The Invisible Work of the POTUS

Japan's nuclear sites are burning. Egypt is allegedly giving birth to its first democracy. Libya's Colonel-in-Chief is beating back rebel (democratic?) uprisings. Bahrain is perhaps the next Middle-East domino under threat, after Yemen. Iran and China are pressing their respective lids down on their boiling pots. The Economy is not recovered. Unemployment is not improving. The Federal Govt is limping along on continuing budget resolutions instead of having a permanent budget. His vaunted Health Care Act is doing poorly in court. Utah just signed Immigration Reform to combat the Fed's inaction. ...And what do we see and hear of from the POTUS? Final 4 brackets. Golf outings. Talk of the epidemic of school-yard bullying. A wholly ignored call for a more civil tone. Trivial nothings.

But, to be "fair", let's blame this on the Media, since all we see and hear of the POTUS is what they choose to show and tell us. And we're assured by all his supporters that he can handle all of the important stuff concurrently with all this unimportant stuff, because he's just so amazing. If that were so, why would his adoring Media buds show us only the unimportant stuff, thereby creating the impression that he is letting his real duties slide? Why would they do this? And why is it that the real work of the POTUS should be so invisible? Surely, some of his workings do need to be beyond our sight. ...But all of them?? Why is so much about this man such a vacuous mystery?

The Unsavory Side of Chicago

I enjoy Chicago-style hot dogs. Yum! Jam 'em down. Chicago-style pizza? Double-yum! Jam it down. Chicago Jazz, and Chicago architecture? You bet! Eat that stuff up.

...But then there's Chicago-style politics, as has been on full display in that past few weeks, pushing this abomination of legislative slop. YUCK! Looks horrible, stinks to high-heaven, and tastes even worse! But like it or not, it got jambed down all our throats. Even many Dems were holding their noses on this one!

Prediction: We better get used to foul and reeking meals from these modern Chicago-style gangsters running D.C. This latest win will not mean sweeter or smoother things to come for us. The political filth is only going to get worse. Open wide, and eat what you've voted for, America.

Paying It Forward

The Obama Health Care plan would apparently have us paying now, or soon enough, for health care coverage that would kick in later. Some 4 years later. The argument is that a certain amount of funds need to be on hand before coverage can be provided, and it will take that long to gather up the necessary fund balance. Let us suspend all reason for just a moment, and just let all of that go as is. Instead, let's focus on what this "plan" represents. It would mean that the government would be accumulating revenues that are reserved for covering those eventual health care costs. Our federal government...hauling in billions...to be spent later...on a promise. ...Riiiiiight. Let us now count the times that our federal government actually kept its greedy, grubby mitts off of any revenues within its reach or imagination, and resisted spending those funds elsewhere. Who among us really believe that they will not spend every single accrued health care dime, and dimes they've not yet accrued, on something and everything other than what it was accrued for, leaving behind yet one more unfulfillable promissory note to us. Don't you fall for it!!

Where there's Smoke, there's Weakness

Government-mandated healthcare; driven down our gullets by a man too weak of will and mind to successfully quit his own smoking habit, which is acknowledge as perhaps the single-most avoidable of all causes of health problems and costs. Further, none of the health bills put forth even attempt to nationally outlaw smoking. Just two more astounding, illogical aspects of that man's ascension to and use of power.

Guns for Babies

What would happen if the pro-Abortion crowd were required to swap out fetuses as their point of focus and replace that with guns, but had to retain all of their established argument logic? For example, they would suddenly find themselves arguing that firearms are a Constitutionally-guaranteed right (which they are), and that the government and insurance companies should provide funding for those who cannot afford them. Anti-Firearm activists would have to stay 50 feet away from all gun shops, and would by default be blamed for all gun shop fires and all "accidents" that might befall any gun shop owners. Firearms would be argued as a Healthcare issue, since it could be shown that being denied them would seriously risk one's health, even one's life. The entire matter of licensing would be argued an undue restriction on one's rights, since owning and carrying a gun would be a matter of discussion strictly between the individual and their gunsmith. Anyone who wouldn't agree with ready access to firearms would be labelled a fanatic radical extremist, completely out of touch with the mainstream. Schools would hold educational sessions for students to understand proper firearm safety and use. If students were allowed to opt out at all, they would need prior parental approval. Imagine.

But what of the other way around you say, where Gun Rights activists would have to take on the cause for Abortion rights? ...Well, show me where the Constitution actually identifies an Abortion Right, and we'll talk.

Cost-Cutting Measures for the Family

From the genius of Dem-Queen Pelosi comes the brilliant revelation that society can avoid untold expenses if it only increases its abortion practices.  You see, those awful little things (aka children) become a tremendous drain on our society, what with their ceaseless and costly needs.  Just imagine how great things would be if we stopped the madness, and stopped child-birth!  Why, we'd become the most prosperous nation in the world, like...China!

Wait...whassat?  Fetuses grow up to become voters and tax-payers?  Whoa, then let us not be so hasty here!  Quick, somebody sanction a financial impact study.  We must get to the bottom of whether the burden of children might be outweighed by their future benefits.  Let's get someone from Planned Parenthood and the ACLU on this, right away.  Time is of the essence here!  ...And maybe we can even identify the gene that predetermines a fetus as a Democrat, so we can know which ones to keep.

Color-full Times

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

How many people can honestly say that the excitement and interest that they feel about today's inauguration is not driven primarily by the fact that Obama will be the nation's first black president? And how many can say that they truly know the content of his character? If you have these factors out of proper balance, then you're not honoring the core of what MLK stood for. You've hi-jacked his cause and perverted it into what he spoke against...just like the radical Muslims who have perverted their religion to justify their murderous ways.

It's not about being pro-black, nor anti-black; it's about being color blind! It doesn't matter what color is his skin. What matters is what he stands for and how he intends to go about governing this land.

Without getting into the arguments about what he will or will not do as president, and all of the other endless points of disagreement, just stop and ask yourself whether you honestly and sufficiently know the content of his character. Is it that knowledge that has you so excited for today...or is it the shallow pride of witnessing the first black president being sworn in?

Care about what matters.

O'Reilly Spins a Survey

On the O'Reilly Factor last night, Bill offered up his newest survey question on his website, which asks whether the respondent is "rooting for Obama to succeed."  Clearly, this poll is pointed at Bill's conservative listeners, seeking to determine whether they're able to put aside their 'druthers and support the man who won the election.  This is the same wording that Hannity has been using as his cautious support of the POTUS-elect.  That Bill would lift Sean's syntax for his own poll is rather cheap, but the intent of the question is still a worthy one.  But the wording of the question is troublesome, and hinges on the definition of "succeed."  If one were to answer "Yes", does this then mean that the respondent hopes Obama is successful in implementing all of the policies that he put forth as campaign promises.  Even many Democrats would not like to see that, most of them being less Liberal than Obama, by record.  And if one were to answer "No", does that mean that the respondent is an intractible ideologue who can't let go of what shoud've been?  Or worse, unpatriotic for not supporting the President?  While I wouldn't accuse O'Reilly of purposely creating a set-up, he clearly doesn't know a poorly worded question when he creates one, which is quite disappointing for such a veteran investigative reporter.  What did you intend to ask, Bill?

Unqualified Management, Indeed!

The honorable Congressman Dodd went before the Press recently to express his belief that top management of the auto companies do not deserve to keep their positions in light of a rescue package, because they are the people who are responsible for the current dire situation that those companies find themselves in. Yet it was Congress who ruined the Housing industry, by imposing their ideas of who should have mortgages regardless of affordability, which ruined the Credit industry, which the Auto industry is crucially dependent upon -even for the least expensive of their products, which led to the sudden collapse of auto sales and the looming failure of those companies. So Congressman Dodd, along with all who think as he does, is either unbelievably stupid not to see this, or he is flat out corrupt to his bones...or both. Regardless, he is undeniably unqualified to manage even a side-walk lemonade stand, let alone his congressional office or the Auto industry. Do us all and yourself a favor, Congressman, follow the example of Gov. Blago and step down!

A Measure of Greatness

I propose the following unambiguous indicators as a test of Obama's success as POTUS. Feel free to offer up your own. The test is whether he earns a "No" on even just 6 of my 10 questions. If he does, I'll give him a passing grade, eventhough that would only amount to a D.

1. Did my taxes go up even one dime during his tenure? He promised they wouldn't, repeatedly.
2. Did the U.S. get hit by another terrorist attack during his tenure, after he slashes military spending and dismantles our nukes as he promised to do?
3. Is my Retirement account still below its peak value, even including my on-going contributions to it?
4. Are home mortgage rates higher than my current percentage, which I got one year ago, at 6.25%?
5. Do we still have any military presence in Iraq after his second year in offfice? I'm giving him more time than he said he would take.
6. Is the Dollar still weaker than the Euro?
7. Is the National Debt higher than when he took office?
8. Is our Trade Deficit higher than when he took office?
9. Is there still anyone left without Health Care coverage?
10. Is the Coal industry still operating in the U.S.? He promised to bankrupt it.

I threw in a couple easy ones for him, just to give him a jump start.

I'm looking forward to seeing what he does in his second year of office when it dawns on him that there's not any higher office that he needs to start campaigning for, and that he has to actually stick this one out. Talk about historic firsts!

Obama Confusion

Earlier this week, pushing back against the growing impression that he's a Socialist, Obama chided that McCain might next accuse him of being a Communist because he shared his childhood toys with friends. But this "defense" is either a blatant effort to obfuscate, or it's evidence that Obama hasn't a clue about the definition of these terms.

When you freely choose to share your property with others whom you select, that's called Charity. The key is that it's voluntary choosing on your part; choosing whether to share, choosing what to share, and choosing with whom to share. Such is what Christ prescribed.

When a government tells you that you must share your property with others, and you have no say in whether, what and with whom, it is Socialism/Communism. It can in no way be equated with Charity. It is the antithesis of Charity. Such is what Karl Marx prescribed...and Barack Obama.

The Campaign of Irony

First, Obama got a polls bump in the financial debacle, presumably because McCain is part of the failed establishment, while Obama is Mr. Change...which is incredibly ironic because it was Obama's fellow Dems who choreographed this colossal failure and obstructed McCain's (and others') warnings. It's doubly ironic given that Obama provided no leadership to help avert the situation! Yet he's the one who benefits from it.

Now we have more stunning irony. Colin Powell has thrown in with Obama. But wasn't he the one individual most influential in bringing us the Iraq War, by his speech at the U.N.? The very same war Obama says we never should have gotten into in the first place? Now Obama gladly accepts this man's endorsement, returning praise and honor to him for his great service to this country, and a promise to place him into the administration after the inevitable coronation.

Wouldn't Powell be the one most capable of explaining to Obama that the Iraq War and its justifications were not total fabrications of the Bush administration? Wouldn't he be the best person to set history straight again? But just for grins, let's just say that it all really was just a fraud perpetrated on the American people. Wouldn't that then make Powell the lowest of slime for his pivotal part in bringing the war upon us? If it was all just Bush lies, wasn't Powell the chief deliverer of those lies?

Apparently, Powell is forgiven for being satan's mouth-piece, perhaps under the notion that he was sympathetically under the spell of the evil W. And he certainly can't be faulted for being a good soldier and following orders, right? Perhaps such are the very traits that most appeal to Obama: a lack of connection to reality, a willingness to deceive for the team and cause...a willingness to be deceived himself.

At this point, it appears that we will have as Commander-in-Chief a man who could not qualify for a position in the same Secret Service that will be protecting him; has not clarified his own citizenship status; has built his entire campaign on a slogan that is entirely absent from his record; faults his opponent for choosing a running mate having no executive experience, while he himself has actually less than her; is defeating a proven war hero while having a past littered with Marxism.

We are witnessing the most unbelievable and improbable of scenarios.

Three Cheers for Washington?

Golly, it sure is a good thing that the House passed the "Rescue" Bill today, cuz who knows how far the market would've fallen had they not. As it is, it ended at 158 points down ...DOWN??!! Wall Street suuuure was glad to see that turd of a legislative package get passed, huh?

...What have they done?!

I suggest you buy stock in wooden arrows, and Samoan businesses. We might also dust off our torches and hayforks, and put on our walking shoes. Time for all of them to go, starting with the esteemed Congressman Frank, choreographer-in-chief of this mess.

The Political Index

Perhaps the brightest lining of this POTUS campaign cloud is that both tickets claim to be the team who will bring change (which allegedly means improvement) to our nation's capitol. So, regardless of who wins, we should at least get change...if either party is good for their word. We should all remember, 4 years from now, these claims for being the better change agents, and judge them at the voting booths in 2012. No improving changes = No 2nd term. Now, what we need is a means for measuring change. We need key indicators, like we have for the stock markets, which boil complex changes down to a single measure that indicates up, down, or flat. We need a Political Index, that factors in things like our war status, our nat'l debt, our trade balance, our energy independence, and a few other key factors. Then, when it comes time to decide whether to keep the rascals in or toss 'em, we look to the Political Index.

Honesty will get you disqualified

There's a very sad and ruinous Catch-22 going on in our politics these days...though it perhaps has always been there. No one candidate (or even their entire team of advisors) can have an answer (especially the right answer) to all questions/issues/problems they are or will be confronted with. But that certainly doesn't keep all of them from pretending to. Indeed, some supporters expect this of their candidate, and even more so of the candidates they don't support. So, if a candidate attempts to take the honest and lonesome path and admits to not having enough knowledge on a given subject, or just flat out doesn't know an answer, they are immediately judged as insufficiently experienced and therefore completely unqualified for the office they seek. Seeing this as political suicide, the candidates instead pretend to know everything about everything, which of course makes them look foolish to the observers who choose to stay connected to reality. The trick is to make yourself look more informed and honest than ignorant and dishonest. This is what we've fallen to. How do we climb back out of this to a higher ground? ...Can we?

The Sleeper President

Here's a wacky idea for an intrigue novel or movie...

A radical-religion terrorist organization with sleeper-cells in the U.S. selects, preens, and successfully supports one of their own to run for POTUS, under the guise of being a nice, eloquent, educated Christian. Against all odds, and with a rather shrouded and somewhat suspicious upbringing, he is able to climb his way up through elite higher education, then oddly veers away from the highly lucrative careers that such credentials are used for. Instead, our intrepid character moves into local, then state and eventually federal office to enjoy a short term as Senator before launching into his presidential campaign. Having a complete lack of executive experience, or any real political experience to speak of, he covers for that by simply being a minority, which wins him significant unwaivering support from those who see that as an over-riding benefit in itself. Once he secures the Oval Office, he then unleashes his sleeper initiatives, covertly and with deniabily of course. With the power of the Office and his supporters behind him, he brings down disabling havoc on the country's financial, energy, military and other critical systems, thereby setting it up for his overseas co-horts to come and have their way with the U.S. --the Great Satan.

Fortunately, this is total fiction, and could never actually be pulled off. ...Right?

Candidate Clinton: Independent

Prediction, June 3, 2008:
Faced with the likelihood that Hillary will not be able to sway sifficient delegates over to her, driven by her all-consuming hunger to take the Oval Office she will choose to leave the Democratic ticket and take up the fight as an Independent, striking a pose as the Moderate candidate.

Regardless, McCain will win the election.

McClelland: Hero or Hack?

Scott McClelland's tell-all book, What Happened, according to its author, is an attempt to change Washington politics for the better. The argument goes that the partisan bickering and undercutting must stop so that we can return to the way our capital should be run, and hopefully this book will contribute, even in some small way, towards that end. Some conclusions must be drawn from this posturing:

1. In the author's estimations, it will be well worth all the massive damage inflicted on the still sitting war-time president, by his enemies around the world using this fresh ammunition against Bush and the administration, if in the end his book helps even just a little bit to reverse some of our political divisions.
2. The author would have us believe that it is merely coincidental that the book is released in the very midst of a pivotal national election campaign. A time in which the absolute last thing any engaged member desires is reconciliation with the other side...let alone any within the same side.
3. He would have us believe that the sliver-thin difference between his precise wordings, and the accusations they are easily turned into by the other side, are unfortunate misinterpretations.
4. The author believes our political divisions are unhealthy, and need to be repaired, and that such a goal can actually be achieved and measured.
5. The book focuses on poor-judgement decisions made by the president and his advisers, and that those mistakes need to be rehashed and analyzed so as to properly learn and avoid them next time.

One must conclude that Mr. McClelland is incredibly naive, or uncontrollably altruistic, or shamelessly greedy, or unfaithful to his allegiances, or possessed of inconceivably poor judgement himself, or incapable of seeing the danger of his Monday-morning observations. I must conclude, after seeing his explanations on live TV this evening, that he is all of these at once, and that his strongest justifications are in reality none at all. This book is a colossal case of bad judgement itself. Not only will it not lead to improved relations between the political factions, but it will actual contribute significantly in the opposite direction. The political damage will have been made, the book will be tossed aside, and the author will have been forgotten by both enemy and former friend. The very best we can additionaly hope for is that the publisher will find itself stuck with a warehouse of books that nobody wants to buy. To that end, I pledge my part.

Obama the Great Unifier?

Candidate Obama claims to be the one and only who will be able to re-unite our fractured country. Assuming for the moment that we're actually in need of a national reunion, where's the evidence of his ability to do this? Has he accomplished this even within his own fractured political party? No? Well, how about then just the disunity between himself and his sole Democrat opponent. No? Even when the two disagree about so little in the first place?! Odd.

Rather than serve as a unifier, has he not actually chosen to be a divider? Has he not chosen to fabricate or exaggerate distinctions with his opponent, for the hope of political advantage? What would make you think that he, or anyone, would not resort to this same tactic once ensconced in the Oval Office. where the demand for it may only be greater?

Great Unifier? Just more Madison Ave polish.

Barak Hussein Obama, U.S. President?

Though it's now 6+ years ago since 9/11, our nation is still recovering from that event, and perhaps the largest wound yet to heal is our suspicion of all things Muslim...even things Muslim-like. At this point, Barak Hussein Obama has a real shot at garnering the Democratic nomination for president, if not the Oval Office itself. Mr. Obama professes to be Christian, and I have no reason to doubt his claim, yet his Muslim-like name remains, and surely there will be some who prefer to doubt his affiliation.

So, what would happen if the U.S. were to elect as president, in these suspicious-of-all-things-Muslim times, a man who bears such a Muslim-like name? (If our suspicion doesn't make that an impossibility in the first place.) And let's say that he follows through with his promises to get us out of Iraq in the first days of his presidency. How would xenophobic ultra-cons deal with that? Might one of the more extreme among them decide that it's time to complete the image of Obama being the next JFK?

Or, what if in taking office Mr. Obama realizes that such a withdrawal really isn't the right thing to do after all? How would the Islamic world take to the idea of a "Muslim-like" guy being our new commander-in chief, and he's choosing to continue the war against their people rather than end it? Could that turn even more of them against us?