OBAMA VS. THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION

If spring is any indication----we're gonna make it after all.  The world is still spinning, the daffodils blooming, and things seem to be looking up just a little. Unemployment is down, the stock market is up, and one can hope that we are slowly climbing out of the recession.  But not so fast--- there are reasons to believe that happy days are not here again, quite yet. There appears to be no quick fixes.  More people have been and continue to be out of work for a longer period than ever before---six months or more.And many have given up looking---and are not counted among the unemployed.  Our national debt continues to climb to a hefty 16 million and counting. There are attempted answers ---Paul Ryan, head of the congressional budget committee introduced one this past week, a new plan with viable solutions.  It passed the House, but hasn't a chance in this election year to pass the Senate, which is controlled by Dems and will not approve anything with a Republican's name on it---oh, I forgot--it's the Repubs. who are the obstructionists---or so we are told.  After all, to be fair, those pesky Republicans recently declined to pass Obama's long awaited budget, which ironically, even the Senate  turned down, by the way. No budget passing in an election year, gang---that's the deal, and the one thing both parties agree on. This is really getting old.. Where are the conservative Democrats and the liberal Republicans? Some say that their absence is the cause for the congress's inability to agree or compromise. But perhaps it's simply that we have, indeed, become too polarized as a nation, and that we are going through the contractions of huge change and direction. Where it all ends is anybody's guess, but it bears watching and deep soul searching.
 

A good example of our differences is the infamous Healthcare Act , which while it originally was made into law, is now on life support, as the Supreme Court addresses whether it is or ever was constitutional.  Only 30 % of Americans are in favor of this very controversial bill, which while it may have been an effort to stem the nation's troubling health costs, appears to be more expensive to implement and sustain than what we already live with---soaring costs and 40 million uninsured.   Again, there are no quick answers, and even though it was the centerpiece of Obama's first year in office, it was pushed through too hastily and without bi-partisan support---get it done and damn the consequences seemed to be the word from the Oval office. The consequences were loud outcries from those who felt it was a major assault on our individual liberties and impossible to insure 40 million extra people without someone paying for it somehow. Insurance companies aren't known to give away freebies.  Medicare, the one piggy bank Obama said he'd use to pay for the extra costs, can hardly afford to be stretched any further----so who does that leave?  Contrary to what we were led to believe, turns out, it was us all along---in the form of higher premiums, almost guaranteed higher taxes, and very likely, diminished quality of medical care.

It didn't help that that few people understood or even today, understand what's in it and how it's all supposed to work---- a major breakdown in communication.  Odd, for a president whose communication skills are some of the best. Whether it will stand or fall remains to be heard, but the battle will grind on, regardless.  Never a small thing, this issue of a forced purchase  is not sitting well with most of us---we don't like forced anything. Yes, we understand the necessity of a certain amount of taxes, but not this---this is over the top, government over reach, and a direct assault on our sense of freedom.

Who told Obama he and a one sided Senate could institute this new law and get away with it, anyway? Obviously, his inner circle---but really? What planet were they living on to think there would not be resistance,  heavy criticism, and scrutiny? Or did they think all of us were willing to accept anything at all that gets passed by the President and a partisan Senate? Is it possible that they didn't care, that they actually felt their opinions were unassailable, and their power absolute? Unbelievable, yet a sign of arrogance by the President and his cronies. Perhaps now, he and they are finally getting the message that we like our laws  fairly created, less sneaky, and if not straight down the middle, not  listing way to the left, so as to drown out the right of a heretofore free country. It's also imperative that they are clearly constitutional, which this one apparently is not.----or it would have not been so questionable as to end up in the highest court of the land.  One can only hope this group of judges will rise above their partisan feelings and uphold our sacred right to choose if and from whom we insure ourselves.

What of those people who choose not to---or cannot afford to?  They and that issue must be dealt with---but  at the forced expense of all  of us and  our freedom to choose?  Perhaps, but at least now, we're getting a good look and an education on what we were told we must buy and never mind the details. Don't be surprised if even the Supreme Court decides to punt on this one---lots of punting going on these days, and the Justices may not be an exception, when they consider the implications of a riled up left wing and the tongue lashing they will receive at the hands of Obama. He is not known to take his losses well and without publicly humiliating his foes. Leaks not withstanding, we may not know the outcome until June, and it is highly likely that this is an issue that will burn far longer, for it lies at our constitutional core and opens the door to further encroachment of a government seemingly intent of taking care of us, rather than allowing us to be strong, independent, and free enough to care for ourselves.

Before closing, I would like to make clear that I, like many Americans, had hopes for this president in spite of our different party affiliations---he has shattered them. Though I did not vote for him, I was proud of him and sincerely hoped that the office would make the man, that he could possibly rise above party politics and lead this country in a new and strengthened direction. He has done neither. In fact, many feel he has worsened our economy , weakened our military, and embarrassed our international status. In spite of my doubts, he had me for a while with his great intellect, cool manner, and his seemingly good will for all, but he lost me along the way. The final straws are his obvious efforts to be re-elected by his followers by incurring class and even racial warfare. I find this distasteful, disturbing, dangerous, and  unacceptable in a leader, who should be above such tactics and self/party centered concerns. It is heavy handed and even bully-ish to use his position  to persuade by pitting one group against the other, be it race, creed, or income.  It reeks of Chicago politics---and this is not the United States of Chicago.

Will this president, his style, and his record survive through the next election? There are pundits who say that win, lose, or draw, Obama's political fortunes will rest on the final decision of the Supreme Court regarding his main accomplishment, the Health Care Act.  But in reality, the court of public opinion will have the last say. On a recent trip to Russia, Obama once again spoke indiscreetly into a "hot mic"This makes twice now---is he trying to mimic Joe Biden, or was this somehow as some have suggested, a  deliberate faux pas and a leak to his party doves?? Speaking to Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev, he whispered that he would have "more flexibility" after the election, referring to the topic of negotiating our defense system.  Really, Mr. President?  That's not only presumptive on your part, but very scary. Write this down---flexibility works both ways. It may be April, but I hear some Novembers hold great opportunity for hope and change---.


 




   

THE EMPEROR WHO WORE NO CLOTHES--- ??

The State of the Union Address was the hottest ticket in Washington town last Tuesday night, and President Obama, staggering under massive problems,  knocked it out of the park ---if only words were deeds,  soaring rhetoric were based on accomplishments, and poor little 'ole secretaries were not exploited as victims of the nasty, rich Republicans. Think about it---how much salary would it take for the secretary of Warren Buffet, who sat like a commoner next to the regal Michelle Obama, to be making enough money to pay less tax than  her boss??  About 150 "thou"--- and not likely. Shame on Warren Buffet for perpetrating this ruse on the American people, and Obama for using it as the center piece for his speech, and the opening shot for his election campaign, which should be called  ' Obama is my name, and class warfare is my game. You might call this the State of the Union---I call it " hard ball", the Chicago way.' It was a great show of bravado in the face of low approval for performance ratings, few noteworthy accomplishments, and an anxious administration wondering how they will fare in the upcoming election." Give 'Em  The Old Razzle Dazzle"  could have been the opening number.

The theatre of the absurd continued during the speech with talk of giving everyone a "fair shot", how well the country is doing, and will be doing,  if only the Republicans would stop obstructing everything. Never mind that they have sent numerous bills to the Senate only to have them completely rebuffed. House majority leader, John Boehner looked like he had been forced into the principle's office and made to sit behind him as he berated all things Republican.. Biden apparently was there just in case Boehner couldn't take it anymore, and tried to walk out, or passed out from the verbal beating his party took.

No mention, of course, was given to the actual state of affairs, which is dismal. Our union hasn't been this troubled and divided in a very long time. Our economy is hardly doing well, with a slight growth rate of 2.8% but there are grave worries about sustainability, with millions of people still out of work, and the housing situation reporting the worst, this past year , of any in recorded history. The budget crisis has never been solved, and is now at 16 plus trillion.  The tax payers' money, to the tune of 130 billion, which funded the president's stimulus programs has largely failed, and continues with poor investments in energy companies like Solyndra,  and yet another bankrupted energy company, called Enter One.  Nothing was mentioned about fixing Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, the real, core problems which must be addressed if ever we are to free ourselves of our drowning financial situation. And interestingly, Obama barely mentioned his very unpopular healthcare program--- presumably because it too, will add only more debt burden to all of us.

But regardless, our president seems to have his mojo back.  He likes a good fight, and he's never better than when he can talk the talk of a man who seems to consider himself almost emperor like, with his swagger, wise, defiant tones of voice, and direct, stern glares into the eyes of the American people.  Will they buy it this time? Or will they finally ask themselves what it is he's selling? Do we really want the kind of America he envisions? Do we even know what he really envisions? One can frighteningly guess by looking at his past history, his associations, and his mentors, which include  Jeremiah Wright, the  angry pastor of Obama's long attended church, and author of the memorable words, "God damn America", Saul Alinsky, the radical  left wing godfather of community organizing, and Bill Ayers, the unapologetic,  x-weatherman underground terrorist.

Obama's words of "fairness" are meant to identify with the occupiers' grievances and garner votes from those who want to believe that somehow if we keep blaming others, and asking those who have much to give more and more to those who have less,  that they and the country will be better off..  It  does not seem to work that way---never has, never will. For even if all the very rich gave all they had, it would only make a dent in our financial woes, and eventually the entitlement state would run out of money. But  Utopia is a dream that plays well to the masses--and so it  lives on. What happens, when we can no longer afford ourselves??  Will that be "fair', or just another failed experiment in governance that finally reached its tipping point and failed as many others have?

Yes, the speech was a home run---if it were baseball.  But it wasn't---it was the beginning of a very contentious and important election season.  Too bad the president of the United States couldn't have used it to, as it was originally intended--- report the actual facts, and try to bring us together in order to make us unitedly strong and focused on reality.  He could have listed his actual accomplishments, along with his failures without appearing a failure. We would have at least respected, instead of suspected the motives of this very charming politician, but less than great or effective president.  But what we saw Tuesday night, as he worked the distinguished room and basked in the applause and admiration of his constituents was a man who still induces and experiences the magic that swept him into office--that undefinable quality that engenders adoration, respect, and a sort of Kennedy-eque worship. But to many, the speech that followed lacked credibility in that it looked like a strut and sounded like a toast---to himself, but without substance.  The facts are that the economy is still extremely fragile, the people have lost confidence, and the future is very cloudy at best. We have not come back yet. We're not sure we ever will. And somewhere along the way, we have lost even our national pride. It was shallow and a cheap shot to ask us to believe that the only reason more hasn't been done in terms of the budget and other matters is that the Republicans have stood in the way, when the Dems had two full years of controlling both the Senate and the House, and accomplished very little.

 Overly long , appallingly boastful,  and celebratory spoken to a country still reeling and suffering from the after shocks of an economic catastrophe, the speech was, if nothing else, a clear view of Obama's ideology.  In trouble or not, lost or sinking, he believes the answers lie in bigger government,  more social entitlements, and a distribution of wealth by the wealthy. To that end, he has now staked his presidency, and thrown down the gauntlet to the Republican challengers, but  the question remains---is that what the majority of Americans want, and is that philosophy in the best interest of a country founded on very different principles?

Judjing from the reception he received on Tuesday night, and other polls which suggest high marks for Obama's personal popularity, not to mention the problematic Republican party, it is conceivable that this president will work his magic once again, in spite of having little to show, in terms of addressing our real problems, for his first four years in office.  Is this some kind of an illusion of greatness bestowed upon Obama by people who see something that so far doesn't seem to exist?

Or, in the final analysis,  is Obama actually exactly what we see----a man dressed not in the traditional garb of America's past, but in those of a very different kind of America---blame, entitlement, and re-distribution of someone else's wealth, used to re-organize us into what Obama referred to as an America "built to last"?  What a strange term for a country, built on independence, capitalistic values, limited government, and liberty for all, and which  has lasted for well over 200 years, but  is now already crumbling under the weight of an opposite ideology, one which exploits a a crowd pleasing platitude of "fairness" which in turn invites resentment and division and  ultimately begets dependence on a government built too big to survive. The election of 2012 waits in the shadows of our future---the choices are stark and without precedent. Consider, and cast your vote carefully-----

REPUBLICAN DEBATE OR DEBACLE??

You gotta love this country---where else can you watch a presidential election season that goes on for two years, and where the participants not only get sent to the cleaners by the media, but by themselves as well?  We Americans do not need others to criticize us---we're masters of self examination and flagellation. We're great at cleaning out closets and finding any lurking skeletons. Yes, before we'll even think about voting for you, we'll  send you to hell and back, publicly air all your dirty laundry, and hang you out to dry. If you're still standing, we'll treat you to more.  But what great theatre it is---if you like to watch people embarrass themselves and humiliate others. Watching the  Republican debate last Saturday night was like watching a game of cat and mouse---even though there were only 3 cats, and 5 mice. The cats, the mainstream media known as Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopoulos, and Josh McElveen, seemed to be doing their best to trap the mice, otherwise known as Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and John Huntsman, the remaining Republican presidential candidates.

.George S., asking questions of little relevance to the forthcoming election, was a prime example of baiting, instead of debating.  Mr. Stephanopoulos, who was a senior advisor under the Clinton administration and is still of the liberal persuasion appeared much  like a college student trying to get the best of a much smarter professor as he went after Romney with a completely irrelevant and out of left field question---"would you approve of a state banning contraceptives?" Excuse me?  What?? Romney, who is at all times respectful, Mr. Nice Guy, even had a hard time remaining so, as he stared at George increduously, trying to decide how to answer in such a way as to not completely dismiss or discredit George or the question.  He replied that he didn't know of any state that was banning contraceptives, so what's the problem?  In other words, what does that have to do with anything? But George continued to badger Romney, until the audience began showing their disapproval by booing Stephanopoulos and then applauding Romney when he finally broke down after six attempts by George  to bully him into an answer, and called the question "silly". "Stupid", wouldn't have been too strong a word for anyone other than Romney. At the very least, the question was inappropriate and out of context, and it very much appeared that George was trying to paint the governor from Mass. as a  religious fanatic, morally dangerous to our increasingly secular society. Giving him some benefit of the doubt, his question probably had roots in the infamous "Roe vs. Wade" ruling, which proceeded the "right to privacy" ruling.  But it was such an obvious stretch and attempt to cast Romney in a negative light that it sunk under the weight of Stephonoupolos's attack mode. Would he pose such a loaded question to Obama---"Tell me, President  Obama--- how would you feel if all the Christians gathered and insisted on prayer in the schools?  And by the way, if all the Republican congressmen were suddenly sitting in your living room, would you serve them tea or contempt?"

The debates are usually lead by the liberal media, who in turn treat the Republican candidates as suspects, rather than viable, qualified men seeking the presidency. They should be asked tough, relevant questions, but not of the sort nor in the manner of G.S. The issues of importance today are of the economy, jobs, international affairs, and which direction philosophically, this country wishes to go.  Diane Sawyer also disappointed with her strangely framed question of gays and how the candidates might speak to them were they seated with them in a living room setting. Really?? It is doubtful that any one of the current top Republican contenders would dramatically change any of the existing laws having to do with contraceptives or gay rights. Most of them believe in leaving those sorts of issues up to the individual states, not the  federal government. Yes, they can appoint conservative judges, but not of the extreme variety without being scrutinized and vetted by the senate and the ever watching American public.

It is not at all unusual for the presidential debates to be held within the framework of the mostly liberal press--but this was a grand and obvious display of bias and attempt to color the candidates socially narrow minded and unfit to be the president of the United States, because of their personal opinions and faiths . It would seem this is doing the country a dis-service, as the real issues of concern this time, are not so much social issues, but hard core financial problems. We want to know how these men would put the country back to work , what they would do to fix our broken budget, and how they would approach the growing middle east problems, especially the nuclear threats coming out of Iran.

At one point, Newt Gingrich gave the debate a refreshing twist when he turned the tables on the interviewing panel by asking them why the media never questions the government for their increasing bias against Christian institutions and values. It was a defining moment for Gingrich and gave rise to the thought that perhaps the candidates ought to stop allowing themselves to appear as trapped mice in a shooting gallery, and change the format to one in which they could actually debate each other and the issues of importance.

 There will be plenty of time in the coming months for dissection of the chosen Republican candidate's opinions on everything from soup to nuts ,abortions to the nuclear threat, as he goes toe to toe against Obama and his Democrat party machine. But for now, the Republicans need to show a united front against the current administration, exhibit how and why theirs would be a better approach to saving this country from financial destruction, and refuse to be victimized and belittled by news reporters who present themselves as fair and balanced, but who, in fact are at times so slanted that their so called debate slide into a debacle.  It's proof that life isn't fair, and neither is this process of the mostly liberal media trying to play "got'cha" with the candidates.  Only this time, the one who got caught red handed, was George Stephanopoulos  like a planted  rookie, trying to play ball with the big boys. Dial it down, George---you looked,--- well,silly.

But as if the candidates themselves aren't happy to let the debates and the likes of G.S. vet or get them---they, themselves seem to feel its necessary to weed out each other---it's a tough game,  politics. One minute you're up, the next down---and sometimes snookered by your own team mates..Newt Gingrich, who suffered a big loss in Iowa, unwisely decided to go after Mitt Romney on the eve of the New Hampshire primary held on Tuesday of this week.  It was payback time for Newt who was still smarting from his loss in the Iowa primary, for which he blamed negative ads put out by a conservative political action group, Super Pac,  and not disputed by Romney. Rick Perry joined in the fray, criticizing Romney for his past history of dismantling, firing, and rebuilding  companies in trouble. They accused Romney of "vulture capitalism". By the way, is that anything like taking over the auto companies?? Tsk, tsk, and sour grapes to you both. Obama and company must be taking notes---and smiling like Cheshire cats who's cream has just been handed them.

Meanwhile, Romney won  in New Hampshire, with Ron Paul, the Jack- in- the- box surprise element of the campaign season, coming in second, and John Huntsman showing up third. But is anyone truly winning yet?? Ron Paul is a wild card that's looking strangely playable lately. What's up with that? The man is gathering steam,and there are those who say it's time to listen to his brand of libertarian conservatism vs. moderate conservatism.  But, unless he can take the scare out of his isolationist policy, he's running just for the exercise.  No one seems to know exactly what the Republicans are looking for, but they'd best find it soon, or Obama may win by default. Note to Repubs.---it's time to circle the wagons, or leave Dodge City to the Dems---
  
The bloodied candidates will have another chance with yet another debate next Monday night. Let's hope the format is more fair, and that the candidates themselves will stop trying to destroy each other, as this uniquely American process continues. Soon, the ultimate debates will begin----the  Republican challenger vs. President Obama, and the well equipped Democrat machine.  We can dream that the media moderators will at least keep their bias down to a low roar, and that they allow the American people to decide, based on fair and pertinent questions.

Debate, debacle, or disgusting---it's show time in America. The whole world is watching---and one thing they can't say about us---we don't coddle our own, or hide our flaws.  Like one big noisy family, we let it all hang out---may the best man win, and may we have the wisdom to choose correctly. The prize is our future.   .

WHAT ARE YOU DOIN' NEW YEARS???

Don't you hate that question? As if you don't have something gloriously and carefully planned, you're some kind of loser.  How could you possibly be doin' nothin' on New Year's Eve?  It's the grandest, most exciting of all evenings--- they would have us think---yes, full of laughter, comradie, lots of food and drink, all wrapped up in hopes for better days ahead. But the hype often does not live up to real life---the food is usually always over priced, the drinks way too many, the laughter a bit forced, and the company, if not carefully chosen, not the best.

Some of the worst New Year's Eves I've spent have been in public places, with everyone dressed to the hilt---the men in tuxedos, too small and too old, and the women gowned and dripping in jewelry.  The champagne flowed, the chatter was stiflingly polite or boorishly loud, the food a welcome respite from the chatter, followed by the requisite dancing done on a crowded postage stamp floor, all to be climaxed by the midnight kiss, which somehow always seems over done, presumed, and not at all romantic.

I love romantic , dinner out of the house New Year's Eves, and I've had a few, but in general, I find that New Year's Eve, and especially parties, rarely live up to the expectations of fantastically good times. Much better to spend it intimately with friends or family. Some of my best memories are of when the children were still of an age when we would gather around the dinner table and insist that everyone come up with a new year's resolution---I don't remember any of them, but I do remember their little faces and hoping fervently that their futures would be bright.

So, while I hope you're not doin' nothin', staying in, and all alone this New Year's, take note that sometimes it's not so bad, because it's not always so great out there---at least you won't have to nurse a hangover the next day, or worry whether you've said the wrong thing at the party the night before.  I recently did when I asked a man how his wife was---only I used the name of his former wife, not the present one.  So, now one of my many resolutions is to rehearse myself and all names before allowing myself out in public again.

Cheers, everyone---2012 is coming round the mountain, and is bound to have within it some good times.  No one promised us a rose garden, did they? Just a chance to live in one----weeds and all. It may not be Eden, but it's all we've got for now.  May you find a few roses among the thorns, and may the garden gate swing open to wonderful new vistas, full of promise, love, laughter, and good health.  Isn't that all we really need??

Once while visiting Israel, I learned from some Jewish friends an old favorite Hebrew toast---"L'chaim"--"-to life!!! " They, of all people, know the true secret of life---life! Happy New Year!!!







 

THANKS FOR NOTHING, SUPER COP-OUT COMMITTEE

So much for the "Super Committee" and its efforts to come up with 1.2 trillion in budget cuts and/or extra revenue, otherwise known to the Dems as taxes.  The committee, which was comprised of six Democrats and six Republicans, could have been called "same song, different verse", decided that failing to do their assigned duty was a better option than jeopardizing their reputations during an election year. So, now what?  Supposedly, we now kick into a pre-ordained do or die edict called "sequester", whereby severe cuts will automatically be made to both domestic and  military budgets.  The former will hurt lots of people, but the latter could seriously compromise our very security as a nation---up to 600 billion, in addition to a previous cut of 450 billion, may not be much in our total national budget, but it's blood-letting, traumatic surgery for our military. There is talk that congress will find a way around this trigger-cutting last ditch effort to save us from these dire slashes;  but President Obama says he will not allow for any such meddling---how very staunch----but where was he during the negotiation phase??  It would appear he did not care to involve himself in the political "sausage making", getting his hands dirty and thereby steering clear of controversy---- preferring to do what he enjoys most---mixing it up with the people, sharing his views, otherwise known as campaigning.  We could have used a dab of leadership about now---a president who might have been present and presidential---who might have actually led by putting politics aside and said, "Look, people----this is what you gotta do---- raise a little, cut a little, compromise, negotiate---but get it done!!!  Forget the election and do your duty and mine---it's the right thing to do, even if we personally lose." How noble and awesome would that be?  It might even win them all votes, based on extraordinary wisdom, courage and a patriotism that refuses to be responsible for the demise of a once great country. But it didn't happen, not going to happen---we are grid-locked.

 It was Obama's golden opportunity, his moment in time to rise to the occasion, and he blew it---all of them did.  So, now we face the prospect of sinking into the same morass as Europe.  Well, you can't say they didn't try---but was it all lip service? Political ideology and ambition trump conscience and reality.  It is painful and distressing to watch our system not working, as though the problems are too big to be solved by mere politicians and their petty agendas and self interests. The differences between the two parties seem to have become more of a "my way or the highway" loggerjam than a celebration of diversity and balance.  It is as though we are engaged in a tug of war, with one side pulling for an America that is traditional and  rooted in our past; and the other  wishing to mold and morph into a new America that will somehow blend our past capitalistic history with socialistic principles---a "new" system.  Proponents of this theory argue that a few countries such as the Norwegians, have done this---so why not us.  We are not Norwegian, or anyone else, that's why. We are Americans, a different breed of cat, sprung from the alleys of an oppressive English monarchy, with a fierce wish to be free of unnecessary government intervention, to pursue our happiness with all the inherent risks of independence. We do not wish to go backwards---or even sideways.  We wish to be what we've always been---a great, roaring motor of free market enterprise, entrepeneurs, and a labor force which benefits from the success of revenue gained from product and labor, not taxes---or even over zealous labor unions.

 But the game of tug of war has turned ugly and threatens to dismantle, rather than build. upon our differences.  The occupiers of New York and other big cities are hopefully fading away, as they lack a true compass, leadership, and focus. The spectrum of people causing mayhem, destruction, and dangerous conditions were more distasteful than inspiring. Their rallies could have been a teachable moment, in that it might have shone a light on the growing unrest and impatience with the state of our economy and those who helped get us where we are.  But the protesters didn't have a leader to clarify and state a constructive message.  The only vision they showed the world was one of  resentment, rebellion, rape, drugs, and demand for more entitlement---not a recipe for reasonable change.  It didn't fly, because it didn't reflect the true American spirit---which is still that we play by the rules, not mob frenzy. Unfortunately, the current administration used the occupiers for their own agendas,  emphasizing  and promoting class warfare for political advantage----  they  have missed an underlying and  sincere angst of the so called 90 percent of us----  unemployment and our very profound concern regarding our future as a healthy world power.

 But what about closing the income gap between the rich and the middle class? Again, those who assign all our troubles to that complaint, do not represent the "can do" spirit of this country---don't we all want to do well, to make as much money as possible? Is the disparity of income a result of the rich having made too much money---or is it what happens when a country can no longer afford the entitlements given to the middle class and poor, thereby collapsing under it's own weight?? That is the real question, isn't it? The unions will answer a resounding "no", but they too have become part of the problem.  Burning the house down isn't the answer---cleaning it out, is. Get rid of the dishonesty and greed that contaminated the financial empires.. Regulations are already doing that, but they must also be tempered, lest it suck all the oxygen out of the room.  Fire the politicians that march only to their special interest groups. That is not an easy task, as politics are fueled by money, and special interest groups are the money trees, but integrity is becoming a more effective currency as the American people begin to take more interest in the workings of government and demand transparency and integrity. Champion the rights for the poor and middle class, but guard the parameters of that which is fair versus undue and excessive benefits. Supply a safety net for those who cannot help themselves, but don't tear it apart with the weight of those who can.

  It appears we have reached a tipping point, teetering on the edge of  a philosophical disagreement too polarized to even consider compromise and balance between social responsibility and fiscal practicality. But on the eve of our Thanksgiving holiday, there is still hope that we will find our way back to,  if not what we were,  a  healing, chastened country who will once again work together, having tasted the bitter fruits of too much dissention among ourselves. Look closely and you will see a longing for a national ability to  get along with one another, to once again be proud of ourselves, to work together towards health and prosperity for all.

 The path to the future is already here---we're on it.  We're stumbling, falling,  hesitating, getting lost, but not down yet----because we're too big to fail---big, as in big spirited. To coin a phrase, it really isn't our economy," stupid", it's our heart. It beats as one, refuses to lose, and in spite of our diversities, wants to include everybody who believes in the American dream. To do anything else is to lose our identity, give up our heritage, give in to forces within and without that have weakened and diluted our unitedness.

The upcoming election is part of the journey we're on---take note, watch the debates, read, read, read.  Study the nominees, the current president---take part in the process that will ultimately shape our destiny.  This is a big deal, this election----Newt Gingrich, currently the front runner in the Republican presidential nominee race, recently stated that he believes we will begin to get well on the eve of election night, given we elect a Republican president. How in your face is that? But memo to the Dems---it played very well with the conservatives, according to the polls. And likewise,  President Obama says loud and clear that his is the way, that he needs another four years to get his goals accomplished. His poll numbers are not so good---but predictions are that he will still win the nomination---go figure.
 The American people must decide which way to turn, left or right--- but given the extreme polarization in the country, perhaps the only electable way is down the middle. Whatever, we march forward, and history will remember this time as our major fork in the road.  The" super committee" may have failed us, but they are not us---we will hopefully find a way to salvage ourselves sooner or later.  May that goal be included in our prayers as we bow our heads in remembrance of a people who once sat together in thanksgiving for freedoms they were willing to fight and die for. Their passion for their country, not their "party", is remembered still today---may we find the same, as we struggle to restore even a semblance of the United States of America---God bless us, everyone..

IS CAIN ABLE, AND IS MEDIA GOD??

 Herman Cain, the rising star in  the murky sky of Republican presidential candidates, has just experienced a harsh reality of politics in America----the blinding, punishing light of the scandal seeking media.  Politico magazine broke the story this week and the rest of the media picked it up like vultures after fresh meat.  Mr. Cain, a successful business man and CEO of Godfather's Pizza chain, was getting a little too much attention lately, coming in a surprising second to Mitt Romney, the front runner.  Time to dig up the dirt----in this  case, on Mr. Cain, who has been accused of improper behavior regarding the opposite sex---what?? What kind of improper behavior??  Well, that hasn't been clearly explained yet----unless you consider Mr. Cain's remarks about his chin being at the same level as a woman's height---uh, well---excuse me??  Perhaps there's more to the story, but we haven't heard it yet.  Mr. Cain did admit to a legal entanglement and a payoff of some kind, but so far, no details. Where there's smoke, there is usually some kind of fire---but  this sounds like a push deal,  a rush to judgment.  As this blog is going to press, both sides seem to be tip toe-ing around how much they can say under confidentiality contractual terms. But  even  the charges turn out to be nothing but a" he said she said" situation, or prior cultural norms, mis-interpretations, or even somewhat offensive behavior ---Mr. Cain's reputation has been put up for suspicion.  Another Republican presidential hopeful bites the dust---at least in the eyes of the media, who have been doing a superb job of eliminating all comers to the job of challenging their suspected favorite, the incumbent President Obama.  Is that an unfair charge against the media?  Let's look at what's been said so far about a few of the most promising  candidates---what's left of them.

Michelle Bachmann, congresswoman and--- once a promising presidential candidate, with lots of sass and class.  She has now been reduced pretty much to an also ran,with a strong conservative message--- too many holes in her historical references---and just a touch too religious.  Note to Ms. Bachmann---identifying oneself as "Christian isn't hip or cool these days---and above all, our media is hip and cool.

New Gingrich, a previous Speaker of the House, author, and current political consultant---obviously the brightest kid in the room with impressive experience and Washington know-how to get the job done. But sorry, he's got personal baggage, involving a divorce.  Never mind that was many years ago, and that divorce is hardly an uncommon sin among the media, let alone the general populace. But hey, we want 'em squeeky clean.  After all, if our ship is going down, the chief thing we want said about us is that our leaders had no infidelity and wonderful marriages, if nothing else.

Rick Perry,Texas Gov---this guy was promoted like global warming by the media for a short while.  Mitt Romney was running away with the prize, and somebody had to stop this run away train that might actually de-rail the Obama stop and go locomotive.   So, what to do?  Shine the spotlight on someone else---casting all others to oblivion.  It worked, until Perry showed himself to be less than stellar on the debate test. Bye-bye media. Though Perry did it to himself, they were more than happy to accentuate the negative.  This guy can run Texas like a well managed  gushing oil well, but no one showed him how to know when to fold 'em or hold 'em up there on that TV stage with all the other Republicans.  Note to Perry---the enemy ain't them.  Show us how you'd bring your Texas " git 'er" done expertise to Washington.  Meanwhile, the media has all but written you off. Get back on your horse, man, and stop the attack Romney schtick---it's not working. You need to bring it--because the media isn't about to do that for you.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts---the most presidential looking one of all,  would probably make a very acceptable, if not exceptional, president.  He has all the credentials---he is a smart, experienced business man, with moderate conservative views---a-a-and---he's squeeky clean.  No personal baggage here---yet. Don't think the dirt baggers haven't tried. But there is that one little thing.  This man is RELIGIOUS. What??  Not only that, he's, gasp, Mormon! Double whammy. Terribly sorry, but that just does not fit the media's presidential template. On the other hand, they're not too worried about Romney, because, guess what?  The Republicans don't seem too excited about him yet, either. Maybe they, also, have been reading too many left wing editorials. After all they are " the third rail", and have a lot to do with how all the voters think and respond. Wouldn't it be nice if the National Republican Committee could rise above the media and publicize all that is good about  all of the nominees, and how each could improve the current situation? 

President Obama, meanwhile back at the ranch, isn't spending much time on the ranch. Touring the country in his tax- payer financed jet, spreading the "tax the rich" gospel, all the while proclaiming that this trip is not about the election, but about putting Americans back to work. Please. That, coupled with his sudden alliance to the Wall Street Occupiers, is really outrageously transparent---the guy is in trouble, and has retreated to the only thing he seems able to do---preach class warfare to the masses via speeches, teleprompters, and TV talk shows.

President Obama made an appearance on Jay Leno's show last week.  He made a very revealing statement when Leno asked who Obama was most concerned about as a serious competitor in the next election.  Obama replied that for now he wasn't worried---he was just waiting to see who would  be "voted off the island next." It rang true---why worry, when the media seems to be doing all the heavy lifting for him.  Hm-m--m, not a bad plan they've got going either----vote everyone off the island, until there's no one left but---who we've already got! No worries, man---another 4 years coming up. Happy days are here again,--- or will be as soon as they figure out this little economy problem. They're working on it---it's not their fault, you understand, they inherited it, they're learning as they go, and they don't have a lot of experience . But we have irreproachable behavior coming out the ying -yang with our prez.  He's never been divorced, nor involved in any personal scandals, (never mind the Jeremiah Wright or x-terrorist Bill Ayer's associations) not overtly religious, has even given up smoking, is thin, good looking, cool, and very well spoken at all times.  Not to mention he's black.  But wait---so is Herman Cain.  Well, that's different.  He's a Republican. Doesn't count. I believe they call that "reverse discrimination."  

 So moving right along, we're still a year away from the big election, but it feels like we're down to the wire, and just one or two are left standing----isn't it a bit premature, and shouldn't we demand as much fair handed reportage from our journalists as they demand from anyone who dares to run for president against the incumbent Mr. Obama. Printing or releasing  all the dirt that's fit to report, may be the unfortunate standard today, but it would seem in the Herman Cain case, especially that they could have waited until they had just a few more specifics. Perhaps the public is finally catching up and has had enough of this kind of journalism--word has it that contributions have been pouring into the Herman Cain campaign coffers since the news reported the, whatever it was," gotcha'" scoop.  
.
 Herman Cain may or may not be guilty of  personal indiscretions, but he will probably be the latest victim in the media controlled selection of an acceptable Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States, and that may be our loss. Back in the late 50's, I remember a man who wanted to be president and who was enjoying his own indiscretions with Marilyn Monroe, among too many to count others, while married and before the election. I knew about it, not from the media, but from people I knew who were privvy to such secrets. It was not public knowledge,  and his continued  dalliances never  became widely known, even after he became president.  John F. Kennedy would never have made the current media litmus test----or would he?    

 Note to Republicans, and everyone else---don't believe everything you read, and don't form opinions too quickly. The best leaders, may not always be the squeek-iest clean.Think Eisenhower,  Bill Clinton---Thomas Jefferson.  It's about the economy, governing philosophy, the very future of this country.  What we need now isn't necessarily idol love, media style, but it.is a real person, perhaps a little humanly flawed, but who has know-how, business acumen and experience, an international diplomacy that believes America must remain strong, and a touch of Solomon,----not a media perceived and conjured picture of impossible perfection.  Been there, done that. Is Cain able to overcome this vague, but probably very calculating move  to down grade his chances to become the next president?  Stay tuned---sometimes the American people smell a rat.    

WAILING OR WHINING ON WALL STREET??

So, how are you feeling about the "Wall Street Occupiers"??   A little torn, or ambiguous?  It's probably the biggest news out there right now, and perhaps the one with the most potential for important consequences----but nobody seems to know whether to cheer them  on, or wish they'd go away. In fact, it seems un-American to say anything negative about a group of people who are coming up against the behemoth giant of our capitalistic society----like David and Goliath of the Bible. Who doesn't want to root for the little guys, and who doesn't still have a bad taste in their mouth over the behavior of some of Wall Street's finest institutions?  In our hour of desperation, they continued to dole out obscene amounts of money in the form of bonuses, as if we who had bailed them out in their hour of need, wouldn't notice.  And weren't they partly responsible for the current economic meltdown, in the first place?? Yes, some, not all, were complicit and guilty as sin for agreeing to the mandates of the federal govt., namely Fannie and Freddy to supply homes for people who could not afford them, then bundling those unreliable loans, and selling them off to unsuspecting clients. The house of cards came tumbling down when those mortgages could not be met by people who could not afford them in the first place. A well intentioned idea---or a way to line the pockets of those involved in the transactions??

But don't forget the word, complicit---which implies a partnership in wrongdoing or a crime.  A major wrongdoing and huge reason for our economic problems is due to the housing collapse, and was instigated by the government mortgage institutions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at that time led by Chris Dodd and Bernie Frank, who insisted, in a moment of excessive left wing entitlement ideology, in which almost everyone deserved to own a home, and mandated it so to the banks.  Ironically, these two gentlemen were the same designers of the new regulatory reforms now crippling many of the financial institutions with their over reaching rules and infringement against a free market flow. The housing collapse and ensuing failure of the banks and auto industry was a crime against all of us, the tax payers who would eventually have to pay for all the wrongdoing, in the form of a stimulation that failed as well.  The sin of greed was certainly committed---but not only by some Wall Street folks, but by those involved in the faulty loans.  Interesting that Fannie and Freddie, who also were bailed out by the tax payers, were never slapped with regulatory reforms----and to this day continue operating without much change.

So, let's be clear here.  Wall Street financial institutions, or huge corps. are not angels, they are in business to make a profit--- they are greedy sometimes, even law breakers sometimes, but they are not all devils, nor the ones who concocted our poisonous brew of economic woes.  To be sure, it's no secret , or shouldn't be that Wall Street and the United States government work together all the time via special interest groups, unions, etc., and the financing of all manner of programs. They have a love/hate relationship at times----- they need each other, and they know it. Big government needs big money, and the corporations, love them or hate them, generate that money.  The Democrats, and especially this administration are fond of  referring to them as  enemies of the people, the "fat cats", when in fact many within the Wall Street businesses supported Obama's candidacy and continue to do so, though their numbers are fading as they see their world crumbling around them. According to N.Y.'s comptrolling office, 20,000. Wall Street jobs have been lost and another 10,000 layoffs are expected by the end of this year.

It would seem an odd thing, even a dangerous thing for the president of the United States to take sides and align himself and his party against Wall Street and encourage the demonstrators---but that is what Obama appears to be doing. For a man who promised to be a president for all of us, to rally against devision, he is looking less and less credible, and more and more the common politician.bent on morphing himself into whatever will garner the most votes in 2012 .  How disappointing.  And how refreshing it would be for him to, instead of cheering on the Wall Street people, many of whom are misinformed, to tell it like it is---that the blame for our financial difficulties are not to be pinned on any one culprit. The government and those who ran it prior to President Obama, and now he and the mis-management of both parties, were partly to blame and continue to bear that burden of overspending and not being vigilant enough to see the wave of crushing debt coming towards us, or courageous enough to stop it.  Even all of us are to be held partially to blame for living beyond our means. Our economic house was a bubble bound to burst, but there were many factors leading up to it, not just one.

 Like so many mobs, the mentality gets focused and warped by a sort of group-think---without logic or the desire to look at the whole picture. In this case, it seems a good excuse to go after the popular demon of the left wing, big business----or sometimes just an invitation to party at a park. Burn the evil witch of  corporations, or at least make them the scapegoat----but then what?  Will that create more jobs?  Will it make us all well again?  No, but it could be another step towards the dismantlement of  capitalism.  But what will take its place?? Is this another "Arab Spring", American style? If so, perhaps it should be called, as someone suggested,  "The American Fall"---at least, as we have known her to be. Keep a leery, careful eye on those who scream for "justice" ----is their target a just one, and what do they offer as a better solution?

The state of our union is in deep trouble.  The people are angry and scared, and have a right to be.  They also have a right to object, to try to change things, even to demonstrate against that which they feel are counter to their way of thinking. Large groups of activists can often shine a spotlight on areas needing attention.  But unruly mobs in general, are not the best way to effect good change. They are emotionally charged,  fueled by artificial numbers, sometimes populated by those who do not necessarily have any agenda, save being against whatever.  If we are to change the direction of this country, we must do it in an orderly, wise fashion, as we always have--- or leave ourselves vulnerable to the whims of a noisy few, not the majority, otherwise known as anarchy.

 Some have likened the Wall Street Occupiers to the Tea Party  folks.  There are stark dissimilarities, but they are alike, in that they are both grass roots movements and are exercising a very American right to free speech---but there is one very huge difference. The Tea Party target is big government.  The Wall Street group's target is big business.  Pick your poison.  Big business will always have a few bad apples, but they can be routed out, and they are the cornerstone of our financial system.  Big government can get so big that even the bad apples get to stay in way beyond their welcome, and they live off of the financial success of business and those who work in the private sector.

 Memo to the Wall Street Occupiers----careful what you ask for, and that you are not being exploited.  The same people who uphold you now, could also ridicule and possibly shut you down, if your agenda doesn't fit theirs.  Accountability regulations are already in place, perhaps to the extreme.  Less profit and fewer bonuses? Those may be opinions, but not  the peoples' right to govern such things in a free market.  Ah, but wait--- higher taxes would  seem to be a way to soothe the disparities between those who enjoy the haves and the have- nots.  Life just isn't fair, and class warfare is so tempting--- and for some, so much easier to whine, than to work.   It has stirred many a revolution, but--- in reality, our corporations already pay a much higher tax rate, at 35%, second highest in the world.  And the top 1% of top wage earners in this country pay 38% of all federal taxes, while the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only 3% of all federal taxes, and 49% of our population pay no federal taxes at all..  That sounds pretty progressive already. How much is enough,  and why should we punish those who are successful? Don't we all want to be successful?   One young man at the Wall Street gathering said he thought he was entitled to free education health benefits, and even free housing and a car if possible---he knew that probably wasn't going to happen, but he said he could ask for it anyway.  Entitlement gone awry?  Success at the expense of others' hard work?  Here's the fear---that young man may get what he wants, or close to it---a short cut to "success", or at least a free distribution of the perks, but at whose expense, and at what detriment to our democratic soul?  In  the meantime, however, we are losing more and more of our businesses to other countries  with fewer stringent laws and harsh regulations. Business thrives on profit, and a free  country thrives on hard work and a people willing to pull themselves through the hard times, without dragging everyone down to a common denominator.

 Occupy and shame the bogey men of Wall Street, many of whom are hard working employees?  Take over public parks and make the public pay for the mess left behind?  Exercise our right to voice our opinions, even in a disorderly way that prompts police/tax paid action?  You bet'cha----this is America!!  And that's just the way we roll.  Love it, or leave it---just don't kill the golden goose that lays the golden eggs, that fuels the whole engine called-----  capitalism..  Listen to it roar---or is it whimpering the last sighs of a system beseiged by too many who would burn it down, rather than find a way to rebuild it?




        .