Barack Obama is supremely smug and arrogant. This smug arrogance has grown to such an extent that it’s led to delusional perception of reality. Throughout his life, Obama has been told how smart and how special he is so many times -with an exponential increase in intensity in the past 36 months - that I think he honestly believes it now. We have seen this demonstrated repeatedly in his time as President, as if he thinks his very presence will actually do things like convince the International Olympic Committee to hold the 2016 Olympics in Chicago, solve the healthcare debate, and stop Iran from trying to acquire nukes.
As for being the head of state, It's almost as if he holds the duties of the Presidency, the White House, and the American people, in contempt. As if all of this is “beneath” him. I get the distinct impression that he views his job as not just a terrific burden, but as an inconvenience as well. It is a burden of course, every President will attest to that, but every other President would also call it a noble burden, whereas Obama sees it as a distasteful and loathsome burden.
A few days ago I found myself watching a news report on how he had to interrupt his precious vacation (6th, for the record) to take a conference call with economic “geniuses” Tim Geitner and Larry Summers about the economy (that they‘re all doing such a great job of expanding), and I would be willing to bet that Obama thinks we should thank him for taking the time out of his day - on his vacation (!), no less - to deal with our problems. "We really owe you for that one, Barry!"
His arrogance is truly incredible to behold; it knows NO bounds. That level of arrogance is the cause of much of his unusual behavior - ZERO press conferences for more than 10 months (why should someone as brilliant as he need to explain himself to all of us knuckle-dragging Americans, desperately clinging to our guns and religion?), the ceaseless vacations, the 50 rounds of golf, leaving the White House at every opportunity, and creating as many of those opportunities as possible.
To borrow a line, what we have here is the first President not to be awed by the office. He acts like the office should be awed by him. 2012 can not come soon enough.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Obama's Favorite Mosque
At a Ramadan celebration dinner this Friday, President Obama announced his full support for the proposed construction of a mosque in the shadow of the former World Trade Center in New York City. This is about par for the course for America’s most anti-American president. Here we have yet another issue in which Barack Hussein Obama is diametrically opposed to the overwhelming opinion of the American people.
I suppose we should be thankful in some small way that Obama is expressing his true opinions on matters such as this, instead of lying to us. Truthfulness, however, does nothing to make his opinions any less disgusting and abhorrent.
The “cover story” justifying the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero in Manhattan is the desire for “Muslim outreach” and to “bridge the gaps” between cultures. This is both laughable and insulting. A farce! Lip service and nothing more.
In all my life I have never heard of a group “bridging gaps” between itself and another culture by offending that culture to its very core - especially when that offense involves disrespecting the memory of innocent members of the latter culture who were savagely murdered by outlying members of the former culture!
A mosque in such close proximity to where the World Trade Center once stood is an insult aimed at the very heart of America and should be rightly regarded as such. The primary purpose of a mosque is to serve the local Muslim community, yet there isn’t much of community near this mosque, as it is located in the heart of Manhattan’s commercial district. If there is no community, why build a mosque? The mosque’s proponents will not bring up the fact that historically mosques have also served a secondary purpose, and that purpose is to serve as a victory flag announcing to all who see it, “Let it be known that at this site, warriors of Islam were victorious over the infidel!” Apparently that’s the kind of statement that B. Hussein Obama can get behind!
I suppose we should be thankful in some small way that Obama is expressing his true opinions on matters such as this, instead of lying to us. Truthfulness, however, does nothing to make his opinions any less disgusting and abhorrent.
The “cover story” justifying the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero in Manhattan is the desire for “Muslim outreach” and to “bridge the gaps” between cultures. This is both laughable and insulting. A farce! Lip service and nothing more.
In all my life I have never heard of a group “bridging gaps” between itself and another culture by offending that culture to its very core - especially when that offense involves disrespecting the memory of innocent members of the latter culture who were savagely murdered by outlying members of the former culture!
A mosque in such close proximity to where the World Trade Center once stood is an insult aimed at the very heart of America and should be rightly regarded as such. The primary purpose of a mosque is to serve the local Muslim community, yet there isn’t much of community near this mosque, as it is located in the heart of Manhattan’s commercial district. If there is no community, why build a mosque? The mosque’s proponents will not bring up the fact that historically mosques have also served a secondary purpose, and that purpose is to serve as a victory flag announcing to all who see it, “Let it be known that at this site, warriors of Islam were victorious over the infidel!” Apparently that’s the kind of statement that B. Hussein Obama can get behind!
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, has been confirmed by the Senate to serve as an Associate Justice of the highest court in the nation. Ms. Kagan was previously a policy advisor and Associate White House Council in the Clinton Administration, and most recently Dean of Harvard Law School. While there can be no disputing that she has considerable experience in the court room, as a judge she has no experience to speak of.
From what is known of the Solicitor General, one can deduce that her political opinions running roughly parallel to that of President Obama. Her views lean to the left, and also like Obama, she is quite proud of her beliefs. Many on the conservative side of the spectrum view excessively liberal judges (liberal social activist judges, more specifically) with an anxiously watchful eye; continuously searching for signs of policy creation rather than policy interpretation. They view such activism as a corruption of our system of checks and balances, and a grave threat to the liberty and freedom they hold so dearly. A fair amount of this concern is unfounded - there have been liberal judges as long as there have been liberals willing to elect or appoint them to their respective judgeships, and our system of government has largely survived intact. Be that as it may, danger does exist in this appointment and others, but it lies elsewhere. The real danger is borne out through the fact that Ms. Kagan has never before been a judge in any court. She has precisely zero experience and zero mental training in the difficult task of separating her personal beliefs and life-long convictions from objective adjudication.
Any self-respecting and honorable judges strive daily to maintain their objectivity, if not continuously improve it. Objective interpretation of the law - in this case the Constitution of the United States - is the badge of honor distinguishing a judge worthy of his or her gavel. Such a skill is not acquired overnight. Considering that, how could we possibly expect to see such a difficult to acquire trait exhibited by a person who has no prior experience as a judge? We’d be foolish to demand such and even more foolish to expect it. We could no sooner expect a person who has never before played a round of golf to one day suddenly make the cut for the PGA Tour! That’s just not how things work in the real world.
So with that said, when we examine Elena Kagan’s worthiness for a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court, it is not her personal beliefs that should give us pause, but her inability (as a normal human being lacking decades of mental training and practice) to effectively separate her personal beliefs from her legal rulings and interpretations. Separating one’s feelings from one’s interpretation of a law is a most unnatural act. Only through many years of practice can such a skill truly be refined to any reliable degree.
From what is known of the Solicitor General, one can deduce that her political opinions running roughly parallel to that of President Obama. Her views lean to the left, and also like Obama, she is quite proud of her beliefs. Many on the conservative side of the spectrum view excessively liberal judges (liberal social activist judges, more specifically) with an anxiously watchful eye; continuously searching for signs of policy creation rather than policy interpretation. They view such activism as a corruption of our system of checks and balances, and a grave threat to the liberty and freedom they hold so dearly. A fair amount of this concern is unfounded - there have been liberal judges as long as there have been liberals willing to elect or appoint them to their respective judgeships, and our system of government has largely survived intact. Be that as it may, danger does exist in this appointment and others, but it lies elsewhere. The real danger is borne out through the fact that Ms. Kagan has never before been a judge in any court. She has precisely zero experience and zero mental training in the difficult task of separating her personal beliefs and life-long convictions from objective adjudication.
Any self-respecting and honorable judges strive daily to maintain their objectivity, if not continuously improve it. Objective interpretation of the law - in this case the Constitution of the United States - is the badge of honor distinguishing a judge worthy of his or her gavel. Such a skill is not acquired overnight. Considering that, how could we possibly expect to see such a difficult to acquire trait exhibited by a person who has no prior experience as a judge? We’d be foolish to demand such and even more foolish to expect it. We could no sooner expect a person who has never before played a round of golf to one day suddenly make the cut for the PGA Tour! That’s just not how things work in the real world.
So with that said, when we examine Elena Kagan’s worthiness for a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court, it is not her personal beliefs that should give us pause, but her inability (as a normal human being lacking decades of mental training and practice) to effectively separate her personal beliefs from her legal rulings and interpretations. Separating one’s feelings from one’s interpretation of a law is a most unnatural act. Only through many years of practice can such a skill truly be refined to any reliable degree.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Academic or Common Sense?
I have come to the firm conclusion that having an academic “intellectual” as Commander in Chief is HIGHLY over-rated. I would instead prefer to have a GED education level possessing Commander in Chief with a reasonable amount of common sense over one considered an “intellectual elite”. Academics by nature exist in the realm of the abstract, relying almost exclusively on theory and supposition; whereas those of common sense exist in reality, relying almost exclusively on personal experience. This is not to say academics have no place within the nerve center of government. They are terrific advisors, but totally ineffective leaders.
Try to think of it this way : Imagine you are trapped in a building that has caught on fire. Who would you want to lead the effort to rescue you? Would you want a person with a Ph. D. in Chemistry, specializing in thermodynamics, who is thoroughly versed in all science and theory pertaining to the properties and behavior of combustion and heat energy, OR would you prefer being rescued by a fire chief who has many years of personal experience fighting fires? I have a feeling that I know your answer. As such, it has been my experience in life that academic knowledge almost ALWAYS pales in comparison to wisdom acquired by genuine experience.
I can think of no better example of a healthy amount of common sense making for an excellent leader than President Harry S. Truman. Harry Truman won World War II, helped for the United Nations, oversaw the reconstruction of Europe following the war, prevented an economic crisis during the transformation from a wartime economy to a peacetime one, held the line in Korea, and Presided over numerous other impressive accomplishments. President Truman did all of this without having spent a single day enrolled in college!
One does not need academic intelligence to be a great leader; nor does having considerable academic intelligence ensure that one will be a good leader, but if one lacks experience and common sense, it is all but certain that that person will prove to be an exceptionally poor leader.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
At A Glance: Analyzing Some Of Obama’s Most Dangerous Weaknesses
7/27/10
At A Glance: Analyzing Some Of Obama’s Most Dangerous Weaknesses
(in no particular order)
This is a follow-up of last weeks look at what attributes, background, and experiences make for effective leaders. When examining Obama’s term as President of the United States thus far, the list of crucial characteristics and traits in which he is suffering from a “considerable want of” is alarmingly long and alarmingly diverse. Providing an accurate chronicle and analysis of all items on than list would result in a several volume desk reference set of missteps and misery. I have accordingly selected three items on that formidable list that I consider to the be the most dangerous and most likely to cause harm.
All Things Economic - The unemployment rate in the United States presently (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) is somewhere between 9.7% [U1] and 17.1% [U6]. The stimulus package passed in 2009 - the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which passed through Congress on the promise of it keeping unemployment (U1) below 8.0% - has been less than effective in stimulating much of anything other than constituent disapproval. When one considers all of the various stimulus packages passed, we find ourselves well into the >$1 trillion range. That’s dangerous territory for any sort of government program - all the more so when said program failed to accomplish anything tangible and/or measurable.
Less than two years into his term, Barack Obama has left us mired in Keynesian demand-side economic theory. After trillions of dollars of deficit spending, millions of unemployment insurance applications submitted, and NO unequivocal private sector stimulus measurements to speak of, President Obama’s answer is not to try a new tactic or approach, but to double down! At the G-20 Summit last month in Canada, Obama found himself clashing head-on with European heads of state - who in the preceding few years have come to terms with the folly of creating a sustainable welfare state - by urging them to immediately cancel their recently imposed austerity measures. Rather than learn from the mistakes of Europe, Obama seems dead-set on forcing us to learn that very same lesson the hard way.
This particular weakness of being unable to comprehend real-life economics ties in very closely to my previous article on leadership qualities: Obama has no real-world experience to speak of. Obama is dictating financial and economic policy to businessmen and executives despite the fact that Obama himself has never once owned, run, or even worked for a for-profit business of any size in his entire life.
Foreign Policy In General - Having demonstrated little to no knowledge or interest in United States history or world history, Obama is poorly equipped to navigate the ever more complex and intricate realm of United States foreign policy & foreign relations.
Obama’s most oft-repeated foreign policy blunder (aside from his inability to refrain from bowing to every single foreign national he meets overseas, of course) has been his “Ally Blindness” - his seemingly total inability to distinguish our allies from our enemies. As a nation we have generated many close alliances over the years, and even some special “relationships” with certain other nations as a result of the shared history of our respective peoples. Many of these alliances have proved instrumental to the maintenance of world peace and the protection of our interests abroad. Ever since taking office in January, 2009, Obama has done much to sully our relationships with many of our closest allies, often going so far as publicly offering his personal support (and as Commander in Chief, the official support of the government of the United States) to those in direct opposition of our allies. The two instances of this that stand out in my mind would be the publicly announced support for Argentina’s claim on the Falklands, and the shockingly less than supportive treatment of Israel with regard to it’s on-going mission to NOT get wiped off the face of the planet by the numerous hostile nations surrounding it.
Obama’s treatment of Israel is obviously the far more consequential of the two blunders as I’m sure Argentina is in no rush to be embarrassed on the world stage again, but both actions represent betrayals of our allies. His strategy of trying to appease the enemies of our allies projects nothing but weakness; so much so that our NATO ally Turkey (former ally now, perhaps?), and non NATO member but valued ally Brazil have found it prudent to side with Iran and its theocrat Islamo-fascist nuclear-weapons-seeking loons over the United States! Such a stunning betrayal would have been totally inconceivable under President Bush or even President Clinton for that matter.
Administration of the “machine” that is the United States of America - This section could be expanded with little difficulty to fill many, many pages, but in summary Obama has approached the role of President as a legislator rather than an executive administrator. For Obama or any leader to be successfully carry out his duties, he MUST make decisive judgments on a very regular basis. A leader must gather the most reliable data available, make a decision based on that data, and stick with it. A leader will never please everyone, and continuously trying to please everyone will only result in pleasing no one. That reality must be accepted. Rather than issuing commands and delegating authority to subordinates, Obama’s response is to “solve” a given problem by forming what I consider to be the epitome of bureaucratic inefficiency - establishing some damned commission or committee to “analyze” the situation and offer a carefully-worded suggestion as to how to solve the problem. Unfortunately, however, by the time a solution is suggested by one of these groups, it is invariably too late to be of any real use.
A successful executive - especially an executive in government, and infinitely more so as the executive of the entire government - should make every effort to cut through bureaucratic inefficiency. A leader should be cutting the red tape, not creating more of it! It would appear that the Obama Administration simply can not help itself from creating incredible amounts of its very own Obama-brand red tape at every turn.
The most striking demonstration of this weakness which I can think of (tragically so…) would be the Administration’s pathetic response to the BP spill in the gulf, and the sad fact that 71 days had to elapse before the Obama Administration finally decided to accept help (and even then, only “in principle”) from some of the many nations that offered us assistance in containing the disaster. Most of the nations offering help did so on day 3 or 4 of the spill!
The explosion of the Deep Horizon oil rig and the subsequent gushing of the underwater well was a disaster by any definition of the word. That disaster was transformed into a full-blown epic catastrophe by the staggering ineptitude of President Obama and his Administration. All-in-all, Barack Obama has created or worsened FAR more problems than he has solved.
At A Glance: Analyzing Some Of Obama’s Most Dangerous Weaknesses
(in no particular order)
This is a follow-up of last weeks look at what attributes, background, and experiences make for effective leaders. When examining Obama’s term as President of the United States thus far, the list of crucial characteristics and traits in which he is suffering from a “considerable want of” is alarmingly long and alarmingly diverse. Providing an accurate chronicle and analysis of all items on than list would result in a several volume desk reference set of missteps and misery. I have accordingly selected three items on that formidable list that I consider to the be the most dangerous and most likely to cause harm.
All Things Economic - The unemployment rate in the United States presently (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) is somewhere between 9.7% [U1] and 17.1% [U6]. The stimulus package passed in 2009 - the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which passed through Congress on the promise of it keeping unemployment (U1) below 8.0% - has been less than effective in stimulating much of anything other than constituent disapproval. When one considers all of the various stimulus packages passed, we find ourselves well into the >$1 trillion range. That’s dangerous territory for any sort of government program - all the more so when said program failed to accomplish anything tangible and/or measurable.
Less than two years into his term, Barack Obama has left us mired in Keynesian demand-side economic theory. After trillions of dollars of deficit spending, millions of unemployment insurance applications submitted, and NO unequivocal private sector stimulus measurements to speak of, President Obama’s answer is not to try a new tactic or approach, but to double down! At the G-20 Summit last month in Canada, Obama found himself clashing head-on with European heads of state - who in the preceding few years have come to terms with the folly of creating a sustainable welfare state - by urging them to immediately cancel their recently imposed austerity measures. Rather than learn from the mistakes of Europe, Obama seems dead-set on forcing us to learn that very same lesson the hard way.
This particular weakness of being unable to comprehend real-life economics ties in very closely to my previous article on leadership qualities: Obama has no real-world experience to speak of. Obama is dictating financial and economic policy to businessmen and executives despite the fact that Obama himself has never once owned, run, or even worked for a for-profit business of any size in his entire life.
Foreign Policy In General - Having demonstrated little to no knowledge or interest in United States history or world history, Obama is poorly equipped to navigate the ever more complex and intricate realm of United States foreign policy & foreign relations.
Obama’s most oft-repeated foreign policy blunder (aside from his inability to refrain from bowing to every single foreign national he meets overseas, of course) has been his “Ally Blindness” - his seemingly total inability to distinguish our allies from our enemies. As a nation we have generated many close alliances over the years, and even some special “relationships” with certain other nations as a result of the shared history of our respective peoples. Many of these alliances have proved instrumental to the maintenance of world peace and the protection of our interests abroad. Ever since taking office in January, 2009, Obama has done much to sully our relationships with many of our closest allies, often going so far as publicly offering his personal support (and as Commander in Chief, the official support of the government of the United States) to those in direct opposition of our allies. The two instances of this that stand out in my mind would be the publicly announced support for Argentina’s claim on the Falklands, and the shockingly less than supportive treatment of Israel with regard to it’s on-going mission to NOT get wiped off the face of the planet by the numerous hostile nations surrounding it.
Obama’s treatment of Israel is obviously the far more consequential of the two blunders as I’m sure Argentina is in no rush to be embarrassed on the world stage again, but both actions represent betrayals of our allies. His strategy of trying to appease the enemies of our allies projects nothing but weakness; so much so that our NATO ally Turkey (former ally now, perhaps?), and non NATO member but valued ally Brazil have found it prudent to side with Iran and its theocrat Islamo-fascist nuclear-weapons-seeking loons over the United States! Such a stunning betrayal would have been totally inconceivable under President Bush or even President Clinton for that matter.
Administration of the “machine” that is the United States of America - This section could be expanded with little difficulty to fill many, many pages, but in summary Obama has approached the role of President as a legislator rather than an executive administrator. For Obama or any leader to be successfully carry out his duties, he MUST make decisive judgments on a very regular basis. A leader must gather the most reliable data available, make a decision based on that data, and stick with it. A leader will never please everyone, and continuously trying to please everyone will only result in pleasing no one. That reality must be accepted. Rather than issuing commands and delegating authority to subordinates, Obama’s response is to “solve” a given problem by forming what I consider to be the epitome of bureaucratic inefficiency - establishing some damned commission or committee to “analyze” the situation and offer a carefully-worded suggestion as to how to solve the problem. Unfortunately, however, by the time a solution is suggested by one of these groups, it is invariably too late to be of any real use.
A successful executive - especially an executive in government, and infinitely more so as the executive of the entire government - should make every effort to cut through bureaucratic inefficiency. A leader should be cutting the red tape, not creating more of it! It would appear that the Obama Administration simply can not help itself from creating incredible amounts of its very own Obama-brand red tape at every turn.
The most striking demonstration of this weakness which I can think of (tragically so…) would be the Administration’s pathetic response to the BP spill in the gulf, and the sad fact that 71 days had to elapse before the Obama Administration finally decided to accept help (and even then, only “in principle”) from some of the many nations that offered us assistance in containing the disaster. Most of the nations offering help did so on day 3 or 4 of the spill!
The explosion of the Deep Horizon oil rig and the subsequent gushing of the underwater well was a disaster by any definition of the word. That disaster was transformed into a full-blown epic catastrophe by the staggering ineptitude of President Obama and his Administration. All-in-all, Barack Obama has created or worsened FAR more problems than he has solved.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Lowered Expectations
After much thought and reflection I have determined that it is unfair for anyone to voice disappointment with Barack Obama’s considerably less-than-impressive performance thus far as Commander in Chief. Disappointment implies that a different result was expected. Where on Earth did that expectation come from?
Aside from successfully defeating bumbling and stumbling Old Man McCain in the 2008 election and agitating his way into the Illinois political arena prior to that, Barack Obama has never accomplished anything of consequence in what persons outside of governmental bureaucracy would call the “real world”. Prior to elected office, the entirety of Barack Obama’s professional life consists of working at either a law school or a crackpot left-wing non-profit. Individually or as part of a group, in the public or private sector, Barack Obama has never actually produced anything of any use in his entire life. Not exactly what I would call superb training to lead the United States Government.
This is not privileged information. Even Obama himself acknowledges this reality. When questioned about what experience(s) in his life qualify him for the Presidency, his reply was the experience of running his campaign. That was the best - and only - qualifying experience he was able to proffer (and it probably should be noted that the vast majority of campaign operations were handled by Obama’s senior staffers, but I’ll let that slide I suppose…).
With all of this in mind, how could any reasonable person expect some sort of cleverly orchestrated administrative success from President Obama? How could anyone be shocked and disappointed when he fails to deliver? While these observations explain his exceptionally ineffective executive leadership, they do not justify it.
The ship of State is presently being piloted by the single most inexperienced and inept captain in it’s proud history. Our ship is taking on water and veering directly for the rocks and shoals. If we fail to wrest some amount of control from the liberal Democrats in November, the consequences are too terrible to contemplate.
Aside from successfully defeating bumbling and stumbling Old Man McCain in the 2008 election and agitating his way into the Illinois political arena prior to that, Barack Obama has never accomplished anything of consequence in what persons outside of governmental bureaucracy would call the “real world”. Prior to elected office, the entirety of Barack Obama’s professional life consists of working at either a law school or a crackpot left-wing non-profit. Individually or as part of a group, in the public or private sector, Barack Obama has never actually produced anything of any use in his entire life. Not exactly what I would call superb training to lead the United States Government.
This is not privileged information. Even Obama himself acknowledges this reality. When questioned about what experience(s) in his life qualify him for the Presidency, his reply was the experience of running his campaign. That was the best - and only - qualifying experience he was able to proffer (and it probably should be noted that the vast majority of campaign operations were handled by Obama’s senior staffers, but I’ll let that slide I suppose…).
With all of this in mind, how could any reasonable person expect some sort of cleverly orchestrated administrative success from President Obama? How could anyone be shocked and disappointed when he fails to deliver? While these observations explain his exceptionally ineffective executive leadership, they do not justify it.
The ship of State is presently being piloted by the single most inexperienced and inept captain in it’s proud history. Our ship is taking on water and veering directly for the rocks and shoals. If we fail to wrest some amount of control from the liberal Democrats in November, the consequences are too terrible to contemplate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)