TheMiddleofSomewhere A grab bag of interests

Sen. Mitch McConnell’s much discussed proposal to temporarily grant President Obama power to raise the federal debt limit raises serious questions. At first it appears to be a clever way to break the present impasse. As I have heard it described, it would enable the President to borrow money as long as he made commensurate cuts in Federal spending. In addition, Congress by a large vote could deny the request(s) to force changes. Under the Constitution, however, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 2, the power to borrow money against the credit of the United States resides with Congress. That raises the question whether it’s Constitutional for one branch of the government to cede its power to another… even temporarily and even with strings attached. Each of the three branches of government is separate from and equal to, the others. Their powers are and were meant to be permanent, not bargained away.

(Side note: I once saw a young guy on You Tube chastising a Republican legislator for criticising Obama by asking, “Doesn’t he know he works for the President?” but I digress.)

If Congress cedes to the President its power to borrow money, what kind of precedent would that action set for future Presidents? If it can be done temporarily, couldn’t it be renewed? If that happened enough times it might become a customary practice. Custom would set in and nobody would question the practice any longer. It puts the nation on a dangerously slippery slope.

There are ways to Amend the Constitution. It shouldn’t be changed by simple legislative action. What other inconvenient articles would someone like to change “temporarily”? The President already has a pretty long list of objections to what he sees as a “Charter of negative liberties.”

We hear much these days about the urgent need in our government for compromise. Compromise is put forward as an obvious, but often neglected, method for breaking deadlocks and settling disagreements. Much can be said for compromise to settle disagreements. Plea bargains in some criminal cases are forms of compromise. Parties to divorce often compromise to make the separation equitable. Some people say that the best compromises lead to conclusions with which both sides are equally dissatisfied.

Let’s imagine what could have happened if Jesus, when he was tempted by Satan out there in the Judean wilderness, had decided to compromise.

Temptation number one was for Jesus to be able to feed himself by turning stones into bread. Why not compromise? After all, Jesus was going to be out there for forty days and nights, too long to subsist without food. If Satan had been willing to compromise, Jesus could have had some variation of three basic options: He could have turned all the stones to bread, turned half the stones to bread and leave the other half as stones, or he could have turned 50% of each stone to bread. Jesus declined, quoting scripture that “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” What’s this? Satan thought they were compromising over bread-from-stones vs. starvation. Jesus realized that Satan was trying to get him to compromise his basic obligation to serve God. So, no deal.

Likewise Satan’s other two temptations: (2) Jesus to jump from the roof of a Temple, and rely on God’s Angels to rescue him; and (3) for Jesus to accept dominion over all the kingdoms he could see from the top of the highest cliff. In response to the second temptation, Jesus could have accepted only an injury but avoided death by having the Angels cushion his fall, or, for temptation 3, he might have accepted reign over only half the kingdoms. Still “no soap.” Jesus didn’t jump. He passed on being “King of the world.” Modern day press would have reported that he had obstinately rejected “reasonable” compromise.

At the very least, when dealing with compromise, it’s essential to know what is actually being negotiated. If, for example, President Obama decided to administratively borrow money against the credit of the United States, it would be a serious error for Congress to engage in discussions about how much he should be allowed to borrow. If the President proposed a relatively high number and Congress held out for a lower amount till they finally settled on a number somewhere between, political operatives and members of the press would be ecstatic over the spirit of compromise that was on display. What would be lost in that scenario is the fact that the whole exercise was unconstitutional. Under the Constitution only Congress can borrow money, so the minute Congress started quibbling over the amount, they would have lost the real negotiations over the Constitution and Separation of Powers.

Ref: http://www.advancingafreesociety.org/2011/07/04/the-debt-ceiling-is-certainly-not-unconstitutional/

Anthony Weiner has been making apologies to his family, colleagues, constituents, and most notably, to Bill Clinton, for his sexual Tweets. I have yet to hear, however, of his apologizing to the people who most deserve an apology, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli people.

All around the world we have radical Islamist teachers wracking their brains to find the perfect example to make this point to their students: namely, that Jews are the dregs of humanity, that they are evil, immoral, and deserve to be driven from the face of the earth. As a former teacher I know how challenging lesson planning can be.

Then along comes Weiner and drops the perfect lesson plan in their laps. First, he is a member of the hated group, then he engages in behavior that many consider immoral, next he lies about it to one and all, and finally, he hangs onto his office like grim death.

Some people have come to Weiner’s aid to the extent that they don’t like to see any human being trashed. But comedians and political pundits have been having a field day with the story. Jon Stewart asked why Weiner apologized to Clinton– “for what? Copyright infringement?” A slam at Clinton as much as Weiner, but part of the general media free-for-all that inevitably accompanies such scandals.

Weiner is an unwitting exemplar of the Islamists’ hated enemy. If you think Jon Stewart and Nancy Pelosi are being too hard on him, imagine what those Islamist teachers are saying about him in your local madrassa.

In his column of May 11, Richard Cohen expressed a colossal misreading of the phrase “American Exceptionalism.” He equated it with narcissism, smugness, and arrogance. This no doubt is the same misunderstanding that prompted President Obama to take an “apology tour” early in his term.
Cohen claimed that Republican leaders base their interpretation of American Exceptionalism on religion, describing them as a “cult” that believes that “America, alone among the nations, is beloved of God.” While that may be the belief of some and the prayer of many, it misses the real basis of American Exceptionalism.
What is exceptional among the nations of the world is the idea of America. Its founders, who could easily have modeled our government on one of the monarchies extant at the time, took a different approach altogether. They established a republic in which the people, through their elected representatives, govern themselves. They adopted a constitution in which the federal government was given a relatively small number of enumerated powers. Within the government, power was divided among three separate branches. Freedom to criticize the government was protected. The right of the people peaceably to assemble was guaranteed. The free practice of religion was protected. The people could amend their constitution. Citizens were protected against unlawful searches and seizures. etc.
While we have not perfectly implemented our founders’ plan, we live in a country that is uniquely free. Ask any recent immigrant. The point of our founding was to prevent the nation’s being governed by the whims of individual leaders. I’m sure that Cohen is familiar with the phrase “a nation of laws, not of men.”
While many of our freedoms exist elsewhere, people generally enjoy only some, but not all of them. In many other nations, freedoms like ours are anathema. It’s not our arrogance that underlies the phrase “American Exceptionalism;” it’s the political genius of our founders.

• Looks as though we’re going to run out of doctors before we run out of money.

• Did you hear President Obama’s speech in England? He actually said that all beings are endowed by their creator with certain rights. Seems he’s more afraid of offending the English than he is of offending Americans, and it’s not even their constitution! Then, again, he’s not trying to fundamentally transform England. Yet.

• Republican’s are not so much unhappy with their field of candidates as they are faced with an embarrassment of riches (with more to come).

• Meanwhile, Democrats are having a hard time deciding which one to demonize.

• I was watching a History Channel show on how the world was made. Seems there was global warming thousands of years ago. Did you know they had SUV’s thousands of years ago?

• Paul Ryan’s budget plan does not end medicare, as Nancy Pelosi just said. It doesn’t apply to anyone age 55 or older. Its aim is to save medicare. Oh, and by the way, Ryan doesn’t want to” throw grandma over a cliff.”

In the wake of the removal of Osama bin Laden from the world, there will inevitably be apologists who claim that he was an innocent victim, that the US forces were not justified in doggedly tracking him down and ultimately killing him. He will be portrayed as a “civilian,” not a legitimate military target. Inevitably someone will argue that it would have been better to capture him and bring him to trial in Manhattan Federal Court.

Lest anyone fall for such propaganda, here are quotes from two Fatwas issued by Bin Laden in 1996 and 1998 in which he declared war on the US and Israel.

1996 – “You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, what ever treaty you have with our country is now null and void.”

1998 – “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,’ and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.’ … We — with God’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.”

Apparently we are given only two choices in understanding President Obama: either he is intellectually brilliant, a graduate magna cum laude of Harvard Law School, or he is hopelessly ignorant and inept, allowing our economy to slide into disarray without any idea about how to prevent or reverse the slide. We can’t have it both ways.

Whatever description one prefers, there seems to be a tendency, even among some conservatives, to give him the benefit of the doubt on economic issues. I recently attended a conservative meeting during which the treasurer of the organization (a man who knows money) claimed that Obama knows nothing about budgets or how economies work. But even if that were true of Obama himself it can’t be true of all the advisors with whom he has surrounded himself.

I believe that Team Obama understands the workings of economies very well.

I’m reminded of Jack Nicholson’s monologue from “The Witches of Eastwick.” His character, Darryl Van Horne, is having “domestic problems” with the witches. He escapes to the village church during a service. He disrupts the proceedings and starts questioning whether God makes mistakes. When he (the devil) makes a mistake they call it evil, he argues, but when God makes a mistake they call it Nature. Finally, he asks this question about women — “What do you think… women… a mistake or DID HE DO IT TO US ON PURPOSE?”

So now, with Team Obama running the show, we’re experiencing dire economic and political problems. The question is are they mistakes or ARE THEY DOING IT TO US ON PURPOSE?”

I believe that Obama, the Staller-in-Chief, maneuvers around one issue after another until his Team can tie the country in knots from which we can’t extricate ourselves. And yes, they’re doing it to us on purpose and to grant them the benefit of the doubt is dangerously self-defeating.

Would you like paper or switchgrass?

Oops. Sorry, that choice isn’t available. While switchgrass is under study as a potential fuel source, it is a long way from being widely practical. And while much is being said these days about achieving energy independence by exploiting alternate “renewable” energy sources, no one appears to be equating that with petroleum independence. While I’m no expert, the idea of using switchgrass to manufacture plastic bags doesn’t appear to be on the horizon.

Plastic bags? Who cares about plastic bags? We can get away from them and help to “save the earth” by using cloth shopping bags. And plastic bags are easy to recycle. No problem.

Petroleum independence is another matter. Cloth shopping bags, especially mine with a rectangular plastic panel in the bottom, are manufactured using petrolueum. In fact, a list of petroleum-based items that we rely upon every day is too long to include here. Such lists are available online and I urge you to do a search on “petroleum uses” to put the topic into perspective. Any brief list printed here would serve only to make our reliance on petroleum appear to be less than it actually is.

No doubt chemists, engineers, designers, and manufacturers will create affordable substitutes for petroleum-based products, and certainly research on such alternatives is worthwhile and will continue. But it’s not going to be finished today or tomorrow.

It’s time, I believe, to separate the issues of energy independence and petroleum independence. The political left seems intent on using modest advances in alternative energy as an excuse to limit our accessing domestic petroleum resources. Their policy is no drilling here and not now, and they call the GOP the party of no.

The next time you hear a liberal refer to our “addiction to oil,” just ask if he/she means our addiction to antiseptics, antibiotics, bandages, ballpoint pens, clothing, guitar strings, hair coloring, lipstick, toothpaste, telephones, cds, etc. I know I said I wouldn’t include a list here, but couldn’t resist giving a sample.

Dwight Boud

Recently my local newspaper, the Asbury Park Press, published a cartoon that showed Governor Chris Christie saying that “Obamacare is unconstitutional.” At the same time a hand, presumably President Obama’s, is shown offering Christie a large bag labeled Federal Healthcare Funds for NJ. The caption reads “Don’t sound bite the hand that feeds.”

The only thing that recommends this cartoon is the clever word play on the old adage, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” Beyond that, it reflects a mindset that lies behind much of the trouble with government.

If a governor truly believes that a law is unconstitutional, is it thought a good thing that he/she be swayed from that position by a handout of federal money? First of all, there’s no such thing as federal money. In the final analysis, it’s our money. Should a President who is responsible for a law that’s widely viewed as unconstitutional be enabled to bribe a state official to accept it with the citizens’ own money? Talk about redistribution of funds!

In any other context this would be an indictable offense. I’m from New Jersey. I’ve read “Soprano State.” I’ve read about mass federal stings in the Asbury Park Press itself . I’m familiar with these things.

I don’t know what Christie’s final decision will be regarding acceptance of this funding, but it will be disappointing if he allows money to nudge him away from his original stance. One reason there is a Tea Party is that people want an end to the all-too-common practice of letting money trump principle. It was similar kinds of bribery in the form of the “Cornhusker kickback” and a job promise to Pennsylvania’s Joe Sestak, to name only two of many such instances, that got “Obamacare” passed in the first place.

Of course bribery is even easier if the briber first impoverishes his planned targets. But that’s another issue.

Dwight Boud
3/22/11