Pinning the Tail on the Democratic Donkey

With scandal swirling all about him, President Obama seems secure in the eye of the political maelstrom. So far, none of those bumbling Republican elephants have been able to pin a tail on the slippery, always a moving Democrat donkey occupying the White House.
Let me offer some help. Stop looking so hard at the trees and consider the forest of scandal that is this administration.
Bred in the fiery furnace of Chicago politics, where crooked politics is the standard rather than the exception, Obama has become the master of Teflon politics. Nothing sticks to him. So are we really surprised that after four years in office his administration is better at protecting him than they are at running the country?
I doubt we will ever see a “smoking gun” directly tying him to any of the scandals hounding his administration, but, so what.
The fact is that leadership at this level is more about setting the tone and uncompromising standards of behavior than it is about running day to day operations. And In this case, Obama has failed miserably to establish an attitude of service to the American people that takes priority over his own personal political agenda.
Consider the Benghazi scandal. The decision not to send aid to our Ambassador and his staff and then to announce to the world that the attack was the result of a video no one had ever seen was either inept in the extreme, or a calculated move to keep Obama’s politics solid just prior to the election.
In an administration focused on serving the people, responsible heads would have quickly rolled for the blatant politicizing that cost American lives. Instead, nothing has been done. And thanks to Obama’s mainstream media support system, which initially circled the wagons around their hero, we still don’t know what the President was doing as his ambassador and three other Americans were being murdered overseas.
My complaint with Obama is not that we were attacked on his watch – that is what terrorists do. But he is responsible for an administration where the first thoughts during the crisis were how the events would affect “the boss” politically.
It’s the same with the IRS scandal. Whether Obama ordered the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS or not, it seems clear that the action was taken on his behalf by those who felt it was OK to do so.
Apparently even the justice department is not immune from this perverse philosophy of whatever serves the President and his liberal goals is acceptable – just make sure to provide plausible deniability for the man at the top. And those pesky Constitutional rules about a free press, the right to assemble, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches – only apply them to liberal causes.
Are we really surprised that the administration of a President who has lamented the flawed nature of the Constitution has workers in his administration who think sidestepping the Constitution is acceptable to further his political agenda?
Obama, has trashed the Constitution, demonized success, and apologized for America so much it is easy to wonder how anyone would feel obligated to uphold the principles that have made America great.
I can hear Obama now, chastising his minions for doing what he, as president, would never get away with:
Oh my poor little acolyte … I mean federal employee, you know I hate it when you get caught ignoring the Constitution just to support me, (said with a wink and a nod). While it’s true I might have to fire you, I happen to know a rich donor friend who needs someone with your special talents – at twice your federal salary. Maybe I’ll just promote you to supervisor of the new Obamacare division of the IRS.
How many scandals will it take before we begin to recognize that this administration is either incompetent or corrupt? Not because they are somehow expected to control everything their employees do, but because when multiple scandals, all aimed at making the boss look good, follow one after another, it is simply common sense to start looking hard at the leader of that administration for the culture they have created that allows or even encourages such behavior.
Some say to fix this problem we need smaller government. Some say we must repeal Obamacare, or overhaul the tax code. I agree with all of those. But we also need to pin the tail on the donkey by holding the President responsible for the failed and abusive government he has created and led.

Read Full Post »

The most horrible of crimes

When I was little boy, my Mother used to read to me stories from the Bible. As she read, picture images formed in my mind of the events she described. Some of those I still remember today.

            One of these stories was of the flight of Jesus with his family into Egypt. King Herod, it seems, had heard from the Wise Men the prophecies regarded a new king born in Israel. To protect his political power, Herod ordered all children under the age of two killed. I recall that this seemed to my small mind the most horrible of all possible acts of evil. I asked my mother how they killed children. I don’t remember her answering. 

            Maybe that is why today I find it difficult to write about the trial of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion doctor on trial for murdering newborn infants. Reading of how Gosnell, took babies born alive, crying and fighting for life, and summarily executed them, simply tears my heart out. It is just too horrendous to express. I want to turn away and pretend that modern humanity would never allow this.

            But good journalists must often write about the distasteful, even horrendous acts of depraved men, so I expected this affront to humanity to be the lead story for every news service in the country. But it wasn’t. What happened? Wasn’t this the same media that justifiably circled like sharks to protect the children abused by Catholic priests? Where was the fire in the journalistic belly to protect children this time.

            One reporter for the Daily Beast’s, Megan McArdle, who admits she is pro-choice, said: “To start, it makes me ill. I haven’t been able to bring myself to read the grand jury inquiry… What Gosnell did was not some inevitable result of legal abortion. But while legal abortion was not sufficient to create the horrors in Philadelphia, it was necessary. Gosnell was able to harm so many women and babies because he operated in the open.”          

            I believe McArdle is sincere about her revulsion to the Gosnell trial. But she also points out some obvious conclusions that may be the real reason why so many main stream journalists ignored or purposely hid this story – politics.

            While almost everyone agrees that the murders were terrible and needed to be stopped, too many journalists let politics trump ethics when there favorite liberal issue, the right to choose abortion, was threatened with a heavy hit to its false image of niceness – an image many of them had spent years helping create.

            Maybe the truth is finally starting to go mainstream.

            I was amazed, along with some Florida Legislators, at the answers given by a Planned Parenthood Lobbyist when she was asked what should be done with a baby born alive during an abortion. “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” In other words, health care for a live baby, according to the official position of Planned Parenthood, is strictly a decision for the mother and doctor. If the baby is not wanted, the doctor is free to kill it.

            Then again, what would we expect from Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country.  Is it surprising that Gosnell got away with murder for years before finally being stopped? Based on his smiles and demeanor on television it seems that he has so bought into the pro-choice mantra that he actually believes killing these babies was moral.

            Meanwhile, at about the same time this Planned Parenthood spokesperson was shocking the Florida Legislators, our President was meeting with Planned Parenthood and praising their efforts to improve the health of women. Abortions, of which Planned Parenthood does over 330,000 a year, were never mentioned, nor was the Gosnell trial.

            While this meeting, in the face of all this anti-abortion news, may sound like a bad move politically, keep this in mind. Taxpayers subsidize almost half of Planned Parenthood’s annual budget of around $1.1 billion and Planned Parenthood donates millions every year to support the most liberal members of the Democratic Party, like Obama, to make sure those tax dollars keep flowing into their coffers.

            The Center for Disease Control reports that 93 percent of all abortions occur for social or economic reasons, not health care, and the majority of these abortions take place among minorities. Just like the slavery issue that almost destroyed our country, abortion is aimed at minorities and is protected by politicians for the political power they get from deep pocket constituencies. And just like slavery, if we don’t defeat this monstrosity, our nation will again be at risk.

            Free society requires a moral people. Our founding document recognizes the right to life given to us by our creator. Killing babies that could be saved flies in the face of these basic founding principles. If we continue to let political ambition, financial expediency and the lust for power keep us from protecting this fundamental right for the weakest among us, I fear there is little hope for this nation.

Read Full Post »

Marriage, an old fashined idea that works

The 10th Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            This amendment, part of the original “Bill of Rights,” is supposed to insure that the Federal Government stays out of the affairs of the people except for those duties specifically given to it by the Constitution.

            Silly laws, such as those that limit the size of the soda we can buy in a restaurant in New York City, are not a responsibility of the federal government. State or local governments must be the ones to enact, or repeal, these laws. This allows the people closer control over the government kooks that enact such stupid laws and makes them easier to change. Or, if the laws get too crazy, you can simply leave the area as the people in New York are doing in droves.

            Laws about marriage are also one of those responsibilities that have always been reserved to the states. The Supreme Court then, as I understand the 10th Amendment, should find as unconstitutional the part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, since that duty is exclusively reserved for the states.

            While this might seem bad news for my fellow conservatives, cheer up, we need to get out of the habit of expecting the feds to solve issues rightly left to the states. Besides, this also means that California, and every other state, has the right to define what marriage means in their state, without interference from the federal government.

            There is another consideration however.

             The 14th Amendment reads, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            So the second question that gay activists want the Supreme Court to consider is whether the 14th Amendment, the right to equal protection under the law, is being violated when a state defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

            Not as I see it.

            In this case, the state is simply confirming a definition of marriage that has existed unquestioned for literally thousands of years. This specific definition has earned certain government sanctions, such as rights of survivorship and tax breaks, based on its obvious value to society. No group has the constitutional right to re-define this institution simply because they want to have their lifestyle sanctioned by the government in a similar manner. Nor do they have a right to government sanction without proving a similar benefit. The government should only sanction lifestyles that it sees as having an overwhelming or compelling reason to encourage.

            In the case of marriage, the reasons for supportive government sanctions are twofold.  First, traditional marriage provides protection for children by encouraging permanent families that include both a Father and Mother. Second, marriage increases social stability in homes and relationships, both financial and social. It is in the second case where gay activists make their most compelling argument.

            But it is still up to each state to decide where to draw the line. It would be an easier line to draw if we separated traditional marriage from civil unions. Civil unions, if allowed, should be under a different set of government sanctions, designed for a different sort of institution. Gay community activists want to demand it all or none when it comes to gay marriage.

            Therefore, I vote none.

            There is a third element to marriage that many in this debate are ignoring – that marriage for many religious people is an institution established, and defined, by God. Regardless of what the courts may decide, and that marriage, as these people understand it, is primarily a religious covenant.

            My worry is that for the gay activists, even more important than gaining equality under the law, is their desire to destroy and punish religion for keeping them marginalized for most of human history (except of course during the last years in Sodom, Gomorra, Greece and Rome) and to remove their voice from the political arena.

            Liberals tell us that the times have changed, that the gay lifestyle has become “normalized.” From a secular point of view, they are probably right. For many, especially the young, the gay lifestyle is just as normal as sex before marriage, adultery, high divorce rates and pornography – how is that working out for us?

            But I am still optimistic. There are still lots of good kids out there who believe morality and responsibility are key to American exceptionalism. Besides, God still has a say in defining marriage – and will for a very long time to come.

Read Full Post »

The day the world didn’t end

If you are reading this, then I guess the Sequester has not yet thrown us back into the dark ages as President Obama warned.

            And now that his fear mongering tactics, which were tanking his poll numbers and even making his adoring media friends nervous, have been exposed, he is now decided to meet with the opposition in an effort to compromise.

            The only problem with this scenario is that it runs so contrary to his usual M.O. of demonizing his opponents and ignoring the debt that most of us who actually think these things through suspect a rat.

            Here is what I expect.

            Instead of finding and cutting improper Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments, which accounted for $2.5 billion in waste last year, according to the USDA, the administration will cut visits of children to the Whitehouse – to show graphically how painful the Sequester is.

            Instead of cutting back on the $121 million the Department of Justice spends annually on extravagant conferences, they will cut Customs and Border Patrol staffs at airports to make sure we feel the pinch. Or, even worse, they will release some of the worst criminal illegal aliens into the Arizona countryside claiming the Sequester made them do it.

            Instead of cutting Navy expenses such as the purchase of 450,000 gallons of biofuels at $27.00 per gallon ($12 million) to help the fuel achieve broad commercial appeal (which it failed to do), they will lay off civilian defense workers. That has a more public impact.

            Instead of cutting some of the $833 million that Amtrak has cost taxpayers in food and beverage service alone the last ten years, the administration will cut Federal Education Funds where the public pain will be the most visible.

            It might help if they just got a decent accounting of the waste and abuse,  but the General Accounting Office (GAO) can’t get a decent audit, according to their own report two months ago:

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cannot render an opinion on the 2012 consolidated financial statements of the federal government because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations [such as]:

• Serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that made its financial statements unauditable
• The federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intergovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies
• The federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements

            I worked in the federal government, FEMA and the military for years. I have seen this waste first hand. Cutting 2.5 percent from the annual increase is not only possible, it can be done with a minimum of harm to the economy or jobs. The only way Sequester reductions will have a meaningful negative impact on growth and employment is if consumers and businesses cut back on spending due to the fear of economic harms caused by the Sequester.

            Here are some Sequester facts we ought to consider from Ross Kaminsky, Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute:

• Actual cuts to spending this year will be a bit more than 1% of the federal budget
• Defense spending will still increase by over $100 billion over the coming decade
• Federal spending and the national debt still grow enormously in the next decade
• Claims that sequestration is a massive cut to government spending rely on a definition of the word “cut” that no rational person would accept
• To avoid this sort of thing in the future, it is time to get serious about entitlement reform

Hopefully, after Sequester, our political leaders will continue to make reasonable cuts and stop playing political Russian roulette with our children’s future. That is a lot to expect, however, when so many on the left actually believe that cutting spending is bad for the economy while boosting taxes is good.

            Obama defenders claim that this administration has brought domestic discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of the GDP since Eisenhower. Even if that were true, which it arguably is not, discretionary non-defense spending is only about 15 percent of the federal budget. Focusing on this segment is how Obamites hide the fact that Social Security and entitlement spending is going through the roof and the total federal budget is expected to rise 19 percent between now and the time Obama leaves office.

            We cannot afford to continue down this road. Even liberals can see that eventually we must pay for all these goodies. If the government cannot do it through a sensible political process, then at least here is the Sequester. Thanks, Mr. President.

            While the cuts are painful, and my heart goes out to any workers that have to take furlough days (I know the feeling) It is also true that the rest of us the economy has been making these cuts for four years now, maybe it’s time the government joined in.

Read Full Post »