Is Detroit really leading the way for America?

American cities facing bankruptcy are now lined up like jets at O'Hare International Airport. Unknown to much of their population, these cities are not far behind Detroit: Chicago, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Portland, OR., and Santa Fe, N.M. Many of them are failing for the very same reasons. They have driven away almost all of their core businesses because of inflation in labor costs brought by labor unions. When the revenue stream from successful businesses move elsewhere the city is unable meet its municipal obligations for essential services, not to mention the pensions guaranteed to government workers no longer needed as the population declines. In other words the makers left and the takers stayed. Whether you call it utopian Socialism, a welfare state or pick a different term, the liberal dream has died.

I'm not sure what more I can add to this video. But I will share some thoughts from a few individuals much wiser than me...

“Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.”  
Mahatma Gandhi


"It's fine to celebrate success but it is more important to heed the lessons of failure."
Bill Gates


“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.”
Confucius


"We should not look back unless it is to derive useful lessons from past errors, and for the purpose of profiting by dearly bought experience."
George Washington


"Every book you pick up has its own lesson or lessons, and quite often the bad books have more to teach than the good ones."
Stephen King


“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.”
Isaac Asimov


“Study the past if you would define the future.”
Confucius


“Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens”  
Jimi Hendrix


“Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its students."
[Letter, November 1856]
Hector Berlioz


In 1965 Detroit had the highest per-capita income in the United States. So what happened? How did a city largely responsible for innovations in transportation, manufacturing and defense, which would change the world, fall so far so fast? In 1961 Detroit Mayor Jerome Cavanagh started expanding the role of government to unprecedented levels under the 'Model Cities Program' created by Lyndon Johnson. The rest, as they say, is history. 

Until we acknowledge the true driving forces behind the failure of our cities, we will continue to bark up the wrong tree of solutions and Detroit will in fact have been just the first large American city to file for bankruptcy. Leading the way for other 'Model Cities".

One final quote from someone less wise and lesser know than the preceding authors:

"Pay attention!"
Dad

Perhaps the ultimate in government mission creep

The arts of dezinformatsiya (disinformation) and создание (framing) were developed and refined in the former Soviet Union with devastatingly effective results. Despite the country's collapse and greatly diminished global influence, Russia's dictators continue this practice today with surprisingly similar results. It appears that the information age has given way to the disinformation age. And American politicians are paying attention.

On June 28th the NRC call for a sustainability revolution in government was published, just three days after President Barack Obama announced his latest intentions to combat climate change, including deep cuts in carbon emissions from coal-fired energy plants, even more emphasis on renewable energy, and a leading U.S. role in international efforts at “climate cooperation.”

Any attempt to adopt these recommendations would create a privacy intrusion far beyond what we already suspect of PRISM and other NSA programs. And we won't even go into the potential for economic disaster. The sustainability directives are written in a vague and broad language so as to allow for future interpretation. Changes in other words which are not currently being touted and certainly would not be accepted as selling points. Thus allowing our political leaders a highly discretionary enforcement of the law. For comparison consider these four selling points of the Affordable Health Care Act; how they were sold and how they are now understood. My, how they have changed!

People trust their eyes above all else - but most people see what they wish to see, or what they believe they should see; not what is really there”
Zoë Marriott, Shadows on the Moon

So let us look at this latest attempt in government creep. The United Nations controversial Agenda 21.

The objective:
The aim of the proposed radical overhaul:  to overcome “impediments or barriers” that “frustrate federal government efforts to create linkages” between agencies and other non-federal partners to address important “sustainability issues” that affect  the country and the planet.

Sounds reasonable. I know the creation of Homeland Security and sharing information between our various security agencies missed the Boston Bombers but it is the right idea.

Their problem:
One of the major impediments is created by America’s “basic framework of government, established by law,” which is “one of separated and dispersed authority,” in which “government agencies at all levels - federal, state, local, tribal and even international - can only do what they have been authorized to do by their governing authorities - namely, Congress, state legislatures, etc.”

Not to mention the U.S. Constitution.

Their solution:
The main instrument for accomplishing that change would be a new National Sustainability Policy that could be created by presidential executive order, similar to a National Ocean Policy created by the Obama administration two years ago.

Which was nothing less than overreach by the Obama Administration; we've had enough of that.

Stop the politicians from talking about what they want us to hear and Start asking questions about what we need to know. Before this group slides another fast one by us we will be better served through understanding the benefits, not by listening to the selling points. Our politicians are using dezinformatsiya like never before.

Israel getting mixed signals from Obama amid Middle East chaos

They're not the only ones. Americans have been manipulated with mixed signals, half truths and lies for over 5 years. However this blog will not focus on the Middle East but a different area of deception.

Minimum rates for student loans doubled today from 3.4% to 6.8% despite Obama's campaign promise just 11 months ago to not allow it to happen. This is not the first campaign promise he used to secure votes from a particular demographic knowing it would never be fulfilled. At least not in the way that we expected.

Consider the background on the student loan issue. In 2007 then House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi wrote the bill which was passed into law, remember the democrats held the majority in both the senate and the house. The language of the law directed the 2007 interest rate to immediately be cut in half and then reinstated to the original rate in 2013. So all along democrats knew the rate was going to increase again and it was timed to occur during an election cycle in order to provide a campaign issue for the young adult voters. The republicans fell right into the trap. They suggested the government has no business in the 'loan industry' and that the process should be privatized. "The federal government should not be in the business of originating student loans; however, it should serve as an insurance guarantor for the private sector as they offer loans to students," according to the 2012 platform. "Private sector participation in student financing should be welcomed." The Dem's claimed that if the republican plan was approved it would benefit the rich on the backs of the poor students because the greedy banks would of course raise the rates. By the way, the government is forecasting a record $51 billion profit from the student loan program this fiscal year.

So one side wrote and passed the bill knowing the rates would go up again during an election cycle when the bill expired and even so claimed (in blaming the second party) that if rates were allowed to go up it would be the rich taking advantage of the poor. Never mind that it was the government earning a $51,000,000,000 profit, not the rich, taking advantage of the poor.

For their part, the other side claimed (in blaming the first party) that the government was already too big, mismanaging enough capital and that by holding down the rates and making loans more readily accessible the colleges were artificially increasing tuition to keep up with the demand. Despite just over 54% of students completing a degree in 6 years, yes six, and almost 30% never completing the coursework for a degree.

Are you still with me?

Well rates went up but not due to the GOP, they went up because the democrats blocked a bi-partisan agreement to tie the rates to the US Governments cost of borrowing, just like federally backed mortgage rates.

Why did this happen? With some in congress already calling for the future legislation to make rates retroactive, it would appear there is some other underlying purpose for allowing the bill to expire without passing a new one. But what? Is it possible that funding the Affordable Health Care Act (becoming more unaffordable every day) has something to do with it? Stay tuned for that one!

 “Just because something isn't a lie does not mean that it isn't deceptive. A liar knows that he is a liar, but one who speaks mere portions of truth in order to deceive is a craftsman of destruction.”   Criss Jami

Suffice it to say BOTH sides are playing the issue to their advantage. The problem with this fact is that voters on one side do not believe their party would lie while voters on the other side seem willing to tolerate their party's deception if the objective is met.

You, dear reader, get to decide on which party the shoes fit.

In the meantime, take off the party affiliation blinders and pay attention to the evidence, not just the statements being made but the clues all around us. In the face of constant mixed signals we have to work diligently to determine the truth. We are not so different from a computer, when good information goes in good decisions will come out.

Despite Obama's intentions, The Show (apparently) Must Go On!

Cognitive Dissonance

In the beginning, promises of ridding congress of back room deals, amendments full of pork, the practice of passing bills which congress has not had the time to thoroughly debate and creating more transparency for the public before any voting on legislation occurred was music to the ears of some on the right and most of those in the middle. And while those on the left also supported eliminating these practices, little did they suspect that their very existence as a political party was dependent upon them. For most of us reality has now set in. Cooperation in congress is down, bipartisanship is up and the performance of our political system has stalled. The show goes on and we (currently just less than 50%) still love our president.

The present immigration legislation is taking the same path as the Affordable Health Care Act (see the practices identified above). Of primary concern in this legislation, which has of course largely avoided public debate - missed is more like it since the cloture vote in the senate occurred yesterday and I will bet the vast majority of Americans have no clue - is the key provision, as part of section 3214(b) dealing with family unification.  The section gives the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, discretion to waive the provisions as to removal, deportation and inadmissibility of illegal aliens not just for family ”hardship” (which itself is huge) but for any reason the Secretary deems in the ”public interest.” This same loose language preventing accountability for the other "promises" of the legislation was written into the Affordable Health Care Act and is reason in and of itself to just say no to this bill.

In addition, through amendments the bill has become a grab bag for some of the usual suspects including, among others, Harry Reid's extension of the Travel Promotion Act to benefit Las Vegas; Susan Collins redirection of immigration enforcement money from the southwest to the northeast; and for the state of Alaska (securing the votes of Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich) special treatment for Alaskan seafood plants.

What exactly do these amendments have to do with immigration? Nothing. They are part of our political system and the sacrifices made to "buy" votes. Part of the despicable behavior, then Senator, Obama promised to fix.

Immigration is important to America and not only had a positive impact in our past but is an asset to the present and the strength of our future. That is of course if it is properly and fairly enforced. Neither of which has occurred under previous bills (enforcement) or will occur under the proposed bill (fairness - it is subjective at best and lacks accountability at worst). The pending immigration legislation has seen debates over topics like the number of DUI's a current illegal alien can have before they are deported under the new law; should it be two or three? Yes you read that correctly - breaking the law by being an illegal alien is dismissed and the debate now is how many additional times an illegal alien can break the law before we deny their request for citizenship.

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Theodore Roosevelt

We must not support legislation simply for the purpose of having the legislation to right a wrong. The wrong legislation will not make things right. Cross reference the Affordable Health Care Act.

Contact your representatives now before it is too late. They can do a better job of securing our border and providing a solution for the millions of illegal aliens who both support America and qualify for citizenship. But neither should we fool ourselves, some of them will need to be deported.

This Show Must NOT Go On!

Footnote: I purposely chose to use the term illegal rather than undocumented for clarity, not (just) to point out the foolishness of that politically correct locution. Undocumented implies the administrator made the mistake. Illegal implies the perpetrator made the mistake.

If it Takes a Village...

...keep her out of it! Unlike Obama, she has a record, and it's clear - move on. We have a little over 3 years to investigate legitimate presidential candidates so lets get on with it.

Americans love thrillers, mysteries and conspiracy theories. In the absence of the (map) facts and when what we're told (the pieces) doesn't fit, investigators, to the best of their ability, must determine what happened. Sherlock Holmes made the process look easy but in real life it is much harder to sort through incomplete or misinformation .

Some puzzles are truly difficult and some are never solved, many of those originate in DC; go figure.

When we try to make sense of the political dysfunction over the last year and wonder about the direction of the next 3, it only stands to reason that we look ahead and consider what we know about the likely 2016 presidential field. Forrest Gump said "life is like a box of chocolates", he's right, and when it comes to presidential candidates, I suggest we poke every one of them until we find the one we want.

“How can one be well...when one suffers morally?”
Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

In a report out today, aviation experts and NTSB investigators claim that evidence from the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 points to a missile as the cause, rather than static electricity as previously concluded. If true, this may link the Clinton's to yet another scandal and while it is currently nothing more than a conspiracy theory, it is plausible to say the least. It also fits nicely with the progressives working view that when it comes to terrorists, there is no there, there.

Unlikely, but we don't need this to exclude Hillary from our list. 

The Clinton's have a long history of scandals behind them culminating with Hillary's involvement in the Benghazi puzzle; no map and missing pieces. Following her departure, the State Department during her tenure has been exposed as an utter sewer of corruption, cronyism, and fatal incompetence. After thoroughly investigating Whitewater, Travelgate and Benghazi can we really find reason to give her another opportunity to play America? On her quest for power, masquerading as public service, Hillary has put self-absorption and personal victory above all else. Do you think it a coincidence that her resignation came as the media finally shed light on Benghazi? And another coincidence that we find out about the General Petraeus affair on her way out? The State Department knew about it long before then. Make no mistake, things happen for a reason. Do not forget Hillary's comment when pressed on what ignited the Benghazi attack which resulted in the death of 4 Americans: "What difference at this point does it make?" The Clinton's have successfully side stepped accountability time and again by creating distance between them and the issue, and worse, making themselves out as victims.

You may remember that Monica's dress eventually forced Bill's admission of guilt after a pathetic debate on the definition of the word 'is'. But in the end Americans found more humor than criminality in his lack of moral compass. The focus of this behavior was on just one woman but history has revealed that Bill Clinton's discretion's would have made JFK blush. And Hillary stood by her man. Sad. 

As we approach the election of 2016, I propose we drop the party loyalty and identify an honest public servant, one who willingly admits and corrects their mistakes, not doing so only when under the threat of impeachment. The job approval rating of congress makes two things clear, that we need a leader with integrity and we have had enough of career politicians. The democratic process will adjust for the right to left swings in policy but only our diligence conducting background checks will bring real change to the oval office. This time, lets not get caught up in the hype.

With that said, the sooner Hillary is dropped from the list, the better; America does not need another dishonest, self absorbed, career politician.

Deja vu?

Despite the looming fiscal cliff, the Obama's enjoyed their vacation in Hawaii; yes, the president had to cut his time short, which increased the expense to taxpayers, but he still got his golfing in. Oh well, that one only cost $4 million. Chump change.

I know that vacation was just 6 months ago but I'd say he looks like he needs another one. He might want to choose a different traveling companion than Putin; they don't seem happy to be together. As it turns it turns out, Barack, Michelle and the kids already have a trip planned to South Africa. This time though, the estimated cost is $60 - $100 million.

Did the president land on his head when the country went over the fiscal cliff? Does he really believe that his desires are exempt from the "cash crisis" (budget sequestration) in America? Or is this just another example of his entitlement behavior: "it's good to be king"? And where is the voice of reason from his wife? Surely someone in their family has a conscience, or, is aware of how this looks when contrasted against the sacrifices the rest of our country is making?

No, I don't think they gave it a second thought. In fact, this has become a pattern for the president. When the going gets tough, he gets going. Literally.

Remarkably Absent President

It seems that each time we have a major conflict or crisis, the president disappears from public. Obama's pattern is to send the minions out with talking points and avoid the press until things cool down. His statements following the revelations of any one of the multitude of recent scandals have been few and far between, with those few statements proving to have little or no value.

Take for example his May 15th statement regarding the IRS profiling: "I’ll do everything in my power to make sure nothing like this happens again by holding the responsible parties accountable...". At the presidents direction, Attorney General Eric Holder pledged that the FBI would immediately launch a probe into this high-profile scandal. And yet, during FBI Director Robert Mueller's testimony on June 14th, he stated that he does not know who’s leading the investigation, doesn’t know how many investigators are assigned to it, and whether they’ve bothered to start off by, "y’know", talking to the victims of the profiling. 30 days after making it a top priority and not only do we not have any answers but it appears the process has yet to begin. Was the president just blowing smoke or was he serious, but in what appears to be another pattern, disengaged from the process?

On the other hand, should even the appearance of racism be present, Obama can't keep his mouth shut. Remember his comment, when a white man arrested a black man, that the police had "acted stupidly"? His urgency to declare racism before knowing the facts led to the White House's first beer summit. Which, of course, was nothing more than a photo op; he never apologized or admitted that he had jumped to the wrong conclusion. Note to President Obama: People respect humility and are turned off by equivocation.

So while his availability to the 'desperately seeking answers' public is scaled back, his fundraising efforts and family vacations seem to stay right on schedule. Regardless of the impact to America's financial stability. It's good to be king!

Is this what we expected from a candidate running on Hope and Change?

It's about trust, stupid.

It goes without saying that there is a balance between individual freedom and national security, not to mention that leadership requires some level of secrecy when dealing with international affairs. Americans are divided on the recent revelation of data collection by our government and that is not surprising. Generally, it appears that most of us are willing to give the leaders in our government the freedom to exercise covert operations so long as we feel that those operations are in our best interest and that we can trust the leaders statements regarding their actions. But others feel the government should keep no secrets from its citizens are willing to go to great lengths to assure their individual privacy.

Just for the record, and irrelevant to my point, I believe Edward Snowden is a criminal for leaking national security secrets and a traitor for revealing any of that information to our adversaries.

It might have been easier for Obama to defend the merits of the data collection program had our trust in government and their motivations not been repeatedly called into question over one scandal after another.

It is then, this lack of credibility which is straining President Obama's administration as they attempt to defend their use of the data collection program for the purpose of protecting Americans. On the heals of intentional deception by senior administration officials, including the president himself when questioned on the relentless scandals, Americans are right to question their objectives.

“If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. -Speech at Clinton, Illinois, September 8, 1854.”
Abraham Lincoln 

So what is Americas objective in Syria now that Obama has moved forward with his promise to supply the rebels with arms since his red line was crossed (a month or so ago)? Don't get me wrong, the 150 people who were killed from the use of chemical weapons proves that Assad is willing to do anything to preserve his hold on power. However, with the two year anniversary of this rebellion fast approaching and an estimated 90,000+ killed in the conflict, I have to question the timing of this intervention. Is it possible the timing is political; to divert attention from the continuing scandals plaguing the White House? Certainly it is not based on previous "red line" statements, the administration walked those back over a month ago once the use of chemical weapons was proven.

Are we to believe that our entry into this conflict is based on humanitarian reasons considering our inaction for two years while over 89,000 people were slaughtered? Or for some unstated, specific, geo-political purpose? And have we prepared for the alliance of the anti-American cast being assembled in Syria?  While Obama's actions and policies led the Syrian rebels from behind (followed), Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other enemies have taken up positions which will pit them directly against our efforts. The fact that we do not know who all of the rebels are, assures that any support we provide, money, food or weapons, will wind up in the hands of our enemies. Throw Israel into the equation - it is right in the middle - and America is facing a much more difficult and complicated situation than existed when the uprising began.

Through ongoing communication with Moscow, Iran has a plan. What is our plan? Do we assist in the downfall of Assad and then abandon the Syrian people as they attempt to rebuild their nation under the intimidation of Muslim extremists? Have you checked on Egypt lately? Libya?

American support for the Syrian people is long overdue. Before it is provided, and we have had two years to put a plan together, we must have clearly defined objectives articulated to congress and the people who give them their power, us. To enter a war without appropriate and clear objectives and under suspicion of doing so for the purpose of 'changing the American conversation' puts our leaders in the same category as Snowden.

It is about trust!