Obama Talking in the Mirror?

If so, we can only hope he listens but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Listening to Obama’s state of the union speak was disappointing but studying the transcript was more like disgusting. Don’t get me wrong, Barack Obama is a talented orator. He has a way of drawing you into his dialogue so you are eager to hear what the next sentence will be. But that is just a talent for delivery, which he does it well enough, in spite of the content. I’m not sure now if it arrogance I detected or ignorance. Wow, either one is bad enough but if it is both – that scares the stuff out of me.

Here is why he should listen to himself. Check this quote from his own inaugural address delivered from the Capitol steps in Washington on January 20, 2009:

“We say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us…to those who cling to power through… the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

He can say it but can’t seem to perform it. It has been over a year now and Obama is still bashing the Bush administration. Sounds like a “clenched fist” to me. Talk and listen to the mirror Mr. Obama. You must know that all you accomplish is turning those, who voted for Bush the first time and then you in 2008, against you. Bad move. Talking out of  both sides of your mouth, you say you need to take responsibility from one side as you shout “it’s his fault” out of the other. And was it ignorance when you told the Justices they are allowing foreign countries to fund American political parties, when that just is not true (as Alito politely indicated) or just arrogance trying to coerce public opinion? Either is bad enough but both means a lot of trouble for America the next two and a half plus years.

In reference to the “wrong side of history” as quoted above by Obama, let me just remind everyone what George Washington had to say about Benedict Arnold, only in context of  where Barack politically falls compared to history.

“The Commander-in-Chief would have been much happier in an occasion of bestowing commendations on an officer who had rendered such distinguished services to his country as Major General Arnold; but in the present case, a sense of duty and a regard to candor oblige him to declare that he considers his conduct [in the convicted actions] as imprudent and improper.”

Notice published by George Washington, April 6, 1780

Obama Spits in the Face of Separation of Powers

As I alluded to yesterday, I thought president Obama might show his philosophical (please note the qualifier) color again during his state of the union address. Let me qualify right now that I’m not advocating whether the high Courts’ decision last week was good, bad or anything in between. It’s not the point here. What does concern me is the president, using his platform to publicly admonish any of his counter-parts in our governments system of separation of powers. His flagrant disrespect for our system of checks and balance is disturbing. His opinion that the ruling handed down was not a good one is fine, but he acts like the process is wrong and if he had his way it would be reversed immediately: contrary to the whole system the USA was founded on.

It reminds me of another controversial decision the Supreme Court made in 1973, Roe vs Wade. President Nixon in his state of the union address did not bring up the subject in anyway, though history shows he had strong feelings the Court made a bad decision. Nixon showed respect for our system, though he disagreed with the direction taken at the time as the Courts supported legal abortions.

Our founding fathers found it extremely necessary to make sure the people would have protection from someone having extended privilege of power that would undermine our republic. They knew it would not be an easy task and at times make progress messy and slow but knew the mechanics of our type of system was essential to keep our personal liberties. Note James Madison on the subject. 

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. (Emphasis added)

The Federalist Papers - # 51, James Madison - Friday, February 8, 1788

In my opinion president Obama showed his progressive, anti-American philosophy much like a spoiled brat would stamp his foot and fold his arms in defiance to his parents’ refusal in allowing him to write the check for any toy he wanted in the store. There are ways to get what makes sense other than spitting in your parents face even if the toy was for them.

Feet to the Fire or Run for the Mud

As we head for the state of the union address tonight I have my concerns. Indications are that president Obama has decided to talk to the people’s concerns and put his previous agenda on hold and focus more on what the poles have been telling him. A smart move if he does but here is my concern. His purpose is not grounded in the integrity the office has historically been successful for. You should understand Obama’s thinking as he enters to give his speech tonight. Note this article in Politico and what Obama says of himself.

Democrats say they’ve been completely focused on the danger of a populist backlash for months. One retiring Democrat — Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas — told his local paper that Obama dismissed his concerns in a private meeting by saying the party would avoid a 1994-type debacle because of Obama’s personal popularity. “The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me,’” Berry told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

This displays the arrogance Obama offend exudes and seen most times during his campaign and first year in the white house. Compare that with our first president.


However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

He is polite with dignity, affable without formality, distant without haughtiness, grave without austerity; modest, wise and good.

Abigail Adams, in a letter to John Adams, 1789

More than all, and above all, Washington was master of himself. If there be one quality more than another in his character which may exercise a useful control over the men of the present hour, it is the total disregard of self when in the most elevated positions for influence and example.

Charles Francis Adams (18 August 1807 – 21 November 1886)

No matter what Mr. Obama may say tonight and it may very well be what the majority of people wish to hear, remember the character it comes from and understand it is based on situational ethics and not deep seated integrity our nation was founded on. We will need to keep his feet to the fire because he would rather run to the mud.

State of the Union – Is Obama Listening?

“In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate — look to his character....”

Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His Education, 1789

Only Wednesday night will reveal the answer to the question posed in this title, but I predict this administration doesn’t know how to listen. Why would I say that? Look at what David Axelrod had to say about what happened in Massachusetts a week ago.


“The same forces that we saw at play in Massachusetts were the ones that propelled [Obama] to office,” Axelrod said. “There’s no reinventing any message here. It’s a reaffirmation of a message."


Scott Brown won his senate seat with the similar platform that Obama claims propelled him to the oval office. If that is true what needs to be learned here is not the platforms are “apples to apples” but rather “apples to oranges” and which one is which. The people did vote for change in 2008 and I believe tried to narrow that desire in 2010. Axelrod and group don’t seem to understand the language or are not paying attention. I would interpret it this way.

“We don’t disagree with the idea of change. But the change this current Democratic administration has been unfolding is not the one we want. You had better alter directions and listen to the definition of the change we would like. You’re headed in the wrong direction. Listen and we will try to explain what we want.


So, Mr. Axelrod, it is not an affirmation the people are expecting. It is an accurate definition and then moving in that direction.

”Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. “

Samuel Adams, in the Boston Gazette, April 16, 1781

When are Government Costs Taxes?

"A taxpayer is someone who works for the federal government but who doesn't have to take a civil service examination."  - Ronald Reagan

Taxes is something every American is (or should be) concerned about. Many a politician has been or not, elected upon the platform of his stand on the subject. Recently it has been politically prudent to avoid all appearance of raising the people’s taxes, especially for controversial areas of the American life. Obvious problem areas can be for publicly funded abortions and similar subjects. It is always a question of what the majority of people feel is their responsibility to fund for the general betterment of the country.

Another one of those subjects is universal health care. People might more readily agree to it if it didn’t affect their taxes by an increase that hurts the common worker. So, we will call it something other than a tax. President Obama supports such a way to present it to the people. Here is what he has to say about it.

"For us to say you have to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said in response to persistent questioning, later adding: "Nobody considers that a tax increase." CNN Sun September 20, 2009

You remember that famous saying attributed to our 16th president Abraham Lincoln, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”? Maybe Mr. Obama should heed it and one other of our founding fathers. Here is the truth about what our founders thought of taxes.

“In a general sense, all contributions imposed by the government upon individuals for the service of the state, are called taxes, by whatever name they may be known, whether by the name of tribute, tythe, tallage, impost, duty, gabel, custom, subsidy, aid, supply, excise, or other name.” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

Call it whatever you want, it is a TAX.

The People Spoke, Not the GOP

"Strive to be the greatest man in your country, and you may be disappointed. Strive to be the best and you may succeed: he may well win the race that runs by himself. "
Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1747

I find my Kindle so handy. Reading Politico this morning before I went to work, I read so many stories about the GOP excitement of Scott Brown’s senate win, it makes me think the party may not understand what has really happened. Scott Brown for President in 2012?? Give me a break! The people spoke in Massachusetts, not the GOP. The Republicans better take a long hard look at WHY and by WHOM Scott was seated.


A majority of people have been dissatisfied with the direction the government has been going. But it is not the Republicans who should be shouting this, as you might believe if you do a cursory review of the news. Remember, it was the way the GOP was running things that gave Barack Obama his great opportunity to become president. No, the people have rejected both parties now within a year and a half.

Just so you know, I’m a register Republican and don’t plan on changing anytime soon, but this excitment around the the Massachusetts senate race has nothing really to do with if one is a Democrat or a Republican. It is deeper than that and both parties will miss it if they don’t pay attention. It was the Independents that changed the race, not the “red” or “blue” team. They both have it wrong at the moment. The average American has finally come out his stupor and decided to tell them so. Who are they? I’m sure many people have their description, but maybe the media ought to pay a little more attention to grass roots movement, like the Tea Party goers. You know - the people - not the parties. And if a political party wants to serve the people, maybe they should pay attention too.

History Does Repeat Itself

Déjà vu - if someone could be 250 years old and recall events of around 210 year ago.


Scott Brown winning a senate seat from a party that would like to “fatherly” give the majority of a republic something other than their wishes, plays out almost exactly after our first presidents’ term of office. While President Washington was in office the politics of our young nation went through the growing pains related to handling the “factions” developed, which I mentioned in earlier posts.


Federalists wanted big government and control of the peoples’ economic directions fully and the (to become) Republicans worried about that big government and wished public opinion of the majority be heard and the politicians be directed by it. Does this sound familiar compared to yesterday’s results?

Today the progressive movement parallels this same concern. They want the government to control most aspects of American lives to “help them in their ignorance” and give all us the quality of life we deserve. I’m not going to go into detail what I see that looks like, but just let me quote something said in 1799 that is just as relevant today as it was then. Read it carefully.


John Smith, in a Fourth of July oration at Suffield, Connecticut in 1799, made this Republican point: the need for energy in government is in inverse proportion "to the vices which it creates." If government did less harm to the people's character, it would thereby be less obliged to do good in order to compensate for that harm. It would not have so closely to supervise the people's economic life if it had not first corrupted that life.


Very telling, to say the least. In other words, the less government has to do with forming and directing the people’s lives and focus more on supporting the moral and enterprising nature of it’s people (as Madison and Jefferson were concerned with) the better the government will serve.

Two Parties. Do we need them?

Let’s see . . . I can go to my granddaughter’s birthday party or my nephew’s rowdy bachelors’ party. Which do I prefer? Each one of us will answer that depending on our thought process involving any number of factors. Will I use my sense of ethics, duty, self importance, values or integrity mixed with peer pressure, worldview, devotion or financial considerations? One of them or all of them? We are a complicated creature and each one of us determines the “list” and mix to achieve our decision. All I can tell you is I would be going to my granddaughters birthday party.

Politically will you vote Democrat or Republican? The founding father originally ignored the whole thought. They would have preferred no parties or “factions” as they called it. But as the nation began to move forward they discovered a more realistic understanding of politics because a consensus was impossible. They discovered that some sort of political organization would facilitate—not destroy—the political process. So we first had the Federalists and anti-Federalists. The people began deciding what “party” they were going to support.


Today in Massachusetts, a bunch originally wanted to attend “the bachelor party”, but something changed their thought process and it looks like a lot are now thinking the “birthday party” might be a better choice.

“Brown” out in a “Blue” State – Is it “Mass” confusion?

“In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” Bertrand Russell


We need to often examine the direction politics shifts to understand the peoples’ will at any obvious change in public opinion. It can be very confusing at times, but generally I find it boils down to core values and the interpretation of those values. Hence, the reason I published this quote by Bertrand Russell. This is one of those moments we should “hang a question mark”.


I don’t know if Scott Brown is going to take the Senate seat in Massachusetts Tuesday or not but in either event it is defiantly an indicator of the people’s change of opinion from a year ago. And that got me to thinking about what the framers of our government thought about public opinions. I would find it interesting to hear what they would say about our ability to gather this information so quickly and insert the results so timely in our current events by mass information to the people so quickly. I’m not sure if they would find it beneficial or not. Bruce Bartlett explains this well.

“When the Founding Fathers designed our system of government, one of their key ideas was that some of its components should be more accountable to public opinion and others less. At one extreme, Supreme Court justices were given life tenure. At the other, members of the House of Representatives have to run for re-election every two years.


In between, presidents are elected every four years by the Electoral College. Senators were originally chosen by state legislatures for six-year terms -- only later did they become popularly elected.


Thus, we see that the Founding Fathers wanted only members of the House of Representatives to be elected through direct democracy. All other federal officials were elected or appointed only by indirect means. As one moves up the ladder of influence, democracy -- that is to say, public opinion -- was intended to play less and less of a role in decisionmaking.


The Founding Fathers did this very deliberately because they were fearful that the passions of the moment might lead to unwise decisions. They wanted some elected officials to be insulated to some degree from these passions, so that they could be more dispassionate in their judgments.” 1

The way I see it, the majority of Americans are caught between diverging, diametrically opposed political philosophies and being caught in the middle is really blurring the line of reason for them. The effect is a “snapping” from one side to the other and the jumps are so erratic it causes an eye popping reaction the media needs to report. Our founding fathers were on to something. We need to again find that way to balance public opinion and what is really for the publics’ best and let the people decide with as little government manipulation as possible. It will be interesting to see if we can get there – and I hope it happens in time.

1 Evolving History of the House and Senate - By Bruce Bartlett

Haiti Aide - Must or Should?

Who is entitled to my charity? The Haitian or the Islamic Extremist? Or is either?


The devastation in Haiti is undeniable and helping their plight no question. The United States has always and will continue to lend a hand to the rest of the world when needed. But it does bring a question to mind whether the government alone has the right to make that decision. Just note a couple of quotes from our founding fathers.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." --James Madison

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread which it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities” (something that creates happiness, RC). --Thomas Jefferson

Without the peoples’ will, the Constitution and other founding articles do not support using government monies indiscriminately or without regard to founding philosophies for which our government was built upon.

I say this not to in any way impugn the good intentions we as a nation have up to this time nobly and graciously given to others when needed. I believe we generally do these great deeds with the intention of supporting humanitarian values supported by our governments founding philosophy. But what if, someday, someone determines a contrary value to ones normally followed and it becomes our governments will to support? We, as the people, have the right to rise up and deny it as a Republic when the majority rules.

I only hope we never have to make that resolve.

The Eye Chart

The doctor asked me to read the fifth line down on the chart, “beginning with the first letter F”. I could only question him. “You mean somewhere in that white blob on the wall? I couldn’t tell you the first line was an E if I didn’t know it for fact alone.”


It was my first visit with him and he began by asking to remove my glasses and read the chart. An impossible task for me, which only took a moment for him to figure out. But it got me thinking about how I “saw” or read the political state of affairs in a magazine on his waiting room coffee table.

I’m not going to bore you here with my bio, but just need to convey some simple truths so we can connect or not. The only college degree I can claim is an associate’s degree in Industrial Trades. I took a course in American Politics as an elective to finish out the curriculum and I must say it was one of my favorite classes. But it obviously leaves me lacking greatly in proclaiming I’m some kind of political analyst.

No, I like to think of myself more as an average Joe (not a plumber, but in the maintenance field) like most of you and I believe we, collectively, see our government through a completely different set of glasses than those who are running it. If you agree, you may find my insight interesting if not useful. If you don’t, well maybe you could see something valuable in the “white blob” on the wall if you choose to look at it through a corrective pair of lenses. Now, I’m not saying you will agree with the content of the eye chart but maybe you’ll understand better why the founding fathers built it and formed it the way they did and why most Americans find issues with the progressive movement.

We will see. 8-)