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.

All-Knowing But Totally Oblivious

This is insane!

Leader after leader in this administration parades before congressional committees and claims ignorance about things they're paid to know ... and CARE ... about. Things they are PAID TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT!

A scandal breaks out within the Justice department and the guy in charge (Att'y Gen'l Holder) doesn't know what's been going on AND DOESN'T CARE ENOUGH TO FIND OUT? Recusing himself has far more to do with wanting to avoid it like the plague than doing his stinking job. He goes before the people in charge of our government and isn't motivated to come prepared with ANY answers as to why his organization is doing things that are causing a national uproar? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What, sir? Are you completely stupid in addition to being ignorant and incompetent? You must think WE are that stupid too!

The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, did the same exact thing. Someone decided to change ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE from "planned terrorist attack" to the completely MADE-UP(!) "the video caused a spontaneous mob action" and she neither knows that happened nor cares to find out who did it? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What, madam? Are you completely stupid in addition to being ignorant AND incompetent? You must think WE are that stupid too!

And then there's the President, who's the 'boss' of them all. He ALSO HAD NO CLUE either of these things were going on AND DOESN'T CARE ENOUGH TO FIND OUT what's really going on with either of them? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'll relentlessly pursue what's going on, TRUST ME! What, sir? Like you did with Fast and Furious and all the other scandalous things you promised(!) you'd take care of? Do YOU also think we're stupid?

You think you're not complicit just because YOU didn't cause any of this? You're THE MOST complicit by doing nothing about it when you're the people in charge! CEO's of real companies get fired ... immediately ... for this kind of nonsense. They're paid to make their companies successful and when trouble comes, to LEAD fixing it. The people currently in charge of our federal government seem to think they're only there to take credit for whatever good things happen whether they're responsible for them or not. You don't hear them saying I don't know when someone asks them about a success thing down in the ranks below them. In fact, they RUN to get in front of it to APPEAR like it was totally their doing.

These people are insulting our intelligence and defying common sense. And they're running our government? What's up with this?

Plausible deniability has morphed into bonehead ignorance in practice. Do we really want leaders who are this ignorant of what's going on in their organizations and don't care enough about bad things when they happen to PROACTIVELY(!) find out what's going on and practice REAL LEADERSHIP in getting to the root of them ... and fixing them?

What's wrong with these people? We didn't hire them to only work hard at remaining ignorant about what's going on beneath them! Good grief!

Taxing The Rich At Odds With The Electric Car Agenda

President Obama's progressive policies are running headlong into each other, mutual destruction style. Mr. Obama's tax plan, meet Mr. Obama's 'plan' for electric cars!

There's a big problem with electric cars. They're expensive. So expensive in fact that the market for them is pretty much limited to people making more than $200,000 per year according to Robert Bryce's quote of Deloitte Consulting about this.

But, wait a minute! Aren't those the same people whose income is about to take a big dive if Obama gets his way with his tax-the-rich scheme? Seems to me that those 'evil rich' people will be less able and less inclined to buy those electric cars that only they used to be able to afford.

Progressives tend to believe they can create (force) a market where one doesn't exist by force of power or taxpayer money. Problem is, that only works in college classrooms ... at progressive institutions. In the real world, the market is determined by what people want and can afford. Progressives may not like capitalism but, in the end, it rules the day. Produce a product few people want (because it doesn't work or meet a real need) or can afford and they won't buy it.

That approach didn't work in communist Russia when the government decided to control shoe production. They created a standard shoe that would be made throughout the country and they made more than enough for everyone. Yet, there was a shoe shortage. Why? Because no Russians wanted the shoe designed by their government. Those plentiful shoes piled up in government-owned shoe stores and people went without shoes because that was easier on their feet than wearing a bureaucracy's creation.

Hmmmmm. Is it 'back to the drawing board' time on your policies yet Mr. President? Perhaps on your progressive approach to things as well?

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.

President Obama: "I Don't Bluff!!!" Uh, Pardon Me Sir But What About All Those Pesky Campaign Promises?

When commenting about the challenge of keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons and America's promise(!) to not let that happen, President Obama said a few days ago that "I am not a bluffer!". Are you kidding me?

Based on President Obama's campaign promises (most of which went unfulfilled) one could easily justify labelling him The Bluffer-In-Chief because he didn't keep his word on most of his promises ... to his own citizens!. And he now expects us and Israel to believe that we can trust his promise to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons! C'mon folks! Does it make more sense to base our belief whether he's bluffing on words or on his historical lack of action on previous promises?

IMPORTANT QUESTION: If you were Israel's leader would you (based on President Obama's actual track record) trust President Obama's promises when your country's very existence depended on it?

President Obama's campaign promises didn't become truth so were they lies or bluffs or naivete? If naivete is the reason, isn't it likely that he's being naive now and will back down to Iran when real consequences loom? If his campaign promises were lies or bluffs, that's no better than naivete is it? Regardless how one dissects President Obama's latest not-a-bluffer claim, his record (assuming actual facts matter to you) is one of not doing much of what he says he'll do. If you were Netanyahu, what would you think and do? Be honest now!

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!!!

It's Okay For Muslims To Puposely Kill Christians And Destroy Their Churches But Burning Qurans Deserves Protests And Requires Accountability And Profuse Apology From Our President

We Americans do NOT have as an objective or policy to destroy or deface Qurans much less kill Muslims for simply being Muslims. As a matter of choice and fact we make a strong effort to show respect for Islam and what Muslims hold sacred. We even practice self-accountablility.

On the other hand, whole Islamic countries have it as their primary goal in life to destroy America, especially Christian Americans, and actually do so at every opportunity. Muslims destroy Christian churches and kill Christians for simply being Christians.

When an American does mess up and deface a Quran our own policies as well as Muslim demands result in profuse apologies and strong accountability. If many Muslims had their way our response would include the severist of penalties (inlucing death) for those who'd do such a thing. Such an offense requires of many Muslims to conduct angry protests demanding retribution.

On the other hand, when Muslims kill Americans and Christians we do nothing in retaliation and Muslims feel no obligation to apologize for it, much less hold the responsible people accountable in any way.

What's wrong with this picture?

Santorum's Comment About Obama's "Phony Theology": More True Than Not

So, here's Santorum's quote that's in the news this week about Obama adhering to an inaccurate theology: Obama adheres to "some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology."

There are two ways in which Obama's own actions and words prove that to be true.

One way is that the president spent a couple of decades attending a church in which the pastor advocated "black liberation theology" and the president was fully aware what that was all about. There are many who think that theology, to express it kindly, takes liberties with the Word of God. Overcoming "mal-distribution" of materials/resources is a good thing but achieving the desired "economic parity" by forced redistributive means preached in support and application of that theology is by no means what God had in mind. (And it has nothing(!) to do with the parable to which the president referred but more on that two paragraphs below.)

Of course we're obliged to take care of the poor and disadvantaged but that isn't meant to replace productive labor with an attitude of not needing to earn what one gets in life. In the Bible God values productive labors in order to take care of one's self and one's family. He encourages Christians to work hard, thus earning whatever it is they collect of material worth. Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus say everyone deserves "economic parity" regardless whether they earn it. Taking from others just because they have more is not biblical. And it has nothing to do with the parable in question.

The second consideration is associated with things that Obama says about Christianity. Wanting to sound all smart, he instead demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of biblical teachings that suggest his theology is inconsistent with the true meaning of things in the bible. The most recent example is his latest claim that his policy "as a Christian ... coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'" The bible verse he references, Luke 12:48, has nothing to do with taking from the rich to give to the poor. In fact, it has nothing to do with material matters at all.

It's a parable about whether one is a Christian who understands scripture and is therefore thereafter accountable to God for obeying His commands! It's a parable that refers to what's expected of Christians once they really understand what is required of Christians. MUCH MORE is required of them in teaching others about Christianity than of those who don't understand it yet. The point is, once Christians understand what God expects of them, they are accountable to behave accordingly ... choosing to live a moral life according to God's laws and to teach scripture to others accurately. It does not mean, now that you know the truth about being a Christian, you are obliged to be okay with the government forceably taking your material possessions and giving them to others. The lesson of the parable has nothing to do with sharing material wealth. It has everything to do with sharing God's eternal wealth.

What that parable meant therefore was this: For unto whom much KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING has been given (about the kingdom and what comprises a moral Christian life), much MORAL LIVING AS WELL AS SPIRITUAL TEACHING AND LEADING shall be required.

Note that the parable therefore was NOT talking about our moral responsibility regarding material wealth, the environment or anything else that's material in nature, rather about God's eternal wealth and our eternal souls. That President Obama does not understand what that parable was talking about discredits his pious and pretentious thinking and attitude. I apologize for being blunt but it's deserved ... this guy really needs to get over himself and get real with his Christianity if he's going to presume to preach gospel to us.

So, those are only two ways in which President Obama's theology is inconsistent with what the bible actually means. How 'Christian' does President Obama prove he is then by claiming a parable means something it does not and by pontificating to us that it is supposed to be applied in a way that was never meant by Jesus? For him to lecture us that we Christians aren't doing the Christian thing by not supporting his redistributive agenda is amazing to me. That he would basically chastise us as not being good Christians for not supporting or, worse, daring to challenge that agenda says much about how highly he regards himself. He presumes to understand something about the Word of God and then proves he completely doesn't understand it himself. His statement indeed, reflects accurately the "black liberation theology" of his religious mentor for all those years, Pastor Wright, in stark opposition to the point Jesus was actually making.

The section of scripture President Obama was referring to actually divided people into two groups ... those who understand what's required of Christians and those who don't. By failing to understand that parable, President Obama proves himself to be in the latter category of people Jesus was talking about who do not understand Jesus' commands and are, therefore, not accountable for falling short as Christians. Maybe he is a Christian but he has a lot to learn before he has sufficient cred or authority (per God's 'rules') to lecture the rest of us about what it means to be a Christian. All he accomplished by his misunderstanding of scripture is substantially validate what Santorum said.

Santorum's comment may sound harsh but President Obama's own words prove Santorum is more correct than not, eh?

By the way, Charles Krauthammer expressed it well too with additional relevant commentary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gospel-according-to-obama/2012/02/09/gIQAngvW2Q_story.html

Agenda And Supporting Spin Matter More Than Truth, Integrity, Principles, And The Constitution

To this administration, spin has become an art form. Just as in art, what they're doing doesn't make a lot of sense to a lot of people but something that's going on this week makes their "spin versus principle and honesty" instincts clear to everyone.

Penalties for not purchasing health care ARE TAXES!
The adminstration sent its Justice (HA!) Branch attack dogs to the Supreme Court this week to defend the ObamaCare penalties. Their argument to the justices: the penalites are taxes and therefore are constitutional because the executive and legislative branches have constitutional authority to levy taxes. In fact, however, this administration doesn't actually care whether they are taxes; it's strictly an argument of convenience and necessity not honesty.

AND(!) Penalites for not purchasing health care ARE NOT TAXES!
The administration also sent it's budget director to Capitol Hill the very same day(!) this week to defend ObamaCare. The budget director was asked by a congressional committee this week whether those penalties were taxes. He evaded and evaded and evaded but the congressmen persisted and insisted he answer the question. When he finally relented, he said, the penalties are not taxes. Why does this administration want Congress to believe the opposite (HUH?) of what they want the Supreme Court to believe? Because this administration knows that Americans, even their own supporters, are intolerant of tax increases on the middle class and that Congress would therefore be inclined to toss out some/much/all of ObamaCare if it raised taxes on the poor and middle class.

What do people possess in the way of principles when they argue before Congress one thing and at the same time(!) argue (as a matter of choice!) before the Supreme Court the exact(!) opposite? It's one thing for different entities on opposite sides of legislation to take opposing views. It's another thing altogether for the same entity to take totally opposite positions at the exact same time to different groups of people. What is that? Schizophrenia? A political kind of insanity? Or just agenda taking priority at all times, at all costs and over all things including reason and common sense?

Does this administration not understand that they've made a conscious decision(!) to lie? Either to Congress or to the Supreme Court? That places them in technical legal contempt of court or contempt of Congress because one claim must be untrue. This administration has no problem being dishonest to one of the three brances of our federal government. Which implies that they'd have no problem being dishonest to either one or, by extension, to The People. And what about being consistent with, much less submissive to the Constitution? Isn't it therefore fair to assume that, to this administration, agenda trumps the Constitution if they can find any possible way make it submissive to that agenda rather than the other way around? Maybe that defines progressivism.

It turns this into a plausible, sensible question: how are we to know when/whether they're lying to the American people if they have no problem choosing(!) to lie to Congress or the Supreme Court for purely agenda-driven purposes? If they're willing to consciously lie to one of the branches of government this way, doesn't it mean that, to these people, agenda trumps honesty, integrity, principle, and even the Constitution ... at ALL times? The Constitution thereby being something to bend to the will of one's agenda, ie to progressivism.

The CLEAR bottom line: What's hilarious if it weren't so incompetent, this adminstration doesn't know OR care whether the penalites are taxes and will argue it whichever way meets the approval of whomever they're speaking to at any one time. Truth, integrity, principle, and even the Constitution are irrelevant. All that matters is getting their current audience whomever it is to believe what they're saying at any given moment so that ObamaCare (or any other item on their agenda) survives. Protecting that trumps everything, period, no exceptions. If they'll purposely distort truth before Congress and/or the Supreme Court, how much more easily are they capable (and driven!) to do the same with us citizens? Are you okay with that? I'm not!

In Fact, it's not even a rhetorical question any more ... they played the same truth-distorting game with us on this already! Do you remember when they were trying to get Americans' buy-in on ObamaCare and they encountered resistance because those penalties looked like taxes to us at the time? Do you remember that they already said to us before that these are not taxes? Doesn't it bother you that they're now before the Supreme Court arguing that they are taxes? Their lawyers believe these are not taxes but they have no difficulty telling us they aren't!!! So it isn't even a question whether they'll play games with and distort truth to us. They have already done so!!! Do we care about honesty and integrity in our president? I do!

Pay Attention To President Obama's Progressive Instincts Because A President's Instincts Matter

Heed Obama's instincts because they'll matter far more if he's re-elected!

ALL Liberty Is Under Assault By This Progressive Agenda, Not Just Religious Liberty!

We didn't need this current issue of HHS forcing religious organizations to provide contraceptives and the morning after abortion pill to know about President Obama's progressive instincts. But it surely provides added clarity for those of you who still don't get it or what's at stake because of it.

Three years ago he and a Democratic congress rammed ObamaCare down our throats, going out of their way to ignore(!) pleas by Congressional Republicans to at least debate the legislation. By unilaterally forcing it on Americans they put us on notice that they ARE(!) determined to do whatever they want, arrogantly refusing(!) to debate important legislation and thereby patently refusing to compromise. That they dare to claim high ground on compromise and blame lack of it on Republicans demonstrates both their arrogance and commitment to implementing a progressive agenda no matter what. That action on one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country's history proves clearly what their basic and default instincts are: No compromise! In fact, take no prisoners ... no mercy!

So, here we go again this week with their affirmation(!) that ObamaCare requires religious institutions to provide the forementioned 'medical' coverage. That they could utter those words in total defiance of constitutional principles ought to alarm everyone. That they subsequently capitulated to an outcry and backed off that requirement isn't the important news.

They do not deserve credit for being magnanimous or fair by changing their minds. If they were those things they wouldn't have implemented or later affirmed the requirement in the first place. They didn't change their minds because they saw the error in requiring such a thing. What's important is their arrogance even daring to make it a requirement in the first place and then in the face of strong opposition reaffirming it! The possibility of losing the Catholic vote is what made them change their minds, not an understanding(!) how wrong they were in the first place. The important lesson for us is that it demonstrates their instincts favoring(!) unilateral force (Compromise? What's that?), progessive agenda trumps all considerations and ignoring constitutional principles and laws that stand in their way. Have they apologized for going too far? Heck no! What they're sorry about is not getting what they still(!) want.

Why this is so important:
Their instincts have mattered these past three years. They will matter even more should they get another four years to push their progressive agenda. If you think the arrogance of this administration has been excessive his first term, just wait to see what a second term will bring when he's not constrained by re-election worries! And if Democrats should gain control of the House and Senate you will see a progressive assault on liberty, free enterprise and constitutional principles and freedoms that you or our founders never imagined possible in Our Republic.

Seriously President Obama, Please Put Some Effort Into Understanding What Leadership Is And Is Not

Here's an article that puts accurately into words/explanation what I've blogged all over the map about:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290203/out-touch-obama-michael-barone

Most people seem to think this kind of behavior is 'unpresidential' of him. For sure it's that in great degree but is too unspecific for me. To me, he's completely lacking in leadership skills. Divisive, aloof, no clue about team building much less teamwork, no clue about decision-making, no clue about how to do balanced budgets or why that and no debt are important.

It's sad for me to see this in a president. As I proudly(!) blogged on his inauguration day, "A genuinely momentus day in our history today as an African-American, Barack Obama, is sworn in as president! We pray for a new spirit of cooperation, mutual respect and responsibility throughout our country that focuses not on divisive attitudes but on resolving the problems we face with courage and resolve in God's good grace."

To say I'm disappointed is a huge understatement.

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.

Okay Folks, It IS Socialism

The Hill produced a piece titled "Obama's European blueprint bad for US" (by Judd Gregg) yesterday, January 30, 2012. The comments to that are full of rants by people claiming what the current administration has been doing is not socialism. Here's one comment for example: "That's not socialism.  I suggest you consult a dictionary.  Socialism is public ownership of the means of production.  None of Obama's proposals are remotely socialism.  And taxation is not socialism."

Here's my reply to his comment: Maybe you should read a dictionary too. Mirriam-Webster says socialism is: "any of various social systems based on shared or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods ". Note the word "shared". Our government owns most of several companies now and their control over all businesses and entire industries(!) is growing rapidly via regulations and 'rules'. It's fair to call this 'socialism lite' so far but there is no doubt we're on an increasingly socialistic trajectory. The "government's share" of ownership and control are both increasing. Also check Wikipedia: "A primary goal of socialism is social equity and a distribution of wealth based on one's contribution to society, and an economic arrangement that would serve the interests of society as a whole." President Obama and other progressives say the same thing ... ALL the time.

Please pay attention people! Socialism is NOT defined as ONLY government OWNERSHIP of the production and delivery of goods and services. Yes, it can involve outright ownership but the truth, in case you're interested in truth, is that "socialism" ALSO INCLUDES government CONTROL over those things. The whole point of socialism is that it's the counterpoint to the 'evils of capitalism'. The control over capitalism that socialists desire can be accomplished by outright ownership of businesses OR by controlling what they can and cannot do. That's not only common sense, it happens to be true by any respected definition of socialism. And to those favoring capitalism there is no difference in effect ... either approach accomplishes what socialists desire and what capitalists oppose.

Of course(!) you're entitled to believe that what President Obama is doing is good for the country but you're living in denial of fact to claim it's not socialism AND an increasingly socialistic trajectory he's putting us on. Your belief in his objectives makes you a socialist by definition. Denying it doesn't make it untrue. Why not just embrace the terminology when it's what you want? What are you afraid of? It's like someone saying I only eat vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and, perhaps some milk and cheese but that doesn't make me a vegetarian. C'mon folks! Just be honest.

On The Pipeline Deal The President Voted 'Present' ... Again

The president's excuse for disapproving the Canadian pipeline shows poor leadership skills. It's a teachable moment in which to describe what comprises good leadership skills regarding decision-making and doing what's best for the entity for whom you work.

Competent leaders keep an eye on key areas affecting a company's future so they can either take advantage of an opportunity before it evaporates or be properly prepared to say no to an opportunity rather than risk rushing into something that will most likely be bad for the entity. Note that I said properly prepared. The more important an area is to the entity's future, the bettter prepared competent leaders are to make a decision before any important deadlines occur after which the opportunity will evaporate.

Would you say that energy is one of our most important issues? President Obama claims it is. He has said so in pretty much every speech he's given as president or as a president candidate. It's important to the future of our energy supplies, to manufacturing, to our economy, and to national security, right? Problem is, after 3 years of evaluating the pipeline's impacts, President Obama is still not done getting information about its environmental impacts. Or so he claims.

A competent leader would have made sure he/she found out all he/she needed to know before Canada's deadline passed. It's irrational to think we couldn't have found out the answers to all relevant questions within three years. We've won world wars in less time and the people in this administration claim to be experts on the environment. Do you really think that this pipeline and its effects on the environment is as complex as winning those world wars? The president has a literal army of self-proclaimed experts looking into the environment issues, including thousands in the private and not-for-profit sectors and they can't figure out the impacts in approximately the time it took to win world wars?

So, either he and his administration are nowhere near as competent on environmental issues as they claim or his pipeline decision is strictly political. Neither answer ought to be acceptable to our citizens. This is too important an issue not to be prepared to make a decision by a deadline we knew has been coming for three years.

Real leaders take responsibility to make sure they're ready to make a decision on important issues based on merit (pros/cons) by deadlines beyond which a decision becomes moot. Real leaders find a way to be ready by deadlines in order to do the right thing for those for whom they work. Not being ready to make a decision is an abdication of responsibility. President Obama really didn't make a decision. In effect, he voted 'present' ... again.

So, we're going to let a very important opportunity pass that we may never get back because he didn't make sure that he knew enough to make a decision yet based on merit (pros/cons). Unacceptable sir. It's your job(!) to become ready. Making excuses for why you weren't ready is weak and irresponsible. You chose the worst of three options ... yes, for specific merit-based reasons, no, for specific merit-based reasons or I don't know yet. This is as weak as saying you didn't turn in your homework because the dog ate it. You knew when it was due. It was your responsibility to get it done on time.

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?

Martin Luther King And Our Founding Documents

It's becoming popular for people, including African Americans, to make a point of MLK's imperfections as a person. Of course it's useful to understand the person as well as his accomplishments but let's remember what he stood for. He was human but his message is good and right.

It has become 'popular' to call MLK's movement as one seeking "social justice" and that, in order to honor, respect and preserve what he started we should therefore extend his "fight for social justice". Unfortunately, that's a dishonest hijacking of his values for modern political correctness purposes.

In fact, Dr. King was a Christian first and his movement was "faith-based". What he pushed for was not secular, rather Christian. Judgement based on moral character was a pre-eminent need to him. To him, the expansion of and dependency on a welfare state would represent a failure of society, including African Americans who seem to have no problem with their increasing dependency resulting largely from a willingness to be okay with it. To Dr. King, this trend would no doubt represent a significant decrease in self-respect, a diminished will to succeed on one's own merit ... by choice more than by circumstances. Accepting the role of victim would be reviled by Dr. King.

Dr. King saw the original principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as foundational to economic and social freedom for all. He said(!), his dream was one "deeply rooted in the American dream" embedded in "the magnificent(!) words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence". He said as much many different times in many different ways but he believed it to be true. How one can say he didn't respect or love the principles(!) of those documents defies logic. To say he must not have really understood them is an ignorant thing to say about this man who studied philosophers and old cultures. He understood the value of those documents as unique(!) counterpoints to historical evils.

The greatest surviving highly politically correct claim is that those documents are racist in nature. Dr. King certainly didn't think so. Doesn't that matter? In fact, the most often repeated example is nothing but PC nonsense and twisting of historical truth for purely political purposes.

Yes, the Constitution made Blacks three fifths of a person ... for apportionment sake ... but one has to take it totally out of context to conclude it was racist in a negative sense. Southerners, a large Democratic(!) block of states in those days ("Dixiecrats"), wanted to preserve slavery and wanted to institutionalize it in the Constitution by counting slaves as whole persons for enumeration purposes but still not giving Blacks the right to vote. Being able to count slaves as whole persons without giving them the right to vote would have given Southern Democrats the POWER in congress to fight AGAINST freedom for slaves. The slaves wouldn't have gotten ANY more power by being counted as whole persons, only racist(!) Southern politicians would have been the benefactors!!!

The constitution convention delegates were faced with this dilemma. Either yield to Southern states and give them the power to resist freedom for slaves (by giving them enumeration numbers sufficient to do so, free of voting opposition by slaves) OR say no in which case the Southern states were prepared to remain separate from the United States. The former choice would, at a minimum delay freedom for slaves if not render it impossible and the latter would probably enshrine slavery as a fact of life in whatever country The South decided to create separate from the USA. Either way(!), southern slaves (minorities in general) would have been big losers if NOT for the three-fifths rule.

Then someone decided to try a compromise: count Blacks as three-fifths of a person. The southern states agreed to that because they thought they could still resist freedom for slaves (rights, voting, etc) while deriving the benefits from being part of a larger federation of states. What that three-fifths rule did was PRESERVE the ability of the Constitution's principles to migrate our laws to provide rights to minorities. Indeed, that the three-fifths law was eliminated is proof that the three-fifths approach worked. That would NOT have been possible if slaves had been counted as whole persons for enumeration sake without the ability to vote OR if the southern states had chosen to separate from the USA. If today's PC crowd had its way, slaves would have been counted as whole persons which probably would have led to the institutionalization of slavery in the South. Counting them as three-fifths of a person gave us the opportunity to overcome that detestable practice over time.

The Constitution, therefore, was ANTI-RACIST because the three-fifths compromise preserved the union in way that allowed us to eventually eliminate slavery in the South and give minorities all the rights that the Constitution promised. Without the three-fifths rule, the South would be far less free than it is today.

As far as Democrats being the historical fighters for minorities rights, that's complete nonsense. For nearly 200 years Democrats or those who were to become Democrats fought strongly for slavery and no rights for Blacks. In fact, they opposed most civil rights legislation until the 1940's. Too few people remember or know, for example, that it was Democrats who fought AGAINST the Civil Rights Act the strongest by a margin of 2 to 1 over Republicans. As recently as 50 years ago it was Democrats who outright fought for(!) segregation the most by far.

Don't believe the revisionist history of the PC left. MLK's movement was a faith-based movement for equal rights. He was a strong believer in "natural rights", ie, God-given rights, which was the basis for the way our founders constructed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. MLK loved the principles of the Constitution. The Constitution that MLK loved was and is NOT a racist document, rather it held the Union together (for the benefit of southern slaves) and set us on a trajectory to eliminate discrimination. Yes, we're not done getting rid of it even yet but we're still headed in the right direction.

In case you're thinking I have no clue what was going on regarding MLK's movement and my opinions are therefore invalid, I lived in the Biloxi Mississippi area in 1964/1965. Those of you who might criticize me but didn't experience real racism in that place/time may want to consider I just might have a better perspective. Even though I am a conservative.

By the way, you might find the following links interesting backup for my comments above. They don't talk about Democrat opposition to the CRA (Civil Rights Act) but that's a matter of public record easily found on the internet.
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/01/a-dream-not-an-illusion
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/30/martin-luther-king-holds-these-truths/
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/01/martin-luther-kings-conservative-legacy
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-conservative-virtues-of-dr-martin-luther-king

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.

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?