Secretary of State Clinton Resigns

The election is over, President Barack Obama wins a second term.  His administration slowly begins hinting that the  atrocity in Benghazi came as a result of lax management at the State Department and that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was assessing the situation.  The media picked up on the line and began an accelerating diminishment of the secretary.  The day after his inauguration his administration releases a press release accepting her resignation.  Immediately denials commenced from the State Department with the administration suggesting that the release was "unauthorized" and only a draft based upon private conversations.  Several noisy days later the Secretary of State offered her resignation saying she had fulfilled her goals she had set out when she first accepted the position. She is "looking forward to rejoining private life out of the spotlight".  The president "reluctantly" accepted it, saying it while was lamentable that the incident in Libya put a cloud over her career otherwise highly successful.

To paraphrase: Hilary Clinton was pushed under the bus to obfuscate President Obama's poor record in foreign affairs.  Mr. Obama diminished her future possibilities as a presidential candidate.

The Obama Basketball Athletic Management Association

The Obama Basketball Athletic Management Association (“League”) for the 2013 – 2014 season.

A brief summary of the revised rules of the League are as follows:

The fifteen players on each team were deemed terminated as of the 2012 – 2013 season end, April 30, 2013.  Any extended or other contractual provision for any player was subject to mandatory mediation as managed by the U. S. Government, Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service.

The new season began July 1, 2013, with a new draft which was and in the future always will be a random selection of citizens throughout the United States between the age of eighteen and forty-five with a fifteen day opt-in or -out requirement for each citizen so selected.  The ultimate makeup of each team of fifteen players as closely as possible shadowed the population of the United States as a whole, with regard only to sex and race as defined in the U. S. Department of Census in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).  One player in each team must be wheelchair-bound.  Salaries will be $250,000 per year with the working conditions and hours as elucidated in OBAMAOSH (the Obama Basketball Athletic Management Association Occupational, Safety and Health contract, a cross-disciplinary contract concerned with protecting the safety, health and welfare of OBAMA players to foster a safe, healthy and gentle work environment). 

The Rules of Play include:

The game is played according to the Fourteen Official Rules of the Obama Basketball Athletic Management Association (“FOROBAMA”) revised as of May 15, 2013.                

Significantly Revised Rule 1: At the beginning of each game the chief official opens a new deck of regulation bridge playing cards, shuffles according to the shuffle clause of OBAMAOSH.  Three cards are dealt to each team captain.  The numbers of the three cards (as indicated, with jack=11, queen=12, king=13, ace=14) are added together to establish the beginning score of each team.

Significantly Revised Rule 14: With the Official Clock time being one (1) second remaining in the fourth (4^th) quarter, an official timeout is automatically called.  The chief official and two team coaches gather in front of the official scorer.  That official scorer delivers the official score.  The excess number of points of one team over another team is calculated by subtraction.  That result is added to the score of the lowest-scoring team.  The Official Clock is restarted and the game ends.

  

It is frequently asked, “How did this League come about?”  The answer is simple.  After reelection in November of 2013 the President of the United States, Barack Obama, issued an Executive Order, number 13641 as published in the Federal Register May 6, 2013.   It in essence quasi-nationalized the National Basketball Association (“NBA”) and renamed it with new rules and regulations. 

Executive Order number 13641 declared the NBA to be a non-bank financial firm under the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”) which is chaired by the U. S. Treasury Secretary as promulgated by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“D-FWSRCPA”).  The Order further declared that the NBA was deemed to be a systemically important financial institution (“SIFI” or “too big to fail”) and a risk to the financial soundness of the United States of America (“USA”).  Additionally, the Order declared a national emergency to deal with such risk and while it was not nationalized board of directors of the NBA was directed to adopt specific new rules and regulations under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Department of Justice (“Justice”) with the possibility that Justice could appoint a majority of the directors.

The media was caught completely unaware of the unexpected order and was livid at being left out of the loop entirely.  The minority Republican Party howled with indignation.  It was immediately challenged in court by a number of Republican state attorneys general.  The Attorney General of the United States arranged to have the whole issue brought forth for review by the United States Supreme Court.  After the angry public reaction, including threatened lawsuits by owners, players’ agents and unions, television networks and consumer groups that had the tort bar celebrating, the Supreme Court decided to take up the matter. 

In a surprise rarely, or if ever encountered in American history, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas strangely announced their immediate resignations mere days before that NBA announcement day.  While the spokespeople for both former justices refused to issue statements or make any comment, the Internet blogosphere was full of gossip about both men beginning new careers, each with a newly-formed, non-profit, non-governmental organization funded to the tune of $100,000,000 by institutions connected to or funded by billionaire international investor George Soros.  However as of the date of this article such gossip has not been verified.  Later, the reduced court ruled 6-1 in favor of the President’s right to issue such an order and for the Justice Department to carry it out.

The Subjugation of the Democrats

The Chicago strike by its teachers union boss and the feint of settlement (and kids returning to their miserably-failed schools)  to Mayor Rahm has to embarrass Obama's close bud.  And it is telling Democrats "We don't need you anymore except to give us fat pay, great healthcare, expensive pensions, little measurement, jobs-for-life and easy work." And no doubt Obama's henchmen are leaning on Obama's former henchman-in-chief to give in, give up and get the strike over.  And he will cave, no doubt about it, but first the union has to rub the Democrats' face in the mud. That has been done.

Is this the coming end of the union middleman - the Democratic Party?  Or just further subjugates it to the unreal demands of the unions.

Who's in Charge?

From the Arab Spring with a preening Sexy Prexy trying to be beloved
to
The Arab Fall.

Is Egypt our ally?
Is Egypt our enemy?
Is Obama in charge?
Is anyone in charge?

Freedom's Just another word for Vote Romney.  Because President Obama doesn't seem to have a clue.

His man, Rahm, can't control the Democrats' financial agency, the Chicago Teachers' Union.  300,000 kids - most who wouldn't graduate anyway, so who cares - without a place to go ecause teachers don't want to be judged.      

His Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, charged up the stock market.  The Rich Get Richer, thanks to Barack and Ben.  Ben's printing $40,000,000,000 to buy mortgages.  The goal: Reelect President Obama and keep his own job.  Dow is 13,539.86.  Wish Social Security had believed in America and invested in. The American Economy, not loaned it to the Dmocratic Party for it to buy votes for election and reelection.

But he has destroyed the private sector student loan industry and added a trillion dollars to U. S. obligations. He has fixed prices of many banks' product offerings and forced them to offer products he wanted.  He as severely reduced the profitability of the healthcare industry.  He has tried (and thankfully failed) to stop the Boeing Company opening a thousand-employee non-union airplane plant in. On-union South Carolina, but has manipulated labor laws to anable easy in unionization.

But he has succeeded in getting gay people into the U. S. armed forces.  And he has ignored laws
passed by Congress and signed into law by former presidents.  The Defense of Marriage Act.  He has dictated freedom for young illegal immigrants under certain conditions.

And all that's just off the top of my head.

Obamerika or Team America

Obamerika or Team America

 

“And as president, I…reject the idea that if we just reward those at the top, that somehow that’s going to work for everybody – ‘cause that hasn’t been how America got built.”  This quote, which reinforces and upstages President Obama’s by now well-known and sometimes ridiculed phrase, “You didn’t build that”, was published in Parade Magazine (inserted in many Sunday newspapers on September 2, 2012, page 9 and 10).  It represents the antithesis of the American way;  those “at the top” haven’t been “rewarded” by the “we” or anybody, it has been their individual stories which incorporate intelligence, experience, passion, tenacity and luck, combined with America’s innovative financial industry.  All this within a sometimes chaotic system of free enterprise built upon the brilliance of our Founding Fathers’ political inventions.  The few “at the top” is exactly “how America got built” –  they began at the bottom in the scrum of Team America  –  Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, J. P. Morgan,  George Washington and George Washington Carver, Eli Whitney, Benjamin Franklin, Henry Ford, Herman Hollerith, John D. Rockefeller and Bill Gates, to name a few.  None of this was done by bureaucrats in Washington, D. C., but by individuals seeking to better themselves and their neighbors who rise to the top in competition with everyone else in what is the magical chaos of free enterprise.

 

This highlights the clear and stark choice in the upcoming election.  Do we want a country governed by an oligarchy of elites led by a single man who wants to take a hard left from the foundations upon which this country was built?  Or do we want to continue on the zig-zagging path which has led to the most prosperous, most free country in the history of the world?  With that comes the fits and starts from the chaos of freedom – and free enterprise, the democracy of commerce.  This leader, Mitt Romney, has a history of hiring smart people and working with them to success.

 

On September 3, 2012, the U.S. population was 314,295,369 as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau.  The human body contains 4,600,000,000,000,000 strands, give or take since it’ll take a long time to count each one, of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).  About 99.9% of it is common from body to body, leaving approximately 4.6 trillion of the little buggers being different from person to person. Taken all together, that’s a lot of difference from U. S. person to U. S. person, diversity of you will.

 

This is a lot of data with way too many variables for any computer or mega-systems of combined computers to be able to model (not to mention the impossibility of humans being even able to agree on what are the variables).  Yet government experts are trusted to write rules by which we are to live our lives by predicting how such rules will cause each of us to act.  A dictionary full of acronymic government agencies determine what we should buy, what we should eat, what we should wear, what we should drive, where and in what we should live, with whom we should associate, where we should…well, just about everything we do.  These rules micromanage our lives.  This is labeled “social policy”, a bed rock of the Democratic Party belief system.  Any social policy gives control over the freedoms of the individual to a small number of powerful elites.  Yet today our government elites can’t even predict with accuracy economic activity, nor the weather nor even corn prices in any predictable way.  You and I could guess with better accuracy.  (Even a dead clock is accurate twice a day!)  

 

In 1955 about 4,100,000 babies were born in the United States.  Of them only .00024% was Steve Jobs.  You double that when Bill Gates is added.  Who could have identified either of them at birth to become who they became?  Does this argue for more central control, maybe eliminating the consequential impact of people like these two, or the messiness of free enterprise with the “survival of the fittest” achieving prosperity for society as a whole as have Jobs and Gates.  President Obama chose Solyndra, free enterprise chose Apple.

 

Medicare rules, regulations and laws consist of over 150,000 pages of intricate, many times incomprehensible words, and this even before ObamaCare.  At any time any participant in Medicare is breaking some law; probably a felony. 

 

Is this really what we as a society desire or deserve?  These laws were written by a small number individual human beings trying to predict or direct the future behavior of human beings.  Belief in this central control is like believing in an unseeable God.

 

Yet that will be Obamerika.  Where the government eliminates dignity and substitutes dependency.

"You didn't build it...and we rewarded you"

You all must remember when President Obama said, and I quote: "If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." While the Left backpeddled and obfuscated, those were his words. "Someone else made that happen", "that" meaning "a business". Clear enough. But in today's puff piece (September 2, 2012, cover and page 6) in the Parade sixteen-page throwaway in your local newspaper (here in Seattle, the Seattle Times) President Obama said that he rejects "...the idea that if we just reward those at the top..." So the president not only believes that you didn't build your company OR earn the financial success in doing so because "we" -- meaning maybe society or the government, or perhaps Barry and Michelle -- "rewarded" you. Then he said that achievement and success of the few -- Oh, say, George Washington, J. P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, General Motors, R. H. Macy, the Nordstroms, Howard Schultz -- "HASN'T BEEN HOW AMERICA GOT BUILT".

Then I ask you, Mr. President, just how did America get built?

God-given Rights and nature-given truths

The Declaration of Independence declares that there are certain truths granted by God, or if one prefers, nature.  And in thinking about it, they all seem logical.

All men are created equal; "man" includes women, of course.  The equality part means that to be born, we are all equal in that we have:  Life, which is a given if we are born.  Liberty was a new concept back then given a long history of kings, nobility having ownership, virtual or not over all the rest of us.  But why shouldn't all of us have it?  The Pursuit of Happiness, whatever it is and however each of us choose to use our freedom to pursue it.  Equality clearly doesn't mean equality as in we are all the same.  That also is clear given height, weight, health and IQ of newborns.

To secure these things anarchy hadn't worked nor absolute kingships.  So governments had to be invented in order to secure the above.  And it happened.  Those unequal men of the U. S. Revolution not only led Americans in war, and won it, but did invent the most innovative government structure ever invented.  (On its second try!)

Back then life in America was hard-scrabble and bereft of physical comfort.  From that came what we have and what we are today. 

There were two underlying foundations of the United States.  One was a God.  The other was commerce.

Today both are under fire.

AKIN propaganda

Winning isn't everything.  Maybe for the Liberals, but look at what havoc that has reaped on the United States.  But the Bush/Republicans didn't stop the trajectory.  I know nothing about Akin, except that he has been blasted beyond recognition by the media and the Left (well, that's the same thing) as expected.  But by the Right?  That's shameful and indicative of the hopelessness of this election.  Republicans in lockstep at the bidding of the Left-wing media simply abandoned a viable candidate, Akin.  The reason the Republicans might not win the Senate is right there in their typical action: don't upset the Left-wing media that hates them and that for which they stand.  It is same old, same old, reason they always lose, and might again.

Akin's comments - taken wrong, probably on purpose - weren't off the mark.  A woman's body INVOLUNTARILY  can and in some unknown number of cases does reject a foreign body when it (her body) is under duress such as in rape.  The woman's body reacts and she has no control over such rejection or not.  I believe that the notion of voluntary - her "choice" not to get pregnant - is the purposeful misinformation by the Left of what he meant.  Such bodily rejection action is completely out of her control, but as with organ rejection is either done or not done involuntarily by the body.

SECOND CIVIL WAR

Who dies, the Democratic Party or the United States of America?  The choice is stark, but clear.  This is the Second Civil War for the soul of the America.  A country formed for freedom, for the Rule of Law, for private ownership, for equality (of opportunity) and for commerce.   It is the choice between the prosperity of free enterprise or the bureaucratic swamp of failure. Of choices made BY YOU or FOR YOU by a cadre of elites in Washington, D.C.  Of  capitalism or regulation, price fixing and micromanagement.  For the benefit of those seeking prosperity and betterment or those seeking (buying) reelection.  

It is up to you.

Our Society is Doomed

"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed."


--- Ayn Rand

HOT AIR OR OIL? 19,000,000 acres in the desert covered up or 23,000,000 acres in far away Alaska may be drilled. You choose which sounds best.

President Obama -- certainly without considering the upcoming election -- is thinking about possibly proposing the possibility of opening up for application to the Interior Department, EPA, OPA 23,000,000 acres in the National Petroleum Reserve, a remote wilderness in the far reaches of Alaska that no one would want to visit, as his "preferred alternative" out of four of them to have a few holes drilled looking for oil and natural gas deposits there.  This selection over the others would slam shut the door on tens of millions of acres of major government oil and gas holdings nearby.  Environmentalists cheered.  (Something's wrong.)

President Obama -- certainly without considering the upcoming election -- will approve, allow and encourage his favorite little taxpayer-financed industry -- 19,000,000 acres of readily-accessable vacationland to be covered with solar panels.  Starting with an immediate construction permit on 285,000 acres -- hundreds of thousands of individual solar panels littering desertland and pristine wilderness -- and streamlining regulations (wow, streamlining regulations!) of the National Environmental Policy Act while cutting up-front fees (saving taxpayers giving taxpayer money to the government, go figure)!  $9,000,000,000 of taxpayer monies went to such boondoggles from President Obama from 2009 through 2011.  Snail darters, owls, desert tortoises and bighorn sheep might suffer and ultimately millions of acres strangled of light.  But hey, metal structures convered with massive semiconductor panels are much prettier than nature anyway.  Environmentalists cheered.  (Something's wrong.)

President Obama also arbitrarily closed down the possibility of obtaining shale oil off of federal lands from the 2005 Energy Policy Act passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush.

You want economic growth?  It takes energy that for the forseeable future can ONLY come from natural gas, oil and natural coal.

President Obama prefers to buy oil for the energy needs of the United States from Saudi Arabia.


Makes you think.

You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet!

As I have been strenuously arguing for years, the Left has no bounds, no limits; it will do and say anything to gain and retain its power, raw power over the rest of us. The Republicans play by their (Republicans') self-imposed rules of modesty, politeness and fairness. AND THEY HAVE BEEN LOSING MORE OR LESS FOR 75 YEARS!




Can't they catch a clue?



The Sexy Prexy will use every ounce of asset of the strongest country in history for one reason: to get himself reelected. Why does he want reelection? First, because he loves the easy, fat, cushy job itself. He can preen and have crowds admire and clap. He can read BS on his Teleprompter and have it repeated ad nauseum by the fawning media.  Ohhh, Ahhh!  He spouts inaccuries and outright made-up lies. 



Second, he wants to get reelected to show his worthless, drunk, abandoning father that he (Obama) is worthy.



Third, he wants to change the United States into a dictatorship (benigh,like they all are) with him at the helm to improve everyone's lives in the world to they way he wants.



So ladies and gentlemen, you ain't seen nothin' yet.



(The arrest of a top Goldman or other bank CEO should probably happen October 15!)     Will Mitt Romney get MAD?  Paul Ryan will!  Let's hope and pray they win the election...this the Second Civil War of the United States of America!

Did Al Gore really invent the Internet? Did the "government"?

President Obama:  "The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

1.  Well, no "government research" did not invent the Internet.
2.  It is so off-the-charts strange that President Obama would say that government research created the Internet "so that all the companies could make money off the Internet".
While much of President Obama’s speech gets mocked (Opinion, July 23, “Who Really Invented the Internet?”) I have not read one word about what is the most over-the-top weird sentence of the speech, perhaps of everything President Obama has ever said. Here it is: “Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." His contention about who “invented” the Internet – government research -- is factually incorrect (as is typical it was not one person or thing, it was a small string of predecessor inventions by individuals capped by Xerox PARC laboratories) as the L. Gordon Crovitz article writes. But the reason it was invented was, Mr. Obama said, “so that all the companies” – whatever “all the companies” means – “could make money off” – as if the money is just “made” without any human entrepreneurial intervention. And the term, “make money off” seems simply sophomoric. More than his other sentences, this one seems the most confused and incomprehensible. Not only is government research basic, not applied, its goal is not so companies can make money, whatever that really means. I need to stop here. Mr. Obama’s speech stands on his own, as is Mr. Obama’s confusion.

Crushed speech

It is not about religion.  It is not about chicken.  It is about freedom of speech.  Unarguable elected politicians of Left-wing cities are threatening a privately-held, major job creating company for its CEO's comments.

If that doesn't frighten and enlighten I know nothing any Democrat does will.  You should be enlightened because this is the future under Democrats: speech, mind and thought control.  Anti-Left-wing speech is crushed.  The actions of at this point only a few politicians, but many, many Left-wing citizens should give you a view of what they want in the future.

Frightening.

Vore for Freedom: Vote for Romney.

ANOTHER KILLER

Another killer emerged in Aurora, Colorado.  There can be no doubt reasonable or unreasonable that the man did the reprehensible, cowardly act.  No doubt.

But in our present society which protects the individual instead of society, the man will spend upwards of $50,000,000 of taxpayers' dollars and twenty or thirty years until he is "brought to justice".[sic]

The brilliant Founding Fathers and authors of our Constitution invented a true justice system that sought the truth.  Together the prosecutors and defenders wanted a fair outcome.  No guarantees of perfection, since human beings invented and must operate it, but as fair a system to society as possible. 

That has been destroyed by the so-called "progressive" or liberal philosophy (of electing Democrats) which protects the individual over society.  Not the greatest good for the greatest number.  To them it is "us vs them" where a defendant has more rights than society and those rights are strictly designed to allow a defending lawyer to use anything, truth or fiction, to win freedom for his client.  It is not the truth he or she is after, it is winning.  Even when winning means letting a killer free.  Because in winning the attorney gains notoriety which brings him fame and fortune.  The spotlight!  That overwhelms in our progressive society.

There is no doubt this killer killed all 12 innocent Americans.  No doubt.  Yes, he is presumed innocent and should be.  But his lawyers should be charged with getting to the truth not getting him off by any tortured means they can invent.  We all know the truth: the man killed.  Why devote $50,000,000 and twenty years?

I am sure there are those who want to consider the man's upbringing and his motives to ameliorate his punishment.  There are those who will blame society, capitalism, competition whatever.  Regardless, I can't believe anyone would think that he did not perform those insane random murders.

Is it time to discuss the issue of the individual versus society as a whole?  It can't happen in our environment where about half of the country (Democrats) don't want any discussion of anything troubling, they want their views upheld and legislated.  PERIOD!

Now this killer doesn't have to worry about studying for this Ph. D. or experiencing excruciating oral exams.  He will live off society and enjoy publicity and fame for twenty or thirty years, or the rest of his life.

We are on a fullcrum.  Vote Obama for more of the same.  Vote Romney for true change with hope for a free future where society can be supported over one individual.

President Obama a Killer.

• President Obama has taken for himself the right to arbitrarily kill innocent people - people not indicted, tried nor found guilty of anything.

  
  

  Obama is, therefore, a killer. He has ordered the deaths of American citizens and recently in Pakistan, another human being: Abu Yahya al-Libi. Do you or I know what this man did? Was he found guilty of anything? Under our laws, he is, therefore, innocent. Yet, our president ordered him killed. I have no idea what this man did or did not do, and I will never know. If that isn't frightening ...to all American citizens I don't know what is.
  
  You Democrats who read the NY Times and saw the networks excoriate former president Bush for "enhanced interrogation" -- waterboarding included -- and agreed that his actions were wrong, against the law and against humanity ("torture") , how can you condone arbitrary killings ordered by our president? HAVE YOU EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT IT? What if it was a mistake and many, many innocent human beings have been killed by these drones. "Collaterial damage".
  
  You Democrats who are against capital punishment, after trials by juries of peers, and appeal after appeal, typically twenty years and $20,000,000 how can you accept arbitrary killings with the president of the United States being sole judge, jury and executioner by proxy. HOW CAN ANY OF YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELVES?

THEY THINK WE'RE STUPID

Yes, the Left, the so-called Progressives (sic) think we average Americans are stupid.

The Progressives (sic) think that they really know better than you do what cereals to buy your kids? They think you are stupid because you don't understand difference between Tony the Tiger and whole grains. They think you as a consumer need the government's protection. They think you are stupid because you (of course none of them) paid and borrowed too much for housing and didn't understand the mortgage documents as they clearly do, being much smarter than you.  They think you are fat because of schools or food companies.  You know it's because you choose to eat and not exercise.  After all, health care and insurance costs -- courtesy of the government price fixing -- are the same for you if you're obese, anorexic or average, so where's any incentive not to eat and watch TV?

Why can a government gaggle of bureaucrats know more about what you want and need better than you can for yourself?


Those few -- Democrat autocrat-wanna-bes -- cannot foretell the future any better than you or I can. But they want to tell us how to lead our lives, what to buy, what to eat, how to borrow, what to pay executives, how to manage companies. (Do THEY live their lives any better? Do THEY buy more intelligently? Do THEY eat better? Do THEY borrow more smartly? Do THEY have successful experience in hiring executives who can manage companies profitably? Have THEY ever managed a company or even managed people before? Have the actual policies they have passed over the past 75 years reduced poverty, increased affordable healthcare, expanded and improved education?)  Any review of all the government projection errors, from corn prices to Solyndra, from unemployment statistics to Federal Reserve growth projections to gas prices proves the government bureaucrats can't guess any better than you or I, yet they are running your lives.  That could be spelled r u i n i n g.

The government of the Democrats thinks that you and I all are too stupid to survive without the government watching out over us.  This is the same government that takes money only from the successful -- whom they politically, and falsely, label the 1%, but is closer to 30% -- whom they think are the only ones who can succeed without government assistance.  But is that true?  Are the rest of us -- the 99% or 70% -- really unable to cope with our lives without Democratic Party overseers telling us how to? 

No!  So tell them in November to give us back our freedom.

We don't need Superman to bring back truth, justice and the American Way, we need President Romney!

One of the experienced, successful 55% who pay federal income taxes.  He can help the remaining 45% get to an income level so you, too, are able to contribute to the American Way on your own.

The issue of the conservatives (sic) versus the Progressives (sic)  is not ideas -- conservative or progressive (sic) -- it is power. For the most part the Left has it because the arms of communication, the media, the educational system is under the spell of the Left. Propaganda Power leans left.


Then there's the 88 major union bosses and myriad trial lawyers put into power and riches through legislation who in turn shower the proceeds of legislation (monopoly dues extraction and class-action settlements) into the Democratic Party which writes.

The Right has been busy creating companies, jobs and prosperity allowing the Left to use that wealth to gain and retain power. The Right tends toward modesty and restraint, the Left anything but. So the Left will do anything for that power, and does. We have a president that will stop at nothing to be reelected, using the entire asset base of the United States of America, lawful or not, he cares not, since power and "truth" is in the hands of the winner.

The terms "conservative" and "progressive" are inaccurate.  The so-called conservatives do not want the status quo of union boss power, a huge centralized government, dictatoral powers by the president and entrenched politicians.  The so-called Progressives are not progressive, they have the power and want to keep it using any means available, including dividing the population into discrete groups and showering each with something for which they'll vote in the Progressives

The Right has to change to win this Second Civil War, the second internal war for the survival of the United States and that for which it stands.  It needs to keep to its ideals, but become winner-take-all fighters for truth, justice (equally for all no matter wealth or nose color), and the American Way.

Good Job, Mr. President, except...

GROWTH IN GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (USA)
Eleven quarters since the official end of a recession
Under President Barack Obama    Under President Ronald Reagan
2.4%                                                                 6.1%

Over the last year GDP has grown by $600,000,000,000;
The deficit by $1,300,000,000,000

I applaud you, Mr. President!

I applaud you, Mr. President.  You just conceived and assembled a  fail-safe method of bringing to an abrupt end any and all future genocide.  (Why weren't you around when Adolf Hitler was visiously attacking and arbitrarily killing one single targeted entity -- Jews -- for political and ideological reasons?)  The United States Atrocities Prevention Board.  YES!  As you so aptly and emotionally stated in your speech: "Never again."  Such a brilliant turn of a word.  Interagency it'll be and permanent with members from the Department of the Treasury, State Department, and U. S. Department of Defense, while chaired by Samantha Powers, the National Security Council senior director for multilateral and humanitarian affairs.  (Appropriate name, hers.)

"National sovereignty is never a license to slaughter...And when the Lord’s Resistance Army led by Joseph Kony continued its atrocities in Central Africa, I ordered a small number of American advisors to help Uganda and its neighbors pursue the LRA.  And when I made that announcement, I directed my National Security Council to review our progress after 150 days.  We have done so, and today I can announce that our advisors will continue their efforts to bring this madman to justice..."  That'll stop him.

Our president demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of his government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath Party rule.  Well, keep talking Mr. President, while another ten thousand Syrians get killed.  But hey, that's not the Holocaust.

"And our diplomacy continues, because in Darfur, in Abyei, in Southern Kordofan and the Blue Nile, the killing of innocents must come to an end..."  Sometime; until then, we have the Board.

"That does not mean that we intervene militarily every time there’s an injustice in the world.  We cannot and should not.  It does mean we possess many tools -- diplomatic and political, and economic and financial, and intelligence and law enforcement and our moral suasion.."

Keep talking, President Obama...

     I am hoping (against hope) that Romney will eschew the Republican fear of not being popular in the New York Times. Mr. Romney: the Times will try to seduce you by playing nice, then attempt to crush your every breath. It has worked for decades and look at where we are: nearing moral and financial bankruptcy. Of the media, only MSNBC is honest: it is the far-left mouthpiece of the Progressives. And for the rest of you America-loving voters: invest in your future, invest in Romney and conservative members of Congress. Yes, keep your nose to the grindstone (the government won’t pay YOU, only left-wing “activists”) but pay and stay in the fight against unions, trial lawyers, George Looney and Barack Obama. They want to own you and crush freedom and free enterprise. Donate and talk to everyone, convince only one person about how dangerous the Progressive agenda is, and we — America — will win.

Does Candidate Romney have an O'Bomb?

It has been almost four years since Mitt Romney watched John McCain take the Republican nomination from him.  Four years!  Has Mr. Romney been sitting around shrewedly investing his well-earned fortune?  Or has he been carefully preparing for the moment when the Republican nomination is his?  Has he been investing in his future by carefully and legally combing every possible record, locating and interviewing (or having interviewed) people with whom Barack Obama had some relationship back in his Hawaiian or Occidental College days?  The so-called popular media has had no interest in the real Barack Obama for fear it might derail their careful narrative of the country's first African American president.  And so far in 2012 there is nothing about President Obama's background unearthed.  It is almost as though he never existed, never had a footprint.  Who financed his college and post graduate education?  What were his grades, extracurricular activities, writings?  No one seems to know.  And the extent they care depends on whether they are liberal Progressives caring only about keeping their pet president in office even though his true accomplishments are scant; or Republican conservatives who seem to want him, his philosophies, policies and personnel out.

Stay tuned for some answers.

Most of us are average

The Far-left indoctrinates kids to "change the world" and that they all are "special". Truth is: most of us are average. A tiny, tiny few will ever change anything but many if not most are made to feel guilty for being simply average and not trying to change the world. The basis of  democracy and, for that matter capitalism, lies in each person living their lives for themselves not others.  The People -- everyone together -- make decisions for themselves, which in the main become best for the most people.  More people are happy simply making themselves happy. Isn't THAT the goal of a life?  For the Founders of country the pursuit of happiness was paramount.  The Progressive mantra of change and equality is a huge lie for them to gain power. Period.  So I say worry about yourself first, if everyone does that, the world will be a better place.  But with that pursuit of happiness must come self-discipline along with written rules of law which are obeyed.  Happiness is not pursuing pleasure with abandon, that also seems to be part of the Progressive mantra.

Here's the article from the Seattle Times today that brought on my post:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2017976951_brooks15.html

If you attend a certain sort of conference, hang out at a certain sort of coffee shop or visit a certain sort of university, you've probably run into some of these wonderful young people who are doing good. Typically, they've spent a year studying abroad. They've traveled in the poorer regions of the world. Now they have devoted themselves to a purpose larger than self.

Often they are bursting with enthusiasm for some social entrepreneurship project: making a cheap water-purification system, starting a company that will empower Rwandan women by selling their crafts in boutiques around the world.

These people are refreshingly un-cynical. Their hip service ethos is setting the moral tone for the age. Idealistic and uplifting, their worldview is spread by enlightened advertising campaigns, from Bennetton years ago to everything Apple has ever done.

It's hard not to feel inspired by all these idealists, but their service religion does have some shortcomings. In the first place, many of these social entrepreneurs think they can evade politics. They have little faith in the political process and believe that real change happens on the ground beneath it.

That's a delusion. You can cram all the nongovernmental organizations you want into a country, but if there is no rule of law and if the ruling class is predatory then your achievements won't add up to much.

Furthermore, important issues always spark disagreement. Unless there is a healthy political process to resolve disputes, the ensuing hatred and conflict will destroy everything the altruists are trying to build.

There's little social progress without political progress. Unfortunately, many of today's young activists are really good at thinking locally and globally, but not as good at thinking nationally and regionally.

Second, the prevailing service religion underestimates the problem of disorder. Many of the activists talk as if the world can be healed if we could only insert more care, compassion and resources into it.

History is not kind to this assumption. Most poverty and suffering — whether in a country, a family or a person — flows from disorganization. A stable social order is an artificial accomplishment, the result of an accumulation of habits, hectoring, moral stricture and physical coercion. Once order is dissolved, it takes hard measures to restore it.

Yet one rarely hears social entrepreneurs talk about professional policing, honest courts or strict standards of behavior; it's more uplifting to talk about microloans and sustainable agriculture.

In short, there's only so much good you can do unless you are willing to confront corruption, venality and disorder head-on. So if I could, presumptuously, recommend a reading list to help these activists fill in the gaps in the prevailing service ethos, I'd start with the novels of Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler, or at least the movies based on them.

The noir heroes like Sam Spade in "The Maltese Falcon" served as models for a generation of Americans, and they put the focus squarely on venality, corruption and disorder and how you should behave in the face of it.

A noir hero is a moral realist. He assumes that everybody is dappled with virtue and vice, especially himself. He makes no social-class distinction and only provisional moral distinctions between the private eyes like himself and the criminals he pursues. The assumption in a Hammett book is that the good guy has a spotty past, does spotty things and that the private eye and the criminal are two sides to the same personality.

He (or she — the women in these stories follow the same code) adopts a layered personality. He hardens himself on the outside in order to protect whatever is left of the finer self within.

He is reticent, allergic to self-righteousness and appears unfeeling, but he is motivated by a disillusioned sense of honor. The world often rewards the wrong things, but each job comes with obligations and even if everything is decaying you should still take pride in your work. Under the cynical mask, there is still a basic sense of good order, that crime should be punished and bad behavior shouldn't go uncorrected. He knows he's not going to be uplifted by his work; that to tackle the hard jobs he'll have to risk coarsening himself, but he doggedly plows ahead.

This worldview had a huge influence as a generation confronted crime, corruption, fascism and communism. I'm not sure I can see today's social entrepreneurs wearing fedoras and trench coats. But noir's moral realism would be a nice supplement to today's prevailing ethos. It would fold some hardheadedness in with today's service mentality. It would focus attention on the core issues: order and rule of law.

And it would be necessary. Contemporary Washington, not to mention parts of the developing world, may be less seedy than the cities in the noir stories, but they are equally laced with self-deception and self-dealing.

The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

Excellent assessment by black author Shelby Steele:  (From The Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2012, page A15.)

OPINION Updated April 4, 2012, 7:17 p.m. ET Shelby Steele: The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin


The absurdity of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is that they want to make a movement out of an anomaly. Black teenagers today are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites.Article Comments (665) more in Opinion

By SHELBY STEELE

Two tragedies are apparent in the Trayvon Martin case. The first is obvious: A teenager—unarmed and committing no crime—was shot dead. Dressed in a "hoodie," a costume of menace, he crossed paths with a man on the hunt for precisely such clichés of menace. Added to this—and here is the rub—was the fact of his dark skin.

Maybe it was more the hood than the dark skin, but who could argue that the skin did not enhance the menace of the hood at night and in the eyes of someone watching for crime. (Fifty-five percent of all federal prisoners are black though we are only 12% of the population.) Would Trayvon be alive today had he been walking home—Skittles and ice tea in hand—wearing a polo shirt with an alligator logo? Possibly. And does this make the ugly point that dark skin late at night needs to have its menace softened by some show of Waspy Americana? Possibly.

What is fundamentally tragic here is that these two young males first encountered each other as provocations. Males are males, and threat often evokes a narcissistic anger that skips right past reason and into a will to annihilate: "I will take you out!" There was a terrible fight. Trayvon apparently got the drop on George Zimmerman, but ultimately the man with the gun prevailed. Annihilation was achieved.

If this was all there was to it, the Trayvon/Zimmerman story would be no more than a cautionary tale, yet another admonition against the hair-trigger male ego. But this story brought reaction from the White House: "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon," said the president. The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, ubiquitous icons of black protest, virtually battled each other to stand at the bereaved family's side—Mr. Jackson, in a moment of inadvertent honesty, saying, "There is power in blood . . . we must turn a moment into a movement." And then there was the spectacle of black Democrats in Congress holding hearings on racial profiling with Trayvon's parents featured as celebrities.

In fact Trayvon's sad fate clearly sent a quiver of perverse happiness all across America's civil rights establishment, and throughout the mainstream media as well. His death was vindication of the "poetic truth" that these establishments live by. Poetic truth is like poetic license where one breaks grammatical rules for effect. Better to break the rule than lose the effect. Poetic truth lies just a little; it bends the actual truth in order to highlight what it believes is a larger and more important truth.

The civil rights community and the liberal media live by the poetic truth that America is still a reflexively racist society, and that this remains the great barrier to black equality. But this "truth" has a lot of lie in it. America has greatly evolved since the 1960s. There are no longer any respectable advocates of racial segregation. And blacks today are nine times more likely to be killed by other blacks than by whites.
If Trayvon Martin was a victim of white racism (hard to conceive since the shooter is apparently Hispanic), his murder would be an anomaly, not a commonplace. It would be a bizarre exception to the way so many young black males are murdered today. If there must be a generalization in all this—a call "to turn the moment into a movement"—it would have to be a movement against blacks who kill other blacks. The absurdity of Messrs. Jackson and Sharpton is that they want to make a movement out of an anomaly. Black teenagers today are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites.

So the idea that Trayvon Martin is today's Emmett Till, as the Rev. Jackson has said, suggests nothing less than a stubborn nostalgia for America's racist past. In that bygone era civil rights leaders and white liberals stood on the highest moral ground. They literally knew themselves—given their genuine longing to see racism overcome—as historically transformative people. If the world resisted them, as it surely did, it only made them larger than life.

It was a time when standing on the side of the good required true selflessness and so it ennobled people. And this chance to ennoble oneself through a courageous moral stand is what so many blacks and white liberals miss today—now that white racism is such a defeated idea. There is a nostalgia for that time when posture alone ennobled. So today even the hint of old-fashioned raw racism excites with its potential for ennoblement.

For the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton, for the increasingly redundant civil rights establishment, for liberal blacks and the broader American left, the poetic truth that white racism is somehow the real culprit in this tragedy is redemption itself. The reason Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have become such disreputable figures on our cultural landscape is that they are such quick purveyors of poetic truth rather than literal truth.

The great trick of poetic truth is to pass itself off as the deep and essential truth so that hard facts that refute it must be dismissed in the name of truth. O.J. Simpson was innocent by the poetic truth that the justice system is stacked against blacks. Trayvon was a victim of racist stereotyping—though the shooter never mentioned his race until asked to do so.

There is now a long litany of racial dust-ups—from Tawana Brawley to the Duke University lacrosse players to the white Cambridge police officer who arrested Harvard professor Skip Gates a summer ago—in which the poetic truth of white racism and black victimization is invoked so that the actual truth becomes dismissible as yet more racism.

When the Cambridge cop or the Duke lacrosse players or the men accused of raping Tawana Brawley tried to defend themselves, they were already so stained by poetic truth as to never be entirely redeemed. No matter the facts—whether Trayvon Martin was his victim or his assailant—George Zimmerman will also never be entirely redeemed.

And this points to the second tragedy that Trayvon's sad demise highlights. Before the 1960s the black American identity (though no one ever used the word) was based on our common humanity, on the idea that race was always an artificial and exploitive division between people. After the '60s—in a society guilty for its long abuse of us—we took our historical victimization as the central theme of our group identity. We could not have made a worse mistake.

It has given us a generation of ambulance-chasing leaders, and the illusion that our greatest power lies in the manipulation of white guilt. The tragedy surrounding Trayvon's death is not in the possibility that it might have something to do with white racism; the tragedy is in the lustfulness with which so many black leaders, in conjunction with the media, have leapt to exploit his demise for their own power.

Mr. Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Among his books is "White Guilt" (Harper/Collins, 2007).

A version of this article appeared April 5, 2012, on page A15 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin.

Mr. President, Free Enterprise Works

Mr. President: Free Markets Work.


As doubtlessly you read this morning (March 27, 2012) in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. President, the article “Steel Finds Shale Sweet Spot.” It illustrates that free enterprise is alive and well in America and assisting in your agenda. Innovative technical advances from the private sector in oil and gas drilling, hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) coupled with horizontal drilling, allows access to huge deposits of oil and natural gas nearing two miles below the earth’s surface. Usual vertical drilling reaches only a few hundred feet down. Some government projections indicate a hundred year supply of natural gas and twenty-four billion barrels of oil within these shale lands in the contiguous 48 United States.

In ways central control of an industry can never predict, as the Journal article described, the cascading consequences of this technology come from a newly-accessible large supply of natural gas which pushes prices down – more than 35% from a year ago. Lower energy prices benefit the national economic turnabout. More gas creates lower prices which triggers increased useage (demand). The unchanged price of the major gas competitor, coal, causes its demand (and useage) to drop. This forces companies to shutter the unneeded coal plants expanding your agenda, Mr. President, of exchanging dirtier coal-burning plants for cheaper and cleaner-burning natural gas. Lower energy costs increase the profits of energy-dependent companies, where natural gas can be substituted for oil. For the steel industry more sophisticated drilling creates more demand for tubular steel products, such as the needed pipes, tubes and joints. More demand from lower prices creates a need for more production employees and those needed for support of higher sales of these steel products. The increased profits in the steel industry spreads out to suppliers of everything from transportation to accounting computers to toilet paper. The expected higher profits have increased the price of steel companies, with X – U. S. Steel’s New York Stock Exchange symbol – increasing from a 52-week low of $18.85 to yesterday’s close of $29.54, a change of over $14 billion accruing on paper to retirees, pension and mutual funds and other investors.

You see, Mr. President, the free markets work and work to enable your agenda. You might relax and let them just happen.