Rousing speech

Listen – at least one representative in Congress gets it

5:04 minutes

This from Nolte at Breitbart

People can debate whether or not Romney made a diplomatic “gaffe” all they want, but what’s not debatable is that even outside of the world of horserace politics, our collapsing economy is a very serious matter which makes it, you know, newsworthy. The media, however, is showing little to no interest in the fact that over the last few economic quarters our GDP has collapsed from 4.1% to 1.5%.

GDP collapsing from 4.1% growth to 1.5% is free fall.

Three months of job growth under 100k when you need more than twice that number just to keep up with population growth is free fall. Home sales plummeting 8.4% is free fall. Consumer confidence dipping, business inventories increasing, manufacturing contracting, and more people getting disability than jobs, is free fall.

The only way this failed and failing and flailing president can win reelection is to toxify his opponent into someone the public will see as NOT an acceptable alternative to Obama — and this is exactly what the corrupt media is making sure happens by ignoring over 20 million people struggling in their under-employed or unemployed status while keeping its focus on all-things Mitt 24/7.

Even as the economy collapses ands real suffering increases, all the media can do is hysterically amplify every real and perceived mistake Romney makes  and when not doing that, focus intently on the very areas Obama wants the focus on: Romney’s wealth and the fact he’s not releasing more of his taxes than John McCain did.

Rice writes

Honest, I wrote the post this morning before reading the Rice article located here.

I agree with about 90% of what she wrote.

The big takeaway point from the article is we need a President that is a leader who embraces and believes that the USA is an exceptional country. The article is short, maybe 5 minutes long. Good synopsis of the gaping vacuum in the president’s office.

Looking around and ahead

As for this post there will be no hyperlinks to articles or copying & pasting text from another location. Not that there hasn’t been some interesting events unfurling or breaking through.  In the real world of my own existence and livelihood, things have been also breaking through which has required my attention and consideration. Those kind of events I record on my LJ not here. But as mentioned, much has occurred and with the hands of the sundial and the zodiac getting ready to line up to the eighth month of 2012 I am a bit stunned how much hasn’t happened than what has. Surely the kid plugging the hole in the dyke must have two-score thumbs.

Unresolved or continuing to deteriorate:
Our Congress and the partisan immaturity & noncooperation
Iran and the whole nuclear weapon question
Euro and the European financial crisis
US unemployment and economy
Stability in the Middle East
and there is many more stories and events but these are the ones I continue to monitor.

November arrives and hopefully we will see with it the removal of the incumbent occupying the executive branch of government. Of course there is much harm that he can do in those long days of being a lame duck president. Nevertheless their is far greater fear of another four years of damage to our country and standing in the world.

“Leadership from behind” is the strategy and creation of someone who is NOT a leader. It is the result of someone who is doing something that is actually against their convictions and values. I think that sums up the CES’ four years. He is president of America, a country he has no conviction for nor possesses its historical values. We need a leader, someone who will navigate the mess we are in with convictions and values rooted in the exceptionalism of America. Someone who will stand tall with our allies, not blink with our enemies and rally the domestic forces to unite and work together. That is the person our country needs as President of the United States of America.

CES’ philosophy and viewpoint

For over 3 years I have been writing and saying that the CES is a socialist. Some think I use that as purely a derogatory label. Nope, calling him what he is. A socialist amateur who never should have become president of our country but too many of the citizens of our country are naive and well…. I will leave it at that.
His recent comments should have resulted in a 10+ point downswing in polls but the majority of the citizens…. you know…..

Did the state make you great?

By , Published: July 19

“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

— Barack Obama,

Roanoke, Va., July 13


And who might that somebody else be? Government, says Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It “created the Internet.” It represents the embodiment of “we’re in this together” social solidarity that, in Obama’s view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.

To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.

Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective.

Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success. How so? It created the infrastructure — roads, bridges, schools, Internet — off which we all thrive.

Absurd. We don’t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein’s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.

Obama’s infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What’s variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes.

The ultimate Obama fallacy, however, is the conceit that belief in the value of infrastructure — and willingness to invest in its creation and maintenance — is what divides liberals from conservatives.

More nonsense. Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts, too. And sewers. Since forever, infrastructure has been consensually understood to be a core function of government.

The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It’s about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It’s about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It’s about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.

What divides liberals and conservatives is not roads and bridges but Julia’s world, an Obama campaign creation that may be the most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever conceived. It’s a series of cartoon illustrations in which a fictional Julia is swaddled and subsidized throughout her life by an all- giving government of bottomless pockets and “Queen for a Day” magnanimity. At every stage, the state is there to provide — preschool classes and cut-rate college loans, birth control and maternity care, business loans and retirement. The only time she’s on her own is at her grave site.

Julia’s world is totally atomized. It contains no friends, no community and, of course, no spouse. Who needs one? She’s married to the provider state.

Or to put it slightly differently, the “Life of Julia” represents the paradigmatic Obama political philosophy: citizen as orphan child. For the conservative, providing for every need is the duty that government owes to actual orphan children. Not to supposedly autonomous adults.

Beyond infrastructure, the conservative sees the proper role of government as providing not European-style universal entitlements but a firm safety net, meaning Julia-like treatment for those who really cannot make it on their own — those too young or too old, too mentally or physically impaired, to provide for themselves.

Limited government so conceived has two indispensable advantages. It avoids inexorable European-style national insolvency. And it avoids breeding debilitating individual dependency. It encourages and celebrates character, independence, energy, hard work as the foundations of a free society and a thriving economy — precisely the virtues Obama discounts and devalues in his accounting of the wealth of nations.

Roberts: Not doing his job

In this The Week magazine on page 20 is the article Obamacare ruling: Why did Roberts switch sides?

The article does like a typical Week article and presents a few bits of commentary and analysis on the subject. It well reflects all the commentary I read or heard following the decision which is – in essence, boiled down to the bottom-line he made a political decision.

Over the last hundred years and maybe longer the MSM and the Executive and Legislative branches of government have politicized the role of a supreme court judge which has fed the current situation Roberts felt he was in. The Dems were and MSM were ready to bash the Supreme Court for striking down the greatly flawed Obamacare Act because it was and is a subject/issue of interest to them. Now consider carefully what the Dems and MSM would have said – it (the Supreme Court) is conservative, if not Republican majority court so this was further political attacks on the current president. Roberts, in his thinking and reasoning allowed himself to be bullied by this flawed argument and then flipped sides in a political verbal gymnastics routine that allowed each side to feel a bit of victory while then the Dems and MSM would not say the Supreme Court was a republican…

Hence Roberts’ decision was political and not constitutional for he chose to make a political stand and not a constitutional stand on the legislation.

Simply put = he DID NOT DO HIS JOB – PERIOD and he did a grave injustice to the S.C. now and in the future. The S.C. is supposed to be above the riff-raff of the legislative and executive branches. It is supposed to be the defender of the Constitution of the United States and by implication the country’s society.

Never a dull moment

Isn’t it interesting that the CES, his administration and the MSM haven’t lauded the successful election in Libya? In defense (hack, hack) of the CES, his pick didn’t win. Yep the Islamist lost, the administration going into Libya is a secular liberal alliance. Great news for the people of Libya that is if the Islamists don’t try overthrow the government or cause disruption in the country.

Apparently some are concerned that Syria & Iran will try to do what Saddam Hussein attempted in the first Gulf War – drag Israel into the mess.