Peter Principle or Puppet President?

I have to admit that my opinion of Barack Obama has changed slightly from his candidacy to when he first took office to now.  At the beginning of his campaign, I viewed him as an inexperienced, but articulate and charismatic man who had no resume that would recommend him to the highest office in the land.  I was of the same opinion as his primary adversary, Joe Biden when he said, "the presidency is no place for on-the-job training."  The man had no applicable experience.

As the campaign wore on and Obama seemed to unexplainably gain the momentum, I began to learn about his mentors and associations: Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Reverend Wright to name a few.  Any one of these guys could have sunk another candidacy...but Obama seemed untouchable.  His campaign was also a cash machine.  He was raising money at a record pace.  It turned out that much of the money came from left-wing organizations with ties to billionaire George Soros, a man known for making his money by manipulating markets and devaluating currency.  Now I began to wonder if Obama was a "Manchurian Candidate."

Then, when he was unbelievably elected and took office, he came on strong, moving at a record pace to try to bring about sweeping change. Bail-outs, payoffs, czars and health care...hurry, hurry, hurry, he want's it done right away.  No time to waste.  Wow, I thought, maybe he is really a dangerous ideologue.  He does have a lot of radical learning in his background.  He has made statements about the Constitution being flawed because it is "a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.."  He bemoans the fact that the Supreme Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."  Maybe he really was the ring leader, the one with the plan.

In recent months Obama seems to lost his momentum and direction.  He seems to keep himself busy in constant campaign mode while Pelosi, Reid, his cabinet and czars seem to do all the heavy lifting.  Even the decision to bring the Guantanamo terrorists to New York City for trial doesn't seem to have been his.  His Attorney General, Eric Holder, claims that he made the decision and just informed the president of it.  Obama has spent his time on TV, jetting around the world and bringing lavish parties back to the White House. He has played more golf in 10 months than Bush played in eight years. But he is not leading the nation.  He has not offered any solid plans of his own, and seems to be lost when he goes off the teleprompter.  One of his most important duties, that of Commander-in-Chief, seems only to get limited attention.  While our troops are in harm's way and the generals are asking for more troops, the president takes months to "deliberate"and has hardly any time to meet with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander in Afghanistan.

In the prologue of his book he writes "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." He also says "my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete."  He never ran a state, a company or even a committee.  He has no experience in leadership...in making hard decisions. So I have to wonder, is this the ultimate example of the Peter Principle, where this charismatic guy gets promoted well beyond his competency level?  Or, is he simply the right puppet for the job?  In the primaries, Joe Biden  said Obama was "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.  I mean, that's a storybook, man."  Was he just the right sort of "blank screen" that certain political factions believed could get elected?  Was he the young, good looking family man that would make a good figurehead for their leftist agendas?  Either way, I think, the results are the same.

It’s the Economy, Stupid.

With all the talk of socialized medicine and corporate bailouts as of late, it may have slipped your attention that the United States of America itself is on the verge of needing a bailout. Even with the Federal deficit at historical highs and continuing to grow, our political leaders are continuing to spend money like there’s no tomorrow. It’s like an addiction; they just can’t seem to stop themselves.

In a November 22, 2009 article, the New York Times reports “With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.” Let me say that again…$700 Billion just to service the debt, not to pay it down, just paying the service on the debt.

The national treasure is not just gone…squandered away by greedy, unscrupulous politicians…it’s been replaced by a mountain of IOUs that we now have to pay back to banks and other countries like China. This is no mere inconvenience, but a matter of utmost national security. If we fail to pay back our debts, we will lose the good faith and credit of the world community that took so many years to build. This will hurt our ability to trade, to assert influence and project power around the world. We will be greatly weakened.

And what is government’s solution to this crisis? Let’s spend more money. This has gotten to a point where it’s even too much for the very left-wing Saturday Night Live writers (remember, Al Franken was an SNL writer). In their recent skit depicting a press conference between President Obama and Chinese president Hu Jintao, President Jintao says, through his interpreter, “You know, as I listen to you, I am noticing that each of your plans to save money involves spending even more money. This does not inspire confidence.”

But, Mr. Obama asks us to have patience over the economy. "Even though it will take time, I can promise you this: we are moving in the right direction; that the steps we are taking are helping," he said in his weekly address. Patience? Patience while they continue to move down paths that got us into this mess in the first place? Well, I guess if out-of-control spending is what got us here, we should keep it up to fix the problem, right? What is the definition of insanity again?

The health care issue may elicit strong emotions on both sides, but the plain fact is that we cannot afford the entitlements we’re providing now, let alone taking on more. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid are already nearly bankrupt. None of the niceties are possible if we have no economy left. Our ship of state has a sizable leak. We must turn it around and head back for safer shores before it’s too late…before we reach the point of no return. This will not be easy. We will have to make cuts…just like any of our families or employers would have to in a similar situation. But the survival of our way of life is at stake. 

Government should be taking firm, decisive steps to shore up the economy.  Make cuts across the board in all departments.  Reduce spending and stimulate the economy the only way that has ever worked...tax cuts.  Instead they think of new was to spend OUR money.  Enough is enough!

One more line from the SNL Skit: "How exactly is extending health-care coverage to 30 million people going to save you money?" Hu asked.

"I don't know," answers Obama.

Of War and Civil Justice-Follow-up

Terence P. Jeffrey of CNS News has a pretty good article laying out some of the history and background of the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad in civilian court.

Excerpt:

In a May 21 speech at the National Archives, Obama himself said: “Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.”

Of War and Civil Justice

It is, in my opinion, a tremendous mistake to move Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, confessed master mind of the 9-11 attacks, into the federal court system for trial. This sets a disturbing and dangerous precedent. If enemy combatants in a war are to be treated as if they deserve the full rights and privileges of citizens of the United States, then we are certainly entering into uncharted territory.

Attorney General Eric Holder said "For over 200 years our nation has relied upon a faithful adherence to the rule of law. Once again, we will ask our legal system in two venues to answer that call."  But this move, in fact, ignores the precedent of the past 200 years. Prisoners of war have never been treated in this way. Certainly there are rules and international agreements that dictate the treatment of these detainees, but the Geneva Convention even distinguishes between Lawful (uniformed soldiers) and Unlawful (those not in uniform) Enemy Combatants…and Unlawful Combatants have very few, if any, rights. They have never, though, been given the right to a trial in federal court. Justice for these prisoners has always been handled through military tribunals.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution speaks to the issue of who is covered under our legal system. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.” Foreign enemy combatants are definitely not covered under this section.

What are the implications of this action? These prisoners were taken captive during military actions, not through civil investigation. The role of the military in the time of war is to kill people and break things. Taking captives is only done as part of that process. We cannot turn soldiers, in the heat of battle, into police officers, requiring them to meet rules of evidence and to properly mirandize their captives. If prisoners of war are now to be considered under the jurisdiction of the court, will the military have to obtain a warrants before they move on the enemy? Will the failure to meet the requirements of civil justice mentioned above mean that cases can be thrown out and enemies set free? There is no precedent in law for this…no blueprint.

There must be lines between military and civil justice. This lack of separation has been blamed for not capturing Osama bin Laden when we had a chance before 9-11. As Lisa Myers of NBC Nightly News reported on March 17, 2004 when speaking of missed opportunities, “A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.” The War on Terror cannot be treated as a law enforcement problem. If it is, we will move too slowly to prevent future attacks. Captured terrorists will simply clam up when interrogated because they know they now have “rights.”

This action must be challenged strongly. The President of the United States or his administration does not have the constitutional authority to change the law and overthrow precedent by fiat…which is what they have done here.

If They Can Do It For You…They Can Do It To You.

At the dawning of the Age of the Nanny State, where the citizens of the United States of America increasingly look to the federal government to solve all of their problems and redress all of their grievances,  we need to stop and ask,  at what cost.  What are you personally willing to give up to have the government provide the things you want?  Are you willing to let the government set the limit on the amount of money you can earn?  Is it okay if they tell you what you can say or write?  Do you think the government should have the right to tell you what you can eat or what you have to spend your money on?


“Why there oughtta be a law!” -  Too many people today are willing to turn to government force to compel others to do things they think is right.  It all seems good if “those people” are being forced to do something or give up something…”Those people”, after all,  deserve it.  What we must all remember, though, is that reigns of power always change.  It may seem okay to limit the compensation of those rich corporate types…but who decides what is rich?  And what if a new President or Congress decides that they really know what’s best for all job categories?  What if they tell you that you make too much for the job you have…after-all, similar workers in India don’t make near as much as you do.  Does this seem unlikely?  Why?  Once you give government the power  to do it to one group, what is to stop them from doing it to you?

I remember when I was a kid, back when the ACLU may still have had some credibility, there were discussions about how the ACLU could defend the Ku Klux Klan or American Nazis or some other such offensive group.  The answer was, in effect, that all people’s rights to free speech, regardless of how much you may disagree with them, have to be defended.  If government can abridge their rights they can also abridge yours.  This was a noble cause.  Now, however, the ACLU seems to be more involved in helping to abridge the rights of others than defending them…but that’s a whole other post.

The Founders were very wary of too much government power.  This is why they framed the Constitution with all of its checks and balances.  As Patrick Henry said, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”  Constitutional restraint seems to be a fading principle with our lawmakers today.  When Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi was recently asked where the constitutional authorization to order Americans to purchase health insurance came from, her answer was simply “Are you serious? Are you serious?”  How dare anyone question the queen’s authority?

So, when you are tempted to cede more power to government, stop and think.  Though you may trust the President or Congress today, what happens after the next election…will you trust the next group.  And remember that if the government can do something for you, they can also do it to you.

Rebels With Out a Cause

It amuses me that the same left wing types who fancied themselves as rebels in the '60s and '70s, who railed against "the establishment" are now the supporters of big-government programs and policies.  These are the type of people who cheered the Cuban revolutionaries, protested the military-industrial complex and said don't trust anyone over thirty. They now are willing to trust the government establishment to unprecedented levels with control of their lives.  They blindly believe the big-government propaganda, despite any evidence to the contrary.  They are no longer rebels, if they ever were, but establishment drones.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are rebels in the mold of the Founders.  They hold government suspect and choose to keep governmental power limited.  They protest when government exceeds its limits or intrudes into private affairs.  Conservatives do not expect government to take care of them, they choose to make their own way.  They value rugged individualism.  The true Conservative does not kowtow to elected officials of any party, they know that these office holders are meant to be our servants, not our masters.

The Left accuses Conservatives of being robots who blindly follow the direction of their right-wing leaders, while they themselves continue to spew talking points directly from the Democratic party and the main-stream, establishment media.  They say they want "change," but they are not even sure what change is really being offered by their government masters.  They display the blind devotion to their party, regardless of how many are caught in crimes or other indiscretions, usually reserved to religious cults...and they think themselves rebels.  Pretty funny, really.