Again Obama disregards the Rule of Law

The U. S. Supreme Court -- the final arbiter of the law -- invalidated as unconstitutional a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  The ObamaHolderDemocratic Party Justice Department has discovered or invented an oblique, rarely used section of the law to replace the one struck down.  It arbitrarily or ideologically believes the U. S. Supreme Court is wrong, so rather than accept it and uphold the laws of the land as required by the Constitution and his oath, the Obama administration ignores it.  Ignores the laws it has pledged to uphold.  So it will sue Republican governors starting in Texas.  Republicans.  The enemy.  Isn't the president of the United States supposed to represent ALL Americans?  Apparently not, so in fact Barack Obama is only the President of the Democrats.  The voting rights should only be for Democrats, they believe.  Doesn't matter if they are citizens, felons or even alive.  But not all voters should be protected against the widespread (but ignored by Democrats) voter fraud, that's OK because most of it is by Democrats and its arms such as Acorn and Union thugs.

The Rule of Law is being quickly dismantled as this administration disregards what Obama says to disregard.  But with ferocity it goes after those it doesn't like.

1) It just sued for $10 BILLION dollars SAC Capital Advisors because SAC has been so successful.  In the Obama mind success equals illegal and it has coerced from five of a thousand employees of SAC guilty pleas of insider trading.  Of course there is no definition of what insider trading is.  The administration wants to show it's tough on hedge funds.  It wants to destroy it. 

2) ObamaHolder is attempting to coerce private companies to give up profits.  Private sector student loan providers are being strongarmed to be "flexible" and not force deadbeat students to have to repay loans as they had agreed.  It will cost much for these privately-owned firms to forego profits at the dictate of ObamaHolder which will lower the number of possible new employees and force the increase in prices.

3) The U. S. ObamaHolderDemocratic "Justice" (sic) Department will extort some "concessions" it arbitrarily wants, in exchange for AMR -- parent to American Airlines -- being permitted to purchase US Airways.

4)  Democrat lawmakers criticized banks owning warehouses to store metals, so the U. S. Justice (sic) Department has opened an investigation.  Something about price manipulation -- sort of like the Fed's Bernanke's manipulation, I guess -- or "extra costs" whatever they are.  As if "extra costs" are now against the law.  But the law is whatever Obama says, "extra costs" are now against the law.

5)  ObamaHolder forced Halliburton to pay $55 MILLION to the far-left-wing National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and a $200,000 fine (Huh?  $55 MILLION to a liberal political organization and $200 THOUSAND to the government???) for a supervisor deleting a computer simulation.  And that said, ObamaHolder is investigating "the possibility" of anticompetitive practices by Halliburton and others in Progressives HATED industry, one that is bringing energy independence to America.  ObamaHolder hates fracking for oil and natural gas because it beats the shit out of their BELOVED sunshine and wind power generation.  Wind (hot air) and sunny increase the energy prices for their expressed-beloved middle class.  But the administration has nothing but contempt for the middle class as proven by their policies, including the mad expenditures for hot air and sunshine.  F the middleclass, they say.

AND ALL THAT WAS IN ONLY TODAY'S NEWSPAPERS!

Pleasure or Responsibility? It's a choice.

PLEASURE OR RESPONSIBILITY?  IT'S A CHOICE.

Some women disregard their responsibility.  First by choosing momentary sexual pleasure, or that of her partner, without regard to her becoming pregnant.  In all likelihood it's because she knows she can have killed any fetus who might be created and become living inside her womb.  It is Choice.  That of sexual pleasure over responsibility.  Then she has another choice when she chooses her own freedom from responsibility with no regard to the future of what her fetus might become.  Steve Jobs?  Ted Bundy?  A general in the Army?  An electrician?  A school teacher?  A identity thief?  A happy individual?  Doesn’t matter, the pregnant woman will choose to kill the real or potential human being.  Him or her gets no choice.  It is her choice of her selfishness over her choice not to give any choice to her fetus.  Another individual gets no choice.  Sure argue a fetus is not a human being.  Maybe, maybe not.  But he or she will probably be one.  He or she will probably be a human being.  One choice eliminates another choice.  LiberalProgressiveDemocrats argue that Republicans have a "war on women".  Republicans simply want choice allowed for a tiny, unprotected potential human being who can't vote.  (A death for a vote: that's fairness for you!)

 

Unfortunately Republicans don’t frame the argument this way.  And they lose elections, and they lose, and they lose, and they lose, and they lose, and they lose, and they lose.  And an inexperienced man with a modest intellect but good voice and a rabid ideology gets elected president.

And that is the end of the United States of America into which you I was born.

ARAB SPRING RESET: THE MESSAGE FOR AMERICA FROM EGYPT

ARAB SPRING RESET: THE MESSAGE FOR AMERICA FROM EGYPT

 

 

The Egyptian people had had enough of the long corrupt and oppressive Hosni Mubarak dictatorship and the people -- with the necessary assistance of American technology including the Internet, cell phones, Facebook and Twitter -- rebelled.  Mubarak read the writing on the wall and resigned.

 

For the first time in Egypt's history democratic mostly-free elections organized by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces -- its military -- were held and the best- and earliest-organized political party, the Muslim Brotherhood, won a majority.  Mr. Mohammed Morsi became the president of Egypt espousing democracy, peace and economic growth.  To the contrary, during his first year in office the man's dictatorial tendencies and Muslim ideology roared out.  He rammed through a new constitution aiming at Sharia Law.  His concentration was on consolidating and expanding his own Islamist power instead of working on the rapidly-declining economy.  Tourism crashed, the currency dropped, unemployment rose and GDP growth neared nothing from seven percent a couple years ago.  Crime skyrocketed and persecution of minorities, especially Coptic Christians expanded.  National unrest rebirthed and Morsi appointed General Abdel Fattah Al Sisi an Islamist sympathizer to run the SCAF -- the military -- to calm the people.   

Six months later, a petition for him to step down was circulated and over a million Egyptians signed.  The people hit the streets once again in the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions.  Some of Morsi's cabinet ministers, military and other advisors resigned.  While violence was sparse, Egypt was a ticking time bomb.  Gen. Al Sisi told Morsi that he needed to remedy the protests of the people or the military could step in.  On July 3, 2013, the military in essence took over, announcing it would begin setting the stage for another national election.  Morsi vanished to an "undisclosed location".

Will the civilians supporting Morsi clash or worse in the streets with the opposition?  Who knows as of 8:30 a. m. Pacific Daylight Time, July 4, 2013 in Seattle?

The United States of America in 2008 and 2012 elected a president promising to stabilize an exploded economy, create six million jobs and get the country back on the path of economic growth.  He also said he'd bring the country and its disparate factions together.  Hope and Change.

Instead, similar to President Morsi, President Obama turned his back on most non-Democrats (rewarding only his campaign contributors or those corporate leaders who could thrive on the reflected popularity of his empty personna).  American Idol: The President is alive and well!

He further divided the country with virulent denunciations of all who opposed him, including the United States Supreme Court.  Rather than expand jobs, which it turns out he has no clue how to do having never touched the private sector, he brought ideological Progressives into his administration.  They being wildly anti-capitalism and anti-free markets, not to mention anti-anyone who opposed or disagreed with their utopian fantasies.   Anti-business, pro-labor activists were added to the Department of Labor; anti-carbon-energy advocates were stuffed into the Energy Department, who immediately showered billions of dollars on Obama's campaign contributors who had "alternative" energy companies to fund.  The Environmental Protection Agency began a campaign to eliminate coal -- the source of half of America's electricity.

Financial regulators began fixing the products, services, prices and capital structures of most American financial institutions.  Threatening, investigating and suing along with rule making to bring them in line to the Progressive Central Control.  And this anti-business list of oppression goes on and on and on.  The result" barely any Gross Domestic Product growth, extraordinarily high and unmoving unemployment and nearly twenty million Americans un- or under-employed.

What Obama promised, as Morsi promised, was nothing like he set out to do.

Obama, like Morsi, could be forced to resign by Facebook, Twitter and American ingenuity and innovation, but he took control of the technology and many of its entrepreneurs.  Reflected glory impresses geeks immensely.

So it will not happen.  The anti-Republican, anti-conservative, anti-Tea Party propaganda machine that started with Franklin Delano Roosevelt is honed to a fine

From pre-kindergarten through high-school to university administrators, instructors and professors education lean and teach far-left.  The entertainment industry, from movie, sports and rock stars to the corporate owners mostly by far voted for and vocally support Obama.  Union bosses back Democrats with workers dues to keep the laws supporting union monopolies and killing any thought of corporate power. Most government workers vote for the Progressives who force bigger and bigger and more expensive government.  Most newspaper, television and other media is obvious in its support of the Progressive ideology, selecting "news" and opinions that make the president look glamorous and completely disregarding his many, many mistakes, wrongheaded decisions, and inexperience.  His stonewalling coverups of Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Outrage, where his FBI won't even investigate either, are disregarded by most of the pandering media.  They have staked their reputations on the first Black president and they are not about to be proved wrong.

And so Egypt will possibly re-rebel against oppression while the birthplace of freedom, individual responsibility and inventive federal government heads the opposite way to oppression, centrally controlled over regulation of every social and economic activity of Americans. 

Our founding fathers -- portrayed only as selfish, rich, white oppressors by LiberalProgressiveDemocrats -- inventors of the brilliant U. S. Constitution -- portrayed by LiberalProgressiveDemocrats as old fashioned and out of touch -- are rolling around in their graves shouting tearfully: "No, no, no don't let them take your freedom away."








 

IS THIS THE POWER OF LEFT-WING PROPAGANDA?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323300004578559881835515320.html

The Wall Street Journal (June 24, 2013, page A6) had a news article:  "Public Shifts Fast on Same-Sex Union Support".

There is little doubt this is true.  My question is which comes first, the polling or the propaganda?  I don't believe there is any way to validate which is which, the chicken or the egg.  But it is a topic worth considering and deciding for oneself.

Another article, also from the WSJ describes some of the "science" of it:

April 3, 2013, 2:52 PM

The Science on Same-Sex Marriage

By Ronald Bailey
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging legal restrictions on same-sex marriage. Proponents and opponents sought to cudgel one another with sociological and psychological studies aiming to prove that science is on their side. Well, what does the science say?
Impact on Traditional Marriage
Some opponents told the court that same-sex marriage will undermine conventional marriage among heterosexuals. So what do the data say about how legalizing gay marriages affects conventional marriages?
A 2009 study by University of Sherbrooke economist Mircea Trandafir investigated the effect of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, the first country to recognize same-sex marriage. In 1998, the Dutch created registered partnerships, which are open to all couples, and in 2001 a law allowing full same-sex marriages. His analysis found that same-sex marriage leads to a decline in the different-sex marriage rate, but not in the different-sex union (marriage plus registered partnership) rate. In other words, Dutch heterosexual couples are taking advantage of the “marriage lite” registered partnership alternative.
At the time of Prof. Trandafir’s study, the chief difference between registered partnerships and marriage was that the former could be dissolved at the civil registry by mutual agreement. In a 2012 West Virginia Law Review article, Mercer School of Law professor Scott Titshaw shows that the political compromises provoked by the initial refusals to extend full marriage rights to same-sex couples result in a proliferation of civil union alternatives. Prof. Titshaw agrees with Prof. Trandafir that different-sex couples increasingly find the new marriage alternatives attractive; in effect, refusing to give full legal recognition to same-sex couples ends up diminishing the status and benefits associated with conventional marriage for everyone. Ironically, conservatives, by opposing the extension of full marriage rights to gay people, have ended up weakening the institution they sought to defend.
The Divorce Rate
Sweden legalized same-sex civil unions in 1995 and gay marriage in 2009. A 2011 demographic study from researchers at the University of Stockholm reports that since 1999, after decades of falling, both the marriage rate and the fertility rate have trended upward and the divorce rate is down.
Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004. In 2003, the divorce rate in Massachusetts was 2.5 per 1,000 residents, and it fell to 1.9 by 2009. The Massachusetts marriage rate jumped 15% in 2004, as many same-sex couples chose to get married, but since has remained stable. Interestingly, the states that permit same-sex marriage tend to have lower divorce rates than those that ban same-sex marriage.
A 2004 study of registered partnerships in Sweden reported that gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples. Lesbian couples were nearly three times more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples.
But how salient are higher divorce rates among gays and lesbians for making public policy? Consider that a 2008 study in the journal Family Relations by Rice University sociologist Jenifer Bratter found that in the U.S. black-husband/white-wife marriages were twice as likely to end in divorce as white/white couples, and Asian-husband/white-wife couples were 59% more likely. Yet few would argue that interracial marriages should be prohibited because their children are at substantially greater risk of experiencing the social, psychological, and economic disadvantages stemming from a higher interracial divorce rate.
Having Kids
Nearly 20% of same-sex households—i.e., 115,000—reported having children, and 84% contained children biologically related to one of the householders. In comparison, 94% of different-sex married couple households with children reported living with their own children. A study issued in February by the Williams Institute, a gay public-policy think tank at the law school of the University of California, Los Angeles, reports that 37% of “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender” (LGBT) adults have had a child at some time in their lives. In addition, the report notes that as many as six million American children and adults have an LGBT parent.
Opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage spar fiercely over the data about how children fare in same-sex households. On March 21, when the American Academy of Pediatricians issued a statement in favor of same-sex civil marriage, the group also published a technical report that comprehensively looked at the available research on the well-being of children living in same-sex households. The report noted that a big problem with current research is the small sample sizes of many of the studies. An additional problem is that most of the children in these studies have been through divorce before living in a same-sex household. Divorce is well known to have deleterious effects on the well-being of children.
However, data are reassuring from the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, which includes 78 lesbian families who used donor sperm to have children and have been followed since the 1980s. A 2012 study compared quality-of-life measurements of adolescents from lesbian families with those from a matched set of adolescents raised in different-sex homes. The researchers reported that “adolescents reared by lesbian mothers from birth do not manifest more adjustment difficulties (e.g., depression, anxiety, and disruptive behaviors) than those reared by heterosexual parents.”
By the time that their children were age 17, some 55% of the lesbian couples had separated compared to 36% of heterosexual couples in the National Survey of Family Growth. However, children from separated lesbian couples don’t appear to manifest the social and psychological problems often found among children whose heterosexual parents are divorced. The better scores achieved by the children of lesbians, the researchers point out might result from the fact that 75% of the separated lesbian couples shared custody, whereas 65% of divorced heterosexual mothers had sole custody of their children.
A 2010 study in the periodical Demography by Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld parsed Census data to compare the school progress of children reared in same-sex, heterosexual, and single parent families. He reported that “children raised by same-sex couples have no fundamental deficits in making normal progress through school.”
Adoption Outcomes
A 2012 study by UCLA researchers involving 82 families (60 heterosexual, 15 gay, and 7 lesbian) who adopted high-risk children from foster care found that on average, children in both same-sex and different-sex households “showed significant gains of approximately 10 IQ points in their cognitive development and maintained stable levels of behavior problems that were not clinically significant.”
The researchers noted that these findings were especially remarkable because the children adopted by same-sex couples were generally higher risk and often of a different ethnicity than those adopted by heterosexual couples. The bottom line is that research on the effects of being reared by same-sex parents on children is certainly not perfect, but the pediatricians academy seems right when it concluded that despite research “imperfections, it is likely that the extensive research efforts that have been carried out would have documented serious and significant damages if they existed.”
Monogamy
Research suggests one salient difference between same-sex, especially gay male couples, and different-sex couples relates to the acceptability of sex with people outside of the relationship. A 2010 study by University of Toronto sociologist Adam Isaiah Green in the Canadian Journal of Sociology involving 30 same-sex married couples around Toronto found that two-thirds of same-sex spouses (40% female, 60% male) did not believe marriage needed always to be monogamous. In fact, nearly half of male same-sex spouses (47%) had an explicit agreement that allowed for non-monogamy.
*      *     *
My reading of the scientific literature as it currently stands is that the legalization of same sex marriage does not have major effects on marriage trends in the wider society. As ever greater numbers of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans have exited the closet, more straight Americans have come to know and accept their homosexual family members, friends, and colleagues. It is this personal data, not the dueling studies published in obscure social science journals, that have now persuaded a majority of Americans in recent polls to support same sex marriage.
–
Mr. Bailey is the science correspondent for Reason Magazine.

[http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2013/04/03/the-science-on-same-sex-marriage/]

What Are Core American Values?

What Are Core American Values?

 

 

President Barack Obama is described in the current White House Website as: “[T]he 44th President of the United States.  His story is the American story — values from the heartland.  The White House Website on May 21, 2009 stated: “…we enlist the power of our most fundamental values.” 

 

In his July 27, 2004, keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts, the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, stepped onto on the national stage with: “[T]his year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and our commitments…His [candidate John Kerry’s] values and his record affirm what is best in us…”

And from his 2012 State of the Union address: “What’s at stake aren’t Democratic values or Republican values, but American values.  And we have to reclaim them.”  Again a year later (in his 2013 State of the Union address) he said, “…we must enlist our values in the fight.

“That’s the promise of America--the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation. That’s the promise we need to keep,” from the President’s Speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, August 27, 2008.

Our country has (mostly) rallied under an individual, Barack Obama, who in speeches and writings has emphasized concepts such as “values”, “core values”, “shared values”, the “American Dream”, and “the promise of America” with nary a definition of what they mean.

However, in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal September 30, 2012, during the presidential campaign, candidate Mitt Romney wrote, "our values have been misapplied – and misunderstood" by opponent President Obama.  But Mr. Romney never defined what the values were which President Obama misunderstood.

Most organizations, corporations and many people have mission statements built upon values or explicit value statements.  Shouldn’t a country, our country have them?  Clearly politicians do not want to be pinned down to specifics.  But don’t they owe it to us, those who pay their salaries and those for whom they (are supposed to) work?

But what would those values be?

It wouldn’t be any stretch of the imagination to admit that today the United States has none; no universal, agreed-upon values.  The operative thought is “agreed-upon”.   Our country may be separated into factions as rarely before, but even so, shouldn’t we consider trying to establish just what our values will be for the 21^st century? 

There seemed to be an implicit set of values for our first 237 years, but modern times may dictate a reconsideration.  What about a national referendum on explicit American values to guide us for the next 237?  As renowned philosopher and American baseball icon Yogi Berra quipped, "You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going because you might not get there." Or: “you'll wind up somewhere else“. 

This seems to be the state of America today: a bitter divide.  The original construct of the political system of the United States was brilliantly architected to encourage such division.  The divided government was supposed to lead to a chaotic legislative process wherein the issues of the day would be thoroughly debated and then thoughtfully compromised and decided.  Shared values then, of a belief in a Creator, a limited government of the people and a “respect to the opinions of mankind” were the thoroughfare which launched the most prosperous, free and moral society in the history of the world.

But is now a time when that experiment in government, 237 years of age, has become “destructive of these...certain unalienable Rights…[of] Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?”  (As was written in the Declaration of Independence.)  While that July 4, 1776, paper was about the oppressive reign of King George III of England, many people think it could pertain to American society today.

Our Declaration of Independence continues, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...[that will] seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”  Is that what the so-called Progressives desire?  Is it surreptitiously taking place today?

The values of the Progressives are quite different from those original values on which the United States was founded, those in which many conservatives still believe.  But is it time for an open and explicit review, debate and vote on the values of our country?

SUCCESS BRINGS THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE U. S. GOVERNMENT DOWN ON YOU

Beginning modestly in 1992, Steven A. Cohen has presided over one of the most successful hedge funds in history.  Returning around 28% a year since then in his SAC Capital Advisors LP and its brethren and enriching not only its managers (Cohen is a billionaire many times over) but public-employee and private retirement funds and individual rich people and families.  THAT IS UNFAIR, and they must be cheating, some government bureaucrats and political appointees figured.  So naturally not understanding or trusting success in the private sector, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation went after it and its employees with a vengeance.  Nothing has been filed by the Justice Department and a five-year statute of limitations is nearing (July 2013), so the government is pushing intensely to force admissions of guilt and settlements.  While Cohen agreed to one -- $616 million to settle two insider trading cases without admitting any guilt -- it apparently that didn't sit well with Attorney General Eric Holder and perhaps his brother-in-arms and boss President Barack Obama by whom such a settlement likely would be passed.  SAC which has been cooperating recently, made the decision to stop cooperating for some uncertain reason.

It is at a standstill.  EXCEPT outside investors might withdraw as they have the right, $3 to $4 BILLION, leaving about $2 BILLION in outside capital of SAC's approximate $14 BILLION, of which most belongs to Mr. Cohen.

Apparently Obama's think is either 1) if you are way more successful than your peers, you must be cheating.  Achievement isn't in his vocabulary or 2) he just wants to go after Cohen.

Please read yesterday's post of an increasing risk-adverse culture infecting entrepreneurs and workers in the United States.  The U. S. government trying to kill companies because they are successful as with SAC must only greatly contribute to this dangerous trend.

I am sure it is a coincidence that May 2013 was the worst month for factory output and employment since the recession end four years ago.  The fragile "recovery" is one of the worst ever.

Risk-Adverse Culture Infects U. S. Workers, Entrepreneurs

Today's Wall Street Journal has a front page article that should frighten any American:

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324031404578481162903760052.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection]

The article offers substantial evidence that the driver of American innovation and prosperity -- the desire of Americans to eschew safe, comfortable employment to take a risk and start a business -- is failing.  Historically much of this occurred when a person lost his or her job and had little other choice but to start a company.  And doing so was straight-forward and possible.

But now it seems as if that risk-taking is going, going, gone.  Companies and people have become adverse to taking a risk.  The Journal illustrates many reasons.  The rise of outsourcing to other countries and automation have increased productivity, which gives companies greater revenues without more employees.  And fewer companies are being started.  In 1982 new companies were half the number of U. S. businesses; now it's under a third.  Then 20% of employees worked for those new firms, now it's 11%.  Venture capital -- the raw material of startups -- has fallen 10% last year alone, and it has concentrated geographically with nearly 40% of it going to Silicon Valley, the greater San Jose area near San Francisco, against 30% twenty-five years ago. 

My guess is that there are several reasons, all centered in an anti-business government.  Both in the Democratic Senate and the powerful business-ignorant Progressive Progressive Barack Obama.  Businesses face vastly increased rules and regulations, the micromanagement of their every activity.  And random hugely expensive fishing expeditions of regulators who "think" someone might be breaking their mental laws, thus bringing investigations, subpoenas and sometimes civil lawsuits by government entities leading to balance-sheet breaking class action private lawsuits by tort lawyers looking for a settlement from frightened executives.  (And a tithe to the Democratic Party from the winner.)  Millions and billions of settlements seem standard.  Nothing ever has to be proven.

Let me repeat: nothing ever has to be proven.  The media piles on along with "plaintiffs" rounded up by bundlers in the thousands or tens of thousands facing one company.  So wary, but smart companies keep piles of cash on hand: nearly 6% of their assets today almost double that of thirty years ago.  And the Federal Reserve System's manipulation to virtually nothing of the interest rate means companies receive little for that cash, versus 5% or 8% thirty years ago.

Then there's the unknown of Obama's armtwisted, rules-bypassed ObamaCare with tens of thousands of rules, regulations, taxes, fines, punishments, most not written.  Costs completely unknown.  It is a crazy power-mad ignorant grab of healthcare, the largest industry in the country, by Far-left, anti-free enterprise, Progressive zealots.  Plus now nearly 30% of U. S. employees need some government license to work, up from under 5% in the 1950s.

The success of free enterprise is the chaos of hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of people starting businesses, most of which fail.  It is freedom to fail (or succeed) that drives the entrepreneurs.  It is completely opposite to the pathetic need of Progressive government bureaucrats, politicians and administration appointees to try to understand something foreign to them (business) and minutely control  that which they cannot understood.

The tried and true formula over centuries: central control does not work; free enterprise works.

People who are not challenged or frightened from being out of work, will settle, not start companies.  With vast recipients of two year unemployment insurance, food stamps galore (by "credit" card, no less) and hundreds of other "programs" to give the impression of ease (at huge and coerced cost to many fellow Americans, but nevermind that) fewer companies are started, many fewer jobs are created and long-term unemployment is rampant.  The government does no one (except their own reelections) any good by making life too easy. 

One czar no matter (or especially) how educated cannot know or guess ("plan") correctly about what will happen in the future.  But one of a thousand entrepreneurs -- a Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Sam Walton, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Thomas Edison, or Henry Ford --  might survive; out of ten thousand one might strike it big.  It might come in part from luck or being in the right time at the right time, but that's always a big success for every participant in the American economy.

Toss in an inadequate (becoming more inadequate) union-monopoly educational system and Obama gets his desire: a weak America.

PRIVATE SECTOR WILL DO JOB OF A STRONG MILITARY

In a Wall Street Journal article -- Obama Resets War on Terror -- (Friday, May 24, 2012, Front Page)

President Obama continued his effective dismantling of the strongest military in the world.  The U. S. military won World War II, engaged in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan attempting to show the world that democracy, freedom (of speech, religion and assemble)  and free enterprise created the most free, prosperous, moral country in the world history.  It has protected its friends and engaged its foes, not always with success, but "failures" came from political decision not military. 

While slowly withdrawing from the world scene militarily, the private, corporate sector is being pushed out front by the United States federal government with mandates, laws and regulations to step forward with its brand of morality: higher wages, more worker protections, product safety, environmental conservation, and similar endeavors.  At the same time the U. S. is selectively joining international bodies to promulgate additional rules and regulations and giving up national legislation for international.

Obama said: "This war [the so-called 'War on Terror'], like all wars, must end.  That's what history advises.  That's what our democracy demands."

WHAT CAN BE NEXT? II

If popular democracy doesn't work, for the reasons of which the Founding Fathers, authors of the U. S. Constitution and pundits of The Federalist Papers -- James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay -- deeply feared, then what can be next?

2013 is clearly not 1776.  Clearly.  Virtually everything is different.  Transportation. Communication.  Material Goods.  Manufacturing, distribution and retailing, not to mention the entire concept of free enterprise.  Freedom.  Religion.  Morals.  But given the differences, the failure of all forms of government to date, what can be next?

Socialism has been proven to be unobtainable since someone must manage the state -- anarchy also does not work -- and turns out that "someone" over history always seems to chose his individual power to keep and nourish, not that of the "people".  Communism is Socialism's analog in impossibility.  American representative democracy's inventive structural worked until communication became so open that the formerly-separated groups who couldn't easily communicate could.  And they did.  Initially as "Progressives" forming in power against the inaptly-named "Robber Baron" capitalists who had one way or another industrially built the industrial and financial power base of the country.  When the description "Progressive" came under fire the faction  morphed into the also inaptly named "Liberal".  A major component of their base came from union bosses who corralled workers into labor unions which promised better and richer working conditions.  Using government as a enabler, they delivered and the Democratic Party.......

But fast forward to 2013 and that party of the people has become the party of itself enduring only to endure.  It has scooped up myriad additional factions; the poor; minorities of all shades; abortion advocates; the secular religious; government-financed "activists" in the environmental, climate-change and inequality games.  The greatest faction is the federal government and its own perpetuation.  It and the Democratic Party are one and the same.  And that is where the breakdown in democracy started and is finishing.

When the party in power becomes the government then representative government is an illusion.  The Obama administration exists only to gain and retain power over the remaining minority of Americans.  While at this point May 18, 2013, this paragraph might be debatable, the recent scandals which were hidden by the Obama administration before the 2012 election are blooming in the light.  The seminal question is: will the Democratic Party roll through 2013 and retain power after the 2014 elections.  Time (only) will tell.

WHAT CAN BE NEXT?

Modern times have proven the folly of democracy, especially the populist kind which bestows on all -- deserving or not -- the right to vote without responsibility.  Since Teddy Roosevelt and cousin Franklin the now-proud Progressives (earlier tossed overboard for the misleading title "liberal") have successfully segregated factions, dealt individually with each in exchange for their votes and have won.  Factions include "labor" through its bosses, black-nosed peoples through their power- and publicity-mad overseers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton,  rich anti-Capitalism "environmentalists" and "activists" in general, vehement anti-male, pro-abortion "feminists", lawyers made rich through expanded tort laws, and the hugely powerful, but numerically tiny,  initialized community of LGBT -- the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender affinity group.

Everyone -- even the dead and immigrant -- gets to vote for the most attractive personality.  No longer is there any hint of Darwinian sorting, for example by experience or intelligence or knowledge or effectiveness.  Now it is popularity -- a rousing voice, a wide, friendly smile, a tall athletic body -- just feeling good about someone.  Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Obama come to mind.  Nose color in Obama's case to me was of utmost importance: "It is time".  Massive media and entertainment-industry propaganda is a significant part to be sure. 

But the vetting behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms has been replaced by American Idol -- The President or Congressperson.

This very activity to me -- a libertarian Conservative who believes I can better manage my life and affairs as I want than can the arbitrary rules mandated by American Idol the President or the unelected, mostly-Progressive, government-protected bureaucracy.  We were supposed to have been granted by God certain individual rights, but with the elimination of God by the secular Progressives, from where can those rights come?  "We the People" are not capable of governing our own lives, we make "bad" decisions (as defined by Progressives), do "unsafe" things
 (as defined by Progressives), buy "poor" goods and services  (as defined by Progressives), believe the unscrupulous  (as defined by Progressives), and just lead lives unapproved by Progressives.

So after nearly 250 years of the noble experiment in government and society where each person is expected to lead a life he or she wants, it is failing or has failed.  The United States Government has become the centerpoint of all decision-making in our country.  Our individual freedom of choice has been replaced by the collective obeying of mandates, dictates and rules by the federal government. 

The fears of the Founding Fathers and authors or the seminal example of the Rule of Law: the United States Constitution have come true. 

What can be next?

One of two things.  Revolution a la 1776  or the First Civil War which will become the Second Civil War or an oppressive oligarchy or dictatorship. 

Tracing the movement of virtually EVERY law from inception to today and they follow a well-worn path of well-meaning answers to problems through more and more stringent regulations.  One law can not sunset after accomplishing its mission since a bureaucracy of support will have gathered behind it.  Jobs are at stake.  Money is at stake.  Power is at stake.  None are EVER given up -- or at lease rarely -- peacefully.  So where our federal government is today it will be larger and more oppressive to individual freedom tomorrow.  It is as inevitable as day and night, life and death.

What can be next? 

Power and the Second Civil War

Power. That is the goal. The Progressives know how to gain and retain it.  To them, nothing else counts. That goes for the Progressive media as well. Republicans are still caught up in right and wrong, individualism and capitalism-- political campaign-losing attributes. And they do lose.   A constant secular decline since the Presidents Roosevelt.  There you have the answer to most everything political in America today. 

The Progressives know how to use their power to gain even more power. The electorate for the most part is kept ignorant (after being made ignorant by a Progressive-leaning educational system) by a Progressive media and entertainment industry.   Voters are kept focused on abortion, gay stuff, the White Advantage and a hatred of the unfairness of  "profits" -- their measure of good (no profits) and bad (more profits) -- while the Progressive bureaucrats are strangling the so-called, now former, free markets with minute regulations over every breath we take. The electorate spouts "war on women", "rights", "fairness", "consumer protection" and so on, while their (our) very freedoms are constantly being stolen from us.  Our individual freedoms to make unwise decisions, buy what we want, get hurt and be imperfect are taken from us and given to the vast Progressive-government monstrosity to collectively administer over us. The Rule of Law -- where rights and wrongs are written down as laws to be followed by all of us (relatively) equally -- has been bypassed by spur-of-the-moment and wildly arbitrary "trust me it's for your own good" dictates mandated mostly by unelected, government-protected deeply-partisan human beings.   

It is over. The Second Civil War, bloodless at least, has been lost. Progressives have successfully segmented Americans into separate factions to gather a majority (something understood by our Founders who now-unsuccessfully attempted to diminish by a carefully-constructed political system).  Progressives now own the country.

Sadly.

http://www.periodictablet.com

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS ARE WRONG!

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS ARE WRONG!  The Obama Department of Energy projected that carbon-dioxide emissions would continue increasing to crisis levels.  WRONG!  After reaching a peak in 2007 carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions have plunged.

Why?  Free enterprise and the resourcefulness of U. S. entrepreneurs, investors and its oil companies have led to the invention of so-called FRACKING (hydraulic fracturing of rock miles below the earth's surface to release oil and gas).  Without any assistance from the U. S. Government.  In fact, the U. S. government and Democrat-party led state governments have tried to cripple fracking through burdensome regulation.  New York State prohibits fracking completely.  Republican-party led states encourage fracking.  Now it is thought that the U. S. can be foreign-oil free in a decade.

In 2005 19% of U. S. power -- primarily electricity -- came from natural gas (NG).  New discoveries from fracking drilling have lowered the price of NG and subsequently increased its use in U. S. power to 30%.  Coal use has dropped.  Coal produces far more carbon-emissions (CO2) than NG -- double.

CO2 emissions have dropped by 706 million metric tons in the U. S. -- 12% -- from 2005 through 2011.  Obama's Department of Energy projected an increase.  (And they run our lives???)

NOW the Obama Department of Energy has changed its tune.  NOW it projects (wild guesses obviously) that the 2007 peak won't be reached again until 2040!  Oops, only three decades off.

So what?  This means nothing since the rest of the world could care less: emissions have increased world wide by 15% from 2005 through 2011.  The stupid United States of America is spending uselessly hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars that could be used for growing the U. S. economy and reducing unemployment and taxes.  But no, that is not President Obama's desire.

And these so-called elites are tightly managing every aspect of our lives.  WHY?

I WENT TO THE DOCTOR

I am seventy years old so I went to the doctor.  It took him an hour to peruse the 150,000 pages of Medicare regulations, 10,000 pages of ObamaCare regulations, and 25,000 blank pages of ObamaCare regulations to be invented.  He used his government-financed supercomputer. When finished he turned to me with the diagnosis. "You have to die now." I looked a little shocked.  And actually felt a little uncomfortable, being only seventy.  He said, "Under ObamaCare you are a massive burden on society as a whole.  You are too expensive.  Stop being so selfish and only thinking of yourself.  And don't worry, it'll be humane. It'll only hurt a little more than capital punishment since there's no "cruel and unusual punishment" in ObamaCare regulations that my computer could find."  Then he added, "That'll be $100 copayment."

IT WAS FUN WHILE IT LASTED!

Starting around the American Revolution-time, what was to become the United States of America was different;  it was exceptional.  Intelligent, generally successful white men who believed in God were tired of being second-class citizens, marionettes dancing for George III, the King of England.

The Declaration of Independence was written and submitted.  One thing led to another and the fighting and killing began.  General George Washington and his followers experienced hardship few Americans will ever experience.  For a cause.  The cause of freedom.  Financed by businessmen who risked all their assets and rounded up cash borrowed from foreign countries and investors as well, especially France.

It worked, they won. 

But then what?  A small handful of brilliant, independent thinkers (after one misfire) wrote and by virtue of brilliant writing, and convincing speeches got  passed the Constitution of the United States of America. 

It was a wild experiment in political and social constrution giving power to the people and withdrawing it from central power.  That it worked wonderfully well is beyond argument (except to power hungry politicians and their acolytes and lemming followers).  The country became the most free in speech, commerce and activity;  the most innovative in invention and application; and the most prosperous with a standard of living second to no other country in the history of the world.  But is was not (and a society can never be) perfect.  Some citizens were not as prosperous as others.  This discrepency was used as a basis for obtaining power through convincing arguments for Progressism.  Progressivism was a distant cousin of socialism.  While capitalists labored to create companies with jobs for others and wealth for all, the Progressives labored to infiltrate the government and redistribute power from those capitalists to the goverment to enable their goals to be met.  No doubt that the labor movement achieved nobel ends in protecting children and workers and balanced out the power of the businessmen.

Then came the Depression.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

The Democrats want to make the Western Gopher an endangered specie.  Yip, you read that right.  Gopher.  And to buttress their arguement, know this: the Tacoma Gopher is already gone, dead as a species (as I guess it was).  Let's keep the pests digging up our lawns and gardens of civilization or they'll die out, the gardens that is, not the gopher.  Tacoma is already gone.  (Or is it that I moved from Tacoma and another pest, and I'm not a gopher, bit the dust.)

Well, now, how about another important species about ready to die out:  Republicans.   Yes, they are dying out.   From what, you might ask.  From not having any balls.  (Think about it.)

Republican former leader, Mitt Romney had no balls.  He did not scream: Unions Are Corrupt.  He is too polite and has no balls.  He did not call out the fact that union monopolies (yes, the same ones that have destroyed, destroyed American education) finance the Democrat Party as its largest financier.  Yes, the largest.  Do unions just love the Democrats' platform or stuff like that?  NO, heavens no.  Union bosses get billions in dollars over ten years from Democratic Party legislated union monopolies.  Of if not definitional monopolies, the legislation forces non-union workers -- those workers who choose NOT to join a union for whatever their own reasons are -- to pay union dues, much of which goes to pay for the elections of Democrats.  Even if (heaven forbid) a worker supports the conservative, rational beliefs of the Republican Party its union pays the Democratic Party (with 95+% of its political donations).

What else was Former Leader Mitt Romney afraid to say?  The second largest financiers of the Democratic Party are the billionaire jet plane-owning Trial Lawyers.  What do these leeches-on-society like about the Democratic Party?  The trial lawyers' bank comes from the Democrat Party-passed laws allowing contingency payments from settlements of threatened trials.  Threatened...Most lawsuits are settled, not litigated in a court of law.  Trial lawyers get hundred and thousands of "plaintiffs" to represent, file suit against a company for some accident or unknown design flaw or as with asbestos, against companies never having touched asbestos, but those which might have purchased a company that once used asbestos in a product.  Although there never is a direct cause and effect from said asbestos -- more "risk" or what might have could have  happened -- just facing thousands of litigants, force companies to settle.  How does one spell b-l-a-c-k-m-a-i-l?  With cigarettes and asbestos TRIAL LAWYERS SCORED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FEES.  Did Mitt attack the Democratic Party with these truths?  NO.  (President Obama and the Democrat Party relentlessly and successfully attacked Romney with lies about who he wasn't and things he didn't do.  LIAR!  LIAR!)

Add in the relentless seventy-year propaganda effort against Repuboicans, business (which Romney was in), free enterprise (ditto, and which brought America its present prosperity), freedom, the Rule of Law and so on.  The propaganda comes from:  the union-monopoly educational system of kindergarten through high school and then the far-left post graduate professors, college administrators and instructors (87% of which are Democrats).  From the media owners, personalities and pundits most of which (from the New York Times through ABCNBCBSPBS and just plain BS) excluding the News Corporation (which has news not propaganda) and virtually all the entertainment (sic) industry and its Far-left owners and actors ARE so-called PROGRESSIVES (sic).  Yip George Clooney, sad to say.  Relentless Far-left propaganda clouding the minds of most American voters.

So there's no hope for the Republican Party.  I nominate someone to nominate it for being added to the Endangeres Species List.

Any second?

The Left owns the Propaganda and has won.

In “Barack Obama’s Persuasion Army” (Wall Street Journal, Opinion, November 15, 2012, page A17) Daniel Hemminger touches on a few truths about which no one else seems to have a clue.  The first is “propaganda;” but he does not go far enough.  Virtually the entire American educational establishment is controlled by the so-called Progressives, K – 12 by unions and post-graduate education by Democrat administrators, professors and instructors.  And the Non-Fox Media (NFM which includes the Wall Street Journal) is an unabashed cheerleader for everything Obama and Democratic.  All are engaged in pervasive, incessant anti-business, anti-free enterprise propaganda.  Most Americans have a knee jerk reaction against business and business leaders which has been drilled into them since kindergarten.  The propaganda closely links “big business” with the Republican Party so it, too is automatically distrusted.  This propaganda includes withdrawing Darwin’s law of Natural Selection by diminishing its exceptionalism, which includes the success of executives, and promoting the fantasy of “fairness” and “equality” of outcome.

 

Next, he got right the use by the Democratic Party of the (hated) “private sector’s advanced marketing techniques” but without the same “Truth in Marketing” as demanded by Federal law, regulation and lawsuit.  The government and “free” political speech can issue any message without need for truth, as this past campaign proved, while commercial speech by companies is severely managed word-for-word.

 

He commented: “Some Republicans are consumed with how to make more people like them.”  This is something I have written for years.  The Republicans in general seem to pay heed to what the New York Times, the network “news” shows and their followers say and in some cases believe it.  Republican don’t understanding that there seems to be a visceral antagonism toward everything Republican by the Left.  Republicans tend to respect morality and believe in basic right and wrong and principles (and the Constitution) even sometimes at the expense of winning.  Their opponents have no such barriers.  To Democrats winning is everything.

 

The United States into which I was born almost seventy years ago has been chipped away and now is gone forever, I believe.  Our country exists now to feed the United States government which grows and grows and consumes our economy and the political foundation so brilliantly established beginning in 1776.

We've lost the greatest country in history

Nothing is funny about the election or the demise of rational, "conservative" thought. It is tragic. But inevitable as I have been saying for years. The Republican/conservative movement has been playing on the so-called Progressives' playing field and to their tune and always responding, never leading.  Defending from Progressives, never attacking.   Romney had all the ingredients for winning. Except balls. Progressives win by catering (and giving) to union bosses and trial lawyers. Romney said what about this? Happiness is supposed to be each of us pursuing it as we individually wish, not how Progressives demand. (Go out and work for a non-profit, help the homeless, Progressives say. But more lives have been saved and enriched by U.S. entrepreneurs getting "selfishly" and "greedily"rich selling stuff like pharmaceuticals, computers, software and cellphones.) Romney defended the magnificent good business has done for the world how? We legislate saving species of little bugs; liberals go out and rescue sick and abused dogs, but kill millions of human fetuses. Romney said what?  After the election was over, Romney blabbed something about Obama doling out goodies to special -- and especially ethnic -- interests.  After the election.  After!   He is so afraid of what the liberal NFM (non-Fox media) will say or write, he doesn't stand up for much of anything. Ditto all chickensh** Republicans.

We have lost this wonderful country. Like the Jews of WWII, the princes of Russia, we do nothing and lose the greatest country in history; they only lost their lives. I am glad I am 70 and don't have three decades to go through.

America     I cry for you!

Obama Won, America ZERO (0)

Obama won.  America 0.

A play on words, but a truth.  The America into which I was born died last night.  Well, it'll be a while dying but the mortal wound was performed last night.  While the causes and reasons will be debated endlessly, it doesn't matter.  Obama and the Progressives, who are anything but, won.  America and us -- its citizens and inhabitants -- lost.   Our score: ZERO (0).

Arguably the most inexperienced and unqualified president in history, President Obama has proven to be the most far left, or possibly off the left-hand charts.  He has never touched or been touched by free enterprise or capitalism except for the financial support he had by corporations in 2008 and less so in 2012.  But what created the greatest country and system -- political and social -- in the history of the world means nothing to the president.  Nothing.  Mr. Obama went from university and a couple years hanging out in his home country in Africa to small time organizing in Chicago.  That did not work out well for those "organized" since they weren't.  Then quickly to the Illinois legislature briefly and on to the United States Senate where he gave a speech, or was it the speech then the U. S. Senate?  Doesn't matter, well rehearsed he voted "present".  He had some important handlers and advisors.  But off of the conspiracy theory and on to the presidency of the United States of America.  In his first term, he ran up the deficit $5,000,000,000,000 but who's counting?  Unemployment flatlined at high.  The economy struggled to be positive.  African American unemployment increased to near-15% and crime, drug use and illegitimate children continued marching upward.  And energy money accrued to his financiers, giving them a good return.  But luckily for him abortion continued unabated, especially for African Americans.  Choice won.

I argue that the President of the Democrats (and who could argue with that nomenclature?) and the late Fuhrer of Germany had parallel lives to a certain extent.  Neither succeeded at much of anything until...until they spoke and moved people.  Both had alcoholic, womanizing and absent fathers (President Obama's a bigamist).  Was President Obama a bastard?   Hmmmm.  Both were mothered smotheringly and uncritically.  Both were (are) narcissistic to a fault.  Both thought (think) themselves saviors of their respective countries and if possible, the world, although Adolf didn't make it that far.  Both consider(ed) themselves "change agents".  Both made their major platform hate.  In Hitler's case, Jews.  In Obama's, "millionaires and billionaires" and bankers.

But now my troubling prognostication.

With the retirement or death of one conservative Supreme Court Justice, including seventy-six year old Justice Scalia or seventy-five year old Kennedy,  the United States Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of the United States Constitution, would be controlled by ideologue liberals.  As with Kagan and Sotomayor they are not strict constitutionalists but arbitraryists, making decisions based on their life experiences and proclivities.

Now let's say President Obama makes an Executive Order or perhaps his Democratic majority Senate passes a bill that the term of the presidency should be extended to, say, ten or twenty years.  Let's just say.  Someone sues with outrage.  From court to court.  To the United States Supreme Court, the final court of jurisdiction on the meaning of the Constitution with no appeal.  Let's say.  How might his appointed idealogues rule?

Voila!  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we have the end of the path.  The Road to Serfdom inevitably ends here.  Someone has to make the decision: "what is fair".  Or, rather, who gets what?  The division of the "equality", the redistribution of the spoils. 

This was the end of the country into which I was born.  And the end of the road will be.  Serfdom.

OBAMA WON, AMERICA 0 (Part 1)

No one gets it.

This election is not just the end of the America into which I was born, but the one to which Thomas Wight sailed around 1730.  The one whose founders led thousands in war to defeat a mighty enemy.  Why?   For our freedom.  Then after winning their was for independance, a very small number of (as the so-called Progressives like to say) rich white men conceived, drafted and convinced a larger number -- I don't remember how many -- of similar men representing all Americans to agree to a new United States Constitution.  That Constitution created what was to become the greatest nation ever known to human beings.  Its inhabitants -- us -- became the most individually free in history.  This freedom allowed us to innovate for the world.  This brought prosperity and high standards of living beyond the imagination of much of the world.  They created the most innovative political system ever invented.   It separated institutions so no one of them could dominate.  It kept self-interested groups apart, so they couldn't gang up on the rest of us.  It gave each of us freedom to pursue happiness as each of us defined it for ourselves.  It delineated laws by which all people equally had to obey, but the freedoms were not granted by government but were self-evident, unalterable truths of God.

But that very freedom and prosperity finally brought THAT United States of America to an end.  Last night.  November 6, 2012.

While the creators of that prosperity were busily starting companies others were living off the wealth they created in order to destroy that very freedom and prosperity.  Those "others" were different from the moral individuals who invented the United States, the people who respected one another, who, not being perfect (being humans) changed their country when necessary, freeing slaves and granting to all the right to vote.  To those "others" power, their own raw power over others was -- is -- all that is important.  The fears of "Publius"  -- the pseudonym  of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in writing the Federalist Papers -- have come true.

And they have diligently worked -- consciously and unconsciously -- since around the 1910s Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson to gain and retain that power.  They infiltrated the entire educational system and turned it against "business", the very institution that created all the wealth for our country.  "Business" became an epithet.  Still is. 

The "factions" written against in the Federalist Papers and kept apart in the structure of the United States government now control it.  Democrats.  And the products of their power:Union bosses and trial lawers who finance the Democrats who legislate to enable those factions.  And a media that proudly promoted those factions and deprecated business and those successfully engaged in it.  All this within a sad, self-absorbed society fixated on "stars" and their own pleasure.  Thus was borne the first American Idol -- The President.  Elected and reelected last night.  Endowed with a deep persuasive voice, a winning smile, a dark-colored nose and brilliant political strategists Barack Obama was -- and is -- singularly ill-equipped to manage one of the largest institutions in the world.  But these factions were built into a electorial majority: so-called African Americans, many Hispanics turned against Republicans' ideas on immigration, the young and impressionable educated against free enterprise and capitalism, women afraid of losing their right to abort their fetuses all within a media universe unabashedly, and nearly universally promoting the Progressive way of life and the Democratic Party.

End of Part 1.

THIS IS ABOUT POWER

The bottom line that everyone seems to miss is that this election and the entire basis of Progressivism, Democrat-Party Liberalism, the "Left" and the like is nothing more than POWER.  Gaining and retaining it.  The details to get it -- from Federal Income Taxes to Social Security and Obama's Affordable (sic) Care Act -- are nothing more than props, talking points.  If it wasn't for the unprecedented success of free enterprise, capitalism if you will, and its underpinnings of property rights, the Rule of Law, and initially a government of countervailing and separated powers, there would have been nothing for the Progressives to want to take.  No wealth, no assets, not much of anything.  But while capitalists were starting and building companies, creating wealth not only for themselves but for the world, including jobs, Progressives were diverting some of this wealth to the government for them to redistribute.  Much has gone to "not-for-profit", governmental and non-governmental organizations employing and paying for their ideological soulmates to -- again with funding extracted from the private sector where it could have been used to create more companies, wealth and jobs -- strategize, plan and accomplish the taking of power from those capitalists and put it into the hands of themselves, to use primarily to gain and retain more power. 

 

If the federal government wouldn't have pushed for federal income taxes each of the states would have had countervailing power and the push for standardization of every American citizen would not have taken place.  I'd argue that Medicare would have been cheaper and better with the competition among states.  I'd argue that fewer Americans would have had the societal pressure to attend college and would have been happier in jobs more suitable to their own, individual choices, not the choices of the few leaders in government. 

 

If the federal government hadn't invented Fannie Mae, sure there'd be smaller home ownership, and with that there would have been no housing and financial crisis.

 

How about the United States Postal Service in business only -- in my view -- to satisfy labor union bosses and their financial support of the Democratic Party.  UPS and FedEx have proven that there is no need for the USPS.  And how about Amtrak?  And on and on and on.

 

If Social Security would have invested into a broad mix of securities of United States corporations, the American economy, there would be no financial crisis and spectre of its bankruptcy.

 

Don't anyone forget that is was a very few -- perhaps two -- industrial "tycoons" who reinvented the United States manufacturing economy to mobilize World War Two and beat the Nazis, not FDR, who, to his credit, eshewed his prior Progressive blather and made that decision to keep the government  out of the war industry.

Would the country, and its individual citizenry be better off right now if the Left had not taken power?  An unanswerable question.  But the bottom line of is: what is the measurement we use?  I.  individual personal happiness and the ability of each of us to pursue it in the way we wish or II. how a very few elected politicians and unelected bureaucrats decide we ought to lead and live our lives?

To be or not to be that WAS the question.  Now since the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America has made it clear that it (life) is a God-given right, along with freedom and the pursuit of happiness, the definition and who is the decision-maker is (are) the question(s).

 

 

 

 

 While that is a somewhat ideological comment, and the Left has accomplished some benefit to mankind in general there is no way to know that it all wouldn't have happened anyway.  Like Obama's "creating or saving six million jobs".

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.