Obama in Jax, Mayor Out of Town

Obama received a cool reception in Jacksonville, FL on Thursday, where his campaign managed to give away about 3,000 tickets to bring a crowd into the smaller venue in town.  Also in attendance were protestors from several GOP groups.  One notable absence was Democrat mayor Alvin Brown.  This is the second Obama appearance he has been out of town for.

Obama greeted by the locals

It is not surprising that Brown hasn’t rearranged his schedule to join the President.  The Mayor has been accused by many of being too conservative to be a Democrat.  Even with the latest budget, he refused to raise taxes and instead sought to cut spending again.  Also, instead of demeaning business owners, Mayor Brown has spent a great deal of time courting businesses and bringing them (along with their jobs) to Jacksonville.

Jacksonville is an important swing city in a very important swing state.  Last time around, Obama drew a crowd of 9,000 at the Veterans Memorial.  It was the day before the election and Obama mistakenly thought he was in Ohio.  It’s still early in the race, and Obama could ramp up attendance as we get closer.  But the vibe in town was certainly different than it was four years ago.  Obama no longer carries the big tent revival aura or celebrity status that he once did.  I would be surprised if he lost northeast Florida by only 8,000 votes this time around.

Advertisements

Obama’s War on US Employment

Fifty percent of college grads since 2006 are unemployed or working part time. Due to many factors, these Americans are unable to secure a job commensurate with their ability, that is the bad news. The good news is that President Obama has a plan. In what can only be deemed as stroke of genius by the ‘great uniter’, Mr Obama has decided to import foreign workers. Apparently securing jobs for Americas own is not part of the Obama platform.

Perhaps my claim seems bold or unwarranted, but please let me explain. The master plan of the Obama administration and big business, is to ensure that foreign nationals gain valuable employment at the expense of American citizens.

Take China, for instance. American universities now have over 160,000 Chinese students, the majority of whom will be pursuing work in America. While some would say that the Chinese will be taking jobs for which Americans are not prepared, I have my doubts. After all, investment houses are filled with people from the People’s Republic who have studied finance- of all things. While I have no hard numbers to back up my claim, I would be willing to bet that in all those 12.7 million Americans looking for work, there has to be someone who knows a thing or two about derivatives and such. Each year the communists in China struggle to find work for millions of college grads, so ‘big ups’ to Obama and crew in helping them do so.

Another bright spot in the Obama plan was to allow 800,000 illegal aliens to remain in the USA and pursue employment. I do not know how many of the unemployed American grads compete with this contingent for work, but I suspect the number to be substantial.

Immigration is a good thing and diversity is a pillar to America’s success. In order to capitalize on this, the US has laws in place to attract the best and brightest. President Obama’s plan, however, is counter- productive. There are enough people willing to obey the rules and immigrate to the US that we do not need to reward rule breakers.

Yet, the Obama administration has proposed federal rules to “attract and retain highly skilled immigrants” that arguably increase the competition for Americans who are looking for work” Daily Iowan Here

The third leg of Obama’s war on employing Americans is his desire to attract more foreign workers. To his credit, I cannot entirely blame President Obama on this one. In Mr Obama’s deal with the devil to become our president, he sold out to the highest bidder-business. And business, as we all know, is out to make a buck. And if making a buck means eschewing a computer programmer from Racine, Wisconsin for one from Chengdu, China, then so be it. After all, the corporate fat cats are only accountable to share price and not hoards of the unemployed.

President Obama and his corporate pals would have us believe that once again, there are not enough American scientists and engineers to fill positions within corporate America. While I would really like to believe in the president and his words, once again I have my doubts. According to Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, “there are 101,000 American engineers who are looking for engineering jobs, 244,000 who have left the labor market and 1,470,000 who left the engineering field. That’s 1.8 million Americans with engineering degrees who do not have engineering jobs.”

Yikes! Almost one and one-half a million American citizens who are skilled in the practice of engineering cannot find a job in their home country. And all the while, Mr Obama and corporate America is scouring the shores of other countries for those elusive skilled experts that America apparently ‘cannot produce’.

To me what is truly odd is that those ‘skilled forefingers’ that Obama and crew are pursuing, have studied in the USA. And those 1.5 million American souls who cannot find a job in their homeland have also studied in the USA. Thus, all else being equal, are we to assume that over one million of our finest engineers cannot compete with overseas talent? Does it make sense that America has to import sixty percent of her scientists and engineers, twenty percent of whom are from China, when have Americans without a job?

The Obama administration has scored the trifecta against American employment. They have allowed people from China to be overrepresented in our universities, legalized illegals and petitioned for more foreign workers. With unemployment hovering at 9% , one cannot help but marvel at the brilliance of Obama and crew.

Obama Helps One Chinese Activist While a Billion Still Suffer

Bookmark and Share  The Obama administration had a hand  in assisting the blind Chinese lawyer- Chen Guangchen escape from the ‘motherland’ – China.  For Obama and crew the decision to help the self educated lawyer was a delicate one. After all, Mr Chen was under house arrest for the ‘crime’ of exposing the fact that communist officials in China actively sterilize people and force women to undergo late-term abortions. The problem for Obama was that if the US were to help, then the US would be taking a stand against China’s brutal regime.

The background is that Chen was under house arrest for ‘crimes against the state’- a euphamism for ‘telling the truth in China. While unconstitutional, the practice of  house arrest is quite common in China. The communist party, however, does not like to air their dirty laundry, as it were.

For the communists, a man like Chen was problematic, and needed to be stifled. But then again he was problematic for the US as well. How could the US leaders help such a person? How could Obama actually take a stand against the leaders of China?  Would it have been possible for Obama to do something as simple as say, “Hey Mr. communist leader, don’t you think you should slow down the abuse of your people?”

But of course Obama cannot or will not do this.

The reason is that in China the human offenses typically spring from members of the ruling communist party.  Calling into question such a thing as the sanctity of freedom and life is akin to an attack on the ruling class in the PRC.  Highlighting such abuses would cause the communists to ‘lose face’.

Another problem is Washington’s hypocritical stance on human rights abuses and China. Washington can castigate the Chinese and call for change, but in reality this is all bluster. For instance, how would Obama feel about decrying China’s abuses after his  cheerful meetings with Hu Jintao- aka the ‘Butcher’. Yes, Mr. Hu, China’s President and leader of the communist party obtained the moniker ‘the butcher’, for his  reign of terror on Tibet. Here is a quote from the book –Bowing to Beijing: How Barack Obama is Hastening America’s Decline and Ushering A Century of Chinese Domination-Decker and Triplett II

“Hu Jintao, the current general secretary of the Communist Party…the president of the People’s Republic, has a lot of Tibetan blood on his hands. In March 1989, Hu declared martial law and ordered PLA troops to fire on a crowd of peaceful protesters led by shaved-headed, Saffron-robed monks. As many as 700 innocents were killed for marching in what would be considered a normal assembly…in Washington, D.C. “

Would Washington lose credibility by decrying China’s deplorable abuse of its citizens while at the same time currying favor with a man known for ordering the death of innocent monks?

Perhaps I am selling Mr Obama short, for when confronted with a person such as Mr Hu, Obama knew that any discourse on helping mankind would fall on deaf ears.

Or maybe it is  poor statesmanship to call out the failings of a country in front of its leader, I am sure that Germany in the late 30’s would not have stood for such a thing.  But I digress….

The truth is that Obama and company would like to laud the fact that it was they who freed this one man from the terrors he had faced. And sure enough, that action was admirable. But my question is if that was enough.

It was recently reported that communist officials in China forced women in late term pregnancies to abort their unborn children. And this is only the tip of the icebergy. China regularly enslaves the mentally handicapped and forces them to work in brick kilns, while shackeled to machinery. The communists are known to harvest organs from live prisoners and religious practitioners. Aside from this, members of the commuinst party have been active in the buying and selling of stolen babies. But what should we expect from a country whose two Nobel Peace Prize winners, are either in exile or in a Chinese prison?

The question I have for Mr Obama and the  rest of us is – Was it enough to help that one man when there are still over one billion left behind?

Bookmark and Share

The Societal Participation Medal

Bookmark and Share(Author’s note: This peice was written in early 2011 and is being re-posted for it’s continued relevancy to the issues of today)

When we speak of education in this country we are usually speaking of scholastic education. Public and private schools. Reading, writing and arithmetic. In those areas, as compared to other countries, we have been steadily falling down the list in regards to comparative testing.

Just to show a non-partisan tilt to this claim I have referenced a Huffington Post article from late 2010:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/us-falls-

in-world-education-rankings_n_793185.html

It is startling data to be sure and one that politicians and educators have debated for years. How do we ensure a better education for our children and our future?

I am going to leave that battle where it is and move on to a different type of education. An education in which societal not institutional factors are failing our children’s education.

When I was a young whipper snapper we played dodge ball in the school yard. We played baseball, basketball and football in organized leagues and the winners won trophies and medals. In High school, letters were won on the athletic fields and in the classroom based on performance and attaining certain goals. We kept score and were taught to practice good sportsmanship whether we won or lost. These simple, novel parts of my childhood have been lost on today’s society.

There is no more dodge ball in the school yard. Someone could get hurt physically or worse yet their feelings could be hurt.

We still have baseball, football and basketball leagues for youngsters but there are no winners and losers. In many cases scores are not even kept and everyone gets a medal or trophy for simply participating. The same can be said in many cases for high school letters. You participated…here is your reward.

So…are we preparing our children for the trials and tribulations of the real world by sheltering them from the experience of winners and losers?

I could simply be becoming a bitter old man as I hit that magic 40 number. It is possible. Or I could be seeing, in my own children’s participation in academic and athletic competitions that there is a societal shift in the way we view winning and losing. The shift is to deny losing.

It is apparent in watching what happens in society today as compared to then that this shift to deny losing exists has had a profound impact on the way our society has come to view what they believe they are entitled to receive compared to what they have the opportunity to win if they grow their skills and work hard.

If I wanted to be a great baseball player I had to spend countless hours in the back yard throwing into a net and hitting tennis balls with a wiffle bat off my neighbors roofs and sometimes through their windows. I had to practice by playing catch with my dad or my friends. I had to go to practice in order to be able to play in a game. I had to work on skills as instructed by my coaches and run wind sprints at the end of the day. If our team had the better skilled and more prepared players, we won. If we won we were rewarded with trophies and medals. The losers? They received nothing but a pat on the back and a ‘try again next year’. Motivation to get better so they to could get the spoils of victory.

Are we teaching our children how to deal with what happens in the real world by denying them the opportunity to win or lose based upon their own hard work and skill level? I say we are not.

Our society has rapidly become one where the have not’s consistently want to be handed what the have got’s have obtained. Are there exceptions? Certainly there are. Not all people act as if they are owed something for participating. But I see the comparison between what we have been teaching our children in regards to winning and losing and the societal thoughts of a large group of people that they are entitled the same spoils of life that others have obtained through their hard work and knowledge. They want a participation medal.

Are they lazy? Some may be, most are not…but haven’t we taught them over the last several years that the losers receive the same recognition and rewards as the winners? Haven’t we taught them that simply participating is good enough? Could this be related to our poor performance in the classroom? Has taking the difference between winning and losing out of the equation instilled a mindset that no matter how we perform we will get the rewards?

Here’s a novel concept: Let’s allow them to Occupy Real Life.

Bookmark and Share

If It It, It Is. If It Isn’t, It’s Un-constitutional.

Bookmark and Share

In keeping with my quoting former President’s in discussing the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare we will quote the (in)famous William Jefferson Clinton:

“It depends on what the definition if ‘Is’ is.”

The SCOTUS decision rendering the Obamacare mandate legal only under the Congresses power to tax is not even a week under the belt but has most still hot under the collar. Conservatives are up in arms that they were betrayed by one of their own at the last moment as Chief Justice John Roberts apparently changed his mind at the 11th hour and liberals are scrambling to explain how they can still support it as a ‘tax’ which will impact millions of middle and lower class families.

The President says it’s not a tax. His chief of staff says it’s not a tax. Pelosi says it’s not a tax. John Carney says it’s not a tax. Most Democrats, especially those up for re-election who supported the bill are screaming that it’s not a tax. ***BREAKING NEWS*** The Supreme Court of the United States of America says IT’S A TAX. You wanted a ruling in your favor…you got it.

So….as most pundits and armchair constitutional lawyers try and wrap their heads around what they feel is a very complex situation, allow me to simplify it for you.

The SCOTUS ruled it’s a tax. If you are going to continue to claim publicly that it is not a tax then you are making the argument against your own bill. Which by the way AS A TAX can only be disputed after someone has to pay it which will happen in 2014. If it is not a tax then you arguing that it is in fact unconstitutional. Good, we agree on something.

So, for those of us who believe this ruling to be a gigantic infringement upon one’s personal liberty as well as a Pandora’s box of the government’s power to tax, take a chill pill. The administration and it’s surrogates are making the disputing of the ‘tax’ easy for us by claiming, despite the ruling to the contrary, that it is not a tax.

It all depends on what the definition of ‘Is’ is.

Bookmark and Share

Read My Lips………..

Bookmark and ShareAhhh….the famous words that sunk the re-election campaign of Bush 41.

“Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES!!!!!!”

As we struggle to understand the impact in the upcoming days of the SCOTUS’s 5-4 ruling in favor of upholding Obamacare one thing stood out in the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts. The individual mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause but can survive as a tax.

Although the immediate impact will be a positive for the President and his supporters the lasting effects could, as in the case of Bush 41, put a severe damper on the Presidents re-election bid. Mitt Romney was struggling with Tea party support as well as the support of some libertarian leaning Republicans. Did the ruling just energize those people to jump on the Romney bandwagon 100%? I would say it helped immensely.

Obama’s promises of not raising taxes on the middle class has just been thrown a large curve ball by the SCOTUS. Did Roberts know and willingly lead the sheep to slaughter? I do not know but would like to think so.

I am anxiously awaiting the first Obama “Read My Lips” t-shirts to hit the market.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: