America: The Clash of Politics and a National Identity

The recent election this November has swept the republicans back into power in the House of Representatives. I'm not sure that they've been given free rein by the public. They're being sent out on a test drive. If Americans like the ride, and the quality of work they'll more than likely hold legislative power in 2012. We need to set politics aside and avoid the endless arguments that divide republicans from democrats and liberals from conservatives and look at the real underlying issues. I believe that for many of us, President Obama's policies and the heavy handed legislative maneuvers of Nancy Pelosi's Congress have left us wondering just what our national identity has historically been and what we want it to become. Ageless questions regarding our republic have simmered to the surface. Thoughts such as: How do we view our nation's past? How do we view the United States in its relation to the world? Do we want equality of condition or equality of opportunity? Do we want an expansive or a limited federal government? Do individuals look at outside influences rather than internally when analyzing their own success or lack thereof?

Many of us are concerned about our national debt. Some of us waste time blaming this or that party or a specific politician. Both parties have operated our government via deficit spending. If a family or a business is to reap the benefits of success, they must operate in the black. Why shouldn't our government be held to the same standard? Many of us have suckled for too long at the government tit of entitlement. Far too many of us also believe that it is the government's role to provide us with an equality of existence rather than an equality of opportunity. Life is tough and there are no guarantees. Government's only responsibility is to do its very best to level the playing field and then stand back and allow personal endeavor and endless fortitude on an individual level to play out. We are not all equal in drive or temperament so, how can government possibly make us equal? All one needs to do is look at a current world map and juxtapose it with a map from the 1980s. The last century's great experiment in socialism was an abysmal failure. The Soviet Union and the socialistic governments in the Warsaw Pact are now defunct. These governments operated in the red and tried to mandate social equality which resulted in the stifling of personal endeavor and socio-political doldrums.

Each of us is the captain of our own ship and therefore responsible for steering it into safe or into dangerous waters. Therein lies the question; where do we draw the line separating personal responsibility from government subsistence? Unfortunately, many families have over extended their fiduciary resources and have fallen into bankruptcy. Many of these very same families are looking to place the blame for their lot on others. No politician or a political party has held a gun to any citizen's head and mandated that they go into debt. It is the responsibility of each of us to live within our means. No one doubts that there are families in need who are suffering from consequences outside of their control and that they deserve a helping hand to bail the water out of their boat but; there are also many amongst us who have spent like drunken sailors with money that they didn't have and are now looking for free handouts. There is a real life lesson to be learned in our current recession. Each of us rises or falls by our own due diligence. We cannot nor should we expect the government to rescue us from our own bad decisions. Doing so will ensure that you never learn from your mistakes. Life decisions are full of unforeseen consequences and how we deal with these bumps in the road establishes our identity. Individualism is a distinctive American trait and with it comes responsibility. Our Bill of Rights protects the rights of the individual but it is the responsibility of the individual to reach for the heights that only he or she can identify. All of us need to do a whole lot less finger pointing and spend more time conducting a self analysis of our situation. Doing so will be constructive on both an individual and a national level.

De Oppresso Liber

Post Election 2010 Viewpoint

We're finally freed from incessant political advertisements and the landscape in Washington D.C. will change this January. We all know that the Republicans will take control of the House while the Democrats have retained control of the Senate. So, what will the new power structure in our nation's capitol mean for all of us? Some pundits have stated that both sides will have to start working together. Others say that the influence of the Tea Party will force the Republicans to remain combative with the executive branch. None of us know for certain just what will transpire but it is sure to be interesting.

The way I see it, we're looking at relative gridlock for the next two years. Why? This president and the remaining members of Congress from the democratic party are far left of center. If you listened closely to the comments of Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, and President Obama, none of them seemed to think that they had over reached in their endeavors to institute their value system on America. Obviously, it would be difficult for anyone to easily come to terms with their massive defeat last Tuesday nor can one expect them to capitulate on their value system but one should expect them to realize that they had misread their proxy from the American public. On the other hand, the Republicans should not assume that they've been given an open ended vote of confidence from the electorate. Americans are a fickle bunch and the GOP is on a short leash.

The way I see it, the voting public wants jobs, jobs, and more jobs. We aren't buying into the new health care legislation, and we're worried about deficit spending. These are the issues that swept so many members of the GOP into office. We're also tired of our nation's power brokers being apologetic for our nation's turbulent history. While we might have warts, we're a proud people who have always found a way to correct our country's mistakes. Does this mean that we're better than other countries? Of course not but, we shouldn't engage in self humiliation either.

So, I have no great hope that much will get done in the next two years and once again, the public will have to make a choice in 2012. Nobody knows what will transpire until then but President Obama most assuredly has his work cut out for him. Will he move to the center? Doubtful. He really believes that his views are centrist in nature. As a creature of academia, he has led an insulated life. Academics exist in the relatively protected world of hypothesis. It is not until you venture out into the muck of reality and get dirty that you put your world view to the test. Unfortunately for us, our president is experiencing this while on the job. Gridlock is what is coming but you needn't fear it. Our two parties have seldom worked together and we shouldn't expect it now. Gridlock leads to checks and balances and these prevent either philosophical viewpoint from completely dominating our landscape. Most of us live somewhere along the fence-line that separates the left and the right and we don't like it when we're forcibly moved in either direction from the middle. The next two years are sure to be an exciting ride!

De Oppresso Liber

Liberalism and the Fallacy of Open Mindedness

This past week has highlighted the fallacy behind the supposition that liberals are open minded and receptive to opinions that differ from their own. Progressives have long touted the view that unlike conservatives, they are willing to accept beliefs different than their own. Of course, this view subliminally presupposes that conservatives are therefore close minded. In reality, those individuals who live on the far left or far right are not open to opinions unlike theirs. Fortunately, most of us live somewhere between these two extremes.

Bill O'Reilly was a guest this week on The View. The discussion of the mosque near ground zero came up and the conversation got quite heated. Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar left the stage. They did not like the fact that Bill O'Reilly refused to change his position that the world has a problem with Muslim violence targeted against non Muslims. Later in the week, Juan Williams was on with O'Reilly and stated that he had an internal feeling of fear whenever he was on an aircraft and noticed individuals dressed in Muslim garb. National Public Radio fired him for this remark.

So, if liberals are truly receptive to opinions that differ from their own, why would both of these instances have occurred? Some claim that it is political correctness gone amuck. While this may be true, I believe that hard core liberals are no more open minded than the hard line conservatives that liberals like to condemn or belittle. It is time that those of us of a more conservative point of view begin to challenge liberals on this point. They are not any more open minded than me and I refuse to relinquish the philosophical high ground to them. Opinionated bigots exist on both sides of the political spectrum. When either side raises its voice, stomps off like school children or uses its power to professionally harm someone with whom they differ, they hurt the progress of healthy debate. I say, shame on Goldberg, Behar, and NPR!

De Oppresso Liber

Politics in 2010

Politics in America is alive and well in 2010. It looks like the Democrats will suffer major losses this November. Passions are flaring on all sides during this mid-term frenzied election season as each side of the political spectrum fights to gain an edge with the electorate. Unfortunately, those amongst us who live on the outer edge of political philosophy are laying claim to the electorate while those of us who consider ourselves to be centrists are currently a hot commodity.

Some pundits like to say that the current political environment is particularly vicious however; our form of politics has always been a nasty game. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson maintained a feud for several years after Adams lost to Jefferson in 1800. Other pundits, particularly those on the right, like to glowingly look back to the amicable relations of our founding fathers. For example, Glen Beck likes to shower praise on George Washington. Yes, without Washington's steady hand, our nascent union would have surely perished however; Washington is also the only president who led the federal army against the citizenry. In 1791, the United States government issued a tax on whiskey. This action led to the development of the Whiskey Rebellion. Small farmers in western Virginia rose up in anger against a federal excise tax on whiskey and protests broke out in numerous hamlets. In 1794, President Washington led the army against these farmers. The rebellion broke down with the arrest of several of its leaders by U.S. marshals prior to the arrival of the federal army.

So, the national argument over taxation has existed from the very beginning of our nation and it continues to this day. The Adams/Jefferson feud highlights the continuing political philosophical debate that we go through during every election. The way I see it, this election is about maintaining the status quo or sending a message to Washington D.C. The Congress adjourned without extending the Bush tax cuts so, many of us are now left wondering what our tax burden will be in the future. I'm an Independent so I don't care much what political party the hopeful politician belongs to. I do care about deficit spending, jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs. I didn't give a hoot about health care reform, beer summits, or global warming. In my view, this President and this Congress have failed miserably. If you write rubber checks, over extend your credit cards, are behind on your car and or, mortgage payments then you'll have no problem keeping the Democrats in power. If you maintain a tight budget and have a good credit rating you'll more than likely cast a ballot to remove the majority party from power.

This election isn't about who has said "no". It is about the fact that the Democrats have been in charge of Congress since 2006 and President Obama has had 19 months to lead. The bottom line question is, are you better off now than you were in 2006 or 2008? I'm sure that if you're like me, the answer will be a resounding NO! I hope that the electorate remains strong and sends a no nonsense message to Washington D.C. You needn't worry about Nancy Pelosi. Unlike us common folk, she has quite a spread in Napa Valley so; she'll be just fine attending fancy parties with her upper crust cronies sipping an expensive pinot noir and proclaiming to relate to us Wal-Mart shoppers.

De Oppresso Liber

The Democratic Party, Liberalism, and November 2010

I am having a great time watching and listening to liberal commentators and friends who seem to be in a free fall of despair as they begin to face the reality of the impending mid-term elections. Much like a rabid animal, they have begun to snap at invisible demons that surround them. Of course, blaming Bush for all of our country's ailments remains a perennial favorite but; they've now added the GOP and the Tea Party to their list. Noticeably absent for blame are the actions of Congress under the tutelage of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid since 2006, as well as, the efforts of President Obama and his staff since 2008. Seems to me like a convenient justification for avoiding a bit of self analysis.

Unemployment remained at or near 5% for seven out of eight years during the presidency of George W. Bush. The democrats took control of congress in 2006 and the economy went belly up in 2007. Is this a coincidence or, may the Democrats bear some of the blame for our economic calamity? I sure didn't see much willingness from Reid or Pelosi to work with the Bush administration during their final two years in office. Now, all we hear from the Left is that the Republicans are merely the party of "no" and have been nothing more than obstructionists. Their accusations come across as hypocritical. It is dumbfounding to me that they cannot accept responsibility for the ineffectiveness of the democratically led Congress and presidency. They try to protect their position by saying that Bush had so screwed things up that there is simply no way that this triumvirate of Democrat leaders could repair the damage in two years. Newsflash: The American public isn't buying into their excuse.

At the risk of plagiarism, let me provide those on the Left with an "Inconvenient Truth". Under their watch the economy has worsened. Government has expanded and the lot of the common man has shown no improvement. According to the Obama team, unemployment would cap out at 8%. Guess what, it still hovers at close to 10%. It was recently disclosed by a non-partisanship group that 1 in 7 Americans now live below the poverty line. Home foreclosures are at an all time high. Government stimulus dollars have been largely ineffectual. For example, Los Angeles received close to 8.5 million dollars in federal aid and yet, they've created only 55 jobs. The Democrats have been in power for 4 years in Congress and 2 years in the White House. The floodlight of reality has exposed for all to see that their policies have done almost nothing to pull us out of this recession. You can run but you cannot hide from the trail of useless breadcrumbs that you've left in your wake.

Americans are a notoriously restless people and we do not quietly accept failure. Thanks to the failures of Reid, Pelosi, and President Obama, we've seen the rise of the Tea Party and the ascendancy of the increasingly boisterous Independent voter. The Democratic Party has had more than enough time to get things right and they simply haven't gotten it done so, much like the Republicans in 2006, many of them will be seeking new employment this November. Our democratic republic might be a messy process but, it is strangely effectual at making things right. We are a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people so, if you are left of center stop complaining if your ideas have started to fall on deaf ears for we've already seen enough. If you are to the right of center and should you get elected, don't become over confident because the masses despise it when our nation drifts too far in either ideological direction.

De Oppresso Liber

Liberalism in 2010

I spent a good part of the Labor Day weekend trading political jibes with my sister in law. Like me, she is on Facebook and she often uses that platform to proudly proclaim her admiration of liberal political philosophies. She believes in her heart that she is progressive, open minded, and socially inclusive yet, when challenged, her actions betray the very essence of her supposed belief system. She becomes arrogant, aggressive, and often condescending with her replies to challenges from a conservative point of view. Therein lies the problem with the "hypothetical" view of open armed liberalism. In reality, the staunch liberal is no more open to opposing philosophies than their opponent which they often label as the "close minded" conservative. I've spent the last few days contemplating our miniature war of words and I've come to a couple of conclusions.

Liberals are running scared. As the elections of November 2010 come ever closer, the ardent believers in liberalism are speaking out in a shotgun like fashion by spraying unfounded accusations against the American public. They are doing so because they cannot understand why their point of view has not been met with total agreement. They truly believe that President Obama was elected with an open ended mandate to change the social landscape of our nation. Such a belief is erroneous. Barack Obama was elected to fix the economy and after 20 months we've traveled nowhere so it is not surprising that the public is pissed off. We didn't elect him to tackle health care. We wanted jobs, not social re-engineering. We wanted leadership, not political vacillation. The impending recession worried people in 2008 and guess what, we're still worried. Contrary to the editorial observations of the Atlanta Constitution's Cynthia Tucker, we're not frightened by the "browning" of America. It seems to me that a high percentage of liberals are the primary individuals who are totally trapped within their own sphere of racial isolationism. The people that I know who are opposed to the President's ideas never even think about these philosophies in relation to the color of his skin. We want spending reined in, some idea of what our long term income tax rates will be, and a sense that the President and Congress are more interested in country than self. Unfortunately, none of these are evident at this time. These beliefs are not liberal or conservative in nature; they are merely human responses to the world around us. Liberals would do well to consider reality before they condemn nonbelievers like me.

President Obama was elected with 53% of the popular vote. He earned a mandate from the American public to fix our economic plight. His administration gave us an imprecise stimulus package and a promise that unemployment would not exceed 8%. Last time I checked, unemployment still hovers at just under 10%. Under the leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Congress has given President Obama almost every penny he has asked for. Yes my liberal friends, I did say that Congress gave President Obama almost every penny he has asked for. I find it convenient that liberals remain enamored with the whole idea of blaming George W. Bush for all of our country's ailments. Of course he must bear some of the blame but as the old saying goes, it takes two to tangle. This Congress took power in 2006 thus, they bear much of the blame for our current economic predicament. You see, our constitution is a prickly thorn for either side of the political spectrum. The Democrats, and liberals in general would have us believe that President Bush bears sole responsibility for this recession. Section 9, Article I, of the Constitution of the United States states otherwise. Presidents offer annual budgets to Congress however; Congress controls the purse strings. The paragraph outlining this reads as follows:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

As you read this paragraph, it is almost impossible to believe that Senator Harry Reid recently stated that he bears no responsibility for our economic downturn. The Congress elected in 2006 has spent money like there is no end to it and by the way, they were in control in 2007 when our economy turned upside down so, they bear a large portion of the blame for being ineffective legislators in a time of action. It is no small wonder that John Q. Public is irritated with Washington D.C.

So, what is really going on here? Liberal thinkers, politicians, and progressive media commentators are in a frenzy of self absorbed disbelief. While it is common for a president to incur mid-term election losses in the Congress, most polls indicate that this administration will suffer a calamitous rejection of their endeavors. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, the President's popularity now hovers at 46%. 57% of poll respondents disapprove of the President's handling of the economy while, 58% are critical of our nation's massive deficit and yet; the administration seems oblivious. None of us should be surprised by this. My sister in law accused the Republicans of being the party of "no". She threw independent conservatives into the same pool. Does this charge hold merit? According to her, President Obama has more than reached out to his opposition in order to get bipartisan legislative measures passed. Unless he has turned over a new leaf, and nothing I've seen has shown me that he has, our President has been everything but bipartisan. A quick study of his actions while serving as a senator can be found at www.votesmart.org. He hardly ever crossed political lines to forge partnerships for the national good. As the junior senator from Illinois, he was a strait party line hack and in my opinion, he has run his administration in like fashion.

When your political opponent is weak and backed up against the ropes, you needn't do anything more than say no for it will only be a matter of time before your opponent self implodes. It seems that this will come to fruition in November. If it comes to pass, the Republicans will only be provided with a limited amount of time to act. Hopefully, just saying no will no longer suffice and our nation's see saw attempt at checks and balances will once again function properly. The ball will then be in the President's side of the court. Will he choose to extend a hand to the opposition and lead or will he become yet again, just another lame duck in the White House?

De Oppresso Liber

Racism and Xenophobia: The Continuing Hyperbole of Pro-Obama Intelligentsia

I don't know about you but I am growing increasingly fatigued by the fallacious allegations being levied against individuals such as myself for merely opposing the policies of this administration. Many of the most recognizable left wing pundits have taken to incessant insidious remarks against people such as myself. They've levied charges of racism, xenophobia, misanthropic social values, and homophobia. Are there individuals within the vast conglomerate known as America who possess these socially aberrant beliefs? Of course there are however; are we to believe that they only exist on the right side of the political spectrum? Such a belief would wreak of intellectual mediocrity. The only time that I ever consciously think of President Obama as our first black president is when these liberal commentators throw it in my face. The same also holds true for their fear mongering over the whole Muslim issue. They are skilled at the art of hyperbole but; why should we take these accusations seriously? Does anybody remember their tired old facetious mantra, "Bush lied and people died"? Now we're supposed to believe that they possess the moral obligation to chastise a portion of our society that holds opposing views. I say, how dare they assume to know how I think based solely on my dissent against this president and this congress. For example, just last week, Maureen Dowd, Kirsten Powers, and Juan Williams threw unfounded allegations at those of us with opposing views.

Maureen Dowd penned an opinion piece in the NY Times titled, Going Mad in Herds. The thesis of her essay compared America to a dysfunctional family. She accused us of having a "national nervous breakdown". She used provocative comments from Rush Limbaugh and Reverend Franklin Graham to make her point. She also mentioned the fact that in a recent poll 18% of Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim. America has always had a high percentage of the electorate who are either uninformed or who choose to accept suspect data. I would love to know the percentage of those on the left who believe former President Bush is a dunce even though he possesses a Masters degree from an Ivy League school? Her examples were shallow at best and in my view, she reverted to the childhood practice of hurling insults at your opponent as a defense mechanism against losing the argument based on objective reality.

Kirsten Powers authored a piece for the Daily Beast called, The GOP's Long, Hot, Racist Summer. Much like Ms. Dowd, Powers relied on ad hominum attacks to make her point. She fell back on the tired old left wing game plan which chooses to label your philosophical opponent as intellectually inferior. Sarah Palin was yet again a favorite target for disdain, as well as, trying to make the point that Michael Savage is more relevant to conservatives than he truly is. Michael Savage is no different than Rosie O'Donnell. Both of them represent fringe elements of the political spectrum. She then went on, without a single thread of solid evidence, to label the Imam and those supporting the construction of an Islamic center and mosque close to ground zero as moderate Muslims. Maybe they are, and maybe they're not however; why is it wrong to question their intent or the source of their funding? Did we learn nothing from our oblivious behavior patterns prior to 9/11?

During the round table discussion on last Sunday's, Fox News Sunday, Juan Williams seemed to be angry. His body language and verbal tone wreaked of frustration. It seems that the left is surprised that their message is not going well with the American public. On numerous occasions, in reply to the conservative panelists he fell back on the frail position that President Obama is not doing well because a large percentage of the American public doesn't like that he is black. Excuse me? I never think of President Obama as our "black" president. He is our president and his policies and my support or opposition to them has nothing to do with the color of his skin. All I have to say to Juan Williams is, how dare you! If I'm not mistaken, President Obama won with a majority of the vote in 2008. Does Juan Williams not realize that a high percentage of those voters were white?

Liberals are clearly frustrated that their message seems to be falling on deaf ears. They should sit down with President Clinton for I am sure that with his homespun drawl he would simply state, "It's the economy, stupid!" By and large, Americans exist in the dead center of our nation's ideological spectrum. We don't like being told how we think or how we should think. We also don't appreciate being lectured on how we should act or react to the environment around us. In a nutshell, most of us simply want to be left alone to enjoy our family, friends, and local communities. Liberals, and conservatives for that matter, would do well to contemplate on just how vast, both physically and ideologically, this nation is. Pundits from both sides of the aisle would be well served to spend a month or two with a working mom or a laboring father. These voice boxes exist in a self constructed aquarium of geographic isolation. It is quite easy to prove this point. The population of the United States is now estimated to be 310,085,000. The land mass of this nation is 3,794,101 square miles. The better known commentators tend to live in large urban centers and their work load keeps them from truly knowing the average American. The following list depicting the population and land mass in square miles of six large cities where many of these socio-political hacks live will highlight my point.

1. New York City: Population: 8,391,881---Area: 468.9 square miles
2. Washington D.C: Population: 599,657---Area: 68.3 square miles
3. Chicago: Population: 2,853,114---Area: 234.0 square miles

4. Los Angeles: Population: 3,833,995---Area: 498.3 square miles
5. San Francisco: Population: 808,977---Area: 231.92 square miles
6. Seattle: Population: 617,334---Area: 142.5 square miles

These cities represent only 5.516% of our nation's population and cover a mere .043328% of our country's total landmass. We all are a product of our environment so, how can individuals who reside in such a tiny enclave feel they can knowledgeably understand who I am, what I think or, what I want to become? Rather than accuse me of being an uninformed misanthrope, maybe they should lace up a pair of work boots and experience my life before they feel free to mislabel me and many of my fellow Americans.

De Oppresso Liber

President Obama: The Great Equivicator

It has been a long time since I've taken the time to write an essay. Like many of us, I've become turned off by the actions of President Obama and the democrat controlled congress. This malaise has made it difficult to put pen to paper without coming across as a pathological naysayer. The country is currently in an epic struggle over it's very identity. As I feared, this president is more than likely going to earn the dubious distinction of being the most divisive executive that our nation has suffered under in recent history. His inability to take a stance was foreseen by his numerous "present" votes as a state and federal legislator so, I find it slightly humorous when many of us after observing yet another political vacillation, shrug our shoulders in disbelief. It seems that a large part of the electorate have removed their rose colored sunglasses and are now observing their president in the full light of day.

We all need to ask ourselves a series of questions. What does it mean to be an American? Is nationalism still an important aspect of human culture? When does social philanthropy cross over into the realm of fiduciary insolvency?

Naturally, there is no simple answer to our first question. We are a diverse nation and the definition of what it means to be American is constantly changing. That said, there is a trait which crosses over all social distinctions. We have an inherent independent streak and the idea of self reliance arrived on our shores with Captain Smith and the Jamestown colony. The pilgrims at Plymouth Rock were also extremely self reliant. This trait was directly responsible for the continual push westward as pioneers settled new country. The fact that our nation was settled far from European influences and bordered by two oceans further developed this ideal. President Obama seems to espouse a higher belief in communal reliance than in individual tenacity. The Pilgrims initially thought likewise and put this ideal into writing with the Mayflower Compact however, the fledgling colony almost failed during its first year. It was not until the colonists began to work for themselves that they began to flourish. Our nation would do well to remember the lessons from its past.

Our president seems enamored with the idea of post nationalism. Rather than a conglomerate of nation states, our president sees the world moving into a period of global social restructuring. I do not believe that humanity has developed beyond the principle of nation states. Are the French willing to become more like the English? Do Puerto Ricans see themselves as indistinguishable amongst a vast Hispanic body politic? Are the Italians no different from other Mediterranean cultures? People desire a sense of belonging and the nation state allows them to achieve a sense of commonality and distinction at the same time. Human beings enjoy their cultural differences and the key is to learn how to peacefully coexist while not losing national identities.

Currently, state after state in our Union is operating in the red. Sooner or later, government will come to the realization that it too, will have to learn to live within its means. The family unit cannot long survive in an environment of deficit spending. If it did so, mortgages would be foreclosed, cars repossessed, credit cards cancelled, and eventually the family would disintegrate. Why should we expect any different outcome from governmental deficit spending? President Obama seems intent on the belief that the government can write checks that it cannot possibly cash. All of us can agree that we should help our neighbor and others in need but we cannot do so to the detriment of the whole. We can provide those unable to row with an oar but, it is up to them to place it into action. As a culture, we should clearly portray a sense of expectancy that they do so. We cannot afford to give any of our citizens a free ride at the expense of the rest of us toiling away just to make ends meet.

Our president will soon complete two years in office. Thus far, we have an unwanted health care bill, an environmental disaster in the Gulf, close to 10% unemployment, two ongoing wars, and a stagnant economy. So much for the Hope & Change train. It too, just like our nation, has run out of steam. It is time for those of us with clear vision to stoke up the burners and get the train moving on a new track. I am proud of where we have been and hopeful for where we may go so, I ask all of you to challenge perception, research reality, perform your analysis for action, and act! I'm hoping that a strong wind of change will move into our capital this November with much the same force as the zephyrs that scream down the eastern flanks of the Sierra Nevada Range.

De Oppresso Liber

President Obama and The Blame Game

By now, most of you who follow my blog postings know that I am not a fan of President Obama but all clear thinking individuals should by now have become a bit flummoxed by the consistent pass the blame game onto others that the Obama Administration is guilty of. They have been in office now for 18 months and yet, they still attempt to pass the buck onto the former Bush White House. As my redneck buddies would say, "That dog just don't hunt!" The rumor coming out of the Beltway is that the White House intends to ride this tired old horse up to the finish line in November. Good luck with that plan working out!

It seems to me that President Obama and his cohorts were much more adept at campaigning than they are at governing. Leaders that I've known during my military career who attempted to blame others for their unit's shortcomings were unsuccessful in the long run. Corny as it may sound, there is a whole lot of truth to the saying, "When in charge, take charge." President Obama comes from the academic world. In academia, philosophical viewpoints are much easier to present because they delve in the world of theory and not reality. We had a saying in my old career in Special Forces; "The best operations order in the world will only survive until the first bullet flies." That said, all leaders must have a philosophical belief in their organization's vision, ethos, and values. They must develop long and short range plans to achieve their long and short term goals. They must also be able to adjust these plans to the realities of the world that impacts on these plans. In this respect, the Obama Administration is an abject failure.

Hopefully, the citizenry of this great nation have had enough with all of the whining and bungling coming out of this White House. It is time for us to let President Obama and Congress know that we all are tired of self serving inept politicians who think they know what is best for each of us. Unemployment is still high, North Korea has jumped off a cliff, the Taliban is now training in Iran, oil continues to spill into the Gulf of Mexico but hey, we've got health care. On a positive note, the Obama Administration reaffirms to me on almost a daily basis that yes, I was correct in casting a ballot for John McCain and not Barack Obama.

De Oppresso Liber

Terrorism and President Obama

President Obama has tried a different philosophical approach to dealing with terrorism than the previous administration. His administration has tried to reach out to the Muslim world in hopes that this would make us seem less threatening and hopefully reduce the possibility of another attack on our nation. Unfortunately, this approach will not benefit us in the long run. Warfare is still a largely ritualistic event in the Islamic world. Confident power is more appreciated than any attempt at being a conciliatory foe.

It is hard to say if our continued struggle with Islamic Fundamentalists has evolved under the Obama presidency or, if his policies have led directly to a change of tactics used by our enemies. We do know however; since he has taken office, we have had three terrorist attacks on American soil. The attack on Fort Hood was successful and the other two were not. This is not a prevention percentage that can be sustained over time. We suffered no attacks under the previous administration after 9/11. So, have our enemies tactics evolved or is it merely a coincidence that the present administration has seen three attacks on our shores?

To his credit, the President is aggressively pursuing Al Quaida and Taliban operatives in the tribal regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is doing this primarily through the use of drone strikes. An unintended consequence of using drones is the animosity that technological warfare creates in the Islamic world. As I've said, warfare is still a largely ritualistic human endeavor with Muslims. Many of them despise the use of drones and view their use as a form of cowardly attack. Might it be possible that the use of these drones have led to increased efforts to attack us?

For our part, we will soon have to realize that warfare is still a man on man event. Our soldiers know this but the rest of our nation's populace has been insulated from the violent nature of combat and I believe, we may have lost our ability to realistically confront our foes. The only way that we will be able to defeat Islamic Fundamentalism is to look our opponent in the eye and destroy him. The judicious use of raw physical and not purely technological power is the only thing that our enemy understands. Terrorist cells or Taliban operatives need to learn that they will be physically hunted down and eliminated wherever they may attempt to conduct operations against our national interests or on our soil.

De Oppresso Liber

President Obama: The Opposition & Charges of Racism

A vociferous opposition to President Obama's administration has arisen during his first year in office. The Tea Party is by far the largest organization which opposes his initiatives. For his part, the president does not seem to handle critics of his policies very well. He oftentimes comes across as perturbed or even slightly condescending with his observations regarding his opponents. Even more alarming is the accusation of racism which has been leveled against the opposition by supporters of the president. Is there a distinct possibility that some of the president's opponents have formed their opinions on racist grounds? Yes, but could it not also be possible that some African Americans who opposed former President Bush were guilty of the same? Once again, the answer is yes however; the vast majority of individuals in opposition to the president's policies have based their views on philosophical and not racist grounds.

The election of President Obama has exposed a philosophical chasm in this country. It seems that he sees the European social experience as a template for modifying American culture. He wants us to adopt the social democratic principles of Western Europe. In Europe, there is no real sense of the individual. A group mentality pervades European culture and this philosophy reveals itself in ways such as, universal health care, no real impetus for individual real estate property ownership, extensive government social programs, and extremely high tax rates. On our side of the Atlantic, the aspirations of the individual have been cherished since colonization. Through a long series of steps and missteps we have created an equality of opportunity and not an equality of societal position. This distinction is what highlights the unique "American Experience". It does not make us better than any other culture but; it is relatively unique to our nation. So, the question remains, if we are to become more like Europe will we lose our identity as a nation? This is the difference between President Obama's social views and those of his opponents.

We don't need congressmen and congresswomen playing the race card nor, do we need commentators or pundits doing the same especially if neither group can produce evidence of racism. I would also like to challenge the president's eagerness to vilify the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. They are over the top for my tastes at times however; is their opposition to President Obama any more ferocious than the likes of Bill Maher or Jon Stewart?These two men made a great living offering salacious remarks against President Bush and developed a huge following during his two terms of office. If my memory serves me correctly, I never heard former Senator Obama castigate these two men for viciously attacking President Bush so, his comments at the present time complaining about talk radio come across as hypocritical or at the very least thin skinned.

We are in a multi-faceted confrontation for our nation's identity. November 2010 will be a great indicator of just what direction we are headed in. I can only hope that we never lose that sense of rugged individualism which guides the vast majority of us. All we ask for is the government to stay out of our way and not impede any opportunities that we may create for ourselves.

De Oppresso Liber

Healthcare: The Aftermath

Now that Obamacare is the law of the land, one would think the debate ended however; it has now really begun to heat up. The Democrats are travelling the land attempting to convince the electorate that this new federal program is just what the doctor ordered. The Republicans are promising to repeal the law if elected in large enough numbers to take over the House and or, the Senate. Meanwhile, amidst all of the tumult, the approval rating of Congress hovers in the low teens. The citizenry is left to shake their heads in disbelief as they observe the seemingly limitless buffoonery emanating from Washington D.C. Not too long ago, many of us viewed George W. Bush as a divisive figure however, when he is placed alongside President Obama, former President Bush seems more like a minor league ball player. President Obama's centralized policies have torn the land apart and left personal liberty asunder.

The ensuing months leading up to the elections of November 2010 should prove to be politically vicious. The Left and the Right have drawn lines in the sand and are now entrenched behind their political parapets and content on launching political invectives at one another. The rest of us are left to suffer the consequences of their inability to work together. That said, how long will we stand silent while personal liberty is crushed beneath the jackboot of seemingly endless federal usurpation of power? Not too long ago, the Left cried foul over the intrusion into personal liberty that they believed the Patriot Act guilty of and yet; they now clap their hands in glee as the federal government slowly gains control over more and more of their lives. Could it be that the Left is no more open minded than the Right? I think so.

The vast majority of us in this great nation lie trapped square in the middle of the conflict between the Right and the Left. Common sense tells us that a pendulum drift too far to either side of center is not good for the country. Each side of the political spectrum have aspects of their belief system which are good for the nation. The conundrum lies in finding the circuitous path through all of the hyperbole and picking and choosing those items which make us a more vibrant Republic. The inability of our Congress to detect and follow this path is why so many of us outside the Beltway are annoyed.

During the Antebellum Period, Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky, Senator John Calhoun of South Carolina, and Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts formed the Great Triumvirate. These three great statesmen with opposing interests, held our nation together through tumultuous times. The roaring fires of political diatribe threatened to overwhelm them on numerous occasions yet, they somehow always found a way to meet in the middle for the common good of all. The politicians of today would do well to study congressional history and show some personal bravery by stepping out from behind their parapet and actually sit down and talk instead of posturing. Where are the great statesmen of our time?

In closing, I must be totally honest. Since Obamacare passed on a strict party line vote and I wholeheartedly disagree with federalized control of health care, I hope that the Democrats pay for their actions in the upcoming election. As a conservative, I cannot support the objectives of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, or Majority Leader Reid. My only wish is that somebody from either side of the aisle would rise above the stench of mediocrity and represent those of us who lie in the center.

De Oppresso Liber

President Obama: Military Pay Raise FY2011& Individual Responsibility

President Obama's administration recently released its proposed military pay increase for fiscal year 2011. They have proposed an increase of 1.4% which, according to www.military.com, will be the lowest annual pay increase since 1973. If approved by Congress, civilian federal employees can expect an increase of 1.5%. This proposed pay increase is a slap in the face to our military. Less than 1% of our nation's populace has borne the brunt of our country's battle against Al-Quaida and Islamic fundamentalism and yet, they are now expected to endure slipping even further behind their civilian counterparts financial recompense. We all know that our land is traveling through troubled economic waters however; why should members of our military still work for income levels well below that of their peers in the civilian world? In my opinion, this pay raise proposal reflects our President's disdain for our military.

By now, an individual would have to be either deaf or blind for he or she to not realize that our President loves to spend a buck on those that he views as disenfranchised. It seems to me that his world view is ever hesitant to affix any responsibility for individual effort. Why does he refuse to demand that people take charge of their own lives? The word "disenfranchise" alleviates any sense of personal responsibility for a person's position in life. Whatever happened to our nation's ethos that the government provides all of us an equality of opportunity, and not equality of circumstance? The government will forever be unable to correct a person's plight. It can enforce laws protecting the equality of opportunity as guaranteed by our Constitution but, at the end of the day, it is the individual who will provide the energy to rise or fall in their personal endeavors.

The bizarre adventure of federal health care reform plods along and somehow, they are going to spend a fortune to "rescue" a small percentage of our nation's population from any personal responsibility to provide for their own basic human needs. When I juxtapose the proposed federal spending on health care reform to the 2011 military pay raise proposal, I come away with yet another confirmation of my opinion that this President and his cohorts in Congress are disconnected from our nation's heritage and seem intent on redesigning our country based on Europe's failed experiments in social democracy during the last three decades of the 1900s.

All is not lost. I am an optimist and I believe that contrary to what one may think, the people of this great land are paying attention to the feeble political vacillations emanating from Washington D.C. and are growing ever more irritated by the day and November 2010 will send shock waves from the Atlantic coastline to Hawaii. All of us just need to remain focused, and observe what is done and not done by our representatives and senators. Just as all of us are solely responsible for our actions, so must we expect nothing less from our politicians. All of us must live within our means, including our government and; the era of federal freebies is over!

De Oppresso Liber

Politics & Inept Politicians

If you are a regular visitor to my blog you've probably come to the realization that my political philosophy lies somewhere to the right of center. I am a fiscal conservative and social centrist who gets easily annoyed when politicians, pundits, and media commentators assume that they understand my views on any issue. One of the most enduring aspects of American life is the ability of our populace to refuse being assimilated into a one size fits all political compartment. We are not purely liberal or conservative thinkers. Most of us are independent and unaffiliated with any political party. Washington D.C., and the media in general, thrive on highlighting political bickering while the rest of us merely shake our heads in disbelief. Politicians have been a bane for our citizenry since our nation's founding so, the current political doldrums vacillating out of Washington D.C. shouldn't surprise anyone.

Politicians have been, and always will be self serving. Their reelection requires that all of them display this trait. Term limits would correct this problem however; what other aspect of governmental inefficiency might term limits create? Unlike many, I do not see our current political climate in a dire light. The anger of the populace on either side of the political spectrum is exciting. Incumbents in both parties are running scared and this is healthy for our republic. I cannot wait for the election this November!

I believe that most of us want to simply be left alone. I also feel that there is philosophical value for all of us when we ponder just what "rugged individualism" means to our nation. Americans have always believed in helping their neighbor but; this assistance has always been provided with the expectation that said neighbor would take charge of their situation. Washington D.C. cannot know what we need or want. It is our responsibility to keep them informed and if they don't listen, send them their pink slips via the ballot. I believe that the election of 2010 will send shock waves throughout the nation. The electorate is tired of the never ending bickering and the extreme viewpoints of the right and left. Most of us are centrists who want the simple things in life. We want a good paying job with some level of security, a healthy and happy family, close friends, national security, and to limit as much as possible, the dollar amount that we must give in the form of taxes to state and federal governments. The American family must live within their means and maintain a fiscal budget and the vast majority of us expect our government to do likewise. I fully expect the election of November 2010 to be a referendum outlining a new direction of fiscal responsibility for our nation. It is long overdue for Washington D.C. to balance it's checkbook.

De Oppresso Liber

Government Policies in the Era of Senator Brown

The recent victory of Scott Brown over Martha Coakley in Massachusetts is sure to send reverberations throughout the nation. It is almost implausible that a republican would defeat a democrat in Massachusetts however; this is what happened last Tuesday night. Even more astounding than Scott Brown's victory is that he, a conservative republican, will assume the seat in the Senate vacated by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the chambers of the US Senate. I'd be even more interested in the post Scott Brown victory message traffic between the White House, the Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House. So, who is this political tornado, Scott Brown? A quick look at his website (www.brownforussenate.com) clearly outlines his political philosophy. He believes in a financially strong and independent United States without a national debt that cannot be repaid. He feels that all Americans deserve health care however; he is against the current legislation and will vote against it. He supports free enterprise, lower taxes, common sense environmental policies, alternative energy development, charter schools, legal immigration, the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership, capital punishment, and adoption over abortion. He is against amnesty for illegal immigrants, civilian trials for illegal combatants, and he believes that the issue of gay marriage should be decided at the state rather than the federal level. He sounds like a conservative to me who just also happens to be a republican. I can still remember the day when we had conservative democrats. I wonder if Senator Sam Nunn knows where they are? Senator Brown's arrival in Washington D.C. will end the Democratic Party's stranglehold on the legislative branch of government and with mid term elections looming on the horizon, is sure to hand President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid with a whole new set of legislative conundrums.

George Stephanopoulos of ABC News interviewed President Obama on January 20th. Scott Brown's upset victory led the interview into a pointed introspection of the President's policies and legislative ventures over the past year. A transcript of the interview is available at www.blogs.abcnews.com. In my view, two points during this interview reaffirmed my opinion of the President's inability to move from candidate to executive. At one point during his questioning, George Stephanopoulos says to the President, "But you're in charge, now." President Obama replies, "No--well--absolutely." This reply by our president clearly shows an inability to assume responsibility for his executive position. In the beginning of the interview the President attempts to rationalize how Scott Brown's election will transform his political landscape by drawing parallels between his and Brown's election. The President correctly points out that the electorate is angry but he mistakenly assumes that the nation's anger during the election of 2008 is identical to the anger that swept Scott Brown into the Senate. Yet again President Obama hides from assuming his executive mantel by stating, "People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." Mr. President, I would like you to stand up from behind your desk in the oval office, take a deep breath and look around. Blaming George W. Bush obviously worked in 2008 but you sir, and you alone, are our nation's executive leader and casting blame elsewhere only makes you seem shallow and feeble. Incoming leaders analyze their new organization, develop estimates of its resources and manpower and establish new organizational mission, ethos, and long and short term goal statements. The authority to place into action new operational templates is then delegated to the appropriate branch leaders however; the responsibility for the success or failure of the organization lies solely in the hands of the executive. A successful executive never blames his failure on his predecessors.

President Obama clearly believes that government can provide the solution for all of our nation's ills. In his view, if you throw enough money at a problem or develop yet another governmental agency, you can fix just about anything. He is a big spender which is ironic since our current economy demands that all of us tighten our belts. You cannot spend your way out of debt. If you could, the credit card companies would willingly increase the credit limits of their customers even though they haven't received payment for current debts. Limited yet effective government backed by common sense legislation is the requisite foundation for a thriving republic. Our founding fathers inherently knew this and so did Ralph Waldo Emerson. In ESSAYS, SECOND SERIES (1844); Politics; Emerson wrote the following:

"Hence the less government we have the better,-the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of formal Government is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual; the appearance of the principal to supersede the proxy; the appearance of the wise man; of whom the existing government is, it must be owned, but a shabby imitation."

Senator Scott Brown seems to be a believer of these principles. It shouldn't surprise any of us since Emerson was also from Massachusetts. Annoying though it might be, our republic thrives on the contrary juxtaposition of the two party system. This juxtaposition of differing political philosophies is naturally limited by the "checks and balances" written into our Constitution. Our nation suffers when a single party assumes total control of both houses of Congress and the executive branch. Emerson warned of this too:

"From neither party, when in power, has the world any benefit to expect in science, art, or humanity, at all commensurate with the resources of the nation."

Now that the Democratic Party has lost its filibuster proof majority in the Senate, they will hopefully have to sincerely work with the republicans in their attempts to roust our nation out of its economic doldrums. I would advise President Obama that from the outside looking in vantage point of my perch, he has, contrary to his campaign promises, indulged in an exclusive rather than inclusive presidency and legislative agenda. I would also advise Congress that their failure to work in a bi-partisan manner could lead to many of those up for reelection leaving office and looking for work elsewhere because last time I looked at the calendar it was 2010.

De Oppresso Liber

Healthcare, Government Style: Be Careful What You Wish For

Thus far, our nation has watched the inept party driven antics in Congress debate over nationalized health care with emotions ranging from boredom to anger. Regardless of which side of the argument you side with, none of us can be happy with the course of events in Washington D.C. Most of our citizenry are unaware of just what a centralized health care system would look like. Veterans make up less than 10% of our population and they are the only ones with any real world knowledge regarding the inadequacies of government health care. As a veteran, and a vociferous opponent of government run health care, I feel that it is necessary to describe my case and use it to illustrate just how inefficient government run health care truly is.

I retired from the US Army in May of 1999. During my last year of service I was diagnosed with service connected severe osteoarthritis and severe necrosis in both of my hip joints. The Army conducted a total hip replacement of my right hip and this necessitated that I retire from active duty since I could no longer conduct airborne operations and perform my duties as a Special Forces Non-Commissioned Officer. Upon retirement, I was evaluated by the VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) and given a 50% disability rating. I received a rating of 30% for my artificial hip and 20% for the other hip. It took a Congressional Letter of Inquiry from my congressional representative to initially get me into the VA health care system. In 2004 I could no longer stand the pain in my left hip however; it took yet another Congressional Letter of Inquiry to get the VA to authorize a total hip replacement of my left hip. The VA contracted my surgery to a civilian orthopedic surgeon. This was fine with me but given today's debate, I do find it ironic that this decision was made because civilian care was more cost effective than government care. I've had only one pelvic x-ray and no examination by an orthopedic surgery since my surgery in 1999. Why? The answer is simple, the VA has no protocol for annual post surgery status diagnosis of prosthetic joints.

I have a VA clinic in my home town however, in order to see my primary care physician, I must call a VA hospital telephone service in Portland, Oregon to schedule an appointment at a clinic that is three miles from my house. If I need any treatment that cannot be taken care of at my local clinic I will usually have to wait between 3 and 6 months to see the specialist. Since 1999, I have had four primary care physicians at the same local VA clinic. The physicians have all left to enter private practice. On the other hand, since I have a private health care plan through my employer, I also have a civilian primary care physician and I've had her since 1999.

The personnel who staff the VA health care system are well meaning and do attempt to provide a quality health care experience for our veterans however; they are under staffed and under funded. So, I ask you, if veterans make up less than 10% of our total populace and the VA system remains ineffective, how can any form of nationalized health care that attempts to cover a population of over 300 million have any chance of success? We all can come to an agreement that health care costs are skyrocketing and that "something" needs to be done to rein in costs. That said, I will be the first to admit that I don't have an answer to the problem but, I also don't believe that a single political party should be deciding the course that we will take nor do I believe that we need to make a giant leap into the unknown. Small steps with constant cause and effect analysis are what are called for.

I would also like to see our nation enter into the deeply philosophic debate over whether or not health care is a basic human right and thus an inherent responsibility of government. I believe that it is not a human right but rather; it is an individual responsibility. If heath care is a human right, then why isn't sustenance or shelter also a basic human right? If the government has a responsibility to provide my healthcare, is it also the government's responsibility to feed, clothe and shelter me ? If we are, as I believe, "a nation of the people, and by the people", then why should I look to the government to provide me with what I should provide for myself? In the end, we must care for the destitute amongst us but, we must also nudge them forward towards self sustenance. Socialized nation states have proven themselves to be socio-economic failures and I see no reason for us to experiment at this time with such a stagnant socio-political view of mankind. At the end of the day, it is my responsibility to care for myself and my family members. I do not choose to hand over this control to anyone or any government entity at any time soon.

De Oppresso Liber