No Panic: China Economic Model not for USA.... Precisely!!

There is the classic panic reaction, some pundits in the media and other seemingly well meaning prominent and media-visible Americans, to issues that do not lend themselves to simplistic analyses based on scanty data; and most times seem incredibly naive and parochial in their presentation A lot of issues come to mind, but with the visit of the President of China to the USA, I must at this time consider the so-called economic status decline of the US in relation to that of China. What is the basis for this baseless panic?

I surmise the same question applies to other instances of recent political events. Remember the November 2010 congressional elections, where the Republicans posing as Tea Party activists were successful in creating panic, overstated fear and despair in the electorate, to the extent of inventing baseless but effective enthusiasm for the Republican party, and acute dissatisfaction and heightened paralyses and inaction, on the Democratic party. I call that situation brilliant in the political realm, but very destructive for the progress of our Constitutionally Framed Government, which demands a good outcome for the welfare of the US society at large. How is that relevant to the subject matter?

Is anyone involved and/or interested in the subject matter, but embarking on China bashing and raising the Panic Alarm volume of Disdain, Finger Pointing, and Blame Assigning, paying attention to the fact that China is a large Developing Country compared to our USA, the most Developed Country on this Planet [Earth]! It is important for a level of self introspection and a heavy dose of reality check.

US as the most developed country is the leader and trend setter for other countries to follow especially the developing countries, China being one of the largest developing nations. To underscore this claim I make, the President of China Hu Jintau himself made that statement during the joint news conference with our President Obama on January 19, 2011 [Check the Joint New Conference communique / transcripts]. Furthermore, developing countries [China] have the luxury of acquiring and adopting the benefits of the achievements of developed countries, including but not limited to advanced technology development and deployment.

In other words, developing nations, notably China, have had and continue to have the unmitigated advantage of: Imitation, Adoption and Adaptation, and No or Low Risk implementation and deployment of the Benefits of already developed infrastructure of well developed economies, USA leading the pack.

We should all be aware of the developed nature of USA in relation to other countries, and appreciate the collective connotation of the term of developed Economic and Political Infrastructure. Our technological advancement and production capacity permeating our entire economic infrastructure, is still legendary and continues to lead the world, and our Constitutionally Framed Government, the basis of our envied political system, is still fascinating for its effectiveness, malleability, organic nature, forward looking in concept, and structured-in complexities of implementation, that is truly USA! Enough already with the Panic mongering and baseless 'doomsday' mantra of US decline, that shakes my calm demeanor into controlled disgust with the faithless prognosticators! USA is NOT in decline, and I will bet my life USA will NEVER be in decline!!

To the Panicking pundits, the seemingly slowness for change and progress in the US economic and political infrastructure, the observed inertia, is a critical component of the representative government, a deliberately engineered feature for our constitutionally framed government. The rest of us, forward looking optimists, the introspection I call for, should consider these tenets of a developing country, in this writing, I use China, because of the obvious current economic focus.

I have already mentioned the benefits of the almost risk free and low investment cost for late adopter Countries, now lets look at the reason China, in the eyes and minds of the panic pundits, seems to be moving a head of US. The major reason, I assert, is the current prevailing Chinese Governmental and/or Political System, as a Blend of: Authoritarian, Dictatorial, Pseudo-Free Enterprise, and Pseudo-Representative Parliamentary System. Note that, I did not add the flavor of Constitutionally Framed Government [our cherished Free Enterprise/Capitalist Democracy] like the USA system, as one of the listed. There lies the difference, in addition to the markedly non-mature nature of the current Chinese political system.

Within the context of an evolving but firmly rooted one party Chinese government, consider these observations:

1. There is practically No Opposition [No Limitation, No Required Referendum, No Required Political Concurrence] on the Economic Policies and Direction the Chinese government chooses for their country. In other words, economic activity deemed necessary by the Chinese government will be [is] undertaken without fanfare and opposition. Thus, in China, Progressive Economic Policies and Investments, deemed necessary, will have unfettered support and unconstrained implementation. Unlike the USA which, in the current configuration of the government, has the Congress [the Legislative Branch] led by Speaker John Boehner and his Tea Party Republicans, opposed to any policy proposals from the President [the Executive Branch], irrespective of the positive impact or value to the nation [USA] at large. Most of the opposition in the USA are mere political grandstanding and score keeping. For example, the Republican Party and the Tea Party Republicans stood on the political sidelines in opposition to President Obama's policies for two (2) years, in order to gain political power, at the expense of any benefits for the nation's future. The seeming rapid and/or timely development activity of China, in certain sectors of economic activity can thus be partly explained. Think about it.
2. The critical foundation for economic emancipation, progressive economic development and guaranteed sustainability as such, require targeted investment in the Education Policy of government. The government of China, as has been well documented, has embarked on higher education as a required fortification for economic sustainability for its people. China has not adopted [or adapted] the You-Are-On-Your-Own Education Policy Model, that seems to be proposed and practiced in the USA, mostly advocated The Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans, who even go as far as wanting to leave the financing of education to the Free Market. Is it a wonder when we [USA] see our global education index decline? I read that in the last few years, China has invested in, and built more than fifteen [15+] M.I.T. type university equivalents to ensure that their educational investment output be among the leaders in the world. Remember this observation today, for future results. 
3. The solid foundations of economic activity and sustainability requires modernized Physical Infrastructure to support commerce, locally and globally. Physical Infrastructure includes: Highways, Water Ways, Aviation, Communication Networks, Internet, Broadband and Wireless Networks, etc. For example China is reportedly building super highways, bullet trains [200+ mph], expanded broadband network into rural population areas. Investment in physical infrastructure has not been a priority in the USA, and with vehement opposition from the Republicans and Tea Party Republicans a change in this policy is doubtful. Food for thought!

These observations encapsulate my early postmortem of what pundits, economists and social scientists may conclude in future analyses, but not to subscribe to the panic. Current economic data estimates the net asset value [total assets less total liabilities] of the US as being approximately three [3] times that of China. The USA, as should be expected, is still the leader for economic activity and throughput. I surmise that, with judicious management of resources, coupled with future leaning inspired leadership and well crafted governmental policies, added to efficient execution of private business activities and ingenuity, USA will continue to lead. No need to Panic, the China Economic Model is not suitable for the USA.... Precisely!!

Private Sector vs Government? .. Economic Growth Argument!

Republican pundits and other so called conservatives in the media, claim a sacred and rigid demarcation between Private Corporate Investments and Government Investments, when they postulate that private business activity is the only means to economic growth and prosperity. I am sure private corporation business activity is the preferred model for a Capitalist Democracy. But is it purely true, or a more idealized expectation? I am a small business man and a true corporatist, and all things being equal, the private corporation model is practical and long term, although, I have a couple of general questions and misgivings.


The misgivings I have against the republican dogma of the role of government arises when it seems blindly political and irrational. Take the issue of required spending on our National Defense. Republicans applaud what they term a strong defense, and are mostly in favor of increased defense spending. Most Americans, Liberal, Conservative, and/or Independent, agree with the reasonable and necessary spending levels, billions of dollars, for our National Defense. Now let us examine the expenditures and the impact on our economy. First and foremost, who benefits directly from the expenditures? The many private corporations who are collectively classified as Defense Contractors: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, General Electric, Halliburton, Sierra Nevada Corporation, to name a few; and the hundreds of supporting professional services companies. For example, defense contractor Lockheed Martin, a private corporation, also provides business services for the US Departments of Commerce, Education, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, IRS, U.S. Postal Service etc.


Do republicans believe these defense contractors, these private corporations, are an extension of the Executive Branch of our Government, or the other two [2] Branches of our Government? Why do the Republicans pretend that No Real business activity of significant economic value and benefit occurs, when our Government invests in required obligations, in this case, our National Defense? When private sector firms perform these business activities for our Government, do the mindless media pundits ever consider the positive impact on the economic activity and employment status of the country? Why are the Democrats so dormant on such issues and slow to clarify such obvious facts? 


The republicans have no difficulty in manufacturing fictitious outrage as well as blatantly distorting facts. Remember the last congressional elections [November, 2010], the Democrats allowed the Tea Party Republicans [Note: There were no Tea Party Democratic candidates, an interesting fact] to upstage the whole electorate, by presenting themselves as a new political constituency outraged with the direction of the country, and the dormant and docile Democrats never provided a counter movement or even attempted to clarify to the electorate, that these were mere reconfigured 'same old' crafty Republicans. Case in point, imagine former House Majority Leader Richard [Dick] Arney [The Godfather of No-Regulations] and former Senator Philip "Phil" Gramm [The Bishop of financial services deregulated] both Texas Republicans, two among the many republicans who had just run the US economy into the ground, virtually decimating our way of life, evolve as Tea Party activists, and the electorate accepting them as the bearers of new ideas and believable alternative to the new administration, who are still trying to solve problem they had just inherited!!


Within the context of 'Private Sector vs Government? .. Economic Growth Argument', take a note of these questions: Which Private Sector Corporations and their Investments can be credited for the creation of:

1. Our Advanced Technological Infrastructure:  Internet, Wireless Communication Network, GPS, etc, that we all take for granted?
2. Our Physical Infrastructure: Inter-State Highway System, and other Transportation Systems, in general, the foundation of Commerce and Economic activity?
3. And the Maintenance of Required Components for Our National Defense, the basis of our cherished Freedom and Liberty?

I hope genuine answers to these question reveal the true inter-connectedness of the subject of this blog posting. The simplistic claims by so-called conservative pundits and operatives, for the sole reliance on Private Sector, for all the economic activity and growth in our capitalist democracy, boarders on delusion in some cases and outright dishonest proclamations, as well as political grandstanding. As this short excerpt delineates, the Synergy between Government and Private sector is the practical truth, and the obvious tenets that have always been clear, because all of us participate in the public-private partnerships. 


I am tempted to end this posting, with this observation: I have never heard of Microsoft Corporation buying an M2 Bradley Tank for their executive commuting, and/or buying a B-2 Spirit Stealth Airplane [Bomber] for just-in-time shipping of their software products and services. The M2 Bradley Tank order will go to BAE Systems Land and Armaments Corporation, and Northrop Grumman will be delighted for B-2 Spirit Stealth Airplane order. Both fictitious but illustrative purchases will be very profitable to the private corporations and will go a long way to contribute to economic growth! There you have it, we do not need the government,.. private sector to the rescue,..wow.... really!!  How ridiculous is the observation? One might surmise, but remember for our national defense, these are some of the procurement required to be made by our Government!


Let us all be intelligent enough to ignore the simplistic slogans from the uninformed Republican ideologues and hysterical pundits in the media; but remember to cherish Our Exceptional Country, Our Constitutionally Framed Government, and lets keep that in mind.....!!

Republicans Got Their Country Back... From Whom?

Republicans have been saying they want their country back, and as a fiscal conservative I keep wondering country back from Whom? With Mr. Boehner as speaker of the house, is the question answered? Did the republicans wrestle their country back from some outer-beings may be from the Moon or planet Mars? I had hoped the media had asked that question prior to November 2010.

Republicans rave against government and my question is they hate government so much why do they run for political office? Mr. John Boehner has been in congress for over eighteen years [18 yrs], Mr. Mitch McConnell about the same. Oh wait, they do not like government when the other party is in-charge, but they love the government when their party is in-charge, that is simple, why did the media not ask these questions, may be voters would be a little more informed about who they are selecting to represent them in congress.

The people who claim the sanctity of the US Constitution have either not read with understanding or they are just disingenuous about their understanding what is actually contained in the precious document. I will take the preamble to the constitution and Section 2 of Article 1: that delineates the Legislative Branch. The following quotes of parts of the US Constitution are taken from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf and is used as basis for my arguments for this Blog.


"
Preamble  to the Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Article. I. - The Legislative Branch

Section 1 - The Legislature
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year
by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the
Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State
Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five
Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which
may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be
determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to
Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other 
Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th 
Amendment, section 2.)
....

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall
have the sole Power of Impeachment.
”
For those who seem to claim love for the constitution but proclaim a dislike for government, I point you to the Preamble, the clearest statement of the establishment of self  Government of United States. It, therefore, is contradictory for the so-claimed haters of US government to publicly proclaim themselves as loving the Constitution as our sacred document, but these same people are always running to gain political control of the government they so profess to abhor. I call these people, who are mostly republicans, hypocrites running scams on unsuspecting supporters, true political connivers selling the US electorate short every chance they get.

The text excerpted from the constitution in bold face font above, is intentionally included to highlight what the constitution established for 'Free persons ... and three fifths of all other Persons', specifically persons of African descent [the enslaved]. Why is this important? The past election cycle we all witnessed a few African Americans in the forefront of the Tea Party movement, the likes of David Webb, Congressmen-elect Allen West, Tim Scott, and others, who professed to be strict constructionists, when it comes to the US Constitution, probably never read this section or did not understand its implications. Would they, being considered three-fifths of a person, really think the strict constructionists view of the Constitution, afforded them the rights, we take for granted today, because of subsequent amendments to the constitution? It is important to note that Mr. David Webb, on television used an expression that made me cringe and then made me laugh!


I para-phrase here: He [Mr. David Webb] said, we [USA government] should go back [restore] to the original interpretation, the original intent and text of the US Constitution, as was created by 'Our Fore-Fathers' [.. remember: 3/5-th of person for blacks, no vote for women,.. etc]! Wow !! This came from Tea Party leader David Webb, a black American [American of African descent]. Which of the fore-fathers was he referring to? Are they the ones who came to the USA in shackles and on slave ships? Or some other fore-fathers who live in the mind of Mr. Webb, obviously inaccessible to the rest of us? I wish the host of the television program had asked Mr. Webb these simple questions. By the way, Messrs. David Webb, Allen West, Tim Scott and Tea Party had their familiar chant, "We want our country back". I hope not back into slavery and 3/5-th of a person, since USA has come a long way with remarkable potential going forward, and some of us chant, "We want to keep our country going forward towards Liberty For All", with absolutely no pretenses!!

Furthermore, it is fascinating to me, how the same prominent republicans like, former congressman Richard "Dick" Armey, Tea Party organizer and major funder, who help run the USA into debts, deficits and economic despair, can turn around and create a fictitious outrage, and invent the pretext of concern for the direction of the country, and in turn proclaim their adherence to the US constitution, wait, the same Constitution that existed, when these impostors of truth, run the country. Whoa ..wow!! Well I have more to add in subsequent blogs, and I hope you the reader will chime in with comments....

Republican Pundits NOT Conservatives

Many in the media classify republican pundits, the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest of the FOX television channel commentators, as conservatives. I beg to differ. I call them great political tacticians applying their craftiness to gain notoriety, and therefore, the financial rewards beyond their own wildest imaginations. These republican pundits have mastered the art exploiting their self created fictitious political and ideological differences, and the rest of the electorate goes along for the ride without question.

Most people think Mr. Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, but what issues are professed to be of interest to Mr. Limbaugh and his radio listeners? Has he established his bona fides on any issues and/or policies that are actually conservative? In other words great conservatives are associated with conservative policies and movements, and I cannot think of one policy that Mr. Limbaugh has championed.
Present day so termed conservatives, those noted above, are mere opportunists and loud-mouthed pretenders, who scream slogans and epitaphs against their imaginary opponents, and their shameless use of insults to sensibilities of those who listen to the fear mongering and scapegoating of people with different perspectives and different policy issues.

When Mr. Rush Limbaugh publicly, over the national air-waves, stated he wants our president to fail, a treasonous proclamation, no pragmatic real conservatives publicly confronted and rebuked him, they all tip-toed around him, because the so called conservatives are cowards and mere opportunists.

Remember, the Health Care Bill that the republicans were all supposed to be against because it was tagged as government run, although all the implementation for all the provisions of the bill is by private companies just as the predominantly employer based health insurance system we have come to accept as the model private enterprise system. The irony is all the republicans in congress who voted against the bill, enjoy their health care plans administered and paid for but the government.. hypocrites !!

Last December 2009, Mr. Limbaugh vacationing in Hawaii fell seriously ill and was taken cared of free of charge by the free government run health care system in Hawaii. I thought he would have refused treatment from a government run health care system, this was a person who claims to be vehemently opposed to government run health care system, guess what, it is the right thing as long as the opportunists are receiving the benefits.

Who will fit my definition of a nearly true conservative currently on the political scene? The answer is: any politician that subscribes fully and/or partially to some of these tenets:

• Supports no Military Interventionist policies except limited military actions deemed necessary to maintain national security
• Proposes the immediate and orderly closures of the many foreign military bases maintained around the world, which make the US look like the Occupying Empire
• Supports auditing the Federal Reserve [and the Treasury] actions and policies, for a true democratic idea of transparency.
• Supports established Constitutional Rights and Amendments, and their applicability for the modern world, forward thinking.
• Supports prudent Fiscal Policies coupled with Targeted Investment for future development and growth of the USA, that supports my definition of what makes USA Exceptional!!
• Supports government policies of providing basic Social and Economic Protections for the politically Not well connected citizenry, so called social safety net.

This is a small subset of tenets I would call conservative political policy baselines. Do republican pundits in the media proclaiming their brand of conservatism, subscribe to any of these tenets? I am not sure but does the voting public consider any of these tenets in their decisions during elections?  I would like to get some feed back...

Conservative/Libertarian-Liberal/Progressive.. Really!

As a self defined fiscal conservative/libertarian and social liberal/progressive, I am struck by the rigidity of the general media characterization of the highly demarcated political infrastructure, or I should say political architecture. I am also dismayed when I have discussions with people I considered very educated and relatively well informed, or so I think, and find that they are so caught up within the political labeling infrastructure to the extent that they leave behind all their own thoughts and reasoning thereby, making them pick a political label that goes against their own self interest. Sometimes I wonder if such people are merely following the fashionable political label of the moment or they are not as informed as I give them credit for.

Who is a Conservative? I dare to ask in abstraction, because I have NEVER come across a human being, who I consider, really and completely Conservative. I have met people who take certain positions that are labeled conservative by the media and other organizations, and base their conservative labeling on such classifications. Is that a conservative or a situational and issue conservative? I will give a specific example later.

A Libertarian, I thought, is supposed to be 'a live and let others live' conservative, or 'a leave me alone and do not intrude in my or anyone's private life' Conservative-Liberal. I think a libertarian can be a practicing conservative with a liberal mind upholding fairness.

Who is a Liberal? I should definitely ask this in serious abstraction, because I have NEVER come across a human being, who I consider, really and completely Liberal. I have met people who have taken positions that are labeled liberal by the media, and therefore, they base their liberal credits on such classifications. Is that a liberal or a situational and issue liberal?

A Progressive, I thought, is supposed to be 'a live and let us live' liberal, or 'a leave me alone and do not intrude in my or anyone's private life' Liberal-Conservative. I think a Progressive can be a good practicing liberal with somewhat conservative leanings and propensity for fairness.

The political term or label Independent would seem more pragmatic than any of the other labels, but I simply consider an Independent as a more realistic classification of any of the other political labels, except there is a practical absence of rigidity in an independent minded politician.

To flesh out the disparate political labels, I choose the recently passed Health Care Bill [Obamacare as the republicans call it] a truly brilliant legislative achievement, which attempts to expand health care for most people in the USA. The magic of effective mis-information, crafty distortion of facts, and most of all, blatant outright lies cloaked in idealogical differences, and brilliant artistically packaged media blitz, made it all look like, the health care bill and its intents and benefits, were merely demarcated by political ideological infrastructure; liberals and progressives on one side and conservatives and libertarians on the other. How about that! The poor and dis-enfranchised people in West Virginia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and similar states, who do not have health insurance and adequate health care, and have not been able to afford health care in their lives, at any cost, were able to be convinced that they were conservative republicans, and therefore, were against the health care bill... whoaa wow..!! I call this phenomena ingenuity, because I know, I cannot in this life time, be convinced, ever to vote against my self interest on any issue, period. It is interesting to note how the use of political labels and slogans have become so effective and powerful in creating a herd-mentality, where people entrench themselves in to these political labels, and like a herd of cattle, follow all the way into the slaughter house without thought or reason, figuratively speaking!

I would love to read a good comment [comment on this blog] from a well thought out position, that aligns with professed opponents of the Health Care Bill, outlining the virtues for political labels, I have outlined. I chose the health care bill, because all of us in the USA are affected irrespective of our political positioning and/or cherished political labels, Conservative-Libertarian-Liberal-Progressive.. Really!! And a healthy discussion of this subject is in order...I believe, .... really!!

Obama, a practical-minded politician? I believe so..!!

I must disclose, before I continue with my political analyses that I am mostly a conservative [by nature and not by label and/or definition], and of the independent type, and practically the pragmatic political being. With that said, I hope readers and/or commenters will afford me the liberty of self definition, in the political context. I am a trained scientist and engineer, but also an avid participant in the political discourse. Enough about me.

Mr. Obama has been president for close to two (2) years, and I should confess, he has surprised me with the tremendous successes and accomplishments he has demonstrated, to date. Considering the immense blatant proclamations of opposition from the Republicans in the congress, and down-right treasonous pronouncements from certain radio and television personalities, who seem to root for failure of my cherished, good old US of A, to every proposal coming from the White House. It is note worthy that political historians will rate these accomplishments very high in comparison to previous presidents. In future blogs I will take some of the legislative accomplishments and discuss the merits from a scientist-engineer's mind and perspective.

For this first blog posting, I choose the so called "Tax Compromise Bill" legislation, the president and the senate republican leaders achieved, and other very important legislation, in the so called lame-duck session, as my first analyses.

I believe Mr. Obama  thinks like an engineer. President Obama, sees most issues that affect the United States and the natural alignments of ensuing debates, from the concept of first principles, the building blocks of reasoning and deductive inference of outcomes. It was a mystery to me and probably to most political observers, that the democratic leadership in both houses of congress, notwithstanding, a democratic president, did not see fit to table and/or champion one of the defining campaign policy promises of the candidate Obama, of Not Renewing the President Bush era tax cuts for income over $250K, and forcing a vote in the congress to expose the political fault lines in the context of the current US economic and financial status, prior to the last November mid-term elections. Naturally, since I was not privileged to data the democratic polsters and consultants used, I would still surmise that it would have been good politics to at least create that showdown. I am sure Speaker Nancy Pelosi would have cherished the spotlight. I can assure myself that President Obama, my scientist-engineer minded politician and leader would have suggested that the tax cut debate should occur prior to the mid-term elections.

President Obama, subsequently made the deal with the republicans that he only could make. Mr. Obama gathered the facts contained within each component of the deal, established the viability of each proposed component and the practical boundaries and/or constraints on a per component basis, as well as component interactions within the deal he was working out, and projected subsequent [future] deals that had to be considered in future policy implementations, notwithstanding the obvious vehement opposition from his negotiating partners, the republicans, of his approach, all taken into account. It turns out, President Obama and his staff, believe in optimization techniques as implemented in engineering and therefore, factual life of people in the USA. In short, the tax bill compromise [a word Mr. Obama seems not afraid to use, unlike Mr John Boehner, the incoming speaker of the house of representatives], was the optimum outcome for President Obama.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell [DADT]" legislation passed and was signed into law on December 22, 2010, by President Obama. His address before the invited dignitaries during the signing showed echos of why most of USA voted for him for President. The speech was passionate, concise and very emotionally moving, even for 'straight' or 'heterosexual' americans. The debate on this issue was sometimes incoherent, especially from the opposing side, and similarly the conjecture of many Gay Americans on the perceived slow pace of repeal process on the part of the President was noteworthy. I say noteworthy, because certain media correspondents, some notable openly gay, made claims on what they thought was the method Mr. Obama should have used, namely executive order instead of fighting for legislation through the congress, because they were not confident the repeal would succeed in the face of vehement republican opposition. Again, President Obama, my scientist-engineer minded politician and leader, insisted on finding the optimized solution, which when implemented will serve to resolve just about all difficulties and issues associated with the entire DADT policy. As a great constitutional law professor, and a good lawyer, President Obama's approach was to pass legislation that will supersede all existing DADT policy implications and legal challenges, which is exactly what has happened. Bravo President Obama, bravo to President Obama, my scientist-engineer minded politician and leader. !!

As a practical conservative, I am tempted to remark that Mr. Obama has demonstrated the virtues of the glaring need for a well educated and a thinking pragmatist, as the leader of the USA and the free-world, and people like me are grateful in the wisdom of the voting public when we make the prudent choices, such as the selection of Mr. Barack Obama as our President. Bravo to informed electorate, and shame on those who seem to fanatically vote against their own self-interest, believe me that happens..!!