Bad day in the Little Apple

Oopsie.

My Kitties at Kansas State aren’t doing all that well this year … the lost to Baylor today (10/12/13) 35-25. Now they are like 2-4 for the season … guess no bowls this year. Oh well, I still love them.

Who is blocking the solution to shutdown, debt limit?

Senate Democrats block progress on debt limit, shutdown

Reid nixes bipartisan compromise in Senate

The folks over the Huffington Post are all happy because the people they like in the Senate are all over throwing various compromise solutions back in the faces of the Republicans if they offer any.

 

NO SURRENDER! NO RETREAT!

 

I think the American people deserve a little bit better than this, but I understand the sentiment and it is a two-way street. However, having said that, it seems egregious to me that the Majority Leader in the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, rejected a compromise proposal by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, that had the support of at least six Democrats. Not enough to invoke cloture (should someone decide to filibuster it), but enough to pass the bill if all the Republicans bought into the measure.

So, the narrative remains that it all the Republicans’ fault. I am sorry, but that meme doesn’t fly anymore. This has become a situation where the progressives/liberals are saying “We won the White House. We still control the Senate. It don’t matter what the House says, especially since it is controlled by the opposition. What we want goes, period. End of sentence. End of story. And if you don’t like that you are a hostage-taking, kidnapping, baby-killing, ransom-demanding, terrorist bomber.”

If it were left to me, and I was the only one whose vote mattered, I would start with serious clearing out of the halls of Congress in November 2014 (if not sooner in those states where recall elections are permitted) and I would start with the liberals and progressives, and probably would continue on down to all the elected folks, and then start on the career staff that man all the policy-affecting offices in the congress members’ offices. Now, that is not going to happen, but it is what I would do.

Of course, there is little I could or would do with the blatant partisanship among the various news gathering and news disseminating organizations, other than call them on the fact that they are not fair and balanced, especially the ones in the broadcasting field but also including those in the traditional print media.

Sorry, but label what passes for journalism now as what it is: in the traditional sense of it, we are living again in the heyday of new era of Yellow Journalism.

Wikipedia's defines "Yellow Journalism"

Now, if you don’t know about Yellow Journalism, you need to go back a little more than a century or so, and look at the way the news was covered by the “majors” … not a pretty sight.

The “objective journalism” standard never really has been the norm, but for a brief shining period there in the 1950s and 1960s (and maybe into the 1970s and early 1980s) it was something that mainstream journalists professed as their goal. Not that they even came close, but it was the dream of a lot journalists that trained in that era.

So, I think it is time for us to let go of that illusion and realize that is not the case. Time to realize that everyone has a point of view and to them, it is fair and balanced and everyone else’s is prejudiced.

However, I would like to disabuse those who say that the House has no right to defund programs it doesn’t like. Sorry, but that dog don’t hunt. You may not like it, but the same thing was tried when the Iraq War went south. Remember the people who voted for the war before they voted against it? If you don’t remember that issue, then you need to have your memory checked because it wasn’t that long ago.

And just because some law has passed Congress, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court, does not mean that law is engraved in stone … and unless it is an amendment to the Constitution, it is not necessarily the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes do take precedence over state law, but that does not equal constitutional status.

If it were the case, then little things like the Fugitive Slave Act and the Volstead Act would still be the law of the land. Or Plessey v. Ferguson would still be in effect. Nope, laws can be changed. Courts can change their opinion on what is constitutional and what is not.

Even if it is a law, Congress (especially in the case of the House) has the prerogative to vote against providing any funds to enforce or put any law into effect. Heck, it has been underfunding immigration enforcement for years.

I really would hope, however, that more people would look at the situation unfolding in Washington, D.C., and recognize that despite the repetition of the canard that it all is the fault of the party that controls the House of Representatives, the fault for this mess does indeed lie elsewhere.

To me, the answer is obvious beyond debate.

Nuff said.

I think Jimmy Carter should stick to building houses

Democracy is not working in US: Jimmy Carter

Former President Jimmy Carter does some pretty amazing work with his wife through his efforts with Habitat for Humanity. I really laud his efforts there.

Unfortunately, when he strays from that he kinda loses me.

For example, I think Habitat for Humanity is an incredible program. It helps build homes for people who otherwise might not have one and those people have to put some sweat-equity into not only their new home, but others as well. It is part of the Habitat contract with the individual. No, these homes are not just given to people gratis. Sorry, that isn’t what the program is about.

In addition, in most places, it is not a government program. I think that is one reason that it works so well. It is a non-governmental effort that makes agreements with families that through donated labor and material a home will be constructed to modern standards as long as the person agrees to put in so many hours working on their own home as well as helping build other homes. I think that is a fair trade.

However, I think President Carter implies a lot more than he bargains for when he starts saying that things like housing, health care and education are “rights.” Yes, they are necessary things and things that one would hope that most people would have at least some access to. 

Having said that, I would start to question where one draws the line on providing necessities to people. It is the old “How much is enough” question and who gets to decide what enough is.

For people like Carter, it seems that government is the answer to who should be doing the providing and begs the question of who decides how much is enough. And of course, if government is not guaranteeing food, housing, health care and education, then obviously democracy is failing.

Sorry, Mr. Carter, but that is a bunch of hokem and you should be old enough and smart enough to realize that it defies human nature. You and the folks with Habitat are smart enough to require a contract from the new homeowners, but it seems that when something becomes a “right” and is provided by the government, then the contract that requires some return from the purchaser (receiver of goods and/or services) gets lost somewhere.

Actually, Mr. Carter, democracy is alive and well in the American republic. Maybe you don’t like the way things are going, but then you had your chance and the American people chose a different course than you were offering some forty years ago. Sorry, but the American people weren’t buying what you were selling. (I remember, because I had to endure double-digit inflation and mortgage rates pushing 20 percent and witnessed double digit unemployment when benefits were far less generous than now.)

I am afraid the President Barack Obama is having to learn the same lesson that President Carter had to learn. Sometimes, a large number of people in the US tend to resent things just being handed to them or someone else. They see the ultimate fairness in exchanges – like the sweat-equity contracts demanded by Habitat for Humanity – for goods and services.

A lot of people look at 99 weeks of extended unemployment benefits and scrunch up their noses and eyebrows and wonder what the heck is going on. They also look at people expecting the government to provide them with housing, healthcare, food and cellphones and wonder whatever happened to the contract where you had to give in order to receive?

Take the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Mr. Carter: Interestingly enough a slim majority of Americans (at least reflected by the people they sent to represent them in the House of Representatives) seem to think it is not working out like it was projected and maybe there should be some changes in the program … like making it apply to everybody and not just those unfortunate not to have the pull to be exempted from its provisions and face fines etc. if they don’t get with the program. So their representatives are using the constitutionally-mandated power given them to rattle a few cages and try to get the attention of the Senate and the Executive Branch to maybe tweak the law some.

You need to put a call in the Mr. Obama, Mr. Carter, and tell him that maybe he should be listening more to the people and less to the media, the pundits and his political cronies.

Just a random thought there.

New Narrative: GOP moves goal posts

CNN: GOP changes demands to resolve impasse

I love politics … because it is so predictable … at least in the US.

Ok, to be out front – the way I see it – the shutdown could be ended today if the SENATE would pass the funding resolutions in its current hopper.

That won’t happen because the SENATE is holding out for one big omnibus continuing resolution to fund ALL government operations. It is either the omnibus spending bill or no bill – the so-called “clean CR” – according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and President Barack Obama.

However, I am seeing others starting to pick up on the point of view that what the House of Representatives is doing is IN FACT just what those silly dead white men 225 years ago wanted it to do in cases like this when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. This is exactly what those evil “framers” or “founders” of our government expected and wanted the House to do. It is performing its role as a check on the Senate and the Executive Branch (the president) by exercising its power over the purse.

Now, there are those, mainly progressives, who see this as a bad thing (although they were busy trying to defund military operations in Iraq just a few years ago), but it really is what people like James Madison and the others who sweated the summer of 1787 out in Philadelphia to contrive a more perfect union meant to happen.

What those less than three-score of gentlemen did really is quite remarkable, when  you look at the diversity (yes, Virginia, they were a diverse cultural lot) of the group and the interests that they represented.

It indeed was a grand compromise, that no one went home 100 percent satisfied with the result (the biggest rift was over the institution of slavery), but it still put in place a formula for governance that pretty well stood the test of time … until we all got complacent about it and for reasons discussed very well by the guru at Strafor (George Friedman) we have let ideologues grab the wheels of power.

(The roots of how we got here)

Still and yet, the government is functioning pretty much within normal designed operating parameters – despite the rather bizarre rhetoric and talking points being distributed by the leadership of the Democrat Party and its supporters.

As I told one person today, it ain’t time to man the barricades just yet.  Her concerns are well grounded, I told her, and not all people are quite as tolerant and generous as she might be but while we may be in the latter stages of the infamous “Cycle of Democracy”, there always is hope. Hope does spring eternal, despite what we might think in moments of despair as we watch/hear/read the news each day from various sources competing to get us to accept their view of world affairs.

That most of them – at least all those people who talk at us via the TV and Internet these days as well as those who we have elected to lead the government - really are being disingenuous (being charitable here) is most distressing and, as Pappy used to say, you just want to knock some heads together to knock some sense in them.

Does it not seem strange that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can get a chunk of money (some $445 million) while the $100,000 that supposedly goes to the survivors of American service members killed in the line of duty (roughly two dozen since Oct. 1, including four killed in action in Afghanistan) has been suspended because the government can’t afford it?

Or how about a rally on the National Mall by supporters of amnesty for people who have entered the United States without the proper documentation or have overstayed the visits they said they were going to have when groups of aged veterans from World War II are denied access to the open-air memorial on the same mall and threatened with arrest if they come back?

How about people being denied access to their privately owned homes and businesses that happen to have ended up on property owned by the federal government in the creation of various national parks?

Or the National Institutes of Health enrolling a half-dozen or so sick children in special treatment programs even though they have been forbidden to do so by the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office Building next to the White House?

If that does not sound to you like misplaced priorities, then I would question whether you should reexamine those priorities. I definitely think there is some serious misrepresentation of issues going on here.

And no, the federal government is not going to default on its debt payments, unless someone in the executive branch really screws things up.

A) Under existing funding legislation (and that already passed by the House) funds are available to pay the interest on the national debt … hence, no need for a default because that is what is required. It is when you don’t make those payments that you default. It is a bit like paying your mortgage (even in the worst of times, if all you can do is pay the interest portion, the lender probably will not give you too much of a bad time).

B) The federal government does not need to raise the debt ceiling in order to make these payments, because it takes in enough money in taxes, tariffs, duties, etc., to cover the interest due along with a whole bunch of other things.

The debt ceiling debate is sort of like arguing over which credit cards you are going to try to pay this month, with one side let’s just raise the credit limit and the other side saying that it might be a good idea to start cut back on how much we are spending.

Unfortunately, what we are being treated to daily by those we have hired to run our government is a whole lot less than the truth and a whole lot of stuff to try to scare us into demanding that one political party’s viewpoint is the only acceptable one.

I don’t think so.

But that is enough of my random thoughts for this go around.

Nuff said.

Media ignorance and bias as illustrated by CNN

The effort for Universal Health Care begins on CNN

CNN Anchor displays ignorance of the Congressional budget process   (view the video headlined: Rep. Matt Salmon: "I believe this will send us back into a part-time economy")

 

Ok, I could slam Fox News Channel because of its sloppy journalistic approaches in its prime time reporting, but unfortunately that would be an easy target because it IS NOT really simple reporting, but news analysis – usually with a conservative slant.

However, the CNN reports ostensibly are news reports and not just opinion. And the anchor/reporter in each segment above brings a particular point of view and agenda to the table. That is not good journalism, but it is what passes for it today.

However, the thing that set me off tonight (10/3/2013) was watching CNN news anchor Anderson Cooper questioning a Republican representative about the GOP-controlled House’s efforts to fund the federal government department by department in separate bills. To Cooper, this seemed to be such a bad thing.

HELLO MR COOPER! Where were you in your high school civics class? Asleep?

For those unfamiliar with the in and outs of way the US Congress has worked for the  past 225 years, it does not just pass one big bill to to fund the operations of the federal government. No, it passes a number of authorization bills – broken down by various subjects and departments – that authorize the various departments of the government to spend certain amounts of money for their operations. This is followed by a similar number of appropriations bills that actually allocate the available federal funds to pay for those things authorized. Anything left over … well usually Congress authorizes borrowing the money to cover whatever it wants to spend.

This really is just like us peons do when we pay our monthly and annual bills. We don’t just write one huge check. We write a plethora of little ones to pay our creditors … and we make agonizing decisions how much to spend on each separately and not all at one time.

Unfortunately, this process has broken down at the federal level in the last 35 years or so. Now, it seems that Congress and the President are content with literally kicking the can down the road. And for the last three years, it basically has given up on doing a budget and passing authorization and appropriations bills … well at least the appropriations bill parts … and instead votes for continuing resolutions or omnibus spending bills that include all federal spending in one lump sum.

Obviously, Mr. Cooper really likes omnibus bills because it is just one big story, but the problem with bills that big comes in the details. All sorts of various and sundry things get stuck in the bill – because it has to pass – which fund the famous pork barrel projects we all hear about and give this or that special interest group a special perk or tax exemption.

Now, continuing resolutions basically say that we authorize and appropriate money for all government programs and “current” spending levels (back to the last time a real budget bill was passed with whatever changes were made in the interim omnibus spending bills). This basically abrogates the responsibility of Congress – and especially the House of Representatives, where all taxing and spending legislation is supposed to originate.

However, since it basically has become the way that our government operates now, Mr. Cooper, President Obama and the Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid want to make it the way government is supposed to be funded. Or so it seems to me.

It seems to me that when a Democratic president is elected in this country, the Congress is to play lap dog and pass whatever the person in the Oval Office proposes. Oh, if a Republican president is in office, then this rule does not apply.

So, now, it apparently is against the civil rules of society to say: “Hey, here is how we have done things for 225 years (and it has worked pretty well up to now until people decided it had to be all or nothing) and the nation did pretty good.

As I said, I know this is not politically correct to say right now, but the House is not obligated to support anything, including measures passed by previous Congresses, if the majority in said House says it doesn’t want to.

If you don’t understand that, tell it to all those DoD contractors who have seen planned construction projects cancelled year after year (especially when contractors low-balled their estimates and tried to implement their contracts that would let them get more money … but that is another issue). What previous Congresses approved carry little weight then.

And even if an issue gets defeated, repeatedly, that doesn’t stop Congress trying to pass another law on it (note gun control and amnesty for non-American citizens who enter this country without following the legally mandated procedures and want to stay).

So, when you watch broadcast/cable TV news and see them talking about a “clean bill” continuing resolution what they really are talking about is Congress once again failing to do its fricking job in the first place … and unfortunately for the last three years the biggest culprit in this farce has been the members of the US Senate.

Yes, there is a “minority” in the House that has stiffened the spine of the majority party there, but that is how democratic republics work. Heck, it is even how democracies work.

The people at CNN and other national news disseminating organizations may not like or agree with the political views of that minority/majority, but it is wrong to portray them with disparaging views … like they are children or terrorists. They are neither. They are merely who have a profound politically and ideologically different view of the world.

A good journalist accepts that and tries not to become an advocate of either side in the questions he or she is pitching to the politicians or the public.

Nuff said!

Post Scriptum: I know there are those out there would will read this and see it as condescending or talking down to people. Folks, I am not doing that (at least not consciously) but I am trying to explain how the US system should be working and how it is failing to work … because sometimes we tend to forget that.

Obviously, the Senate does not believe in democracy

Ok, I am not source this because any links I post about the current curtailment of government services will be overcome by events.

It is time for a lot of people to step back and reassess what they think about governance, particularly at the federal level, and what it really means.
We Americans give our various levels of government varying levels of responsibility. Granted over the last  century, we have allowed the federal government to extend the sides of that envelope tremendously, but that still is the concept embedded in the US Constitution and its various amendments.
For example, the House of Representatives remains that branch that represents the people. Its members face election every two years and (albeit rarely happens) can be replaced by their constituents every two years.
The members of the Senate, on the other hand represent a much different tradition. Initially, Senators were not “elected” by the people but “elected/selected” by the various state governments/legislatures (how was left of to each state government as a sop to being federal republic – a democratic republic, true, but a republic just the same with the vast majority of political power residing with government levels less than the national federal level). That changed 100 years ago when the Constitution was amended to make Senators elected by popular vote. Senators no longer represented the state they were from, but the folks who elected them. It may seem an arcane  difference, but it is significant.
However, the House remains the voice of the people, much more so than the President or the Senate as a group because the president is elected every four years and only a third of the Senate is up for election every two years.
So, why is it the most responsive voice of the people has been ignored by the Senate for the last three years?
The big media narrative is that the government shutdown is the result of the the “Republicans” in the House not cooperating with the President or the Senate. Since when has it been the role of the People’s House to rubber stamp things proposed by either the President or the Senate. If they did, the representatives would be failing in their job to represent those people who voted them in to office.
Now, make no mistake, no elected representative is bound to try to represent those people who did not vote for him or her. Sorry, but that is not how the world works. If you didn’t vote for your representative, then he or she does not represent you or have any legal, or even moral, obligation to try to represent you. If you have a problem with that you need to go back and take your civics class all over again.
Now, for the edification of those too obtuse to see it, in 2010, the people in the polling booth selected more people who saw the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as a mistake than those who thought it was the next best thing to sliced bread, or maybe a Krispy Kreme donut. Then, in 2012, those same people helped those representatives who thought Obamacare needed to be repealed … or at least seriously tweaked … be the majority in the House of Representatives.
However, that is not the narrative you are seeing reported. What you do see is accusations that those people in the People’s House are holding the nation hostage and are terrorists or jihadiis or some other equal vile characterization. Wrong answer.
Yes, President Obama was re-elected (in a pretty narrow race – 2 percent difference between him and his opponent), but that does not say the voters endorsed keeping Obamacare. Apparently, the voters didn’t because they elected enough representatives to try to vote to block the President’s initiative in their legislative branch.
Of course, every attempt to do so has been blocked by the President’s supporters in the Senate; hence, the impasse that has lead to the current spate of foolishness in the nation’s capital.
This, one needs to realize, is by a Senate that has not passed a budget in like four years. Nope, they just keep passing “continuing resolutions” based on the 2009 budget, with whatever other additions they like. Is that anyway to run a railroad?
What makes things even more silly is that the “shutdown” is a) totally unnecessary and b) not really a shutdown at all (but I won’t digress into that quagmire).
You see, those radicals in the House have sent over any number of bills that would have provided funding for the majority of government services. Unfortunately, they voted (remember they are representing those people who voted for them in November 2010) not to  include funding for major parts of the Affordable Care Act (which may be anything but affordable, but again, I will not digress).
The President and the Senate majority leader start crying foul. It seems that once something gets passed by Congress it is a done deal … since when? If it was, then you need to send back all those fugitives slaves you are hiding and definitely hide the beer, wine and other alcoholic beverages that may be in your house, because they too were once bills that passed Congress.
Sorry, what Congress does, it also can undo.
So, who is responsible for the government shutdown and who is trying to make political hay from that? Ah, who has been refusing to pass bills that would open the fiscal spigots for all those parts of government whose failure to provide service is causing such a hue and cry.
It ain’t those damn Tea Party-nicks who are merely representing those who elected them.
Sorry, folks, but it is the Senate – controlled and run by the Democratic Party – which is trying to extort money out of the People’s House. You either fund what we say, or we funding nothing.
I know, this is not a popular narrative amongst those who want universal health care guaranteed by the federal government but it points out that they really just don’t like the results of a democracy.
I could say something about, you lost control of the House but that would seem to lack the faith the progressives have in their ability to control the future.
Anyway: My view -
It is the Senate and the Democrats (not democrats with a little d who definitely should not be confused with those with big D) and those Republicans (also not to be confused with those with a little r) who can’t seem to get their act together and fund what they can … and then work on funding the rest … assuming there is any money left over.
I mean that is what we pagani (Latin word, Google it) do every month when the bills come around.

I hate being prescient

Senate committee passes bill to define "journalist"
Forty years ago, as a young college journalist, I attended the national convention of Sigma Delta Chi as a student delegate. SDX, as it was called at the time, was what is now known as the Society of Professional Journalists.

At that meeting, during a session on the Watergate scandal involving the Nixon Administration, I got to ask a question of Benjamin Bradley, then the executive editor of the Washington Post and the response I got was “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

My question? It was simple and straight forward. Mr. Bradley was on a panel and I directed my question to him:

“Sir, in light of all the investigative reporting the Post has done on the Watergate affair, what is your view of shield laws to protect journalists?”

There was this long pause, and then Mr. Bradley said, “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

What followed was a lively discussion between the seven panelists (including one from the Watergate Special Prosecutor’s office (OSP)  who was in charge of negotiating with the media over getting information they had uncovered in their investigations). At one point, Mr. Bradley revealed that the Post that day had been served with a subpoena from the OSP, at which the poor fellow from the OSP about twisted his head off to look at the Post editor. You see, he was the first step in issuing those subpoenas and legal writs and he knew nothing about this one.

Now, I think Mr. Bradley and I shared a problem with Shield Laws. You see, the protections of the First Amendment apply to all American citizens, not just to people who work for newspapers, magazines or TV and radio stations (add in Cable Networks now).

So, if you are trying to protect freedom of the press by shielding reporters, etc., from having to divulge sources of information that ordinary citizens can be forced to divulge by court order then you have to define who is protected and who is not protected.

That is a very difficult problem because freedom of the press, as I have repeatedly pointed out over the intervening years, belongs to everybody, whether he or she is employed by a news gathering and disseminating organization or just somebody who is passing out leaflets on the street corner (or blogging on the internet). The people who promote shield laws want to make themselves protected like priests and lawyers but in each of those cases you have to meet a minimum requirement and basically be recognized (or licensed) by the government for the protect to apply.

My contention is that when you start “licensing” journalists then you are infringing on the freedom of the press of those people who are not employed by “media”. You see, for the court to say who is included in this special class of people, then somebody has to define what is qualifying news gathering organization.

If the court (government) only recognizes (therefore allows) only certain people the privilege of protecting their sources, then two things happen.

1. The equality before the law that is supposed to be the great hallmark of our system of governance is breached big time.
2. The government gets to say who gets to play and who does not and that opens the door wide for the suppression of unpopular views or even simple dissents from the consensus viewpoint.

Note that there is no way to define a journalist without running afoul of this trap, as I have patiently explained to an number of attorneys who were advocating journalist shield laws in a couple of states. They admitted I was right but argued that it was for a greater good.

My response to that is who set up journalists as gods and what requirements do they have to meet to be so designated. I say that because in my 30-plus years as a working journalist at 12 different newspapers across the United States, I have found many a good reporter / photographer / “journalist” who had none of the degrees or certifications that would qualify them as a “professional” other than their contributions to the publication that I was working for at the time.

I quit one editor job after the publisher told me that if he ever got sued, he was going to sue me. And he wanted me to play watchdog on local government officials? Oh boy, I got out of there as fast as I could.

Now, it seems the federal government is going to define who is a journalist and who is not. I warned people that this would happen if they started enacting shield laws. It also was just the first step in controlling the media. I repeat that warning now.

This is a bad law and I hope it won’t go anywhere.

Good cop, bad cop

Russians, Syrians jump on Kerry's proposal
After reading the WaPo’s story on the developments surrounding the US threat to bomb Syrian government military facilities in response to the Aug. 21, 2013, chemical attack that killed anywhere from 350 to 1400 Syrian civilians in a rebel-held area, I am so struck by the proposition that either President Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry either have been played like a fiddle by the Russians or there was a whole lot of colluding going on to convince the Assad regime that it was in its best interest to divest itself of chemical weapons before the rebels seized them.

This is playing out like an old-fashioned crime movie, with the Russians playing the good cop and the US playing the bad cop. You know the scene where the perp is in the interrogation room and they are trying to get him to turn state’s evidence. The bad cop goes and threatens to wreak holy hell on the perp if he doesn’t turn over on his buddies in crime. The good cop comes in, offers the perp a cigarette and gets all buddy buddy with him. Warning that if he doesn't do the reasonable thing, the good cop won’t be able to protect him from the evils of the bad cop.

Bingo, the guy flips and tells all.

Now, if I was a conspiracy buff, it would seem awfully suspicious that Russian President Putin and US President Obama just happened to be at a joint meeting last week (the G-20 summit) and went to great lengths to put on a show how they couldn’t stand each other. And Kerry has his head together with his Russian counterpart where someone accidentally raises the concept. Nothing official mind you, just what do you think kind of thing.

Then, the week ends with Obama rattling the US saber as loudly as he can, but he backs off a bit to say: well, let me take this up with Congress. Over the weekend, all the talk is about trying to get Congress and the American people to buy into an act of war against Syria. Well, the media war began long ago, but that is beside the point.

Anyway, Deputy Sheriff Kerry, on his way home from a meeting with his European Union counterparts, holds a press conference and in apparent off-hand response to a question about what could avert a US attack, he say: well, if Syria would get rid of all its chemical weapons and put them under international (read UN) control in a week, then all would be hunky dory but … that’s not going to happen.

The next thing, the good cop deputy is calling the bad cop deputy and saying we got a deal and goes public with it.  By the time Deputy Kerry is on the ground, everybody knows and everybody who doesn’t want the bad cop to do anything is running around trying to figure out how they can make it happen.

Now, I am not saying this is the way things went down. I am not saying it is going to work. I am saying it does tend to make you think it might be what is going down and people in leadership positions are actually smarter than we think.

Or it really could just be another gaffe from the Obama Administration that the Russians are using for their gain and the detriment of the US.

Life is interesting, isn’t it?

Government by fiat

Obama, rejected by Congress, implements new gun control steps

Now, if you don’t have problems with the sentence above, then you have problems living in a democratic republic.

The Obama Administration, failing to get its gun control agenda through Congress, said it is going to go around Congress and by executive order implement its idea of gun control.

This is government by executive fiat and we are seeing a distressing increase in it in the United States under the current administration.

But let's take the gun control steps first.

By using the language (and most people’s limited understanding of what is really being said), the administration’s decision to block the re-importation of “military-grade” firearms given as military aid a half-century ago probably seems reasonable. Can’t have all those Army automatic weapons like machineguns being purchased by civilians.

However, the real impact is to block the re-importation of the staple weapon used by most of the infantrymen in World War II and the Korean War: the M1 Garand 30-06 caliber semiautomatic rifle. The problem with the Garand is that it makes a lousing weapon in the hands of a criminal. It is big with only an 8-round clip in its magazine. It one fires one bullet at a time and automatically ejects the clip when your 8th round goes down range. It also will smash the heck out of your thumb if you don’t get it out of the way of the bolt when you insert a new clip (and try manually setting up a clip some time, it ain’t fun). It does not even come close to fitting anyone’s description of the fearful “assault rifle.” No 30-round detachable magazines, etc.

Why the administration is banning the re-importation of such collectible weapons is beyond me, but there is some rationale there somewhere.

Still, back to the basic point: When is the current US administration going to be called to account for using its regulatory powers to circumvent the legislative powers of the Congress chosen by the people to enact the rules they want?

I think the American people need to start asking why Congress is laying down on the job and not challenging the executive branch’s usurpation of its powers.

Inequality is life

Obama: Inequality is morally wrong

 

President Obama, never my favorite person, just leaves me shaking my head with wonder.

Where did we find this guy?

Look, I think somebody needs to explain the realities of life to him (not that I expect it to happen).

When one speaks of  “equality” in the political/historical sense, we are not talking about equality of outcomes. We are not talking about everyone having the same as everyone else, or even anything approximating equality of what we may or may not possess.

No. what we are – or should be – talking about is equality before the law; with government treating us all equally and not showing favoritism toward any individual or group (or the flip side, persecuting or discriminating against any individual or group). However, it seems that concept has been lost in transition between generations somewhere … or maybe it was in translation.

Granted, the generations that came before us were not perfect, nor were they omniscient or omnipotent. Like us, they were flawed individuals who strove to make a more perfect union. Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell people like President Obama and other progressives, that “union” does not mean people are to be shaped with a cookie-cutter to be exactly the same.

Equivalence of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity, or – even more importantly – equality before the law.

As the President said in his speech this week, many people are being conditioned to believe: Inequality is wrong.

At first glance, it is hard to argue that “inequality” is wrong, but we have to define what is not being equal. If we are talking about economic outcome, then we are talking about something that is not the Provence of any government.

People are different. Individuals are essentially unique and therefore implicitly and explicitly INEQUAL. Sorry, but it isn’t going to happen. You can not use government to make everyone equal in life … it is impossible.

But our President is decrying the inequality of economic conditions and pledging to use the powers of government to correct this perceived problem … and if Congress doesn’t cooperate, he plans to do it by executive fiat.

If this doesn’t scare you, then you don’t understand that freedom isn’t free, liberty comes at a price and that if you want either then you have to accept that some people are just going to be different.

But no, we can’t have that. We have to resent all that others have.

That is beginning to scare me. I see far too many people, the President included, saying this group is wrong and that group is wrong and it is the federal government’s job to correct all that they define as evil, or wrong or an injustice.

We have lost our way, and unfortunately, the more I look at it, the more it seems that Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” was politically prophetic.

 

This however is so very true:

Life is like a cup of coffee