Our Pansy President

Reading a review of John F. Ross' book about Robert Rogers, War on the Run, made me think of how ill-prepared Wonderboy is to be president, in the capacity of Commander-in-Chief.

Our first rookie gave a speech this week reminding everyone how moral he is, how inflexible he is regarding what he would do, or not do, to execute his oath of office to protect the country.

After all, it's not like our current president has any life experience to suggest he's tough enough to face serious challenges to our safety. He's a 'hopeful' dreamer. A lawyer and community organizer. Basically, an unaccomplished liberal who has been a 'do-gooder' of the socialist stripe.

Robert Rogers was the original Ranger. He founded the first Ranger force, from whom, Ross writes, special operations and unconventional warfare styles have descended in the American military.

While reading the review of Ross' book, Wonderboy's lack of preparedness to use our armed forces to defend the US became obvious when I read this passage,

"Like Sun Tzu, Rogers understood that victory was as much a matter of psychology as firepower or numbers: In an unconventional war in the ­wilderness, the general’s job is to overcome his men’s fear of the savage and unknown and impose it on the enemy. He once scalped a captured French ­soldier in full view of a fort’s French garrison: The French surrendered a short while later."

I can't imagine Wonderboy understanding the necessity of Roger's action in the passage. Upon hearing of the episode, he'd probably have the leader brought up on charges, then convey his apology to the enemy.

I think of Obama in the same light as Carter and, to an extent, Wilson. A cockeyed, naive dreamer for world peace who believes all other men and nations have noble intentions toward us.

Those previous presidents sowed seeds of future problems for America. I suspect Wonderboy is doing so even now.

Frisco Nan As A Lightning Rod

Frisco Nan's accusations that CIA staffers lied to her over 'enhanced interrogation methods' has already resulted in a surprising development.

Republicans have gone from pinning her publicly to her accusations, to demanding she be confronted with evidence, to calling for her resignation as Speaker.

And now, with her credibility shredded and dislike of her grown nationwide, they are sensibly backing off.

Instead, virtually all leading Republicans agree it's better to now have Pelosi as the hated, public face of Democratic Congressional power for the next election cycled. In effect, serving as a lightning rod on which to gather building voter anger over excessive spending, intrusive legislation and the too-fast, overreaching grab for the Nanny state by this California liberal.

Keeping her dancing on the issue of her CIA accusations, and potential release of evidence showing her to be lying, will be enough to satisfy most Republicans.

The Resounding Defeats of California's Propositions

This week's defeat of all of California's emergency funding and tax propositions, by wide margins, would seem to reinforce the recently-kindled 'tea party' sentiments on display across the nation on April 15th.

Despite Colin Powell's assertion that many voters are happy to pay their taxes for the government services they receive, and they want more government services, Tuesday's California ballot results suggest a very finite limit to the extent to which Powell's contentions are true.

It appears we've seen one state's voters declare that their runaway government has gone too far. No new taxes. No new spending. It must begin to shrink.

This voter reaction was widely forecast, so it's not actually that surprising. What is now in play is, from yet another direction, the states' rights issue.

Congressman Barney Frank, himself from one of the states near the top of the almost-insolvent list, spoke of providing federal loan guarantees to California's bonds, if necessary.

This has provoked a hailstorm of criticism across the land, both from voters and state-level government officials. There will most assuredly be a multi-state lawsuit against the federal government if it attempts to make every state pay for the man made acts of destruction occurring in California.

Here in New Jersey, tax-and-spend liberal governor Jon Corzinne is on the ropes, running ads claiming he's doing all he can for residents amidst the recession. In truth, he's trailing in polls against the leading Republican candidate. This state is probably second or third on the list of 'most likely to become technically bankrupt.'

Thus, the California example is not an isolated case. Every other state governor realizes that a serious tipping point is about to occur. Tuesday, on Glenn Beck's Fox News program, South Carolina governor Mark Sanford agreed that a federal guarantee of California's debt would essentially remove the meaningful role of any state government. Essentially, every state's economic and budgetary acts would merely be extensions of federal funding. Obviously, in short order, Congress would lay claim to power over all acts in every state.

Ironically, the most active and effective barrier to Wonderboy's quick-marching of the US down the path to fascism and, then, socialism, will likely not be the Republican party in Congress, but governors and legislatures in nearly all 50 states.

Jeb Bush was so clairvoyant that it's positively eerie.

Wonderboy's New Gas Mileage Requirements

Hearing of the new, tougher gas mileage requirements which Wonderboy signed into law this week, my mind went back to this recent post.

Which of the powers granted to the president in the Constitution do you suppose was the one that covers vehicle gas mileage?

I just looked here, and I can't find it. It's not even in the powers granted to Congress. You could try to argue that the interstate commerce clause allows it, but Judge Napolitano would disagree.

Apparently, back in the day, that is, 1789, 'regulate' meant to assure that commerce occurred, with minimal interference, not to micro-manage every facet of interstate business.

This, then, is the sort of federal legislation that leaves you angry over unconstitutional intrusion into private lives and state authority.

Does Anyone Remember "Impoundment?"

I had the opportunity to engage in a fairly intense political discussion this past weekend with a naturalized US citizen who was born in Spain. Her not-unexpected bias is very liberal, and her comments were filled with ad hominem arguments against various prominent Republicans: Bush, Cheney, Palin, Limbaugh, et.al.

Why is it so many liberals feel compelled to launch personal attacks against conservatives or Republicans? Don't they realize how empty of logic and substance this usually marks their own positions?

In any case, as our conversation wound its way through a variety of political topics, she began to realize that I really am open-minded in my political views, though usually adhering to a fairly stable set of values.

Thus, I criticized the Bush administration's reliance on the TARP, as well as its further bastardization under Wonderboy's regime. I noted that if you thought Bush was imperious, you have to acknowledge that our new First Rookie is even more so.

When we discussed poverty and ignorance as the two most serious problems bedeviling our Republic, she steadfastly refused to believe a widely-known fact, i.e., that the Democratic party is heavily controlled and influenced by the NEA. My companion simply disavowed this, though she had no evidence with which to disprove my contention, nor support her own.

We then got around to discussing federalism. I opined that, after watching Glenn Beck's recent program, it was dawning on me that, rather than a partisan issue, the major problem we all share is that of states' rights versus an unconstitutionally-powerful federal government. Somehow, the talk turned to our recent dependence on courts, rather than legislatures, for resolving important issues.

Suddenly, I found myself educating my companion on the history of impoundment.

Does anyone else recall this fundamental turning point in American history? Briefly stated, here's what happened.

In 1975, a Democratic Congress sent Richard Nixon a budget which he judged too expensive to afford. He announced he'd simply impound, or choose not to spend, all of the money appropriated in the budget.

The result was a lawsuit by the Congressional leaders to force Nixon to spend every penny. God help us, the courts sustained the plaintiffs, and we've been in trouble ever since. Just read this article to see how naive Sam Ervin was in his contention that Congress would be responsible in its victory to reign supreme over budgetary authority.

This is the basis for the continuing debate over a presidential line-item veto.

In retrospect, 34 years later, can you believe how naive and senseless the Democrats, and, really, all of Congress, were, to actually remove an effective bar to wildly uncontrolled Congressional spending? The quotes attributed to Ervin at the time, in the linked The Atlantic article, are almost too inane to now take seriously,

"Congress," he says, "is not composed of wild-eyed spenders, nor is the President the embattled crusader against wasteful spending that he would have you believe."

That was then. The piece goes on to note,

"It is a political fact, fully recognized by Ervin, that anti-impoundment legislation will have to be accompanied by new evidences of congressional self-control in spending. Ervin is personally a budget-balancer anyway."

Unfortunately, Sam Ervin's short-sightedness failed to appreciate the use to which those who followed him would put his judicial victory. And, sadly, we see how, once again, courts weighed in to damage our Republic. All three branches played a role in this mess. Now, it's grown massively beyond the scale of nearly four decades ago.

The idea of any current leaders of Congress actually committing to a balanced budget is laughable.

How many citizens are even aware of that long-ago battle over just 4% of the fiscal 1975 federal budget? And how its outcome led to our present federal excesses by both parties?

Frisco Nan's Accusation

You'd think Frisco Nan couldn't have ensnared herself in the tar of the CIA interrogation methods mess, after reading this post from late last month.

You would be wrong.

Last week, the Speaker's weekly gabfest, at which she parades out in front of the press, resulted in a feeding frenzy. For once, inexplicably, the liberal press began to grill Nan on the 'enhanced interrogation methods' issue.

Nan buckled and blurted out that the CIA had lied to her. She was asked pointedly about this by a reporter, and affirmed that the agency's personnel had "lied" to her.

Even liberal CIA director Leon Panetta, the administration's stooge heading up the agency, fired back at Nan, protecting his agency and its personnel.

Nan continues to exhibit her less-then-average intelligence, if you pardon the pun, in this affair.

She's now on record with about four different explanations of what she thought she knew, and when. Now she's compounded it by accusing CIA personnel of simply lying to her.

Nan seems to believe that being Speaker makes her unassailable and infallible. Sort of like Jim Wright used to behave when he was Speaker.

This time, however, Nan has made a serious miscalculation. There were others at the briefings. Her own staff member attended at least one briefing at issue. And there were minutes of the briefings. As my prior post noted, some have pointed out that, if Nan didn't voice objections to the interrogation methods at the time, then she's in a very bad position now.

Since Nan threw down the gauntlet and accused the CIA of lying, it's a fairly simple matter to now investigate just who is lying. If it's not the CIA, then it has to be Frisco Nan. There's no other conclusion anymore.

Could the House Democratic blue dogs eventually call for her resignation as Speaker if Nan is shown to be the liar?

Glenn Beck's 912 Project Gains Momentum

I wrote this post about Glenn Beck's 912 Project back in March of this year. In that piece, I opined,

"While, as I noted above, I don't expect Glenn Beck to attempt to control the movement, I do expect him, at some point in the near future, to suggest that the local groups consider demanding that candidates for office in 2010 take a pledge to uphold the 912 Project's principles and values, or face opposition from one of the group's members in that locale or district."

I also offered a few sketchy scenarios concerning what could happen in Congress due to the influence or effects of this endeavor.

However, last Friday, when Beck had another live-audience program in the Fox ground floor studio on 6th Avenue, several new developments came to light. I have to say that I was right about the 912 Project spurring political change, but wrong about where and how. No surprise there.

As if taking their cue from Jeb Bush's interview in the Wall Street Journal back in February, and Beck's project, four state legislators from Utah, Texas, Montana and another state which I cannot recall, were in attendance, discussed laws they are introducing or have passed that limit federal actions in their state, as well as a new organization for state lawmakers across the country, the Patrick Henry Caucus.

Listening to various audience members, including Fox News lead Legal Contributor, retired NJ Judge Andrew Napolitano, and a Tenth Amendment expert, it became clear that what many people feel ails our nation is not a partisan issue, but a state's rights issue.

As the Tenth Amendment expert noted, the Constitution was written in such a way as to leave most governmental power to the states, where, it was felt, you'd be electing dozens of local citizens, from small districts, to your own legislator. Accountability would be, presumably, greater in the many, smaller districts.

For example, in my own state of residence, New Jersey, the most densely-populated state in the Union, many state representative districts share a single federal Congressional Representative. Although this state was long-ago captured by liberal attorneys, in theory, what ails my state is fairly easily fixed by many, smallish groups rising up and replacing our state representatives, thus shifting policy. Because running for a state representative seat is much less expensive than a Congressional seat, it should be easier to 'take back' the state, than the federal government.

This is something which, I confess, had not occurred to me quite so clearly prior to viewing Beck's Friday program.

But it became very clear that a lot of state legislators, without partisan labeling, are serious about competing with other states to offer a hospitable, low-tax, low-regulatory climate, with which to attract new business and residents.

Additionally, states are not allowed, legally, to run deficits at all, or for very long. Thus, they tend to have to actually "work." Well, they're supposed to, anyway.

One major debate topic was the unconstitutionality of Barney Frank's call to give federal loan guarantees to California bonds. Several people, including the state legislators, repudiated the right of the federal government to make 49 other states responsible for bailing out California's messed up government and budget.

This does, indeed, sound like a serious "line in the sand" issue. And, in fact, it would seem that California is in danger of legal bankruptcy about a decade ahead of when I predicted to my daughter just last March that this would happen. New Jersey and Illinois are close on its heels.

All of this is, I think, excellent. Rather than partisan bickering about whose party has screwed up Washington more, the issue is morphing into people, through their states, desiring to have such uninfluencable activity and spending reined in by stronger states' rights. Whether Democrat or Republican, people seem to feel aghast and helpless as both parties have, since Teddy Roosevelt, made the federal government more rapacious and unconstitutionally powerful.

Napolitano, I believe, reminded everyone that there are only 13 enumerated federal powers in the Constitution, with the Tenth Amendment reserving the remainder to the states.

I think Beck's 912 Project is already facilitating a structured, productive movement, or movements, to affect federal-level problems in our country. The solutions appear to be taking on a distinctive state-based, populist flavor which will be more answerable to voters in their smaller, more numerous state representative and senate districts.

This would seem to be a very good thing.