Any Bill at Any Cost

The Democrats in the Senate have reached agreement. They now have the 60 votes they need to ram through their "historic" health reform bill. They need zero Republican votes and can defeat any filibuster. It's even possible that the House will simply put the Senate bill up to a vote without any conference committee compromises. Almost no one including the President will know what's in the bill. What they know is that it will cost us all dearly. The demands of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) for tighter restrictions on insurance coverage for abortions not withstanding this Senate sold it's soul for any bill at any cost.

Nelson's Nebraska will get billions for his vote. Senator Landrieu's $300 million deal is being called the 2nd Louisiana Purchase. These deals are just the tip of the ice berg... Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "This is not renaming the post office. Make no mistake -- this bill will reshape our nation and our lives."

Medicare is slated to suffer billions in cuts in order for the Democrat's fantasy numbers to line up with all cost savings their reform promises. Does anyone believe that when push comes to shove even $1 will be cut? This thing will bankrupt the country.

All I can say is elections have consequences - this is what the voters get whether they wanted it or not. Close to 60% of the public was not in favor of this sweeping power grab. The real brilliance is that Americans won't start feeling the pain until 2014. How convenient that the 2012 elections will be in the rear view mirror by then.

It's anybody's guess what this ram job will actually cost in direct dollars, but I am reasonably sure it will stifle the economy for some time to come until businesses large and small sort it all out.

It's hard to be optimistic about anything coming out of Washington these days - I pray to God I'm completely wrong when I say nothing good will come out this.



CW

Is American Decline Inevitable?

True or False

Decline is inevitable?

Decline is a choice?

The answer is to both questions is true. For an individual physical decline is a certainty. The mind, however, can be sharp as a tack until death. For a nation decline is a choice. Individual aspects of any culture or economy will decline, ebbing and flowing like the tide. But a nation, a culture, an economy can choose to reinvent parts of itself and grow to prosper again and again. Or it can choose to give up.

The American people, at least a vast swath of them have not chosen decline, however, many of our political and cultural leaders have.

In a fine exercise in thinking the incomparable Charles Krauthammer wrote recently for the Weekly Standard "Decline is a choice". He is without a doubt correct.

FTA:
The question of whether America is in decline cannot be answered yes or no. There is no yes or no. Both answers are wrong, because the assumption that somehow there exists some predetermined inevitable trajectory, the result of uncontrollable external forces, is wrong. Nothing is inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline--or continued ascendancy--is in our hands.

Not that decline is always a choice. Britain's decline after World War II was foretold, as indeed was that of Europe, which had been the dominant global force of the preceding centuries. The civilizational suicide that was the two world wars, and the consequent physical and psychological exhaustion, made continued dominance impossible and decline inevitable. The corollary to unchosen European collapse was unchosen American ascendancy.

We--whom Lincoln once called God's "almost chosen people"--did not save Europe twice in order to emerge from the ashes as the world's co-hegemon. We went in to defend ourselves and save civilization. Our dominance after World War II was not sought.

Whether the U.S. sought to be a super power all these years later is beside the point, we are. The people in power from the mayor of the wealthy suburb all the way to the current President don't think we should be anymore. There is a belief in all corners of " liberal" worldview that not only is there nothing exceptional about America, but there is a undercurrent of thought that we are undeserving of being a pinnacle nation because of our inherent unfairness, racism, sexism and the whole pantheon of isms.

Again FTA:
Facing the choice of whether to maintain our dominance or to gradually, deliberately, willingly, and indeed relievedly give it up, we are currently on a course towards the latter. The current liberal ascendancy in the United States--controlling the executive and both houses of Congress, dominating the media and elite culture--has set us on a course for decline. And this is true for both foreign and domestic policies. Indeed, they work synergistically to ensure that outcome. The current foreign policy of the United States is an exercise in contraction. It begins with the demolition of the moral foundation of American dominance. In Strasbourg, President Obama was asked about American exceptionalism. His answer? "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Interesting response. Because if everyone is exceptional, no one is.

Interesting indeed... I would vote against any politician who uttered such a phrase. Every parent knows regardless of how exceptional the child really is it is their job to be a cheerleader in the presence of the child or not. I honestly get the sense that President Obama has zero pride in this country. His only pride evolves from a government program and not the resourcefulness of the citizenry. He proves this everyday and in every way with policy proclamations that would shackle that resourcefulness and replace it with another inept government solution.

Words can't describe how much I dislike Obama's vision for America.



CW

Obama: Full of Surprises

The Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance speech surprized me!

It was very good. This is something I was not expecting. Normally I can't stand his speeches. Kudos, hats off, at a boy and thank you President Obama.

"We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."


"Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.


"So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another - that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such."


These words are true no matter who uttered them and I for one am grateful to this President in particular for standing up and declaring the righteousness of American power before the whole world. Despite the many mistakes made by past administrations from both parties America has been a force for good more often than not.



CW

Obama Continues to Whine

Will some one please tell Barack Obama that HE ran for President and that HE won! Once again the President is acting like the problems of the country were foisted upon him. Well some one should inform him that he wanted to be President, that no one forced him to accept the nomination.

What a putz.

From Foxnews.com:
President Obama used his speech rolling out a stimulus-style jobs program Tuesday to point the finger at Republicans for allegedly facilitating the economic crisis and then foisting it off on his administration to solve.

Obama: "We were forced to take those steps (to jump-start the economy) largely without the help of an opposition party which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that had led to the crisis, decided to hand it over to others to solve."

The opposition party didn't decide to hand over the nation's problems - YOU ASKED FOR THEM and the people elected you with a large majority in Congress. Why is this so hard for you to understand? The opposition party failed, this is true, but they largely failed to undo what a Democratic administration set into motion in the 1990's. That's a subject that's been beaten to death already - and it's just another example of the blame game.

If this was somebody I liked or admired (or a child) this would be my advice: Pointing the finger of blame is unbecoming for a winner. Pick up the ball and run the other way - don't mock the other team all the way to end zone. Try to act like you belong there.



CW

Obama Sucks his Thumb Too

I mean to tell you I couldn't respect President Obama any less than I already do but he is really pushing it.

I read today this quip by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D) MI about how the President called Conyers and demanded to know why Conyers was demeaning him. Wah Wah. For God's sake Mr. President stand up and be a man. My own mother criticizes me when I need it.

Conyers spent most of 2008 schilling for Obama. His criticisms are that The President isn't leading us even farther to the left. What is it with these guys in the White House? No dissension allowed!!!

A few weeks ago Chris Wallace, the host of Fox News Sunday, declared that this was the most childishly thin skinned administration he had covered in his 20 years in Washington.

What a bunch of babies.




CW

RIP Mesha 1997-2009

This morning I had to do what all pet owners dread. My loyal German Shepard, Mesha had lived a good life and was as good at her job as anyone could ask. Her job was to alert us whenever something was out of place in the area around our home. She was great at it. Mesha lived outside as all my dogs have. Living in Minnesota you can imagine it is not always pleasant. She had a nice dog house that was actually built into the garage and it had a heat lamp for the cold months. Our rule was if the mercury dipped below zer0 F she could come in the house until the weather moderated. She was never comfortable in the house, even though she always wanted to be inside - or at least close to the rest of the "pack".



This summer she started to lose the ability to use one of her back legs. The vet said it was a nerve thing - signals not reaching the leg. He said she was likely not in any pain. In the last few months it began happening to the other leg as well. More often than not she really struggled to walk without having to drag both her hind legs. It was not going to get better...

With very cold weather and large snowbanks looming I couldn't let it go on.

Rest in peace Mesha... We love 'ya.



CW

The Dangerous Pap of Multiculturalism

Ahh, multiculturalism, that wholesome concept popularized in the 1960's by righteous academics, has at last embedded its pureness into all aspects of American life as we live and breath here in 2009. Without a doubt the world is a friendlier, more harmonious place because of it.

Yet it was the fear of retribution by the agents of multiculturalism and its cousin political correctness that is thought to be the reason no one dared "connect the dots" that should have flagged Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as a potential terrorist. Long before the Fort Hood massacre all the warning signs were there - and actually the dots were connected by multiple agencies, but fear prevented any action. Fear of the politically correct multiculturalist and their allies in the media and the justice system.

Presented as an alternative to the prosaic “melting pot” contrivance, multiculturalism replaced what was really just a code word European whites used as a license to rule American culture. The melting pot was criticized by minorities who felt that it gave whites the power to expect conformity from all others. Multiculturalism requires the opposite, it demands that that various ethnic and racial cultures exist distinctly but equally within a single society. Essentially multiculturalism regards our diversity as a concept rather than a fact. It just sounds better to declare proudly that we celebrate diversity rather than celebrating a fact. In practice it becomes a call to celebrate our differences instead of our similarities.

Here's news to you - there was nothing wrong with the concept of the melting pot except that it was uniquely American, and we will have none of that now will we?

The real problem with multiculturalism is not that it seeks to lift diverse racial and cultural entities to an equal stature with the prevailing majority, but that is seeks to depreciate the dominant culture as virtue-less. While it encourages people to respect cultural equality it also encourages people to feel separate from others on a basis of color or creed. In some academic circles this is known as Balkanization - which is not generally viewed as a positive. How is this superior to the American melting pot construct?

Multiculturalism reinforces the idea that people who look or act a certain way are inherently different. This separation inevitably leads to ignorance and suspicion. In the end the good that is supposed to be the result of widespread recognition of disparate cultures is lost. Multiculturalism was supposed to encourage the sharing of diverse cultural facets whilst allowing for cultural autonomy, oddly this is exactly what the melting pot had largely achieved. Forced multiculturalism darkens the lines between ethnic groups making them harder and harder to erase.

The real problems arise when governments, both national and local, start making laws to enforce multiculturalism instead of the slow but natural process of cultural congealing like a simmering pot of booyah.

Multicultural policies can include:

--forced support for newspapers, television, and radio in minority languages

--forced support for minority festivals, holidays, and celebrations

--forced acceptance of traditional and religious dress in schools, the military, and society in general

--forced support for arts from cultures around the world

--programs to force minority representation in politics, education, and the work force

By and large none of these things are necessarily bad goals, except when the force of government is haphazardly applied through the court system. In the Fort Hood case fear of government retribution froze out any action that might have saved 13 lives and more than 30 injuries. So now we've experienced the inevitable result of the dangerous pap of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalist policies by design oppose cultural assimilation which is the very essence of the "melting pot". We are no longer Americans, but rather, hyphenated Americans. Sadly, new immigrant groups are not even encouraged to participate in the larger society, learn the majority language, nor are they "encouraged" to legally enter the labor force. When social integration and cultural assimilation is held back it can lead to economic disparities and an exclusion of minority groups from the benefits of becoming mainstream. In the end this helps no one. It has been speculated that as practiced multiculturalism is just apartheid by another name.


CW