Incorrect, Bi-partisanship is Not the Answer

... and the question is - "Can the Republic be saved?" Some questions demand a "Yes" or "No" answer, so compromising to agree on "maybe" is just wrong. In America, the mantra of bi-partisan government has ruled the day since Ike's first term - Democrats favored ever bigger government, with ever growing federal budgets, while Republicans favored smaller government, with balanced budgets. Accordingly, to govern "effectively", so that the voters could see that their elected officials were getting thing done for them, Congress and presidents compromised, agreeing to "moderate" expansions of federal programs each session - less than progressive democrats sought, but more than conservative republicans favored.

So, from 1970 until 2006, this wonderfully moderate bipartisanship took the annual United States budget from 200 billion dollars per year to more than a trillion dollars, borrowed and spent. Then, in 2009, President Obama was inaugurated with substantial majorities in both Houses of Congress, so the dems had no need for their mantra of last nite - "we all must work together to give Americans a productive government". Instead, without consultations with or support from repubs, the democrats in Congress increased the Bush Administration's annual appropriations by another two and one-half trillion dollars of borrowed money. Of course, this highly productive, one-party rule, got us to the precipice of fiscal disaster, where a hostile foreign power (owning hundreds of billions of our debt) sends its chief thug into the White House to be serenaded about the glories of killing American soldiers.

The calamitous consequences of Obama's ruinous spending spree will not be corrected by a bi-partisan compromise to now stop spending more than what we are currently spending. A federal budgetary freeze for the next five years will only ensure many more Lang Lang invitations to spit on the graves of our Korean War veterans. No, the repubs need to save the Union and our national sovereignty by adopting fully balanced federal budgets. Should that course of action cause the dems to try to defeat this return to fiscal sanity, the public will fully understand, indeed will support, such partisan conflict as they are two very different views of how the nation will prosper. After all, when the stakes are this high - Saving the Union - Americans were willing to endure four years of bloody civil war. I'm confident that Americans will not shudder in fear when our elected representatives in Congress use the fighting words needed to save my soon to be bilingual granddaughter from the need to learn mandarin, as well. I'll gladly join this essential partisan fight over fundamental principals in the 112th Congress, because the alternative is to work together on rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

Did Lang Lang just Sucker Punch the President?

Loyal listeners, you just can't make this stuff up! At last week's State Dinner for China's President Hu Jintan, part of the entertainment was provided by Chinese-born pianist, Lang Lang. (I don't know Mr. Lang Lang; apparently he's about half as well known as Cher).

Nonetheless, I do know a good bit about great affairs of State; they are choreographed down to the split second, where each dignitary stands, and most absolutely, the content of the program down to the last syllable and musical note.

Accordingly, irrespective of whatever Mr. Lang Lang did or did not know regarding the lyrics of his piano selection, "My Motherland", it stretches credulity beyond the breaking point to believe that the Chinese delegation did not know that this theme song, from a virulently anti-American 1956 Chinese movie about the mass killing of American soldiers during the Korean War, was an irredeemable affront to the Nation - "but if the Jackal (Americans) comes/what greets it is the hunting rifle". Guess the ChiComs didn't get the memo. about cessation of the martial references.

What is even more alarming is that this Administration is: either the most incompetent in history because it did not ascertain in advance the source of Lang Lang's egregiously offensive choice, or knowing its provenance, allowed it to be played anyway. Too stupid to govern or too gutless to defend America, I'm not sure which is the actual explanation; neither one is particularly reassuring as to our future. My response? I'm getting my granddaughter chinese language lessons. Just saying ... in english, for now only.

State of the Union Speech, Part Deux

Having received substantially positive feedback on what to look for in viewing the President's speech to the Congress tomorrow evening, here is a fuller articulation of the keys to watch for, in deciding whether Mr. Obama has pulled a Clinton-like triangleization and moved to the center of the political spectrum, so that the nation can move forward with bi-partisan governance.

I will begin to believe that the President wants to reach consensus with Republicans, should he offer to truly engage in dialogue with Congress on a substantial rewrite of the Health Care legislation, not conceding on repeal for sure, but a willingness to find common ground on tort reform, inter-state health insurance competition and personal health care savings accounts. I would be absolutely convinced that the President has moved to the moderate center of American politics, should he offer to find an alternative to the freedom crushing mandate that every adult living today purchase a health insurance policy.

On yesterday's Meet the Press interview of Congressman Cantor, Moderator Gregory sought to make illegitimate the prevailing view held by conservatives that President Obama is outside the nation's 230 year history and tradition of limited government, in favor of greater individual liberty:

Gregory: "Because I think a lot of people, Leader [Cantor], would say that a leader's job is to shut some of this [crazy talk] down. You know as well as I do there are elements on the right who believe two things about this President: 'he is actively trying to undermine the American Way and wants to deny individuals their freedom.' Do you reject these beliefs."

Cantor: "[Of course not, David, indeed, I fully embrace them because, they are true. First, President Obama has repeatedly said that he wants to "fundamentally change" and achieve a "transformation of America" into a 'more caring' European style welfare state, where wealth is more equitably shared by the more affluent with the nation's less fortunate. Secondly, the President has been absolutely steadfast in his support for the unconstitutional health care insurance purchase mandate. Surely, you agree, David, that fining Americans thousands of dollars, and if not paid, threatening them with long prison sentences denies individual freedom, and is contrary to the American Way.]"

Ok, Congressman Cantor choose not to answer quite so candidly, but the mere fact that the main stream media can ask such non-sensical questions typifies why its viewership continues to decline so precipitously. Just saying ...

Can the Republic be Saved?

On the eve of the annual State of the Union address to Congress by President Obama, we preview this important event in the Life of the Nation, so that Elite Members will be alert for signs in the speech that the Republic will be preserved, and strengthened even.

First, take note whether a majority of Supreme Court members attend, and whether the President takes another gratuitous shoot at a Court ruling that he disliked. Both civility and comity dictate that the leader of the Executive Branch refrain from such an injudicious provocation.

Second, take note whether the President calls for an end to all funding for Pell Grants. With the federal government more than 13 trillion dollars in debt to the ChiComs and other hostile foreign powers, it is now urgent that our government balance the federal budget. The survival of our national sovereignty definitely hangs in the balance, so the President and Congress must finally choose between "good to do" federal programs - take money from future generations and give it to today's low income college students - and "must do" programs - national defense and winning the war against radical Islamic terrorists.

Actually, truth be told (as it always is here) I object to Pell grants for two discrete reasons. First, as a matter of sound public policy, I oppose all governmental wealth redistributive acts. My family, like millions of other Americans, borrowed substantial amounts of money to afford college. Both my Bro and I worked every day of the school year and summers just to make ends meet. That is the American Way. I see no reason to take taxpayers' money and give it to even the most deserving college students,so long as there is no obligation to repay a nickel of our money. In normal times, its the best job in the world - to spend other people's money. Let's hope not so much starting with Tuesday night.

Additionally, Pell Grants constitute an unconstitutional exercise of federal power. One can examine the Constitution forever, and not find any national government authority to fund the college education of individual students. The House of Representatives has adopted a new Rule mandating that every piece of legislation include a preamble citing the provision of the Constitution that authorizes adoption. For Pell Grants, it would have to be "make affluent people less so, so less affluent persons become more so." Not an Article One designated federal government power. Take note, should the President endorse this sensible House requirement.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

As an Elite Member, U already know that your humble blogger has great disdain for certain holidays. Well, today is not one of them. Dr. King lived and died, too young, in the most generous service of his country, living his faith in the goodness of all people, when called to listen to their better angels, and the power of the peaceable pursuit of justice through the spoken word.

Dr. King's message is my message - every individual to be judged by the content of his character, and not the color of his skin. Thats it, in its essence - personal success in life should be determined exclusively based upon an individual's merit. No group set asides based upon being black, female, Asian or some other perceived disadvantaged minority status.

Yes, the King and I share a common Dream - speaking Truth eloquently can change the entire World for the better And then, your birthday becomes a day of celebration, worthy of banging on kitchen pots. Ah, to sleep, per chance to dream.

Is Dick Durbin "The Worst Person in the World"?

Frequently, we hear that NFL quarterbacks and cornerbacks must have very short memories. Throw a bad interception, say for pick six, or allow a key reception for quick six, and going back on the field thinking about that last play will prevent the athlete from doing his job again. Only immediately by forgetting a past mistake can the true professional be up to the challenges of such a competitive endeavor.

With this truism in mind, I have to ask if Senator Richard Durbin (D - Ill.) believes that there are 310 million defensive backs living in America today. Either he thinks we are all memory challenged or he himself has played too many years against Gerald Ford without wearing a helmet, leather or otherwise.

The following recitation of a person with absolutely no shame does almost bespeak a form of insanity or arrogance beyond sane comprehension - Senator Durbin on 1/9/11:

"Public officials have a particular responsibility not to incite violence by using incendiary language. Toxic rhetoric can lead unstable individuals to believe violence is an acceptable response." CNN State of the Union, Interview on Tucson murders;

* * * ___________________________________________________________ * * *

"What American guards have done to GITMO prisoners would lead [you to] believe that this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings." Durbin, Senate floor speech on 6/14/05;

Disturbed by reports of United States military service personnel allegedly mistreating muslims, Major Nidal Hasan on 11/5/09 shot and killed twelve of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. Nonetheless, Americans continue to await Senator Dick's statement condemning himself for creating the climate of HATE which incited Major Hasan's violent rampage.

Inasmuch as no one watches Keith Oberman's MSNBC 's TV show, it will be difficult to ascertain whether he declares Senator Richard Durbin to be the Worst Person of the Week.

A Prayer for Peace and an End to Senseless Violence

What a horrible weekend with the news of the carnage in Tucson, Arizona. Again and again, the talking heads filled the TV screen with reports of the murders of innocents, from a nine year old child to three or four seniors in their mid-seventies. I say three or four, as the mind recoils from truly learning all the ghoulish details of lives ended in the flash of a madman's gun. A few aspects of the tragedy give us slivers of comfort - heroes abound, most surely the brave souls who disarmed and restrained the shooter, the first responders and medical personnel who stabilized the victims, saving many more lives, and most significantly, the Doctors at the hospital that have so far kept everyone who made it to the emergency room alive.

I do not know anywhere nearly enuff facts about the murderer to draw any conclusions about the wider societal implications of this event, if any, despite characterizing him as a "madman". I did so w/o. any regards to the prosecution of this individual as to the possible validity of his asserting an insanity defense. In common parlance, his murderous rampage can have no possible rational justification, whether or not he knows right from wrong in the context of a criminal trial.

Nonetheless, I will offer one national policy insight on this matter, irrespective of the prior disclaimer. Absent a proven insanity defense, I would consider this Stone Cold Killer a good candidate for the death penalty, definitely not to exact revenge or equivalent justice, however. I now believe that the execution of this murderer must be seriously considered to protect all other innocents who would be put into jeopardy, including prison employees, by keeping him alive. Somebody so evil that he executes six total strangers, who have never even said a cross word to him, will certainly be a grave risk to society to kill again. Not on my watch.

To Be or Not to Be - the only question suitable for Death Panels

They're back; Hey, for an administration that condemned the Bushies for purported violations of the Rule of Law and running roughshod over Congressional prerogatives, it would seem that promulgating a regulation, on Christmas Eve no less, that pays Medicare physicians a bonus payment for every patient consultation that convinces an elder to choose the hospice express to eternity would be deemed overreaching. When Congress explicitly rejected that very Medicare service in enacting Obamacare, one would think that such an unequivocal expression of the will of the people would be respected for at least one election cycle. Such arrogance bespeaks volumes.

Nonetheless, this Medicare service is objectionable as a huge waste of money, money the government does not have, but will gladly steal from my granddaughter and her generation. No doctor should accept a bonus payment for talking to his/her patients about end of life issues, as that matter is intrinsically part of the baseline annual physical examine for every elder patient.

No, the Death Panels are found in a different section of Obamacare. A panel of government experts will soon develop cost benefit calculations determining whether Medicare will pay for a specific medical procedure for each age category patient. These calculations are essential so that the budgeted funds are spent to achieve the greatest societal benefits. No individual care considerations in discussion between Doctor and Patient will open the Medicare checkbook when the "Advisory Board" has already ruled that a heart valve replacement for a retired 74 year old is too expensive, when that same money can be spent on gall stone removal for a 37 year old employed taxpayer.

Government funded Medicare has to and will cut off the old and infirm at some point, because to not do so would lead some to obtain life sustaining care which could keep them "alive" in a hospital setting for decades with feeding tubes, and other mechanical means, costing let's say "a Lot".

Ok, on reflection, I guess those Bonus payments for guaranteed embarkation on the hospice express are vital money savers after all. Just saying...