Mr. President - please define "gyrations"...

“Day to day gyrations of the stock market” – this is how our Commander in Chief describes the Dow’s fall from 12,000 in September to its current 6,500 level. My concern is less that he doesn’t know what’s going on in the stock market – I don’t either. My concern is the dismissive attitude we see whenever anyone asks Mr. Obama a question whose answer might be uncomfortable or inconvenient, or otherwise not in line with his string of campaign promises. “Don’t worry about it” is beginning to sound like, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”, or worse: “Your worries are silly, ridiculous and beneath my dignity to address”. It smacks of the elitism, the “let them eat cake” attitude he and the other Democrats currently in positions of authority attributed to the previous administration and the Republican Congress.

I want this nation to recover. I want government to be in its intended role as servant of the people, not ruler of the people. I want this administration and this Congress to understand and remember that, in the words of Rush Limbaugh last weekend, they are elected to be temporary stewards of the nation, not to remake the nation. This nation has survived worse than we are currently experiencing, and it is arrogant in the extreme to think that one President’s view of how this nation should look trumps all those who have gone before and that the nation must change to fit his view.

Much - and Too Little - Ado About Race

Two bits of news yesterday showed with stark clarity just how wrapped up in race are many in this nation: a cartoon that showed two police officers standing over a recently deceased chimp and asking who'll write the next stimulus bill now that the monkey's dead, and newly installed US Attorney General Eric Holder saying that America is "a nation of cowards" with respect to race relations.

The cartoon generated all sorts of controversy, with the majority of public quotes ranging from "open racism by the cartoonist" to "tone-deaf" failure to realize "what people would think". Race-baiters and those who spend their lives waiting to be offended by something immediately assumed the chimp was supposed to be President Obama and made the "racist" connection right away ("racists think blacks look like monkeys, yadda yadda yadda"). Those same people apparently aren't smart enough (or didn't pay enough attention in Government class) to know that the President doesn't legislate, the Congress does - and in this particular case, the President mainly did a "me too" on the bill, suggesting some stuff (or stuffing) after it got to the White House - so calling the monkey an Obama stand-in just points out the ignorance of the critics.

The cartoon, it seems obvious to me, was intended to say a well trained chimp could write a better bill. Seems to me that’s a recognized and oft-used put-down that has absolutely zilch to do with race. As to the “tone-deaf” quote, that depends on whether you acknowledge the "people are racists" tune, doesn’t it?

As to Holder's disgusting comments, I'm offended, as somebody who was raised in the Air Force and by my parents to be color-blind, to be lectured by this race-baiting AG - uh, the FIRST BLACK Attorney General, appointed by the FIRST BLACK US President. Is there anything more morally and ethically offensive than to have this beneficiary of a selection process established in a "nation of laws, not of men", smugly lecture the public that our Constitutionally protected freedom to associate with whomever we wish makes us cowards if we don't intentionally associate (which is different from intentionally not associating) with others of different hues outside the workplace? I reject his premise that, to the extent this "voluntary social segregation" occurs, it results from cowardice. Mr Holder, as a public servant and a public figure, keep your personal opinions to yourself in these matters. And try to work up a little open-mindedness, willya?

...But Who's Counting? The Census Scam.

After a long (in terms of stuff I hadda do) weekend, I'm getting back to reviewing the Obama administration's growing list of remarkable (a descriptive, not an approbation) initiatives. Today's jaw-dropper is the stated intent to bring oversight of the 2010 census into the White House; specifically, into the office of Rahm Emanuel, perhaps the most partisan Chief of Staff in American history and one who unabashedly starts with, rather than resorting to, the politics of personal destruction to accomplish his team's objectives. Another example of the pathologic need for control of all aspects of life in America, this is a bald-faced power grab to ensure the census numbers permit Emanuel, et al to redraw demographic population lines so that Democrat candidates have the advantage in every district.

Nobody except Obama and Emanuel and their henchmen has said this is a good idea. Even other Democrats are saying this blurs the lines between politics and legitimate information gathering. Does that matter to this administration? Apparently not. As for decades past, the acquisition and retention of power by liberals trumps all other considerations.

I'm willing to listen to an explanation of why it's a good idea to put control of the census inside the White House. Anybody? Buehler?

The Bloom Is Already Off The Rose

"On Thursday, the White House conceded that the husband of Labor Secretary-nominee Hilda Solis this week paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens on his business that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee postponed a confirmation hearing after the news broke." - Wall Street Journal, 6 Feb 09.

"[President Obama] may have to change from an open hand to a closed fist" to get Republicans in the Senate to fall in line - George Stephanopoulis in an interview with Christ Cuomo, 6 Feb 09

Obama spent a good bit of his speech last light heaping scorn, derision and ridicule on Republicans simply because they've called him to account for some of the ludicrous spending in the proposed "stimulus" bill presently before the Senate.

This from the man who can't seem to find anyone qualified for public appointment who hasn't flouted the tax laws his branch of government is charged with enforcing.

This from the man who was touted as being the first "post-partisan president" when he was running.

This from the man who promised to have the most ethical administration in history.

Two weeks in, and he's already been reduced from "The Messiah" to a Chicago hack politician pulling out the truncheons against those who disagree with him. It's going to be a long four years for this President.

"I Am Not A Role Model", revisited

Since my screed yesterday, Michael Phelps has not suffered any loss of income from the revelation that he's a pothead; however, as I write this, I just heard that Tom Daschle has withdrawn his name from consideration - this after the White House press secretary yesterday excused Daschle with a "nobody's perfect" explanation for his failure to pay six figures worth of taxes until after he was offered the job of Secretary of Health and Human Services. To his credit, President Obama took the blame for making the nomination, saying, "I screwed up". Regardless of my distaste for the choice of words from a sitting President, his actions in taking responsibility for the Daschle nomination, and that of his original nominee for the new post of "chief performance officer" (who also had tax problems), are commendable.

At the risk of a charge of piling on, I'll go ahead and make the point at which I was originally aiming (before the Daschle announcement): What does it say to our children when people who are role models because they achieved the recognition and fame they sought, suffer no consequences when their intentional bad acts are brought to light? Remember Charles Barkley saying, "I am not a role model"? Well, guess what? If people see you in a particular role, if you're in the public eye, you're a role model. Tough if you don't like it. As a litigator, I've seen what a bad witness can do to a case. That doesn't mean the witness wasn't a witness, it just means his word isn't worth much.

If there's a nugget here, it's this: to paraphrase General George S. Patton: "You're always on parade." People who seek the limelight need to be prepared to face the consequences of their poor decisions. Or as Christ puts it, "What you do in the dark will be seen in the light"

Emanuel's Prophecy Comes True

Rahm, that is...

The supposed bailout bill presently before Congress should be no surprise to anyone who was listening to current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel during the general election. He gave us a preview last fall when he said the following in a Wall Street Journal interview:

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. I think America as a whole in 1973 and 1974 … missed the opportunity to deal with the energy crisis that was before us. For a long time our entire energy policy came down to cheap oil. This is an opportunity - what used to be long term problems, be they in the healthcare area, energy area, education area, fiscal area, tax area, regulatory reform area, things we had postponed or too long that were long term are now immediate and must be dealt with. And this crisis provides the opportunity for us … to do things that we could not do before. The good news is … the problems are big enough that they lend themselves to ideas from both parties for the solution."

In other words, Emanuel sees in the current financial crisis the opportunity to camouflage far left initiatives in the areas of "family planning", "climate change" and multiple pork projects in the 800 billion dollar bill that is ostensibly to provide financial relief to private business. Regardless of your position on whether private companies should receive federal (read yours and mine) funds to rescue them from the results of their own greed and the pandering of the Democrat Congress (can you tell what my position is on this?), if it's a financial bailout it shouldn't contain funding for social programs.

Read Emanuel's last statement again. Then notice that the Democrat House Speaker and the new president have each used the phrase, "We won", to justify pushing through pet projects without asking for "ideas from both parties". This is bullying, plain and simple. I call it socioeconomic rape.

Harkin, no; Hatch, yes: Whaaaa….???

As I write this, Fox News is reporting that Timothy Geithner has been confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury. A man who owed about $34,000.00 to the IRS, some of which, according to Allahpundit in his January 13 blog on www.hotair.com, he didn’t pay until the day he was nominated for the post, has been confirmed to the position which is directly responsible for the assessment and collection of income taxes. The argument is apparently that he was just SOOOO BUSY being in charge of financial stuff that he didn’t read the two manuals the IMF gave him describing both the obligation and the procedure to pay self-employment taxes. Oh, he said he was sorry.

Earlier in the day, Democrat Tom Harkin took a principled stand, voting against Geithner because he (rightly, to my way of thinking) could not in good conscience vote for a man who had repeatedly violated the very laws he will now be in charge of administering. On the other hand, Republican Orrin Hatch made the astonishing statement that Mr. Geithner’s experience in financial matters outweighed his violation of the tax laws of this nation. According to Mr. Hatch, capability outweighs responsibility.

This is an embarrassment more appropriate for European politics than American. My hat is off to Senator Harkins. I can't fathom Mr. Hatch's logic. How are we to teach our children to do the right thing for the right reason when people in positions of authority absolve each other for ethical lapses, without requiring any consequences for their actions?

Cedar Fever and Ad Hominem

Well, it's cedar season in South Central Texas. Ordinarily, I would be absurdly pleased with that alliteration; however, at the moment, there's a little guy with his back wedged against my optic nerve and his itty bitty hobnailed boots pushing against the back of my left retina, while his evil little buddies run back and forth under my scalp and yank on my hair follicles. So, while I'm waiting for the allergy medicine to kick in, let's talk about the phrase, "ad hominem".

The latin "ad hominem", translated literally, means, "to the man". It is used in two ways: to appeal to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason, and, as we've seen ad nauseum (yeah, yeah) in the last two years, attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Generally, people in positions of authority don't feel it necessary to engage in ad hominem, it being perceived as unbecoming and an abuse of that authority. So when somebody in authority - say, a President - does personally attack somebody solely for that person's expressed opinions, we have to wonder why. When President Obama told Congressional Republicans last week that, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he was beneath the office of President of the United States. Now, Rush certainly doesn't need for me to come to his defense: he's possessed of intellect and skills of erudition that will run rings around both me and Mr. Obama. My point is that the President should be justifying his initiatives on their own merit, not by taking swipes at a private citizen - one of the citizens to whom he is accountable. Methinks he took Saul Alinsky's advice too much to heart: to paraphrase Mr. Alinsky, "Destroy everybody who doesn't agree with you." Is this the conduct and mindset we need in a chief executive?

1.

A Faulty Premise for Foreign Policy

I watched President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton yesterday as they, dare I say smugly, announced a "new direction" in US foreign policy: aggressive engagement. As though the only way we're going to regain the respect of the world is to ask them what they want and give it to them. This, my friends, is appeasement, pure and simple. I believe it arises from the faulty premise that we should care what the rest of the world thinks of the United States.

Does that sound arrogant? Let me tell you why it shouldn't matter to us what any other country or person thinks of us. We, the United States of America, should be doing the right thing, in the right way, for the right reason, regardless of who will approve or disapprove of our choice. That is a definition of integrity, and that is what we will lose (some, like Bill Gertz in his book, "The Failure Factory", think we've already lost it) when we begin making our decisions based on what we perceive others may think. CS Lewis, in his essay, "The Inner Ring", explains that the only inner circle we should care about being a part of is the one that results from us doing what we should in the way we should - then the respect and accolades we receive will go where they should: upwards. We (read, "State Department bureaucrats and Blame America Firsters") care too much about what others think of us. Right is right - the rest will take care of itself.

I may be rambling a bit - it's early yet. If you have something to contribute to this conversation (agreeing or disagreeing - that's why I putting this stuff out there), please visit my blog at http://josephandhisbrothers.blogspot.com. As the header says, I'm Just A Guy trying to figure this stuff out.

Isn't there ANYBODY clean to nominate?

The most recent revelations about Treasury Secretary nominee Geithner "forgetting" to pay taxes and penalties, and his statement that these were "unintentional mistakes" (is there such a thing as an intentional mistake? Just sayin'...) and that they shouldn't interfere with his qualifications to serve in the post just put the icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned. Added to Eric Holder("I'm really sorry"), Hillary Clinton ("My husband's prostituting his former office to foreign powers, but it won't affect my judgment as SecState") and others, does this not call into question our new President's judgment? Does nominating people clearly not morally or ethically qualified to assume positions of stewardship and trust not cast doubt on President Obama's ability to properly select the future servant leaders of this nation?

But wait a minute: the preceding statements assume that our new President and his followers ("henchmen" sounds so pejorative) see leadership of the greatest nation the world has ever seen as a sacred trust rather than a right. Nominating people such as Holder, Geithner and Clinton (and Janet Napolitano - Homeland Security? Talk about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse!) seems to me a squandering, not to say an abrogation, of that sacred trust. Why is it that saying you're sorry, in the minds of some, completely wipes the slate clean? Is this a lack of willingness to forgive? Not at all: as my granddad used to say, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".

It is my fervent prayer that these United States will survive the arrogating of power by people who see the average person as incapable and unworthy of the rights guaranteed them under the Constitution. That will take spines of steel and a willingness to stand up for right in the face of power. An ironic twist, isn't it, that the same "speak truth to power" mantra used by the civil rights activists for 40 years is becoming the exhortation against the first black President's administration?

Just A Guy musing

A new president (not my guy, but the other guy wasn't my guy either except that he was the last one standing), lousy economy (I'm not feelin' it much yet), a nation that has come under immense criticism (mainly unjustly, IMHO), and a government being run by people more interested in the acquisition and retention of power than in honoring the principles and precepts of the men who established this nation.

Wow - sounds like I think everything sucks wind.

That's not so - I believe in a living God who cares so much for me that He was willing to die for the sins I hadn't even committed yet. I believe in the opportunities we can make for ourselves when we are not afraid to take a stand, not take "no" for an answer, and find a way around the naysayers. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I believe that freedom of speech should be tempered by the speaker, not by the state. That having been said, I believe I'm just as entitled to tell the speaker and the world that the speaker is full of poop.

Peeves - "he/she", when everybody knows that when we use "he" in a propositional statement, we mean he, she, they, whoever. The idea that a child in utero should be held accountable for the actions of its biological parents. The usurpation of the term, "trial lawyer", to refer exclusively to plaintiff's attorneys. At every jury trial, there are at least two "trial lawyers" - one for the plaintiff and one for the defendant. The idea that homosexual conduct is ever anything more than morally reprehensible. People who refuse to accept that I can "love the sinner but hate the sin". Well, I can. So shut up.