Right to Opine

Watching Putin play Obama for the amateur he is brings to mind the snarky, dismissive remark our current Bumbler-in-Chief made during the last presidential campaign:

The 80’s called. They want their foreign policy back.

So, Mr. President, have you tried copping that attitude with Vlad? How’s that working for ya’?

I can’t be the only American who wishes for a return to the policies of the 1980s. Or even, say, the 2000s. When America’s allies knew we could be trusted, and our enemies knew we should be feared. Now both alike do nothing but laugh.

Dennis Prager makes a strong moral argument for America maintaining an active and vigilant military role on the international stage.

In his ever erudite manner, Dennis Prager explains in great historical and philosophical depth why Judaism and Christianity are simply incompatible with homosexuality…and why that matters to modern society.

Drawing from both religious and secular sources, his argument is long, rather detailed, and well worth your time regardless of your position on the “gay marriage” debate.

In the WSJ, James Taranto has an incisive analysis of a new study (done by a moderate-to-left-leaning think tank and published in that bastion of conservatism—the NY Times) which shows that when a home is run by a single mom, boys suffer more—educationally and economically—than girls. Taranto makes a number of salient points, but what caught my attention was this thought experiment:

But of course it isn’t. To illuminate why, try a thought experiment: Think about the family as a “business” partnership whose “product” is the next generation.

One reason a business has hierarchies of authority and responsibility is to make the best use of the time of the most vital employees. The CEO may type faster or more accurately than his secretary, but he still delegates the typing because it isn’t the highest use of his time. By contrast, the lone entrepreneur may of necessity do his own clerical work, but at some point he won’t be able to expand further without hiring support staff.

Think of the single mother as the lone entrepreneur. Of necessity she takes on every responsibility of the household: bearing and nurturing the children, providing food, maintaining the physical plant—and, by the way, working outside the home in order to raise operating funds.

Now think of the traditional 1950s household with an employed father and a stay-at-home mother. The mother is able to devote her full efforts to the children and the home. The father may have some secondary household duties—taking out the trash and playing ball with Junior—but most of his time is spent away from home, doing a boss’s bidding, in order to raise money to meet the family’s needs.

Let’s stipulate that in the latter scenario, the mother could do the father’s job just as well as he can. Would that be the highest use of her time? Only if one thinks that office work is intrinsically superior to the development of the next generation. [Emphasis mine.]

I, for one, believe the latter is far more important, and deserves the full attention of a parent.

In his State of the Union address (and a follow-up yesterday), Dear Leader said we need to fund preschool and all-day kindergarten for low- and some middle-income families so that,

…none of our children start the race of life already behind.

[Quite laughably, he also claimed this wouldn’t increase the deficit.]

I have a counter proposal that won’t cost a penny. In fact, it will improve educational outcomes, and reduce both crime and poverty—all three of which have the additional benefit of trimming federal and state budgets. It’s very simple, really.

Stop subsidizing illegitimacy and single parenting.

Before the creation of the welfare state in the 1960s, marriage rates were higher, and illegitimacy and poverty rates were lower. Then we made it much easier for poor women to bear children without either the financial responsibility for their support or the presence and participation of the father in the children’s upbringing. Guess what happened as a result?

Look at any inner city and you can see. Urban blight is not an accident, but a direct consequence of government policy at the federal and local levels. When you subsidize something you get more of it. Want less? End the subsidy. Economics 101. Duh.

But Democrats understand this already. Truly effective programs to reduce poverty would end their stranglehold on urban politics because they would reduce dependency on the welfare programs on which the Left thrives. Hence the continued subsidization of poverty.

Poor kids don’t need preschool. They need mom and dad under the same roof working together to provide for them. Instead of spending so much effort replacing literature and history with “Lesbian Readings” and “The Sins of Our Founders,” we should be telling our young people, “Don’t want to spend your life poor? Finish school, get married, have children…in that order.”

That will have a much bigger positive impact on their lives and our nation than having them start preschool a year or two earlier.

With all the demagoguery from the Left about “tax cuts for the rich” it’s time for some real fact checking with, well…facts.

Investors Business Daily has a very clear exposition on the effect raising and lowering tax rates has on federal tax revenue—complete with the actual numbers.

Will this end the socialist talking points? Of course not, because their argument isn’t based on the facts—what would actually generate greater revenue—but on the emotional issue of “fairness”—which they can ride forever because a free economy rewards productivity so there will always be income inequality.

The demagoguery on “trickle down” economics is reaching epic proportions again this election cycle. The inimitable Thomas Sowell explodes the lies and misdirection of the Left in this excellent treatise.

USA Today ran a timely piece on the ugliness that overshadows much of Chicago.

The levels of violence and depredation are truly heartbreaking. The authors as well as the sociologists, authorities, and politicians they interviewed—including, sadly, those identified as Christian—have all kinds of great ideas. Education. Stricter rules and enforcement. Positive activities. Increased parental involvement. All good things.

None of which will work.

You see, their common failure is to acknowledge the root of Chicago’s ills: sin. And the only cure for that disease was crucified, buried, and resurrected almost 2,000 years ago. But it’s not politically correct to point that out.

And so the darkness continues…

Oh how I wish I’d had President Obama as an advisor during my formative years. I was raised with the horrible misunderstanding that success and failure are direct consequences of the choices we make. How unbelievably foolish my mentors were!

If only someone as wise and insightful as he had been there to tell me that my future success wouldn’t be the result of studying long hours in high school, college, and grad school, working hard, getting married before having children, spending less than I earn, trying to keep my life and family centered on a relationship with God—all that not-fun, responsible adult stuff—I’d have had so much more time to goof off. Heck, I might’ve even lit up a doob with our current POTUS—just buzzing on his bong-besotted brilliance.

All those years of effort wasted now that I know I was just lucky. How terribly sad for me.

Who needs Congress?

That, apparently, is the attitude of the current administration. In a truly unprecedented move, Health and Human Services queen Secretary Sebelius quietly announced this week that states can apply for waivers to the federal welfare work requirements.

Under whose authority? Congress enacted the current welfare regulations with a very explicit work requirement—and did not designate any waiver authority to HHS or any other agency.

So now Obama and his minions have decided the legislative branch is wholly unnecessary and they can not only ignore duly enacted laws, but amend them at will. Where in the Constitution does the supposed Constitutional expert find such an executive power?

Unless he is removed from office, Obama will certainly fulfill one of his campaign promises: to fundamentally transform America. He is very swiftly changing the Executive from a coequal branch—checked by Congress and the Supreme Court—into a kingship.

Didn’t we fight a revolution to avoid just such despotism?