Is a man and man, possessed of and by a similar nature and drives to his fellows, irrespective of his race, ethnicity, or creed? Are all peoples essential equal at a fundamental level in that they all have similar aspirations and have both base and sublime desires that resemble those of all other peoples?

Many Americans claim to believe that the answer to all these questions is yes, all men are equal.

Indeed, answer is contained within the single most quoted line from our Declaration of Independence and has been used many times as a rationale for changing our nation’s laws.

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

The very wording of this declaration, combined with what we know of the Founding Fathers’ theologies and philosophies, sets forth the inherent equality of all of Man as a matter of Natural Law.

But, if this is case, one would be forced to accept the bad along with good. Whether it is merely people’s belief that all men are inherently equal or a fact of Natural Law that they are, in fact, equal in both propensity for nobility and for ignominy then one should expect roughly similar results and responses any stimulus that is applied to a group people, irrespective of their race, ethnicity, or creed.

That being the case, why do so many people in America believe that “domestic aid” programs will achieve any better results than the bulk of both private (NGO) and governmental foreign aid programs have achieved in the many decades of their existence?

Foreign Aid Failure

Truly, if the aim of aid was and is to better the lot in life of its recipients, then the trillions of dollars Americans have given in aid to the impoverished of countless nations has been largely a failure. With the fewest of exceptions it has not achieved that goal. It may have kept a great many from dying but it has not let them live, but merely to exist dependent upon the largess of Americans.

Does anyone reading this post have an example of a circumstance when foreign aid has had a long-term positive effect that resulted in the recipients no longer needing the aid?

In some cases, such as AIDS relief in Uganda, foreign aid actually made things far worse. Foreign aid, focused on treatment instead of prevention and containment has actually ended up killing more people than would have died without it.

Domestic Corollary

There are, of course, obvious direct corollaries between foreign aid and domestic social programs, both in methodology and in efficacy. This stands to reason; people in America who are interested in such things have found a singular premise and formula for providing aid to the poor, and have applied it to both foreign and domestic targets.

Welfare, Medicaid, SCHIP, WIC, Food Stamps, and a plethora of other “Social Programs” are essentially domestic variations of the same programs we deploy as part of foreign aid. They are all based solely upon keeping people alive and do not make provisions for actually improving the recipients’ situation.

American Exceptionalism

Do people truly believe that our domestic aid programs will have  different and better outcomes than our foreign aid programs have had? Wouldn’t such a belief just be an example of the philosophy of American Exceptionalism – something which so many of the people who favor the continuance of these programs describe as self-serving, jingoistic, and based upon a myth?

Aside from some thought or belief that America’s poor are somehow different and better than the poor of other countries, how can people expect subsistence aid to have any long-term positive effect and remediation of the recipients’ situations when it has failed to do  so in other  countries time after time.

Conclusion & Opinion

I’m left with having to choose between two disparate conclusions – either the proponents and supporters of America’s various subsidies for the poor base their support on something other than actually improving the lives and situations of those poor, or the proponents and supporters of America’s various subsidies for the poor believe in American Exceptionalism and, therefor, do not believe that a man is man and that all men were created equal.

Reflection From a Murky Pond

Is a man and man, possessed of and by a similar nature and drives to his fellows, irrespective of his race, ethnicity, or creed? Are all peoples essential equal at a fundamental level in that they all have similar aspirations and have both base and sublime desires that resemble those of all other peoples?

Many Americans claim to believe that the answer to all these questions is yes, all men are equal.

Indeed, answer is contained within the single most quoted line from our Declaration of Independence and has been used many times as a rationale for changing our nation’s laws.

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

The very wording of this declaration, combined with what we know of the Founding Fathers’ theologies and philosophies, sets forth the inherent equality of all of Man as a matter of Natural Law.

But, if this is case, one would be forced to accept the bad along with good. Whether it is merely people’s belief that all men are inherently equal or a fact of Natural Law that they are, in fact, equal in both propensity for nobility and for ignominy then one should expect roughly similar results and responses any stimulus that is applied to a group people, irrespective of their race, ethnicity, or creed.

That being the case, why do so many people in America believe that “domestic aid” programs will achieve any better results than the bulk of both private (NGO) and governmental foreign aid programs have achieved in the many decades of their existence?

Foreign Aid Failure

Truly, if the aim of aid was and is to better the lot in life of its recipients, then the trillions of dollars Americans have given in aid to the impoverished of countless nations has been largely a failure. With the fewest of exceptions it has not achieved that goal. It may have kept a great many from dying but it has not let them live, but merely to exist dependent upon the largess of Americans.

Does anyone reading this post have an example of a circumstance when foreign aid has had a long-term positive effect that resulted in the recipients no longer needing the aid?

In some cases, such as AIDS relief in Uganda, foreign aid actually made things far worse. Foreign aid, focused on treatment instead of prevention and containment has actually ended up killing more people than would have died without it.

Domestic Corollary

There are, of course, obvious direct corollaries between foreign aid and domestic social programs, both in methodology and in efficacy. This stands to reason; people in America who are interested in such things have found a singular premise and formula for providing aid to the poor, and have applied it to both foreign and domestic targets.

Welfare, Medicaid, SCHIP, WIC, Food Stamps, and a plethora of other “Social Programs” are essentially domestic variations of the same programs we deploy as part of foreign aid. They are all based solely upon keeping people alive and do not make provisions for actually improving the recipients’ situation.

American Exceptionalism

Do people truly believe that our domestic aid programs will have  different and better outcomes than our foreign aid programs have had? Wouldn’t such a belief just be an example of the philosophy of American Exceptionalism – something which so many of the people who favor the continuance of these programs describe as self-serving, jingoistic, and based upon a myth?

Aside from some thought or belief that America’s poor are somehow different and better than the poor of other countries, how can people expect subsistence aid to have any long-term positive effect and remediation of the recipients’ situations when it has failed to do  so in other  countries time after time.

Conclusion & Opinion

I’m left with having to choose between two disparate conclusions – either the proponents and supporters of America’s various subsidies for the poor base their support on something other than actually improving the lives and situations of those poor, or the proponents and supporters of America’s various subsidies for the poor believe in American Exceptionalism and, therefor, do not believe that a man is man and that all men were created equal.

Reflection From a Murky Pond

There’s an ill wind blowing, both from the from the clean-energy program from last year’s Stimulus and from some of Obama’s erstwhile Democrats in the Senate. It’s carrying the wreak of failure and internal dissent straight into the face of President Obama and his Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner.

It seems that the renewable energy grants included in the Stimulus are stimulating other countries’ economies instead America’s and various Democrats in the Senate are rightfully angered by this.

From Politico:

Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jon Tester of Montana announced Wednesday a new initiative to require the “Buy America” provision of the stimulus to all programs, not just the government ones. A study done by the Investigative Reporting Workshop found that 79 percent of the $2 billion in clean-energy grants allocated since Sept. 1, 2009, has gone to foreign wind companies.

“We are demanding the Obama administration suspend this program immediately … [and] indefinitely,” Schumer said. “We are sending a letter to Secretary [Timothy] Geithner asking him to halt all payouts for this program until we in Congress can go back and fix this law.”

The senators highlighted a wind farm project in west Texas, which received stimulus aid and is projected to create 3,000 jobs in China and a tenth as many in the United States.

“Some of us complained about this to the administration back in November when this project was first announced, so it’s not that they don’t know about it, but the Energy Department in their reply said they were powerless to stop it because projects like this are automatically eligible for the grants. That answer is not good enough,” Schumer said. “The goal of the stimulus is to strengthen the American economy, and that means creating jobs here in the U.S. not in China.”

That’s right; 79% of the $2 billion in clean-energy grants allocated through the Stimulus since Sept. 1, 2009, have gone to foreign wind companies. That’s $1.58 billion of the American taxpayers’ money going into the coffers of foreign companies.

It’s shockingly refreshing and somewhat heartening to see at least some of the Democrats in Congress not bowing and scraping to Obama and actually looking out for Americans.

At least it proves that President Obama’s claims that the Stimulus and renewable energy would each create jobs was true, at least in a Rovian sense; just the bulk of them won’t be American jobs.

Reflections From a Murky Pond

There’s an ill wind blowing, both from the from the clean-energy program from last year’s Stimulus and from some of Obama’s erstwhile Democrats in the Senate. It’s carrying the wreak of failure and internal dissent straight into the face of President Obama and his Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner.

It seems that the renewable energy grants included in the Stimulus are stimulating other countries’ economies instead America’s and various Democrats in the Senate are rightfully angered by this.

From Politico:

Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jon Tester of Montana announced Wednesday a new initiative to require the “Buy America” provision of the stimulus to all programs, not just the government ones. A study done by the Investigative Reporting Workshop found that 79 percent of the $2 billion in clean-energy grants allocated since Sept. 1, 2009, has gone to foreign wind companies.

“We are demanding the Obama administration suspend this program immediately … [and] indefinitely,” Schumer said. “We are sending a letter to Secretary [Timothy] Geithner asking him to halt all payouts for this program until we in Congress can go back and fix this law.”

The senators highlighted a wind farm project in west Texas, which received stimulus aid and is projected to create 3,000 jobs in China and a tenth as many in the United States.

“Some of us complained about this to the administration back in November when this project was first announced, so it’s not that they don’t know about it, but the Energy Department in their reply said they were powerless to stop it because projects like this are automatically eligible for the grants. That answer is not good enough,” Schumer said. “The goal of the stimulus is to strengthen the American economy, and that means creating jobs here in the U.S. not in China.”

That’s right; 79% of the $2 billion in clean-energy grants allocated through the Stimulus since Sept. 1, 2009, have gone to foreign wind companies. That’s $1.58 billion of the American taxpayers’ money going into the coffers of foreign companies.

It’s shockingly refreshing and somewhat heartening to see at least some of the Democrats in Congress not bowing and scraping to Obama and actually looking out for Americans.

At least it proves that President Obama’s claims that the Stimulus and renewable energy would each create jobs was true, at least in a Rovian sense; just the bulk of them won’t be American jobs.

Reflections From a Murky Pond

As all who pay even the slightest of attention to American politics know, the Democrats attempting to rule this nation are seriously considering using the Budget Reconciliation Process aka the “Nuclear Option” to ram ObamaCare through now that they’ve lost their supermajority in the Senate with the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA).

What’s interesting in this situation is how far the worms have turned in the span of slightly less than five years and one change in majority power. In 2005 the Democrats had a slightly different view of the filibuster and the Nuclear Option.

Obama, Biden, Reid, and Other Dems On Nuclear Option in 2005

No matter how one feels about the filibuster and the Nuclear Option, it’s important to compare the Senate Democrats’ opinions and the force and stridency of their rhetoric in 2005 when they were in the minority and a Republican was POTUS vs. how they feel now in 2010 when they’re the majority and a Democrat is POTUS.

Shall Americans measure them by their own yardstick? It would seem that President Obama and his Liberals had best hope that we don’t.

Reflection From a Murky Pond

As all who pay even the slightest of attention to American politics know, the Democrats attempting to rule this nation are seriously considering using the Budget Reconciliation Process aka the “Nuclear Option” to ram ObamaCare through now that they’ve lost their supermajority in the Senate with the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA).

What’s interesting in this situation is how far the worms have turned in the span of slightly less than five years and one change in majority power. In 2005 the Democrats had a slightly different view of the filibuster and the Nuclear Option.

Obama, Biden, Reid, and Other Dems On Nuclear Option in 2005

No matter how one feels about the filibuster and the Nuclear Option, it’s important to compare the Senate Democrats’ opinions and the force and stridency of their rhetoric in 2005 when they were in the minority and a Republican was POTUS vs. how they feel now in 2010 when they’re the majority and a Democrat is POTUS.

Shall Americans measure them by their own yardstick? It would seem that President Obama and his Liberals had best hope that we don’t.

Reflection From a Murky Pond

Seeing fear in one’s enemies is always a joyful thing. When that enemy is Nancy Pelosi it’s even better since she’s barely able to mouth a rational string of jabber when she’s not backing and filling and trying in vain to save her worthless, wrinkled, traitorous ass.

That’s just too funny! Pelosi claiming that she and her Liberal cabal have anything in common with the Americans in the Tea Party Movement.

Give it up, Nancy. You can back and fill or shuck and jive all you want but they’re still coming for you and yours. Just hope – since I doubt you pray – that they settle for just voting you out.

Yes – it’s good to see fear in your enemies – especially when it makes them stupid and funny ;)

Reflections From a Murky Pond

Seeing fear in one’s enemies is always a joyful thing. When that enemy is Nancy Pelosi it’s even better since she’s barely able to mouth a rational string of jabber when she’s not backing and filling and trying in vain to save her worthless, wrinkled, traitorous ass.

That’s just too funny! Pelosi claiming that she and her Liberal cabal have anything in common with the Americans in the Tea Party Movement.

Give it up, Nancy. You can back and fill or shuck and jive all you want but they’re still coming for you and yours. Just hope – since I doubt you pray – that they settle for just voting you out.

Yes – it’s good to see fear in your enemies – especially when it makes them stupid and funny ;)

Reflections From a Murky Pond

Late last night, February 26, 2010 Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) highhandedly and successfully blocked a bill to further extend a number of federal subsidies including, among other things: expanded unemployment benefits; surface transportation programs; the compulsory copyright license used by satellite TV providers; the federal flood insurance program; and health insurance subsidies for the jobless.

Senator Bunning’s objection to the Democrats’ proposed legislation was that the Democrat’s had made no provision for paying for it and it would therefor just add to the already crushing weight of the federal deficit.

Everybody in this chamber wants to extend unemployment benefits, but if we can’t find $10 billion somewhere for a bill that everybody in this body supports we will never pay for anything.

– Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)

To be clear, Sen. Bunning had no stated objection to the bill in question other than the funding of it. He wanted some of the large amount of still unused Stimulus funds to be used to pay for the extension of the programs but his amendment to the bill to that effect was rejected by the Senate Democrats several times.

Sen. Bunning’s actions don’t surprise me. He’s a true fiscal Conservative who previously voted against both TARP and the Auto Bail Out, so this is consistent with his economic views.

So who really blocked this legislation and allowed these various programs to sunset tomorrow, the one Republican Senator who wanted the programs to be paid for or the numerous Democrat Senators who didn’t want to pay for them?

Reflections From a Murky Pond

Late last night, February 26, 2010 Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) highhandedly and successfully blocked a bill to further extend a number of federal subsidies including, among other things: expanded unemployment benefits; surface transportation programs; the compulsory copyright license used by satellite TV providers; the federal flood insurance program; and health insurance subsidies for the jobless.

Senator Bunning’s objection to the Democrats’ proposed legislation was that the Democrat’s had made no provision for paying for it and it would therefor just add to the already crushing weight of the federal deficit.

Everybody in this chamber wants to extend unemployment benefits, but if we can’t find $10 billion somewhere for a bill that everybody in this body supports we will never pay for anything.

– Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)

To be clear, Sen. Bunning had no stated objection to the bill in question other than the funding of it. He wanted some of the large amount of still unused Stimulus funds to be used to pay for the extension of the programs but his amendment to the bill to that effect was rejected by the Senate Democrats several times.

Sen. Bunning’s actions don’t surprise me. He’s a true fiscal Conservative who previously voted against both TARP and the Auto Bail Out, so this is consistent with his economic views.

So who really blocked this legislation and allowed these various programs to sunset tomorrow, the one Republican Senator who wanted the programs to be paid for or the numerous Democrat Senators who didn’t want to pay for them?

Reflections From a Murky Pond

A few overseas sources are reporting that there is currently a coup underway in Niger. Forces – currently unidentified – are trying to forcibly remove the quasi-dictator Mamadou Tandja from power. It seems to be a coup d’état as opposed to a general uprising since smoke is reported to be coming from Tandja’s palace but there are no report of general violence beyond the normal “background noise” of Nigerian society.

Supposedly Tandja’s guardsmen are not doing well in defending their “President” and things look grim both Mamadou Tandja’s rule and, Given Sub-Saharan Africa’s politics, life.

From Ireland’s non-profit Public Service Broadcaster, RTÉ:

A coup attempt is under way in Niger with the country’s President Mamadou Tandja described by a senior French official is ‘not in a good position’.

Smoke was seen rising from Niger’s presidential palace in what an intelligence officer said was a coup attempt President Mamadou Tandja’s guardsmen were trying to put down.

President Tandja, ruler of the uranium exporting central African nation for a decade, has come under heavy domestic and international criticism for last year orchestrating a reshuffle of the constitution to entrench and extend his power.

He dissolved parliament and orchestrated a constitutional reform in 2009 that gave him added powers and extended his term beyond his second five-year mandate, which expired in December.

The constitutional referendum in August, condemned internationally and at home, eliminated many of the remaining checks on Tandja’s authority, abolished term limits, and gave him an initial three more years in power without an election.

The constitutional court declared that vote illegal, to which President Tandja responded by abolishing the court and replacing its members with his own appointees.

West Africa’s regional bloc suspended Niger in October and the US terminated trade benefits for the country in December.

Niger is one of the world’s leading producers of uranium. It produces around 7.5% of the world’s uranium, according to the World Nuclear Association.

As the cost of oil and fears over global warming have rekindled interest in nuclear energy, Niger has handed out over 130 prospecting licenses, most of which have been for uranium.

However, just 10% of these are currently active as the political uncertainty comes on top of a two-year revolt led by Tuareg nomads calling for greater autonomy for the north, and a larger slice of the revenues from natural resources.

I doubt that this will be more than throw away one liner mentioned en passant by the American MSM since they’re myopic, parochial, and currently seemingly afraid of mentioning African unrest out of fear of it somehow “tainting” the half African President Obama. Despite their silence though, this is a matter of international importance that we should be more than a little concerned about.

The Dangers

Niger is an oil exporting country and China buys a large portion of their annual production. Anything that destabilizes oil production in Nigeria will impact not only oil prices in general but China’s stance on such issues as sanctions against Iran and various other trade agreements.

Niger’s uranium resources are also very important to the world. Not only, in the wake of the AGW hype, has nuclear power production returned to being an acceptable idea across the world, but it’s quite conceivable that unrest in Nigeria will facilitate the illegal sale of uranium to rogue states seeking either nuclear weapons or “dirty bomb” materials such as North Korea and Iran, both of whom have limited and “constrained” domestic uranium mining operations.

And, of course, one only has to look at Somalia to see that civil unrest and the collapse of the government – however vile and despicable that government is – gives the Islamists a chance at gaining control of large swaths of territory.

The Hope

On the other side of the equation, and equally deserving of media coverage, is the fact there is currently a coup underway to drive a vile and pernicious quasi-dictator from power in an African nation. This could well be cause for jubilation.

Currently Niger is sanctioned by the US and cutoff from relations with the rest of the West Africa’s regional bloc.  A regime change could well, depending on what group of people is behind it, result in the normalization of relations between Nigeria and both the West and the rest of the West African nations.

~*~

Just don’t expect to hear much of from the American Media.

Reflections From a Murky Pond

A few overseas sources are reporting that there is currently a coup underway in Niger. Forces – currently unidentified – are trying to forcibly remove the quasi-dictator Mamadou Tandja from power. It seems to be a coup d’état as opposed to a general uprising since smoke is reported to be coming from Tandja’s palace but there are no report of general violence beyond the normal “background noise” of Nigerian society.

Supposedly Tandja’s guardsmen are not doing well in defending their “President” and things look grim both Mamadou Tandja’s rule and, Given Sub-Saharan Africa’s politics, life.

From Ireland’s non-profit Public Service Broadcaster, RTÉ:

A coup attempt is under way in Niger with the country’s President Mamadou Tandja described by a senior French official is ‘not in a good position’.

Smoke was seen rising from Niger’s presidential palace in what an intelligence officer said was a coup attempt President Mamadou Tandja’s guardsmen were trying to put down.

President Tandja, ruler of the uranium exporting central African nation for a decade, has come under heavy domestic and international criticism for last year orchestrating a reshuffle of the constitution to entrench and extend his power.

He dissolved parliament and orchestrated a constitutional reform in 2009 that gave him added powers and extended his term beyond his second five-year mandate, which expired in December.

The constitutional referendum in August, condemned internationally and at home, eliminated many of the remaining checks on Tandja’s authority, abolished term limits, and gave him an initial three more years in power without an election.

The constitutional court declared that vote illegal, to which President Tandja responded by abolishing the court and replacing its members with his own appointees.

West Africa’s regional bloc suspended Niger in October and the US terminated trade benefits for the country in December.

Niger is one of the world’s leading producers of uranium. It produces around 7.5% of the world’s uranium, according to the World Nuclear Association.

As the cost of oil and fears over global warming have rekindled interest in nuclear energy, Niger has handed out over 130 prospecting licenses, most of which have been for uranium.

However, just 10% of these are currently active as the political uncertainty comes on top of a two-year revolt led by Tuareg nomads calling for greater autonomy for the north, and a larger slice of the revenues from natural resources.

I doubt that this will be more than throw away one liner mentioned en passant by the American MSM since they’re myopic, parochial, and currently seemingly afraid of mentioning African unrest out of fear of it somehow “tainting” the half African President Obama. Despite their silence though, this is a matter of international importance that we should be more than a little concerned about.

The Dangers

Niger is an oil exporting country and China buys a large portion of their annual production. Anything that destabilizes oil production in Nigeria will impact not only oil prices in general but China’s stance on such issues as sanctions against Iran and various other trade agreements.

Niger’s uranium resources are also very important to the world. Not only, in the wake of the AGW hype, has nuclear power production returned to being an acceptable idea across the world, but it’s quite conceivable that unrest in Nigeria will facilitate the illegal sale of uranium to rogue states seeking either nuclear weapons or “dirty bomb” materials such as North Korea and Iran, both of whom have limited and “constrained” domestic uranium mining operations.

And, of course, one only has to look at Somalia to see that civil unrest and the collapse of the government – however vile and despicable that government is – gives the Islamists a chance at gaining control of large swaths of territory.

The Hope

On the other side of the equation, and equally deserving of media coverage, is the fact there is currently a coup underway to drive a vile and pernicious quasi-dictator from power in an African nation. This could well be cause for jubilation.

Currently Niger is sanctioned by the US and cutoff from relations with the rest of the West Africa’s regional bloc.  A regime change could well, depending on what group of people is behind it, result in the normalization of relations between Nigeria and both the West and the rest of the West African nations.

~*~

Just don’t expect to hear much of from the American Media.

Reflections From a Murky Pond

For the first time in the 17 years since President Clinton signed 10 U.S.C. § 654 (Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces), better known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) into law it will be addressed by Congress.

The Senate Armed Services Committee will address the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy Tuesday — the first time in 17 years the topic will be debated before a Senate committee.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen are slated to testify on the law, which bans openly gay Americans from serving in the military.

The hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” comes in the wake of Obama’s State of the Union address last week, when he declared his desire to end the policy.

“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It’s the right thing to do,” Obama said.

Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin has said repeatedly he “has never supported” the controversial policy, and other senators have expressed their opposition to it as well.

“The military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy is an unjust, outdated and harmful rule that violates the civil rights of some of our bravest, most heroic men and women,” said Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in a statement. “I’ve been working with my colleagues in Congress and other leaders to overturn this wasteful and destructive policy. I am hopeful that President Obama will make this a top priority.”

Some Republicans, however, question the timing of the administration’s push to lift the ban.

“In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) asked Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “why would we want to get into this debate?”

Personally, despite President Obama’s claim of desire to end this policy, I sincerely doubt that anything will come of it. It’s an election year, one that looks to be particularly grimly fought, and Obama no longer has enough political capital to make up for the hit that any incumbent would take for trying to repeal this law.

This is just a stageplay designed to pander to gays and the farther Left of the country and to give the Dems a chance to again paint the GOP as bigoted and obstructive.

To my mind that is a crying shame because Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. It is predicated upon unconstitutional ideas and, as such, should have been struck down by the Courts years ago. Sadly, they have to-date failed to do so, though the SCOTUS has not yet deigned to hear any case regarding it.

From the US Constitution, supposedly the highest law of the land:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

– US Constitution, Second Amendment

That the right to “bear arms” was intended by our Founders to mean the right to bear arms in the common defense, i.e., serve in the military forces of America, can be deduced from the concerns over the original 2nd Amendment. The Constitution makes it quite clear that such a right exists for every American and it shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say, “except for sodomites,” which would have been the term used at the time.

Furthermore 10 U.S.C. § 311 – Militia: composition and classes states:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Yet the 2nd Finding of Congress listed in 10 U.S.C. § 654 flies directly in the face of both the 2nd Amendment and the US law which has formed the underpinning of military service in America since 1792.

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

It obvious to me that somebody is a piss-poor student of the law and the Constitution – either myself or various members of Congress and the Courts – because I sure as there’s a Hell can’t reconcile these things. I would that the error was mine but somehow I don’t think it is this time.

This is one of those cases where I’m so far to the Right that I arrive at the same decision as the Left, but for wildly different reasons. It is also a case where I part company from the GOP.

What to me is telling is that the opposition to letting gays openly serve in the military is that gays would harm unit cohesion. That is to say that homosexuals in military units would degrade the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.

Even if true – and I’m unwilling to speculate upon that since I’ve been out of the Service for too long to gauge things accurately – that is an empirical effect, not a proper basis for interpreting the Constitution in a rights restrictive manner. As I have argued before, the US Constitution and the rights it enumerates trump inconvenient or negative effects caused by maintaining the free exercise of those rights.

Is there a Republican or a Conservative of any stripe out there who can explain to me how the actual arguments being used against homosexuals being allowed to exercise their rights serve in our military are categorically different than the arguments used by the Liberals against gun ownership or the recent Citizens United ruling?

Reflections From a Murky Pond

For the first time in the 17 years since President Clinton signed 10 U.S.C. § 654 (Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces), better known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) into law it will be addressed by Congress.

The Senate Armed Services Committee will address the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy Tuesday — the first time in 17 years the topic will be debated before a Senate committee.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen are slated to testify on the law, which bans openly gay Americans from serving in the military.

The hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” comes in the wake of Obama’s State of the Union address last week, when he declared his desire to end the policy.

“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It’s the right thing to do,” Obama said.

Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin has said repeatedly he “has never supported” the controversial policy, and other senators have expressed their opposition to it as well.

“The military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy is an unjust, outdated and harmful rule that violates the civil rights of some of our bravest, most heroic men and women,” said Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in a statement. “I’ve been working with my colleagues in Congress and other leaders to overturn this wasteful and destructive policy. I am hopeful that President Obama will make this a top priority.”

Some Republicans, however, question the timing of the administration’s push to lift the ban.

“In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) asked Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “why would we want to get into this debate?”

Personally, despite President Obama’s claim of desire to end this policy, I sincerely doubt that anything will come of it. It’s an election year, one that looks to be particularly grimly fought, and Obama no longer has enough political capital to make up for the hit that any incumbent would take for trying to repeal this law.

This is just a stageplay designed to pander to gays and the farther Left of the country and to give the Dems a chance to again paint the GOP as bigoted and obstructive.

To my mind that is a crying shame because Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. It is predicated upon unconstitutional ideas and, as such, should have been struck down by the Courts years ago. Sadly, they have to-date failed to do so, though the SCOTUS has not yet deigned to hear any case regarding it.

From the US Constitution, supposedly the highest law of the land:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

– US Constitution, Second Amendment

That the right to “bear arms” was intended by our Founders to mean the right to bear arms in the common defense, i.e., serve in the military forces of America, can be deduced from the concerns over the original 2nd Amendment. The Constitution makes it quite clear that such a right exists for every American and it shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say, “except for sodomites,” which would have been the term used at the time.

Furthermore 10 U.S.C. § 311 – Militia: composition and classes states:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Yet the 2nd Finding of Congress listed in 10 U.S.C. § 654 flies directly in the face of both the 2nd Amendment and the US law which has formed the underpinning of military service in America since 1792.

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

It obvious to me that somebody is a piss-poor student of the law and the Constitution – either myself or various members of Congress and the Courts – because I sure as there’s a Hell can’t reconcile these things. I would that the error was mine but somehow I don’t think it is this time.

This is one of those cases where I’m so far to the Right that I arrive at the same decision as the Left, but for wildly different reasons. It is also a case where I part company from the GOP.

What to me is telling is that the opposition to letting gays openly serve in the military is that gays would harm unit cohesion. That is to say that homosexuals in military units would degrade the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.

Even if true – and I’m unwilling to speculate upon that since I’ve been out of the Service for too long to gauge things accurately – that is an empirical effect, not a proper basis for interpreting the Constitution in a rights restrictive manner. As I have argued before, the US Constitution and the rights it enumerates trump inconvenient or negative effects caused by maintaining the free exercise of those rights.

Is there a Republican or a Conservative of any stripe out there who can explain to me how the actual arguments being used against homosexuals being allowed to exercise their rights serve in our military are categorically different than the arguments used by the Liberals against gun ownership or the recent Citizens United ruling?

Reflections From a Murky Pond

During President George W. Bush’s tenure as POTUS there were many Liberals who liked to deride him by calling him, “King George,” and were often found whining and gnashing their teeth over his “Imperial Presidency.” Those were doing so claimed that their issue was that President Bush was expanding the powers of the Presidency, largely through the profligate use of Executive Orders to bypass the will of Congress.

One is forced to wonder if any of these myrmidons of the Left will have enough courage of their convictions to complain about “King Barack” in the same or at least similar manner?

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we’ll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office.  More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket.  That’s why I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad.  This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem.  The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission.  So I’ll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.

– King Barack Hussein Obama
2010 State Of The Union Address

On Tuesday, January 26, 2010, the US Senate declined to approve and pass a bill that President Obama wanted passed into law. His response was, on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 – the next day – to boldly and very publicly declare that he would defy and bypass the entirety of the Legislative branch of the US government and create his desired fiscal commission by Executive Order.

King Barack indeed! I guess he’s been listen the filth, Valerie Jarrett, too much and has decided to take power and rule.

If the Left actually had any principles, there would be outrage over this. There won’t be though since the Left has very few, if any, principles.

Reflections From a Murky Pond

During President George W. Bush’s tenure as POTUS there were many Liberals who liked to deride him by calling him, “King George,” and were often found whining and gnashing their teeth over his “Imperial Presidency.” Those were doing so claimed that their issue was that President Bush was expanding the powers of the Presidency, largely through the profligate use of Executive Orders to bypass the will of Congress.

One is forced to wonder if any of these myrmidons of the Left will have enough courage of their convictions to complain about “King Barack” in the same or at least similar manner?

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we’ll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office.  More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket.  That’s why I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad.  This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem.  The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission.  So I’ll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.

– King Barack Hussein Obama
2010 State Of The Union Address

On Tuesday, January 26, 2010, the US Senate declined to approve and pass a bill that President Obama wanted passed into law. His response was, on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 – the next day – to boldly and very publicly declare that he would defy and bypass the entirety of the Legislative branch of the US government and create his desired fiscal commission by Executive Order.

King Barack indeed! I guess he’s been listen the filth, Valerie Jarrett, too much and has decided to take power and rule.

If the Left actually had any principles, there would be outrage over this. There won’t be though since the Left has very few, if any, principles.

Reflections From a Murky Pond

As America truly enters into the 2010 midterm Congressional Election cycle the one word that Americans, especially Conservatives of all varieties, should keep in the font of their minds is subsidiarity.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition:

Subsidiarity
Pronunciation: ,s?b-si-d?-’er-?-t?, s?b-,si-
Function: noun
Date: 1936

Definition(s):

1. a the quality or state of being subsidiary
2. a principle in social organization: functions which subordinate or local organizations perform effectively belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization

Simply put, subsidiarity is the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary, or secondary and lesser, function and perform only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. Among other things it is the foundational concept underlying the 10th Amendment to US Constitution.

This concept should be a touchstone for Americans in the 2010 Congressional elections and in any state and local elections that may arise in the upcoming months. While not the only issue that Americans should consider when choosing a political candidate, subsidiarity should be one of the key issues analyzed when making those choices.

At the local, district, and state levels Americans need to look for candidates that will “step up to the plate” and take action and responsibility, one’s willing to fight to take power back from higher, more centralized authority and hold it in trust for the People that they serve. At the federal level Americans need to look for candidates that will relinquish those improper powers currently co-opted and/or seized by the federal government back to the states.

Frankly, most of the current ills inflicted upon America are because we, the People, have allowed the federal government to take too much power unto itself, power that rightly belongs to the the people of states and the local municipalities. That can be corrected, but it will take work – and the upcoming elections are a good place to start.

Subsidiarity In 2010 – learn it, love it, vote for it.

Reflections From a Murky Pond

As America truly enters into the 2010 midterm Congressional Election cycle the one word that Americans, especially Conservatives of all varieties, should keep in the font of their minds is subsidiarity.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition:

Subsidiarity
Pronunciation: ,s?b-si-d?-’er-?-t?, s?b-,si-
Function: noun
Date: 1936

Definition(s):

1. a the quality or state of being subsidiary
2. a principle in social organization: functions which subordinate or local organizations perform effectively belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization

Simply put, subsidiarity is the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary, or secondary and lesser, function and perform only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. Among other things it is the foundational concept underlying the 10th Amendment to US Constitution.

This concept should be a touchstone for Americans in the 2010 Congressional elections and in any state and local elections that may arise in the upcoming months. While not the only issue that Americans should consider when choosing a political candidate, subsidiarity should be one of the key issues analyzed when making those choices.

At the local, district, and state levels Americans need to look for candidates that will “step up to the plate” and take action and responsibility, one’s willing to fight to take power back from higher, more centralized authority and hold it in trust for the People that they serve. At the federal level Americans need to look for candidates that will relinquish those improper powers currently co-opted and/or seized by the federal government back to the states.

Frankly, most of the current ills inflicted upon America are because we, the People, have allowed the federal government to take too much power unto itself, power that rightly belongs to the the people of states and the local municipalities. That can be corrected, but it will take work – and the upcoming elections are a good place to start.

Subsidiarity In 2010 – learn it, love it, vote for it.

Reflections From a Murky Pond