Interesting take from across the pond

Impeachment

President Obama should be impeached.

It may come as a shock to those reading, but I do not admire President Obama. I disagree on his approach to healthcare, leadership, and foreign policy. I think that his version of "sound economic policy" is best described as bread circuses. I think his position on gay rights has been, at best, lackluster. How could someone who seriously attempts to cast himself in the progressive or liberal democrat mode seriously suggest that they do not support equal rights for all when it comes to something as fundamental as marriage? Yet throughout the campaign, and as recently as this year, he has refused to fully support equal recognition of all persons in this country to receive the benefits of rights that we have reserved only for heterosexual couples.

 His latest attempt, however, to shed his image as a Johnny come lately to the idea that homosexuals should have the same access to the same fundamental rights is fundamentally wrong. It is also, I suggest, an abrogation of his duty as President. It does and should be viewed as a high crime or misdemeanor.

On Wednesday, President Obama instructed the Attorney-General to cease defending the Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA). By doing this, he abrogated to himself the determination of whether a law is constitutional. He also refused to do one of the  duties for which he swore an oath. Something that it seems the mainstream press is missing, he is also creating a precedent for executive nullification.

DOMA is and always has been an example of American legislation at it's worst. A law designed to deprive a class of people from a right recognized as fundamental to everyone not in that class. It was one of President Cinton's greatest failings that he signed it into law, rather than forcing Congress to override his veto.

From the Clinton Administration until yesterday that law has been defended by the Justice Department. Although President Obama refused to endorse equal protection for gay rights, he has always stated that he was against the law. Yet, when he had the backing of the electorate and near supermajority in Congress, he refused to do anything about the law. He did not seek to have legislation introduced to excise the law from the books. He barely made mention of it from 2009 until 2011.

In short, he had the opportunity and the means to do something about the law but refused to act.

Now, in a cynical move, President Obama has decided that the law is unconstitutional. As such, he has instructed Attorney General Holder to cease defending the law before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The case before the 2nd Circ, v. , is about whether or not the law is constitutional.

Here is the first problem with President Obam's action: it is not his decision to make. As anyone who has passed eighth grade history should know, much less someone who claims to be a constitutional scholar, the federal government is made up of three separate, co-equal branches. They are the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch.the legislators of the Legislative Branch, otherwise known as the House of Representatives and the Senate, draft and vote on the laws. The Executive has the authority to veto the laws, but, just as importantly, must execute and uphold the laws. Finally, the Judicial Branch adjudicates disputes over the laws, including whether the laws are in fact constitutional.

I defy anyone to point to a clause of the U.S. Constitution or its amendments to show where the Executive Branch, or the president himself has the power to make a binding determination that a law is unconstitutional when it has been passed and signed into law.

Yet that is exactly what President Obama has done.

Now the argument may be made that he has not instructed the various departments of the government to cease enforcing the law. However, with the law under attack and at issue in a court, he has essentially instructed the Attorney General Holder to allow the case to go into default, to not answer the appeal.

In boxing, it's called taking a dive.

Now, some people ask, why is this important? It's important because it sets a precedent for how future presidents will carry out their duties. Will they uphold all the laws? Or just the ones that they find fit their style or the needs of a special interest group.

For instance, what if the next president is a social conservative. And what if this social conservative decides he is not going to uphold the law repealing DADT. And when it is challenged by some group as being unconstitutional, he orders the Attorney General to decline to defend the law. Insert any controversial law there and you could have a future president do what President Obama has done.

This gets our Republic into a dangerous area. It confers upon one man the power to overrule legislation which has been validly passed.

It is wrong. It is a violation of President Obama's oath. By following this illegal order, Attorney General Holder should likewise be held accountable.

A president, no matter how well intentioned, has the power to act as a king would.

President Obama has committed a high crime or misdemeanor. He has broken his oath of office. He should be impeached.

Too bad that the members in the Senate, in either party, lack the moral courage necessary to take the appropriate steps. It is even more unfortunate that the press has been hailing this decision, giving their imprimatur and adding legitimacy to his action.

No matter how right the ultimate intention may be, in this type of situation, breaking the law, breaking the oath, is never justified. There is a system in place to deal with this. President Obama had the opportunity  to avail his administration of the system. Yet he has chosen to abdicate his duties and has ordered his subordinates to follow his lead.

Like other presidents who violated the law, President Obama should and mist be held accountable. He should be impeached and forced to stand trial.

Otherwise, the system means nothing. The Constitution is dead letter and ceases to act as a restraint on any sitting president. And our rights are committed to the whim of an elected tyrant.

President Obama must be held accountable for his actions as the Constitution demands.

A Reason Why The Debt Ceiling (And Government Debt) Matters

So its been a while since I put something up. And I had started a number of postings on whats going in various parts of the world. But this afternoon, I was reading about the Suez Crisis in 1956 and it reminded about why some things are more important.

For those who were failed by their history teachers, in 1956 Gamal Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Originally, the Suez Canal was owned by the French and Egyptian company which built the canal. Called the Universal Suez Canal Company, the stock of the company was held by French and Egyptian investors, most notably the Egyptian government. But the Egyptian Government ran into a severe financial crisis in 1875 and had to sell the shares. The shares were purchased by Great Britain. So, basically you have an Egyptian corporation whose shareholders were either French investors or the British Government.

Gamal Nasser, the president of Egypt in 1956, had earlier embarked on a policy of deliberately confronting Great Britain and other Western Powers. This resulted in Egypt drifting into the Soviet orbit during the Cold War. By 1956, with Britain's power waning, and France coming off the recent defeat at Dien Bien Phu, Nasser was ready to cut all ties with the west in bid to assert the primacy of Egypt in the Middle East. He ordered his military to physically seize control of the Suez Canal. As soon as the canal was seized, which it was by surprise, he froze all the assets of Universal Suez Canal Company, and ordered the forced sale of all the stock from the shareholders, thereby nationalizing the company and the canal.

Now, the British and the French were not prepared to take this act of thievery lying down. The only problem was the U.S. The Eisenhower administration had no desire to get embroiled in some flap in the Middle East. The United States had already been snubbed by Egypt when Nasser recognized the People's Republic of China. In retaliation, the US withdrew its support for the Aswan High Dam project, a move that some commentators believe was the trigger for Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal. Despite the cooling relations with the Egyptians, the U.S. failed to demonstrate any leadership in the situation, content to sit on the sidelines on this one.

With the U.S. failing to commit to any actions, the British and French enlisted the aid of Israel, who were suffering from the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran (in the Red Sea) which effectively closed the port of Eilat in Israel, in a plan to regain control of the canal. The result became known as the 1956 Sinai Campaign or Sinai Crisis.

On 29 October 1956, the IDF executed Operation Kadesh. Paratroopers and mechanized columns struck Egyptian positions in a blitzkrieg-style attack. Within days, the IDF had captured the whole of the Sinai Peninsula, including Sharm el Sheik in the south, which was the base from which the blockade of Israel was managed and directed. Having seized control of the Mitla Pass, the IDF was within 30 km of the canal, on 2 November 1956.

As part of their agreed plan, Great Britain and France initiated their operations on 31 October 1956. Known as Operation Musketeer and Operation Telescope, depending on phase of the operation, British and French forces invaded the canal zone, seizing control of strategic points and expelling the Egyptian Army after a short fight. By 6 November 1956, the military operations were concluded.

Although successful, the British, French and Israelis soon had the rug pulled out from under them. The Soviet Union began to threaten that Britain, France and Israel did not withdraw, it would lend Egypt military support. At the same time, the US was caught between trying to support the Hungarian revolution while reconciling how to support its allies in their endeavor in Suez. Unfortunately, the Eisenhower Administration could not, especially with the spectre of Soviet intervention becoming a reality. Trying to favor the Hungarians, the US forced the British and French to withdraw and the Israelis to surrender almost all of its gains in the war.

How did it do this? The primary power involved was Great Britain. However, British finances, which had been rocky for years, were being buoyed by the United States holding millions of pounds sterling worth of bonds which had been issued by the Bank of England. Because Britain's losses in recent years had been so bad, it was applying to the IMF for emergency funds. The IMF funds were denied to Britain by the United States. Eisenhower, to make his point, unmistakably clear, instructed his Secretary of Treasury to prepare to sell the British bonds. Sale of the bonds would have resulted in a massive devaluation of the pound, making it worthless. Faced with the potential for a worthless currency, meaning that Britain would be unable to import food or fuel, the British Government was forced to concede the issue.

It was a humiliation for the British Government, Empire, and its people. It was a blow to British prestige that still lingers. Britain was no longer a world power, but effectively a US satellite or a junior partner, unable to act in major foreign policy issues without the approval of Washington.

Without the British support, France could not sustain the occupation on its own. Its own resources were stretched by the rebellion in Algeria as well as the costs of recent war in Indochina. Without their British partner, they too were forced to withdraw from the Suez Canal.

Anyone noticed what happened there? Without debating the rights and wrongs of the Sinai Campaign, look at why the British and French were forced to surrender a significant concession. It was because of the British debt held by the United States. The amount of debt held in the form of the bonds was so great, that if only some of the bonds were sold, the Pound Sterling would be significantly devaluated. Had all of them been sold, and Eisenhower was believed to be ready to sell them all to make his point, then Britain would have been bankrupted.

We were allegedly Britain's ally in the Cold War. Being lead by a president who had demonstrated in the past great respect to Britain.

Who holds an awful lot of our debt? China.

And I'll be willing to say that they don't like us half as much as Eisenhower liked Great Britain back in the day.

And someone wants to raise the debt ceiling, again.  Maybe that's not such a good idea. Unless of course you want our government to cede its independence of action to a debt holder with as much power as we had over Britain in 1956.

Last night the president gave his speech. Immediately after the speech, I talked to some friends and conversed back-and-forth about speech with others on Facebook. From all that, two things became clearer about last night.

First, President Obama does not understand what it means to be a leader. president Obama is very good when it comes to talking about ideals. In a way, he could be some sort of oratorical inspirational. Chicken soup for the soul type of person. And he will you could do that very well. But that's not what his job is. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is supposed to be a leader.

A leader can operate in many ways. He can do that passively. He can do it actively. He can do it by playing one side off the other. When the leader has to do in order for people to follow him is to set out a goal for where he wants to lead the people to. it's not enough to say that the leader wants his people to be happy, healthy, prosperous. Something that Gary and vague doesn't tell people where the leader wants to go or how he wants to get there.

In his speech, president Obama was referring to the "Sputnik moment", for this generation. From this "moment", that he never defines, he hopes to usher in a new era in technology and industry, which will help secure the nation's prosperity going forward. The problem is, he never says where he wants to go. This is what he said,

   This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.  Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race.  And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal.  We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology -– (applause) -- an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

He goes on to recount how advances are being made in the fields of renewable energy. Then he issues, what he believes, is an echo of Eisenhower's and Kennedy's call to surpass the Soviets in space race. He says,

 That’s what Americans have done for over 200 years: reinvented ourselves.  And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we’ve begun to reinvent our energy policy. We’re not just handing out money.  We’re issuing a challenge.  We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo projects of our time.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Eisenhower and Kennedy both had the same goal in mind. To combat the threat posed by the Soviets and their space program, we would develop a program which would go further, faster then the Soviets. President Eisenhower confronted the actual Sputnik moment with both short-term and long-term solutions, but all of these laid out clearly. He told the nation where he wanted to see the country go. First, he wanted to see the country get a satellite in orbit. Second, he accelerated the development of IRBM's. Third, he just of the priorities in his budget. Fourth, he invested in education with the National Defense Education Act.

His successor, President Kennedy, went further. He laid out a goal, that within 10 years the United States would place a man on the moon.

President Obama did not do that. He basically said, "If you tell me where to go, and I like it, I'll give you money." That's not leadership. That's playing it incredibly safe. Its like voting present, something President Obama learned how to do in Illinois Legislature.

Leadership is not easy. Especially when faced with a hostile group of "followers". President Obama is far from unique in having a hostile Congress to contend with. When faced with the Republican successes in the 1994 mid-term elections, President Clinton realized that while he had to change tactics and goals, he did not have to abdicate the position of leadership. In his 1995 State of the Union, he said,

So let this be the year we end welfare as we know it. But also let this be the year that we are all able to stop using this issue to divide America. No one is more eager to end welfare— [applause]—I may be the only President who has actually had the opportunity to sit in a welfare office, who's actually spent hours and hours talking to people on welfare. And I am telling you, the people who are trapped on it know it doesn't work; they also want to get off. So we can promote, together, education and work and good parenting. I have no problem with punishing bad behavior or the refusal to be a worker or a student or a responsible parent. I just don't want to punish poverty and past mistakes. All of us have made our mistakes, and none of us can change our yesterdays. But every one of us can change our tomorrows. And America's best example of that may be Lynn Woolsey, who worked her way off welfare to become a Congresswoman from the State of California

...

I have proposed the middle class bill of rights, which should properly be called the bill of rights and responsibilities because its provisions only benefit those who are working to educate and raise their children and to educate themselves. It will, therefore, give needed tax relief and raise incomes in both the short run and the long run in a way that benefits all of us.

There are four provisions. First, a tax deduction for all education and training after high school. If you think about it, we permit businesses to deduct their investment, we permit individuals to deduct interest on their home mortgages, but today an education is even more important to the economic well-being of our whole country than even those things are. We should do everything we can to encourage it. And I hope you will support it. Second, we ought to cut taxes $500 for families with children under 13. Third, we ought to foster more savings and personal responsibility by permitting people to establish an individual retirement account and withdraw from it, tax-free, for the cost of education, health care, first-time homebuying, or the care of a parent. And fourth, we should pass a "GI bill" for America's workers. We propose to collapse nearly 70 Federal programs and not give the money to the States but give the money directly to the American people, offer vouchers to them so that they, if they're laid off or if they're working for a very low wage, can get a voucher worth $2,600 a year for up to 2 years to go to their local community colleges or wherever else they want to get the skills they need to improve their lives. Let's empower people in this way, move it from the Government directly to the workers of America.

Confronted with a walloping in the mid-term elections, Clinton came out and spelled out what he wanted to do. He didn't say, we'll see what other people can come up with. He came out and said to the US people, many of whom were not supporting him at that point, "This is where I want to lead you."

Going back to Reagan's State of the Union Address in 1983, after he had been handed a setback in the mid-term election, he too displayed leadership which was and is lacking in the Obama Administration. Reagan. Like Obama, he was faced with pressures in foreign policy and an economy struggle to get out of the mismanagement of the previous officeholder. He came out and stated the problem simply and effectively, saying,

The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted. Unemployment is far too high. Projected Federal spending -- if government refuses to tighten its own belt -- will also be far too high and could weaken and shorten the economic recovery now underway.

Sounds like it should have been said last night, doesn't it? But Reagan, facing a Congress now controlled by the Democrats, came out and refused to back off from the themes he had come to the presidency with. To the Congress, he stated, that his priorities were jobs, restraining or freezing federal spending, and exporting our democratic values abroad.

Our current officeholder, as is his practice, could not muster any leadership. He spoke of ideals that all could agree with, but when you look at what he really said, the specifics, or even the general direction of what he wants is sadly lacking.

Second, he and his speech writers do not under the "Sputnik moment", nor could they say what it is. Rather than set forth a goal to work towards, he looked to the past to burnish what he had to say. However, looking to the past, when the accomplishments are not your own, can only yield a pale, reflection.

As Americans, we face serious problems. Problems which need to be confronted head on. Is the Obamacare plan going to yield the savings they say? Or is it a boondoggle which will further drive this country into debt?

How do we deal with pensions and Social Security when we have no money to pay them, and we already have more debt than at any other time in our nation's history?

How do we deal with the challenge posed to us by both militant Islam and a China that wants to assert its place as world power?

Our president did not offer us a plan for going forward. He offered to "invest" or spend money on unstated programs with unknown goals. Are his "investments" that or are they another attempt at Keynsian economics which has resulted in long term unemployment of over 9% (hitting 12% here in California).

Scary and coming soon to California

Allow Me Now To Say What A Joke Congressional Ethics Are

Say what you will about Charlie Rangel, the disgraceful representative from New York, but he has shown the light on something that needs to be fixed.

Back in elementary school, if you manage to pay any attention at all to what they're teaching you in the eighth grade, there was a little blurb in your American history books about Tammany Hall and the political machines of the 19th and early 20th century. We like to think that our politicians are the product of a better system these days, but how else to explain the how Congressman Rangel has managed to stay in office despite flaunting the law which is supposed to help craft and create. Back in the day, the graft and corruption of those political machines undermined our republic.

When President Obama ran for office, one of his promises was that he and the Democrats were going to restore ethics to our government. In fact, he was made, while senator, the Democratic point man for ethics in the Senate. Congresswoman Pelosi, back when she was Speaker of the House, also promised that the Congress would be a more ethical place.

So how has that worked out? Well, Charlie Rangel with the test case and the Democrats failed miserably.

Its always easy to point out the faults in the opposition. as a matter of fact, in politics that's exactly which are supposed to do. Your commitment to values that you say are ones you hold dear, however, are tested the most when they are tested against those whom you like and respect. Congressman Rangel is one of the longer serving representatives in the House of Representatives. He's one of the most liberal. He was a political ally, and may still be, but Congresswoman Pelosi.

But he's also corrupt. He's abused his office. He's abused the public trust. He has violated the law.

So what did the House Ethics committee do about this? And how will the House Ethics committee going to do about this?

Well, they ensured that any investigation into Rangel's ethical violations was prolonged and extraordinarily slow. Despite the fact that the media has been publishing reports of Congressman Rangel's failure to abide by the law since 2008, Congress seemed unable to convene a hearing on his actions. The first reports that I know of, were published in August of 2008. Coincidentally, the Democrats were in control of the House of Representatives at that point.

It was not until July of this year, two years later, that charges were finally submitted to the House Ethics committee. Why they take so long? That's simple. Ethical violations are only good when you swing them at the other side. And for some reason, we keep letting the politicians get away with this mentality.

So what will the ethics committee do about Congressman Rangel's transgressions? His fellow Congressmen are going to, most likely, go to impose the quote dreaded" and humiliating censure against Rangel. What is a censure? Essentially, it is, when applied to a member of the House of Representatives, stern lecture given in public to the guilty by the Speaker of the House.

Where I went to school, I received a stern penalty for failing to turn my homework on time.

Unfortunately we have the Congress that we as a people, collectively, deserve. For the most part, it seems that Americans are content to allow corrupt politicians to continue to serve. The politicians of both parties cannot be trusted to police themselves.

This man violated the laws that he swore an oath to uphold and protect and defend. He has shown no remorse about his actions, instead maintaining that not only was he innocent but that he was unable to present a defense. The acts are more heinous because of his position as a representative of the people in the government that is supposed to help, to send, and empower the people. Not so that Mr. Rangel can maintain his power, his income, and his legacy.

If our representatives in Washington had any sense of honor or decency, they would expel this man and turned him over for prosecution. Unfortunately, a large majority of those serving in the Congress are loath to do so, most likely because they have committed the same acts as Mr. Rangel.

Congressman Rangel's censure is a meaningless and hollow act because it does not carry with it any real punishment, nor does it act as a deterrent to anyone else who would do wrong and abuse the public trust. This should and needs to change.

The House Democrats were tested. They failed.

It's Been An Interesting Week For People With Any Sort Of Phobia

I'm going to start this off and lay out some of my phobias. I'm not talking arachnophobia type stuff. I'm talking about fears of certain groups. Two that I have are fears of Islam and fears of Prius' drivers. So I guess that gives me Islamophobia and Priusphobia. In my opinion, both could be the death of me (I have been hit by Prius drivers and have had more near misses with drivers of those damned cars than any other type).

While I have  a fear of Prius drivers, and Muslims, that does not mean that I discriminate against them. Both are groups that I find pose a threat to my safety. The Prius drivers because they can't seem to drive while keeping their eyes on the road instead of that infernal readout that shows how fuel efficient their being (making them also, in my opinion, narcissists). The Muslims, well... because they demonstrably want to see me and my children and my relatives dead (yes, if you have not figured out, I'm Jewish, supporter of Israel and have family who live there).

That does beg the question of, is it a phobia if in fact they are out to get you?

But that is no matter.

Why am I confessing to this? Because apparently certain groups want to prevent people from admitting to their fears. Confess publically that seeing a Muslim person in religious garb on a plane makes you nervous, then you CAIR wants to make sure you do not get to keep your job. Think this is my imagination? Then check with NPR to see when Juan Williams will be on the air again.

He was fired last night for stating in an interview that

“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

In case you do not listen to NPR, Juan Williams is a long time reporter for NPR. He has also written for years for The Atlantic Monthly as well as contributing to other magazines. Outside of his journalism work, he is also author of several books on the Civil Rights Movement and African American issues. In short, this guy has a track record of being serious when it comes to what he writes and reports about.

Apparently, this experience and track record of being a respect journalist is not sufficient when it comes to stating the simple fact that in light of his life experiences, he has a fear. He did not say he advocated stripping them of their civil rights. He did not say that we should go out and hurt them for being Muslim. He expressed some fear.

According to CAIR and NPR, that's not acceptable in a journalist. Never one to let someone have an opinion that Islam isn't perfect, CAIR stated

CAIR is calling on American Muslims and other people of conscience to ask National Public Radio (NPR) to address analyst Juan Williams' statement that airline passengers in "Muslim garb" make him "nervous."

"NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed as security threats," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. "Such irresponsible and inflammatory comments would not be tolerated if they targeted any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, and they should not pass without action by NPR."...

He noted that media commentators who launch rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims normally do not suffer the professional consequences of those who similarly target other racial, ethnic or religious groups.

Ignoring the falsity of the statement that Muslims are a particularly targeted and aggrieved group by the media, lets look at what they are attacking. They are attacking his expression of fear of a group. Is it regrettable. You bet. Is it natural considering what has happen over the past decade, or longer depending on how historically minded you are, between the US and the Muslim world. Of course. Would it be nice if people didn't have to fear other groups for rational reasons? Absolutely.

But apparently, we are supposed to live in a world where even our feelings must be politically correct, otherwise, apparently, we lose the ability to do our jobs in a non-discriminatory manner. At least, thats what NPR believes. NPR fired Mr. Williams last night, stating,

His remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR

How? He expressed a fear, a personal fear that he holds. He did not tell a lie. He did not simply accept propaganda, governmental or otherwise,and pass it off as news. He expressed his feeling of fear.

What he did do is apparently verboten among right thinking people. He stated that he has identified the current threat to himself as anAmerican as militant Muslims. However, almost as if this was something the Bush Administration fought against it, it has to be opposed e left while it's in power. From Obama Administration down, we are told that we are not dealing terrorism caused by militant Islam. To suggest that the terrorism we are facing most frequently as a threat to us comes from Islamic worshippers is a heresy it seems.

There's also the suggestion that the conservative views of Mr. Williams were not liked by his bosses at NPR and that this was the real cause of his firing. Previously, because of his criticisms of the First Lady, he had been forbidden from using identifying himself as an NPR analyst when appearing on The O'Reilly Factor.

I wonder what NPR would have done if he had expressed a concern about his children going to a Catholic school?

But that's not the only bit of punishment for expressing one's opinion. As Mr. Williams was getting his pink slip from NPR, author Elizabeth Moon was being de-invited (should I say booted) from appearing at WISCON where she was supposed to be a Guest of Honor. WISCON bills itself as "The World's Leading Feminist Science Fiction Convention."

Apparently they only want feminists who do not utter words outside of the pages of science fiction books that could be deemed controversial. In this case, Ms. Moon voiced her opposition to the planned mosque near the World Trade Center site. In her blog, where the objectionable comment seems to come from, Ms. Moon writes,

The point here is that in order to accept large numbers of immigrants, and maintain any social cohesion, acceptance by the receiving population is not the only requirement: immigrants must be willing and able to change, to merge with the receiving population.   The new place isn't the old place; the new customs aren't the old customs.   "Acceptance" is a multi-directional communications grid.  Groups that self-isolate, that determinedly distinguish themselves by location, by language, by dress, will not be accepted as readily as those that plunge into the mainstream.  This is not just an American problem--this is human nature, the tribalism that underlies all societies and must be constantly curtailed if larger groups are to co-exist.  It is natural to want to be around those who talk like you, eat the familiar foods, wear the familiar clothes, have the familiar cultural references.   But in a multicultural society like ours--and it has been multi-cultural from its inception--citizens need to go beyond nature.  That includes those who by their history find it least comfortable.

Whether a group changes its core behaviors and values after immigration or not, it must--to be assimilated later--come to understand the culture into which it has moved.   To get along, it must try not to do those things which will, sure as eggs is eggs, create friction, distrust, and dislike.    Is this a limitation on its freedom?  Yes.  It is also a limitation on the freedom of the existing culture into which it moves...it's a compromise.   A compromise isn't entirely comfortable to either side, and either side may misjudge how uncomfortable a compromise is to the other side--it is wise to grant that what you're asking the other guy to do may be quite uncomfortable to him/her.   A group must grasp that if its non-immigrant members somewhere else are causing people a lot of grief (hijacking planes and cruise ships,  blowing up embassies, etc.) it is going to have a harder row to hoe for awhile, and it would be prudent (another citizenly virtue) to a) speak out against such things without making excuses for them and b) otherwise avoid doing those things likely to cause offence.

When an Islamic group decided to build a memorial center at/near the site of the 9/11 attack, they should have been able to predict that this would upset a lot of people.  Not only were the attackers Islamic--and not only did the Islamic world in general show indecent glee about the attack, but this was only the last of many attacks on citizens and installations of this country which Islamic groups proudly claimed credit for.  That some Muslims died in the attacks is immaterial--does not wipe out the long, long chain of Islamic hostility.   It would have been one thing to have the Muslim victims' names placed with the others, and identified there as Muslims--but to use that site to proselytize for the religion that lies behind so many attacks on the innocent (I cannot forget the Jewish man in a wheelchair pushed over the side of the ship to drown, or Maj. Nadal's attack on soldiers at Fort Hood) was bound to raise a stink.   It is hard to believe that those making the application did not know that--did not anticipate it--and were not, in a way, probing to see if they could start a controversy.  If they did not know, then they did not know enough about the culture into which they had moved.  Though I am not angry about it, and have not spoken out in opposition, I do think it was a rude and tactless thing to propose (and, if carried out, to do.)

I know--I do not dispute--that many Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks, did not approve of them, would have stopped them if they could.  I do not dispute that there are moderate, even liberal, Muslims, that many Muslims have all the virtues of civilized persons and are admirable in all those ways.  I am totally, 100%, appalled at those who want to burn the Koran (which, by the way, I have read in English translation, with the same attention I've given to other holy books) or throw paint on mosques or beat up Muslims.  But Muslims fail to recognize how much forbearance they've had.  Schools in my area held consciousness-raising sessions for kids about not teasing children in Muslim-defined clothing...but not about not teasing Jewish children or racial minorities.  More law enforcement was dedicated to protecting mosques than synagogues--and synagogues are still targeted for vandalism.  What I heard, in my area, after 9/11, was not condemnation by local mosques of the attack--but an immediate cry for protection even before anything happened.   Our church, and many others (not, obviously all) already had in place a "peace and reconciliation" program that urged us to understand, forgive, pray for, not just innocent Muslims but the attackers themselves.   It sponsored a talk by a Muslim from a local mosque--but the talk was all about how wonderful Islam was--totally ignoring the historical roots of Islamic violence.

Now apparently for having the audacity of suggesting that 1) immigrants have to do somethings to adapt to their new home and 2) that it was unreasonable for Muslims to believe that building a mosque at the site of the most destructive act of Islamic terrorism on American soil and not expect controversy.

Now some have argued that what is happening to these people is no different than the punishmnent meted out to Rick Sanchez for calling Jon Stewart a bigot andconplaining tha the "Jews" have too much control over CNN. But it's not. First, what Sanchez said is untrue, and could have been deemed slander by Stewart. Second, regarding his comment that Jews control the media industry, that is a repetition of the old anti-semitic Elder of Zion conspiracy charge that originated with the Tsarist secret police. Here, we have two people who are not trying to smear an ethnic or religious group. One is saying a personal fear he holds. Another is urging immigrants be incorporated into the American system like every other group who has come over.

If we are going to penalize people from stating their opinions, how are we gping to have a free exchange of ideas? How are we going to know when there are people who are living in fear? If the Muslim community is upset by this, maybe it's because the truth stated by these two hurts. Instead of trying to penalize these two for their opinions maybe they need to look at what they are doing, whom they are supporting and ask whether these are people and groups that they should be supporting.

What is President Obama Thinking?

President Obama's national security advisor, James Jones, is resigning as part of the reshuffling going on among the President's advisors. There are conflicting reports as to whether Jones is leaving of his own accord or is being forced out.

So who has President Obama chosen to replace him? Past National Security Advisors have brought with them a wealth of experience in foreign policy and military policy experience. Some of them include Robert Cutler, McGeorge Bundy, Henry Kissinger,Zbigniew Brzezinski, Colin Powell, Brent Scrowcroft, Anthony Lake, and Condoleeza Rice. Many came to the position either through a ix of military and government service, usually in the department of Defense or the Department of State. Some were academics who had long been active in participating in studies and think tanks which helped influence US security policy.

Presiden Obama's nomination for the position is a man named Thomas "Tom" Donilon. His resume is unlike any of the examples of previous NSA's that I've listed above. For most of his career,he has been a lobbyist and partner at O'Melveney and Meyers. Now while this should not necessarily exclude him from consideration, especially when you consider that one of the best advisors that FDR had on national security was a lawyer named William Donovan (this was before there was an NSA position), he seems well... massively unqualified to be the NSA.

How unqualified? Remember Michael Brown, President Bush's FEMA chief when Hurrican Katrina hit? Yeah. That sort of qualifications.

Other than being a lobbyist, Mr. Donilon has held a few other jobs. For foreign policy experience, he Served from 1993 to 1996 as the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. Sounds impressive? Maybe. But the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs is the title they give to the Secretary of State' press secretary. Basically,he was the PR face for the US media. After retiring from that position, Mr. Donilon was, as I mentioned before, a registered lobbyist. Who did he represent? Fannie Mae.

The he joined the Obama campaign as a foreign policy advisor. As a reward for being a loyal member of the winning team, he was given the position of Deputy National Security Advisor. As Woodward noted in his book Obama's Wars,

The Pentagon also had concerns about Donilon. When criticism of Jones had reached a high-water mark the previous year, Gates had decided to publicly embrace him. “I think of Jim as the glue that holds this team together,” Gates told The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, whose “Jim Jones’s Team” ran prominently on the op-ed page.

Gates did this in part, he told an aide, because he did not think Donilon would work out as Jones’s successor. Gates felt that Donilon did not understand the military or treat its senior leadership with sufficient respect. The secretary later told Jones that Donilon would be a “disaster” as Obama’s national security adviser.

So, for a position that requires a person to interact with the military regularly, you would think that the President would choose someone tah had an understanding of the people who carry out our security and foreign policy, and at least a respect for the military establishment. Instead, the President has chosen a man who deeply distrusts the military and has reportedly gone put of his way to violate his own chain of command by cutting his predecessor out of the loop with the President and his Chief of Staff.

So let's recap. No military experience. No academic experience. His only real experience in the foreign policy experience, as other than a kibitzer, was as part of Warren Christopher's team while Secretary of State. Making that an apprenticeship under one of the worst Secretaries of State we've had since World War II. His relationship with military is politely described as piss poor. So what in this backgrounds leads anyone to think that this is the man who should be the NSA for the United States of America.

So, what is President Obama thinking?

It's Funny How The Past Suddenly Looks So Rosey Already

Now if you're a somewhat regular reader ofthiablog, you probably already know what itinkofthe current Obama Administration. If not, then let me summarize my opinion of President Obama adminsitration as we approach the two-year mark: failure.

Man got himself by a healthy majority of the voters. It wasn't a landslide,butitwas a more decisive victory than the one won by Bill Clinton back in 1992.in addition to winning th majority of voters and the electoral college, President Clinton cameo to office with a substantial majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

With all this support, you would think he would have been able to get his vision accomplished. What we got was a muddled and weak foreign policy. A president easily distractedly by local incidents that the could not resist stepping into (remember the so called "Beer Summit"?) who seemed to only want to lecture in ideals but refused to put out concrete plans for how he wanted to effectuate his ideas. The few laws he did manage to convince congressmen to put forth have either failed miserably, like the mortgage relief act, failed abominably, like the stimulus package that inflated the national debt to levels never seen before, or are on their way to failing (or have you not seen what has been happening with your healthcare premiums lately?)

Along the way, we've seen record numbers of foreclosures and unemployment at rates regularly exceeding 9%, almost 1 in 10 people out of work. Many of those who do have jobs, unless they are high wage earners, we are learning, are earning less and less.

Now, not all of this is President Obama's fault. The problem is, most of this is happening and continuing to happen on his watch. At first, the American people gave him a pass on some of the responsibility. However, that tie has long passed, and yet President Obama doesn't seem to realize that. He continues to encourage people to blame Bush for nearly every problem that has happened since he retook the oath of office.

And this has caused many people to look back longingly at those long distant days of 2005, when President Bush sat in office with his GOP dominated Congress and say to rest of us "Miss W yet?"

I totally understand this temptation. It makes sense. Under President Bush we felt like certain things were happening, for good or ill. We knew that he was going to protect us, even if it meant he was going to protect us from ourselves. We knew what he would do when it came to finding out information that he and his advisors thought were necessary to safe guard our by watch 24 to see what Jack Bauer would do to protect us.

Jokes aside, we knew could depend on him to send unambiguous messages about what he intended to do on foreign policy. Can you image a Bush Administration articulating its policy for Iraq thewY that the Obama administration has for Afghanistan? President bush would never bow to a foreign dictator or monarch, like President Obama insists on doing, but then again President Bush would eagerly take unilateral action which would put our allies in awkward situations. President Obama doesn't bother with that. He is content to leave them hanging, like Poland.

But really this is About e insanity of looking back and saying that everything under Bush was beet. It wAsn't. It's just things are getting so much worse under President Obama. We have a recovery, but because there are all these new mandates, its next to impossible for small and large businesses to be able to afford to hire anyone. Sure the recession is over, but this recovery, but if people aren't working, how is that going to make a difference.

But let's look at jobs And the ones we had under the Bush Administration. During President Bush' administration, we saw the middle class getting squeezed. He'll, let's be honest, pretty much everyone was getting squeezed with cost for everything going up during his tenure in office. Essentially under the Bush policies we saw a decade of stagnation occur. Our productivity keeps going up, but the wages remained flat. That's really not good when you consider that the price for everything keeps going up. But hey, jobs with no raises is still better than no jobs and foreclosures right?

And President Obama is not the only US president who has managed to mangle health care policy in this country. Can anyone remember Medicare part D? The GOP's attempt at solving drug costs for the elderly only that only serve to further entrench the entitlement system in this country without doing much to either improve it or to make the costs more manageable?

What this country absolutely does not need is another term for a Bush clone. And it certainly is barely remaining solvent under the current administration. This makes for a nasty situation when you combine with the fact that between 70 and 80 percent of the country disapproves of Congress.

Basically, if you're an incumbent, you are seriously distrusted. This is why so many people have become enamored with the Tea Party. They aren't tainted with the stain of failure that the current rope of Democrats and RepubLican who hold office share. Sure a couple of them are probably racist. Then again, the recently deceased Senator Byrd of West Virginia was a long time member of the KKK (he claimed he quit the organization). And some of them probably are kooks, but then have you ever listened to some of the stuff that has come out of Senator Boxer's mouth sometimes?

That's not the real danger. Voters tend to figure put who the dangerous racist/extremist types are. David Duke never made it to Congress. No, the real danger is when you get someone who runs for office who says all the nice right, popular things. Who presents himself or herself as alternative to the Beltway Bandits who have ruined this country and talk about values like Hope, Prosperity, and Honor. The problem is that when people have gone this long with ineffective leadership, they forget to remember the sufferance between someone who is serious improving this country and someone who views the Office of the President of the United States adjust another stepping stone accomplishment.

This country has had, and in my opinion has now, that kind of President. The worst of the lot was Buchanan just before the Civil War. But we have been fortunate to have had those be the exception rather than the rule.

In 2008,we were an angry country. Angry at the imperial presidency of the Bush Administration. Whether that particular description is right or wrong, that was e sentiment of the country. Somehow, we allowed ourselves to be fooled by a man who had a track record of avoiding making the hard decisions, of taking responsibility for those decisions, or for really ever being held accountable for his actions.

When we go to the polls this November, and in 2012, we need to remember this when it comes time to select what course we want this country to take. We've already had two presidents who have delivered a lost decade to this county. We cannot afford to lose another one.

Dear Mr. President,

I hear you had a rough time the other day when you showed up to take questions from the media and citizens at your "Investing In America" appearance. Apparently, it was a lot like being taken the Principal's office, someplace I'm not sure you've ever been.

Before I get to the meat of my letter, I just want to take this chance to give you kudos for something. You appeared in public, talked without (as far as I can tell) a teleprompter and took unscripted, unapproved questions from people. Quite a step up from appearing on The View! Good job. Someday, if you keep this up, you might even have the ability to withstand questioning akin to Prime Minister's Question Hour (its on C-SPAN, I'm sure you get that on your cable plan.).

However, in reading the accounts of your appearance, it seems you are missing something. First, unless you know something that the general public does not, it appears that your majority in both houses of Congress is going to take a serious beating. Seriously. There appears to be a very good chance that you will lose the House of Representatives altogether, meaning that Rep. John Boehner is going to be the Speaker of the House.

Now, given that you and your party are way down in the polls, why are you refusing to debate Congressman Boehner? Right now, according to the averages at Real Clear Politics, there are more people in this country who disapprove how you are doing your job (45.3% to 49.8%). As a matter of fact, of the polls included in the average, you are only ahead in one, the Gallup Poll (47% approve/46% disapprove). In at least two of the polls, the margin is much starker. Both Fox and Rassmussen polls have disapproval to your conduct as president at more than 50% (Fox at 52% and Rassmussen at 56%).

The numbers do not get any better when you look at how people are viewing the Congress. The average of the major polls is that 71% of people disapprove Congress' work. Only about 22% approve. This would be important because your party controls both houses of Congress. Because of the majorities which your party took upon your election to the office of President, that means they have been working on your priorities.

Unless of course you want to admit that you cannot control the priorities of your own party.

And I really don't think you want to do that.

But back to what this means. You are way behind with the average voter. However, that should be nothing new to you, Mr. President. The way you have conducted your administration during the first 20 or so months in office indicates that you do not have a great feel for what the average voters want. Not only that, but in every single one of the major polls, those who answered stated that this country was headed in the wrong direction, by a margin of more than 30%.

What could make people so angry?

For starters, Mr. President, I think it stems from a lack of leadership. For more than a year, you all but abdicated a role in shaping the health care bill. Instead, you delegated it to Congress. Or at least you appeared to do so. The appearance to me and a large number of other people in this country is you acted as a cheerleader, urging the passage of some sort of health care bill, but without fully committing your views for a long period of time. Then, with health care reform hanging in the balance, you resorted to parliamentary tricks and last minute amendments to ram through a policy that few outside the drafters, including the people who would vote on the bill, actually understood. It is a bill that uses creative accounting to achieve the ends, accounting which only puts off a day of economic reckoning for this.

In short, the process was worse than sausage making. And the whole time, it appeared that you were more content to blame the Republicans than actually put forth the plan that you wanted to get through. That is not leadership. At least, not the kind that inspires people. Go back and read Team of Rivals to understand what leadership looks like, especially when you have to take on your own party at the same time as your are fighting a war.

The second thing is why did you seek the office of President? I ask this question because there is a large portion of this country that has serious doubts about whether you actually love this country. The job, given the hours and responsibility which is demanded of it, does not pay that well. In a sense, it limits what you are allowed to do after you leave office. However, the way you present America to the world indicates that more often than not, you are ashamed of this country.

Do we do stupid, violent things? Yes.

Do we do generous, charitable things? Absolutely Yes.

But theme of your trips abroad, even when broadcast back to us here in the States, is that you are off to some nation, apologizing for what this country has done. And that makes a lot of people angry.

The third issue, and this flows from the second one in particular, is that your administration, and you yourself Mr. President, appears to be tone deaf and removed from both reality and your citizens. How is this? First, there is the language that you use when talking about issues. From early in your administration, it appears that you were uncomfortable with the violence which threatens our country. This violence, by and large, is directed at us in the form of terrorist attacks orchestrated and carried out by militant Muslims. Yet, your administration does not talk about them as such. To you, they are "man-caused disasters". Furthermore, men and women of this nation's armed forces are not in combat, they are engaged in "overseas contingency operations".

Mr. President, do you think if you change the name, that you can wipe away the stain of war and bloodshed, while still engaged in battle? This is ludicrous. Whats more, it is insulting to your constituents. I have no idea how a Muslim in Jakarta, a jihadi in Yemen or a Taliban would interpret these terms, but I do not think, nor have I seen any evidence, that it is working to improve our image with the so-called "Muslim/Arab street".

But now we must turn to your disconnect on domestic policies. There is one thing that virtually everyone not in prison in this country cares about: their pocketbook. Until we move beyond capitalism to the Star Trek ideal economy, this is something that is going to be with us. People absolutely care about how much money they have to pay for the necessities, such as the roof over their head, the food they and their families eat, and how they will pay for when they get sick. And, to your credit, you have tried to deal with these.

However, your way of dealing with these issues has ignore both the reality on the ground and the experience of History.You promised you would save jobs. You promised that you would soften the harms caused by the recession and cut the recession's length. Accepting that President Bush did leave you with a mess, what did you do? You kept interest rates low and subsidized failures. Almost exactly what Japan did when they went into their recession in the 1990s. The results so far have been almost as bad, if not worse, than what the Japanese experienced.

What is your prescription for curing our economic ails now? Who the hells knows? One day its enact another massive spending bill that this nation will only be able to fund by going to credit. The next its the idea of a payroll tax holiday. All the while, you term what is going in in this country right now as a "recovery". Mr. President, how can you state that this country is in a recovery, when there are almost 15 million people out of work and unemployment rate of 9.6%? In fact, the unemployment rate, nationally, has not been below 9.4% since May of 2009.

Coincidentally, economists now say that the recession ended in July 2009. When unemployment was 9.4%.

Now, bad enough as the job market it, there is also the question of how people are going to afford things. With the passage of Health Care reform, your administration, and your allies in Congress, foretasted that insurance rates would fall. However, exactly the opposite has occurred. Health care insurance costs, meaning the premiums that everyone will have to pay under the law you signed, are going to be rising, on average, approximately 12.4%.

Not to be snide here, Mr. President, but at this rate, how long before everyone's health insurance will be in the so-called "Cadillac plan" class?

When questioned by people at your appearance today, you stated "there are a whole host of things we've put in place to make your life better." The "things" you cited included health care reform, financial regulatory reform, credit card laws, and making student loans more available.

So far, none of these "reforms" is having a positive effect on this nation. When added to the expense of your stimulus plan (which failed) and your mortgage plan (which failed), combined with your consistent lack of a clear vision for what you want to do to improve the lot of the average American who works, pays taxes, and generally wants to be left alone by their government, do you not see why people are hostile to your administration?

But going back to my initial question: why are you refusing to debate Congressman Boehner. Is it because it is beneath the dignity of the Office of the President of the United States of America to debate congressman? I think you tossed that argument out by appearing on The View. Is it because you think you will lose? If thats the answer, then why did you seek office in the first place? Your job is to lead. And sometimes that means clear expressing what your policy plans are going to be and having them withstand scrutiny. So far, you have skated by on both counts.

You claim to have ideas. You claim to stand for some ideals. Then as a voter Mr. President, I urge you put those out for people see and evaluate. Not in a controlled forum where all you have to answer are pre-approved answers, or in a venue such as today where you can evade the questions by issuing more attacks against your opposition. Instead, you should be out there, willing to argue that you and your administration have the right idea for this country. And the best way to do that is to debate the leader of the other side so that the American people can actually see what they are in for when they go to the polls this November.

Respecfully,

Angrybell

Is That How You Act With Integrity?

So my Congresswoman is Representative Nancy Pelosi. Aside from sharing a name with a math teacher who struck fear in the hearts of many who went to my school, there was very little that I have agreed on with this woman in the past four years. However, the one thing I did like to think she was serious about was dealing with corruption in the House of Representatives.

Today, however, it has become clear that she clearly is not. Otherwise, how did she allow the Rangel mess to happen?

Yes. She did allow an investigation to forward. She did all charges to be heard by the House Committee on Ethics. But where was the leadership to call for more than just a reprimand if he is found guilty?

In case you have not been following this story, Charles B. Rangel is the Democrat who has been the Representative for what is now known as the 15th Congressional District in New York. Essentially, it is the borough of Harlem. He has been the Representative of that district since 1971.

Beginning in 2008, there were rumblings that something un-kosher was happening with Rangel. Oddly enough, it seemed to begin when he was questioned for his use of Congressional letterhead when he was soliciting donors for the Charles B Rangel Center for Public Service was improper. When that became public, the media started to question some other things that Congressman Rangel was doing. This included four apartments that he rented for substantially below market rent, the failure to report income on his taxes for property (sometimes described as a villa) in the Dominican Republic which he leases out, as well as other non-reporting and under-reporting of income to the IRS.

And this is the man who is the chairman of the committee which oversees the Federal Tax code.

In fact, he had so grossly underreported his income and holdings, that when he was finally forced to revising his reporting statements in 2007, his network went up by $500,000. That's a half a million dollars.

For some reason, the IRS, although Rangel did pay his back taxes, did not require the payment of any of the fees and penalties. A sweetheart deal is the kindest thing that can be said about that. Although he paid the federal taxes, it appears that he still could not get around to doing what everyone else in this country is supposed to do: pay all their owed taxes. Apparently, he has not been paying some of his property taxes as well as some other taxes. Its hard to tell really when pinning down his assets is like trying to catch a money launderer.

However, there's still more to the story.

Not content to ... hell let's be charitable and call it "fudge" .... his tax returns and required financial disclosures, he also seemed to have been hitting up donors in improper ways and accepting improper gifts from industries and interests which are directly overseen by his committee. By the way, that would be Ways and Means (which he chairs). He is also a member of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

One of these ways was Diageo Rum Bailout. Essentially, Rangel is alleged to have arranged a quid pro quo with Diageo Plc. Diageo, maker of Captain Morgan rum, wanted to qualify for federal funds out of the TARP which was being put together at that time. As reported, at first Representative Rangel met with them but did not give them the support they needed. However, for some reason, this support suddenly materialized. At about the same time, a hefty campaign contribution materialized in Representative Rangel's campaign coffers.

Lets be clear about something. At this point, 2009, the Democrats were firmly in control of the House of Representatives. Yet Speaker Pelosi was content to sit back and not push this forward.

Is it too much to expect a leader of one of the branches of our government to root out corruption, even within their own party? Judging by Speaker Pelosi's lackadaisical handling of the situation, it appears so.

Finally, almost two years since the first, allegations were made, charges were finally brought before the House Ethics Committee. The June 17 charging document lists out the following charges:

• Violating Solicitation and Gift Ban (5 USC 7353)
• Violating Code of Ethics for Government Services (72 Stat., Part 2, B12, H. Re. 175, 85th Cong. (1958)).
• Violation of House Gift Rule (House of Representative Rule XXIII)
• Violation of Postal Service Laws and Franking Commission Regulation (39 USC 3215)
• Violation of Franking Statute (18 USC 1719)
• Violation of House Office Building Commission's Regulations (House Office Building Commission's Regulation, cl. 4)
• Conduct in Violation of the Purpose Law and Member's Congressional Handbook (31 USC 1301; 2 USC 57, Member's Congressional Handbook, p. 6)
• Conduct in Violation of Letterhead Rule (House Rule XXIII, cl 11)
• Conduct in Violation of Ethics in Government Act and House Rule XXVI (5 USC 101 et seq.; House Rule XXVI)
• Conduct in Violation of Code of Ethics for Government Service, cl. 5 (72 Stat., Part 2, B12, H. Res. 175, 85th Cong. (1958)
• Conduct in Violation of Code of Ethics of Government Service, cl. 2
• Conduct in Violation of Code of Conduct: Letter and Spirit of House Rules
• Conduct in Violation of the Code of Conduct: Conduct Reflecting Discreditably on the House

Basically, what these charges boil down to is that Representative Rangel has stolen from the tax-payer, failed to pay his taxes, and treated some constituents better than others because of favors they have given him (where I come from, we call it bribery), and that because he was caught with his hand in the till, his actions reflect badly on the House of Representatives.

After hemming and hawing about this issue for more than a month, it was announced today that House Committee was approving these charges and forwarding it to a sub-committee for trial. All well and good. However, they did not stop there. Although there will be a trial, the committee announced that it was only allowing a maximum punishment of a reprimand.

Let's see, he gets to not pay taxes for years and avoid any punishment. Then he follows it up with a litany of ethics violations where his punishment is capped at the second lowest possible punishment the House can give. As the New York Post reports,

"The House ethics investigatory subcommittee recommended that Rep. Charlie Rangel be reprimanded, which is the least severe punishment, according to a new report".

Here's my question Madame Speaker: Why are you allowing this happen? If it is your intention to actually drain the "swamp" of corruption on Capitol Hill, why are you allowing someone to flagrantly violate multiple laws and House rules without evening slapping him on the wrist.

To allow this is to make a mockery of justice. Its just a chance to look good without achieving any real difference. If Congressman and Senators know that they will not have to worry about being penalized, what is to stop them essentially accepting bribes.

We try and enact laws to prevent money from corrupting the system. Yet, when the people are corrupted by it, we allow them to skate on by. In this case, based on the supporting documents which have been presented to the house Committee, Representative Rangel was accepting campaign contributions in return for his help. Essentially, he was taking a bribe. Yet, rather than prosecute this man, the House of Representatives wants to hush it under the table.

The media is saying that Speaker Pelosi is only giving him a "tepid" defense. Why should he even rate that much? The evidence shows that this man is a crook. If not for the protection offered by his position as an elected official, he would be facing a real trial not the cozy watered down version that seems to be promised.

The money, the trips, the temptation is always going to be there. Rather than trying to restrict free speech, we need to punish those who give in to temptation.

But Madame Speaker seems content to sit back. She is content to allow a back room deal to be struck so that business can go on as usual.

And that, is not acting with integrity.

A President Speaks

Tonight, President Obama took to the airwaves to defend his administration from being called out for its response to the oil spill going on in the gulf.

Let's step back and remember a few things about what is going on. The BP deep water oil platform suffered a catastrophic explosion about 57 days ago. Since that time, an undetermined amount of oik has been spewing into the gulf waters near Louisiana. The oil spill is expanding and is expected to cover parts of the coast of Alabama, Mississippi and Florida when its through.

President Obama's most in-depth conversation with the press about this has been tagged, rightly or wrongly, with the sound bite of him explaining that he has been having meetings with experts, "so I know whose ass to kick."

Remind me, of our last two president's, he is supposed to be eloquent one?

Tonight, he spoke to us directly. Perhaps in the hopes that if he uses the teleprompter this time, eh would be able to convince the public that he is really doing a good job.

In the first three minutes of the talk, he manages to reference virtually every problem that this country currently faces. He commends the work of Americans handling those tasks, and conveniently forgets to say how his administration is hamstringing them. (The U.S. Military has been given a time limit that make sense only in political advisors mind. The nation is mired in a recession that Obama's spending plan seems to only be making more prolonged. etc.) He also manages to get a dig in at the George Bush (W., not H.W.) for Katrina with the reference that the oil spill is nothing like a Hurricane.

Let me pause to express what a bunch of drivel that is. They're both disasters. Neither is unforeseeable. If you are going to open up drilling rights, you ought to have a plan in place for when a spill happens, because nothing man made is fool proof.

President Obama then goes on to make his case that he is doing something. He refers to 30,000 people working on various disaster projects and that he has ordered the National Guard to be deployed to deal with the oil spill (or to process claims, because apparently that is what he thinks they are meant to do). And no matter what, he promises, more damage will be done to the Gulf coast before the siege is done.

At five minutes into the speech, he introduces the evil doers. He promises that tomorrow, 58 days since this frak-up began, he will be meeting with the heads of BP. Whats on the agenda? Apparently its just going to be about penalizing BP and dictating to them that BP will establish a sufficiently funded compensation fund for those affected by the company's "reckless" actions.

Leaving aside the issue that there could be a Fifth Amendment issue going on here (no illegal takings), what he says between minute 5 and 6:20 is interesting, especially in light of what he says below. He labels BP as reckless. Yet, he justifies his 6 month moratorium on all deep sea drilling (between 7:17 and 8:40) because no one knows exactly what went wrong. Its so nice to have president who will think first and then assign blame. BP could very well be the one at fault. However, to call their actions reckless, without doing any sort of investigation, seems to be a rush to judgment and an attempt at demagoguery. If BP were a person and treated like this, there would that it was racist, anti-semitism, or classicism. Apparently, in the Obama Administration its just good politics.

From 6:20 until 7:17 in the address, President Obama made the obligatory references to the destruction of the environment in general. And how he is making a commitment to restore the Gulf coast region. And that BP will pay for it. And just for good measure, the President threw in a gratuitous Hurrican Katrina.

It must be nice to have a limitless fund. BP is almost like George Bush now, except President Obama seems to believe it has a check book (or rather a cheque book) with limitless blank drafts that will cover whatever President Obama and his advisors can think up.

This is followed by the study that the President is going order into this disaster. I referenced it earlier, but wanted to touch on one more thing: it seems to be open ended. Which is great if you are one of those people assigned to the project. But perhaps it would have been better to put a deadline on the project. Say 3 months to produce a report. No reason why they should not have to work under a deadline. But apparently, if you are going to demonize an industry, you want to have as much time as possible to get it done in full. Or something like that.

Now at 8:40 into the speech, the President finally admits that there might have been some Federal hand in this mess. President Obama talks about the Minerals Management Service, describing it as a regulatory agency hostile to regulation. He compliments the work done by Ken Salazar, the Secretary of the Interior, for cleaning up corruption in Department of the Interior that was left over from the last decade (i.e. the Bush administration). However, President Obama says that the "pace of reform was just too slow."

Too slow? Because after more than a year and a half in office, it did not seem that they had foudn the time to replace the head of an agency which had become a major policy issue for the Obama Administration. Apparently, you can fire all the US Attorneys in a day, but firing the head of an agency takes more than a year and a half? And more than seven months after the MMS's oversight committee had found that the agency was failing in its duties. That would be eight months since the inspector general for the Department of the Interior issued a report that the MMS had employees who were accepting. And it would be almost two years since the story first broke that the MMS employees had "accepted gifts, steered contracts to favored clients, and engaged in drug use and illicit sex with employees of the energy firms."

The question should be asked: Why is Secretary Salazar being allowed to keep his job? Prior to the spill, the only thing that seemed to be done to clean up the mess that is MMS was to launch an ethics program for the agency. An ethics program. Great. It works really well up in Congress I hear. Which, by the way, was the previous employer of both Secretary Salazar and MMS Director, Elizabeth Birnbaum. Director Birnbaum, who was fired/resigned, previously had worked as a staffer on Capitol Hill. Did Secretary Salazar order a sweep of all those who were implicated in the various investigations? I cannot find any evidence that he did. So why, when BP is being castigated as it is, that President Obama is not demanding Secretary Salazar resign for failing to keep his house in order?

That's right. Its never the Obama Administrations fault. Its always the other guys fault.

At 10 minutes into the speech, President Obama talks about how drilling for oil entails greater risk. And that we could alleviate this risk if we would just expand our use of green energy, like China, so that we could also expand clean energy jobs. Basically, if we have clean energy, we wiull not have these kinds of catastrophes again. then he starts to talk about how small businesses are opening to meet the demand. Where the numbers exist to support this, I still cannot find. There are projections. There are hopes. There are wishes. But to date, this statement does not seem to be born out. Maybe he is right on this one. Maybe transition to clean energy will grow the economy, and "only if we seize the moment" and "act as one nation".

The last few minutes of the speech, President Obama merely lays on the platitudes. He makes his obligatory statements that he is open to ideas from both parties (which the more he says, the funnier it gets in a sad sort of way). Finally, he concludes the speech talking about how the US met the production needs of the Second World War and the Moon Race. Great. For most Americans, I don't think there is any question that if we have the capability. The question is whether we have the leadership.

Given the tone, and statements, of this speech this is not a leader. He is a politician. Too bad we elected him.

Harry Truman once said that the buck stopped with him. Apparently, the blame starts from President Obama.

We Need People To Make Hard Choices, Not Throw Bread To The Circuses

Well, I suppose it had to happen at some point. After the ridiculous spending sprees of the of the Carter administration and the previous administration, that would be both Presidents Bush and Obama, our economic house seems to be in complete disarray. Thank you a much President Bush and Pres. Obama.

So what are we going to do about this? Are we just going to keep spending incredible sums of money and hope that people are going to keep buying our bonds, even though it appears that our rating is going to go down? Perhaps we'll just end up taxing everybody at higher rates?

Well it looks like the government just wants to increase taxes on everybody.

It seems to be a truism, that once you start spending money in Washington, you can't stop it for some reason. Every time we spend money in Washington DC, it creates an interest group and that interest group wants its money to continue. And whatever program, and I will bet to lunch at in and out that there is a group out there that has lobbyists ready and willing to make sure that that money stream never gets turned off.

I suppose that's part of the problem, but we just don't like to stop spending money. We start a program, thinking it's going to help people and pay off in the end. But then it really doesn't do what we hoped it would. And we start throwing money at it to fix it. But somewhere along the way, we forgot how to say you know what it does not work change our minds. Because somehow in our political landscape changing your mind has become equated with failure and defeat.

Then again, we start some programs purpose of helping people and we don't really take into account how the hell were going to pay for it. Case in point: the new healthcare law. the Democratic Party, in its infinite wisdom, pushed through a healthcare law for which this country cannot afford to pay. They did this because we were so tired of the Republicans running this country that we kicked too many of them out of Congress. So in a sense, we did this to ourselves. We as voters did not really think hard enough about what our votes really are going to result in.

This is really just a long-winded way of getting to what's bothering me today. And that is, the fact that we are faced with a president who's going to want to propose sometime soon, namely a proposal for the enactment of a value-added tax. Now value-added taxes, or VATs, have been around for a while. They're commonly used in a lot of other countries. A VAT as one reporter noted, is a sales tax on steroid. Now, liberals like to tax the rich, right? Well, how not so much the case when it comes to a VAT. A VAT is probably the most regressive tax upon conceive of because it affects everyone and is added on to everything that gets purchased. So that means pretty much everything, from food to clothes to widgets, are going to get hit with an added sales tax.

Think you like paying the 10% sales tax in San Francisco right now? Just wait and see if the added size 10 or 15% sales tax that the federal government is going to add onto the end of that. It's going to be fun.

You can only have guns and butter if you got the money to pay for both guns and butter. Ask the British Empire they manage to do it for about 10 years and then the wheels fell off. There were other solutions available for healthcare. The Democrats chose not. They chose to ignore the evidence. And as a result of this, or we are going to get hit with some taxes. Well, that's not true. A lot of taxes.

And if you think that the VAT is going to be a temporary thing but I suggest you look at your telephone bill sometime. there is an excise tax in in your phone bill that dates back to the Spanish-American war, which ended in a 1898. tax was supposed to be a temporary measure to help fund the war. However, Congress found it to be a nice full cash cow, reauthorizing in reviving the tax until 1947 when they just went ahead and made permanent.

But then again, when you run your administration solely on the basis of doctrine rather than pragmatism in reality, does it really matter that other people suffer so you can have your place in history book? Apparently to Pres. Obama, it doesn't.

We need to overhaul the system. We need to make cuts, because endless taxing and borrowing on credit from other nations is unsustainable at the levels at which we are doing. The systems that we put in place to combat poverty are not having the effect that it was hoped for. However, we cling to the systems as though they are holy cows was from G-d.

If recent history is anything to judge by, taxing and spending our way out of our problems are not working. The stimulus package has failed. The mortgage bailout program has failed. A healthcare plan is going to fail, not because its goals are bad or even unachievable said the money for it is simply not there.

We need to make hard choices. We need people in power or willing to do the right thing, not the doctrinaire thing. Otherwise, we will simply become tax slaves for the government instead of free citizens who are represented by government.

I Got Sucked Into the State of The Union

I really dislike listening to the State of the Union address. I think it takes too long because the presidents I've listened to go on long rambling examples of their achievements.

After a year in office, I have to say, President Obama is not as smart as I thought he was. And tonight's speech went a ways to confirming that. Why do I say this?

Well, let's look at what most of America is suffering from. Number one on that list has to be the economy. Did he talk about this? Yes, he did. But he started off right away saying "One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt."

Gotta love that for leadership. Instead of saying, "We have a problem and here's how I'm going to try and fix it," we get the man in the Oval Office saying "I didn't cause the problem." To which I have to say: Grow the frak up Mr. President. It does not matter who caused the mess. Fix it and stop bellyaching that it was someone else's mess.

After waxing somewhat eloquently about the effects of the recession, which he finishes by stating "They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now." Really, is this the moment to get into it? To make the veiled insult that its wrong to advocate one's side?

Let's stop the notion that bipartisanship is the only way forward. Its become the Democrat excuse for not getting anything done beyond collecting their pay checks. The Democrats begged for a chance to be the government. They need to start acting like they are the party in power and not some clueless gaggle of 1st year law students.

So what does he propose will help with jobs? A tax on the banks. Huh? This is the way to tell people you are going to do something about creating jobs... by going after the banks. Who wrote this speech? Does anyone there understand how to structure an argument?

Alright, so as you are waiting for how the Obama Administration is going to help with the jobs, you are then treated to statistics about jobs saved. This seems rather ironic when you take into account that unemployment is north of 10 %.

After patting himself on the back, President Obama finally reveals how he is going to help people get jobs. His plan is,

So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit - one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

The first part is interesting as an idea. However, can anyone tell me what qualifies as a community bank? In my community, most of the banks that are around are either large National Banks (i.e. Chase, Wells Fargo, etc.) or a few overseas banks that do business here in the State. Then there is the question of how one insures that the money will be used for small businesses, rather than to just give community banks the ability to reward failures. Will this mean some sort of oversight? Or is this going to be like TARP where we throw money down the drain?

As far as the infrastructure proposal goes, that is just old hat. Its what he ran on in the campaign in part. In fact, he is simply borrowing the idea from the old WPA that FDR ran. Would I like to see improvements in my country's infrastructure? Hell yes. Do I think he is serious about it given his track record so far? Not in the least.

The frustrating thing about this president is that it demands Congress to do something. However, he does not lay out a clear idea of what it should be. President Obama says "I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay." Ok, fine. How about setting out some criteria for the jobs bill. Or is it simply that any pork projects that makes it through committee is good enough for a jobs bill?

Then he meanders through the platitudes that every modern President states (i.e. that America is great; that other countries are getting smarter, etc.) before finally getting to his next objective: the financial system. But while he is calling for reform, he once again does not say what the reform should look like. Its maddening listening to him because he never states what he wants to see in a bill from Congress until after Congress has always highjacked the agenda and managed to turn it into another political fight.

Following this demand (or plea) for a jobs bill, President Obama then began to talk about gridlock in Washington. No, he was not talking about the beltway. He was talking about the stall on reforming the economic system.

President Obama stated,

From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while.
For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?

Coming from someone who did not have large majorities in both Houses of Congress, this might be a real question. Coming from this President, who had a fillibuster-proof Senate and a large majority in the House of Representatives, it seems somewhat disingenuous. If you had a plan, why not present it? Why did you wait over a year, piss away a fillibuster-proof Senate, and accomplish nothing before saying "hey, maybe we ought to start acting".

President Obama then continues on his meander through his call to reform the economic system, touching on the banks. Then suddenly, his switches gears to advocating more funding for basic research.

Huh?

Did anyone else get whiplash listening to this speech?

Once again, he outlines a problem, calls for reform. But utterly fails to say what should be done while at the same time warning against an evil (in this case "Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. (Applause.) And the lobbyists are trying to kill it.") He then goes on to state that "And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right."

Again, Mr. President, what should the bill do? Is the House one which he is referring to "real reform" or is it one that you will send back. Care to take a stand on something definite other than some airy concept? Nope. So we go on with this speech.

I am not going to dissect his next statements on green jobs and energy. It basically looks like the speech-writing crew cribbed form the campaign remarks.

For one of the few times, he manages to provide a link between one section of the speech. He made a somewhat effective argument about how even if you doubt climate change, greater energy efficiency is in our economic interest. Now, whoever wrote this portion of speech might have a brain. Because following on this link, the President finally makes a specific policy statement when he proclaimed,

Third, we need to export more of our goods. (Applause.) Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. (Applause.) So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. (Applause.)

Problem. Goal. Means to achieving the goal. Its not so hard to do is it Mr. President?

Of course, if you have increased exports, you are going to need someone skilled enough to make them. And to do this, the President started to talk about education reform. And this is something I've been thinking about for a while. Apparently, in order to succeed, we need better educated people. However, instead of increasing the standards of our primary and secondary education, we need to funnel more people to community colleges, because community colleges are the panacea apparently.

(Now this is my radical idea. Let's demand more out of our existing educational system. Other countries seem to be able to turn out high school graduates who are skilled enough to get a job without having to attend a further 2 to 4 years of formal education. For some reason, its ok to expect colleges to do the job that public elementary and secondary schools are unable to do.)

Then to help people to pay community colleges and universities, President Obama suggest we stop incentivizing the private banks from making school loans. Instead he proposes that the subsidy, which is part of the incentive of the banks to loan to people, become a $10,000 grant to each person to pay for college. If this was 1975, maybe that would help. This year, the average in-state tuition for a four year college, per year, is $7,020. It is expected to rise again, probably by about 4 to 6%. Combined with a decline in the consumer price index, and the price is even larger. So what President Obama has done is proposed a grant which will cover about 1.5 years of a 4 year education. Then he hopes that there will be enough Pell Grants (remember, he wants to increase those also) to go around to make up the difference.

By the way, how are we to pay for all this when the government is already in a deficit larger than the last time we had to save the world? When the dollar is weaker than its been ... oh... forever? When the government simultaneously want a huge healthcare reform bill which contains carve-outs for those with the political pull, ensuring that the reform is underfunded?

At least President Obama recognizes that higher education is expensive. However, his solution for this is,

That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment –- their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.

How do retirement accounts pay for education? Aren't they for people when they retire? Is that not the whole point?

Then, still not answering how he will help people afford college, he trumpets his plan to help people refinance their mortgages. I wonder if anyone has informed how well the Obama foreclosure relief plan has worked. (Answer: Not very well)

Then he, finally, talks about healthcare reform. He recites the same mantra that politicians have been stating since Bill Clinton ran for office (or as some have stated, since the Nixon Administration). He names the usual bogeyman identified by Democratic party (the insurance companies. And in case you wondered, the usual bogeyman for healthcare from the GOP perspective, its the lawyers). He trumpets the Democratic plan.

President Obama then turns to talking about deficits. And unsurprisingly, he lays all the ills at the feet of the President Bush. In his address, President Obama states,

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.

Yes, the Bush Administration ran up so large debt. But interestingly enough, in many cases, the Democrats voted to approve it. In fact, since 2006, the Democrats have been the party in control of the House and Senate. Yet, everything that President Bust wanted done, got done.

Perhaps if then-Senator Obama had voted "no", instead of "present", on some fo those bills, we would not have the deficit we have today. Radical notion.

Here's another one: it matters not who ran up the deficit. The deficit is a fact. We need to deal with it, not place blame. Let the historians do that.

Then comes President Obama's "big" policy of the night: the freeze on US Government spending. Apparently, they (whoever they are) will go through line by line and eliminate programs. This should, President Obama tells us, save us about $20 billion. Apparently, he wants to make up the rest from those evil oil companies and investment fund managers, as well as those people making over $250,000.00. Because apparently, they are the ones who caused all the problems. Or something.

But then comes for my favorite line: "Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office." Paying for what we spent on his watch? According to some calculations, that could run as low as $787 billion or high as $3.27 trillion. Either number is not going to be paid off anytime soon.

President Obama then meandered in his fashion to identifying the next bogey man: the lobbyists! And how his administration has taken bold steps by publishing on the web every visitor to the White House. Great.

Now comes, for me, the part of the speech I have the most mixed feelings about. President Obama, in his attack on lobbyists, stated that,

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

It's not that he called out the Supreme Court in the State of Union. Nor is it that Justice Alito disagreed with President Obama's characterization of the decision. My problem is the balance between freedom of speech, and freedom from corruption in our political life. On the one hand, the money which corporations and unions can bring to bear in political race is substantial and corrupting. On the other hand, how can we say that a type of political speech is not protected.

I was not happy with McCain-Feingold. I am equally unhappy with the Supreme Court's decision. The question is, what is the solution? I don't know.

The president then went on to decry politics as usual in Washington. Complaining that well-qualified public servant's confirmations were being held up by extremists in the parties. Did the speech writers take this from one of the Bush addresses?

Oddly enough, he finally calls out his own compatriots, stating, "To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills." Of course, he ruins that call to action by immediately serving up the excuse that if nothing gets done its because the Republicans are fillibustering everything.

Can this man please cowboy up at some point? Or is it beyond him? But going on...

Finally, two-thirds of the way through the speech, President Obama reaches terrorism. Or as he calls it "security". Oddly enough, President Obama trumpets the body count that the U.S. military has run up this year. He does not state that the U.S. military has been victorious in Iraq, though he takes credit for troops being withdrawn. But he does manage to tar our image with allegations of torture.

Then he goes on to trumpet his decision to add troops to Afghanistan. Of course, by the time the troops get there, it will be time for them to leave, since he is still calling for a handover of Afghanistan in 2011. I understand that this man has never served in the military, something which I do not believe is a requirement to lead this country. However, could he at least have read Charlie Wilson's War? Maybe watched the movie? He might have learned something about quitting before the job gets done.

President Obama then goes on to trumpet one of his favorite tropes when talking about national security: eliminating nuclear weapons. In the State of the Union, he mentions working together with Russia to reduce stockpiles. He mentions securing nuclear material to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear weapons. He announces his intention to further turn the screws on North Korea's nuclear program.

As for Iran, all he says is: "They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise." Translation: we'll impose ineffective sanctions on you and hope that Israel does not handle the job for us.

Then he moves into civil rights territory, funnelling from corruption and discrimination overseas to what happens in the United States. President Obama promises that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice will prosecute cases once more. That's great, but is it going to be a color blind prosecution? Or is it going to be free passes for the Black Panthers and their ilk because they, as minorities, cannot possibly be guilty of violations of the law?

Let's try this on for size. How about the professionals at the DOJ decide who gets prosecuted and who does not. When political appointees make the decision, the DOJ loses credibility.

The speech mericifully ends with a meditation on getting back to his basic campaign promise: Change. However, all he offers are lofty ideals, with no firm goals set.

If Toby Ziegler ever saw this speech on his desk, I shiver to think what would have happened to the communications staffer who drafted it. In one fell swoop, President Obama managed to make President Bush look both eloquent and thoughtful. This speech was all over the map. It lacked, like the Administration which produced it, a clear sense of what is to be accomplished beyond lofty ideals. This speech, to me, represents a man who got to his goal, and then realized he had no idea of how to actually operate the office to which he was entrusted.

Don't believe me? Watch it again. I did.



What's worse, the political payback by the hardcore of the Republican party is something I fear. At the rate that President Obama is going, he will be a one termer. He will be vying with President Carter as the worst President of the United States since the Civil War.