The Slacker In Chief

    When Barack Obama became our nation's forty fourth president, the country was facing some serious economic issues. The housing collapse, which was the result of Democrats using the housing market to perform social engineering for the purpose of providing houses to those too poor to afford them on their own, had caused ripples of uncertainty throughout the financial markets. Becoming president at that time was going to be a challenge for any man and require of him leadership, courage and a strong work ethic. Unfortunately, the man elected to the post had none of these qualities.
     President Obama has defined his presidency in terms of one of the most contentious in history, not because of the opposition, but because of his own obstinate and rigid adherence to his Leftist ideology. But even as an ideologue he has shown very little initiative and work ethic. According to the historical record, and accounts of those working in support roles within the White House for decades, most Presidents of the United States generally began their day by 7am and were on the job well into the early evening. Our current president begins his normal day well after 9 o' clock and is finished by mid to late afternoon. In fact, President Obama has spent more of the people's time, graciously given to him to resolve the nations issues, playing golf and on vacation than he has spent working on the number one issue plaguing this nation for the last five years, the economy.
     President Obama has also spent more taxpayer money on the personal "needs" of the first family than any other president in history. In fact, he has spent more of the taxpayers hard earned money on himself and his family than the combined total spent on supporting the first families of any six other nations. The total amount of U.S. taxpayer money spent on supporting the first family in 2012 was 1.4 billion dollars. An astronomical amount, especially when compared to the Royal Family of Great Britain, who only spent the equivalent of 56 million dollars of their nations hard earned money on their personal needs. Furthermore, the money spent on the Obamas was borrowed money that future generations will have to repay. President Obama has borrowed more money per average U.S. household than the average U.S. household makes in earned income per year.
     This President has worked hard at one thing since taking the oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, completely ignoring that very constitution every chance he gets. Mr. Obama has also worked very hard campaigning, so hard in fact that he has spent more time campaigning since becoming president than he has working at his desk in the Oval Office. But then, it is hard to community organize from behind a desk, that kind of hard work is best left to someone who actually understands the meaning of the word 'work', not our current Slacker In Chief.
    

The Stupid Things That Leftists Believe

     The difference between the Left and the Right is not so much a difference of opinion, with both paths leading to the same result. Nor is the difference simply between two meritorious schools of thought as a means of creating the most prosperous and free society. The real difference between the Right and the Left is that the former bases its conclusions and beliefs on the experience of history guided by intelligence, the latter bases its entire stock and trade in emotional stupidity.
     The first stupidest thing that Leftists believe is that even if criminals were somehow prevented from obtaining firearms, that they would stop committing crimes and society would be safer and the crime rate would drop precipitously. Leftist mistakenly believe that crime is a function of an inanimate object called a firearm and not the result of those who actually commit it.
     The second stupidest thing that Leftists believe is that when government removes money from the private economy through higher taxes and regulations, the private economy will somehow grow bigger. This special form of addition by subtraction is analogous to removing gasoline from your vehicle's fuel tank and expecting it to go further.
     The third stupidest thing that Leftists believe is that if the United States reduced its military presence and armaments, that evil men around the world would suddenly become good and not want to attack us. The Left seems to think that we have enemies because we have a strong military that is well-equipped, but those things mitigate the presence of enemies and make personal liberty possible.
     The fourth stupidest thing that Leftists believe is that raising taxes, especially in a slow growth economy, will increase revenue to the federal government and that cutting taxes will always cause the opposite effect. History, economic realities and common sense proves that just the opposite is true. Taxes are generated from private sector economic activity, not as Leftists believe, from government allowing those in the private sector to simply keep less of the government's money.
      The fifth stupidest thing that Leftists believe is that by adding the suffix "fetus" to the word "human" it magically transforms a person into nothing more than a malignant growth to be removed and disposed. Leftists fail to see that medically and scientifically a human fetus, if left to develop, will become a fully functioning human being and there is no chance it will become a petunia or a poodle. The fetus, which for all intents and purposes is a baby, has a unique DNA from his mother. So he is not simply just a part of his mother's body, like her arm or leg, but is a unique human life. Leftists also want to change the medical and biological definition of life by saying that a fertilized human egg in the womb does not meet the requirement, which it most certainly does.  
      The sixth stupidest thing that Leftists believe is that poverty creates crime. If this were true, then the crime rate would have been at one of its all time highs during the Great Depression of the 1930s, it actually was at a historic low during that period. This stupid thing that Leftists believe goes hand-in-hand with another stupid thing Leftists believe, i.e., that poverty creates wealth. The Left thinks if they impoverish the wealthy that this action will somehow enrich the poor.
     This list of stupid things that Leftists believe is by no means all inclusive, I'm sure that regular readers of this blog can conceive of many others. It is meant to illustrate that government policies based on emotion and irrational conclusions are not the best way to ensure prosperity and freedom. That is why leftism must be defeated and not simply an ideology with which to be compromised. For how does one compromise with those whose aim it is to destroy the very foundations of personal liberty and the principles and values upon which this great nation was founded?   

"Coming Out" And The Culture Of Celebrity

     I am a 50 year old blogger, I am white and I am an avid golfer. I realize that "coming out" like this takes courage, but no one else was being first, so I had to step up and do it. I realize this places me in a position to be ridiculed, mocked and discriminated against for my love of the game of golf. But I am willing to suffer the slings and arrows of golf-haters everywhere in order to give hope and courage to all those other avid golfers who have wanted to "come out", but were afraid. My goal in "coming out" is to show that someone can be a professional blogger, and still be an avid golfer. My fervent hope is that someday we will live in a country where there will be no prejudice against avid golfers.
     Yesterday, NBA center Jason Collins made a similar statement to the one above, announcing his homosexuality. Making him the first active player in any of the four major professional sports to be openly gay. Mr. Collins, in part, said that he wished someone would have done it first, but since no one did, it was up to him to be first. My question is, "Why?" Why is it necessary that anyone in professional sports, or in any other profession for that matter, publicly "come out" as gay? It is a phenomenon that exists in no other aspect of life. People do not routinely feel compelled to "come out" as anything else, e.g, as heterosexual, over-sexual, under-sexual, an anxiety sufferer, clinically depressed, joyful, happy, over-weight or myriad other states in which a human may find themselves.
     I think the "coming out" phenomenon is symptomatic of a culture of celebrity that encourages people to share intimate details of their lives publicly for the effect of feeling important, relevant and validated. I have seen this phenomenon in spades on social media. People routinely post personal details of their lives on Facebook or Twitter for complete strangers to read. Details that 20 years ago would not have been discussed with strangers met at the grocery store or anywhere else in public. I think it is the result of a culture that teaches validation from without instead of from within. Those who are secure in their own skin do not need constant feedback from family, friends and total strangers to make them feel relevant and affirmed. I think that the search for affirmation from outside sources is a sign that one can not come to terms with their own conscious and therefore must override it with outside influences.
     So why "come out?" It is a sign that a person does not feel special enough to his fellow human beings, even when that person is an NBA center or other celebrity. And it is a direct result of the culture of "Acknowledge me for what I am, not for what I've accomplished." Whether a person's accomplishments are great, as in the case of Jason Collins, or almost non-existent, as in the case of our current president, they really don't matter. Our culture now says that irrelevant physical attributes or life style choices are the things that make a person worthy of acknowledgement.

The Obama Doctrine Of Weakness

     Recently fifty seven Islamic groups with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the father organization to Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbolla and others, sent a letter to the Obama administration demanding that all negative references to Islam be taken out of FBI and military training material on counter-terrorism. The Obama administration, of course, obliged and even fired all the counter-radical Islamic instructors. This action would have been analogous to President Roosevelt ordering the United States military not to shoot at German soldiers during World War II.
     It is frightening to see the security of this great nation being unnecessarily put at risk, all for the sake of not offending the very enemy whose aim it is to kill as many Americans as possible and destroy our way of life. President Obama has already reduced our nuclear arsenal by more than half and has used the sequester as an excuse to keep navy ships in port that should be patrolling in the Persian gulf and other hot spots around the world. One of the core elements necessary required of a President of the United States is his willingness to project U.S. military capabilities when and where they are needed. President Obama and his band of misfit democrats have a willful dislike and distrust of U.S. military prowess, and combined with their unwillingness to acknowledge their own country as the most net positive contributor to the human condition in history, makes for a toxic stew that puts in jeopardy the very cornerstone of freedom itself.
     I do not intend to imply that the United States should carelessly and capriciously project the power of the U.S. military as simply a means to bring fear to other parts of the world. It should be employed to bring liberty's hope to the oppressed and the iron resolve of justice to the oppressors. For it is only through an effective projection of U.S. military superiority that the best opportunity exists to avoid the exercise of that superiority. Conservatives do not believe in creating and maintaining the most overwhelming military on the planet in order to conquer other lands, but to defend this sentinel of liberty and prosperity and allow its light to shine to every dark corner of the world where the human spirit cries out to be free.
     President Obama's foreign policy impotence, I believe by design, was recently demonstrated by his unwillingness to take a more deliberate stand on Syria after they crossed the administration's red line of using chemical weapons on their own people. The administration has also been absent without leave with regards to Iran's nuclear program. Mahoud Ahmadinejad has had free reign to manipulate the irrelevant and useless United Nations, while at the same time making the president of the United States look like a clown. Mr. Obama has also done nothing to quiet the saber-rattling from North Korea's Kim Jong-un, which as anyone knows is done to test the resolve of your enemy before you spend military capital.
     The measure of a nation's resolve to avoid the use of its military strength by projecting its power to would-be attackers, is its willingness to do so. The test of that nation's military prowess is how well it can defend itself when attacked. Since our current president does not seem willing to engage in the former, let us pray that our nation has the strength to prove the latter.

Where's The Hope?

     Clara Peller, the old woman in the 1980s Wendy's commercial, in reference to the competitors hamburgers, would indignantly spout, "Where's the beef?" For anyone who remembers that commercial, I am sure you can remember just over four years ago when Barack Obama promised the nation hope and change. Now the reality must be faced, by those with the courage to do so, that all we have is a change towards less hope. Now that Mr. Obama is solidly into ruining a second term with more of the same obstinate authoritarian policies, those of good faith must make an honest assessment of his promise to deliver on hope and change and what went wrong.
     One of the essential virtues that would have turned what has become the biggest failure in presidential history into one of the greatest presidencies, was recently illustrated by President Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. At the launch of his library and research center, former President Bush gave an inspired speech and it was striking how many times he used the term 'We' as opposed to his successor who is constantly using the opposite pronoun, 'I'. It was also refreshing to hear someone so succinctly and unabashedly extol the great virtues of America.
     It may seem petty to pick apart President Obama's use of one pronoun over another, but that one word expresses volumes about the character of the man and why he has failed so miserably. Barack Obama is the self-contained president and he looks at the United States Congress as an impedance to the great work that only he can accomplish. I have mentioned before in this blog that President Reagan had a sign on his desk that read, "It is amazing what a man can accomplish when he doesn't care who gets the credit." It is President Obama's strict adherence to the antithesis of this sentiment that has caused more pain for the American people and a legacy of mediocrity and failure for his administration. To Witt: just today the first quarter Gross Domestic Product was announced, and it slumped in at 2.5 percent. This pathetic growth comes as we approach the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the so-called economic recovery. A recovery that has been more analogous to a patient being kept alive on life support. In this case, the life support is Ben Bernanke printing money at an alarming rate and using it to buy government bonds to drive money into the stock market.
     I do not have any problem with Barack Obama being a Democrat, if he had truly wanted to solve the nation's problems and set it on a path back to prosperity. He also could have taken the nation past racial division instead of using it for his and his party's political gain at every turn. Truly, history handed Barack Obama an opportunity to do great things and in the process secure himself a place beside some of our nation's greatest presidents. He instead chose the pronoun 'I' instead of 'We' and devolved the presidency into a fortress of derision aimed at his political opponents befitting the best community organizer but unworthy of the President of the United States.

There Goes The Judge

     There was a popular saying in the 1970s of "Here come the judge!" Well, the most popular saying by the millennial generation is, "Don't judge me, man!" But it is not only themselves they wish to exempt from judgement for everything from their appearance to their behavior, but every behavior engaged in by anyone. And while there seems to be a certain freedom that millennials comfort themselves with that borders on anarchy, it has lead to the very situation in which they find themselves living in their parents basement, unemployed or under-employed.
     The creation of the more non-judgemental society (except in the case of Conservatives whose only sin is to preach self-reliance, smaller government and individual responsibility) began in the 1960s with the sexual revolution. It was then that women were convinced that it was okay to succumb to the desires of their male counterparts' over active libidos. With the new sexual mores entrenched in the culture, there was a fracturing of civil society because less importance was placed on following a moral code. This resulted in the natural progression of outcomes of a non-moral culture. These outcomes included, but were not limited to, a higher out-of-wedlock birth rate, more drug use which lead to higher crime, more poverty and less dependence on self and more on government.
     By not judging undesirable behavior we are fulfilling the late Daniel Patrick Moynahan's observation that as a society we engage in "defining deviancy down." We normalize devient behavior on our journey to accepting even more deviant behavior as normal. This was aptly illustrated recently by New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, when he said that attacks like the one in Boston last week were just part of the new normal with which we now live. Those that live in the toxic ether of Leftism, like governor Cuomo, would rather accept innocent Americans being slaughtered by radical Islamists than to admit that there is such a thing as radical Islam, that, after all would be judging. And in the minds of Leftists, being seen as judgemental is the worse sin one can committ .
    The Bible says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." That instruction was meant to focus the individuals attention on his own behavior, not as a motto upon which to build a society. That biblical quote also refers to the eternal disposition of some one else's soul, not their earthly behavior. God does not expect us to accept deviant behavior as normal, that is why he gave us the Ten Commandments. For that matter, the entire Bible is an instruction manual on how to live a pious and moral life, not only for the individual, but for the community at large. That can not be achieved without making judgements about which behavior is acceptable and which is not.
     I believe the downward spiral in our culture is a direct result of the Lefts attempt to create a non-judgemental society, and the government dependence that breeds. There is no greater way to increase the need for government than to decrease a sense of morality in the culture. Morality is the direct result of judgement, and without it, the default basis for a society is government, which has proven itself to be an amoral concept. That is why the founders of this great nation chose to limit government and give more freedom to religiosity. They knew that pious judgement by religiously free people would build the kind of moral and prosperous society that a mere secular government could not.

Apple Computer And The Culture Of Over Stimulation

     The forty percent decline in the share price of Apple stock in the last six months is illustrative of the culture of over stimulation. The precipitous decline in Apple stock is not because of the company's fundamentals. Its earnings report this Tuesday exceeded analysts' expectations, it is selling iPhones and iPads like hot cakes and it has 140 billion dollars in cash. Its share price has declined because of a so-called lack of innovation. This ludicrous refrain was, of course, joined by CNBCs Jim Kramer. A man who alternately over the last few years said Apple was headed for disaster from which it would never return (2008), and he did not see any reason this company's share price would not rise above $1500 a share (2012). Leaving aside the useful idiot puppet Jim Kramer, I think there is something more at play with Apple's share price that says more about our culture than about stock valuations.
     I have heard many stock analysts say that Apple did not woo them with the announcement of a great new product release along the lines of the iPod or iPhone. And they knock Apple for only improving on products like the iPhone and iPad, instead of developing some new wow product that will knock every ones socks off. First of all, no company in the industry is innovating much right now, and secondly, what is wrong with making improvements to products already being sold. Car companies and others have been doing that for decades. We have come a long way in a short time with regards to technology and the entire industry is now improving on what has already been developed. That is not to say there are not new products in the pipeline at Apple and other companies that will make the child-like analysts pee their pants with excitement, but we will all have to wait to see those innovations. In the mean time, is it not enough for Apple, or any other company, to have a strong balance sheet with gobs of cash and products that everyone wants?
     The culture of over stimulation that makes ostensibly adult people act like children on Christmas morning who only got a new fully loaded bicycle instead of a trip to the moon, can be seen not only in the undervalued share price of Apple Computer, but throughout our modern society. As a society we are so use to the spectacular, whether in movies, video games or real life events, that we constantly need greater and greater thrills to satisfy our need to be stimulated. So we no longer think it is satisfactory for a company like Apple to continuously improve their products that are gobbled up in historic volumes by a gadget-hungry public, they also have to reinvent the wheel every six months.     
     The culture of over stimulation is what makes many people buy ever more ridiculously larger screen TVs. Nothing is more out of place and obtrusive than a 5 foot TV screen in the average sized living room. Maybe Apple's next big new product innovation should be a way to transform your entire house into one big TV screen. Now that would give those pissy pants analysts a reason to be wowed.