White House spokesman Nick Shapiro inadvertently summed up what is wrong with the United States...AND, ironically, what is wrong with the Obama administration.

While defending the president's new NASA policy, of which a central focus is to "reach out" to Muslim nations, Shapiro offered the following in defense:

"Meeting that mandate requires NASA to partner with countries around the world like Russia and Japan, as well as collaboration with Israel and with many Muslim-majority countries. The space race began as a global competition, but, today, it is a global collaboration."

Obama seems to be the first president in the history of this nation that does not adhere to the tenets of American exceptionalism.  This is troubling.  For all of his "book learning," perhaps Obama ought to take a remedial course in United States history.  If he did, he'd quickly learn that the Industrial Revolution, coupled by our successes in the two World Wars, is what catapulted the U.S. into being a world superpower.

Private sector malaise and profiteering, in conjunction with the government's endorsement of globalized "free trade," are what is just as quickly bringing this country to its knees. 

Machiavelli is far superior to Marx and Engels.

NASA was never meant to work in concert with other nations.  John F. Kennedy is probably rolling over in his grave at such a despicable notion. 

As usual, David Gibbs squirmed today.

When asked why the Obama administration doesn't sue cities and/or states featuring "Sanctuary Cities," Gibbs had no answer.

It is a very valid and pertinent question (as I mentioned on another thread).  Technically speaking, cities that designate themselves as "sanctuaries" are in direct violation of Federal immigration law. Furthermore, the sanctuary designation itself is an example of a city or state supplanting Federal law, which is EXACTLY what Eric Holder is accusing Arizona of doing.

The Obama administration cannot arbitrarily decide when and when not to invoke the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.  To do so would be an abuse of power and a miscarriage of justice.  Yet that is apparently exactly what is happening considering the administration clearly has no intention to take legal action against Sanctuary Cities.

It's not difficult to connect the dots on this.  Quite simply, the Obama administration has no desire to expel the millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in this country.  Furthermore, the administration has made it clear that it wants some Republican support to help pass comprehensive immigration reform BEFORE it acts to secure the border.  By "comprehensive immigration reform" I am talking about offering illegal immigrants a "pathway" to citizenship.

In my humble opinion, that is god awful leadership.  Actually, it's a god awful attempt at leadership.  It should be fairly obvious to the president and his allies that the Republican strategy is to oppose him on every front.  With that being said, does he really expect ANY Republicans to join the Democrats in passing immigration reform? 

Furthermore, if (and when) he fails to pass an immigration bill next year, won't that open the floodgates for every border state to do what Arizona is currently doing? 

In addition, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the administration will succeed in killing the Arizona law.  It seems destined to make it before the Supreme Court.  I can't think of a better way for the Roberts Court to get back at the president for his State of the Union snub.

Any takers on that?

On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spilled the beans during an interview on Ecuadorian television that the Justice Department would, in fact, pursue a lawsuit against Arizona for its controversial immigration law.  For its part, the Justice Department responded that it is still reviewing the law and no legal action is imminent.

Assuming that Clinton's comments are accurate, what is the ultimate objective of the federal government?

State Department spokesman Andy Laine noted, ""The president and Secretary Clinton have said clearly that the administration opposes the Arizona law.  A number of leaders in the region have raised the issue with the United States. It came up during her recent trip to South America. As the secretary said, a better solution is comprehensive immigration reform."

If Laine's statement is an indicator as to the thought process going on inside the Obama administration, then it would seem as if the president, and attorney general, are considering taking a significant gamble.

On the one hand, Eric Holder would certainly have a reasonable chance of winning a lawsuit in federal court.  Even with the carefully crafted language of the Arizona law, a very firm precedent exists relegating the enforcement of immigration laws to the federal government.  Many states have seen their hard work, and vast majorities at the polls, go by the wayside when trying to circumvent federal immigration laws.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has promised a "fight" in court should Washington decide to act.  One thing Brewer and her cohorts will be armed with is quantitative data and statistics showing definitively just how poor of a job the federal government is doing to both secure the border and prosecute illegal immigrants currently inside the country.  Of course, one could certainly argue that this "non enforcement" is quite deliberate on the part of the U.S. government.  Illegal immigrants, after all, DO play a significant part in sustaining the economy of this country.

Whether the lax enforcement is deliberate or not, success in court would force Eric Holder to take action.  The DOJ cannot decry the Arizona law just to preserve the status quo.  It would be a hypocritical miscarriage of justice to slap Arizona's hand without taking definitive action.  It would also be unacceptable for the federal government to admit there is no problem.  The Arizona law merely allows state policing agencies the authority to enforce existing laws.  In fact, the legislation itself uses current federal immigration law as its operational basis.  

If the Arizona law dies in federal court, what then?

As the State Department spokesman noted, comprehensive immigration reform seems to be the preferred route.  But that is risky.  President Obama has said repeatedly that some Republican support will be required to achieve a new set of immigration laws.  Considering the GOP is poised for electoral gains in November, that might not be an easy goal to attain.  If and when congress undertakes this issue in 2011, it will be yet another instance where the minority party holds all the cards.  The Democrats will lack the votes within their caucus to go it alone as they did with health care.  As a result, the Republicans will be afforded the luxury of voting NO on any legislation that is not to their liking.  If Obama takes on immigration and cannot get a bill passed, that would open the proverbial flood gates for every border state to do what Arizona has done.

The other thing to take note of is the fact that nearly 70% of Americans favor the tough Arizona law.  This presents a massive political challenge for Obama personally because the other 30% (who hate the law) are mainly Obama-voting Democrats who are demanding legal action from the federal government.  Does the president appease the minority (who represents a core base of his support), or does he play it safe and bow to the will of the majority?

This is not a post that is either in favor of, or against, the Arizona immigration law.  But regardless of which side of the "fence" you come down on, the law puts the Federal government in a significant bind.  Russell Pearce, author of the highly controversial SB 1070, is, if nothing else, a clever man.  When Pearce sat down to pen his less-than-Jeffersonian piece of legislation, he was well aware of the state immigration laws that had been shot down in Federal court over the last couple decades.  The precedent has been firmly set in the Federal court system that immigration policy is strictly a Federal issue.  States attempting to usurp Federal authority on the issue need not bother.

Pearce knew this.

The bill that he wrote was unprecedented because it inherently ACKNOWLEDGES the sovereignty of the Federal government on all issues pertaining to immigration.  His bill simply affords Arizona law enforcement agencies the authority to enforce the Federal laws that are already in existence. 

The conundrum facing Washington pertains to just that: enforcement.

When the legality of SB 1070 gets challenged in Federal court, there is the potential that it could be struck down.  Although the carefully crafted language of the legislation makes it a much tougher case than what we've seen in other places (like California), a Federal judge could very easily decide that Arizona law enforcement agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal immigration laws.

Problem is, the governor of Arizona, as well as those in that state's government that support this law, have ammunition.  Namely, quantitative data that illustrates clearly that the Federal government is not adequately enforcing the current immigration laws.  Chronic under-funding and a lack of adequate border agents is no secret.  Moreover, whatever diminutive resources ARE being  allocated toward enforcing immigration laws are mostly consumed at the border.  Jan Brewer and Co. can easily, and truthfully, argue that almost no enforcement is being seen in interior towns and cities.

So, if the Federal government cannot adequately enforce its own laws, but also doesn't allow Arizona to enforce those laws, how are the laws supposed to be taken seriously in the first place?

It seems to me that this question, more than anything, is why the Obama administration has signaled a desire to tackle the issue.

It's fairly understandable why the Democrats are so desperate to roll the dice on their last chance at passing some kind of mashed health care overhaul.  Whether it passes or fails, they're going to lose at the polls in November so there's no sense in NOT trying to pass something.

But chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), explained in clear terms on CBS "Face the Nation" why going the route of reconciliation is actually a mistake.

"The major package of health care reform cannot move through the reconciliation process. It will not work," he said. 

The reason it will not work is because under the rules of reconciliation, only items that can be budgeted are able to pass.

Quite simply, this means that essential features of the proposed legislation, such prohibiting insurance companies from denying applicants with pre-existing medical conditions, establishing insurance exchanges, and even preventing lifetime caps on insurance expenditures for individuals, CANNOT be part of any bill that passes through reconciliation because as essential as those elements are, they are non-budgetary.

What it boils down to is that if the Democrats are successful in passing their fundamentally flawed initiative, the end result will be a law stating that everyone must buy health insurance from a private companies and yet there won't be any more regulation or rules for those insurance companies to conform to.

They'll benefit from having tens of millions of new customers, yet they'll still be able to drive up prices and deny high risk applicants the coverage they need.

It was very touching today when Nancy Pelosi urged Congressional Democrats to support the reconciliation process even if it meant risking their re-election.  In a way she was merely stating the obvious.  But if you look at this situation with even an ounce of objectivity, it's hard to believe that bettering people's lives is the prime motivation for Democrats.  It would seem as if trying to save the party by scoring some token legislative victory is the key goal.

Conclusions should not be drawn from poll numbers.  But if the recent Gallup Poll is any indication as to the thoughts of the United States electorate, the Obama administration had better pay attention.

The newest poll shows Obama's approval rating at 47%.  According to the report on the Fox News website (yes, they even have a web page to compliment their illustrious news network), the most recent Gallup poll was conducted on December 4-6. 

In the history of the Gallup Poll, which began in 1938, this is the lowest approval rating for any president after only 1 year in office.  Here is the list of presidential approval ratings after 1 year in office:

-- Barack Obama, 47 percent
-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent

Things are not looking promising for the Democrats.  Their strategy of shutting out the Republicans in the health care debate backfired swiftly yesterday when the so-called Senate Majority Leader, Harry (I'm about to lose my re-election bid) Reid suggested that the Republicans opposing this bill are probably the same type of people who would have fought against the abolition of slavery.  Apparently Mr. Reid has never heard the term, "Party of Lincoln."  If the Republican tactics continue to irritate the uncompromising Democrats, I'm sure we'll hear a Nazi reference before too long.

Of course, it would help if the proposed legislation wasn't comprised of over 2,000 pages; much of it merely ink that nobody in the Senate Chamber has laid eyes on.

At the time of the banking disaster late last year it was not difficult to discern that the Obama administration took a hand in Bank of America's seemingly untimely acquisition of Merrill Lynch.  B of A, after all, was on the precipice of financial ruin.  What sense would it make for that bank to suddenly take over similarly beleaguered Merrill Lynch?

The deal had the smell of rotten eggs right from the beginning.

Clearly the government forced the merger.  Now, I'm not going to say that Obama's cabinet is the most un-American since the days of James Buchanan (three quarters of his cabinet ended up serving in the Confederate government after secession), but this Bank of America coersion is just one occurrence on a growing list of things most of us never thought we'd see out of an 'American' administration.

Here's the link from the Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/21/feds-threatened-to-oust-bofa-execs-over-merrill-de/

No matter how liberal your interpretation of the Constitution might be, there is no way anyone can reasonably argue that it guarantees the right of adequate health care.

If the Democrats insist on spending trillions of dollars on a drastically overhauled health care industry, they should first put their money where there mouth is and propose a constitutional amendment which DOES guarantee adequate health care to all U.S. citizens and legal residents.

This way, all 50 states will be able to meet and discuss the merits of said proposals.  If 2/3 of the states agree with what is being proposed, then the amendment will be ratified and all critics will be marginalized if not silenced.

It's the right thing to do.

On the one hand, it will forever guarantee the government's obligation to ensure that the nation's health care system is not gamed by deviant private businesses.  It will also put an end to the long standing question of whether or not all Americans have a RIGHT to adequate health care.

But even on a more practical level it should be noted that health care ultimately boils down to the individual and their health and well being.  This is not like social security.  Not even close.  If the federal government is truly serious about reforming health care for all Americans, should not these desires and actions be backed up in the Constitution?

Dear Senator Baucus,

I feel compelled to pass along a few words in light of your health care proposal which, among other things, compels every single American to purchase insurance or face significant penalties. This misguided proposal is disappointing for several reasons.

First, the segment of the population currently lacking health insurance is proportional to the segment that lacks the necessary income to afford it in the first place. Hence, struggling individuals or families would be unjustly coerced into re-allocating precious dollars away from essential elements such as food and shelter in an effort to satisfy the demands of this proposal. The tax credits and adjustments contained within the proposal may amount to a pseudo-reimbursement, but that is only on the back end and does not take into account the strife which would be thrust upon those who must first come up with the money at the outset.

Second, unlike the requirement on the part of all motorists to possess automobile insurance (in effect a contract in which each motorist agrees to purchase auto insurance in exchange for access to public roadways maintained through tax dollars), the federal government cannot guarantee or even know whether all participating individuals will ever require or seek applicable medical treatment or care.

Finally, the Constitution of the United States does NOT guarantee the right of quality health care to any citizen or legal resident of this country regardless of how one's political leanings cause him or her to interpret said document. Consequently, any attempt on the part of the federal government at Washington to browbeat the citizenry of this country into forced participation in this plan must be deemed unconstitutional. Indeed, if this proposal ever graduated to the president's desk for signature into law, would he not instantly recognize its legal shortcomings and acknowledge that at some point it must find its way to the Supreme Court for ultimate consideration and rejection?

In closing I would politely and respectfully request that you, Senator Max Baucus, take into account that your proposal fails to serve not only your own constituency in the great state of Montana, but also places an injurious burden on those portions of the population that can least afford to have yet more hard earned money ripped from their clutches under the threat of the political bowie knife. Common decency decries this coercion while the Constitution expressly prohibits it. As you are a valued member of the United States Senate, I implore you to simply do your job.

Very Respectfully Yours,

Christopher Virnig

Several published reports surfaced on Monday (4/13) saying that the Obama administration will preserve its right to invoke the "state secrets" privilege that drew unwavering criticism from Democrats when former President George W. Bush put it into practice.  Essentially this allows the federal government to not only continue its domestic eavesdropping practices, but shields such programs from any and all public exposure.

Several left-leaning think tanks have already voiced their dismay, but it'll be interesting to see if the general public (that was so up in arms a few years ago when Bush did this) gives Obama yet another hall pass.

Sketchy.

That is the word that sums up the first couple weeks of the Obama Presidency.  In lieu of a wordy post, I'll be concise:

1.  Obama had not even been sworn in and he was already demanding over a trillion dollars from congress.  Is that normal?
2.  Why spend another trillion dollars of bailout money when the first trillion has yet to yield even the most diminutive results?
3.  Why doesn't Obama attempt to pass tax initiatives that would entice American companies to a) stop outsourcing employment, and b) bring some employment/manufacturing back stateside?  After all, when you break it down, isn't this issue at the heart of the matter with regard to the recession?
4.  Why doesn't anyone seem to care that two of Obama's cabinet picks are blatantly guilty of tax fraud?  Timothy Geithner, who clearly is guilty of payroll tax fraud, is now Secretary of the Treasury?  Wow.  And how about Tom Daschle?  The guy owes $120,000 in back taxes and didn't even inform Obama until just before the inauguration.  White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Daschle and his purported fraud but could only counter with, "nobody's perfect."
5.  If two Bush picks were guilty of tax fraud, wouldn't there be riots in the street?
6.  We're only two weeks in.  This could be a long 4 years.

The days of the United States being the world's preeminent superpower are unequivocally over.  Perhaps the most disconcerting and disappointing reality is that the corrosive elements that have led to our country's downfall have largely been from self-inflicted wounds.

An interesting historical document is The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.  I've read it twice and was left with the same two impressions both times.  First, upon completing the reading of it, there awaits endless hours of fascinating thought and discourse.  Second, the actual document itself is horrifyingly boring to read.

Nevertheless, there is one part of the Communist Manifesto that rings true with regard to American culture.  That one part is the notion that whomever controls the base of production within a nation assumes the true authoritative and governing power of that nation.  Marx and Engels cautioned that in a Capitalistic system comprised of free markets, the private sector controls the base of production and that after a period of difficult times those private institutions would strive to ensure their own survival and the actions taken to do so would run counter to the best interests of society and populations; i.e. the wishes of government.

For well over a century there seemed to be minimal conflict between the private sector and the public sector.  The technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution allowed the United States to manufacture its endless supplies of raw materials into finished goods where previously it was forced to merely ship these raw materials to Europe for manufacture.  American industry sprang up and our products and inventions were the envy of the entire civilized world.  The two World Wars further augmented the American gains of the late 19th century simply because war time fueled production when Europe twice was forced to rebuild itself after complete annihilation.

Things are changing though.  As time has gone on, other countries have caught up to the U.S. in terms of technological advancement.  To make matters worse, the U.S. developed a horrendous addiction to oil in an effort to feed its invention of the automobile.  Unfortunately, oil is the one valuable natural resource of which our own supply fails to meet demand.  The middle eastern nations of OPEC have utilized their advantage through various price gouges.  American oil companies, in turn, have offset their profit inequities by passing along that gouge to the American consumer.

Now, in the face of rising wages and production costs, a vast multitude of other American companies have decided to outsource domestic jobs in an effort to make the most of cheaper work forces in other countries.  To date, hundreds of thousands of American jobs are gone with the wind and millions more are soon to follow.  Of course, it also hurts that private sector men with private sector ideals have slowly been making their way into government to ensure that the best interests of business find receptive ears (and votes) in congress.

The current economic crisis has shown for the first time the battle lines that are being drawn between the private sector and the public sector.  Battle lines that Marx and  Engels so accurately predicted in 1848 when the U.S. was nothing more than a vacant land with a couple big cities.

The trillion dollar bailout of the financial system shows definitively that the government is at the mercy of the private sector; a private sector who is content to ensure its own survival by sending its jobs overseas and relegating its manufacturing power to foreign lands.  China's burgeoning economy and manufacturing infrastructure already dwarfs our own ability to make things. 

The downfall of the U.S. is inevitable because not only does the government have no ability to stop this process, but very soon the United States won't have any production capacity whatsoever.  When once the rest of the world relied on importing American goods and materials, America will soon be forced to import the goods and materials of China.

Obama won't be able to stop this process.  Nobody will.

Can you imagine if, in 1972 and beyond, the Washington Post had opted to sit on the investigative journalism of Woodward and Bernstein?  What would have happened if the Post had been allied with troubled President Richard Nixon and refused to print the scandalous findings that surely would have been a political game-changer?

Thankfully that did not happen.  The Washington Post, for all of its faults, hit a proverbial grand slam with the Watergate Scandal.  In contrast, the 2008 Los Angeles Times has shown, for the entire world to see, just how far the integrity of the mainstream media has plummeted in the last 30 years.  I thought I had seen it all five or so years ago when the New York Times had a reporter(s) not only creating fiction in place of true journalism, but purporting to be reporting from Iraq when they were actually bottled up in their New York City apartment.

But the LA Times has hit a new low in its abject refusal to release what promises to be a controversial and game-changing video of Barack Obama toasting one of his controversial friends in the PLO.  It's not so much that it could help John McCain.  Most of us want McCain staying right where he is -- in the U.S. Senate chamber.  But if the LA Times is willing to sacrifice wholly its journalistic integrity to protect a politician, what are the American people to make of that?  It honestly sounds like something straight out of Al Jazeera.

For its part, the LA Times cites a promise it made to its "source" that it would not make public the video.  This would be akin to George W. Bush, at his farewell address, saying that all of the mistakes made during his presidency were purely the result of "bad advice."  For one, I've never heard of a "source" giving a damning piece of evidence to a newspaper unless they wanted it exposed to public scrutiny.  Second, look at what Woodward and Bernstein were able to accomplish without EVER compromising the most famous source ever, Deepthroat.

But perhaps the most damning thing is that the mainstream media, as shown here by the LA Times, has sunk into the same cesspool of treachury, mistruth, and yellow journalism that has drowned the White House over the last 8 years.  It shows that the "progressives" have fallen to the same level as Fox News.

Obama talks a lot about change.  But as time goes on, more and more things remain the same.

It goes without saying that the Obama camp must do its best to press the insinuation that four years of McCain is akin to "four more years of Bush."

I get that.

But what I cannot seem to grasp is the left's notion of what a "Neocon" really is.  Being a Libertarian who happens to despise both McCain and Obama (at least as a potential Chief Executive), I find it ironic that many of the Democrats that I know (or read on this site and others) seem obsessed with the term "Neocon" and the faces which represent the word, i.e. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitcz, etc; but they seem to not know exactly WHAT Neocons are actually after.  Money, for sure, but given their track record, it must be more than just personal profit.

Indeed, if you read most of the posts here, you would think they're nothing but a group of rogue criminals who simply take glee in smashing the sacred American institutions of government and law/order.  While part of this may be true, surely they have an ultimate goal in mind at the end of the day, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it become obvious that the true strategy of the Neocons has been to change things?  More specifically to:
1. Use foreign policy and war as a diversion in an effort to clandestinely reform the domestic agenda.
2. By reform, I mean to siphon the ruling authority (power) out of Washington/Congress and into the Corporations of the private sector (where most of these "Neocons" will slink back to in January when Bush's term ends).
3. Hence, in the future, the government will be wholly dependent on the services rendered by the private sector to enact any and all of its laws and regulations.  Oil companies and energy companies will thus have the ruling authority and will be in a position to set the Congressional agenda.

Isn't that what the Neocons are all about? Am I missing something?

If so, John McCain must be the most ill-fitting Neocon in the history of Neocons.  Being a military man all of his life, he hasn't had much time for private enterprise.  Indeed, he's been heavily scrutinized lately for being clueless as to the extent of his wife's enormous estate.  Tell me, what Neocon wouldn't know every facet of his/her assets?

I'm certainly not saying John McCain would be any more attractive a candidate if he were just, say, a regular "old" Conservative instead of a Neocon.  I'm just saying, what if?

Of course we are all aware of the delicate volatility which currently plagues the Middle East.  I was reading the Wall Street Journal last week, however, and a map of the region in the article struck me as being particularly dire.  In short, there was a map of the Middle East with arrows placed on Palestine/Israel, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.  Next to the arrows there were text boxes listing briefly the economic/military unrest which is present in each of these territories.  Although we certainly know where these nation's are located, it puts things into perspective when seeing that all four of these "hot spots" are closely connected to each other.  Putting the Bush Administration and the Iraq War aside for a moment (these problems, of course, were around long before Bush took office and will be around long after he is gone), I am curious as to what will happen in this region. 

Naturally, Israel has the most to lose.  Although they have made threats towards Iranian President Ahmadinejad, they have done a reasonable job at containing their anti-Islamic biases within their own (and Palestine's) borders.  To the west it would appear that any option is on the table so long as it does not lead to a unified Middle East.  Granted, locations such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emerates, etc. are much better at understanding what is in their own best interest than is Syria or Iran.  But what long-term strategy should be employed in the region?