Who Will Obama Blame Next?

Faced with the failure of his presidency, Barack Obama had decided to try to win re-election by scapegoating Wall Street, the wealthy and Republicans.

Obama takes a shot at one or more of his targets daily.  The Washington Post has reported that Obama is using anti-Wall Street rhetoric as a central tenet of his campaign.  Already, his campaign and the White House have sent out messages attacking Republicans for allegedly wanting to repeal Wall Street regulations pushed by Obama.

“They want to let Wall Street do whatever it wants,” Obama said in North Carolina in October.  Of course, Republicans want to cut back on regulations and not let Wall Street do whatever it wants.  Obama’s campaign strategy ignores the fact that nearly three years after he took office, the reason for the country’s economic downturn is Obama himself.  Instead of encouraging business, he has demonized it.  Instead of making it easier for companies to expand, he has made it more difficult by creating uncertainly about costs imposed by Obamacare, taxation and regulations.

Instead of decreasing spending and the nation’s deficit, Obama has increased the national debt by $4.2 trillion.  Since Obama’s stimulus was passed 1.5 million jobs have been lost.

Obama’s strategy of finding scapegoats mirrors that of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., his minister and self-described mentor for 20 years.  On the Sunday following 9/11, Wright characterized the terrorist attacks as a consequence of violent American policies.  Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.

Unabashedly, Wright said America created the AIDS virus to kill off blacks.  He gave am award for lifetime achievement to Louis Farrakhan, who blames the nation’s ills on Jews.  Wright equated Zionism with racism and compared Israel with South Africa under apartheid.

Wright’s “Black Value System” denounced “our racist competitive society” and included the disavowal of the pursuit of “middle-classness.”  That was defined as a way American society seduced blacks into achieving economic success, thus snaring them rather than “killing them off directly” or “placing them in concentration camps.”

“We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty,” Wright has said.  “God damn America!”  As a community organizer, Obama’s job was to further victimhood and self-pity.  “A community organizer organizes people who have had difficulty producing,” Alphonso Jackson, President Bush’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development, has said.  “When you are a community organizer, what you get most of the time is people telling you what their problems are and why they don’t succeed.”  In many cases, they are blacks who blame their lack of achievement on whites.

There is nothing new about the use of scapegoats to galvanize support.  Adolf Hitler did it, scapegoating Jews.  Osama bin Laden did it, blaming Western civilization.  Previously, Obama blamed President George W. Bush for the county’s economic problems.  Now, in an act of desperation, Obama have even embraced the anti-Wall Street protesters, who scream epithets about America and capitalism, promote envy, and take on the police.

There is a reason Obama spent 20 years listening to Wright and described him as his sounding board and mentor:  Blaming others is an integral part of President Obama’s character.

The Myth of Freedom in America

Does the government exist to serve us or to master us?  If the government exists to serve us and if freedom is part of our humanity, how can the government take freedom from us?  Is human freedom in America a myth, or is it reality?

Human beings possess natural rights as part of our humanity.  In the Judeo-Christian tradition, we view these rights as gifts from our Creator.  This is particularly so if you are an American, and if you mark the founding of this nation at July 4^th 1776, as it was then that the Continental Congress promulgated in the Declaration of Independence Jefferson’s – though hardly novel – words to the effect that we humans are created equal and are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Historians have speculated that Jefferson originally planned to use the concept of property rights, but fear of addressing slavery in the same document in which he characterized the long train of abuses visited upon colonists by the king of England, would have opened the Declaration and its signers to charges of hypocrisy.

Nevertheless, Talmudic and Christian scholars and renowned skeptics, even atheists and deists, had long held, by Jefferson’s time, that the divine right of kings was a myth, that all humans own their own bodies, and that personal freedoms are integral to those bodies.  Whether the ultimate source of human freedom is founded in theology or biology, freedom exists, freedom is ours by nature, and the long history of the world is really one unceasing, increasing catalogue of the epic battles for personal freedoms against tyranny.

In other words:  thought, speech, press, worship, travel, privacy, association, self-defense, bodily integrity, dominion over ownership of property, fairness from government, and the presumption of liberty at all times under all circumstances and in all conflicts are the essence of humanity.

Unfortunately, throughout our history, persons in America have had all natural rights denied by different levels of government, from slavery to abortion, from punishment for speech to theft of property, from denial of due process to invasion of privacy; and government has prevailed.  Every day in many ways, seen and unseen, liberty is lost.

It is now time for us to fight for the primacy of the individual over the state, and to help forment a reawakening of the natural human thirst for freedom.

More Capitalism, Less Crony Capitalism

If the Occupy Wall Street movement is really motivated to stop corporate greed and corruption it would focus on President Obama and his tight circle of crony capitalists, who have looted the public treasury under the guise of promoting clean energy.  The problem plaguing our economic system is crony capitalism, not capitalism.

The government bailouts outraged Americans from all political persuasions and ignited the Tea Party movement, but those unfortunate events are history.

What is even more outrageous is President Obama followed the episode of Wall Street, automotive company bailouts, and funding of clean energy initiated by President Bush with a $787 billion economic stimulus that funneled massive amounts of public funds to private businesses, many of which have close political ties to the president.

The tens of billions of dollars allocated for clean energy turned into an orgy of big business special interest group politics that has had spectacularly failed to create meaningful job growth.

The high profile bankruptcy of solar panel maker Solyndra brought national attention to cronyism associated with the clean energy stimulus.  Billionaire George Kaiser -- an Obama donor and fundraising bundler for the president -- was a key investor in the failed clean energy venture that resulted in a $535 million loss of taxpayer money.

ABC New recently reported that a $529 million loan from the Energy Department was used to back an electric car company, Fisker Automotive, which is creating jobs in Finland and not the United States.  The loan announced in 2009 to Fisker Automotive was part of the Energy Department's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program initiated during the Bush administration.

The loan to Fisker Automotive financially benefited Al Gore and his billionaire venture capital business partner John Doerr, who is a member of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness and a big political donor to Democrats.  Al Gore and John Doerr are partners in the venture capital company  Kliener Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB).

Fisker Automotive was not the only company in which KPCB’s financial interest overlaps with Obama’s clean energy push. Silver Spring Networks, a company that is involved in developing the smart electricity grid, also benefited from the stimulus money. According to the New York Times, of the $3.4 billion in smart grid grants awarded by the Energy Department, “more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.”

Outrageously, General Electric – a major recipient of the government’s bailout effort during the stock market meltdown in 2008 – is also cashing in under CEO Jeff Immelt by using taxpayer money to boost the company’s investment in renewable energy.

GE was saved because it borrowed $16 billion from the Federal Reserve and the company took advantage of a Federal Deposits Insurance Corporation program that guaranteed its debt allowing the company to borrow money at lower rates. Under the latter plan GE issued $74 billion in short and longer-term debt.

After being rescued by taxpayers, General Electric dove into Obama’s clean energy money pit. According to Recovery.gov, GE has received over $126 million in grants and contracts from the stimulus plan, including a $31 million grant from the Energy Department for research on gas turbines that has been estimated to have created about 31 jobs.

Political access certainly has its privileges. Immelt serves as the chairman of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, where panel participants have the opportunity to leverage their position to advance their respective business interests.

When the government enters the marketplace and picks winners and losers with cash infusions it leads to marketplace distortions and political shenanigans from a feeding frenzy of lobbyists and the politically-connected.

Crony capitalism existed before President Obama’s inauguration, but it has greatly accelerated under his watch. The answer, regardless of which political party runs Washington D.C., lies with smaller government.

Today, the Tea Party movement is challenging crony capitalism and its envoys, including President Obama and CEOs such as Immelt.

If the Occupy Wall Street movement is seriously concerned about representing the 99 percent, it should too.

Obama's Only Mideast Policy: Attack Israel

Israel and America are at a dangerous crossroads in which the survival of Israel and the safety of the United States both hang in the balance.
Year after year, the forces of terrorism become stronger, and the claims of terrorists become more acceptable to our European allies and more powerful in the United Nations. Year after year the Iranian dictatorship, with its openly stated desire to annihilate Israel and defeat the United States, moves closer to having nuclear means to do so. Year after year, Hamas grows stronger in Gaza and Hezbollah grows stronger in Lebanon.

Today the greatest obstacle toward achieving a real and lasting peace is not the strength of the enemy or the unwillingness of Israel to make great sacrifices for the sake of peace. It is the inability on the part of the Obama administration and certain other world leaders to tell the truth about terrorism, be honest about the publicly stated goals of our common enemies and devise policies appropriate to an honest accounting of reality.

Moral confusion that cannot see for what they are attacks that fit into a carefully defined ideology of radical Islamist terrorism is sadly typical of this administration’s elevation of political correctness above common sense. The Obama administration’s policy towards Israel has been a victim of this dangerous confusion.

President Obama wants Israel to enter into negotiations with a Palestinian Authority that is now in league with the terrorist organization Hamas. The president said that applying this pressure on Israel was not the politically savvy thing for him to do, and that the safe thing to do in an election year is nothing.

He is essentially telling us that he is doing the brave thing by pressuring Israel to negotiate with terrorists who want to destroy it. President Obama and his State Department should recall some basic facts.

Hamas was founded as a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Its charter openly calls for Israel's destruction and instructs its followers to kill Jews wherever they find them. Hamas goes well beyond words in its effort to destroy Israel. In 2010, more than 200 missiles were fired into Israel from Gaza.

No country can be expected to conduct peace negotiations with a terrorist organization dedicated to its destruction, or with a Palestinian governmental authority that joins forces with such a terrorist organization.

Twenty years of hopes for the modern peace process cannot change this fundamental reality.

It also means that entering into peace negotiations with any organization that includes Hamas is a fool’s errand. It is something that no friend of Israel should ever ask Israel to do. I certainly hope this administration doesn’t resort to the meaningless exercise of trying to artificially distinguish between the military and political wings of Hamas as a way of justifying pressure on Israel to negotiate with the latter.

In his recent speeches, President Obama also called for Israel to accept the 1967 lines as the beginning of peace negotiations. He went to great lengths to have us all believe that what he said at the State Department and later at AIPAC was no different than what other American presidents have declared as official policy.

Unfortunately, that’s just not true. President Obama has in fact called for a remarkable shift in U.S. policy regarding the peace process. He wants Israel to accept the indefensible lines of 1967 as the starting point of negotiations.

Accepting such a proposal would be a suicidal step for Israel. Fortunately for Israel, that proposal is a non-starter with the American people.

Like Israel, we are committed to seeing a peace agreement that protects Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the Jewish state. After all, it has only been under Jewish authority that religious freedom, including access to holy sites, for people of all faiths -- Christian, Jewish and Muslim -- has been protected.

Meanwhile, we must readily see the president’s policies for what they are: the dangerous accommodation of Middle East dictators, and worse, the accommodation of terrorist groups like Hamas.

President Obama’s policies represent a sharp break from the post-World War II American political consensus of providing unwavering support to the State of Israel.

The decision to adopt a policy of accommodation, using the political objectives and code words of those who wish to drive Israel into the sea, affirms the administration’s radicalism in its headlong flight from the legacy of U.S. presidents -- from Truman to Bush -- and is leading Israel and the Western democracies toward ever increasing danger.

President Obama’s focus on Israel as the obstacle to peace is particularly disturbing considering the existence of a true threat to the peace of the world: the threat from Iran. Today Iran is watching whether the United States keeps its promises with its ally Israel and how we deal with Iran's proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah.

We need to acknowledge that 20 years of trying to negotiate peace with evil regimes and organizations dedicated to the destruction of Israel -- and in many cases our own destruction -- has been a failure, and the time has come to clearly and decisively take the offensive against them.

This begins with a firm and consistent commitment by the United States -- in the Reagan tradition -- to speak plainly and truthfully about the nature of our enemies.

Next, our policies must reflect the fact that there is no moral equivalency between terrorist regimes and a legitimate self-governing country that abides by the rule of law.

We must reverse the Obama administration's dangerous policies of incoherence and accommodation and implement instead a foreign policy that is clear about the evil that we face and committed to the actions necessary to overcome it.

Media Bias in the Coverage of “Occupy” Protests? That is a Shock

"Where's the outrage?" the Republican National Committee asked this week regarding the support of President Barack Obama, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Steve Israel for the Occupy Wall Street protests despite well-documented anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments and signs.

It's a fair question; one that should not have to be asked by the RNC, but instead members of the media interviewing Democrats.

Let's go back to the last election cycle. While much of the media scoffed, insulted, or dismissed Tea Party activists, they also held Republicans' feet to the fire, gleefully grilling Republican elected officials, candidates, and strategists any time some jerk at a Tea Party rally had a sign questioning either the president's birth certificate or Christianity.

I recall well how the conversation would play out. After showing b-roll of a misguided individual holding up such a sign, or airing a similarly wrong comment, the interviewer would ask, "Isn't this representative of something larger within the Republican Party…why aren't Republicans condemning this more forcefully?" while the Republican interviewee would condemn both the comments and the attitude behind it.

Democrats praising the Occupy Wall Street protests have thus far been spared similarly uncomfortable questions. Indeed, media coverage of the protests has been long on publicity, but short on scrutiny. Scrutiny of those participating in the protests and those cheering them on has been practically nonexistent.

This is not to suggest the protests are anti-Semitic in nature. Tea Party rallies, after all, were about seeking to curb federal spending and stop Obamacare, not birth certificates. But as the Occupy Wall Street protests grow and their message continues to, er, evolve—are these the World Trade Organization protests redux, fighting "The Man" as in 1970s action films, or something more that remains to be seen—top Democrats, desperate to find any foothold with voters, are clinging to the protests.

So desperate, in fact, they have thus far been willing to turn a blind eye to anti-Semitic elements within the protests.

Perhaps it's naïve to think Democrats would condemn such behavior on their own without prompting, but it is entirely reasonable to expect the media to do its job with the same diligence (zeal, even) we saw over the Tea Party not so long ago.

Six of One, Half Dozen of the Other

I don’t’ know who I would like to be the GOP nominee in 2012.  I am not sure who I will vote for in the Illinois primary.  By the time Illinois has its primary the race may be all but over.  I do know that the GOP establishment is pushing real hard to make Mitt Romney the nominee.

However, I can say that I will NOT be voting for Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is too much like Barack Obama. I am not sure wheather or not he will win the 2012 GOP nod. But, in my opinion, he's got too much in common with the guy he wants to replace.

Both men began a run for the White House during their first term in statewide office. Romney never bothered to run for re-election as Massachusetts governor. He didn't stick around to solve the state's problems. He treated the job like a stepping-stone.

Likewise, Obama ran for the White House in his first term as a U.S. senator.

Each could win a gold medal in flip-flopping.

Short list: In 2008, Obama pledged to shut down Guantanamo Bay, vowed to raise taxes on the rich, opposed raising the federal debt ceiling in 2006 and hit President George W. Bush for unilaterally authorizing "a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

In office, Obama has kept Gitmo open, signed a measure to extend the Bush tax cuts for all income levels, proposed raising the debt ceiling and authorized the use of military force over Libya without congressional approval.

Romney has made a similar journey. When he ran to be governor of liberal Massachusetts in 2002, Romney pledged to "protect a woman's right to choose" and won the unanimous endorsement of the gay GOP group, the Log Cabin Republicans.

With his eyes on the 2008 GOP nomination, Romney's views on abortion began to move closer to the GOP's right. Romney now defines himself as "firmly pro-life." The Log Cabin Republicans whom he had once courted were so angry at what they saw as Romney's defection on social issues that they produced a TV spot highlighting Romney's erstwhile "Massachusetts values."

Both pushed through big health care packages -- and now are left with the baggage.

Romney was for an individual mandate for his Massachusetts health care plan before he was against the mandate in Obama's health care plan -- because it's national.

Obama was against the individual mandate -- in the primary, he hammered Hillary Rodham Clinton for daring to suggest such a thing -- before his administration proclaimed the individual mandate to be the linchpin to Obamacare.

To keep Obamacare intact, the administration has granted more than 1,000 waivers to large employers -- like the state of Maine. Romney favors waivers for all states, then he favors repeal. He now refers to Romneycare as "an experiment" -- a word that politicians usually reserve to explain their drug use in college.

Each has a religious m-word. Romney is a Mormon. Obama is not a Muslim.

Both men seem to share an aversion to anything with a whiff of political unpopularity. Obama let Congress write his health care bill, and he's been reluctant to act on deficit reduction.

For his part, Romney enjoys hitting Obamacare -- which plays to the GOP base. But then, when it comes to Romneycare, the former governor blames Bay State Democrats for undermining it. Whose fault is that?

They both look presidential and both are a political consultant's dream. But if you don't see them sweat, it's because you don't see them doing the heavy lifting.

Tough Sanctions on Iran Now!

In light of what we learned this week about Iran’s backing of plots to assassinate a foreign ambassador on American soil and a plot to plant a bomb in Washington, we can no longer ignore the threat that Iran poses to peace. However, the question we must ask is the same question we have asked every year for decades. How do we deal with the ticking time bomb of Iran?

The Obama administration must press with all its diplomatic might, and with sober pragmatism, for the kind of stinging economic sanctions that are the best hope to prevent a calamitous chain reaction. And the Administration must deal with several dangers.

The first danger is in Israel, whose leaders have understandably described Iran's nuclear pursuit, along with its ominous rhetoric, as an "existential" threat. Israeli leaders have made it clear that they will not wait forever to take preemptive military action of the sort Israel used successfully when it bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

The second danger is the potential reaction of many other Middle Eastern nations. Countries like Saudi Arabia, with its majority Arab, Sunni population, could set off an arms race by seeking to develop nuclear programs of their own, in the face of the threat from Iran's Persian, Shiite majority.

Yet another potential explosion, this one more hopeful than fearsome, could shake Iran itself -- the so-called "Green Revolution," a popular push back against the repressive government of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The fuse on this volatile material was lit in response to what was widely perceived as a stolen election that kept Ahmadinejad in power.

Sitting down across the table from Iran is basically off the table. The same must be said, in my view, about military action, at least for now, although the possible use of force must never be fully disavowed.

The clear necessity is for the world community to impose prompt and painful sanctions targeting the Revolutionary Guard and the government, while sparing the general population as much as possible. Clinton, leading this effort, seems to have key allies behind her. But as usual the Russians and Chinese, who have veto power as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, are maddeningly resistant.

Some headway has been made with Russia, which has offered to reprocess Iran's spent nuclear fuel so the nuclear program can actually be what Iran claims it to be: an energy program. But Russia's cooperation has come at a cost. Obama scrapped the planned deployment of a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. And because of Iran, Russia will also have more leverage in talks about strategic nuclear weapons and the proposed enlargement of NATO, which Russia considers its own existential threat.

Even more uncomfortable compromises may be needed to win responsible Chinese behavior on Iran. Recent flare-ups over such sore points as Tibet, Taiwan and China's currency may make this more difficult,.

Critics may decry what has to be surrendered to win international unity behind more meaningful sanctions. But time is not on the side of stability and peace.

What Is A Man?

I know that my blogs always tend to focus on the politics of the day.  But, I thought I would take a little time to write about something non-political that has been on my mind lately.  Due to some recent changes in my life, I have been contemplating a question for which I feel it is important to have an answer.  The question I find myself asking is,  “What do you think it means to be a man?” versus one of the countless “guys” I see roaming our country.   The following is what I have decided (at least for me) what it really means to be a man in the 21st century.

Growing up I always thought being a man meant you needed to be rough and tough like John Wayne “The Duke” or the famous animated character “He-man” who was a strong and muscular representation of the “ideal” man.
Being an man (not just a guy) in the 21st century requires guts.  It demands courage, strength, and faith.  Today’s generation of men face a new way of expressing manliness in the world. A way where compassion, service, and love is the leading-edge of being in the world. Whereas 20-30 years ago  men were conditioned to not show their emotions and encouraged to be “the man of the house”. Where as today, times are changing and being a powerful and confident man looks and acts shockingly different in today’s society. To all my friends who are men (not just guys),  this post is for you.

What it means to be a man:
Integrity: Having integrity means you honor your word and your commitments. How many times did someone give you their business card or they email you and you “forget” to call them or email them back?  Being an man means your word is more valuable than anything else.  People can trust in you because of your commitment and your consistency in being there when you say you will or calling them when you say you will.  Integrity is not an act in life,  it is a way of life.  The world needs more men who are willing to stand by their word and honor their commitments.

Being of Service: In today’s world we often see people impoverished mentally, physically, and spiritually.  Being and man means you are willing to put others before yourself and look for ways, on a daily basis, in which you can be of service to others.  What separates an man from someone who is just a guy is the fact that they are self-motivated to create happiness and joy in the lives of others and not self-centered only in thinking about how they will grow and succeed.  In today’s world we are learning that it’s not only possible, but necessary for men  to be successful in their personal goals and career well as the goals of others around him.  It’s time to lay down the “I need to get mine” mentality and look for ways to share our time and talents for the happiness and comfort of those around us.

Emotional: In order to be an man it means you are willing to show your true feelings with others.  In doing this you are creating a new level of honesty, authenticity, and power for the next generation of men (like my 12 year old son and my nephews).  In the John Wayne era we were taught to bite our feelings, stuff them down, and get over it.  Those days are over.  Holding our emotions in only creates resistance and a lack of flow in our creativity, abundance, and drive for life. This way of the ego has met its last day for those ready to embark on a powerful journey of being a real man. It’s time for men to be willing to show their sensitivity, passion, and true feelings in front of others.  There is tremendous power in revealing your true emotions.  Doors are opened to create a greater connection and a feeling of true community within humanity.
Visionary: Being an man means you are  fearless to dream and go after your dreams and not let the world around you constrain your imagination and genius. The world is only growing smaller and a man carries a vision that is so unique and inspiring that he is willing to face the criticism and doubt of others and keep moving forward in his belief in its being a reality.

Faith: Let go of the idea that you are in control of everything that happens in your life and trust in something greater than yourself to be a guiding compass in this world.  A man continues to use his mind and intellect to believe and keep moving forward, yet realizing that there is a power greater than he moving through him bringing his vision and the world together through him in a powerful way.  A man is consistent with his daily spiritual practice. He does not let anything remove him from his daily spiritual practice which keeps his heart open and the possibility of being a conduit for powerful change to occur through him.  He continues to seek growth and recognizes his need for improvement without carrying guilt about it. A man understands that he is merely passing through this world.

Sense of Humor: One of the biggest differences in what it means to be a man today verses being just another guy is having a lightness about you and being able to laugh and make others laugh around you.  Through laughter a man shows his confidence in life and his ability to trust and go with the flow.  When you find yourself heavy and serious you have lost touch with your true self.  Create a way each day to laugh and make others laugh which expands a lightness for those around you.

It’s a big role to be a man today.  We need more men that are willing to step up and not worry about what others think of them and confidently spark a new era of what it means to be a man.  I am incredibly grateful to the person who gave me the inspiration to think of this and give me the food for thought to continue to grow into a man (you know who you are). I may not be completely there yet.  But, I will try to grow a little more every day.  This may only be the  foundation of being a man. There are many more ways to add onto what it means to be a man today.

I send my blessings to all my friends who are men.

Obama's "Save My Job" Bill

By now, most of us have digested President Obama's jobs speech before a joint session of Congress three weeks ago: "You give me $447 billion more in taxpayer funds to spend on government subsidies and I'll give you a $240 billion payroll tax cut for employers and employees." Even on that symbolic night, Obama's applause line, "Pass this bill," had degenerated by the 15th repetition into near-mania. It sounded more like, "Pass this Save My Job bill."

It still does. Obama's bumper sticker slogan has lived on in constant White House nagging at Congress, from speeches in Raleigh, N.C.; Richmond, Va.; and Cincinnati's decaying Brent Spence Bridge -- all in swing states he wants to win to get re-elected in 2012.

But Congress, even Harry Reid's Democrat-controlled Senate, is in no hurry to pass Obama's American Jobs Act . However, in his joint session speech, the president may have made a strategic blunder. After all his histrionics, he closed by saying that he "would consider all good ideas." And, two Republicans took him up on it. Sen. John Barrasso (Wyoming) and Rep. Steve Pearce (N.M), respective chairmen of the Senate and Congressional Western Caucuses, gave him more than 40 good ideas. They wrote a joint letter to the president and sent him their detailed "Jobs Frontiers" report with more than 40 bills "as a collection of ideas for your additional consideration."

The "Jobs Frontiers" bills weren't just ideas. They had already been introduced in one or both chambers of Congress with triggers for instant shovel-ready jobs, unlike Obama's bureaucrat-laden, grow-the-government, beyond-the-horizon loans and grants and hopes. Barrasso and Pearce were determined that their good ideas would not dissolve into Obama's predictions of 13 million new jobs -- with two years of help from a Democrat-controlled House and Senate -- that instead lost 2.3 million jobs, and sent unemployment climbing from 7.8 percent to 9.1 percent. The Jobs Frontier bills deliberately and defiantly cut bureaucratic red tape, proposed developing American energy on American soil, and sought right-now, boots-on jobs in the West and across the country. Barrasso and Pearce gave Obama examples: "For instance, Mr. President, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act offered by Congressman Paul Gosar [R Ariz.] would pave the way for a copper mine in Superior. Arizona, and immediately bring 1400 new jobs to an area in desperate need. The San Joaquin Valley legislation offered by Congressman Devin Nunes [R Calif.] would bring 25,000 to 30,000 jobs back to California." The two caucus leaders patiently explained some of their other bills. Bills offered by Congressman Hastings [R Wash.] would create 250,000 short term jobs and over 1.2 million jobs in the long term. The Domestic Jobs, Domestic Energy and Deficit Reduction Act offered by Senator David Vitter and Congressman Rob Bishop would create over 2 million jobs and $10 trillion in Gross Domestic Product at zero cost to the taxpayer. The two lawmakers closed politely: "We take you at your word that you will consider all good proposals."

The letter and report appear to have submerged into the White House oblivion file. It was predictable. The White House regularly takes action against specific industries with lots of jobs to kill: for example Obama targets oil and gas (9 million jobs); coal (550,000); hydropower (200-300,000); geothermal (13,000); meat production (6.2 million); forest products (900,000); hunting and fishing (1.1 million jobs).

My vote for worst Obama job killers goes to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson. I'm not pointing my finger at them, I'm just pointing to the door where they should march immediately, then out to the unemployment line with their countless victims.

Illinois Pension Reform Should Matter to You

If you’re not a teacher or government worker hoping to cash in on a pension when you retire, you may be wondering why pension reform matters to you.

Try this on for size: The rising costs of government pensions will cost you one week’s paycheck this year.

How?

In January, Gov. Pat Quinn signed a 67 percent income tax hike into law. While it was sold as necessary to pay down the state’s operating debt, the comptroller is now reporting that Illinois’ debt backlog at the end of the year will be around $8 billion — about the same amount as before the tax hike. Why? Most of the extra money is going to making the state’s growing pension payment.

The average Illinois household was set to spend $10,988 in state and local taxes this year, but the average state tax bill will climb by an extra $1,594, thanks to Gov. Quinn’s tax increase. This increase is nearly equal to what an average Illinois household spends annually on clothing.

Another way to look at the higher tax bill is to estimate the additional time spent working to pay for it. Before the tax hike, it took 58 minutes per workday to pay the average state and local tax bill. Now, it will take 67 minutes because of the state income tax increase.

Over a full year, this adds up to an entire workweek.

If you’re not happy about losing out on a week’s pay, you’re not alone. According to a January poll, most Illinoisans would rather keep that money for their own families.

The poll asked likely Illinois voters how the state should address its increasing pension payment. Fifty-nine percent of respondents said that future benefits for current workers should be reduced, while just 21 percent supported raising taxes.

Personal bank accounts aside, the increasingly large pension payment is squeezing funding for core government services — services that you may count on.

Take education, for example. The cost of contributions to the Teachers’ Retirement System already exceeds general state aid to K-12 schools. And in higher education, if Illinois continues on its current path, the state will spend more money on contributions to the State Universities Retirement System in 20 years than on public universities and community colleges.

That doesn’t bode well for the next generation in Illinois, but unfortunately similar “crowd out” stories can be told for human services, transportation and public safety.

Big picture, Illinois’ economic outlook — and jobs climate — won’t improve until we get our state budget under control. And balancing our budget requires reforming pensions.

For that to happen, we need legislators to have the courage to do right by all of their constituents.
 
Everyone is feeling the pain from losing an extra week of pay this year. Lawmakers in Springfield can ease that pain by enacting pension reform that rights the state’s fiscal ship and sets all Illinoisans back on the path to prosperity.

Leading From Behind

Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the president's actions in Libya as "leading from behind."
-- Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker, May 2 issue

Leading from behind is a style, not a doctrine. Doctrines involve ideas, but since there are no discernible ones that make sense of Obama foreign policy this will have to do.

And it surely is an accurate description, from President Obama's shocking passivity during Iran's 2009 Green Revolution to his dithering on Libya.  It's been a foreign policy of hesitation, delay and indecision, marked by plaintive appeals to the (fictional) "international community" to do what only America can.

However, Obama advisers assure us there really are ideas. Indeed, "two unspoken beliefs," explains Lizza. "That the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world."

Amazing!  This is why Obama is deliberately diminishing American presence, standing and leadership in the world?

Take proposition one: We must "lead from behind" because U.S. relative power is declining. Even if you accept the premise, it's a complete non sequitur. What does China's rising GDP have to do with American buck-passing on Libya, misjudging Iran, appeasing Syria?

True, China is rising. But first, it is the only power of any significance rising militarily relative to us. And second, the challenge of a rising Chinese military is still exclusively regional. It would affect a war over Taiwan. It has zero effect on anything significantly beyond China's coast. China has no blue-water navy. It has no foreign bases. It cannot project power globally. It might in the future -- but by what logic should that paralyze us today?

Proposition two: We must lead from behind because we are hated. But, when were we not? During Vietnam? Or earlier, under Eisenhower? When his vice president was sent on a good will trip to Latin America, he was spat upon and so threatened by the crowds that he had to cut short his trip. Or maybe later, under the blessed Reagan? The Reagan years were marked by vast demonstrations in the capitals of our closest allies denouncing America as a warmongering menace taking the world into nuclear winter.

"Obama came of age politically," explains Lizza, "during the post-Cold War era, a time when America's unmatched power created widespread resentment." But the world did not begin with the coming to consciousness of Barack Obama. Cold War resentments ran just as deep.

It is the fate of any assertive superpower to be envied, denounced and blamed for everything under the sun. Nothing has changed. Moreover, for a country so deeply reviled, why during the massive unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and Syria have anti-American demonstrations been such a rarity?

The world that Obama lived in and shaped him intellectually: the elite universities; his Hyde Park milieu (including his not-to-be-mentioned friends, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn); the church he attended for two decades, ringing with sermons more virulently anti-American than anything heard in today's full-throated uprising of the Arab Street.

It is the liberal elites who hate America and devoutly wish to see it cut down to size. Leading from behind -- diminishing America's global standing and assertiveness -- is a reaction to American Liberal's view of America, not the world's.

Leading from behind is not leading. It is abdicating. It is also an oxymoron.

Patriotism Is Not A State Of Mind -- It Is A State Of Soul

Several times over the past year some of my liberal friends have questioned what they perceived to be my feigning patriotism to win a political argument or to advance a political agenda.  One even said that using false patriotism is “right out of the conservative play book.”  (Maybe, it is.  But, I wouldn’t know because I have never seen this play book.)  Every time I am accused of using patriotism for political gain, I am a surprised.  Usually, I am so surprised that I don’t know how to respond. 

How is it that these liberals don’t understand that my patriotism is sincere and not feigned?  How is it that they don’t feel the same love of America that I feel?  After all they have had all the same advantage that I have had and in many cases more.  Why can’t they see that I am not acting like a patriot because I am a conservative, I am conservative because I am first and foremost a patriot? 

I have been giving these questions a lot of thought lately.  I certainly don’t pretend to be a psychologist.  But, I think I can understand why liberals hate patriotism. Understanding that hate may be a strong word, but nevertheless, they are forever condemning patriotism as gauche, as overmuch, as garish, and it is clear that such displays make them uncomfortable and ill-at-ease.

Patriotism, first, is not a selfish thing. It is about something grander than one's self. This is axiomatically opposed to a liberal's core interest: themselves. The suppression of their own desires for one single moment must feel like an inward strangling. Because of this horror, they resist such displays at all costs.

Second, patriotism is not a matter of displaying one's supposed intellect or buttering up those in a higher position than you. It operates on the drives of selflessness, memory of history, and faith. Liberals possess none of these motivations in any great degree.

Third, liberals feel uncomfortable because they are being asked to do something they do not naturally do: express gratitude for things that they do not believe in (American uniqueness, American achievements, and freedom). Generally speaking, to be patriotic is to recognize America as a good thing. Liberals cannot do this because they do not believe that America is fundamentally good and they do not share in the common dreams and characteristics of Americans throughout the ages. So, patriotism is asking a liberal to be a fake, and thus, liberals deride patriotism as fakery and worse, as some sort of pornography. They do this because liberals never look inside and ask, "Is there something wrong with me?" They are confident in their own superiority, and thus, their conclusion is that patriotism is the problem, that, and all the unintellectual backwards nativists that practice it.

Patriotism reveals those who truly love their country, and those who are made uncomfortable by their country. Liberals will always fall into the latter camp, and this is because patriotism shines a very bright light upon a missing part of their heart and soul.

Gas Prices: the Disease or the Cure?

I was speaking with a colleague at work the other day.  We were discussing the general state of the economy.  We always have interesting discussions because we see things through the lenses of opposite political views.  He is, generally speaking, often liberal.  I am rather conservative.

My colleague made the point that he felt that if the Administration could figure out a way to get gas prices down to $2.00 to $2.50 a gallon, the economy would take off.  He also felt that the President would be re-elected in a landslide. I found it difficult to disagree with his logic.

However, it occurred to me this morning that thinking of gas prices in this way is wrong.  You see, the price of gas is not what is wrong with the economy.  The price of gas is a symptom of the disease it is not the disease.  Simply having a change in the price of gasoline will not fix the fundamental problems with the economy.  The cure to the disease has to be a fundamental shift in economic policy in the current Administration.  The country needs to significantly reduce government borrowing, stabilize taxes, decrease the cost of doing business in the US trough the loosening of regulation on business and repeal ObamaCare which has cost the economy 800,000 jobs by most estimates.

And, since I don’t think the Administration would be willing to do any of the above, I don’t see any way that gas prices will go down.  Therefore, the President will have a pretty tough time come November 2012.