Romney Was Right About Russia

You can find the article at this link:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/03/03/why_obama_got_russia_wrong_and_romney_got_it_right.html

Obama, Putin, and Syria

World Leaders Snubbed By Obama in Favor of an Appearance on THE VIEW

"The president won't hold separate meetings with any key world leaders, citing scheduling concerns. But Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama have found time to sit down Monday with the ladies of "The View" to tape an interview."
                                                 -Yahoo! News

So, once again because of "scheduling concerns" the President of the United States, Barack Obama, can't hold any meetings at the UN General Assembly, but he can make time to visit the set of another talk show. Unbelievable. There has never been another U.S. President in the history of the United States how has shown so much dismay at the office that he holds.

President Obama, David Letterman, and Israel

Next week Tuesday, September 18, 2012 is the start of the United Nations General Assembly. On that same date, President Barack Obama will be appearing on the LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN. President Obama will be making another trip to New York a week later for the General Assembly meeting. President Obama is scheduled to arrive that week on Monday, September 24 and leave on Tuesday, September 25. A few days later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be in New York for the UN General Assembly, too. Prime Minister Netanyahu has requested a meeting with President Obama while he is in the U.S., but President Obama has denied that request. Prime Minister Netanyahu offered to come to the U.S. earlier to meet with President Obama, but that request was denied.

So, the Prime Minister of Israel wants to meet with the President of the United States. Israel is one of only a handful of allies we have left in the Middle East (as illustrated by the storming of the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the murdering of the U.S. Libyan ambassador yesterday) and by far our strongest ally. Prime Minister Netanyahu will be in the United States (something that doesn't happen very often) and offered to visit earlier than planned in order to meet with President Obama, but those requests have been denied because of President Obama's "uncertain and hectic election-year schedule." Yet, President Obama can make a special trip to New York a week earlier so he can go on LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN.

Mr. President, I realize that you are in the midst of a re-election and are really worried that you might lose. However, currently you still are the President of the United States. That means that when there are matters of national importance, those matter take precedent over any campaigning you might have planned. A request by the Prime Minister of Israel to meet with you while he is in the United States is of national importance, especially since the "Arab Spring" that you so prominently backed, supported, and helped implement is falling apart. I understand the difference between right and wrong, but when it comes to leading a country, sometimes what's best and most right for the country you are leading is not best and most right for the rest of the world. However, that is what you have been elected to do. Instead of showboating around the country campaigning, you should be leading. Of course, that's something you've never really done. Just because you can make a good speech,  just because you can read a telepromter, just because you pretend you have great listening skills does not make you a leader. President Obama should entitle his first post-Presidential memoir THE AUDACITY OF ARROGANCE

Do You Belong to the Government?

Last night (Sept. 4, 2012) as part of the Democratic National Convention, this snippet of a video was part of the evening festivities. In the greater context of the entire video, the statement "The government is the only thing we all belong to," is clarified somewhat and I believe I understand why this statement was included. Yet, this is a statement that shouldn't be glossed over. It speaks to the core of the major differences between progressives and conservatives in the country; it illustrates a contrasting world view, one that I do not share. Though much of the political climate of the past few years has tried to force us to belong to the government, I do not belong to the government. I am not a slave to the behemoth of bureaucracy that has become the government. I am a free man with God-given individual rights, including but not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I understand why some might ignore or try to gloss over this video. Yet, though I understand, I cannot forget it. A few weeks ago a Congressman from Missouri was pilloried (and rightly so) for making a major verbal faux pas. This video wasn't a verbal mistake made by one man. It was made by members of the Democratic National Convention (the DNC has to ok everything that happens on the main stage, make no mistake about that) for a national audience. It was carefully filmed and edited. Every syllable and image was given the utmost scrutiny and after all of that, this statement still remained. Why is that? Do you belong to the government? What is your number? As for me, I am not a number, I am a free man.

President Obama and the Budget

I'm not always a fan of Glenn Beck. Also, I realize that it can sometimes use the same statistics to support opposing viewpoints. However, that isn't the case here. The federal budget deficit has been growing exponentially larger since President Obama took office. As a nation, we literally cannot afford to keep this up.

President Obama Is Anti-Israel

I don't like writing about political events because many people choose not to approach political discussions logically, they let their emotions take control, and things turn into an explosive shouting match. However, sometimes "when in the course of human events it becomes necessary" to make a stand and say something.

Today President Obama delivered a speech where he said, "The borders of Israel and Palenstine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." In other words, the President of the United States told Israel, "Hey, thanks for being our friend and ally for over half a century. Now, bend over because I want to screw you."

Excuse me? Who died and made you world dictator, Mr. President? Israel has been one of only a handful of consistent allies that the United States has had in the past fifty years. Their help in anti-terrorism measures and intelligence has been invaluable. Now the President of the United States is telling them that they have to give up part of their country?! WTF!

I have never liked President Obama. He became one of the two senators from my home state of Illinois by having some of his cronies publicly release sealed court documents from the private divorce case of his opponent less than six months before the Senatorial election. These were documents from a private case. These were documents that not one, but several judges had ruled should remain sealed. Yet, somehow these private and sealed documents were released and made public. Prior to this, Obama was losing in the polls by nearly 80%. Once those documents were made public and it was learned that the Republican candidate had an affair, things changed. Most people in Illinois didn't know who Obama was, but the Republican party was tainted by the sexual scandal and they voted for him because he wasn't involved in a sex scandal. Once those sealed documents became public, I knew Obama wasn't who he was pretending to be. Ever since then, I've seen him as a modern Willie Stark. Nothing he has done since then has changed that opinion.

I've tried to be respectful of President Obama even when he's showed no respect for the Office he holds. I pray for him. However, today's statements have really put me on edge. Our President might be anti-Israel and perhaps anti-Semitic, but many of the people in the United States are not.

I hear you, Israel, and I support you.

Our "Silly" President

Two days ago (Wednesday, April 27, 2011), President Obama held a press conference. That's nothing unusual; President Obama can be seen on tv more often than a movie star plugging their latest picture. The press was gathered there under the impression that the President was going to be speaking about his new security team. Instead, the President released his birth certificate. Instead of talking about the real and difficult issues facing our country, President Obama devoted the time debunking a conspiracy theory. Dana Milbank sums up the event best in an essay for The Washington Post.

As Milbank says, "Speaking to 'the vast majority of the American people, as well as to the press,' the president said: 'We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We’ve got better stuff to do.' The President then flew off to Chicago to be on Oprah."

Mitch Albom On Obama & South Korean Education

A few weeks ago, Mitch Albom had a very interesting essay in the Detroit Free Press about some of President Obama's comments on education in the United States as compared to that in South Korea. Albom became famous for a little book he wrote called Tuesdays With Morrie . That was a good book, but then Albom went to write a series of other books, all bestsellers, that were mushy, pseudo-spiritual tripe. So, I'm not really a big fan of Albom. However, I concur with most of his sentiments (everything until the sappy end) in the essay.

In the past few weeks Obama and his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan seemed to have been making a push towards lengthening the number of hours students spend in school as well as the length of the school year. As Ablom points out, even if every school in the country does that, it will not help improve the quality of education in our high schools. In South Korea, everyone still cares about education, unlike here in the U.S. where education is now seen as a "right", not a privilege.

"What you don't hear is cheerleading squads. What you don't hear is spring break trips to Cancun. What you don't hear is classes to boost self-esteem, to celebrate an ethnic group, to explore the arts. What you don't hear is Glee or High School Musical or other coolness-driven entertainment fantasies about high school fashion, sex, talent, or jockdom.

How are our kids supposed to mimic these kids when this place doesn't look anything like the American school system?

...One of the questions I was asked by the media here was, "What do our children have to do to become global leaders?" That's not a common question in the United States--not to a visiting writer, anyhow.

...How are American kids going to copy that? We're not disciplined enough, we're not hungry enough, and, most important, either parents don't say it enough, or if they do, kids ignore them.

That also doesn't happen in Korea. Respect for elders is paramount in Korean society."

Read the whole essay here.

President Obama on THE VIEW?

This morning as I looked at the news blurbs from Yahoo! News one in particular caught my eye: "Obama opens up on 'The View'". I did a literal double-take. I thought to myself that there's no way that could be correct. But, it was. The President of the United States appeared on morning television at a women's coffee klatch.

Seriously?...Come on, really?... Seriously???

Barack Obama is the President of the United States. I opposed him when he was a candidate, but he won. Even though I disagree with many of the policies and laws he's campaigned Congress to enact, I've tried to give the man the respect that a person in the Office of the President deserves. I pray for the man. But when you are the President of the United States and you are a guest on "The View" you not only set yourself up for ridicule, but it shows nothing but disrespect and disgrace for the Office of the President. You make yourself not only to be a laughingstock, but also the Office of the President in general and by extension the entire United States. It leaves me flabbergasted.

The Thin-Skinned President

When I first starting preparing to enter acting as more than just a hobby, one of the things I kept hearing over and over and over was that performers have to have a thick skin. Rejection is a constant in the business and for every job someone says yes to you, you'll get at least 100 nos. People will constantly be judging and evaluating you and if you want to be successful, you can't take everything that's said personally. You have to have discernment and grow some "rhino-skin".

Though there are differences, the same advice goes for politicians. Everything you say or do will be examined, judged, and critiqued and you have to have discernment and some rhino-skin. That doesn't mean you don't listen to the people who elected you, but it does mean that you can't take every little thing personally.

Apparently President Obama doesn't have much discernment nor a very tough skin. Yesterday he fired the commanding general of U.S. operations in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for some comments he and some of his staff made in an impromptu interview with a Rolling Stone reporter. Neither McChrystal nor his staff disrespected the President, but they were rather critical of Vice President Joe Biden and other members of Obama's administration. Some media sources have been quoted as saying that McChrystal's "resignation" came about because of his insubordination to the President which is utterly absurd. Insubordination involves a willful disobedience to a direct order and though it is frowned upon and usually punished, there are times when insubordination is called for (e.g. raping women that you are supposed to be protecting). McChrystal's comments were NOT insubordination. Perhaps they were foolish and misguided, but that's about it.

There have been comparisons to Obama's firing of McChrystal to that of Lincoln removing Gen. George McClellan of his command during the Civil War and Truman's dismissal of Gen. Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War (the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is one such newspaper that made the comparison). Such comparisons are invalid and show a willful ignorance of history. Lincoln gave McClellan every opportunity to win the Civil War early and fast, but McClellan was indecisive and lost numerous battles and a high cost and even his few victories came with large numbers of casualties over an extended period of time. McClellan wasn't a very good war-time general. Truman's dismissal of MacArthur was for the opposite reason. The U.S. was fighting in Korea as part of a U.N. conflict. Under MacArthur's guidance, the early part of the war went well. However, China started flooding North Korea with troops and equipment and the early victories were eradicated. MacArthur wanted to make a full fledged invasion into North Korea and if needed into China. Truman was against it because it would mean the U.S. fighting alone and Truman didn't want to upset those countries who were allied with us. MacArthur, however, was convinced a massive invasion was needed and continued making plans not only to invade the northern part of Korea, but even into China. Truman fired MacArthur for that, something that is closer to insubordination than McChrystal's criticizing politicians and poking fun at Vice President Biden. (By the way, MacArthur was probably right, in my opinion).

President Obama's firing of McChrystal is more akin to a spoiled teenager having his parents bail him out for breaking a school rule than that of a Commander-in-Chief leading a country's military. It was an action that was far more dictatorial than Presidential.

The oPad

Came across this video today. Provides an excellent analogy of the iPad and health care in the U.S.A.

Health Care and the 800 Pound Gorilla

Another great video from PoliticalMath illustrating a major problem with President Obama's recent proposals to health care reform.

On Stealing Liberty and Being Presidential

Tonight (Wed. Sept. 9, 2009), President Obama delivered an address on health care reform to both Houses of Congress that was televised and broadcast around the country. The President spoke for over an hour, clearly illustrating that even though Lincoln is one of his political heroes, he definitely didn't learn anything about speaking from him (President Lincoln was often ridiculed for delivering short speeches). There's a lot that I could say about the President's speech. However, there are two things I wish to address.

The first is in regards to this part of the speech: "That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers."

I am completely opposed to such an action. To begin with, the comparison between auto liability insurance and health insurance is not a valid comparison (not to mention that statistically most accidents that occur where a driver is uninsured that driver is an illegal alien). Sure, they are both types of insurance, but that's where the similarities end. It's like saying that people who raise bananas and people who raise chickens are both farmers because they both raise things. They might both be farmers, but they are completely different types of farmers. However, besides the fallacy of this argument there is the more important and critical issue of the President seeking to take away more of our freedom and liberty. It's bad enough that in my state to drive a car you're required by law to have liability insurance. However, at least that's on a state level. It's not a national thing. President Obama wants this to be national. To do so is an infringement of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. We've had enough of our liberties and freedoms stolen by the federal government in the past five years. It's time that it stopped.

The other thing I can address from the speech regards this statement: "Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."

Apparently neither the President or his advisers have read H.R.3200 (a massive 1,000+ bill that is the only one available for public scrutiny). Now, though I'm not a lawyer, I am trained in English. I know how words and phrases work, even a lot of legalese. I've only read about 20 pages of the bill, but it's so full of bullshit that's all I could handle. However, I made it a point to read the "death panel" parts. Though it is true that the bill doesn't set up a direct "death panel", persay, it does make a point of "advanced care planning" and "end of life care" which, "may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions." In other words upon implementation one of the "physicians" that has been approved by the government can choose to deny treatment to someone. Though the wording of opponents of H.R.3200, especially in regards to this part of the bill, is a bit hyperbolic, it is not cynical, it is not irresponsible, it is not a lie. That statement in and of itself is completely unPresidential and doesn't bode well for a man who campaigned upon being above the political fray.

President Obama's Health Care Reform

Ten years ago I was dropped from my father's health insurance because I had graduated from college. In the decade since, I have only had health insurance for 9 months when I was teaching school full time (at a cost of over $500/month). I'm currently working as a temp worker in an accounting office. It is a job that I have held for over a year. Though I have worked diligently, it has been made clear to me that I will never be brought on as a regular member of the company.  I'm heavily underpaid and have no hope for advancement. I have been looking for other employment, but since we are in a recession and on the verge of an economic depression, job prospects have been slim (two college degrees don't seem to open as many doors as one might think).  I've given up on even dreaming about owning my own home.

Despite my circumstances, I am in opposition to President Obama's health care proposals. We all know that there are problems with our health care system. However, the answer is not in forming another government bureaucracy. Health care costs skyrocketed because of the health insurance industry, but virtually eliminating that industry by offering a "public" option will not solve any problems but only further complicate things as well as bring about even more problems. Besides, if we really hold our freedom and liberty dear, then we should know that the government is not our friend. In the best of times government is a wary ally, but in the worst of times (which these are) the government is our fiercest foe. Bridled by the Constitution, we can live with the government. However, the health care option presented before us--just one of many plans that those who are currently in the zenith of power are using--is an attempt to destroy all that we hold dear and free the bloated behemoth of government that will kill us all if we allow the Constitutional bridle to be removed.

To better illustrate this, watch the video below. It explains it much better than I can.

Obama's Proposed Budget "Cuts"

President Obama has promised that his administration would make cuts in spending totaling $100 million. Overlooking the fact that this announcement wasn't made until after the President's administration proposed a budget nearly double of President George W. Bush's budget during his last year in office, what is $100 million from out of a $3.5 trillion budget? As this video illustrates, not much. Not much at all.

President Obama in Germany

DATELINE: Saturday, April 4, 2009. U.S. President Barack Obama is in Germany today. It is one of three countries he is expected to visit today. Below is an exclusive photo of the President's visit to the Bavarian Forest Mountain Range.

President Barack Obama in Germany. The Bavarian Mountains are in the background.

President Obama, Afghanistan, and My Brother.

Yesterday President Obama announced plans to send another 4,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in addition to the 17,000 that are already there or are on their way. My brother is one of those 4,000. He's had his bag packed since January 2008; two months after he returned from being in Iraq for over a year. I was concerned when my brother went to Iraq, yet I felt peace about him being there. I don't have that same peace as he leaves for Afghanistan and I'm worried.

Say what you will about the war in Iraq, our troops knew what they were doing there. Yes, most of us were fooled, perhaps even lied to about weapons of mass destruction. Still, there were overlying objectives. Even now, the troops I've talked to and the ones my brother has served with and communicated with said that in Iraq they had a purpose but there really is no objective in Afghanistan. My brother has been in constant communication with fellow soldiers that he served with in Iraq who are already in Afghanistan. They serve willingly, but all have said there seems to be no purpose for them being there and the lack of specificity has increased since President Obama was innaugurated.

There are many who will say that the U.S. had no business in Iraq and we should have been focusing on Afghanistan all along. Those who say that might or might not be wrong. The truth is, that though we've been directed to focus on Iraq, we never left Afghanistan. We've had troops there since late fall 2001. Even though the Taliban no longer reigns, the situation is much more dangerous in Afghanistan than it ever was in Iraq. The casualty rate in Afghanistan is almost three times as high as it was in Iraq at the height of the conflict when there was so much "resistance". Most people don't know this because the media has not been reporting about Afghanistan the same way they did about Iraq. Casualties in Iraq were common headlines in newspapers. Yesterday four more soldiers died in Afghanistan and their deaths didn't even warrant any headline in the largest metropolitan paper near me (St. Louis Post-Dispatch).

We have done a lot of good in Afghanistan since overthrowing the Taliban. For instance, the unemployment rate was over 60% before the Taliban was overthrown. It's now just below 40%. We've built roads, hospitals, schools, etc. We helped the people of Afghanistan hold their first elections in nearly three decades. These are good things. Yet, Afghanistan is such a backward country, I don't know if it means much.

For instance, in Iraq there was an infrastructure in place before we invaded. We only had to help rebuild it. There is hardly any infrastructure in Afghanistan and the majority of what it does have has either been built by foreign powers occupying the country, drug dealers, or terrorists. Opium production in the country has skyrocketed and neither the citizens or government seem to really care. The illiteracy rate is a staggering 67% and once again there seems to be little concern. Oh, and even though the U.S. has helped cut the unemployment by 20%, the unemployment rate is still around 40% (for comparison the current U.S. unemployment rate is about 8%). Then there's the history of war in the country. Afghanistan has a long history of war and violence and the country has been a quagmire for ever major military power in modern history (British & Russia to name two biggies) that has occupied it (there is a theory that the trouble with Afghanistan is what caused the Soviet Union to finally collapse). And that's what really worries me.

Our President is sending 4,000 more troops to Iraq and my brother is one of them. They will answer the call to duty faithfully and serve willingly, but I don't like it one bit. May God be with each of them and bring them home safely.

Obama's Faith

For a fascinating interview with President-elect Barack Obama about his faith read this article. It's pretty clear from the interview that at the time Obama was a unitarian universialist, possibly growing into a deist.

A Little Something On Barack Obama

I currently live in Illinois. Barack Obama is one of my Senators. Barack Obama seems like a nice guy. He's also a great orator. He's full of friendliness and charisma. He loves language and knows the power of language. There are a lot of people around my age who have joined the Obama campaign. They listen to him speak and believe in the words he says. They say that what Obama says makes them feel more hopeful about their lives and the world.

I want to like Barack Obama. I really do. Many of the speeches he has given to the larger general public are moving. I've felt some of the same things that my friends who support Obama do. Yet, there's just something about Obama that doesn't set right with me. I can't pinpoint it exactly. However, ever since I was forced to learn about who Obama was a few years ago when he first became one of my Senators, there was something about him that made me feel uneasy. Barack Obama reminds me a little too much of Willie Stark from All the King's Men.

For example, there’s been a lot of rumors that Obama is some kind of Manchurian Candidate of radical Muslim extremists. I don’t buy that particular conspiracy theory. In an attempt to lay these rumors to rest (and reach out to Christians), Obama gave an interview to Christianity Today magazine. In the interview Obama reiterates that he is a Christian. He also touches upon his views of abortion.

“Ultimately, women are in the best position to make a decision at the end of the day about these issues. With significant constraints. For example, I think we can legitimately say — the state can legitimately say — that we are prohibiting late-term abortions as long as there's an exception for the mother's health. Those provisions that I voted against typically didn't have those exceptions, which raises profound questions where you might have a mother at great risk. Those are issues that I don't think the government can unilaterally make a decision about. I think they need to be made in consultation with doctors, they have to be prayed upon, or people have to be consulting their conscience on it. I think we have to keep that decision-making with the person themselves.”

This is a great example of what a wonderful speaker Obama is. I am personally against abortion and believe that in most cases it is wrong, yet I can understand the rare case when a choice has to be made between saving a mother’s life and the life of her unborn child. It would seem that from his interview with Christianity Today that it is because of small nuanced possibilities like these that he seems to be “pro-abortion”.

Yet, on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision this past week, Obama released the following statement: "Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America….But we also know that Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman's right to choose; it's about equality. It's about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons. And so to truly honor that decision, we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves, and their children, from violent relationships; so that a mom can stay home with a sick child without getting a pink slip; so that she can go to work knowing that there's affordable, quality childcare for her children; and so that the American dream is within reach for every family in this country. This anniversary reminds us that it's not enough to protect the gains of the past – we have to build a future that's filled with hope and possibility for all Americans." This is only part of the official statement. I suggest you read the entire thing and read it carefully.

Though the statements that Obama made in Christianity Today don’t completely contradict his official Roe V. Wad anniversary statement, it is clear from the official statement that Obama believes that abortion isn’t something that should happen rarely, but is an inherent and inalienable right and something women should have upon demand, regardless of the circumstances.

The way these statements are worded illustrate part of the reason I don’t trust Obama. That’s not to say he’s not a likeable person or that he’s not a Christian. I think I would probably enjoy sitting down and having dinner with Barack Obama. However, I do think it should serve as a warning to those who have joined the Obama campaign because he’s “the man for change”. Change can be a good thing, but change just for the sake of change rarely is. Charismatic people can get others to go along with them just because of their personality and if a charismatic person, such as Obama, has learned the power of language, they can get people to do and believe just about whatever they want.