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

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



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

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

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

Sad. Sooooooooo Sad!

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

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

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

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

(Lack Of) Military Support For Afghanistan Withdrawal Plan

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

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

The President Needs To Take Some Economics Classes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rapidly Increasing Price Of Used Cars And Older Car Parts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Matthews ... Funny Without Even Trying To Be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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