A Rookie President...

Scholar, author, economist, columnist -- all titles well-earned -- Dr. Thomas Sowell has again hit one out of the park in today's column published at Townhall.com and on the Jewish World Review.  And now, of course, here.

    Someone once said that, for every rookie you have on your starting team in the National Football League, you will lose a game. Somewhere, at some time during the season, a rookie will make a mistake that will cost you a game.

    We now have a rookie President of the United States and, in the dangerous world we live in, with terrorist nations going nuclear, just one rookie mistake can bring disaster down on this generation and generations yet to come.

    Barack Obama is a rookie in a sense that few other Presidents in American history have ever been. It is not just that he has never been President before. He has never had any position of major executive responsibility in any kind of organization where he was personally responsible for the outcome.

    Other first-term Presidents have been governors, generals, cabinet members or others in positions of personal responsibility. A few have been senators, like Barack Obama, but usually for longer than Obama, and had not spent half their few years in the senate running for President.

    What is even worse than making mistakes is having sycophants telling you that you are doing fine when you are not. In addition to all the usual hangers-on and supplicants for government favors that every President has, Barack Obama has a media that will see no evil, hear no evil and certainly speak no evil.

    They will cheer him on, no matter what he does, short of first-degree murder-- and they would make excuses for that. Even former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan has gushed over President Obama and even crusty Bill O'Reilly has been impressed by Obama's demeanor.

    There is no sign that President Obama has impressed the Russians, the Iranians or the North Koreans, except by his rookie mistakes-- and that is a dangerous way to impress dangerous people.

    What did his televised overture to the Iranians accomplish, except to reassure them that he was not going to do a damn thing to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb? It is a mistake that can go ringing down the corridors of history.

    Future generations who live in the shadow of that nuclear threat may wonder what we were thinking about, putting our lives-- and theirs-- in the hands of a rookie because we liked his style and symbolism?

    In the name of "change," Barack Obama is following policies so old that this generation has never heard of them-- certainly not in most of our educational institutions, where history has been replaced by "social studies" or other politically correct courses.

    Seeking deals with our adversaries, behind the backs of our allies? France did that at Munich back in 1938. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves and, less than two years later, Hitler gobbled up France anyway.

    This year, President Obama's attempt to make a backdoor deal with the Russians, behind the backs of the NATO countries, was not only rejected but made public by the Russians-- a sign of contempt and a warning to our allies not to put too much trust in the United States.

    Barack Obama is following a long practice among those on the left of being hard on our allies and soft on our enemies. One of our few allies in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, was a whipping boy for many in the American media, who vented their indignation at his regime-- which now, in retrospect, seems almost benign compared to the hate-filled fanatics and international terrorism sponsors who now rule that country.

    However much Barack Obama has proclaimed his support for Israel, his first phone call as President of the United States was to Hamas, to whom he has given hundreds of millions of dollars, which can buy a lot of rockets to fire into Israel.

    Our oldest and staunchest ally, Britain, has been downgraded by President Obama's visibly less impressive reception of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, compared to the way that previous Presidents over the past two generations have received British Prime Ministers. President Obama's sending the bust of Winston Churchill in the White House back to the British embassy at about the same time was either a rookie mistake or another snub.

    We can lose some very big games with this rookie.

 "What Were You Thinking?"

Cheap (and Expensive) Political Theater

Scholar and columnist Thomas Sowell has a column (March 24, 2009 -- alternate source) that should be required reading for those who think the previous administration is responsible for the meltdown in the housing industry and the associated difficulties in the economic sphere.  An excerpt:

    We are not yet a banana republic, though that is the direction in which some of our politicians are taking us - especially those politicians who make a lot of noise about "compassion" and "social justice."

    What makes this all the more painfully ironic is that it is precisely those members of Congress who have had the most to do with creating the risks that led to the current economic crisis who are making the most noise against others, and summoning people before their committee to be browbeaten and humiliated on nationwide television.

    No one pushed harder than Congressman Barney Frank to force banks and other financial institutions to reduce their mortgage lending standards, in order to meet government-set goals for more home ownership. Those lower mortgage lending standards are at the heart of the increased riskiness of the mortgage market and of the collapse of Wall Street securities based on those risky mortgages.

    Senator Christopher Dodd has played the same role in the Senate as Barney Frank played in the House of Representatives. Now both are summoning government employees and the officials of financial institutions before their committees to be lambasted in front of the media.

    Dodd and Frank know that the best defense is a good offense. Both know how hard it would be to defend their own roles in the housing debacle, so they go on the offensive against others who are in no position to reply in kind, given the vindictive powers of Congress.

It boggles my mind that people would rather ignore the truth and believe proven liars such as Frank and Dodd than do the simple research that puts the lie to their offensive rant.  Now they've elected a president and congress that are running this country directly to socialism.  Themselves willfully ignorant, they trust in big government rather than themselves.

"What Were You Thinking?"

The Religious Beliefs of Liberals and Conservatives

The Barna Group today released a new report on the relationships between peoples political views and their Christian profession of faith.  Read the entire article here at Barna's web site; here's a tease for you:

    People's interest in - and reactions to - the social and political actions being made by President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have heightened awareness of the different perspectives held by liberals and conservatives. A new study conducted by The Barna Group indicates that those differences are related to substantially different spiritual beliefs, behaviors and alignments.
    Overall, the research shows that nearly one-third of all adults (32%) consider themselves to be "mostly conservative" on social and political matters, and about half as many (17%) claimed to be "mostly liberal" on such matters. The other half of the adult population generally takes a position somewhere in between those opposing viewpoints.
    Based upon an evaluation of more than a dozen religious beliefs of liberals and conservatives, consistent and significant differences are evident. Liberals are less than half as likely as conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% versus 63%, respectively); to strongly believe that Satan is real (17% versus 36%); and to firmly contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others (23% versus 48%).

While these paragraphs lead from the political to the religious beliefs of the respondants, later in the article the report starts with the respondant's religious belief and goes on to draw some conclusions about their political leanings.

What Do You Worry About?

    Have you ever heard the "talking heads" on the news use that question whenever they interview some political personage?  Have you ever heard friends talk about what's worrying them?  In early March Gallup, conducted a poll on eight so-called "green" issues. Here's the way they posed the question:

"I'm going to read you a list of environmental problems.  As I read each one, please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a great deal, a fair amound, only a little, or not at all.  First of all, how much do you personally worry about ... ?"

    Last Wednesday they published their assessment of the responses.

The Bible tells us not to worry. Jesus Himself gave the following instructions to His disciples:

²⁵"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? ²⁶Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? ²⁷Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

 ²⁸"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. ²⁹Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. ³⁰If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? ³¹So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' ³²For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. ³³But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. ³⁴Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. [NIV]

    So maybe we shouldn't worry so much about these little things, like whether the planet is about to come apart -- after all, "... your heavenly Father knows that you need [these things]."  Seems to me that when we worry, we're displaying a lack of trust in our heavenly Father.

    God Bless us, every one.  And help us not to worry about such petty, temporal matters, but rather seek the kingdom of God.  After all, eternal life is forever.  Amen?

Barney "Porker" Frank

    Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass) has been named Porker of the Month for March by Citizens Against Government Waste.  Newsmax reports the following:

Chairman Frank has never been shy about rewarding failure in the past and he generally favors using taxpayer dollars to do it.  He was front and center in support of enactment of TARP, which noticeably had no enforceable strings attached related to executive compensation.  Indeed, he helped promote perks for bank executives.  According to a January 24, 2009 Boston Herald editorial, Chairman Frank made sure "one of the recipients of a $12 million infusion of federal cash was the troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston - a bank that had already been accused of 'unsafe and unsound banking practices.'  Its CEO, Kevin Cohee had also been criticized by regulators for 'excessive' pay that included a Porsche."  Chairman Frank included specific provisions in TARP aimed at bailing out OneUnited and spoke directly to Treasury officials about it.

    This shouldn't be a big surprise to thinking folks who follow the news.  Unless they only follow the mainstream media, that is.  Two-faced Barney is notable only for the extreme partisanship he exhibits in his public dealings.  It's a sad day for Massachusetts when they can't find a better person for the job.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Deism vs. Creationism vs ..BioLogos?

    To The Source, an Internet resource dedicated to Challenging Hardcore Secularism with Principled Pluralism, has conducted an interesting interview with Dr. Francis Collins, the physicist who was a driving force behind the Human Genome Project.  Dr. Collins, born to nominal Christian parents, became an atheist in school but during his work with dying patients found himself turning toward Evangelical Christianity.  He has written a book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (read a book review at Evidence for God) and developed his belief system in the BioLogos project.

    This interview runs the gamut from Miracles to Moral Law and compares the Atheist view with a Christian Worldview.  The article also prompts an investigation and attempt to understand this "BioLogos" that Dr. Collins presents in his book, definitely a hard sell for this young-earth creationist.  YMMV.

Slouching toward Mediocrity

Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, points out the rabble-rousing Mob Mentality involved in the conduct of those most invoolved in creating the current economic situation in today's article at Townhall.com titled "Cheap Political Theater."

 

A couple of excerpts from this illuminating article:

    Death threats to executives at AIG, because of the bonuses they received, are one more sign of the utter degeneration of politics in our time.

    Congressman Barney Frank has threatened to summon these executives before his committee and force them to reveal their home addresses-- which would of course put their wives and children at the mercy of whatever kooks might want to literally take a shot at them.
    Whatever the political or economic issues involved, this is not the way such issues should be resolved in America. We are not yet a banana republic, though that is the direction in which some of our politicians are taking us-- especially those politicians who make a lot of noise about "compassion" and "social justice."

    What makes this all the more painfully ironic is that it is precisely those members of Congress who have had the most to do with creating the risks that led to the current economic crisis who are making the most noise against others, and summoning people before their committee to be browbeaten and humiliated on nationwide television.

Read the entire article and then ask yourself, "Is this the kind of America I want my children and grandchildren to inherit?"

"What Were You Thinking?"

'Man-Caused Disasters' New Term for Terrorism

Newsmax editor Ronald Kessler calls Obama's administration on the carpet today.  read the first few paragraphs from his interesting article below, then click the link to read the entire thing.  Then ask yourself, how does using more touchy-feely language change the essence of the threat?

    The new term for terrorism being used by President Obama's secretary of Homeland Security would be comical if it were not so scary.

    Instead of referring to threats from terrorists, Janet Napolitano is referring in her speeches to 'man-caused disasters.' In an interview, a reporter for Germany's Spiegel Online asked Napolitano whether her avoidance of the term terrorism means that "Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose[es] a threat to your country?"

    "Of course it does," Napolitano replied. "I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word 'terrorism,' I referred to 'man-caused' disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur."

    By this logic, the FBI should refer to serial killers and serial rapists as 'man-caused afflictions.' After all, we do not want to create fear about serial killers.

    Any parent knows that the way to protect children is to teach them about the dangers they face. But in Obama Land, calling a threat by its real name is politically incorrect. Thus, in a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that Obama is using "different words and phrases [than war on terrorism] in order to denote a reaching out to many moderate parts of the world that we believe can be important in a battle against extremists."

    By confusing terrorists with moderates, the White House is adding to prejudice toward Muslims in general. More importantly, the effort to avoid calling terrorists what they are signals a return to the risk-averse, complacent atmosphere that led to the 9/11 attacks.

The current administration, reflecting a denial of reality that brought them to the White House, continues to seek ways to appease our enemies.  Neville Chamberlaine found out, to the dismay of the entire world, that such methods never work.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Dick Armey: Rush is Right

"Rush is Right!  Now let's move on."  Thus says former Texas congressman Dick Armey in a recent article at Townhall.com.

 

    "Much has been made of conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh's statements concerning President Obama and his desire to 'see him fail.' I was asked to comment on this during a recent interview. My short answer: Rush is right.

    Armey's Axiom: There's no right way to do the wrong thing. Since he took office, President Obama, prodded by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has been doing one wrong thing after another in his clumsy attempts to 'stimulate' the economy. The result: only government has been stimulated, and at the expense of entrepreneurs, our individual liberties, and economic recovery. Regardless of our hopes for the President, higher spending and punitive taxes will fail the American people.
    Rush, like so many limited government conservatives, doesn't want to see Obama's socialist vision for this country come to fruition at the expense of freedom and individual liberty. We, unlike our counterparts on the Left, see these principles as central to our philosophy of governance. Indeed, we believe they are necessary to live free, happy and productive lives, so why wouldn't we want to see an obvious affront to them like President Obama's borrow-tax-spend-and-inflate agenda fail?
    Of course many in the media, and thanks in no small part to the White House political shop under the leadership of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have twisted a simple statement intended to differentiate political philosophies into an attack on America. Further, the high profile nature of Rush's comments has given rise to a debate concerning who is leading the conservative movement. Is it Rush? Is it newly installed GOP Chairman Michael Steele? House Republican Leader John Boehner? What about the rising stars in the states, such as South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford? The obvious answer is that there is not one leader for conservatives, the limited government movement, or the Republican Party.
    Small government conservatives should be cheering the fact that so many bold leaders are emerging to offer up good ideas and lead our movement back from the brink. After all, at our core we are a 'big tent' movement with economic and social conservatives working towards a common goal: freedom. Engrained in our philosophy is the spirit of entrepreneurship that recognizes and rewards good ideas and good work no matter where they come from. The last thing we should be doing is bickering about who is in charge, as the Democrats and their friends in the media hope we will.
    A better question, I think, is why the Obama White House chose to diminish the office by directly debating a popular talk show host? Don't the President and his team have better things to do? Is it right to turn the Presidency - a sacred American institution - into a den for political hacks? Ronald Reagan knew that there was a time for politics and a time to govern. President Obama, despite his promises, appears to want to run a permanent campaign for President to maintain his political power despite the state of the economy and the effectiveness of his policies. Armey's Axiom: When it's about power, you lose.

    When we come together, our movement can achieve great things. This was the case in the nineties, which saw limited government conservatives with a host of different issue priorities work in concert to get behind the Contract with America and usher in the Republican Revolution in Congress. It took entrepreneurial leaders both inside the halls of Congress and outside, in grassroots America, to change the status quo.
    In 2006 and 2008 we saw the conservative base wander from its fundamental limited government philosophy, pulled apart by a wide range of issues. A shared commitment to liberty was lost and conservatives wound up paying a heavy political price as liberals first took control of Congress, and then strengthened their grip, ultimately taking the White House in November. MoveOn.org was at the center of the Left's efforts and brought together its disparate factions. From the anti-war wing to income redistributors to radical environmentalists, all were corralled in their own big tent committed to big government.
    MoveOn and the other cogs that make up the Left's massive political machine continue to work much more harmoniously than those on the Right. Today, they share a database of tens of millions of liberal supporters who, through the successful leveraging of new online social mobilization technologies, can be engaged on a wide range of issues or in critical elections at a moments notice.

    Rush and every freedom-loving American is right to want Obama's efforts to erode the basic freedoms we hold so dear to fall flat. Now we need to work together, focusing on the core principles of limited government we all share. This is what the Left learned from us after watching the Republican Revolution. Lately we've strayed from this winning model, but we need to get back to it.

    In short, we need to move on."

from "Rush is Right...Now Let's Move On," by Dick Armey, March 21, 2009, http://Townhall.com

 

"The difference between prejudice and conviction is that you can explain a conviction without getting angry."

"What Were You Thinking?"

Words Mean Things

    Here's one for the "No Shortage of Idiots" department.  If you look at the Steven Pearlstein article previously mentioned, you'll see a link to a video showing a protester carrying a sign that says, "WORKERS' VOICE TO STOP CEO EXPLOITS." 

    The first definition of 'exploit' in my Webster's New World Dictionary says, "an act remarkable for brilliance or daring; bold deed."

    The signmaker appears to be a product of the modern government school system  ;-)

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Good Gifts vs Unuseable Gifts

     When I lived in Florida, a lot of friends knew that I enjoyed trains. One good friend, when his wife was cleaning out their home, even found a set of old VHS videotapes that he'd gotten as a premium for contributing to Public TV, and gave them to me. It was a very kind thing to do and I was able to get a good bit of enjoyment from them.
     Today we find out that those videos that the POTUS (not to be confused with TOTUS, the Teleprompter Of The United States) gave to the Prime Minister of England cannot be played in Europe. One would think that if Obama was cleaning out his house to find a gift for Brown, he would at least have given him something he could usable.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Does Anger Help?

    Even pundits in the liberal press are beginning to see the problems in the hysteria being kicked up by our president and congress.  Steven Pearlstein, business columnist for the Washington Post, says, "Let's Put Down The Pitchforks."  He writes:

"At the end of the day, the thing to get outraged about is not the $440 million in bonuses at AIG or the $10 million that Citigroup is spending to redesign its shrunken executive suite. These may seem like princely sums, but they are almost insignificant compared with the real outrage: the hundreds of billion dollars of taxpayer funds that have been put at risk to keep AIG and Citi from failing and taking the whole financial system down with them. Let's keep our attention on the elephant rather than the pimples on its behind."

    Exactly.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Monster Response to a Pygmy Problem

    In typical fashion, our elected representatives in Washington are doing all they can to distract attention from their own Profligate, Porcine spending by expressing outrage at a tiny percentage of waste occuring in the boardrooms of private business.  Charles Krauthammer has an article today at Townhall.com describing the hypocrisy:

"A $14 trillion economy hangs by a thread composed of (a) a comically cynical, pitchfork-wielding Congress, (b) a hopelessly understaffed, stumbling Obama administration, and (c) $165 million.  That's $165 million in bonus money handed out to AIG debt manipulators who may be the only ones who know how to defuse the bomb they themselves built. Now, in the scheme of things, $165 million is a rounding error. It amounts to less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget. It's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the bailout money given to AIG alone."

    So where does the blame belong for this particular waste?  Is it with the people who received these bonuses?  They had contracts with their employers before the bailout.  Congress, the Administration, and the Treasury Department had to know (or should have known) about it.  What are we paying these bureaucrats for, if not that?  No, they had to pass the Stimulus bill without time even to read, let alone evaluate, the thing.  So now Congress is pushing through a bill to extract the money legally paid to these people.  First Congress will abrogate legal contracts, what's next?  What other parts of the Constitution will be rendered 'null and void' just because a populist president and a myopic congress, aided and abetted by a puckish press, are able to rile up the citizenry to a fever pitch on such a triviality? 

    Mona Charen has also written an article in which she compares the actions of those in private business, now being bailed out, with those of the politicians that some say pushed the private businesses to take the actions they did.  Her article concludes:

    "... the most sinister move came from Frank. He demanded that Liddy reveal the names of the 73 executives who had received retention bonuses. Liddy said he would do so if he could receive a promise of confidentiality. Frank refused and threatened to subpoena the names. Liddy said if subpoenaed he would obey the law, but he then read to the committee some of the death threats his company had been getting over the past few days. Some threats spoke of hanging the executives with piano wire, others of finding where their kids went to school.

    That is the sort of ugliness and criminality that Frank is willing tacitly to encourage by demanding the names. And for what? The bonuses amounted to just one tenth of 1 percent of the AIG bailout (to say nothing of the stimulus bill and the gargantuan budget bill Congress and the president are hanging around our necks). If politicians want to metaphorically flay away at evil businessmen, well, that's regrettable. But when they cross the line into encouraging the targeting of actual individuals, they are no longer 'honorable gentlemen,' but leaders of a mob."

    Read these articles, then consider the duplicity of these corrupt and contentious idiots we've elected.  And consider the fallen nature of mankind that leads to the mob mentality being appealed to by those we've put in positions of power.  One Tenth of One Percent!  What have we become?

"What Were You Thinking?"

O is for Overrated

There was an Interesting article in the American Thinker a couple of days ago.  In it, Richard Baehr makes note of Obama's continuing dependency on a teleprompter, the lack of press coverage of his associates, his lack of executive experience, his failure to deal decisively with the economy, his rush to fulfill campaign pledges to special interest groups (anti-war, pro-abortion, etc.), the hyprocritical variance between campaign pledges and actions taken once in office, and more.

 

This comment sums it up for me:  "As narcissist in chief, Obama, much like Bill Clinton, flourishes in  the public setting with the adoring crowd cheering, laying out a stream of fluent prose that he is reading."

 

The comments are entertaining, too.

"What Were You Thinking?"

"The difference between prejudice and conviction is that you can explain a conviction without getting angry."

Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties

Yesterday I pointed some friends to the subject article on Newsmax, written by Newt Gingrich.  Let me share a couple of troubling facts and conclusions from that article that might well give us pause as we consider the agenda of the current occupant of the Oval Office (but please read the entire article):

 

     "In 2007, Obama promised a Planned Parenthood gathering on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade that, as president, he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). If enacted, FOCA would repeal all federal and state restrictions on abortion including the ban on partial-birth abortion. FOCA would force all public hospitals and health programs offering maternity services to provide abortions. Moreover, provisions in state constitutions that protect speech and the free exercise of religion of those whose conscience is opposed to abortion could be invalidated.
     Having no reason to believe that President Obama will not fulfill this radical campaign pledge, some Catholic bishops are talking openly about engaging in civil disobedience to protect Catholic hospitals and their doctors from being forced to perform abortions.
     The chilling effect of the Obama administration forcing doctors and nurses to choose between their losing their careers and being compelled to participate in abortions against their moral and religious belief is incalculable. Not only will pro-life doctors and nurses be driven from the professions, but patients will lose the ability to choose doctors who reflect their own religious and moral convictions, doctors who now help them to make healthcare choices based upon them.
     The fact is, there are doctors and nurses who have no moral objection to abortion. Why then, should some medical professionals be compelled to do something that compromises their conscience? It is one thing to hold fast to the pro-abortion position as a matter of a personal opinion, it is quite another to force someone else to compromise their moral integrity."

 

Once again I ask, Why is this president not content to take his House and Senate majorities and simply roll over the rest of us?  Why does he insist that we abandon our principles and join him in the evil work he espouses?  I can understand how a man with his postmodern worldview might call himself a Christian and still hold a pro-abortion view, although I can't concieve of a thinking Christian believing that profession of faith.  So why does he demand that those of us with scruples against abortion act against our principles?

"What Were You Thinking?"

"The difference between prejudice and conviction is that you can explain a conviction without getting angry."

A Modern-Day St. Patrick

I've mentioned To The Source before; an internet-based ministry dedicated to "Challenging Hardcore Secularism with Principled Pluralism."  Today's article, by Dr. Jean Bethke Elshtain, addresses the tendancy in today's Europe to ignore the European roots in Judaism and Christianity.  Here are a couple of tantalizing snippets from this excellent discourse:

 

"If a culture forgets what it is, as I believe Europe has done, it falls first into an agnostic shrugging of the shoulders, unable to say exactly what it is and believes, and from there it will inevitably fall into nihilism. Detached from its religious foundations, Europe will not remain agnostic."

 

"A culture must believe in its own enculturating responsibility and mission in order to make claims of value and to institutionalize them in social and political forms. This a post-Christian Europe cannot do."

 

"A sign carried by radical Islamist protestors in London during the fracas over the Dutch cartoons proclaimed, "Europe is a cancer / Islam is the answer." A perverted idea of Islam confronts a Europe that has lost a sense of who she is and what she represents."

 

"Over time human rights, now almost universally accepted among Europeans, will themselves come to be seen as so many arbitrary constructions that may, on utilitarian grounds, be revoked—because there is nothing intrinsic about human beings such that they are not to be ill-treated or violated or even killed. "

 

"A new protocol for euthanizing newborns with disabilities is institutionalized in the Netherlands, and the doctor who authored the protocols, Eduard Verhagen, tells us how "beautiful" it is when the newborns are killed, for, at last, they are at peace."

 

"No good has ever— ever—come from narrowing and constricting our understanding of humanity in this way."

 

"Without God, without some transcendent principle, the wretched life is not worth living at all. And others have the power to decide whose life is wretched based on utilitarian criteria. The utilitarian ethic would annihilate the Christian ethic in the name of progress and decency and the ending of suffering."

 

The last paragraph:  "Evil can take the form of refusing to be what one is. The retreat from defining Europe in relation to her Jewish and Christian heritage is the face of European nihilism. When a reaction comes, it is likely to be extreme and distorted because indifference prevailed too long."

 

Ms. Elshtain's Gifford Lectures have been published as Sovereignty: God, State and Self anad the book is available from Amazon.

 

"The difference between prejudice and conviction is that you can explain a conviction without getting angry."

 

Politically Correct Speech

Political Correctness carries the day, these days.  It seems that the European Union is so worried that someone might be miffed should they be called by the title of "Miss" or "Mrs." that they have banned the use of such honorifics.  An article in Tuesday's Daily Mail reports that member countries may no longer have policemen or policewomen, either, only police officers.

  Some folks are fighting for freedom of speech against such lunacy.  You could join the Campaign Against Political Correctness, or maybe just educate yourself about the problems engendered by such regulations.  How long do you suppose such ideas will take to cross the pond?  Are they already here?  

Stay tuned...

"What Were You Thinking?"

Rookie Jitters

Prior to the last election, some of us warned that the Democrat candidate for President was not adequately prepared for service in that office by being a community agitator... oops, I mean Community Organizor.  Events seem to be proving that we were right.

 

Michael Barone has a column today on Townhall.com pointing out that under criticism, Obama seems to be losing focus.  Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have a similar article, bringing into question the basic competency of this guy.  At the same time he's saying he inherited the worst economic situation ever, he wants to increase spending (of money the government doesn't have and will have to either print or borrow) on education and 'reform' of the health care system.  Even his morst ardent supporters can't or won't say whether the extreme measures he is proposing will work.

 

Remember Senator Judd Gregg?  Read this from The Heritage Foundation yesterday morning, titled Geithner in Wonderland:

 

When President Barack Obama introduced Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) as his nominee for Commerce Secretary, Obama said of Gregg: "He shares my deep-seated commitment to guaranteeing that our children inherit a future they can afford." After yesterday's Senate Budget Committee hearing, we now know why Gregg eventually decided he could not in good faith join the Administration. Referring to the president's fiscal 2010 budget proposal, Gregg told Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner: "This budget, as it's presently constructed, pass[es] on to our children a nation which they will not be able to afford. ... I think we're putting at risk not only our children's future, we're clearly putting at risk the value of a dollar and our ability to sell debt."

Gregg's tongue lashing should not have come as any surprise. Gregg took to the pages of yesterday's [Thursday] Washington Times writing:

    The budget the Obama administration has presented to the American people is a new type of budget: it expands our government in unprecedented ways and presents the largest tax increase in history. It raises total spending to $3.9 trillion in 2009, or 28 percent of gross domestic product, the highest level as a share of GDP since World War II.
    In the next five years, the debt will double, and in 10 years, it will triple. This budget creates more debt than under every president from George Washington to George W. Bush combined … the Obama administration's proposal is not a budget that the rest of America would recognize as a document for living within one's means. It simply spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much. It is a game plan for an explosive expansion of the size and intrusiveness of the national government based on a belief that bureaucrats can more effectively manage large segments of our economy and our daily lives than the private sector or the individual.

Greg was far from the only Senator to voice concerns about Obama's tax, borrow, and spend budget plan. Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad (D-ND) told reporters after the hearing he was highly skeptical about Administration claims that their major health care reform could stave off massive costs that will burden the government in future years: "Is this really a move to save money or is it just going to cost more money?" Conrad told the DC Examiner.

 

For his part, Geithner seemed blissfully unwilling to acknowledge how unworkable the Obama budget is, telling the panel: "We share more in common than you believe." Gregg was having none of it. Responding to Geithner's assertion that Obama's budget would cut taxes for 95% of Americans, Gregg replied: "The argument that this budget doesn't have tax increases is, I think, an Alice in Wonderland view of the budget." Perhaps it is time for Geithner to come out of his rabbit hole.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"
"The difference between prejudice and conviction is that you can explain a conviction without getting angry."

Who Would Want the President to Fail?

"So when Republicans want Obama's liberalism to fail, critics call it a death wish -- an effort to undermine Obama and the nation. When, however, the majority of Democrats wanted Bush to fail -- with our country at war in Afghanistan and Iraq -- it reflected a "thoughtful" matter of principle."  Read Larry Elder's insightful article at Townhall dot com.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Aesop's Fables

    Where do "Jobs" come from?  Who is your "Boss?"  Imagine this: you have a public high school education.  You (and a dozen others) work for a guy who runs a small manufacturing company.  You and your mates make a decent living along with medical and retirement benefits, you're able to support your family, raise your kids, pay your taxes, contribute to your church and the United Way. You've even bought a small fishing boat for weekends.  Life is good; you've got everything you ever wanted.

    Your Boss is doing pretty well, too.  He started small, just himself and a partner.  Working long, hard hours to find business opportunities, he built his business up from nothing.  Adding employees as he was able to find more business, building new facilities when space was needed, his manufacturing company has become one of the places in town where people aspire to work.  Your boss, like you, is living the good life.

    But then, here comes a downturn in the economy.  People are no longer buying whatever it is you make at your boss's company.  Times are tough with business slow, but your boss does what he can to make sure you still have a job.  Although you get your hours cut back, you are still employed.  Your boss, however, is working even longer hours than before, and he's cut back on his own salary so he can continue to pay your wages.  He's trying to scrounge up contracts to keep you employed.  The company profits are off, but the pressure doesn't let up on the boss.

    So what happens next?  Here comes the Federal Government.

"Let's raise the minimum wage."  Your boss has to eliminate those summer jobs for high school students, because he can't afford to pay what the government dictates.

"Make it easier for the unions to organize by eliminating the secret ballot."  Your boss knows that if his workers decide to organize, there will be pressure for higher wages, more benefits, and it will lead to lower productivity.  Do you, the worker, understand that, or do you listen to the voices of organized labor?

"We'll increase taxes on the wealthy."  But all of a sudden, your boss is listed among the wealthy.  Because he owns a business, the government comes after him.  Higher taxes on his business means he has to charge more for the products he (and you) makes and sells.  Contracts dry up and wither away, there is less demand for the product.  Soon the business won't sustain the boss and his thirteen workers.  Layoffs are required; before long you are the low man on the totem pole, and will be the next one let go if the economy gets worse.

"We'll reduce the deduction for charitable contributions."  Wait a minute.  As a tithing churchgoer, this one is hitting you, too.

    Those in Government often forget where the money they dispense so freely comes from.  It's easy for them to stir up class envy, and they buy more votes for themselves by promising to take from the rich and give to the poor.  But in the end, they merely wind up killing the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs.  Would that they, and their greedy, resentful voters, would learn the lesson before we all sink into the abyss.  How long will it take before they've extracted every bit of money from those of us who earn it?

    Oh, yeah -- that last item about charitable contributions?  It's interesting to see the difference between Conservative and Liberal politicians when it comes to giving away their own money.  Read Ann Coulter's article about the personal generosity of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue vs. the previous occupant.  Then get and read Arthur Brooks' book titled Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.

"What Were You Thinking?"

 

Give Obama a Grade

MSNBC, that privileged paragon of plutocratic political pontificating, has a live vote where you can grade the performance of the current occupant of the Oval Office.  Go on over there and let them know what you think.  You should keep in mind as you do that since his election, Obama has cost the economy of the world some 23 Trillions of Dollars.  That's $23,000,000,000,000 -- twelve zeroes!

After voting, go on over to World Net Daily and read Chelsea Schilling's article on the MSNBC poll.  Once there, you can also take the WorldNetDaily poll which gives you more voting options.

Economic Timeline: the Path to Disaster

I've always been a big fan of timelines.  I like having the memory jog showing how events have played out over time.

Americans for Tax Reform published an article by John Kartch yesterday titled Obama's First 50 Days: Devastating to Taxpayers.  In the article Mr. Kartch details key events, speeches by Obama and his appointees, then points out the results in our economy.  It's a shame that Democrat voters, those who helped elect this Congress and President, will probably never read this very interesting critique.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Pro-Abortion Agenda vs. Dissenters

Michael Gershon has an interesting article on Townhall.com this morning regarding the bulldozer methods used by the current occupant of the Oval Office in dealing with those who disagree with him.  Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, is a Roman Catholic and at the same time, strongly "Pro-Choice," exactly the same sort as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.  A couple of key paragraphs:

    It is the incurable itch of pro-choice activists to compel everyone's complicity in their agenda. Somehow getting "politics out of science" translates into taxpayer funding for embryo experimentation. "Choice" becomes a demand on doctors and nurses to violate their deepest beliefs or face discrimination.
    It is probably not a coincidence that Obama has chosen a Roman Catholic -- Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius -- to implement many of these policies as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Obama has every right to a pro-choice Cabinet. But this appointment seems designed to provide religious cover. It also smacks of religious humiliation -- like asking a rabbi to serve the pork roast or an atheist to bless the meal.

Why is it that Conservatives are being called upon to abandon their principles in a spirit of "Bi-Partisanship" but Liberals never are?

What Were You Thinking?

The New Medical Ethic

To The Source is an online group dedicated to "Challenging Hardcore Secularism with Principled Pluralism."  In today's article, False Compassion, author Wesley J. Smith discusses the consequences of life -- and death -- in a state that has complete control of the medical resources.  Here are the first three paragraphs:

 

Imagine that you have lung cancer. It has been in remission, but your latest test is bad news: The cancer returned and is likely to be terminal.

Still, there is some hope.  Chemotherapy could extend your life, if not save it. You ask to begin treatment.  But you soon receive more devastating news: A letter from the government informs you that the cost of chemotherapy is deemed an unjustified expense for the limited extra time it would likely provide. However, the government is not without compassion. You are informed that whenever you are ready, it will gladly pay for your assisted suicide.

Think that's an alarmist scenario to scare you away from supporting "death with dignity?"  Wrong.  That is exactly what happened last year to two cancer patients in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal.

You might consider signing up for their weekly email...

The Dis-Incentive Program

My friend, The Old Jarhead, was recently in touch with some Historical Figures and asked them what they thought about the $800,000,000,000.00 (that's 800 billions of dollars, folks) "Stimulus Program."  He published their answers on his blog, which I suggest you read in a sense of bi-partisanship.

Dishonest, or merely Misleading?

From The Heritage Foundation yesterday:

 

Today Big Labor's allies in the House and Senate will introduce legislation with the Orwellian title "The Employee Free Choice Act." Contrary to the bill's title, the legislation will strip employees of their choice in joining union, and it will lead to a lot less employees throughout the economy. President Barack Obama is strongly committed to the legislation however, telling the Washington Post earlier this year: "You know, now if the business community's argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is simply that it will make it easier for people to join unions and we think that is damaging to the economy then they probably won't get too far with me." However, its more than just the business community that believes the EFCA will do serious damage to our nation's economy.

 

Card Check Kills Choice: EFCA is more commonly known as card check due to the way the legislation fundamentally changes the basic rules of union organizing. Under card check, once union organizers submit cards with signatures from 50% plus one of the employees, the National Labor Relations Board must certify the union without an election. Big Labor claims this method gives workers a choice in how to organize between publicly signed cards or secret ballot elections. That is a lie. Nothing in the legislation gives workers any control over what organizing methods are used. Union organizers get to choose whether to pursue an open and honest election or a stealth and intimidation card check plan. The actual workers would have no choice and 49% of them could walk in to work one day and find they had been forced to join a union without ever having an opportunity to object. This is why big name liberals committed to real democratic values, like 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern and Obama supporter Warren Buffet, oppose card check.

Card Check Kills Jobs: Unions exist to secure higher wages for their members. They accomplish this feat by using the government's coercive power to restrict the pool of people an employer can higher to just their members. By artificially creating labor scarcity, they drive up wages for union members. In this sense, unions operate as monopoly cartels in exactly the same way that OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela do to drive up the price of oil. Just as economic theory predicts that less oil will be consumed when oil cartels raise prices, economic theory also predicts that fewer people will be employed when more unions form. And economic studies firmly back up economic theory on this point. Study after study consistently shows that greater unionization leads to fewer jobs. Conservative estimates of card check's employment effects show the legislation would eliminate 765,000 jobs over the next seven years. A more recent study pegged card check's job killing total at 1.2 million jobs over two years.

Card Check Kills Innovation: The economic damage from unionization is not felt in short term employment loss alone. There is also the innovation killing work rules embodied in the thousand page contracts between union bosses and employers. Card check only makes this situation worse by adding government bureaucrats to the workplace. Section 3 of EFCA allows unions to demand government imposed arbitration after just 90 days of collective bargaining impasse. The government bureaucrat arbitrator would then be empowered to dictate: wages and bonuses; employment levels; retirement and health care plans; changes in business operations; promotion procedures; work assignments; subcontracting policies; and closing, sale, or merger of business. Card check would empower government bureaucrats, who have no practical experience in the company, its operations, or its business strategy, to dictate how a company was run. And unlike employees and employers, these arbitrators would not be affected by the consequences of their decisions.

Trying to smooth over the strong opposition to card check, President Obama said: "If their arguments are we think there are more elegant ways of doing this or here are some modifications or tweaks to the general concept that we would like to see." There is no tweaking this concept. There is nothing elegant about Big Labor's destruction of our economy. Our nation simply can not afford card check and workers don't deserve it.

"What Were You Thinking?"

545 People, by Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

 

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

 

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

 

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

 

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

 

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

 

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

 

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

 

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

 

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

 

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.

 

The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

 

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

 

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

 

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party.

 

She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

 

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

 

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

 

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red .

 

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ

 

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

 

There are no insoluble government problems.

 

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

 

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

 

They, and they alone, have the power.

 

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

 

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

 

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

 

Charlie Reese was formerly a columnist at the Orlando Sentinel Star, and this column was originally published in that newspaper.