Desperate Times and Desperate Measures for the President.

English: Seal of the President of the United S...

Recent decisions, announcements and policy steps by President Barrack Obama show two things. They show how far to the left his true politics are. And they show that he is approaching near desperation in his attempts to secure his re-election.

Obama would be only the fifth U.S. President to fail in his bid for re-election since the start of the 20th Century joining the list of

William Howard Taft (Bones 1878), son of the s...

William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover,

President Herbert Hoover.

President Herbert Hoover.

Jimmy Carter,

English: James Earl "Jimmy" Carter

James Earl “Jimmy” Carter (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

and George H. W. Bush. Taft and Bush were both victims of a third-party candidate that took more from their presumed voter base than from their winning opponent. Such a situation doesn’t and isn’t currently likely to exist in this year’s Presidential race. Hoover and Carter were both booted from office in large part for presiding over bad economies. Something very much in play in this year’s contest.

In recent weeks Obama has seen voter polls between himself and Republican candidate Mitt Romney narrow to a point of where statistically its a dead heat. Obama has changed his previous position and declared himself in favor of Gay marriage. Then declared by Executive Order that illegal immigrants who were brought into this country by their illegal immigrant parents, could stay in this country and not face deportation from HIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Finally in the past week at the request of his Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama declared Executive Privilege on the documents sought by a House Committee in the Fast and the Furious gun running investigation.

The polls reflect the fact that Romney no longer has Republican opponents throwing daggers at him, and the increasingly discontented publics view of the stagnating economy. It’s natural that GOP voters would coalesce behind their candidate and that independents would come his way the more they learn about him. But Obama’s problem is that too many people who voted for him in 2008 are expressing disappointment and a desire to not support him this year.

In a widely viewed televised interview with Pastor Rick Warren Senator Barrack Obama said  “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian…it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” Apparently no longer thinking it was sacred and that God  was no longer in the mix Obama bent to political pressure and pandered to his liberal base and said, “At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Obama had been forced to address the issue by his gaffe prone Vice-President, Joe Biden. The week before Biden said on a National TV show that same-sex couples ought to be able to get married. The media didn’t leave the subject alone everyday thereafter until Obama capitulated, once again demonstrating his lack of leadership. While some believe this change in position won’t lose him any votes it’s a widely held view that many blacks and Catholic Hispanics don’t look favorably upon this decision and won’t be as enthusiastic in supporting their man as they clearly were in 2008.

His move on illegal immigration seems less a change of position than it does a timely gesture toward the Hispanic voting block that he desperately needs to support him big-time in order for him to win re-election. It remains unfathomable to me that Obama and other Democrats can be so blind and insensitive to this nations least educated and poorest legal citizens by continually pushing for some form of amnesty for all illegal immigrants. All one needs to do is compare who you find working at your local fast food restaurant now compared to who used to be their 10-20 years ago. Where such jobs were typically held by teenagers, now their held largely by Spanish-speaking persons, many of whom we can presume are undocumented. A few years back I had carpeting installed in my home a few weeks after doing the same at a rental property we owned. Installation was done by two different companies. In each instance none of the 4-5 workers present at each job spoke English. I feel comfortable saying some, if not all, were illegals. And whats wrong with these observations? Simply, these jobs are not for the wealthy or well-educated or experienced. These jobs were for our young, and our less educated, less schooled, our poorer citizens. Furthermore, since these workers are not in this country legally and often work “off the books” they work for a lower wage, thereby forcing down the wages of competing businesses who hire legal citizens, subsequently making them poorer. One need only look at the unemployment rate overall, and specifically for those without a college education, those in a minority community to see that Obama has abandoned them in order to score some cheap political cache. At the time of this writing the overall unemployment rate is 8.2%. Among blacks its 13.6%. Hispanics its 11%. For those with only a high school diploma its 9.4%. For those without a high school diploma its 14.1%. Their jobs are being taken by lower wage illegals whom Obama lets stay in this country, and come into this country by failing to secure our borders, our security.

In the Fast and the Furious investigation, clearly Obama is doing one of two things. He’s either trying to cover his own ass. Or he’s protecting his hand-picked Attorney General. To claim that the House committee’s investigation, led by California GOP Congressman Darrel Issa, an election year Republican ploy ignores the fact that Obama waited 18 months since the time the subpoenas  were issued. It also ignores the fact the story was only being covered by the FOX News channel until Holder and the President put it front and center by ignoring a Contempt vote against Holder by Issa’s committee and moved to have the documents made off-limits by declaring Executive Privilege. Fast and Furious is the name given an il-advised American investigation of Mexico Drug dealers. The plan was to sell guns to associates of the drug lords in order to trace the guns, or follow them back to the heads of the gangster families. It became an issue when a U.S. Border Patrol agent was killed, allegedly by a person firing a gun bought from the Americans. To date guns sold in this scheme have been found at the scenes of 170 shootings in Mexico. Obama previously claimed he had no previous knowledge of or involvement in the Fast and the Furious operation. Now he claims Executive Privilege which he can’t do in most cases unless the documents under subpoena were from him or to him. Which is it Mr. President? To date Holder has yet to fire anyone responsible for the Fast and the Furious debacle. To date, no one has been held accountable.

Obama has attended more campaign fund-raisers than the previous five Presidents seeking re-election combined. He’s desperate to hold onto his office. We can only hope that American voters feel likewise about not retaining his services.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Obama Reveals Himself Fully

Barack Obama

Barack Obama

In last Friday’s nationally televised news conference President Barrack Obama did more to offer voters a true point of evaluating him and his philosophy since he told Joe the Plumber in 2008 that he wanted to redistribute wealth. He showed that he is more about big government and supporting union jobs through taxation of the hard-working American people than he is about those same Americans creating their own lives and benefiting from their own labors. He wants more government jobs for people.

As you can see in this video, in which we provide you his entire answer, not just a short juicy clip, Obama says the private sector is doing fine. He says we need more government jobs.

Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney wasted no time in pouncing on the President’s revealing words and correctly pointing out how remarkable the statement was.

The Administration quickly moved to damage-control following Obama’s statement. Obama himself saying a day later “Of course the economy is not fine..”. The media portrayed these words as Obama and his minions walking back his “the private sector is doing fine” comment. But did he really? Did he really correct himself? Of course not. He didn’t because he doesn’t want to. His so-called correction just re-emphasized what he’d already said that the economy isn’t doing fine (making certain not to mention “the private sector” again), and that his solution is to provide more government and government-employee-union jobs. And the big bad Republicans are to blame for not wanting to hire more government workers.

Choosing to portray the critical need for our economy as teachers, police and firefighters plays well, because we all (at least most of us) love teachers, cops, and firefighters. We don’t necessarily love their unions, especially the teacher’s. But ask yourself do you really think all our economic problems are because we have too few teachers, cops and fire fighters? The premise is silly on its face.

Government creates nothing. Government doesn’t grow any economy. Private sector jobs grow the economy, which generates more taxes (revenue) for the government because more products are being sold, and more income tax is being paid…which ultimately allows government to do and spend more…for teachers, police and fire fighters. President Obama doesn’t seem to get this simple concept.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Gay marriage offers a moral litmus test – Spokesman.com – May 12, 2012

 

Barack Obama delivers a speech at the Universi...

“Don’t be misled: Opposing sin has nothing to do with how we treat other people. Disapproving someone’s behavior should never stop us from treating them with respect and encouraging what is best for them. Ask any parent whether it’s possible to oppose harmful behavior yet love a person dearly.”

32 times states have been asked to vote on Gay marriage and 32 times voters have affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman. But President Obama says he knows better…again.

This well written commentary may fly in the face of pop culture and populism, but its a very good read for those who call themselves Christian.

Gay marriage offers a moral litmus test – Spokesman.com – May 12, 2012.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Moral Values Then VS. Moral Values Now

Like some old crotchety dude sitting on his front porch bitching about how things were so much better back in his day I find myself wondering about the changing values of America and the results therein. It really is interesting how far we’ve come/gone from whence we came. But unlike the geezer on the porch I don’t long for times past and think, or at least say, that things were so much better back then. In some cases and instances they were better. In other instances we’re better off today.

Travel with me through the time machine and lets take a look back at how things used to be and what the changes have produced.

This protester was on his own and letting Minn...

How it used to be:

Gay marriage? Why yes. Everybody and I mean everybody was in favor of every marriage being gay. Used to be gay meant something completely different. In today’s context the question of Gay Marriage wasn’t a question at all. It was absurd. I mean really? A man marrying another man? A woman marrying another woman? What the heck are you talking about?

How it is today:

Currently six of the United States allow Gay Marriage, and the momentum clearly shows that list to be growing. Even in states that don’t currently recognize Gay Marriage homosexual domestic partnerships are not uncommon. And last week the President said he was in favor of legalizing Gay Marriage, though he hedged his bets for political reasons and said it was a issue for each state to resolve. (Once again Obama showing the conviction and backbone of a jellyfish)

The results:

Its way to early to offer an opinion on the evolving allowance for Gay Marriage. But its not too early to offer an opinion about the increasingly open subject of being Gay. As recently as 20 years ago it was a big deal when someone was “outed”, revealed publicly that they were homosexual. Now its not even a term people use. Now we discuss with serious straight faces gay children, as if an innocent child knows anything about sex or has an attraction one way or another. More open homosexuality goes hand in hand with more open sexuality.

The love of my life

How it used to be:

Living in sin, unwed! Used to be the idea of living with someone (of the opposite sex) with whom you weren’t married was completely taboo. You just didn’t do it! Because if you did…then…you could be…having sex!!!! OMG!

How it is today:

Really? This was an issue for…who? Men and women co-habitate all the time and its simply not an issue with anyone. And yes…they’re having sex.

The results: 

Certainly you have more children born to unwed parents. We’ve also seen a steady decline in the number of people getting and staying married. According to a Pew Research study published December 2011 shows that barely half of all adults are married, and the age at which both brides and grooms get married for the first time is at a record high age; 26.5 for brides, 28.5 for grooms. In 1960 70% of all adults in the U.S. 18 and older were married. Given that repeated studies show people tend to be happier, more successful, and less likely to be poor when married its hard to see this trend as anything but bad.

The Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (w...

How it used to be:

Illegal drugs were thought to be dangerous, even marijuana, and addictive, even marijuana. But ever since most states started making various drugs illegal in the 1920s and 30s people have continued to use marijuana, cocaine, heroine, amphetamines and other drugs. Even Franklin Roosevelt‘s doctor gave the President small doses of cocaine to clear up our Chief Executive’s sinuses.

But in the Hardy Boys and later Happy Days world of the 50s, 60s and 70s drug use was for the people on the edges of society.

How it is today:

Because of our more open and informed society there is a perception that more and more of us use illegal drugs. Studies aren’t completely helpful on whether this is true or not. But certainly we’re more accepting of those who do. Legalizing marijuana efforts have been in existence since it became illegal in every U.S. state by the 1930s. They now seem to have more traction, with more and more states allowing for the medical use of marijuana.

A Gallup Poll in 1969  found that 4% of Americans age 12 or older had used pot. By 1977 that number was 24%. In a study reported by CNN in September last year 9% of Americans report using illegal drugs. It’s important to note the difference in the two things just written. The ’69 and ’77 studys merely reported on cannabis and whether a person had EVER tried it. The 2011 study reported on ALL illegal drugs and reported on how many people regularly use them.

About 200-million people use illegal drugs worldwide.

The results:

Illegal drugs cause 250,000 deaths worldwide each year. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime that’s compared to 2.25-million killed from alcohol use, and 5.1-million killed from use of tobacco. But 2.1 million years of life were lost due to drug use, more than the 1.5 million lost due to alcohol, likely because drug deaths generally affect younger people, while alcohol deaths tend to occur in middle-aged and elderly people.

Cleavage

How it used to be:

Sex and all things related to it were private, not to be talked about publicly, and often not even between two consenting adults involved in sex. I’ve done enough genealogical research and seen enough episodes of NBC’s “Who do You Think You Are?” to know sexual relations involving non-married and married couples happened plenty in decades prior to the sexual revolution. But, again, it just wasn’t something people talked about.

Mike and Carol Brady of the 1970s TV show The Brady Bunch, were the first couple shown on TV in the same bed together. The show aired from September 1969 to March 1974.

How it is today:

A female friend recently happily admitted to me over lunch that she had another “friend with benefits”; referring to the now accepted practice of having a “Fuck-buddy“. For those not in the know this would be someone with whom you have sex regularly but are not married to and don’t even consider a boyfriend or girlfriend. There are two things to consider here:

1. That “friends with benefits” is so increasingly common that its an expression at all.

And

2. That a female friend happily and willingly admits to being engaged in such a relationship.

Both issues serve as metaphors for how sex is considered not such a big deal by so many people today.

A couple years ago while on a beer drinking expedition with several friends the discussion of sexual partners came up. I revealed that I’d had fewer than 10 sexual partners in my entire life. The reaction from my friends was equivalent to me saying I was a 50 year old virgin. They teased me incessantly the rest of the night. Of the three one was 26 years old, another was in his mid-30s, and another was 50 years old. The older guys were married but had been single for much of their life. Along with the 26 year old they all claimed to have had “well over” 100 sexual partners in their lives. The fact that I was dating my wife at age 20, and had remained happily married to her for over 25 years didn’t change the fact that in their eyes I was fresh and innocent.

But that being my perspective…sex is still a big deal to me. Were I to ever engage in it with someone other than my wife I can’t imagine it being merely casual. It would effect me very strongly emotionally.

The result:

The Centers for Disease Control says 41% of all births these days are to unwed mothers. Black babies are born to unwed mothers 72% of the time.

As The Heritage Foundation determined in a recent study publicly championed during the Presidential campaign of Rick Santorum if a person graduates high school, has a job, and waits until being married before having children they have a 98% likelihood of NEVER being in poverty throughout their entire lives.

This just in: sex creates babies! Of course there are all kinds of contraceptives and medical procedures designed to keep a woman from getting pregnant. But most of them are dependent on the user actually using the contraceptive. And we know from recent news stories that money is not an issue. Contraception is easily acquired in this country. But yet we still keep having babies in less than optimal circumstances.

And the transmission of Sexually Transmitted Diseases is a national crisis according to the Center for Disease Prevention. There are over 19-million STD infections in this country costing the U.S. health care system over $17-Billion each year. 

So a more open society on the subject of sex has done….what? Created more unwanted pregnancy, more unwanted children, and more diseases; including AIDS. The positives, besides the fact that sex is fun and great in so many ways? Well, I don’t know. What do YOU think?

Many other things have changed from way back when until now. But these have been in the news a lot lately, AND I honestly believe these are the big ones.

Brunswick Church (Presbyterian), known locally...

How it used to be:

Roman Catholics make up the most populous church in America. In 1955 75% of Catholics attended church weekly. According to Gallup only 42% of those who claimed a Protestant faith attended church weekly in 1955. Twenty-percent of Americans never attended church, mosque, or synagogue.

How it is today:

According to a Gallup Poll Catholic’s weekly church attendance has leveled off over the past 15 years, to about 45%. Protestant church attendance climbed slightly since 1955 to 45%. Twenty percent of Americans never go to church, a percentage that has remained unchanged for nearly 60 years (despite constant efforts by atheists to make church-going seem like the act of crazy people).

Perhaps not surprising is the fact that those who call themselves Conservative attend church more than any of 28 named sub-groups; and of those 28, Liberals attend church the least.

The result:

Other than Catholics the percentage of people attending church has not changed much in nearly 60 years. But the drop-off from those affiliated with the Catholic church has been dramatic; and since it is the most populous church in the country such a drop-off can’t be ignored.

Is it correct to say that those who are more likely to use drugs and advocate their legalization, those who advocate Gay marriage, those more likely to live out-of-wedlock and have kids out of wedlock, and those advocating a more openly sexual world tend to be liberal more-so than they tend to be Conservative? If that assumption is true (and I think that generally speaking there is no doubt that its true) can it be too much of a surprise that these people are also more likely to not attend church?

A March 2012 Gallup poll indicates that those who go to church are happier, more often. Church attendees give to charities more readily, and lead more successful, fulfilling lives…generally speaking, according to a study published in Canada.

What I find shocking is that these figures need to be reported at all. It seems obvious to me, and has for a very long time.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Republicans Need to Talk with More Heart

It’s tough out there. It’s tough just about everywhere.

This will be one of those blogs my wife wishes I wouldn’t write because I’ll reveal far too much personal feelings and personal information.

This Obama recession just keeps dragging on. Now we have the buttressing good news of declining gas prices which are made worse by the declining oil prices which is caused by declining economic forecasts. Economists say things could be getting worse…again. But then again…we could just be early with the annual Post-Memorial Day decline of oil and gas prices.

Are you struggling right now financially? I don’t talk to anyone these days who isn’t. It seems a lot of people are like my family…making a steady average to above average income…less than in years past but definitely average or above average…not saving anything…meeting all bills, but just barely…all while living humbly (at least humbly compared to the past 20 years). Things around the house that break, stay broken, at least for a while. We have a desire to help our adult kids, but not the means, other than a roof over their heads, which they reject. And it’s been this way for 2-3 years now.

I have one huge fear. No, not that I or someone in my family gets sick. But now that I mention it…that gives me chills too. Actually my biggest fear is that Barrack Obamawins re-election six short months from now.

Barack Obama

It’s not hard to argue that Obama is the most Progressive/Liberal President in U.S. history. And if he’s not he’s a close second, at least on domestic matters to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. Lietuvių: Fra...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. 

And what do they have in common? Both inherited serious economic problems and prolonged them through their own economic policies.

In June 1933 FDR signed into law a series of bills that were anti-competition, like the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, and pro-union measures, like Obama’s pro-union agenda including suing Boeing for having the audacity of locating a plant in a right-to-work state, thereby raising wages to artificially high levels and prices for goods in eleven key industries 25-percent higher than they otherwise would have been.

Such Government control has never been shown to work on a large economy effectively. Or as Winston Churchill said when assessing socialism’s inherent virtue, “the equal sharing of miseries.”.

Question: Can you name one government social program that makes you rich? How about one that makes you reasonably well-off? How about one that sustains you at average life-style levels? You can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. Government entitlement programs give you enough food and shelter and medicine in order to survive; never to thrive. So, with more people dependent on government for subsistence fewer people are eligible for a life of thriving success. The Heritage Foundations 2012 Index of Government Dependence showed more Americans dependent on government for subsistence than ever before.

Which leads me to the question: Has government made it too easy to rely on pay-outs for assistance. Rather than helping the truly needy, are we not creating more needy by creating dependence?

With unemployment benefits now extended 99 weeks in most circumstances dependence on that weekly government check is paramount. How can a teacher who’s been unemployed for nearly two years still be considered a teacher? Isn’t it obvious that if you can’t find employment in your field after two years you are no longer in THAT field? I think its obvious that too many people refuse employment or to look for employment in whatever job they can land in order to hold out for employment in their chosen field, subsisting ever so precariously on government assistance, until that job materializes and not coincidentally after their skills have diminished through nearly 2 years of unemployment.

Republicans consistently miss the boat on winning the support of these people and others who display sympathy for such folks. Republicans don’t talk enough about how they can help the poor and the lower middle-class by expressing the obvious: we have a better plan. How many people would prefer a government check that barely meets their needs over a paycheck no matter what the source for the paycheck?

Mitt Romney at one of his presidential campaig...

Mitt Romney can be our next President. But he has to show the compassion for the millions of those who are lost in this meager “recovery” or barely surviving. He can do it by simply emphasizing the obvious. Jobs are better than social programs. And he can do it by better demonstrating the compassion that non-thinking independents and Democrats like most. A sense of sympathy and concern for the most down-and-out will go miles in pulling them from the clutches of the Democratic party.

The Democratic party does a far superior job of giving the poor hungry man a fish; but as every Republican knows the Dems do a far inferior job of teaching a man to fish. We wrote a parable on such a subject some years ago called: The Fisherman, the Hungry Man, and the Wise Man.

Those who are struggling is a long list that sadly seems to be growing longer. An about-face can be achieved by repeatedly emphasizing the words of John Kennedy, “Ask not what your country can do for you…”, and instead emphasizing what can you do for yourself, your family and your country. Do what you need to do, and pretty soon you will be able to do what you want to do. The Republicans have historically been more vocal in support of “traditional values”. They now need to show how those “traditional values”, like a rising tide, can and will lift all boats.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

  • Calendar

    • March 2026
      M T W T F S S
       1
      2345678
      9101112131415
      16171819202122
      23242526272829
      3031  
  • Search