Michelle Obama in Africa: The White House is Kind of Like Living in Prison, You Know
Michelle Obama, she has a rough life you know. It was only until her husband was elected President of the United States that Ms. Obama was finally "proud" of America. But now, after five years as first lady, the joy of living in the White House seems to be over.
First Lady Michelle Obama on Tuesday described living in the White House as like being in a “really nice prison.”I'd like to point out that Ms. Obama said this while she was in Africa of all places, a continent rife with extreme poverty and horrible living conditions.
Obama’s comment came during her discussion with former First Lady Laura Bush at the African First Ladies Summit in Tanzania during an interview moderated by journalist Cokie Roberts.
Roberts noted that Martha Washington, the first First Lady, also described living in the role as akin to being a state prisoner.
Obama said she loved her job and found it liberating in some respects, but confining in others.
“There are some prison elements to it,” she joked. “But it’s a really nice prison.”
On another note, Right Pundit points out that Ms. Obama arrived in Africa wearing a $1295 dress.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/07/02/michelle-obama-living-in-the-white-house-is-like-being-in-prison-you-know-n1632476
Is Obama a Victim of Self-Esteem Education?
I never understood Barack Obama -- or even some of my friends -- until I read The Amateur by Edward Klein (Regnery Publishing 2012 -- paperback June 13, 2013).
But first you also need to remember the plague of "self-esteem" based education. And finally it all makes sense. The self-esteem movement hurt our public schools and degraded the curriculum. The self-esteem time bomb is now coming full circle, as the victims of our schools, colleges, and universities have moved into leadership of our country.
Barack Obama is the ultimate "A for effort [D for performance] President." Obama's ineptness is exceeded only by his giant ego. Obama received a "to be determined" Nobel Peace Prize in the naked hope that he might do something later to promote peace. This is self-esteem taken to a ridiculous extreme -- but in real life. But wait: Isn't that exactly what the liberal educational approach teaches in our schools and even in our universities and law schools?
It doesn't matter if you get the wrong answer as long as you believe in yourself. It doesn't matter if you can actually achieve anything, as long as you try. Liberal educational techniques teach students that everyone is a winner, everyone's opinion is equally valid, and there should be no competition or grading on the basis of merit.
Sure, we all have limitations. There is nothing wrong with that. Henry Ford claimed that he wasn't all that smart, but he succeeded by hiring people smarter than he. Many highly-successful people have echoed Ford with similar quotes. But the difference is he could admit his own strengths and weaknesses and take action to compensate.
The most important sentence in The Amateur is: "He doesn't know what he doesn't know." I interviewed the author on the Conservative Commandos radio show, when the book came out in paperback.
Why does Barack Obama compare himself to Abraham Lincoln? Conservatives were appalled that Obama thinks so much of himself. But that's the wrong analysis. Obama doesn't know much about Abraham Lincoln. Not knowing history, he lacks the capacity to see that he isn't in Honest Abe's league.
Similarly, Obama has given two speeches at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, evoking the memory of John F. Kennedy. "How can he compare himself to JFK?" conservatives bristle. Because he doesn't know very much about JFK. He doesn't understand that special moment which JFK embodied that day in Berlin -- what it really meant -- or Ronald Reagan's pivotal moment at the Berlin Wall. So he doesn't realize that he can't just show up and give a random speech of equal historical importance to "Ich bin ein Berliner" with which JFK committed the full might of the United States to defend the freedom of West Berlin against Soviet expansion.
Why doesn't Obama get involved in shaping legislation important to his agenda as it develops in Congress? Because he doesn't know how. Obama avoids the hard work not only because he is lazy but also because he doesn't have the skills to tackle it. He instinctively avoids situations in which his weaknesses and ignorance would be exposed.
Where was President Obama when the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was under attack? Well, where would you be if you knew you don't understand the U.S. military, foreign policy, U.S. military capabilities, response options, and how various countries might be involved in defending U.S. diplomats? Obama didn't want everyone to see in the Situation Room that he could not intelligently discuss the options or the problems.
Many of the actions and omissions of the Obama Administration leave political observers scratching their head. But they are assuming that Obama is making those decisions knowingly. What if, instead, Obama simply avoids situations where his knowledge and skills are lacking? He might not admit, even to himself, any weakness. But one subconsciously avoids those uncomfortable situations.
Back in the 1980's, Rush Limbaugh mocked the self-esteem movement by explaining how students were being asked how they feel about 2 +2. If they added 2 +2 and got 5, that's okay, as long as they feel good about their own individual answer.
Conservative superstar Phyllis Schafly explained in a November 4, 1990 New York Times editorial: "Earned self-esteem is important," said Phyllis Schlafly, president of the Eagle Forum, a politically conservative group based in Alton, Ill. But she added, "Instead of teaching them how to read, they're teaching kids to feel good about being illiterate."
The article further asserted:
Self-esteem education is damaging to students most of all. When a student leaves that artificial bubble world and enters the harsh real world, they are not prepared to succeed with an actual skill. Disorientation, difficulty, and heartache can be the results. Raised to expect positive reinforcement as guaranteed, they are exceptionally sensitive to any criticism. For example, notice how thin-skinned Barack Obama is, how he is unable to cope with any criticism.
Victims of the public schools don't easily learn from mistakes, change, or grow because that would require admitting they made a mistake that needs correcting. They often do not grow out of bad habits or limitations. The Amateur describes how Obama has failed to grow in office, for example, in sharp contrast with other presidents.
I have seen friends make decisions based on their feelings, rather than on the facts in front of them. Now I understand: that's how they were indoctrinated growing up. Their self-defeating patterns and habits are exactly what conservatives warned for decades would happen from the self-esteem movement. Conservative warnings have once again come true.
Now, it would be wrong to say that Obama is not well-educated. He is very well-indoctrinated in left-wing policy seminar talking points. In fact, Obama is naturally bright, which is the tragedy of self esteem education. He has thoroughly and deeply grasped the liberal viewpoint on everything. If Obama had been exposed to an actual education, he could have excelled. But as it is, Obama knows nothing but what is offered by liberal indoctrination. And having mastered that tiny set of propaganda points, Obama imagines himself to be well-informed. Memorizing liberal policy talking points is what Obama believes to be a real education. There is a deep irony in the fact that liberal education has crippled the efforts of its own chief standard-bearer.
But first you also need to remember the plague of "self-esteem" based education. And finally it all makes sense. The self-esteem movement hurt our public schools and degraded the curriculum. The self-esteem time bomb is now coming full circle, as the victims of our schools, colleges, and universities have moved into leadership of our country.
Barack Obama is the ultimate "A for effort [D for performance] President." Obama's ineptness is exceeded only by his giant ego. Obama received a "to be determined" Nobel Peace Prize in the naked hope that he might do something later to promote peace. This is self-esteem taken to a ridiculous extreme -- but in real life. But wait: Isn't that exactly what the liberal educational approach teaches in our schools and even in our universities and law schools?
It doesn't matter if you get the wrong answer as long as you believe in yourself. It doesn't matter if you can actually achieve anything, as long as you try. Liberal educational techniques teach students that everyone is a winner, everyone's opinion is equally valid, and there should be no competition or grading on the basis of merit.
Sure, we all have limitations. There is nothing wrong with that. Henry Ford claimed that he wasn't all that smart, but he succeeded by hiring people smarter than he. Many highly-successful people have echoed Ford with similar quotes. But the difference is he could admit his own strengths and weaknesses and take action to compensate.
The most important sentence in The Amateur is: "He doesn't know what he doesn't know." I interviewed the author on the Conservative Commandos radio show, when the book came out in paperback.
Why does Barack Obama compare himself to Abraham Lincoln? Conservatives were appalled that Obama thinks so much of himself. But that's the wrong analysis. Obama doesn't know much about Abraham Lincoln. Not knowing history, he lacks the capacity to see that he isn't in Honest Abe's league.
Similarly, Obama has given two speeches at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, evoking the memory of John F. Kennedy. "How can he compare himself to JFK?" conservatives bristle. Because he doesn't know very much about JFK. He doesn't understand that special moment which JFK embodied that day in Berlin -- what it really meant -- or Ronald Reagan's pivotal moment at the Berlin Wall. So he doesn't realize that he can't just show up and give a random speech of equal historical importance to "Ich bin ein Berliner" with which JFK committed the full might of the United States to defend the freedom of West Berlin against Soviet expansion.
Why doesn't Obama get involved in shaping legislation important to his agenda as it develops in Congress? Because he doesn't know how. Obama avoids the hard work not only because he is lazy but also because he doesn't have the skills to tackle it. He instinctively avoids situations in which his weaknesses and ignorance would be exposed.
Where was President Obama when the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was under attack? Well, where would you be if you knew you don't understand the U.S. military, foreign policy, U.S. military capabilities, response options, and how various countries might be involved in defending U.S. diplomats? Obama didn't want everyone to see in the Situation Room that he could not intelligently discuss the options or the problems.
Many of the actions and omissions of the Obama Administration leave political observers scratching their head. But they are assuming that Obama is making those decisions knowingly. What if, instead, Obama simply avoids situations where his knowledge and skills are lacking? He might not admit, even to himself, any weakness. But one subconsciously avoids those uncomfortable situations.
Back in the 1980's, Rush Limbaugh mocked the self-esteem movement by explaining how students were being asked how they feel about 2 +2. If they added 2 +2 and got 5, that's okay, as long as they feel good about their own individual answer.
Conservative superstar Phyllis Schafly explained in a November 4, 1990 New York Times editorial: "Earned self-esteem is important," said Phyllis Schlafly, president of the Eagle Forum, a politically conservative group based in Alton, Ill. But she added, "Instead of teaching them how to read, they're teaching kids to feel good about being illiterate."
The article further asserted:
But not everyone is applauding; even teachers and researchers who believe self-esteem is important are not always pleased with the way the concept is thrown about. Others say self-esteem workshops and exercises are more appropriate for the psychiatrist's couch than the teacher's blackboard.The Phyllis Schafly Report further explained:
Elementary school children may no longer be taught to read and write, but they will almost surely be given one of the trendy new psychological courses in self-esteem. Self-esteem is supposed to be the magic bullet that will cure all school and social problems...
Under OBE, the student has no incentive to study, work hard, and pass a test, because he can always take it again later. Since the primary goal is to develop self-esteem and to be a part of the group, rather than to learn or to achieve, OBE bans competition, honors, and traditional subject matter courses and grades...The self-esteem curriculum is technically called "Affective Education" -- "The movement has been labeled Affective Education by educators, and includes a wide range of programs and curricula which attempt to change the values and behavior of students." The result is explained, for example, in a book The Narcissm Epidemic by psychologists Twenge and Campbell.
OBE does nothing to upgrade academic standards. Instead, it is designed to conceal the progressive lowering of standards
Self-esteem education is damaging to students most of all. When a student leaves that artificial bubble world and enters the harsh real world, they are not prepared to succeed with an actual skill. Disorientation, difficulty, and heartache can be the results. Raised to expect positive reinforcement as guaranteed, they are exceptionally sensitive to any criticism. For example, notice how thin-skinned Barack Obama is, how he is unable to cope with any criticism.
Victims of the public schools don't easily learn from mistakes, change, or grow because that would require admitting they made a mistake that needs correcting. They often do not grow out of bad habits or limitations. The Amateur describes how Obama has failed to grow in office, for example, in sharp contrast with other presidents.
I have seen friends make decisions based on their feelings, rather than on the facts in front of them. Now I understand: that's how they were indoctrinated growing up. Their self-defeating patterns and habits are exactly what conservatives warned for decades would happen from the self-esteem movement. Conservative warnings have once again come true.
Now, it would be wrong to say that Obama is not well-educated. He is very well-indoctrinated in left-wing policy seminar talking points. In fact, Obama is naturally bright, which is the tragedy of self esteem education. He has thoroughly and deeply grasped the liberal viewpoint on everything. If Obama had been exposed to an actual education, he could have excelled. But as it is, Obama knows nothing but what is offered by liberal indoctrination. And having mastered that tiny set of propaganda points, Obama imagines himself to be well-informed. Memorizing liberal policy talking points is what Obama believes to be a real education. There is a deep irony in the fact that liberal education has crippled the efforts of its own chief standard-bearer.
,
which was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York. “That marketplace depends on free and vigorous
debate between students — debate that is silenced when university
policies regulate speech based on content and viewpoint and vest
administrators with unbridled discretion to impose fees for the exercise
of speech.”A New Low: Toddlers Forced to Carry Pro-Abortion "Wire Hanger" Signs
Just in case you thought the pro-abortion crowd couldn't get much lower, yesterday during protests at the Texas State Capitol, toddlers and children were forced by their pro-abortion elders to carry signs featuring wire hangers. Those hangers represent ripping a child out of the womb.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/07/02/a-new-low-toddlers-forced-to-carry-proabortion-hanger-signs-n1632463
SCOTUS Amends the Declaration of Independence
Thomas Jefferson, call your office. Five lawyers on the Supreme Court have issues with your handiwork.A revised version of the Declaration is the inevitable outcome of their opinions in the same-sex "marriage" cases hammered down on Wednesday in Windsor v. United States and Hollingsworth v. Perry.
For those who think those rulings are merely about an insignificant "social issue," think again. In the words of the Prophet Isaiah:
"Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands far off. For truth has stumbled in the public square, and honesty cannot enter. Truth is missing, and whoever turns from evil is plundered."For starters, Mr. Jefferson, "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions," even when it comes to marriage created by our "Creator" is so 1776.
You and your 55 cosignors of the Declaration didn't get this line right either:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."So five wise guys and gals, not to be confused with Solomon, tweaked it, finding their inspiration in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Their revised standard version reads:
"We hold these delusions to be pretty darn clear that all people are whatever the heck they self-identify as, regardless of biology or DNA, endowed by their Supreme Judges with life, except, of course, for the unborn; liberty, meaning "the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life," as long as it doesn't offend the moral judgment of the Supreme Judges whose moral judgments trump those of their Subjects."Justice Anthony ("Swinging") Kennedy wrote the incoherent majority opinion in Windsor, throwing out Section 3 of DOMA. That section defines the term "marriage" as one man and one woman "for all purposes under federal law, including the provision of federal benefits."
Kennedy, armed with his irrational basis test and magic spectacles, found that DOMA violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment because it "singles out a class of persons deemed by a state entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."
Thus, gay-enhancing states get to decide who gets federal benefits. If you can't connect the states' liberty dots to federal benefits, you obviously attended the wrong law school.
A supermajority of a bipartisan Congress enacted DOMA, which was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton in 1996. According to Kennedy, they were blinded by a desire to "demean," "harm," "injure," and "degrade" "same-sex couples" who were "married" somewhere.
It was a banner day for Kennedy and his chutzpah cabal. Where did Congress get the idea that it can decide who gets federal benefits?
Follow along here and imagine the shelf-life of an immigration reform bill that denies federal benefits to illegal aliens once the "animus" detectors get their hands on it.
As Martin ("First, they came for") Niemoller warned, the feds should have seen it coming. First, Kennedy came for the Coloradans (Romer v. Evans, striking down a state constitutional amendment limiting special civil rights protections). Then he came for the Texans (Lawrence v. Texas, constitutionalizing consensual same-sex sodomy). Now he's come for Congress and a President.
So who is left to stop him when he comes for you?
According to Kennedy, all were driven by nothing other than animus. That would include President Obama, who was against "gay marriage" after he was for it, and Hillary Clinton, who was against it before she was for it, after Obama was for it. Hubby Bill is tickled pink (by whom is unclear).
The Perry case concerns a California ballot initiative, Proposition 8, by which voters added language to the California Constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Court avoided ruling on the merits. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. The California Supreme Court had granted standing to the intervenors to appeal a federal district court ruling declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional after Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown and the attorney general refused to defend Prop 8.
Even so, Roberts held that the interveners lacked standing to bring the appeal under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
Justice Kennedy dissented, arguing that the people of California had a right to a hearing before the Court. Take it by faith -- Kennedy wanted his animus-obsessed hands on Prop 8.
What the ruling accomplished is the opportunity for more losing litigation by advocates of traditional marriage. We the People of the states are virtually denied the right to defend in federal courts the laws we enact through the initiative/referenda process if state officials refuse to do so. Even a win for traditional marriage in the highest state court will lose in the current Supreme Court.
Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in Windsor unmistakably sounds the death knell for the right of self-rule enshrined in the Declaration and Constitution:
"By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition."
Doris Kearns Godwin ruins Gettysburg's 150th Commemoration
I got a heads up on this speech by the liberal historian yesterday but couldn't find a transcript or even a video to blog about it.
Breitbart has the shocking story; Godwin turned her speech into a rant about gay marriage and women's rights:
It's a shame, really. There is only one opportunity to get the 150th commemoration right. And Doris Kearns Godwin blew it.
Breitbart has the shocking story; Godwin turned her speech into a rant about gay marriage and women's rights:
She said she was obsessed, while writing about Eleanor Roosevelt, with people who slept on the second floor of the White House. And when First Lady Hillary Clinton heard her talking about that on the radio, she invited her and her husband to spend the night at the White House with the Clintons.
In nearly exactly the same words, Kearns Goodwin told the Gettysburg audience the same story she told at Dartmouth's commencement in 1998:
I happened to mention this on a radio show in Washington which Hillary Clinton happened to hear so she called me up and promptly invited me to sleep overnight in the White House. She said we could then we could wander the corridors together and figure out where everyone had slept 50 years before. A couple of weeks later she followed up with an invitation to a state dinner, after which between midnight and 2, the president, my husband, Mrs. Clinton and I did indeed with my map in hand go through every room up there and figure out whose it had been during the war, and the best part is that we realized we were sleeping in Winston Churchill's bedroom.
Then, Kearns Goodwin commented on last week's Supreme Court decisions that she called "stunning."
"On the one hand, a critical section of that same 1965 Voting Rights Act which had stood for fifty years was struck down," Kearns Goodwin said. "On the other hand, the struggle to end discrimination against gays and lesbians took a giant step forward."
She compared the gay rights movement to the women's rights and civil rights movements, and then gushed about how privileged she was that she had a "curious love of history" that allowed her to look back and tell stories--if they were her own--about the past.
The closest she came to discussing the Battle of Gettysburg at length was when she mentioned "Stonewall." But instead of talking about how different Gettysburg could have been had the great Southern General Stonewall Jackson lived to aid Robert E. Lee, Kearns Goodwin instead spoke about the Stonewall gay riots that united the gay community, which she used to discuss how women's rights and civil rights and gay rights were all "human rights" while quoting Robert F. Kennedy's "ripples of hope" speech. She even compared "Stonewall" to "Selma," linking the gay rights movement and the black civil rights movement.One would think an historian would jump at the chance to talk about themes relating to the battle and Lincoln's famous speech. But Kearns Godwin is obviously held in thrall to an ideological view of history - a deterministic notion that bears little ressemblance to reality.
It's a shame, really. There is only one opportunity to get the 150th commemoration right. And Doris Kearns Godwin blew it.
5 Ways Barack Obama Is Making War On The Middle Class
While Barack Obama is enjoying extravagant parties with Hollywood celebrities and taking opulent vacations, America's middle class is being decimated by his policies. Certainly Obama deserves to be condemned for the Nixonian corruption and Carteresque incompetence of his administration, but what Obama is doing to middle class Americans is just as despicable. He's slowly, but surely squeezing them into oblivion. Sadly, many Democrats are fine with this because they've calculated that a poor voter or better yet in their eyes, a voter dependent on welfare and food stamps, is more likely to support them than a voter in the middle class. Whatever happened to having a government that tries to make it easier for people in the middle class as opposed to putting policies like these in place?1) Higher Energy Costs: When Barack Obama was running for office, he said, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Obama seems to have few qualms about lying to the American people when it benefits him, but that is one campaign promise he's working very hard to fulfill. He blocked drilling in ANWR, dramatically slowed offshore drilling and he's blocked the keystone pipeline, which would bring cheap Canadian oil to America. So, when your eyes get big because of how much you have to pay to fill up your car, make sure to say, "Thank you, Obama."
Of course, Obama's also working around Congress to put new regulations on coal and emissions in place that may raise the cost of your energy bills by as much as 60%. So, if your energy bill seems higher this summer, make sure to thank Obama because he's helping to make that happen.
2) Killing The Job Market: Barack Obama has imposed 70 billion dollars in new regulations on American businesses so far, America has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and Obamacare has caused businesses to freeze hiring and move workers from full to part-time. As a result, even though there are 31 million more Americans now than there were in 2000, there are FEWER Americans working. If you don't have a job today, feel free to thank Barack Obama for helping to make that happen.
3) Higher Student Loan Costs: One of the great aspirations of middle class Americans is sending their kids to college. That takes a lot of money that sometimes needs to be borrowed. Many young Americans who hope to work their way into the middle class have taken out college loans as well. Because of Barack Obama, those college loans cost considerably more. After Obama seized the student loan industry, he talked a lot about making college more affordable. However, what he did was charge higher rates for the student loans so he could take the money and funnel it into Obamacare. The government borrows money at 2.8 percent and loans it out to students at 6.8%. Incidentally, those mean old Republicans? They want to cut the rate to 5.3%, but Obama is fighting to make students pay more. So, if you think you're paying too much interest on student loans, make sure to thank Obama for that.
4) Amnesty For Illegal Aliens: Granted, about a third of the Republicans in the Senate backed amnesty, but Barack Obama and the Democrats backed it overwhelmingly. When so many middle class Americans are struggling to find work and can't make ends meet, it's unconscionable to allow 11 million foreigners who are here illegally to take jobs that would otherwise go to Americans. Worse yet, after the chain migration provisions of the bill go into effect, the numbers would zoom up to 25-30 million foreigners competing with Americans for jobs -- and that's before the new guest worker programs. It's bad enough that people who aren't supposed to be here in the first place are taking jobs that should be held by American citizens, but many people don't realize that they drive down wages for Americans who are already employed. You're only worth as much to a business as it costs to replace you and when there's an army of Obama-approved foreigners ready to take your job, it simply doesn't make sense to pay you as much money. Sadly, this hurts poor Americans even worse than the middle class, but with all the Americans out of work, it's hard to see how any politicians who mean well could want to take away the jobs they need to feed their families. You can be sure that if illegals were primarily taking jobs as reporters, college professors, and lawyers, Democrats like Barack Obama would ferociously oppose illegal immigration. However, since that's not the case, if you're out of a job or making less because of illegal immigration, you can thank Barack Obama for it.
5) Higher Health Care Costs: At this point, almost everyone who pays attention realizes that Obamacare was sold almost entirely with lies. One of the biggest lies was that Obamacare would reduce the cost of care. Barack Obama actually claimed it would cut premiums by 15-20%.
Of course, that was always a ludicrous assertion. As opponents of Obamacare incessantly reminded everyone before it was passed, the government doesn't do ANYTHING cheaper than the free market. Now, we're finally starting to get some data on what the numbers are going to look like and tragically for the middle class, it looks like the cost increases are going to be EVEN BIGGER than the skeptics thought.
In California, costs will be going up 64-146%. On the other hand, others are predicting health care insurance costs may even DOUBLE for many Americans in 2014. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is saying rates for some Americans may go up as much as 400%. This is not a small matter because health care isn't exactly cheap in the first place. Worse yet, despite the massive cost increases, the quality of your health care is going to decrease, the IRS will be handling the billing, and the government will actually FINE YOU if you choose not to get health care. When you're hurting financially because of those big bills you have to pay, make sure to say, "Thank you, Barack Obama," because he's responsible for it.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/07/02/5-ways-barack-obama-is-making-war-on-the-middle-class-n1632069/page/full
Punishing Enemies and Rewarding Friends
Obama’s Africa Energy Plan Will Benefit Fmr. Economic Adviser
President Barack Obama announced over the weekend a new energy plan called “Power Africa.” The plan will invest $7 billion in U.S. taxpayer money to bring electricity to sub-Saharan Africa and will generate huge rewards for General Electric, a company run by former Obama economic adviser Jeffrey Immelt, Forbes reports.
General Electric will be perhaps the biggest beneficiary of that $7 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds that Obama says will underwrite Power Africa. The lion’s share of the $7 billion appears to be directed by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which will “make available $5 billion in support of U.S. exports for the development of power projects.” This doesn’t mean that Ex-Im is spending or investing those $5 billions, rather the job of the Ex-Im bank is to help finance trading opportunities that private sector lenders are not willing to take a risk on. As Ex-Im describes its mission: “We assume credit and country risks that the private sector is unable or unwilling to accept. We also help to level the playing field for U.S. exporters by matching the financing that other governments provide to their exporters.”
G.E. CEO Jeffrey Immelt, who until early this year chaired the president’s Council on Jobs and Effectiveness, will clearly appreciate a financial backstop from Uncle Sam. Federal guarantees will reduce G.E. financial risks in Africa and will help it compete better against Chinese companies, which have been falling over themselves to invest in Africa. U.S. exports to Africa have been growing, having reached $21 billion in 2011, up 23% from 2010. The U.S. imports some $60 billion a year from sub-Saharan Africa — though most of that is crude oil.http://freebeacon.com/obamas-africa-energy-plan-will-benefit-fmr-economic-adviser/
Do Traditional Marriage Supporters Deserve to Be Treated with Dignity?
Some people can’t seem to understand why anyone would support marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued last week that the only reason Congress had for passing the Defense of Marriage Act was to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” others. Justice Kennedy says we’re denying dignity to people in same-sex relationships.
But it is his ruling that denies dignity to those who don’t think a same-sex relationship is a marriage. His ruling denies dignity to the millions of Americans and their elected officials who have voted to pass laws that tell the truth about marriage.
The rhetoric from the Court attacking the goodwill of the majority of Americans—who know marriage is the union of a man and a woman—is not helpful. The marriage debate will continue, and all Americans need to be civil and respectful.
Already, however, we have seen that those in favor of redefining marriage are willing to use the coercive force of law to marginalize and penalize those who hold the historic view of marriage—even if it means trampling First Amendment religious liberty protections along the way. This is already evident in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., where Christian adoption agencies have been forced to stop providing adoption and foster care services.
Legal challenges have been brought against wedding-related service providers who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, after they declined to participate in ceremonies that would have violated their consciences. A photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington, and a baker in Colorado have already been victims of such intolerant coercion.
Our interest in marriage policy from the beginning has been to ensure that a man and woman commit to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children they create. This gives children the best chance at a flourishing future. When children have that, liberals are less likely to succeed in their efforts to grow the welfare state. It is impossible for the government to redefine marriage to make fathers optional and for society to insist at the same time that fathers are essential.
In its ruling last week, the Supreme Court refused to wrestle with any of the serious scholarly arguments that support marriage policy as the union of a man and a woman, and instead declared that Congress acted solely out of ill will.
It is outrageous to suggest that 342 Members of the House, 85 Senators, and President Bill Clinton were all acting on the basis of anti-gay bias in 1996, when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted. As Chief Justice Roberts says in his dissent, “I would not tar the political branches with bigotry.”
Indeed, as Heritage has argued repeatedly, there are valid reasons to oppose the redefinition of marriage—which those House Members, Senators, and President Clinton took into account. Marriage matters for children, civil society, and limited government, because children deserve a mother and a father, and when this doesn’t happen, social costs run high.
Citizens and their elected representatives have the constitutional authority to make policy that recognizes marriage as the union of a man and a woman. States will lead the way even as we work to restore clear marriage policy at the federal level. And in the states, support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman remains strong.
The Heritage Foundation will be joining with millions of Americans to ensure that support for marriage continues to grow and that marriage proponents can express their views in this debate. Go to TheMarriageFacts.com today to download your free copy of our e-book on marriage. And continue to speak out boldly about why marriage—that union of one man and one woman—is important for children, civil society, and limited government.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/02/morning-bell-do-traditional-marriage-supporters-deserve-to-be-treated-with-dignity/?roi=echo3-16145757992-13480718-a86bf26e83f23645e90a3194f8839889&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Should Congress telecommute?
Freshman
Democratic Congressman Rep. Eric Swawell filed a resolution last Friday
to change the rules of the House of Representatives to allow members to
vote remotely, presumably from their home districts, but in any event,
without being physically present in the House of Representatives
chamber. Jennifer Martinez reports in The Hill:
Two American Thinker writers have explored this possibility. In 2006, Rosslyn Smith wrote:
And in 2011, C. Edmund Wright wrote:
I can see a number of downsides to the proposal, but it is incontrovertible that the Washington, DC imperium is dangerously detached from the reality of life for most Americans.
This subject is well worth discussing.
Swalwell, whose district is located just north of the heart of Silicon Valley, hopes the amendment will update how Congress works and allow lawmakers to spend more time at home with their constituents.
The resolution would create a secure, remote voting system so members could vote on bills that arebeing considered under a suspension of regular rules, meaning they require a two-thirds majority in the House to pass. The process is usually reserved for bills that are noncontroversial.
Two American Thinker writers have explored this possibility. In 2006, Rosslyn Smith wrote:
Many businesses have discovered that there is no real need to keep people in one physical location, in order to effectively and efficiently coordinate their work effort. Telecommuting, the pratice of working from remote locations, be it a client's premises or even from home, offers many advantages. It is long past time for Congress to consider the possibility of applying the lessons learned in the private sector. The benefits mught be numerous and substantial. (snip)
But what of the need for that hands-on legislator with a strong network of relationships? A good many hearings are sparsely attended, with members coming and going throughout and generally relying on staff for full information about the bills under consideration. I doubt that much would be missed if Congressman participated via a video link instead of being there in person, especially if their staffs remained based in Washington where they could keep an eye on the executive agencies. (snip)
My personal suspicion is that a number of very bad things have happened because the personal relationships that develop over our long Congressional sessions are currently far too strong. In the very worst cases, getting along with other members of Congress seems to have taken a higher priority than representing the folks back home.
And in 2011, C. Edmund Wright wrote:
Consider the ruling class of elites governing us from Washington: they exist in a bubble of money and influence that they rarely leave. We are told that they must stay there to "do the peoples' business." Thus they are oblivious to -- and protected from -- the awful realities they have foisted upon us. This would include the over reaching army of do-gooder bureaucrats -- that we are paying by the way -- to screw up our lives. How could they know and why should they care about all of this? They're never in the real world anyway. Human nature is what it is.
In the meantime, elected officials are exposed to the fake world of lobbyists and influence peddlers as well as others in Congress and the various apparatchiks of big government and big politics. They have far more face time with naïve recent law school graduates who now work on congressional staffs than they do with anyone who knows anything about the real world. Their social life is far more influenced by how they get along with liberal members of the media than it is by how they relate to the folks they represent.
Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that?
What could go wrong is what we have with government today. It is a self-serving and dangerous juggernaut.
I can see a number of downsides to the proposal, but it is incontrovertible that the Washington, DC imperium is dangerously detached from the reality of life for most Americans.
This subject is well worth discussing.
No comments:
Post a Comment