childlessness Could Doom the Childless and the Nation

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/18/why-the-choice-to-be-childless-is-bad-for-america.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

This is a very extensive, interesting and insightful article on the “Childless Culture” of modern urban America. Will there be enough children to replace those who are growing older and those who are dying? If there are not enough children who will pay for the elderly? If the childless generation succeeds, then they too will suffer. For this writer, one area that the author of this article neglected, and probably could not gauge, was the effect of aging on those who are electing to be childless.

Now, these folk have living parents and often grandparents. But grand parents and parents will die leaving the childless children without family. Friends, yes. But are today’s friends the same as today’s children who remain your children when you are old! This idea of family as companions along the journey of life may be quaint, but I suggest a visit to a contemporary elderly life home, or a nursing home. The people in these places often have families and yet, they cannot stay at home because of illness, frailty, behavioral problems, or simply because their children do not want to take care of them.

So, we posit the idea of millions of men and women who today could have children we imagine that they successfully carry out their childlessness. So, imagine that they are now fifty or sixty. They are weaker than they are now. Some are sick. Some are frail. All are without grandparents, parents or children. They are also either out of a job because of technological advances eliminating their employment, or they are forced to continue working until they are dead because of the increasing costs of urban singleton living.

Hey, they may indeed be happy. But this is also true, there comes a point in biological life when it is no longer possible to have children. So, the decision to be childless becomes, at that point, not reversible. Hey, they may be used to being a “family” of one. However, the socially hip scene changes with age. The friends move away or die away. The body degenerates. So, what! They may think that is not their problem. And it isn’t.

As the article inferred, Obama will take care of them. Oh, I forgot, he will be old too. And surprise! Obama is married and has two children. His retirement will be generous. His wife is a successful business person. And although his parents and grandparents are dead, I am sure he will have plenty of friends to keep him company as he grows older. Maybe, using him as the image for ourselves is not the best idea. Well, to each his/her own.

Obama Administration’s Foolish About Benghazi

http://news.yahoo.com/libya-militia-linked-u-attack-returns-benghazi-141851547.html

The Obama administration is the reason for the continued terrorist success in Libya. Why? Because Obama backed the rebel insurgents and terrorist Islamists who fought against Gaddafi. Using the romantic notion that all the Islamic countries needed was a breath of fresh Spring air, Obama ignited and then supported what has become a nightmare of terror for Libya, Egypt, and Syria.

A glaring fault of the Obama administration’s worldview is directly attributable to the President. He seems to think that simply forcing an autocratic government out of power will automatically produce a grass-roots movement akin to the American Revolution of 1776. However, the governments of Libya and Syria are autocratic for a vast array of social, ideological and tribal reasons. The leadership of these regions, like that in Iraq and Iran is based on powerful clan and tribal allegiances. These forces produced the autocratic governments, perpetuated them in existence and reinforced their continuation into this era. The obvious breakdown of Libya and Iraq into competing tribal and clan factions, each at war with the other over land, influence and Islam, is evidence of the correctness of this analysis. Yet, the Obama administration, its State department and the CIA that serves him, followed an amateurish plan based on romantic notions of hope and change.

Surprisingly, it is Vladimir Putin who is the voice of a seasoned and reasonable national policy regarding the Mid Eastern nations in general and Libya and Syria in particular. Putin was betrayed during the illegal aggression against Libya which was carried out by Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy. In conjunction with the Belgians, these three leaders had gotten United Nations permission to protect rebels forces fighting against a member of the UN (Libya). But the UN resolution 1973 was then used by these leaders as a cover under which they engaged their nations in criminal aggression against the legal government of Gaddafi, a government, which until his murder by the rebels, was recognized by 103 nations as the legal government of Libya. The criminal aggression was carried out by bombing, and strafing the legal army of Libya by NATO forces. It was carried out by the use of 213 USA cruise missiles fired against the legal army and government of Libya by NATO. The illegal aggression was carried out by the use of USA Special Forces personnel on the ground in Libya who aided the rebels, guided the bombing raids, and spotted for the missile attacks. The entire affair enraged Putin because it was illegal under International law. But the powerful Belgians, French, English and Americans were never called accountable. Instead, the puppet press of the Obama administration depicted the Libyan aggression as a war of freedom against tyranny.

Evidence of confiscated weapons shipments by Russia to the Syrian government of Assad, seems to indicated that the Russians are doing legally what the USA did illegally. How so? The Syrian government, like the Libyan government of Gaddafi, has an internationally recognised right of self-defense against all enemies foreign and domestic. By the way, it is illegal, regarded as treason, and punishable by death, if a citizen or group of USA citizens attempts to overthrown the federal government by force. So, what’s the difference with Libya? Oh, I forgot! We declared Gaddafi a dictator and that made every illegal and criminal action that we took, well, it made our action right!!??

Strange, isn’t it, that a former Communist KGB agent, Vladimir Putin, should be more of defender of national sovereignty and I believe in Libya, of national self determination, then the Obama administration?

Gaddafi had moved very forcefully to attempt to atone for his terrorist actions in Lockerbie. He acknowledged the crime and paid the blood money. Which, although Westerners do not agree with the process, is nonetheless, regarded as an expiation for the crime. So, if the relatives of the victims accept the blood money, they are required to exonerate the perpetrator of the crime. (Hey, I don’t agree either. But if we are going to play the game and accept the money then we cannot secretly decide that we have other rules that we apply to the game that are unknown to the other participant.)

Gaddafi had stopped all Nuclear bomb development in acquiesce to American demands. He had stopped all International terrorism funding and activity in return for USA government recognition of his government. A fact attested by the visit of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Gaddafi.

However, President Obama did not honor the promises of the previous USA administration. President Obama reneged on government to government agreements. He decided to repudiate the promises of the USA made to Gaddafi, instead using our prestige at the United nations to get Resolution 1973 passed and then using it as a legal cover for illegal and criminal aggression against a sovereign Libya government, an action which was condemned by Nuremberg when it was done by the Nazi against Poland, etc.

The amateurish and cavalier approach of President Obama to foreign affairs in terribly illustrated by his handling of the Benghazi murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens. It seems that President Obama thinks that he can engage in acts of war and then walk out of the oval office and go to bed, leaving the conduct of the war to others. But what is his plan? What is he intending to accomplish? What is his focus in terms of the macro and micro scenario of international politics? Where is his instruction manual for what he intends for his officials to achieve? Just saying to his staff, “handle it.” and then going to bed is not the basis for policy, anymore than just giving a speech on a USA issue is the same as the proposal of legislation to the Congress.

Speeches and statements to staff to “handle it” are evidence of a politician who is not engaged in governing. They are the cavalier statements of a person who has little regard for the mechanics of real life government. Maybe, Obama thinks that all he has to do is think and speak and everybody else has to work.

Obama Administration Always Fast to Point Finger

http://news.yahoo.com/gdp-reminder-congress-address-spending-white-house-150028918–business.html

“Today’s report is a reminder of the importance of the need for Congress to act to avoid self-inflicted wounds to the economy,” said Krueger in a blog post shortly after the release of new government data on gross domestic product.

Amazing that the White House and those sympathetic are fast as lightning to point the finger of accusation against the Congress. Every time there is any bad news, the President or one of his advisors immediately diverts attention away from the White House and toward the Congress. This is so very convenient for them and easy to do. There are only a few of them at the White House while there are 100 Senators and 495 Representatives. Easy for the few at the White House to quickly accuse while the 595 Congress people are always hesitant to speak for any other Representatives. The result is the impressive myth that the White House pronouncements speak for the whole Government and not merely the executive branch. However, any member of the House or the Senate who accused would be considered speaking only for him or her self.

Is this an unfair advantage? Yes, it is. However, it can be argued that is the nature of politics. So be it. However, the news reporters can be un biased and represent the facts clearly. Instead they abet the myth that Obama speaks for the whole government while the Congress people speak only for themselves.

Obama is Not a Dictator

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-immigration-reform-ill-act-congress-doesnt-224408712.html

“But the president indicated that his patience is provisional. He laid out principles he said should be reflected in any comprehensive immigration-reform legislation, and he said that if lawmakers get bogged down bickering, he’ll act.”

Obama is not a dictator. He is an elected president. His election is according to the law and it is under the rule of the law. We need to remind our young reporters of this fact. It seems that they very much want to give him dictatorial power. Or they want a daddy. Maybe all young college educated reporters want the tyranny of the classroom Professor to remain in their lives forever. Whatever is it, it is annoying to read news reporters using language in describing the President that casts him in the above mentioned roles.

The facts of our national law, however, are in the way of the unmerited enthusiasm of our young reporters who want to grant Mr. Obama power that he does not possess. Hopefully, the rest of the nation sees this and will not fall into the Obama mania crowd.

Mr. Obama’s bellicose pronouncements and threats to the US Congress are actually the rants of someone who thinks of himself as the law or above the law. These kinds of statements are not mere politics such as one might use to influence the decision-making of the 595 elected officials of the US Congress. Rather, they are cast in the language of threat and they are meant to convey a threat. He is saying that either they act of he will do whatever he wants to do, and he will do it whether or not he has the power to do so.

President Obama does not respect the Congress of the USA and by extension, he does not respect the people of the nation because they are the ones who elected the Congress. His threats indicate a person who still believes that America should be thankful that he is willing to allow himself to rule over us and if we don’t recognize that, it is we who are wrong.

There is a Constitutional process in place for Mr. Obama to influence the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is called proposal of legislation. That means that he has his staff actually write down proposed legislation, submit this legislation to the House and Senate through his surrogates and let them debate the issues. The second is to use the threat of a veto of proposed legislation to influence the Congress.

Mr. Obama does not work within the system. He thinks that he is supposed to say something and it is to be done. He thinks that he is supposed to give a speech and that is the same as proposal of legislation. In order words, he wills it to be done, like some kind of Czar and everyone else is to bow down, says yes your majesty, and then go out and do exactly as he says to do.

But the USA is a Republic and not a monarchy. It is also not a dictatorship with a merely phony Congress. The USA is a Constitutional democracy ruled by laws and Mr. Obama is not outside of nor above those laws. So, although the process may be tedious and at times it may make mistakes, ultimately, its is the will of the people as expressed by the people’s elected Representatives in the Congress. If Mr. Obama wants to get things done, he should work harder at the actual writing of legislation and he should be more cooperative in working with the Congress and not against it.

Obama Intends to Disobey Court Order

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-rejects-nlrb-ruling-recess-appointments-unconcerned-202214680–politics.html

The President’s statement of rejection harkens back to a Supreme Court ruling regarding the Cherokee Indian nation whereby President Andrew Jackson expressly disobeyed the court, displaced the native american indians and sent them to the concentration camps, also know as Indian reservations. This has been a national disgrace and cause for great national mourning until this day. President Obama can simply ignore the Federal Circuit Court and go forward and it would be up to the House of Representatives to introduce a bill of impeachment because of Obama’s actions. This bill of impeachment, which is an indictment or accusation, would be sent to the Senate for the trial of the President for usurpation of power and illegal action by abrogation of power not granted to him by the Constitution.

Russia is Friend of Syrian Peace

http://news.yahoo.com/start-something-big-russia-pulls-hundred-citizens-syria-155610519.html

The rebels are armed by secret USA, British and French arms shipments. Look at map, These three nations are very far away from Syria. Russia is right next door. So the Russians are rightfully more interested in Syria than the rest. The talk on these pages is as though the cold war was not over. What do all those without sons and daughters in our military want…More war? The Russians have been very clear. Stop the secret arming of the rebels. Stop the millions of dollars of pay to the rebels. Stop trying to overthrow the government of Syria by international State sponsored terrorism, which is what such funding and arming of the rebels actually is, Then the Russians will support transition from Assad and international UN sponsored free elections in Syria. From the beginning, it has been the Russians who have pursued peace. The NATO allies, France, Britain and USA have pursued war. First, we helped overthrow our ally Mubarak, than Gaddafi, and now Assad. If Russia tried to overthrow the governments of Mexico, Costa Rica, and Panama, we would be screaming about it, rattling our swords and threatening World War. The way to stop the terrible bloodshed is for USA to affirm our commitment to peace. If USA State sponsored terrorism against Syria was stopped, the rebels would retreat. The Assad Regime would stop defending itself. The people would live and many innocent children would be ensured parents into the future.

Gun Control is not a solution

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bloomberg-advising-white-house-gun-legislation-190643237–politics.html

It is people like Michael Bloomberg who think that you solve the obesity problem by selling only sixteen oz. drinks instead of thirty-two oz. What stops a person from buying two 16 oz drinks? He also thinks that merely controlling free and law-abiding citizens will answer the moral decay evidenced in wanton acts of murder. It seems that the answer of Obama, Biden, Bloomberg and others is to have the federal government control everything, while ignoring the plain fact that these are moral, spiritual and behavioral problems which will not be solved by new regulations further controlling people who simply seek to defend themselves against rabid criminals or insane murderers.

General McChrystal and President Obama

http://news.yahoo.com/mcchrystal-regrets-magazine-flap-career-killer-122932698–politics.html

I am a vet of thirty years of service, honorably retired and I have only the highest respect for a soldier who achieved four star rank. I note here that many are stating things in absolute terms, such as you NEVER, or you SHOULD have known, or freedom of speech is yours when your enlistment is over, or that ANY insubordination to the civilian order is insubordination to the Constitution. WOW aren’t we all perfect little children all standing straight in line and doing everything we are told and never, never being naughty. Second WOW, saying anything derogatory is a matter of interpretation and is not forbidden in private conversation although some would say, but not the Constitution, that there is never private conversation in the military. Third WOW is that freedom of speech, which is a fundamental Constitutional right is somehow given up in the military, well, tell that to the Judge Advocate and get a lesson in the code of military justice which is not allowed to circumvent the Constitution. Final WOW, the idea that any insubordination to the civilian order is insubordination to the Constitution is absurd. All military personnel are taught that there are such things as illegal orders, unethical and immoral practices and shady dealings and they are required to be insubordinate to those who require such practices whether it be the President or a Sargeant. So the use of ANY is dead wrong. Final point, go back and read the Rolling Stone article which I don’t believe anyone here has done. You are all overstating the offense with terms that are inaccurate. General McChrystal resigned and the President accepted his resignation because of the political embarrassment caused by the inaccuracies of the RS article and because General McChrystal felt the uproar adversely affected the mission in Afghanistan.

A Citizens Call to Action On Gun Control

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/mindset/a-call-to-duty/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CCR%2012-21-2012%20Prospects%20(2)&utm_content=

A very thoughtful and passionate prposal for citizen action in light of school invasion and children’s murder.

Why did the Republicans Lose?

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-mourning-mitt-not-much-215916231.html

This article is exactly why they lost. It is because each individual Republican thinks of themself as being right. They do not think as a party, or a movement or a political philosophy. They think of themselves and themselves and themselves. It is amazing that the Republicans get any votes!

This writer is chagrined that the feast of sharks has already begun. The various Republican Presidential hopefuls have already fallen upon the wounded body of Mitt Romney with intentions of devouring him and demolishing everything he accomplished. You say, “Did he accomplish anything?” Yes, he moved the party to the right of center and away from the terrible defeat of Mc Cain in 2008. He moved the party out of the TEA party label into the Republican label. He sent the brand name Republican to the top of the voting chart for hundreds of millions of voters. He ran a well-funded campaign that was disciplined, on message and well run. He conducted himself and his campaign with forceful dignity and obvious integrity. He and Ryan put their all on the field of battle and they held nothing of themselves, their talent or their resources back. No, they did not win but to this writer, especially as I viewed the concession speech, they were true Americans, true Republicans and they did what all Americans admire, they did their best. Yes, they lost, but you can lose and still be a champion. And Romney and Ryan are champions.

To the point that Romney made to his donors. Well, first of all, this was a private conference call. He spoke his mind. I too speak my mind and when I write private letters to my friends, or make private phone calls to my neighbors I do not expect and I would deeply resent if what I said was broadcast. Yes, Romney is a public figure and he cannot expect immunity from the scrutiny of a public press. But why do we still not know what President Obama said during the raid on Benghazi? Why do we still not know if he ordered people to stand down or if he ordered the military to rescue the ambassador? It is because his associates do not betray his private words, they do not betray his conversations and they do not betray his trust. Obviously, many feel that what is due Obama is not due Romney. You say, “Such is life.” Well, that may be so but I don’t agree and I don’t like it.

I invite a fair and objective analysis of what Romney actually said during this call and the famous 47% call. Based upon what he considers the facts, namely that the dream act, Obama care and other actions of the Obama administration have favored certain groups above others, I would argue that Romney is merely reflecting a viewpoint shared by many others. I listened to the phone call and felt that his main thrust was that faced with the power of an incumbant to not only promise favors but to actually give those favors, a challenger has little recourse. That is a fact, in these areas an incumbant definitely has the advantage.

Lastly, the criticisms of the defeated candidate are from persons who think overly highly of themselves, are convinced of their own infallibility, and who want to be President. Therefore, their critiques are skewered to reflect positively upon themselves and position them to benefit from Romney’s defeat. What is distressing is that Romney did not treat them poorly, yet his reward for integrity is to be savaged by Christie, whom Romney chose for Keynote, by Jindal, who Romney favored with a highlight at the convention and by Gingrich who Romney defeated fair and square and who now shoots from ambush.

I think of President George W. Bush won election twice, the second election confirming the faith of the American people after the turmoil of chads and cits in Florida. He ran an honest administration without scandal. He rallied the American people after 9/11 and he led a economy which enjoyed a 4.8 % unemployment rate. We had excellent relations with Russia, China, Europe, South America, and Israel. We were respected by Arab nations as a fair and balanced nation that did unduly favor their antagonists. Yet, the Democrat campaign led by the late Senator Ted Kennedy against George Bush prevailed. Why? Not because GW Bush was a terrible president? No! That just is not the case. Rather, it is because people love to hate someone and our nation was led by Democrats into an eight year campaign of hate. It was the thing to do, the thing to say and it was definitely considered savvy to hate George W. Bush. Why? No reason but hatred. An unfounded and unearned hatred that is much to our shame persists today. Asked if they blamed Bush for our problems, pro Obama voters overwhelming said, YES. But asked what specifically he did to cause our problems, the answer was that he was President when it went into the crapper so its all his fault. None for the Democrat Congress and nancy Pelosi. None for the greed of people who purchased what they could not afford. None for the shoddy business practices of mortgage bankers or Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. It’s all Bush’s fault and then we can go home and eat our Turkey.

The great sorrow of all of this was that Republicans then as they are now, were active participants in the blame game. They too blamed Bush for their woes. Not their fault that they did not do their job in Congress and block the excesses of a Democrat Nancy Pelosi majority. Not their fault that they did not stand up to Democrat Harry Reid. Not their fault that they lost contact with their constituents. No it was all Bush’s fault!!

I am in NJ and in my town the Republican party in the 2010 election put up a party regular in a contest against Steve Rothman, a formidable Congressman. They lost. Why? Because the Republican party was not serious. In this past 2012 election the Republican party didn’t even put up a candidate for the mayor of my town. They left the Democrat un opposed. Come on, fellas, what does it cost to at least put a name on the ballot? Why did they lose in NJ? Because the Republicans are not serious. They accept the fact that this is a Democrat State and they do not try.

It is a very sad state when a great Republican party decends to the level of sharks feeding on wounded prey. Did Santorum campaign hard for Romney? I think not. Did Gingrich constantly encourage and fire up his constituents to work and give and vote for Romney? Hardly? And Christie? He gave Obama a shameless and obsequious display of support when he hosted the President during Sandy.

So, for this writer I look to the future and it does not include these three nor Pawlenty or Santorium. They have used up their time and they have failed miserably both in the Primary and as loyal Republican supporters. They have no great vision nor higher goal, other than themselves as President. Shame. I say that with sincere sadness of heart and pain of soul.

Ryan, for me, a definite YES. Rubio, here too a definite YES. And the Governor of Virginia, I think Yes, he was out there for Romney, let’s see if he abandons ship and crew while cursing the captain.

By the way, have you read Killing Kennedy by Bill O Reilly. A really great book. It will startle you, to say the least. You may even be the type to admire the behavior therein described. I don’t. All of them are not really worthy of our admiration.