Louis R. Avallone

Author: liz

  • Memorial Day

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    You ever feel sometimes that something is just missing? Like it just doesn’t make good sense, but folks do it anyway? Like they are just going through the motions, and don’t know exactly why? Well, you are not alone. And consider the recent Memorial Day observance, as an example.

    Did you know that only 20% of U.S. adults say that they are very familiar with Memorial Day’s purpose? So, before we go any further, and for you other 80% percent reading here, you should know that Memorial Day is to honor those who died fighting the nation’s wars, even though you may be most familiar with Memorial Day as signaling the “unofficial” beginning of the summer vacation season each year, not to mention crazy low sale prices on everything from mattresses to mini-vans.

    Yet, while Americans do enjoy the three-day weekend that Memorial Day brings, most also understand the historical significance of liberty, and war. We understand our freedom is not free, but a gift from our soldiers. We understand that, since our nation’s founding, over 2.8 million soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in combat, or as Lincoln described it, “the last full measure of devotion.” These are the men and women, who have defended our nation’s liberty, and for whom the Memorial Day observance seeks to honor.

    But maybe the watering-down of Memorial Day began when Congress enacted the National Holiday Act of 1971, making it into a three-day weekend. This may have had the unintended consequence of making it easier for folks to be distracted from the spirit and meaning of the day. In fact, the VFW believes that this “contributed greatly to the general public’s nonchalant observance of Memorial Day.”

    And yes, still, our children know only of backyard barbecues, swimming pools, family get-togethers, and mom or dad having a day off from work on Memorial Day. They know not of socialism or pacifism, or the doctrine of achieving peace through strength. They know not of car bombings in their neighborhood markets, air raid drills, religious intolerance, limitations on what news they can read or what subjects they may study, or how they may dress or express themselves politically, or otherwise.

    They know not of these matters only because of the men and women who jeopardized their own well being to protect the countless millions of us who will likely never know them by name; nor know the last words of those who died in battle or the convictions within their own heart that allowed them to leave the safety and security of their home and family, so that so many of us can remain within ours.

    And for these men and women, it was the quality of their character that still defines our modern-day, American way of life. From brokering a peace that ended the Holocaust, to winning the cold war, and to fighting terrorists on their own soil, the sacrifices of these fallen Americans continue to preserve the American dream for generations to come.

    No, our children may not yet understand what it means to be free, but their lack of understanding is a testament to the achievements and selfless service of generations of our veterans. Our children know freedom because someone else paid the cost of admission for them (and for us). And by observing Memorial Day, as a more solemn occasion, we are less likely to dilute the significance of our freedom, nor the lives sacrificed in defense of it. In the words of Lincoln, “Any nation that does not honor its heroes, will not endure long.”

    So, as another Memorial Day passes by, let us remember that we need not wait until the last Monday in May each year, to honor those who died fighting the nation’s wars. For me, at least, it should fall on every day of the year.

  • Giving Credit

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    As we celebrated Mother’s Day earlier this month, and now look forward to celebrating Father’s Day next month, I am again reminded of how grateful I am to my parents, for their immeasurable sacrifices and tireless determination to demonstrate life’s lessons to their children through their own example, and not by mere words. Arguably, there were many life lessons that, at the time, I was none too happy to learn. Of course, years later, I would be thankful for the wisdom in their parenting, even though I may not have fully understood it at the time.

    Well, this had me thinking about hindsight, and the clarity of the rearview mirror. The killing of Osama Bin Laden, for example, is a testament to nearly a decade of American perseverance, and the advantage of our nation’s military superiority. The world is a safer place today, not only because Bin Laden is dead, but because it sends the message that, no matter how difficult the circumstances, or how long it takes, the U.S. military will prevail in defending the honor of its citizens.

    It is often said that victory has many parents. And with the success of the military mission to capture Bin Laden, dead or alive, this is certainly true here. As Obama described, on that late Sunday night television address to the nation, it was Obama who directed the mission, and he who determined that there was enough intelligence to proceed, and he who provided the “go ahead.” As he absorbed the credit for the success of the mission though, it occurred to me that this success would have been wholly impossible had the views of liberals, such as Obama, prevailed upon the nation, during much of the last decade.

    For example, Obama has described Guantanamo as “a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Qaeda,” even though it has proven to be important for gathering intelligence, and achieving the missions, like the one Obama is taking credit for now. Candidate Obama derided Bush for airborne attacks along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Yet now, Obama has increased these same attacks fivefold, compared to Bush. Then, in 2007, Senator Obama introduced a bill that would have removed all troops from Iraq by March 2008, yet President Obama must obviously see it differently today.

    Obama claims the credit for even the Democrat leadership who criticized General Petraeus during the crucial years of the war, calling him as Gen. Betray-us. Or how about Obama claiming credit for those anti-military, Democrat politicians who, in 2005, accused our military of “going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children…women…”? Or when Democrat Representative John Murtha called several Marines “murderers” in a Time magazine article in 2006? I’m sure Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid is glad that no one was listening, in 2007, when he announced that the war in Iraq was lost.

    So, after opposing almost all aspects of the War on Terror, Obama and liberals like him, throughout the nation, are enjoying the fruits of the very Republican policies that they have so persistently opposed, chastised, and sought to eliminate altogether. If they had been successful in their opposition efforts, over the past decade alone, the capture of Bin Laden would likely never occurred, nor the credit be available for them to take as their own.

    This had me thinking now. With the almost universal celebration of the capture of Bin Laden, Americans can look back and be grateful to the Republican leadership, and the Bush administration, for engaging the War of Terror, despite its unpopularity among liberals and the mainstream media alike.

    But what are some Democrat-initiated policies that Americans can look back upon and be grateful for their creation, despite any fervent opposition at the time? Like lessons from our parents, as children, that we may not have fully appreciated until years later?

    I thought about the The Great Society programs, but those were (and still are today) largely inefficient, and ineffective, to successfully wage the “war on poverty”, as declared by LBJ in 1964. Still today, nearly 40 million Americans or 13.2 percent of the population live in poverty, and the poverty rate for children is even higher. Since 1964, the U.S. has spent more than $13 trillion fighting poverty, while the bankrupt-ridden Social Security program is now paying out $29 billion more than it takes in this year.

    Then I thought about the sub-prime mortgages legislation, which was a Carter-era law that sought to encourage banks to make increasingly risky loans to borrowers who wouldn’t qualify for a mortgage under normal standards of creditworthiness. The end result, of course, is all to painful to recall: Mortgage lenders have been bankrupted, millions of sub-prime homeowners have been foreclosed on, sales of new homes has hit a 47-year low, and credit is more difficult to obtain than ever.

    But I am still back to my original question: What are some Democrat-initiated policies that Americans can look back upon and be grateful about, despite any fervent opposition at the time? Unfortunately, the list of regrettable Democrat-initiated policies seems overwhelmingly easier to identify. And that’s my point. Like children, there are far more instances where the wisdom of a parent’s conservative values has provided a steady hand and desired outcome, whereas the folly of liberal reasoning has produced the opposite, and admittedly unintended, consequences.

    Maybe it is just like Winston Churchill said, “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.” What do you think? Well, let’s run this past mom or dad first.

  • Flawed: Obama’s Rhetoric Masks Truth

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    You heard about this, right? In a town hall meeting in Reno, Nevada last month, President Obama said, “I’m rooting for everybody to get rich, but I believe that we can’t ask everybody to sacrifice and then tell the wealthiest among us, well, you can just relax and go count your money, and don’t worry about it. We’re not going to ask anything of you.”

    Well, let’s talk about that for a minute, since you brought it up. Who is the “everybody” that is being asked to “sacrifice”, and what exactly are they sacrificing? Or is this merely the trite and tired populist campaign rhetoric talking points, taken from the Democrat operations manual that was written nearly 80 years ago with the ushering in of the New Deal?

    You do know, however, that one in every two Americans do not even pay income tax, right? In fact, because of the tax cut extension passed last year, many American families, including those households making between $50,000 and $75,000 annually, will see a reduction of over $2,000 in their federal income taxes, on average. And just in case you didn’t know, the top one percent of American income earners do pay almost 40 percent of all federal income taxes, with the top five percent paying 58 percent, leaving the rest of the taxes due to be split up among the rest of us.

    Okay, so if one in every two Americans is not paying any income tax, and are not being asked to “sacrifice” in some other way, then it sounds like the “wealthiest” Americans, according to Obama, need to “pony-up” more or, in the words of Joe Biden, “get some skin in the game,” even though they already have often worked endless hours, for years, with little or no pay, to finance their small business with credit cards, loans from friends and family, and mortgages where the collateral was their own home and good name.
    But Obama just doesn’t get it. In one campaign speech after another, he refers to “rich folks” as if they are all lifetime members of a private club, where someone has to die in order for the next person on the waiting list to join or take their seat at the table. And since the conventional wisdom is that these “rich folks” keep getting richer (while the “poor folks” get poorer), it only stands to reason, as he explained in a speech last month, that those “who have benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more.”

    But, as Abraham Lincoln put it, “You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.” The implication from Obama’s comments, instead, is that those who benefit the most in our society have essentially won life’s “lottery” and have a moral debt to repay their community for their good luck. I get that. But Americans already contribute more than $300 billion a year to organized private charities, and volunteer eight billion hours annually to charitable activities, all without government involvement in redistributing anyone’s “wealth.”

    Does anyone think that the federal government can do this better than private individuals and organizations? Of course not. Take Warren Buffet, for example. He is one of the richest men in the world and routinely advocates tax increases to fund federal government spending. Yet, ironically, he is leaving most of his estate to private charities, and not the federal government.

    Obama says “we’re going to tax people making over $250,000 a year so those millionaires and billionaires will pay their fair share.” Are we listening? All we must hear is the “millionaires and billionaires” part, thinking it doesn’t affect us. But he’s talking about increasing taxes on small businesses, where most of us work, even those that earn $250,000; businesses that are responsible for over 50% of our private sector workforce, 50 % of the gross domestic product (GDP), and 90 % of net new jobs.

    These are not all “millionaires and billionaires,” but he must know that. The reason that Obama is coming after the upper-middle class here is because the “millionaires and billionaires” simply don’t have enough money. In fact, he could confiscate all the wealth from the “millionaires and billionaires,” and there still wouldn’t be enough money to cover the costs of his administration’s agenda.

    But back to the “rich folks” discussion and Obama’s image of them wearing a banker’s green visor, in a dimly lit backroom, counting their money, all while sipping a lacquer that most folks like me couldn’t pronounce. You see, to vilify the “wealthy” is to accept the flawed reasoning that this is a monolithic group, or that same people are “wealthy” from year to year. For most Americans, wealth is not static, nor a forgone conclusion that they will always be wealthy. Every year, new people will qualify in Obama’s “millionaires and billionaires” club, and every year too, folks will not earn enough to belong and lose their membership.

    So when Obama goes after the “club” with higher taxes, he is crippling the galloping American spirit of entrepreneurship, which means fewer jobs created, less ingenuity, and a dampening of the American soul. And that’s the headline here.

    Socialism may hope to make sure we all have enough, and guarantee the same outcomes. But even for Obama, it’s hard to ignore: Someone has to first create the wealth, before he can redistribute it.

  • Something to Hide?

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    When Republicans are asked who they support for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, Donald Trump is now tied with the leader, Mike Huckabee, according to a new national poll. Surprised? Well, in fact, over the past several weeks, Trump has nearly doubled his support since he announced that he may enter the presidential race. A recent national poll even found that Trump’s name recognition among voters was 85 percent, trailing just behind Palin’s name recognition of 90 percent.

    But while the Trump “brand” may provide the bright lights of the big city, and a marquee quality candidate, to a relatively bland cast of Republican candidates for president in 2012, it is perhaps his message regarding Obama’s birth certificate that has resonated the most with voters, and lent credibility to those millions of Americans who have constitutional questions about Obama’s eligibility to be president. On ABC’s The View, for example, Trump recently asked his hosts, “Why doesn’t he [Obama] show his birth certificate? There’s something on that birth certificate that he doesn’t like.”

    And Trump isn’t alone on this issue. A new poll indicates that 25% of voters believe Obama was not born in the United States, and nearly 40% of voters think that there is, at least, “cause to wonder.” After all, the U.S. Constitution clearly states that only “natural born citizens” are eligible to be president. Even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has asked why the President has not already demanded the release of his long-form birth certificate, by adding, “if it exists, why not put it out?”

    While this seems like plain-old common sense to most Americans, the media has vilified and mocked these same folks, often referring to them as “birthers”, who have had the audacity or brazenness to merely put forward the constitutional question of whether Obama is a natural born citizen. The media has portrayed birthers as conspiracy nuts, or paranoid, delusional fringe voters, whose compulsive dislike of Obama simply defeats any rational, thought processes whatsoever. But you have those types in any large group of folks, don’t you? We have look beyond the messenger, and evaluate the merits.

    So, if you aren’t already familiar with the merits, of the constitutional questions being raised by so-called birthers, it goes like this: Obama’s long-form, or original birth certificate has not been released to the public. In fact, Obama has exercised deliberate care to keep the original birth certificate from becoming public. Nonetheless, the Hawaii State Department of Health confirms that they possess the original vital records of Obama, indicating he was born in Hawaii.

    This is important because Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”

    There are voluminous court cases and scholarly articles, which provide detailed legal and historical analysis of the meaning of “natural born citizen”. However, it is generally agreed that 1) U.S.-born children of U.S.-citizen parents are natural born citizens and, 2) natural born citizenship is established only at birth and cannot be acquired after birth through naturalization.

    With that said then, even if Obama was born in Honolulu, the question of Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president would seem to come down to whether or not he is a “natural born” citizen. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses citizenship, but not the issue of who is considered a “natural born citizen.”

    If being a natural born citizen requires being born on American soil, and that both of your parents be U.S. citizens (which a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1874 suggests), then there are significant constitutional issues with Obama’s eligibility to be president, especially because his father was a citizen of Kenya.

    And even if Obama was born in Mombasa, some folks have said that all of these constitutional questions are pointless because he qualifies as a natural born citizen as a function of his mother’s U.S. citizenship. However, this is incorrect, based on the law in effect in 1961. The law then was that a person would be considered a “natural born citizen” if either parent was a citizen who had lived at least 10 years in the U.S., including five years after the age of 14. But because Obama was born 3 months before his mother’s 19th birthday, she was too young to confer natural born citizenship to the newborn Barrack, under the law, in effect, in 1961.

    The bottom line is this: This is not about Obama personally, nor his policies. Believe it or not, and this may come as a surprise to some, but the institution of the presidency is much larger than the politics of any man (or woman) who is its temporary custodian. Americans expect the president to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” always, not merely when it is politically favorable. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”

    Last August, Obama said, “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” Well, Mr. President, the American people simply want the truth here. And if not from you, then from whom? And if not now, then when?

  • National Identity

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Almost 15 million U.S. residents have their identities used fraudulently each year, with financial losses totaling upwards of $50 billion. And as significant as these losses may be, a more malignant identity crisis faces our nation: the erosion of our national identity.

    Following Obama’s speech to the nation last month, regarding the Libyan conflict, there has been much written regarding the difference between Obama’s rhetoric, and his genuine belief in “American exceptionalism,” often considered the foundation of our national identity. “American exceptionalism” refers to the special character of the U.S. as a free nation based on democratic ideals and personal liberties. It’s what makes us a unique nation, a nation that remains, as President Ronald Reagan once said, “a model and hope to the world.”

    “American exceptionalism” is the story of our nation’s ingenuity, perseverance, and triumph; a story of pride in the dignity, diversity, and creativity of the individual, celebrating the virtue of hard work and the unbridled hope of one’s dreams. And for you liberals out there, it’s not a story that is need of any editing, although you have tried.

    Of course, it was not that long ago that Obama tried editing the story by apologizing for America, to the European countries, by saying that “there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Right. Our nation showed “arrogance” by sacrificing countless American lives over our nation’s history, so that other souls might live free, and without persecution?

    But you see, while “American exceptionalism” reinforces our national identity, the European countries, whose people we have so often defended, are increasingly losing theirs. Why? Well, from France to Spain to Greece, these nations are replete with worker protests, and are facing mounting financial difficulties due, in part, to unchecked immigration of unassimilated migrant workers, many who are openly hostile to their own host nation, demanding continued entitlement to unsustainable, state-funded social programs and threatening the peace and stability of the nation.

    And now, these countries are facing the erosion of their national identities. Just this past February, for example, French President Nicolas Sarkozy admitted, “We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” British Prime Minister James Cameron said essentially the same, “(W)e have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.”

    And while America’s shores once assimilated different cultures and religions into “one nation under God.” Today the “great melting pot” in the U.S. means that traditionalists get thrown into the boiling kettle of liberal diversity. Before long, our own nation’s identity will begin to erode precipitously, just as those European countries are witnessing now for themselves.

    And similar to errors of those European countries, such as France and Great Britain, Obama’s continues to express indifference, regarding our open border with Mexico, which continues to be plagued by cartel violence, drugs, and other forms of illegal smuggling, as well as illegal immigration. In fact, the authority of state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law has been diminished under the Obama administration, as the federal government now largely abandons the prosecution of non-criminal illegal immigrants and allows them to remain in the U.S.

    Even dyed-in-the-wool liberals must see the parallels here with the European nations and the consequences of unchecked, unassimilated immigrants to one’s nation. The proverbial handwriting is on the wall.

    You see, a nation is a group of people who share a destiny, and with that destiny, an identity. The truth is that this national identity needs pride, and a sense of affection that is expressed to the exclusion of any other allegiance. Again, this is the foundation of nation building. As it erodes, so will the nation.

    In fact, the stronger the national identity, the greater pride we have in our nation. 75% of us are proud to be Americans. Compare that with only 33% of people in Germany, France, and Italy that say the same about their own country. But these are countries that are losing their national identities, while liberals in our own country are attempting to deliberately diminish our own, through so-called “political correctness.”

    But they don’t get it. America is different. We are exceptional. It’s why there is no “French” or “German” dream, but an “American” dream. Sure, our military and economic might is unrivaled. We are more religious than any other advanced democracy, we give more to charity, vote more frequently, and have faith in the power of individual souls to shape their own destiny through hard work.

    Yes, we believe that America is exceptional, but not because of what is does, but because of what it believes. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth.”

  • Whiners

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Do you remember this? In July 2008, former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm, who was co-chairman of John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, said, “We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline.” Well, what followed those comments was a media hailstorm of criticism, in one report after another, all seemingly intent on using Gramm’s comments as evidence that presidential candidate John McCain was insensitive and out of touch with the American people. So powerful were these reports that, less than one week later, Gramm resigned as co-chairman of McCain’s campaign.

    Then, just earlier this month, outgoing Chicago Mayor Richard Daley (brother of Obama chief of staff Bill Daley), summarily said the same, “We have become a country of whiners,” adding that Americans can compete with any nation, if we have the confidence to take action.

    Of course, Jimmy Carter knows also about the crisis of American confidence. He said the same as well, in 1979, during his so-called “malaise” speech to the nation, calling lack of confidence as “a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will.” Amidst 21% interest rates, 13.5% inflation, the overthrowing of the Shah of Iran by Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution, and 66 American hostages being held in Tehran, one voter said it this way in 1979, to President Carter: “We’ve got to stop crying and start sweating, stop talking and start walking, stop cursing and start praying. The strength we need will not come from the White House, but from every house in America.”

    Amen. Amen. Amen. But is that what we do, though? Whine? The dictionary defines “whining” as, “To complain or protest in a childish fashion.” Well, consider the following.

    The iPhone was named invention of the year in 2007 by Time magazine. It revolutionized mobile phone technology, allowing you to combine a computer, telephone, camera, clock, radio, DVD player, CD player, photo album, video conferencing, and television all into a single device that you can fit into your shirt pocket. But when some iPhones, earlier this month, didn’t quite make the transition seamless to daylight savings time, news reports quickly examined this debilitating debacle, and the whining began.
    One newspaper reporter whined how thousands of iPhone users in the U.S. were “left two hours adrift” when their phones did not transition automatically to daylight savings time. And whether you were watching KTBS or KSLA, every 30 minutes the story rotated on the morning news shows about the helpless folks, who missed church because of the glitch, or “almost” missed yoga (oh goodness).

    In fact, one woman went so far as to blame Steve Jobs for being late to work, and subsequently being fired. She whined, “If you had warned me about the glitch, I could have at least picked up a $5, battery-operated alarm clock that would have saved my job.” That’s so sad, isn’t it?

    Hey, lady…here’s one for you: Have a back-up system. Borrowing from the popular GEICO Insurance commercial, “Maybe we should chug on over to mamby-pamby land where maybe we can find some confidence for you…” And while we are there, you can trade in that tired iPhone technology for the world’s first commercial handheld cellular phone which cost $3,995 (in 1983 dollars), measuring 13” x 1-3/4” x 3-1/2” inches in dimension, boasted eight hours of standby time, took 10 hours to recharge, and an LED display and memory to store thirty “dialing locations.” Quit whining already, please.

    And maybe whining is more prevalent than we might realize. After all, as Phil Gramm had noted during his controversial remarks in 2008, “misery sells newspapers.” This is certainly true in Wisconsin, isn’t it? The average Milwaukee Public School teacher will be receiving $100,005 in compensation this year – $56,500 of that is in salary, and a whopping $43,505 is in benefits. Yet when the new governor in Wisconsin wanted to eliminate the collective bargaining rights of the unions and make public workers pay for half of their pensions and a portion of their health care, teachers whined and refused to come to work, while Democrat state legislators left the state, rather than participate in the democratic process necessary to balance their state’s budget.

    One teacher in Wisconsin explained to a reporter about how difficult it is to explain, “to an 8-and 10-year old that the governor of your state basically wants to take money away from dad and mom.” For this teacher, and his wife, who is also a teacher, they earn a household income of $137,052 annually, between the two of them.

    You understand the injustice here, right? I mean, according to a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, real median household income in the United States is $50,221, and this ranged from $69,272 in Maryland to $36,646 in Mississippi. So, it stands to reason, these Wisconsin teachers are getting the short end of the proverbial stick?

    Yes, there is a certain population of Americans that are whiners. But in our culture’s worship of the trivial, the whiners are given a platform, and their whining amplified, by the media. Most Americans, however, “do” something, they don’t merely whine. That means they do more than just “hope” something, or “blame” something. It’s what millions of us do every day when we go to work early, stay late, take a second job, go to school, volunteer at our church, participate in civic organizations, and exercise our right to vote.

    Most of us don’t whine. We recognize, instead, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, “The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” And, for you whiners, there’s not an app for that.

  • Dangerous Precedent

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Oil has risen to over $100 a barrel now. It is estimated that an additional $10 – 20 increase, in the per-barrel price of imported crude oil, will translate into an additional 100,000 jobs lost in the U.S. in 2011. And while there is political unrest in Egypt and Libya, even higher oil prices are certain to result if the demonstrations spread to the Persian Gulf or to Nigeria and Algeria.

    Closer to home, however, the news is also discouraging. Foreclosures are supposed to increase by 20 percent this year, over 2010, with prices expected to bottom out as well in the housing market.

    And according to Gallup, when the “underemployed Americans”, or those that have part-time jobs (but really want full-time jobs), are factored into the unemployment numbers, then the unemployment rate climbs to 19.3 percent of the American workforce.

    Meanwhile, the Chinese are manipulating their currency to keep its value low by constantly increasing the overall supply of their currency and thereby exporting more “cheap” goods to the U.S.; even while tens of thousands of factories and millions of jobs are moving to China. Still, Obama continued to fondly mention China many times during his recent State of the Union address. China now even makes more beer than the U.S. does.

    Then there is our border with Mexico, which continues to be plagued by cartel violence, drugs, and other forms of illegal smuggling, as well as illegal immigration. The Obama administration has even diminished the authority of state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law, while at the same time abandoning the prosecution of non-criminal illegal immigrants and allowing them to remain in the United States.

    It’s easy to go on and on here about several other challenges facing our nation, and the impending difficulties, requiring our nation’s full attention, in the proverbial pursuit of a more perfect union. We should be seeking consensus on solutions, not divisions. After all, only 27% of likely U.S. voters now say the country is heading in the right direction. And only 25% of the nation’s voters “strongly approve” of the way that President Obama is performing his role as president.

    So, if you were Obama, at this point, what do you do to unite a nation? Do you take definitive, even unpopular efforts within your own political party, to address unemployment, inflation, immigration, the rising national debt, political instability in the Middle East, or the rising nuclear threat from Iraq and North Korea? Or do you choose to initiate a significantly controversial policy reversal, without much explanation at all to the nation, on an issue that tends to polarize Americans, rather than unite them?

    Obama chose the latter, in spite of the already turbulent times in which we live. What did he do? He announced that he and his attorney general have decided that the Department of Justice will stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which passed in 1996 with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress and was signed by President Clinton. So, he substituted the rule of law, with the rule of Obama.

    You heard about this right? Attorney General Holder said that the president had decided that the law, after 15 years, was not defensible. A court of law did not decide, nor Congress. Instead, Obama decided the law.

    Regardless of your political orientation regarding DOMA, the main issue here is that we are a “nation of laws”, as so famously was written by John Adams. And even though Senate records show that the Department of Justice, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, has told Congress before that it was not defending an act of Congress (13 times in the past six years), here’s the big question: What other laws will this president, or future presidents decide to declare that its administration won’t defend? After all, the president’s Article II duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” admittedly must include laws with which the president (or his political party) disagrees.

    What if the next Republican president decided that the Department of Justice would stop defending constitutional claims against Roe v. Wade? Or to invalidate Obama-care? If Obama continues to ask the Department of Justice to “stand down” in the defense of laws, passed by Congress, but with which he disagrees, it sets a dangerous precedent. In the future, winning the presidency may wield increased power in deciding what legislation to defend (and sustain), and what legislation will receive “end of life counseling” instead, thereby increasing Executive branch power at the expense of Congress’s power. Makes good sense? Well, not so much.

    John Adams’ ideal was that America was a “nation of laws, not of men.” This has been the bedrock of our nation’s longevity. But maybe Obama’s decision regarding DOMA is part of his self-described political strategy of “we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” If that is the case, unfortunately, our beloved nation has become a nation of men…not of laws.

  • Denial

    Denial

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    You heard about that didn’t you? Oprah Winfrey commented last week that the critics of the President should show “a certain level of respect” to him? After all, she said, “…everybody has a learning curve, and I feel that the reason why I was willing to step out for him was because I believed in his integrity and I believed in his heart.”

    Really? Well, her “stepping out for him” during the 2008 campaign is an understatement. In fact, The New York Times referred to Oprah’s 2008 campaign rally in Des Moines as “the largest spectacle of the campaign cycle.” In fact, she then believed in Obama’s heart so deeply that she said, “For the very first time in my life, I feel compelled to stand up and to speak out for the man who I believe has a new vision for America.” She even called him, “the one.”

    So, what’s really going on here? You see, Oprah sees how Obama’s “heart” has pushed through a $1 billion “stimulus” spending bill and yet the economy has still shed more than two million jobs since doing so. She reads that unemployment has risen to 9.8%, and that it doesn’t even include those discouraged workers who have given up looking entirely, not to mention the 60.8 million Americans still dependent on the government for their daily housing, food, and health care. She hears the reports of one million home foreclosures in just 2010, even as sales of new homes hit a 47-year low.

    She sees how Obama’s “heart” proposed a 2012 budget that reduces community development funding and home assistance programs, affecting mostly minorities, who are twice as likely to live in poverty as the rest of the population. She sees how Obama’s “heart” also now proposes almost $1 trillion in new taxes, over the course of the next 10 years, most of which are tax increases on individuals, while still adding over $26 trillion in new debt in the long run.

    Oprah watches as Obama’s “heart” bows to President Hu Jintau of China and nearly genuflects at the feet of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. She hears when his “heart” also led him to apologize for our country, to the European countries, by saying that “there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive,” despite the countless American lives sacrificed, so that others might live free, and without persecution.

    So when Oprah tells us to essentially give a break to “the one,” she may just be in denial. And she is not alone. You see, denial is a defense mechanism, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, despite the overwhelming evidence.

    From her recent comments, she is using many of the mechanisms of denial. Like so many supporters of the President, she minimizes the reality of the facts, but more importantly, she rationalizes it all away by explaining that “…everyone has a learning curve.” And because she may actually be experiencing feelings of embarrassment, remorse, and guilt from her “over-the-top” campaign endorsement, considering the direction of our country, she seems to minimize much of any responsibility simply by explaining she believed in his “heart”; everything else, she seems to say, she never bargained for.

    But perhaps more than anyone, Oprah knows that it takes more than “heart” or “wishful thinking” to be successful.

    After all, Oprah is the embodiment of the American dream, and her success is the result of hard work, dedication, and an unbridled entrepreneurial spirit to overcome whatever obstacles may lie ahead. Born to a pair of impoverished teenage parents in the South, and later raised in an inner city Milwaukee neighborhood, Oprah landed a job in radio while still in high school and began co-anchoring the local evening news at the age of 19. Later, she would be told by an assistant news director in New York City that her “hair’s too thick, nose is too wide, and chin’s too big.” Still, she went on to syndicate the Oprah Winfrey Show, the highest-rated program of its kind in history, has been ranked as the greatest black philanthropist in American history, and became the richest African American of the 20th century.

    Oprah knows that “respect” is earned and that success is more than “wishful thinking” or puling on one’s “heart” strings. She’s just in denial. And in the words of Mark Twain, “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.”

  • Investing Wisely

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Investment. Obama used this word 13 times in his State of the Union address last month, when proposing new programs in information technology, clean energy, and science research. In January 2009, in his first address to a joint session of Congress, he used the word “invest” many times also, to urge significant expansion of programs in areas like “energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy…”, he said. And he even used the word “investment” 15 times during the February 2009 signing ceremony of his nearly $1 billion stimulus package.

    Of course, the dictionary defines “investment” as, “the outlay of money usually for income or profit.” But for at least the past 20 years, “investment” is what Democrats say when they want to spend more of your money. In fact, Bill Clinton used the word nearly 24 times during his 1993 State of the Union address (coincidentally, just before the Republican Party gained a majority of seats in the House for the first time since 1954).

    So, when Obama uses the word “investment,” translate that to “government spending.” And when he says “reinvestment,” translate that to “government redistribution.” Whatever the word selection, and however polished the delivery, or clever the refrain, it remains inescapable that you simply cannot make chicken soup out of chicken poop.

    For substantially all of the “investment” our government has made, allegedly on our behalf, and with our monies, chicken poop is about all there is to show for it. For example, Congress passed a nearly $1 billion “stimulus” spending bill in February 2009 and the economy has still shed more than two million jobs since. Unemployment has risen to 9.8%, and that doesn’t even include those discouraged workers who have given up looking entirely.

    Our government has invested billions of federal dollars in education, for over 40 years, and test scores have barely budged. Taxpayer funds were invested in mortgage backed securities through Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac, resulting in the collapse of the housing market in 2006, and that “investment” has continued to pay “dividends” to the tax pay payers, in the form of one million foreclosures in just 2010, when sales of new homes hit a 47-year low.

    Now, Obama wants government to step up its subsidy “investment” of alternative energy, even though we have been doing so since the 1970s. Want to know what the return will be, on our government’s investment in a “green” economy? Call up Spain, which has greenest economy in all of Europe. They call it an “investment” there too. They also have 20% unemployment and their government’s own report found that Spain’s “green economy” program cost their country at least 2.2 jobs for every job “created” by the state. Makes no sense.

    The truth is that government “investment” is most always about expanding the size of government, and its influence, instead of the expenditure of money for income or profit. In fact, municipalities all over the U.S. are on the verge of bankruptcy. Half of the states’ pension funds are expected to run out of money by 2025.
    California’s pension shortfall, for example, is greater than the gross domestic product of Saudi Arabia, oil production and all.

    Yet these state and local governments continue to borrow money to fund their inefficient (and non-existent return on investment) operations – $2.4 trillion borrowed as of mid-2010, up 35% from five years ago.

    It is estimated that state and local government debt is nearly 10 times the national debt. Yet Obama tells our nation that prosperity can be attained by more government spending, even as the national debt grows to 70% of our gross domestic product (from 40% in 2008).

    Large, federal spending projects, such as manufacturing solar shingles and building high-speed rail lines, merely create temporary, unsustainable jobs only, because the object of such spending projects is of dubious consumer value to begin with. The private sector can create permanent jobs by allowing the market to determine the investments in new businesses and technologies.

    Government investments are not, in fact, investments. From the debt levels of our federal, state, and local governments, to rising unemployment, despite billions of dollars of stimulus, it is all incontrovertible evidence that government spending is rarely so prudent as to result in an income, or profit, of any kind. In the words of Ronald Reagan, it is as simple as recognizing, from history, that “outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.” That’s simply the truth, and for all of you unconvinced, taxing and spending liberals, the “truth” is a secure investment, with limited potential to lose “principal,” or loss of purchasing power due to inflation, and there are no surrender charges or maturity dates. Maybe that’s an “investment” this administration ought to look into.

  • Shielding From Folly

    January 26, 2011

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    As humans, we have a natural tendency to want to create order from chaos, buy perhaps sometimes, there’s no neat truth to be had. Nineteen people were shot, six of them fatally, during an open meeting U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was holding with members of her constituency in a supermarket parking lot Jan. 8 in Tucson, Ariz. The shooter was a 22-year-old student.

    In 1999, it was at Columbine High School where two senior students opened ␣re on their classmates, killing 12 students and one teacher, injuring 21 others. Then there was the killing spree at Virginia Tech in 2007 in which a student killed 32 people, making it the deadliest college shooting attack in our nation’s history. And just last September, a student fired several shots from an AK-47 assault rifle inside a library at the University of Texas and then killed himself.

    And while violence is not limited to a particular demographic and the impact of mental illness in our society must not be minimized, all of these terrible events were committed by people in their teens or early twenties whose desperation and hopelessness seemed palpable. These are folks who considered themselves victims and felt helpless and hopeless amidst a world that seems filled with setbacks, bad breaks and mean-spirited behavior from others.

    It doesn’t have to be that way, though, and that’s the message to be had here. The irony is that without those setbacks, bad breaks and mean-spirited behavior from others, it’s difficult to acquire the mature coping skills necessary to empower one’s self and be filled with hopefulness, not despair.

    Maybe there’s not a neat truth to be had here, but society seemingly has established a standard where it is more important to make children (and adults alike) feel good about themselves than to teach self-discipline, self-control, perseverance and dedication. While important, self-esteem alone does not lead to success in life.

    Instead, we seemingly encourage children to believe the accolades for those who only try should be equal to those who actually achieve.

    But that’s just not real.

    Pressure and competition cannot be wished away. And the longer that it is, the more unprepared we all are for whatever challenges that are ahead. It is often said, “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.”

    For example, without diminishing their academic accomplishment, how many valedictorians does it take to be No. 1? At Jesuit High School in New Orleans, there were 10 valedictorians recognized at graduation last year. At Avoyelles High School in Moreauville, there were four valedictorians saluted. At Stratford High School just outside of Houston, there were 30 valedictorians. In fact, the dean of admission at Harvard University recently revealed he had heard of high schools with more than 100 valedictorians. Now, many schools are abandoning the recognition of valedictorian altogether because of how it makes the other students feel.

    Many schools also won’t even post the honor roll any longer because of how it makes those students feel who do not qualify to be on the honor roll. In fact, some schools now have created the “effort honor roll.” This is the honor roll for students who want feel good about not making the honor roll. Of course, how about field day at your school? Everyone gets a ribbon, just for participating, right? And every child participating on a sports team seems to get a trophy, merely for participating. Yes, providing young children with rewards for participation is needed, but the trophies themselves should be saved for actual achievement, shouldn’t they?

    This all leads us back to the desperation and hopelessness so many seem to feel in our society. If we shield our children from competition of life, how can they possibly best learn coping skills? How can we teach the concept of improving their performance, if they are shielded from the realities of their efforts?

    There is no benefit to preparing any generation of Americans without the experience or lessons learned from competition. It does not minimize anyone’s humanity to suggest some folks work harder than others or that some are smarter than others. Some people are talented in math and sciences, while others are successfully athletic or social. We are all different with various gifts and abilities, and we have and will develop them at different paces.

    But when everyone can jointly claim first place, the honor becomes meaningless. Perhaps it is this sense of meaninglessness, that is so pervasive in our society, that helps foster the desperation and hopelessness that may sometimes lead to acts of violence or more often abandoning great dreams yet unfulfilled.

    Remember, in the words of Theodore Roosevelt, “The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena … who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”