Our President spoke today. I’ve reviewed the transcript. I count 45 lies, 7 misleading statements and 3 revelations of his hidden agenda. His speech today, as are most of his speeches, was a comprehensive attempt to mislead the American People. Here’s my take on it:

The President of the United States of America speaks: THE PRESIDENT: “Good afternoon, everybody. I just concluded a productive discussion with the leaders of both parties in Congress.” (One lie. One misleading statement)
REETZALITY: It was not a productive session. The president failed to set forth a single productive result from the meeting.
PRESIDENT: This was one of a series of regular meetings that I called for in the State of the Union because I think it’s important for us to come together and speak frankly about the challenges we face and to work through areas where we don’t agree; hopefully find some areas where we do. (Three lies)
REETZALITY: The President does not believe in coming together and he certainly doesn’t have the capability to speak frankly. If he did, he would reveal his agenda to socialize our nation and fundamentally transform us into something we are not. And Mr. President, “find some areas where we do” agree? Couldn’t you just have each side set forth their agenda and check for over-lap? Our president doesn’t believe in “reaching across the aisle” and for that I give him some credit. I wish some Republicans would act likewise like McCain, Graham, Snow, Collins and Brown. You don’t compromise on principles folks.
PRESIDENT: “Our conversation today focused on an issue that’s being discussed every day at kitchen tables across this country — and that’s how do we create jobs that people need to support their families.” (One misleading statement)

REETZALITY: Mr. President, you don’t create jobs, the private sector does. And just because you might loosen the noose strangling free enterprise doesn’t give you the right to take credit for what occurs with the limited freedom you’ve allowed. PRESIDENT: “I believe that starts with doing everything we can to support small businesses. These are the stores, the restaurants, the start-ups and other companies that create two out of every three new jobs in this country — and that grow into the big businesses that transform industries, here in America and around the world.” (One big lie)
REETZALITY: “Everything we can to support small business?” Really, you shoved your health care down our throats hurting small business. You passed financial reform, hurting small business. You are pushing cap and trade, hurting small business. You are running up debt to the extent that a drunken sailor now seems like a fiscal conservative, hurting small business. You love unions and card check, hurting small business. Thus, you are not doing “everything we can” to support small business.
PRESIDENT: But we know that many of these businesses still can’t get the loans and the capital they need to keep their doors open and hire new workers. (One misleading statement)
REETZALITY: But a lot of small businesses can get the capital, they just don’t want the risk of increased debt given the ominous uncertainty of your agenda. Also Mr. President, unlike your perception of how things work, small businesses not only require capital, they also require opportunity and incentive. The uncertain and ominous cloak of your agenda is killing opportunity and incentive.
PRESIDENT: “That’s why we’ve proposed steps to get them that help — eliminating capital gains taxes on investments, making it easier for small lenders to support small businesses, expanding successful SBA programs to help these businesses access the capital that they need.” (One misleading statement)
REETZALITY: Mr. President, American small business doesn’t want help, it wants liberty from excessive regulation, taxation, unionization, and government control. It is not so simple as just throwing money at the problem. I’ll give you a pass on this one Mr. President since you’ve yet to run a lemonade stand or make any sort of bottom line.
PRESIDENT: “This is how we create jobs — by investing in the innovators and entrepreneurs that have always driven our prosperity.” (Two misleading statements)
REETZALITY: Mr. President our prosperity is not driven by government, it is hindered by government. And for the second time, you don’t create jobs, the private sector does when it is inspired to produce. What inspires production? Profits, and your going to tax them big time. You are killing the inspiration. And do you even know any innovators and entrepreneurs? Didn’t think so, well unless count the Weather Underground and SDS folks as being entrepreneurial and innovative in their anti-Americanism.
PRESIDENT: “These are the kind of common-sense steps that folks from both parties have supported in the past — steps to cut taxes and spur private sector growth and investment. And I hope that in the coming days, we’ll once again find common ground and get this legislation passed. We shouldn’t let America’s small businesses be held hostage to partisan politics — and certainly not at this critical time.” (Three lies. One misleading statement)
REETZALITY: You just said “cut taxes” while your treasury secretary said, two days ago, that you were going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, thus raise taxes. Small business held hostage to partisan politics? Really, so if you all reach across the aisle and decide your “bi-partisan” expansion will be good for business, it will be? Keep dreaming Mr. President.
PRESIDENT: “We also talked about the need to move forward on energy reform. The Senate is now poised to act before the August recess, advancing legislation to respond to the BP oil spill and create new clean energy jobs.” (One agenda revelation)
REETZALITY: Great Mr. President. Rush through a bill that will be swarmed in earmarks and hidden agenda items before the August recess and that will help business? Wrong Mr. President.
PRESIDENT: “That legislation is an important step in the right direction. But I want to emphasize it’s only the first step. And I intend to keep pushing for broader reform, including climate legislation, because if we’ve learned anything from the tragedy in the Gulf, it’s that our current energy policy is unsustainable.” (Two lies)
REETZALITY: It is not an important step in the right direction. It is an awful step in the wrong direction. Cap and Trade, energy reform, what ever faux title you chose Mr. President, has proven every time it is implemented that it hinders free enterprise. As to learning from the Gulf Oil spill, what we have learned is that the government is incompetent in dealing with disasters, even incompetent in exploiting them for self interested nefarious political gain. Ostensibly, the government’s dealing with the Gulf Oil Spill demonstrated that the government can’t even get it right when it’s in their progressive agenda. Also, I don’t think you learned anything from the Gulf Oil Spill other than possibly refined your ability to exploit disaster in order to push your progressive agenda.
PRESIDENT: “And we can’t afford to stand by as our dependence on foreign oil deepens, as we keep on pumping out the deadly pollutants that threaten our air and our water and the lives and livelihoods of our people. And we can’t stand by as we let China race ahead to create the clean energy jobs and industries of the future. We should be developing those renewable energy sources, and creating those high-wage, high-skill jobs right here in the United States of America.” (Eleven lies)
REETZALITY: So Mr. President, then why are you proposing a moratorium on off shore drilling if you are so adverse to dependence on foreign oil? Why isn’t ANWAR opened for drilling? And Mr. President, this China Challenge, unbelievable. China is the world’s biggest polluter and they will continue to be so even when they do produce your mandated green products due to the shroud your policies have placed upon American free enterprise. What high wage, high skill jobs? Please tell me Mr. President. Just asking?
PRESIDENT: “That’s what comprehensive energy and climate reform would do. And that’s why I intend to keep pushing this issue forward.” (One global lie. One agenda revelation)
REETZALITY: No it’s not Mr. President. And let us be, to use your word, “Frank,” You have no idea or concern what comprehensive energy and climate reform would do other than this: It would further destroy American enterprise, increase government control, hurt freedom, and after that, again let’s be “Frank,” you don’t care.
PRESIDENT: “I also urged the House leaders to pass the necessary funding to support our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I know much has been written about this in recent days as a result of the substantial leak of documents from Afghanistan covering a period from 2004 to 2009.”

REETZALITY: I can only decipher your desire to continue to nation build in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan by presuming your desire to bankrupt this country in order to create more need for your progressive government trumps your aversion to waging war against Muslims.
PRESIDENT: “While I’m concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information from the battlefield that could potentially jeopardize individuals or operations, the fact is these documents don’t reveal any issues that haven’t already informed our public debate on Afghanistan; indeed, they point to the same challenges that led me to conduct an extensive review of our policy last fall.” (Two lies-he hasn’t read the leaked documents)
REETZALITY: Am I getting this right Mr. President, near 100,000 documents and it’s no big deal?
PRESIDENT: “So let me underscore what I’ve said many times: For seven years, we failed to implement a strategy adequate to the challenge in this region, the region from which the 9/11 attacks were waged and other attacks against the United States and our friends and allies have been planned.” (One lie)
REETZALITY: O.K. Finally, the Bush bashing. Actually, we did get rid of the Taliban for a while, but we didn’t kill enough of them. And Mr. President, your rules of engagement are going to get more Americans killed. And what is your strategy? Counter-insurgency? Oh, I’m sure that’s going to work with a bunch of goat shepherds who grow a ton of opium on the side? Co-exist right? Another question, how do we have a viable strategy when you won’t even properly identify the enemy? You know, forgive me for saying such a reprehensible term, “radical Islamists.
PRESIDENT: “That’s why we’ve substantially increased our commitment there, insisted upon greater accountability from our partners in Afghanistan and Pakistan, developed a new strategy that can work, and put in place a team, including one of our finest generals, to execute that plan. Now we have to see that strategy through.” (Three lies)
REETZALITY: A couple of things here. You haven’t substantially increased our commitment, you actually low balled the request for troops. Last month 56 Americans were killed in Afghanistan. I hope you don’t consider that working. And again, some more “frank” speak, you don’t know if it will work.

PRESIDENT: “And as I told the leaders, I hope the House will act today to join the Senate, which voted unanimously in favor of this funding, to ensure that our troops have the resources they need and that we’re able to do what’s necessary for our national security.” (One lie)

REETZALITY: Her Mr. President, speaking of national security, how about closing the borders? Sorry, I thought you mentioned National Security.
PRESIDENT: “Finally, during our meeting today, I urged Senator McConnell and others in the Senate to work with us to fill the vacancies that continue to plague our judiciary. Right now, we’ve got nominees who’ve been waiting up to eight months to be confirmed as judges. Most of these folks were voted out of committee unanimously, or nearly unanimously, by both Democrats and Republicans. Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that they were qualified to serve. Nevertheless, some in the minority have used parliamentary procedures time and again to deny them a vote in the full Senate.” (One agenda revelation-install judges who are not deferential to the constitution)
REETZALITY: Mr. President, why don’t you try appointing folks who actually like and respect our constitution? I suspect this might be the hold up that is irritating you.
PRESIDENT: “If we want our judicial system to work — if we want to deliver justice in our courts — then we need judges on our benches. And I hope that in the coming months, we’ll be able to work together to ensure a timelier process in the Senate.” (One lie)
REETZALITY: Again Mr. President, appoint folks who adhere to constitutional principles and your problems will be solved.
PRESIDENT: “Now, we don’t have many days left before Congress is out for the year. And everyone understands that we’re less than 100 days from an election. It’s during this time that the noise and the chatter about who’s up in the polls and which party is ahead threatens to drown out just about everything else. But the folks we serve — who sent us here to serve, they sent us here for a reason. They sent us here to listen to their voices. They sent us here to represent their interests — not our own. They sent us here to lead. And I hope that in the coming months, we’ll do everything in our power to live up to that responsibility. Thanks very much. (Eight lies when he claims to want to live up to the responsibility)
REETZALITY: A great finale Mr. President. First, the noise and the chatter you are hearing is contempt for your policies. Secondly, You don’t listen to folks’ voices unless they agree with your radical agenda. Did you know Mr. President that the majority of Americans were against your health care bill, your financial reform, cap and trade, and your law suit against Arizona? Sure you do, but it doesn’t stop you from pushing your progressive agenda.
So folks, that’s my take on today’s propaganda from the Commander of Propoganda and that’s my Reetzality (2nd) for the day.
Thanks for the read.

Brett Reetz

Is there anything our President likes about America other than leisurely destroying it? I’m searching for an answer, trying to find something that our President not only says he likes, but something he acts like he likes. Let’s run a list. Here goes.

Free Enterprise: No way does our President likes free enterprise. He says he does but his actions betray his words. He bailed out the banks, the auto industry, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He wants hyper control over our financial system. He is drooling over the possibility of shutting down the oil industry. He is in favor of the redistribution of wealth. He actually believes the Constitution is flawed because it does not address “redistributive justice,” his words. He is in favor of Cap and Trade which will be a monumental shroud on free enterprise, and freedom itself in that Cap and Trades’ tendrils will reach right down to a persons domicile. Nope, our President is not an advocate of free enterprise.

Border Control and Security: Our President does not want our borders controlled. He says he does but refuses to act until we get “comprehensive” immigration policy. Unfortunately, “comprehensive,” to him, means amnesty for thirteen million illegal aliens and probably a lot more. He still hasn’t made good on his promise to Arizona to send 1200 National Guardsmen to the border, actually breaking his promise of doing so within two weeks after the meeting with the Arizona Governor. Let’s face it folks, our President does not even view the very land we occupy as worthy of protection. As to National Security, he nixed the missile defense system in Eastern Europe. He has done nothing to keep Iran non-nuclear. He’s cutting defense spending. He wants to treat foreign terrorists as common criminals, trying them in criminal courts rather than military tribunals. He won’t even use the phrase “Islamic Extremist.” You know those guys who are willing to die to destroy us.

Self Reliance: Our President does not respect self-reliance. Redistributive Justice does not co-exist with self-reliance. His health care bill does not co-exist with self-reliance. He believes it is the government’s job and duty to provide and not the individual’s responsibility. He believes it’s government’s fault if you don’t own a house, have a job, have health care, can’t afford education, don’t have insurance, not the individual’s fault.

American Exceptionalism: Our President does not believe we are exceptional. Actually, we’re just human, but we’ve been blessed with a nation that was founded on freedom and liberty which allowed us to actualize and be exceptional. But does our President praise this truth? No. He apologizes to the world for our behavior. He ignores our principles and wants us to be more like other nations, that Mr. President, in case you haven’t watched the news of late, are failing. He does not like the idea of a nation with our principles dominating the world, or even leading it for that matter. And that says a lot about the man because if you don’t like us leading with our principles, then you don’t understand the magnificence of our principles.

Environment: The Gulf Oil Spill reveals that our President doesn’t care too much about the environment. He views the Gulf Oil Spill as an opportunity to impose his priorities of more regulation, less freedom (pass Cap and Trade) and less free enterprise rather than a dire call to action to save the environment. He views the Gulf Oil Spill as a “fat pitch” to further attack free enterprise, all the while, actually thwarting the efforts to thwart the environmental impact of the spill. He took two weeks to respond to Louisiana’s request to build barrier islands. He turned down offers of help to deal with the oil spill from thirteen nations. Under his rule, the coast guard moth balled skimmers in order to make sure they met government regulations, further delaying remedial measures to save the environment. His only non-urban activity is golf and that’s not saying much. Cap and Trade won’t fix the environment. China and India aren’t signing on and even if they did, Cap and Trade only imposes more government. Scientifically, there is no evidence that it will do anything for the environment.

State’s Rights: He is suing Arizona for exercising their state’s rights. He does not like State’s rights, the very right that is set forth to create a sort of governmental competition. The very right that allows state’s to innovate in their policies in an attempt to improve life. He doesn’t agree with a state’s right to ban abortion.

Free Speech: He doesn’t like it. He attacks free expression regularly, even going so far as to say that free expression gets in the way of progress. He appointed Justice Kagen who is no fan of the First Amendment, who believes that there should be a redistribution of free expression which means government control. He is in favor of the Fairness Doctrine which in classic Ayn Randian style, has nothing to do with fairness but rather equality of points of view which means, government control of speech. He is in favor of net neutrality, meaning more government control, less free speech.

The Right to Bear Arms: He does not believe in the Second Amendment. His votes in the Illinois Legislature prove this.

What’s left? Does it even matter? By having contempt for the principles stated above, does one even need to go further? It’s akin to saying, “I like Nuclear Reactors, I’m just not fond of the nuclear reaction that goes on inside.” You cannot love America and what it stands for if you don’t stand for the American Principles. And our President does not stand for the American Principles. It’s as plain as day. He says it. He acts upon his words. He has contempt for those who disagree. We have enough information to finalize the diagnosis.

Folks, his rhetoric sounded good during the campaign. But now, at this critical time, it is imperative to realize and act upon the truth that it was just rhetoric, nothing more. He doesn’t like our country and if you don’t join him in his effort to destroy that which made us great, he doesn’t like you. And folks, here’s the kicker: He not only doesn’t like America, what he really doesn’t like is our freedom to save it. Freedom is his nemesis. Freedom is the stalking horse that threatens his skewed un-American vision. Freedom is what he really despises.

On a psychological note, a note based upon my observations and education, if a child is raised by an abusive parent, it is likely that the child will be grow up to be an abusive parent as well. This is particularly true with sexual abuse. It is called the Cycle of Sexual Abuse. Here’s the reach. Our President views his history, whether it is the cultural African American history or his history personally, as abusive and unfair. Is there a possibility that he is metaphorically the abused child playing his role in the cycle of abuse? To him, America wasn’t that good to him. (Rather amazing, he became President) He had a broken home. He was raised by a cacophony of anti-American mentors. He was bounced around from place to place, home to home. And now he’s an adult, repeating the anti-American mantra through his words, but more so through his actions. Is this the case? It sure seems like it, but I’m just asking.

So, going back to the premise of this piece, what is it that our President likes about this country? I come up with not a single fundamental American thing. I am not saying that he isn’t enjoying the fruits of our Nation’s labor. He is, but the fruits, the opulence he enjoys is not an American Principle. All dictators live opulent lives by the way. Opulence has nothing to do with American Principles. Opulence is a by-product but not a fundamental of Americanism. So please don’t argue that he loves America because he appreciates the opulence it has bestowed upon him. To love America is to love its principles. And he does not. And that is the dire dilemma that faces us today.

That’s my Reetzality for the Day.

Thanks for the read.

Brett Reetz

I’m no genius, but President Obama’s speech was shallow rhetoric, self aggrandizing bunk, and replete with the indicia of an incapable leader. It came across as a joke, but under the circumstances, it’s not funny. Let’s go through the rhetoric and analyze. Don’t get depressed. The first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem. We have a problem, it’s Obama. He’s helping us admit it. Here’s my analysis:

First comment of concern by our President and analysis:

Obama: “That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge – a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy.”

Reetzality: No you did not assemble a team just after the rig sank. And I don’t care about Nobel prizes. I care about results. After all, our President got one of those Nobel Prizes.

Second comment of concern by our Presidetn and analysis:

Obama: “First, the cleanup. From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation’s history – an effort led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has almost forty years of experience responding to disasters.”

Reetzality: Thad Allen was appointed on May 1, 2010, ten days after the oil spill. Today he stated that he reports to the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, not to the president. The federal government has not been in charge of the largest environmental clean up since the very beginning, in fact, it is possible they are not in charge of it now.

Obama: “Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party.”

Reetzality: Tomorrow? Eight weeks later he’s meeting with the chairman of BP? This is being Johnny on the spot to fix the problem? Not in my book. And where is authority to order a corporation to “set aside” funds? What about due process? What about liability? I know, it looks and most likely is BP’s fault, but we don’t know for sure yet. To announce that he’s ordering them to “set aside” without stating the mechanism which is going to do this reveals his ignorance of the constitution or his reliance on his perceived stupidity of Americans. But he gets right past those tedious constitutional issues and goes right into management, an independent third party, of the fund that we, nor he, has any clue how he’s going to order to be set aside.

Obama: “The oil spill represents just the latest blow to a place that has already suffered multiple economic disasters and decades of environmental degradation that has led to disappearing wetlands and habitats. And the region still hasn’t recovered from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.”

Reetzality: There’s the blame Bush game. There’s the, “The Gulf is trashed but it’s not my fault entirely. Bush has to take some blame because he screwed up Katrina and Rita.”

Obama: “Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety, and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue.”

Reetzality: Why six months? Why not a decade? Why not two months? Creates difficulty? Six months was an arbitrary time limit plucked out of the air. It has no basis in any analysis as to how long it would actually take. If you were in a meeting and somebody said, “six months,” you’d ask, “why six months? What’s your basis for needing six months?” For God’s sake, he’s the federal government, does it really take six months to “know the facts?” Maybe it does for the federal government. Me personally, I’d get you the facts in a week for a million dollars with a $200,000.00 operating budget, and I’m nothing special. I do agree that the loss of a job is a difficulty, maybe even a financial crisis for a family person supporting his or her family.

Obama: “. . . the Minerals Management Service. Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility – a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors, and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations.”

Reetzality: “Over the last decade . . . “ More of the blame game. As to industry insiders, our man, President Obama hired Elizabeth Birnbaum who formerly worked for BP. She resigned, effective May 31st, 2010. Yes, maybe insiders were put in charge, but our President hired the insiders.

Obama: “After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean – because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.”

Reetzality: That’s not true. Regardless of the percentages, we have oil. How about drilling in ANWAR where we would have plugged the hole already. How about the East and West coast? How about the Dakotas? We’re running out of places to drill because the government is preventing us from drilling.

Obama: “Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America.”

Reetzality: You’ve got to be kidding. Our President has just called us, implicit in the above comment, retarded. Does anybody recall the air pollution concerns of the last Olympics? Does anybody, I mean anybody, believe that China, China for Heaven’s sake, is going green? They’re not. Shame on you Mr. President.

Obama: “This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels will take some time, but over the last year and a half, we have already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that will someday lead to entire new industries.”

Reetzality: This is classic liberal argument number one! Change the subject. The issue is the oil spill and plugging the hole and what does our President do? He changes the subject and speaks of Green. Not now Mr. President, you have a leak to plug. Go Green in your nearing retirement. See Al Gore.

Obama: “When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill – a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.”

Reetzality: What are those “principles that would move our country towards energy independence?” This is classic, “let no crisis go to waste” speak. Bad President, bad.

Obama: “The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet. You see, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon.”

Reetzality: First, the challenge is too big for you Mr. President. After all, how did you fare in that lemonade stand? Oops, you never ran a lemonade stand, or anything bigger. And the nerve of you to invoke World War II and the man on the moon. Those were real American challenges and if the truth be told, which I always do, (I’m not smart enough to lie) your rhetoric tonight would have us speaking German or, in the case of a man on the moon, have us still attempting. To the extent you are correct in your reaching analogy, you don’t have the hutzpah to be the guy in charge.

O.K. Now for the Reetzality recap. The president has lied about his efforts, his priority, and his diligence in dealing with the Gulf Oil spill. He has used the Gulf Oil Spill to leverage his bigger agenda, government growth and control. He is not equipped to deal with this crisis. He has absolutely no experience or history that would avail him of the ammunition to deal with this problem. He is flailing. Certainly, his words sound good but the merits of them, the meaning of his words, are troubling for their vacancy of significance. Even more problematic, he has yet to formulate a plan. He has delivered nothing more than shallow rhetoric that works just fine in the south side of Chicago and evidently in a presidential campaign, but when push comes to shove, doesn’t plug the hole.

Folks, I do not fault our President for who he is. He is a product of an enabled rearing where he was indulged. He was indulged as a youth. He was indulged with his admittance into the Universities he attended. He was indulged with his position as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He was indulged with his state legislative seat. He was indulged with his senate position. He was ultimately indulged with the Presidency. We, as a people, indulged him. We were serenaded by the tempo of his words and now he is President, with no experience in dealing with crisis, accountability or consequence, and our Gulf Coast is suffering as we will all suffer.

This is the revelation. This is the time, the moment, when our leader has revealed himself as a non-leader. This is the moment when the truth is revealed that our President is nothing more than a simple tele-prompter reader with no ability to deal with crisis. This is the time when we realize that our President is incapable, lacking the most important quality we need in a President, the ability to problem solve. He is vacant of the skills and strengths are country needs and demands.

And that’s my Reetzality for the Day.

Thanks for the read.

Brett Reetz

Now this is what I’ve been trying to say! Dorothy Rabinowitz, writing for the Wall Street Journal writes a fantastic piece. Read on with an open mind.

THE ALIEN IN THE WHITEHOUSE

The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president’s earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.

There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama’s pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans’ leader, a man of them, for them, the nation’s voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn’t lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.

Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.

A great part of America now understands that this president’s sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.

One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.

Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president’s appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.

Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America’s attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.

Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan’s murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of “Allahu Akbar!”), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. “People have different reasons” he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn’t want “to say anything negative about any religion.”

And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama’s chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: “Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear.”

He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan’s pronouncements in that speech: That “violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces.”

Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: “Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square.” Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.

Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal “man-caused disasters” among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration.

It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.

It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama’s moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.

It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.

So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.

It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.

They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America’s moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.

The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

That’s my Reetzality for they day! Thanks for the read and thank you Ms. Rabinowitz.

Brett Reetz

Of late, as the primary election season gets under way and America’s anger at Washington and government continues to manifest itself into positive change, (See Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, polls, Spector, Lincoln, Obey, etc.) President Obama is again attacking Republicans in a feeble attempt to lend support to this threatened minions. President Obama is attacking Republicans for not cooperating with his agenda in the midst of one of America’s greatest crisis when “they caused it.” His words. Wow! Is he really saying this? Yes he is. Almost unbelievable. Here’s why:

The crisis he is referring to is a financial crisis with tendrils reaching into home ownership, employment, every aspect of the economy and most importantly, the survival of America. Obama says Republican’s caused it, not democrats, and not Washington. Republicans “caused it” according to Obama. He’s lying or he is ignorant, pick. Yes, George Bush spent way too much money and George Bush, while aware the dire financial woes on the horizon with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, did not succeed in fixing the problem. George Bush has some culpability. But was he alone? Absolutely not. Barney Frank and democrats defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their insane endorsement of even more insane lending practices. Democrats went right along with Bush’s spending spree. It is not a Republican or Democratic problem, it is a problem with Washington. Apparently America understands this and Obama does not.

How can I say that Obama doesn’t understand this? Easy. Obama is Bush on Steroids. He is doing everything he and democrats criticized Bush for doing. Spending, he makes Bush look like a cheap pauper. Government control, invasion into our lives, the destruction of liberty, think Patriot Act which was condemned by democrats, Obama has pounded on the accelerator when it comes to growth of government and the attack on liberty.

Obama is spending our nation into Bankruptcy. Earlier this week, the Bank of England Governor, Mervyn King, irked US authorities by pointing out that even the world’s economic superpower has a major fiscal problem – “Even the United States, the world’s largest economy, has a very large fiscal deficit” were his words.

Obama has taken away our freedom to control our own health care while, and this is quite consistent with his un-American view, making us responsible for other’s health care.

War? He’s in the thick with little beyond rhetoric and his campaign promises to indicate he has an exit strategy.

He wants to monitor the internet. He is in favor of the fairness doctrine although he is pursing his free speech control administratively rather than legislatively, he still does not like free speech. He recently said that too much information and argument injures the “emancipation” and democracy. I still don’t know what “emancipation” information and argument are injuring.

He is pushing cap and trade under a different name, fleeing terms like carbon tax, regressive tax, global warming, even cap and trade. He is honing in on calling his agenda the American Energy Act.

Immigration? A closed for the season sign is apparently hanging in the office of the folks in the Administration that should be dealing with the immigration problem.

See my point? Obama is pointing fingers at the Republicans for a problem, a crisis, that is absolutely not owned exclusively by Republicans. And let’s talk about pointing fingers. Last week Obama pointed fingers at the Oil industry. Why? Amazingly, to accuse them of pointing fingers; rather gutsy for the greatest finger pointer in history to attack an entire industry for doing just that, pointing fingers. It is especially amazing when according to the Associated Press, the Obama Administration failed miserably in their inspection of the oil rig that exploded. What is that old trite saying? When you point your finger at me, there are three fingers pointing back at you? Perfectly appropros.

Obama’s latest attempt to point fingers is reveals further (not that we need any more revelation of the real Obama) the utter immaturity and incompetence of our President. Mr. President you don’t lead by blaming, you lead by being responsible. Responsibility is the foundation of leadership and you are not being responsible. Our President continues to further reveal an arrogant and ignorant condescension for the intelligence and mental proficiency of America. America sees and knows what Obama refuses to acknowledge, admit and accept any blame. America sees through Obama too. Thank God and I am being literal here.

The Crisis we are in is a Washington crisis now being lead in the most faulty direction by Obama. It is not any past politician’s problem, maybe fault, but not problem. It is Obama’s problem and he is failing to do a damn thing about it other than point fingers and accelerate the very behavior that got us into this mess. He is a governmentaholic and his solution, more government. And that is what is perpetuating the crisis, nothing else. So keep pointing your finger Mr. President, it doesn’t work for any positive purpose other than this: It further reveals your un-American fundamental beliefs, immature character, lack of principle, political agenda, and most horrifyingly, your contempt for the country that we love and cherish. Not that we need it Mr. President, but thanks for the reminder.

That’s my Reetzality for the Day.

Thanks for the Read.

Brett Reetz

It is past time to aggressively confront those who support Obama and his minions, which include unions, special interests, communists, socialists, Maoists, unrepentant terrorists, career politicians, and other un-Godly sorts. Obama is spending our children and our children’s children into the grave and its not only a vile economic policy, it’s down right evil. This past week the administration vicariously through others sent the message out; the current economic policy of government is unsustainable. Taxes will need to be increased immensely or by 2020 (the year varies according to which economist is speaking) 100% of federal revenue will be used to pay the interest on our national debt. What level of “immense” are we talking about? Eighty to ninety percent income tax brackets will be required to have money to turn the lights on at the Federal level alone, that immense. Not withstanding the truth that nobody will be willing to work under the albatross of a tax rate anywhere near these rates. Not withstanding the truth that Obama-Washington spending will destroy America as we know and love it. The truth is that it is more than that. It is child abuse at the most sophisticated level. Don’t believe me? Give me a chance. I’m going to tell you about India and then ask a few questions; on to India and then on to us.

India has many crises affecting it at this time. Among them is the important and sad issue of child labor. There are approximately 60 to 115 million child laborers in India (Human Rights Watch, 1996). Most child laborers work in the agriculture field but most organizations for human rights focus on the bonded laborers in the cities. Bonded child labor “refers to the phenomenon of children working in conditions of servitude in order to pay off a debt” (Human Rights Watch, 1996). In bonded child labor a creditor loans the parents a small amount of money in exchange for their child’s labor. The labor is extremely cheap and the children work until the loan can be paid off in one lump sum. This almost never happens because the interest rates are greater than the wages of the child. Their children after inheriting their parents’ debts are forced into a life of poverty, which creates an almost never-ending cycle.

That’s India, on to us. Obama and Washington are spending trillions of dollar on entitlements, ear marks, special interests, government expansion, etc., all things that have relatively present tense benefits to the adults of today that get benefited. But there not paying for much of it at all. Instead they’re borrowing the money, running up massive amounts of debt, and deferring the responsibility to future generations to pay for benefits received now by the present generation.

What’s the difference between the Obama-Washington policy and the atrocious evil reality of debt inheritance in India? In India there is a middle man between the parent who incurs the debt and the company that benefits from the child labor. The middle man is private in India. In the United States there is a middle man named “government” which, through employers working as their collection agency, will take the workers’ productivity. That’s not much of a difference. Both situations impose a massive evil burden on future generations.

What’s the difference between the cost of the child labor in India and the cost of labor in the United States that will be enslaved in the future to pay off the debt we are now incurring and requiring future generations to pay? Not much. The tax rates will be so high that the net, the actual cost of the labor, the actual amount of productivity the labor gets to keep, will be small. Let’s face it folks, the bottom line is what you take home. I would take no pleasure claiming a million dollar a year salary encumbered by a ninety five percent tax rate.

In India the system forces the children into a life of poverty which creates a never ending cycle. Is that not what is happening in America now? Is our country not being lead down a path to poverty? Of course it is. How do I know? History for one. Countries that have long term policies of exploding their debt get impoverished, every time. Countries that become socialistic get impoverished. Every time. Countries that encourage dependency and reliance upon government impoverished, every time. Another reason, Economics 101. A third reason, mathematics.

Come on folks! Would you run up massive debt within your family, waste the debt revenue on spurious purchases, and then look your kids in the eye and say, “there you go kids. Now pay for it. And this too Kids; if you don’t pay the debt I incurred, I might throw you in jail for not paying it.” This is precisely what we as a nation, lead by the socialist Obama, is doing. Still don’t believe my analogy. Try evading taxes and see where that gets you. See my point. (I’m not even touching on the seizure of our childrens’ liberty, opportunity and hope for a better future.)

The evil practice of debt inheritance India is the same evil practice that Obama and his minions (Republicans too) are practicing right here in America. The only difference is that the evil we are fighting here is more clever and sophisticated than the evil in India. In America, evil has camouflaged itself in rhetoric, faux good will, deception and strategic bribery. Our evil is worse than India’s.

That’s my Reetzality for the Day.

Thanks for the read, and special thanks to the Doctor who suggested this topic last night by announcing upon the birth of my new son, Ralph Hatcher McConkey Reetz, “Congratulations, you’re one hundred and seventy five thousand dollars in debt.” Thank you Doctor B.

Brett Reetz

Note: I know, I know, it is child labor in India. We don’t have child labor, we have age requirements. Sorry folks. The age thing doesn’t make that much of a difference to me. We are just delaying the debt repayment process until a child reaches sixteen. Or is it twenty six since a child can now, under Obama-care, stay on their parents insurance until they’re twenty six? Did Obama just raise the definition of a child to twenty-six? Could the bad parent I described above get off the hook by saying, “Lad, you’ve got to pay all my debt for all my spurious spending but no problem, I’ve fixed it so you don’t have to start doing it until you’re sixteen.” I don’t think this gets the scoundrel off the hook. But that’s just me being me.

WHO ARE THE REAL MEN, LIBERALS OR CONSERVATIVES?

Foremost, I am not a chauvinist. I do not see much difference in male and female abilities other than physical ability and even when considering physical abilities, there are thousands of women who ski better than me, can kill me in tennis, swimming, certainly karate, running, ice skating, surfing, the list is endless. So when I use the term “men” I am not being “politically correct” because I find political correctness oft times to be offensive and dishonest. If a person is short, they are short. If discussing height and you use another term, i.e. “stature challenged,” aren’t you really skirting the truth? Sure you are. But, if I was to be politically correct, I would have written the title this way: WHO ARE THE REAL PEOPLE, LIBERALS OR CONSERVATIVES? Let’s check it out.

Before we do, let us hit Webster’s for a definition of “real.” Here it is: “True, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent.” Let’s go the whole nine yards. The definition of “merely” is “being nothing more nor better than what is specified.” The definition of “ostensible” is “outwardly appearing as such.” The definition of “nominal” is “being such in name only.” The definition of “apparent” is “readily seen; open to view.” Houston, we have a measuring stick. Let’s take a look at the basic tenants inherent in the beliefs of Liberals and Conservatives. Here they are:

CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

LIBERALS – believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people’s problems.

Let’s break it down:

Personal Responsibility: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.

Limited Government: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.

Free Markets: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.

Individual liberty: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, Sometimes.

Traditional American Values: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.

Strong National Defense: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.

Government to Provide Freedom: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.

Individual Solve Their Problems: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.

Government is The Solution: Conservatives, No. Liberals, Yes.

Government Solves Social Ills: Conservatives, No. Liberals, Yes.

Government Protects Civil Liberties: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, Depends.

Government Protects Human Rights: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, Depends.

Government Guarantees No-one in Need: Conservatives, No. Liberals, Yes.

Believes People Are Basically Good: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, Questionable.

Now, back to the analysis. Who is the real man? Who is “true, not merely ostensible, nominal or transparent?”

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Liberals don’t regardless of what they say. They are constantly not holding persons responsible for their status, whether it is financial, health care, housing, eating, education, drug addiction, and on and on and on. So, the liberals are not being real, no matter what they say.

Conservatives believe in limited government. Liberals don’t. Yet, liberals endlessly talk about cutting deficits, ending waste and increasing efficiency. If you don’t believe me, Google a few of the speeches in support of health care. Yet, their programs do not cut the deficits, do not end waste and are inefficient. Again, the liberal is not being real.

Conservatives believe in free markets. Liberals don’t, again, regardless of what they say. Obama has said he believes in the free market while he, at the same time, has an endless love affair with unions, regulation and government control. Not to real Mr. President.

Conservatives believe in individual liberty. Liberals only do so if the individual liberty is exercised consistent with the liberal philosophy. Want an example. How about two. We’ve just lost our individual liberty to “not” buy health insurance or buy health insurance of our choice. Number two. The current administration is desirous of implementation of the Fairness Doctrine which will limit the individual freedom to speak by taxing the popular view to subsidize the liberal view. Here’s a third example of the non-belief of individual freedom; card check. The liberals want the secret ballots in union votes to no longer be secret. Yet, they profess that they are huge supporters of individual freedom. They are not being real. In fact, as a collateral point, liberals will scream individual freedom when it comes to an abortion or when it comes to pooping on an American Flag. I guess they’re for specified individual liberty as long as they are the ones specifying.

Conservatives believe in traditional American Values. Liberals don’t. Just check out same sex marriages, diversity, and our President fawning over never ending anti-American cultures. Yet, and again, liberals say they are all in favor of traditional American values. This is not true, and therefore not real.

Conservatives believe in a strong national defense. Liberals don’t. Yet, liberals claim to have national security in their hearts. They don’t. They favor appeasement, see Iran, Russia, Venezuela. They cut military spending. They attack the military with words and budgets. Once again, they are not being real.

Conservatives believe it is the government’s role to provide freedom. Liberals don’t. What is the best way to take away freedom, well next best to imprisonment? Taxation. And liberals love taxation. Taxation literally enslaves a portion of an individual’s productivity. Freedom to a liberal is to classify a person by race, creed, color, sexual orientation, or age, and then to take away freedom in the free market, i.e. affirmative action and quotas. They also take away the freedom to fail, freedom to compete, freedom to make a student loans, freedom to profit, see Obama on the insurance industry, etc. Not a very real endorsement of freedom.

Conservatives believe that an individual is best suited to solve his or her problems. Liberals think the government is while at the same time arguing that they have nothing against the individual. Get real Liberals. Your endless mantra is that government is the solution notwithstanding the fact, yes the fact, government has a monopoly on failure. Our federal government is breaking the world record every day on being “up-side down” on it’s debt to equity ration. Liberals are not in the universe of reality on this one.

Conservatives believe that the Government is not the solution. Liberals do. See above paragraph. No reality here with the liberals.

Conservatives do not believe that government solves social ills. Sure, conservatives believe in civil rights, like don’t discriminate based upon race, creed, religion, or color, But liberals, those naïve folks, think government does solve social ills. Have they checked out the condition of the under-class since Johnson’s Great Society went into play. Have they looked at drop out rates, out of wedlock birth rates, crime statistics? I’ll give them a pass and determine they haven’t because Government doesn’t solve social ills, it creates them. Is there anything real about liberals?

Conservatives do believe that government should protect our civil liberties. Liberals say the same thing, but then expand the definition of a civil liberty to include the mandate that a private employer must hire a transvestite dressed in drag so as not to violate the transvestite’s civil liberties. Liberals also use “civil liberties” to support religious segregation, i.e. no manger at the town hall at Christmas. So, in effect, liberals use the guise of civil liberties to accomplish the limitation of civil liberties. Not real at all.

Conservatives believe government should protect human rights. Of course they do. However, once again the liberals have used the “expanded definition tactic” to define such things as free health care as a human right. It’s not. It’s not in the constitution. Even more ironic, hypocritical if you will, is that within the Liberal agenda to take care of the human right to free health care, are massive seizures of a person’s right to choose his or her own health care. Go ahead, attack me on this one lefties, but bring some ammunition with you, for example a day of reading the Obama-care bill. Liberals are not really for human rights. How could they be with their endless embracing of regimes and cultures that absolutely violate the very basics of our culture. Last time I checked, we don’t stone rape victims. Is it a human right not to be stoned to death after you are raped? (See fundamental Muslim culture, Saudi Arabia) By the looks of the Presidential’ genuflecting of late, apparently it is not. And hey Mr. President, how are you handling Darfur? You know that Genocide in the Sudan. See? No reality in the liberal human rights agenda.

Conservatives believe that we the people, through private, and public charity should take care of the truly needy. The liberals, once again, use the “expand the definition tactic” to take care of millions of folks who aren’t truly needy. On the top side, there are the banks, GM, Chrysler, the Unions. On the bottom side, there are the disgustingly large number of folks who get subsidized for housing, food, medical, etc. that simply don’t apply themselves to personal problem solving. They are perfectly healthy individuals who would find a way without the government if they had to do so. But why worry when you got your rich Uncle Sam? I’ll tell you why, Uncle Sam is broke folks. The party is over, at least it is soon to be. So they say they want to take care of the needy, but then they use government to addict folks, to make them needy, folks who aren’t. So they aren’t being real.

Conservatives believe most people are basically good. Liberals say they do, they say, “look, I care about the down-trodden, you know those folks that we’ve addicted to welfare and subsidies. These are good people. You conservatives shun the poor. They vote for me because I give them money. Wait, I wasn’t supposed to say that last part.” The reality is that I don’t think liberals think most people are good people if the definition of a “good person” includes a person who is personally responsible. Can we truly say this, “Yeah, Joe’s a good guy, on welfare, hasn’t worked in three years, spends his money on booze and cigarette’s, can’t even keep a roof over his three kids and the three baby’s mama’s heads without government assistance, but still, he’s a good guy?” Not if we’re being real. Liberals do though, because they’re not real. Conservatives do not think old Joe is a good guy. We think he’s a capable guy though. Liberal analysis, by design, doesn’t even get close to the issue of capability or culpability, they’d lose the vote.

Well, there’s the analysis folks. Now here will be the response. It will be the “two wrongs make a right” response. What did Bush do about Darfur. Bush passed Tarp. What about corporate welfare? Let me stop you right there. This is about conservative versus liberal philosophies, not politics, not Republican versus Democrat. The Republican Party reeks of liberalism. It’s what destroyed it. So don’t go there, because I’ll agree with you.

So who’s the real man, the liberal or the conservative? Who is “True, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent?” Sorry folks, it’s the conservative. My analysis accurately demonstrates that liberals are merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent. Thus, they are not real. The conservative believes in the right things, the things that actually work. Liberals don’t, unless their agenda is to addict the nation’s citizens to government and to insure that, as the nation cascades downward into the abyss, their chosen people are on top of the ever depreciating pile of ruination. If that’s the liberals’ agenda, then my hat is off to them. They are doing a great job. Just think, in a couple of generations we could conceivably have a president bowing to the president of Zimbabwe.

That’s my Reetzality for the Day.

Thanks for the read.

Brett Reetz

Note: In a future posting I am going to consider why it is that folks become liberal. I haven’t figured it out yet, certainly not to enhance their masculinity, to be a real man. Uh oh, there goes my political incorrectness again.

Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. For example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyber attack. White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike. Great, so we only go nuclear when the President determines the strike is devastating.

In the fall of 2009, Obama abandoned plans for basing elements of the U.S. missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Some argue it was an act of appeasement directed at Russia. It is certainly a strategic victory for the Kremlin. It represents an abandonment of two of America’s closest allies in Central and Eastern Europe, and now America’s allies now have cause to question the integrity and credibility of American promises. It will also leave the U.S. and Europe more vulnerable to the threat of ballistic missile attack. The Third Site installations proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic – Ground-Based Mid-course Defense interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic – were cost-effective, proven technologies which offered protection from long range missile attack to both Europe and the United States. The alternative deployments which President Obama said he would pursue will not satisfy those criteria. Washington secured no great concession from Russia. Further, Russia is still uncooperative in addressing the, then growing, now near present, Iranian nuclear threat. At present Europe has no capacity to defend itself against long-range missile attack while America only has limited defenses against such an attack. This undermines the concept of indivisible transatlantic security and enervates NATO’s Article V security guarantees.

Mr. Obama’s budget has overall defense spending falling sharply starting in future years — to $614 billion in 2011, and staying more or less flat for a half decade. American defense needs are, if anything, even more daunting today. Given challenges in the Mideast and new dangers from Iran, an erratic Russia, a rising China, and potential threats in outer space and cyberspace, the U.S. should be in the midst of a concerted military modernization. Mr. Obama’s budget isn’t adequate to meet those challenges.

So, our military pre-eminence is on the intentional wane, thanks to Obama. We are backing down. Well now, that sounds like a component of surrender. It doesn’t stop there.

There was the European Diplomatic tour of 2009. President Barack Obama, on his European diplomatic tour, aggressively apologized for the last few years of American foreign policy – a direct repudiation of the historic role of American primacy in world affairs. In less than 100 days, he apologized on three continents for what he views as the sins of America and his predecessors. He said, “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.” Concession, that sure sounds like a surrender.

Then there was Haiti. France’s tricolor, Britain’s Union Jack and even Croatia’s coat of arms were lifted above those nation’s installations in Haiti. But in the United States camp, whose contributions dwarfed the rest of the world’s, no flag was allowed to fly because Obama forbade it. Lowering one’s flag is the historic sign of surrender. Go figure.

We must acknowledge the bow to the Saudi King, the personal exchange between Hugo Chavez and Obama, the disrespect shown to Israel’s (an ally) Benjamin Netanyahu when he recently visited the white house without photographers, entering through the back door. Writing in the Israeli Maariv, columnist Ben Caspit said “there was no humiliation exercise the Americans did not try on Mr Netanyahu. Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea.” Deference to the enemy, contempt to the ally, very surrender sounding.

Then there is the distancing of Obama from our fundamental Judaeo-Christian Principles. He said, “we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation . . .” He also said, “The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country – I know, because I am one of them.” He doesn’t go to church. He didn’t participate in prayer day. More giving in, more faux surrendipity. (Surrendipity is my new word. It means the inadvertent act of concession. The phrase, faux surrendipity means that the inadvertence is not actually fake or inadvertent.)

Let’s go on. There’s the attack of the First Amendment by the Obama Administration through the Fairness Doctrine and Internet Neutrality as well as the specific targeted attacks on Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jerome Corsi and others. There is the Obama position that our Constitution is flawed because it came up short by not including redistributive justice. There is the Obama position of denouncing American Excellence, professing that we are no better than others. He is running up deficits that make George Bush look like a tight wad, indebting us to China to the point that China used financial threats to influence our arm sales to other countries. Obama surrounds himself with folks who are fundamentally in disagreement with core American principles, for example, communists. He is passing or pushing socio-economic policies (health care, corporate takeover, cap and trade, immigration policy, fairness doctrine, internet neutrality) that embrace the redistribution of wealth, attack freedom and liberty, conflict with our Constitution, and leave our borders as porous as the center of a hula hoop.

I ask you the reader this question? What fundamental American principle or tradition does Obama defend, truly defend? My answer? Upon review, my answer is NONE!

But my readers, is he surrendering? Here’s the definition of surrender: “To deliver up or yield to the possession of power of another on demand or under duress.” Here’s my answer: NO! Obama is not surrendering. Why? Obama is already on the other side, that’s why. So where is the “clandestine surrender” occurring. Here’s the definition of clandestine: “held or done in secrecy or concealed, especially for purposes of subversion or deception.” So where is the clandestine surrender occurring folks? Right here, that’s where. It is Obama’s agenda to get the American people to surrender to his un-American agenda. It is Obama’s concealed agenda to subvert us, through rhetoric and deception, to the point that we surrender without even being aware that we have done so. That’s the Clandestine Surrender Obama seeks. It is classic bait and switch marketing. It is a looming disaster for our nation if we don’t wake up and realize that the clandestine surrender occurring is not him to them, but us to him.

That’s my Reetzality for the day.

Thanks for the read.

Brett Reetz

Note: This post is a collection of “cut and pastes” taken from many sources, too many to post when working during the day. Therefore, the final amalgam is my only literary claim.

Lindsay Graham and Chuck Shomer want a national ID card with biometric information on it in order to prevent illegal aliens from working in the United States. It is a good goal making sure all workers are legal citizens or carry the proper working papers. Yet, it’s government we’re talking about here. So, as usual the plan is rife with ignorance, costs, suppression of freedom, and all the other bad stuff that comes with government. In my last blog I wrote about the control that would occur with the national I.D. card. Today, let’s study the cost. And then I’ll give you my idea. Read on.

Let’s look at the new bureaucracy that would be required to issue a national ID card. Let’s assume that there are three hundred million people in the United States. Let’s also assume that the government won’t stop themselves with only “registering” “workers.” Everybody, worker or non-worker, will be required to have one. It wouldn’t work otherwise. A person could claim not to be a worker, not get a card, work for cash like a ton of illegal aliens do, and dodge the system. I know, I know, who would have thunk it? Anyway back to the analysis. No let’s assume that it will take fifteen minutes of government bureaucracy to issue a card. That is probably an estimate lite but I’ll run with it. Fifteen minutes per application will take seventy-five million hours. Assuming a forty hour work week and a fifty week work year, that is two thousand hours per worker per year. Now assuming this, we divide two thousand into seventy five million and we get the number of additional government workers we need. The number is, drum roll, 37,500 new employees. Wait, these are the employees actually signing folks up. They need managers don’t they? Of course, it’s government. You can’t have a government without a good old fashioned inefficient, ineffective bureaucracy now can you? Let’s assume that each twenty five employees needs a manager. So we divide 37,500 by 25 and that will give us the first level of management. Drum roll, 1500 more employees added to 37,500 employees and we’re to 39,000 new employees. But the managers need managers so let’s divide 25 into 1500, again a mid-manager for every 25 low level managers. Answer please, 60. And the sixty mid-levels will need managers so we divide 25 into 60 and we get 2.4, so being government, we’ll round up and say three more. So now we’re up to 39,063 employees just for those who actually do the work. The end right? Nope. These folks are going to need personnel departments, health insurance departments, employee relations, purchasing departments, accounting departments, Information technology departments, payroll departments, public relations, enforcement, and more and more and more. Let’s add another 25,000 employees for support. Now we are up to 64,063 employees to get the national ID thing going.

What about cost? Well, the average federal salary is about $70,000.00. Let’s multiply this number by the number of employees. Here it is: $4,484,410,063. Almost 4.5 billion. Heck, that’s nothing in today’s world. Pocket change right?

So here’s the skinny. Once again we have a government program proposed that will cost billions of dollars and won’t work. Please understand, I didn’t take into consideration the cost of the technology, buildings, costs of bureaucracy imposed upon the private sector through company compliance and the time folks spend getting their national ID card. It will be more than 4.5 billion and again, it won’t work.

I’ve got a better idea. It will cost, let’s see, as they say on the beach in Mexico, “almost nothing.”

Pass the following laws:

1. No state shall issue a driver’s license or a state I.D. card to a non-citizen or somebody who doesn’t have proper working papers.

2. It shall be unlawful to hire anybody without a driver’s license or a valid state I.D. card.

I think that does it. No new bureaucracy. No new billions spent. It would work. But who am I to think I know better than government?

All right, I’m infringing on state’s rights here and I’m not fond of doing that as a matter of principle, but it’s Government we’re analyzing, and Government hates principles. If I had my druthers, there wouldn’t even be driver’s licenses.

They won’t try the Reetzality approach though because they aren’t really into immigration reform or keeping illegals from working. As usual, they’re goal is un-Constitutional control. They want every American to have a zip-strip federal I.D. so that the exploding regulation, control, and destruction of our freedom and liberties is easier for Government.

Email your congressman. Email the President. Don’t let them do it. No national I.D. card. Period! That’s my Reetzality for the Day.

Finally, do I get a fee for saving the government, wait, I meant us, billions? Just asking.

That’s my Reetzality for the Day.

Thanks for the Read.

Brett Reetz

Note: Think my numbers are wrong? Lets check out the census numbers. The State of Kansas, not the most populous of states, anticipates 4000 census workers will be needed. Let’s say we have fifty states the size of Kansas. (Note Mr. President, there are not fifty-seven states). 50 times 4000 is 200,000. So nationally, if all states were the size of Kansas, we will have 200,000 census workers. Are there more populous states than Kansas? Last time I checked, yes. So to just count the people, not even creating and processing identification cards, just to count the folks once, the federal government needs 200,000 census workers and that’s assuming, in the government defenders’ favor, that all states are the size of Kansas. Oh, here’s another fact. The census is anticipated to cost 14 billion dollars. So maybe I actually underestimated the cost of the national I.D. You think? Final note: Kansas is ranked thirty second in the population ranking. It is number 32 in the ranking of most populated to least populated.

Note: I love the truth of mathematics.