conference where the various differences are worked out into one bill that provides a fair balance of 'gain' and 'loss' for each body. In fact, that's what Speaker Boehner asked to be done. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN THIS TIME.

Both House and Senate produced their own versions of the extension and then the president said the House MUST accept the Senate's version. In other words, the president picked which one he would sign instead of a conference committee producing one that balanced both bodies' interests.

Think about that. Both House and Senate produced their own versions of the needed legislation and THE PRESIDENT PICKED(!) which one he'd sign under threat of doing nothing and blaming doing nothing on Republicans. The constitution did NOT set up the process to work this way!!! The PRESIDENT HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY to pick whether the House's or Senate's version HE WILL ALLOW to come to his desk.

Think about that in terms of the constitution's balance of powers principles. If anyone has final and ultimate authority it is CONGRESS(!), NOT THE PRESIDENT. While the president can veto a given piece of legislation, his veto can be overcome by a 2/3 veto override vote in both congressional bodies. The constitution was set up specifically to ensure that CONGRESS, NOT ANY ONE MAN/PRESIDENT, has ultimate authority. In this case the president decided that the House MUST sign the Senate's version. He has NO SUCH authority.

Think about the wisdom of that by our founders. They understood that if one person had authority to control legislation it could lead to "tyranny". They said so in various writings! That kind of tyranny is why their ancestors fled their countries of origin in the first place. They were dead-set against one man being able to say which congressional body would have control or which of competing parties would 'win' a particular vote. The constitution makes the president ULTIMATELY subject to congress' authority, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. So what Obama and Reid did this week was a total subversion of the constitution, both in its content and its principles.

And to make matters worse, the president and Democrats in general are being rather successful blaming Republicans for not cooperating better. Boehner in fact asked the president to support a conference action to happen, consistent with the constitution and the president refused! Good grief folks! The president doesn't even have the authority to stop congress from sending it to conference. Republicans were following the constitution. Democrats blamed Republicans for not accepting the Senate version immediately. And Democrats(!) are winning that argument?!?! Does that make any sense?

Perhaps the most important questions to ask you are, how comfortable are you with:

1. Subversion of constitution-based principles and procedures by Obama and Democrat leadership?
2. One person having that much power over what legislation gets passed?
3. One political party subverting the constitution and then blaming the other party?
4. The President playing such partisan games PURELY for the sake of polical gain, not for the sake of getting done what needs to be done?
5. Americans having so little understanding of the constitution and its principles that they're not even aware of how the constitution-based processes are being subverted?
6. Americans having so little understanding of the constitution and its principles that they have no problem with one person having so much control over congress?
7. Americans having so little understanding of the constitution and its principles that they don't understand why it's important that the president should not be able to tell congress what to do (without declaring a state of emergency)?

The Sad State Of American Work Ethic, Especially With Younger Generations

One of my sons was updating his work history on Facebook recently. The detail he's adding got me thinking about my own work history in similar detail. What I came up with brought me to the realization that the average young person (through age 40 or so) has a much different sense of responsibility than folks of my generation and older.

Here's my list of jobs in rough chronological order:

1. Electrician crew helper at a zinc smelter.
2. Zinc production crew which entailed standing over long rows of cells filled with a sulfuric acid mixture and pulling out metal sheets with zinc plated on them from the electrolysis process. The acid fumes ate through our pants ... a new pair of jeans lasted barely one week. Every night found me treating acid burns on my feet, legs and hands with hydrogen peroxide to neutralize it. It couldn't have been a good environment for my lungs, eh?
3. Electrician crew helper at a lead smelter. One task that lasted three months was inventorying and servicing (mostly lubricating) the hundreds of motors covered in lead dust. We wore no masks in such work. And people worry about minute amounts of lead in anything these days?
4. Forest fire fighter. Probably the hardest work I've ever done. 12-14 hour days in hot and dangerous conditions. Sleeping in paper bags.
5. Timber repair in underground hardrock mine. Dangerous and physically demanding work a full mile underground.
6. Enlisted(!) in US Air Force in the midst of the Viet Nam war. Never made it to Viet Nam but it was an 'interesting' time to enlist in the military. Sometimes I wonder what was I thinking? Most of the time I'm convinced it was both patriotic and (much needed!) maturity-growing.
7. Just a note: My life took a positive turn the first night after I enlisted. From that point on I completely owned responsibility for my life ... what it would or would not become. Below is what followed four years of honorable military service to our country.
8. Computer repair tech for Honeywell. I took a correspondence course in electronics to make that possible.
9. After 4 years of #8 I began taking night classes at San Francisco's Heald School of Engineering.
10. Got married and completed Foothill Junior College's engineering prep curriculum.
11. Transferred to Stanford, getting BS and MS in computer design.
12. CPU designer for Amdahl, the most state of the art computer design company in its day.
13. Various engineering department manager jobs in various high tech companies.
14. Various project/program management jobs in various high tech companies.

The point I wanted to make of all this has nothing to do with bragging or a self-congratulatory attitude. My point boils down to four questions really, comparing how people used to think about personal responsibility with what's going on these days. 1) How many young people in recent generations take real personal responsibility for their lives? 2) How many young people are willing to do physically demanding work if that's all that's available or is about all they're qualified for? 3) How many young people these days would do whatever it takes to earn a living, not expecting anyone else to take care of them or their needs? 4) How many young people do the responsible thing, live within their means and postpone material and other gratification until they're financially and otherwise able to handle it?

What made our country successful through the 1970's or so were strong work ethics, strong sense of responsibility, strong sense of personal accountability, etc. Too many young people these days don't get it and our country will be far worse off for it. We're headed in a really, really bad direction with so many people thinking that others owe them things they haven't earned (entitlement) and that it's okay to mortgage their future (and that of others) for completely selfish and highly materialistic self-gratification in the present. We live in the country with the greatest opportunity to succeed and excel based almost entirely on one's own desire to do whatever it takes. What are people doing to take advantage of it based on a strong sense of personal responsibility, honesty and integrity? What I see going on isn't encouraging about our country's future.

Aspiring To Be Good At Gaming The System (Ref Previous LIRR Blog)

Thinking about my previous blog about the LIRR fraud case, I've come up with at least three things that should be said about 'Gaming The System':

1. When 'the system' becomes too oppressive or cumbersome it invites, even demands (for thrill or survival sake) people find ways around whatever rules there are whether those ways are illegal or 'only' immoral.
2. There are too many people who accept doing this as a challenge and that to be victorious is a good thing. To them, there's honor in dishonerable actions.
3. There are too many people for whom the immoral aspect of it is irrelevant. This 'moral relevance' thinking based on one's own desires being more important than others' is destructive of civility in a society. If you haven't noticed, it's increasing dramatically in the USA and elsewhere.

An over-reaching and/or too bureaucratic and too 'nanny state' government always leads to this. It's a historical truth. As I've said in recent blogs, it is simple human nature to behave this way. Either the survival instinct kicks in or people find their motivation to do bad things in the thrill/challenge of finding ways to benefit from not following the rules ... to benefit from the pain (economic or otherwise) of others. Their pain is irrelevant. My gain whether deserved or earned is all that matters.

We're going too far down this road. We're becoming a something for nothing society and history is full of lessons why and how this is very, very bad for us. To those doing the gaming, both the historical truth where this leads and the impact on fellow citizens who pay a price to the successful gamer are completely(!) irrelevant. If you can get something from the system that you don't deserve and didn't earn, so what? If 'they' are stupid enough to allow me to do it and get away with it, shame on them. Unfortunately, it isn't 'the system' or government that pays the price, it's one's own fellow citizens, one's neighbors, one's relatives. Personal moral responsibility is irrelevant. In fact, it's a totally subjective thing, not something which has objective importance in absolute terms.

We humans resist objective restrictions on our behavior if they infringe on what we want. Human nature you know. The constitution is too restrictive? Then we must declare it a 'must be made relevant to the times' document and keep it relevant to current 'needs'. We must it change it to accommodate what we want, regardless of the document's historically derived 'healthy society' foundation. But it's justified to change it isn't it? After all, the Founders had no idea how we'd develop materially, scientifically or otherwise. No they didn't. They 'only' understood where human behavior would lead without cultural and government boundaries. They understood the inevitability of our decay if our behvior (wants versus basic needs) were not restrained.

Changing from a society substantially based on personal responsibility for one's life and for the well-being of one's family and community to one based on automatic equal outcomes for everyone is destructive. It gives perceived if not implied and even factual license to people to get whatever's fair by their own definition by any means and at whatever cost to others that are necessary. Wrongness becomes subjective which is destructive of a civil society. This has played out so many times in history that it's irrational to ignore it. It is arrogant and ignorant of us to think it won't or can't happen to us ... that we will manage it better than all those failed societies. Man's arrogance (in the societal and personal sense) knows no bounds. The Founders knew this to be true and did a remarkably creative job of establishing sensible boundaries. We ignore their intentions at great, great risk to our society.

History screams at us: beware what you wish for!

This Administration Was Wrong On Both the CLASS Act AND This Week's NCLB Actions (As Well As Just About Everything Else)

What is it about the progressives in this administration? Why do they think the constitution and congress are both irrelevant just because they don't like them? Check out these articles as glaring examples of an administration run amok:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/23/president-obama-mistakes-bi-partisan-distaste-for-nclb-for-a-mandate-to-rewrite/

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/23/morning-bell-the-latest-obamacare-implosion/

If those aren't enough to convince you how wrong-headed and bull-headed(!) they are check this out too:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/21/morning-bell-the-obama-investigations/

Sorry Mr. President, the constitution does matter. So does congress which was created by the constitution to represent The People, not be servile to your whims. YOU DO NOT have the authority to legislate what gets done by the federal government TO The People; only congress does. By the way, in case you haven't read the constitution lately, they work for us and so do you.