Friday, August 30, 2013

The Ignorance That Killed Liberty

     Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers and primary author of the Declaration of Independence, once stated, "A nation can have liberty or ignorance, but not both." As a nation, the United States of America, has tipped the balance in favor of ignorance and away from liberty in recent years. The last two presidential elections are proof of that fact. I say it is ignorance that has brought us to the brink of tyranny because most voters in this country are not aligned with the Leftist values of Barack Obama, but they are so woefully uninformed and misinformed that they just do not know it.
     A good case in point is a caller I heard on a radio talk show Wednesday morning while driving to work. The caller, whose name was Jim, said he voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush the elder, but left the Republicant party and became a Democrat when Bush the younger was elected President. Jim identified himself as a Conservative, yet he voted for Barack Obama twice and said he would not vote for Sarah Palin or Rand Paul over Hillary Clinton for President.
     Jim illustrates the ignorance in this country among voters as to the ideology of individuals as well as political parties. Jim apparently is clueless that Conservatism is based on the founding principles of this country, and instead chooses to align himself with a political party that blatantly disparages those values every chance they get. Evidence of this behavior is in no short supply in recent years, from Nancy Pelosi dismissively asking some one if they were kidding when they questioned whether or not ObamaCare was constitutional, to President Obama calling the Constitution of the United States a "charter of negative rights." Throw in Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg saying that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as a model for developing countries to emulate, and you have Jim's political party that is proud of its anti-Americanism.
     I think Jim's ignorance, along with all those lemmings which form their political opinions watching Good Morning America as well as the other sludge dispensed daily by the propaganda arm of the Democrat party known as the main stream media, is the result of a lack of critical thinking skills. How many people for instance, even on the right, believe that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house. This myth is illustrative of the mindless reliance that people like Jim have on media. For the record, it was Tina Faye, mocking Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live, who made that statement. The Founding Fathers always knew that continued liberty depended upon an educated and informed public. That was the reason they made free speech such a prominent part of the Constitution. But everyday in this country, people like Jim, choose not to execute their right of free speech by choosing ignorance over liberty. And this kind of ignorance is the executioner of liberty and the harbinger of tyranny. 

Thursday, August 29, 2013

The Irony Of King Anniversary

     It was somewhat ironic that in the almost dozen media reports that I heard yesterday on the fiftieth anniversary of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech, very few actually replayed any portion of the actual speech that inspired the remembrance. They did, however, pay sycophant homage to Barack Obama with excerpts from his rather lackluster speech from the steps of the Lincoln memorial, where the media made very clear, was the exact spot Reverend King made his inspiring speech fifty years ago.
   It was also ironic that Barack Obama made his speech in the same spot that Reverend King made his, ironic because there could not be more of a chasm of values and beliefs between two men, than there is between Barack Obama and Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. The Reverend King, who the media and the Left call Doctor King because they value a man of academe more than a man of God, had very conservative values which one can see illustrated, not only in his "Dream" speech, but in others as well. In the Reverend's "Dream" speech he talks about a man being judged by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin. But it is Barack Obama and others on the Left that have worked hard the last fifty years to institutionalize the favorable judgment of blacks and other minorities based solely on skin color and not on the content of their character.
     The other thing that struck me as ironic about President Obama's speech was his retelling of people seeing their loved ones beaten and fire hosed because of their desire for equality. The President failed to mention that the people who ordered the fire hoses to be used and the beatings to be implemented to stop marchers, were Democrats. Bull Connor, who used his dogs against civil rights marchers, was a Democrat. The people blocking access to all white schools to bar black children from receiving an education there, were Democrats. The racist Jim Crow laws instituted in the South were legislated by Democrat politicians. And it was Democrats in the United States Congress that tried to block the 1964 landmark civil rights legislation from passing, and it was only because a majority of Republicans voted for it that it did pass. In fact, Al Gore's father, Al Gore Sr., lead a filibuster in the Senate to try and stop the civil rights legislation from becoming the law of the land.
     And finally, it is ironic that it has been the ideology of people like Barack Obama that has caused more unemployment in the black community since Reverend King made his speech, almost double what it was then. It is also the Leftist policies of Barack Obama and others that have directly lead to an out-of-wedlock birthrate in the black community that is three times what it was when Reverend King made his speech as well as the very despicable and heartbreaking statistic that 43% of black children are being murdered through abortion. Leftist policies have also been responsible for inner-city crime and violence that has young black men killing each other at an alarming rate because these same policies have destroyed the black family. Reverend King could not have imagined the moral decay in the black community inspired by people who would invoke his name to advance the policies that have caused it. The race profiteers like Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who enrich themselves while they impoverish the black community, are the very kind of people that the Reverend King would be marching against today if he were alive.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Barack Obama's Syrian Corner

     Well, the hapless United Nations inspection team, just slightly less so hapless than Hans Blix and his gang (remember they were the U.N. team that "inspected" Iraq before the invasion) have come away from their bullet-ridden Syrian trip with their conclusions. In the report soon to follow, one may find the assertion that chemical weapons were used in an attack located in the suburbs of Damascus. The report may also conclude that it was the Assad regime who was responsible for the attack, and not as some have speculated, the rebel forces that have been hi-jacked by Al Qaeda-style groups, trying to frame the regime.
     What the United Nations report will not state, and of this I am certain, is that George W. Bush is owed an apology by all those on the Left who mercilessly called him a liar for the better part of a decade. This confirmation that chemical weapons were used in Syria is proof that President Bush, along with many of the top intelligence agencies in the world, were correct about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. If you remember, just before the United States-lead invasion of Iraq, early in 2003, satellite imaging showed convoys en route between Iraq and Syria. With the current U.N. inspectors' confirmation of chemical weapons having been used in Syria, we now know what many of us suspected at the time, i.e., that those convoy trucks were not delivering falafels but chemical weapons. The fact, confirmed by intelligence, that Syria had no chemical weapons prior to 2003 and that they have them now, confirms that those weapons were from Saddam Hussein's private stockpile.
     The corner that the Obama administration has painted themselves into with regards to Syria is that they refused to take a stand early on in the conflict when they could have made the most difference (remember then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling Bashar Al Assad a reformer as he was murdering thousands of his own people in the streets at the start of the uprising against him). Now that the uprising has been hi-jacked by Al Qaeda-style groups, President Obama finds himself in the position of helping the terrorist Assad if he does nothing or helping the terrorists who have commandeered the rebel uprising if he intervenes against the Assad regime. Secretary of State John Kerry's statement that the chemical attack that killed hundreds was a "moral obscenity", completely ignores the moral obscenity of the hundred thousand that have died in the turmoil since it began more than two years ago as a result of conventional weapons.
     To add even more macabre comedy to a bad situation, Vice President, Joe "the laughing hyena" Biden alluded to the Bashar Assad regime being "punished" for his alleged use of chemical weapons against his own people. This is further proof that the Obama regime specifically, and the Left in general, have no clue what the function of the military is. The military is not used to "punish" people but to achieve a strategic goal that has some significance to U.S. interests. The fact that those on the Left were so vociferous in their opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, when U.S. strategic interests were clearly present, and are now silent on the possible intervention in Syria by the Obama administration, where there is an obvious lack of U.S. interests, is illustrative of the hypocrisy of the Left. I guess the corner in which Barack Obama has painted himself is large enough for the entire Leftist community to stew in their own hypocrisy while the rest of us must suffer the risks of their extreme ignorance.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

The Racism Of Voter ID Opposition

     Recently, a link to a video was sent to me that depicted a black woman retelling a story of alleged racism she experienced at a Safeway grocery store while shopping with, what she called, "her white-looking sister in-law." This video had the racist title of, "One easy thing all white people can do to make the world a better place." I say it was racist because it assumes that the environment that makes life difficult for people, especially for those that are black or belong to another minority group, is caused exclusively by white people and it is their behavior that must be changed to resolve the perceived racism. It has been the race profiteers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama that have made themselves wealthy and powerful by inculcating in the members of their community the notion that their status as an authentic black depends on having a racial discrimination story similar to the woman in the video I alluded to earlier.
     The recent manufactured racial issue of voter ID laws is illustrative of the stoking of the racial fires done by those who profit off such divisions. The pros of voter ID laws have been discussed to death. They run the gamut from protecting the legitimacy of the voting process to benefiting holders of such IDs in many other areas of their daily lives. The only argument against voter ID seems to be that it is considered by those in the race business to be discriminatory. But in order for a law or policy to be discriminatory, it needs to require that of a particular group of people which is not required of the general population, or it needs to exclude those of a certain group from that which others are not excluded. Under any sensible definition of discrimination, voter ID laws do not qualify as discriminatory. Blacks and other minorities are not being required to provide any information that every other voter in states with such laws are required to provide.
     The real racist and discriminatory position on voter ID laws is the one occupied by those who are against them. They are, in essence, saying that they do not want blacks and other minorities to obtain IDs that would help them cash checks at a bank, have access to airline tickets and a myriad other activities in our society that require some sort of ID. The opponents of voter ID laws are also saying, by their position, that blacks and other minorities are in some way less capable than whites in procuring a driver's license or state ID. This is ridiculous, especially since the states that have voter ID laws also offer IDs absolutely free, some states will even send someone to a person's home to sign them up for an ID.
     Finally, if voter ID laws are so discriminatory, why do all the countries that the Left says we should emulate, have them? All of Europe, and much of the rest of the industrialized world, require their citizens to prove who they are, via some sort of an official ID, before they vote. But those on the Left, and especially in the Democrat party, desire to not only perpetuate the voter fraud that helps them win elections, but they also aim to keep one of their key constituencies from freeing themselves from the plantation of ignorance, dependency and societal marginalization.  

Monday, August 26, 2013

Everything I Know About Life I learned From Golf

     It is a shame that for most of us, time living on this planet is the only thing which increases our knowledge of the best way to live. It seems by the time you have it figured out, you can be too old to reap the benefits of your hard fought wisdom. I love the game golf and play as much as I can. I was recently reflecting on how those things which makes one a better golfer, can also make one more successful in other aspects of life as well. Following are some things I have learned that contribute to a good round of golf, but can also contribute to a better life as well.
     In the game of golf, as in life, it is important to live in the present and stay focused on your current task at hand. In golf, one must focus on the present shot and the swing needed to execute it. The last shot, whether it was successful or not, is in the past and can not be changed. The next shot may be dependent on what is accomplished with the present one. So it is with life, one can not change the past and can only affect the future by the actions taken in the present. 
     One of the most common errors that people make when golfing is taking their eye off the ball during their swing and looking up. This results from a tendency to look where the ball is going before the club head makes contact with it. Looking up during the swing can result in the club not making solid contact with the ball, causing a bad shot. The same is true for life in a way. If one substitutes a focus on today's requirements for tomorrow's promise of success, i.e., "looking up", failure may be the result. 
     When I was a child, learning the game of golf from my father, he always told me to swing the club slowly and evenly and let it do the work. I relate this advice to life in as much as success is built over time and can not be rushed. One can not hurriedly execute the requirements of success, for that will almost always lead to failure and disappointment. In Golf, as in life, one must find a certain rhythm and timing that allows for consistent execution.  
     One of the hardest lessons of golf and life for me has always been not allowing myself to be affected by previous failures or successes. A bad shot must be learned from and then forgotten, otherwise it could affect the current one. Conversely, a great shot must be modestly celebrated and put in its proper perspective. Allowing one's emotions, whether it is anger over a failure or joy over a success, to dominate the present, is the best recipe for losing focus on the current task at hand, whether one is playing golf or living life.
     And finally, to achieve success in golf, one must keep one's feet firmly planted on the ground. Firmly planting the feet far enough apart to achieve balance and strength is important to a good golf swing and in living life. The things in golf which contribute to a solid stance are quality golf shoes and strong legs. In life, a solid stance is achieved through strong adherence to principles, values and faith. Life is also like golf in one more aspect, both are to be enjoyed, but that enjoyment comes as a result of hard work and practice and is not just bestowed as a gift.     
    

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Who Is Really To Blame For ObamaCare?

     In every poll since its passage in 2010, the vast majority of Americans do not like ObamaCare and want it repealed. But the onerous and despicable beast known as The Affordable Care Act was not only breathed to life by power-hungry Leftists in and out of our government, but by the unwillingness of the American people to be responsible for their own health care costs. This slide into the abyss of paycheck-sucking health insurance premiums and health care rationing has been happening for decades. One of the most dangerous and dastardly effects of Leftist ideology on the American culture is the voluntary transference of individual priorities and responsibilities to someone else. And now that that someone else is in the process of being regulated out of business, we will all be required to live at the mercy of the centralized government that did the dirty deed.
     What has caused government-run health care to get a foothold in this country is not Obama. Nor is it even an intimidated, politically correct Supreme Court. What has lead us to the brink of health care disaster is the fact that Americans have become so inculcated with a sense of entitlement with regards to their health care that they scream bloody murder at the prospect of having to pay five thousand dollars for a medical procedure to correct a health problem, but think nothing of paying twenty thousand dollars for a new automobile. Americans will not spend three or four hundred dollars a month for health insurance to protect them from a health care catastrophe, but they will spend that much or more for cable or satellite television and smart phone service for the entire family. Americans have become so dependent on third parties for their health care expenses that they refuse to spend a hundred dollars on a prescription drug that will help them alleviate a health issue, but they will spend on average three thousand dollars a year eating out or ordering take-out food. Americans will complain vociferously if they have to spend their money on a wheelchair, walker or other medical appliance, but see nothing wrong with spending thousands of dollars every year on lottery tickets or at the local casino.
     Americans will spend decades over indulging in tobacco products, alcohol and fatty foods and then expect someone else to pay for their coronary problems and diabetes resulting from their self imposed obesity. They will refuse to exercise, instead choosing to spend thousands of hours plunked down in front of the TV watching the sewage that is spewed out from the filthy orifices of the Hollywood elite, and then expect their neighbor to cover the cost of a heart attack brought on by having to lift their fat butt off the sofa to get some more ice cream and potato chips.
     We have stood silently by as medical costs rose, because after all, we did not have to pay for it. We let ourselves be talked into perceiving health care as a right instead of our own personal responsibility. We allowed government to convince us that it was compassionate to make the elderly and poor more dependent on taxpayer dollars for their health care, thinking that we would not have to pay for ours when we grew old. The statists in government offered to shoulder our health care responsibilities if we only signed over the deed to liberty's soul, which we did without regard for those who spilled their precious blood in payment for that liberty. Yes, my friends, it is we the people who have allowed the barbarians of the left to crash through the gates of our liberty and bring us to the age of a new tyranny.

Friday, August 23, 2013

The Hot Air Of Wind Farms

     Currently, in Cleveland, Ohio, near where the Small Craft Advisory headquarters are located, they are discussing whether to build a wind farm seven miles off the shore of Lake Erie. The Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation, a "non-profit" created to suck up 46 million dollars in hard-earned taxpayer dollars to fund the project, has already made plans for a meeting with residents of Cleveland where they will ask them to sign a pledge to pay higher energy bills to help fund the remainder of the project. I just wonder how much money the president of Lake Erie Energy bundled for President Obama in his two presidential bids?
     The wind turbines that populate wind farms have many negatives that their supporters refuse to acknowledge and few benefits which they insist on exaggerating. The amount of energy produced by one wind turbine is calculated assuming continuous operation, which no wind turbine even comes close to achieving. Even if the windys' estimates were accepted as accurate, it would require turning the entire state of Connecticut into a wind farm just to provide the energy needs of New Jersey. Factor in the number of endangered birds that wind turbines have senselessly slaughtered, and I am surprised that animal rights groups are not more outraged by the proliferation of these horribly inefficient monstrosities. Of course, I am not surprised because most Leftists, whether they are animal rights people or so-called environmentalists, are all anti-capitalists first and foremost.
     I remember Mike Rowe, host of the show Dirty Jobs, once did an episode where he became a wind turbine maintenance worker. Two things were glaring about wind turbines from this episode. One was how much maintenance these purveyors of higher energy bills require and secondly was how much filth they generate. Not to mention the enormous contribution to noise pollution that is made by this 15th century technology to which the Left seems insistent on returning us.
     I am all for finding better ways to produce energy, but given the negatives of wind turbines, it is obvious to anyone with even a modicum of sense that these inefficient, bird killing, filthy, noisy and expensive throwbacks are not the answer. Hydraulic fracturing can produce cheap and abundant energy with far less obtrusiveness to the environment than wind farms. The Left is against hydraulic fracturing because it is self-supporting and needs no taxpayer dollars to exist, and therefore is not controlled by Leftist politicians. If the Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation, as well as others, believe in wind farms as a viable alternative to fossil fuels, then let them risk their own money and convince other investors of the virtues of wind power and keep their greedy little fingers off taxpayer money. But alas, the object of the wind farm exercise is not to efficiently and inexpensively provide the energy for a growing and prosperous free economy, but to mitigate capitalism with a limited supply of energy for the purpose of creating a Utopian society that replaces prosperity with poverty and individual liberty with collective misery.   

Thursday, August 22, 2013

The Increasing Irrelevance Of The American Voter

     I do not believe that there is anyone in the United States that is na├»ve enough to think that the best candidate always wins elections in this country. And after last November's presidential election, where the winner was the candidate who promised more economic misery created by the very policies he was promising to continue, I do not believe anyone even thinks that the candidate with the best message wins elections. With the revelation that the Obama campaign used the power and authority of government agencies under their control, namely the Internal Revenue Service, to suppress the votes of his political opposition by neutering the organizations responsible for Republicant voter turnout, one can understand why James Madison limited the federal government through enumeration of powers in the Constitution.
     Madison knew that men were not angels, and as such, allowing any man access to the power of unlimited government would always lead to despotism and tyranny. Madison also knew that the more powerful the federal government became, the more irrelevant individual voters became. The irrelevance of the American voter has been increasing over the last fifty years for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to, Congress ceding its legislative authority to an ever more expanding and powerful fourth branch of government known as bureaucracy, as well as McCain/Fiengold, otherwise known as campaign finance reform, which makes participation in the political process by citizens almost impossible.
     Campaign finance reform makes it very unlikely that candidates of modest means can run for political office for two reasons. One, the cost of being compliant with the thousands of pages of regulatory gobbley gook of the law requires very deep pockets. And two, the law restricts individual donations to a campaign to $2000, but allows a person to contribute as much as they want to their own campaign. This gives the advantage to muti-millionaires over candidates of more modest means. This law also applies to groups of citizens organizing to support or fight against a local issue in their community. They too must hire expensive campaign finance lawyers to ensure their group is compliant with the law. McCain/Fiengold makes grassroots political efforts in this country very difficult and expensive, and it limits free speech by limiting the size of individual campaign donations.
     The other aspect of modern government in the United States that makes the American voter more irrelevant is the way in which laws are passed, especially under the Obama administration. Major legislation like ObamaCare and Dodd/Frank, the so-called financial reform law, are rammed through congress without the people's representatives even reading them. Modern legislation is just a place holder for the most onerous parts of the law to be written later by bureaucrats who answer, not to the voters, but to the executive branch. This system of law making by unelected bureaucrats is not only antithetical to the Constitution of this great nation, but it reduces the power and relevance of the voter. The American voter has lost the authority, given to them by the Constitution, to remove bad law makers since elected office holders are ultimately not the ones writing the laws in this country anymore. And this, my friends, is how liberty is lost, through the gradual mitigation of the relevance of the voter, to whom the founders entrusted the fate of the republic and from whom that power has been usurped by greedy politicians.    

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

The Deliberate Disconnect Of Blacks From American History

     Recently, a friend of mine took his family on vacation to colonial Williamsburg and was recounting the rich American history that resided there to one of his inner-city tenants. This twenty-something black mother of three looked at my friend and said, "That kind of stuff is only for rich white people, and besides I would never have the money to afford a trip like that anyway." Her statement revealed two tragedies of the modern black experience in America. One, the disconnect from her own history, and two, the hopelessness that she will never attain even a modest level of success and prosperity. Both of these aspects have been deliberately inculcated in her by politicians whose Leftist ideology has destroyed this young woman and her community.
     These two aspects of the modern black experience revealed by this young woman's statement are not simply a happenstance. But rather, they are the carefully planned and executed political strategy by the Left over the last few decades to detach blacks from their history and their hope for a better life so that they will forever be dependent on the programs that are administered by power hungry politicians and bureaucrats. One of the most heart-breaking and destructive aspects of Leftism is that it convinces its victims to believe lies about themselves and their worth to their communities and their nation but worst of all to themselves.
     The disconnection of blacks from their American history is a corollary to the multi-culturalism cancer that has spread through much of the world and has left many countries without the thread of a common past, culture or goals that ties them together. In the United States, the purveyors of the multi-cultural disease have been rewriting history to advance the false narrative that the United States of America was founded, and has existed, on greed, racism and bigotry. This bastardized history has been taught to several generations of children, especially black children, who then feel no pride in or connection to the country in which they live. And of course this creates the environment for Leftist politicians to advance their oppressive big government programs for the purpose of creating some sort of retribution through redistribution.
     The second aspect of my friend's young tenant's statement is a close companion to the deliberate disconnection of blacks from their American culture, the breaking down of their self confidence and the self reliance that results from it. People who are self reliant have much less need for government than those who lack the necessary skills to fulfill the basic responsibilities of life. The Democrat party and other Leftists have spent the last half century convincing blacks that because of the history of America, they have no ability to change their lives, or even subsist of their own accord, and must therefore depend on the Leftists big government programs.
     The entire political fortunes of the Democrat party, and Leftists in general, depend on people not being able to take care of themselves. So they gobble up the talents, hopes, dreams and ambitions of those most vulnerable and spit them back in the form of oppressive government programs that limit the individual spirit from soaring as high as it can, therefore damaging the entire community. This is the tragedy that is Leftism and the criminality of those who are its practitioners. 

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

The Free Market Is Only Alternative To ObamaCare

     Over the weekend, in his radio address to the nation, Barack Obama cavalierly called health care a right. His and other Leftists proclivity to elevate commodities to the level of Constitutional rights is breathtaking in its lack of respect for individual liberty. It has always made me scratch my head in confusion when the main stream media, and others who belong to the Leftist Industrial Complex, refer to Barack Obama as a Constitutional lawyer and scholar. He guest lectured at Harvard on how to use Saul Alinsky tactics, as outlined in Rules For Radicals, in order to enact and impose "social justice."  And his actions since becoming President in January 2009 have been anything but Constitutional-friendly.
     When it comes to the original intent of the Constitution, i.e., limiting the size and scope of government to protecting the God-given natural rights of citizens, Barack Obama has an understanding analogous to that of a two year old child trying to understand algebra. The President does seem to understand that, as Abraham Lincoln said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is powerful enough to take everything you have." And using the power of government to confiscate individual liberty in favor of collective responsibility is something that Barack Obama, or any other Leftist for that matter, has no qualms about doing.
     With regards to government-run health care, even the usual supporters of Leftist policies, comprised of people who want something for nothing, realize that it has been proven to be a failure every where it has ever been implemented. But further than that, the more responsibility government takes for the lives of individuals, the less liberty remains for those people to enjoy their natural rights given to them by God. In other words, individual responsibility can not be shifted to government without also shifting a certain amount of individual liberty as well.
     It is understandable that Leftists like Barack Obama try to limit freedom and grow government, the absolute antitheses of the Constitution. But I do not understand people like Newt Gingrich, who use to be the standard bearer for conservatism, but now seems ready to throw the founders overboard on the idea of health care. Mr. Gingrich recently stated that Republicants need to proffer their own version of government-run health care, and not just oppose ObamaCare. What Mr. Gingrich is suggesting is a sort of ObamaCare-lite, government expansion and interference in a private sector industry under the banner of conservatism. The real solution to our nation's health care woes is not an alternative to ObamaCare, as Mr. Gingrich suggests, but a moratorium on government involvement and control at all.
     For alleged conservatives like Newt Gingrich to support a Republicant version of health care reform, is illustrative of the ideological corruption that has occurred in this country, not only on the Left, but on the right as well. It suggests, in complete contradiction to the constitution, that government can and must create rights out of commodities like health care. The founders knew that once government stepped into God's realm of bestowing rights upon free people, it would lead to tyranny and oppression, no matter how well-intentioned that government may claim to be The founders further realized that individuals working in a free and open market created the best backdrop for the majority of citizens to thrive and prosper. And this free market backdrop builds the best and most affordable commodities for everyone, whether those commodities are smart phones, dry cleaning or health care.

Monday, August 19, 2013

Barack Obama-Anatomy Of An Authoritarian

     Millions of words have been written about Barack Obama, our 44th President, many of them right here on this blog. Much analysis has been engaged in for the purpose of understanding how the man's mind works and what really motivates him. Dinesh D' Souza produced an entire full-length film documentary that delved into Barack Obama's abandonment by his father as a motivation for wanting to see his dream of an anti-colonialism retribution meted out against the evil Western forces that enslaved the rest of the world, especially the black parts of it. That was the theory anyway, and it seemed to have validity considering Mr. Obama's actions and the aggregate of information revealed through people who knew him best that Mr. D' Souza interviewed.
     The object of my post today is not so much to explain what makes Barack Obama tick, that is a moot point seeing as he does and we are stuck with him for a little over three more years, but how that ticking is manifest in using human weakness to empower himself and his master of big government. Most authoritarians throughout history have one thing in common, they use human frailties to subdue the masses and consolidate power to themselves. Human beings are inherently evil and must fight against their evil nature to produce advancements in the human condition towards morality and prosperity. If humans were inherently good, as those on the Left believe, then no laws or conscious moral code would be needed to guide societies.
     This frailty of the human condition manifests itself in two main ways of which authoritarians like President Obama take advantage. One is the inherent slothfulness which exist in all of mankind, and which authoritarians use to extract support by offering something for nothing. The allure of free stuff like food, housing and health care, among others, quickly transforms into a life of servitude by the people to the authoritarian and his massive bureaucracy that must exist in order to satisfy the desires of slothfulness. What Barack Obama is doing is nothing new, authoritarians throughout history have offered their people Nirvana which exists of free food, shelter, health care and protection from evil businesses that are stifled, subdued and drained of resources by the big government of the authoritarian.
      The second human frailty that authoritarians use to gain power over the masses is hatred. Men like Barack Obama usurp power from the people by convincing them that they have no power except that power which they wield with their massive government programs. People are taught they are victims, by authoritarians like Mr. Obama, of those who are more successful and therefore they are taught to hate those people. That hatred fuels the political ambitions of the authoritarian without ever improving the lives of those convinced to support him as a result of their hatred. In fact, the lives of the people living under the authoritarian rule only get worse the more power he gains over them. This use of hatred to focus peoples attention and energy on a group in society, usually the wealthy or those who offer a more self-reliant and more prosperous society that needs not depend on centralized government for its daily bread, is how authoritarians like Barack Obama create a massive and crushing state that they control.
     A great leader of a free society will inculcate in those he governs the desire to want less from their government, not more. An Authoritarian will convince those he governs that they can have all the benefits entitled to them without any of the responsibilities. Those will be shouldered by the authoritarian and his big statist government. As history has shown, these type of systems never work to the benefit of the people and always devolve into poverty and oppression. Sloth and hatred are the authoritarians best tools for achieving a society that is beholding to him and thereby immoral and by no means prosperous. We have seen that in this country, the more government dependence that is created, the less moral and prosperous our country becomes. And Barack Obama is the latest in a long line of authoritarians throughout history that break the human spirit, deplete the moral bank of civilized society and enslave the liberty of a prosperous and free nation.   

Saturday, August 17, 2013

The Right Dishonors Itself By Lionizing Edward Snowden

     Have you ever had the occasion to hear someone on the radio or watch someone on television, who claims to be a Conservative, say something so antithetical to the core beliefs of conservatism you just want to reach through the television or radio and slap some sense into them? Well, I had one of those moments this morning while driving to work and listening to Bill Bennett's Morning In America. Mr. Bennett's guest host, Ken Wahl, and some of his callers were defending NSA leaker, Edward Snowden, and in some instances calling him a hero.
     I have written on this subject before, but this hero-worship on the Right for a man who conducts himself in such a dishonorable fashion is breath-taking. Do not mistake what I am saying, I do not necessarily have a problem with the exposure of the National Security Administration's massive data collection of millions of Americans' phone records and Internet traffic. I am sympathetic to the cause of individual liberty which finds this behavior by our government abhorrent. I do, however, have a huge problem with the manner in which Mr. Snowden conducted himself in this affair, as should anyone who cares about the principles of conservatism and honor.
     The actions of Edward Snowden were in no way heroic, not because the information he exposed did not warrant heroism for its exposure, but because he engaged in the broadcast of classified information of his nation from a foreign land and then sought asylum from other foreign lands. This behavior would be analogous to the Founding Fathers signing the Declaration Of Independence in France and then high-tailing it to Jamaica to wait out the Revolutionary War. Honor demands doing what you feel in your heart, and that which is supported by your principles, and suffering any consequences for having done so. Mr. Snowden conducted himself in a dishonorable manner and should not be supported or made the object of hero worship by anyone, especially those on the Right who profess to subscribe to the principles of liberty, which is built upon the cornerstone of honor. 
     The signers of the Declaration Of Independence pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors to the cause of Liberty. Some actually lost their lives, and many lost their fortunes, but not one lost their sacred honor. Mr. Snowden will not lose his life over his actions nor will he lose a fortune, although some say he sacrificed a pretty cushy life in Hawaii to expose the NSA program. He did, however, throw away his sacred honor, that is if he had it to begin with. And those who have stood Mr. Snowden up as a hero have exposed their ignorance of honor and their willingness to elevate disgrace and dishonor to its lofty perch.

Friday, August 16, 2013

The Drive-By President And The Transformation Of The Arab Spring Into The Arab Bloodbath

     This week, the Egyptian military started shooting Mohamed Morsi supporters who were protesting the coup-like way in which he was removed from office after having been democratically elected by the Egyptian people. I am in no way a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood or their former leader and recent Egyptian President, Mohamed Morsi. The real impetus for the current massacre in Egypt, which most likely will not end with the current 500 plus dead, was the Obama doctrine of meddle-stir-disappear. And while the drive-by President continues his never-ending vacation that began in January of 2009 and has at various times been interrupted by the burdensome duties of his office, he has made his position on Egypt as clear as an eight year old boy trying to tell his father how he did not break the garage window with his baseball.
     President Obama's audio statement today, Thursday August 15,2013, on the Egyptian massacre (I guess it was too much trouble to put on a sport coat and tie for a video statement) was spectacular in its ineptness and lack of understanding. Mr. Obama did avoid characterizing the removal of his strong horse, Morsi, as a coup, which would have meant an immediate suspension of the 1.3 billion dollars in U.S. aid that is given to the Egyptian government every year, whoever they are.
     In his statement, the President called Egypt a beacon of peace in the past, but it was he himself who facilitated the ouster of the man who was keeping that peace, Hosni Mubarak. And after the American ally was removed as Egypt's leader, Mr. Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate to fill his position. When Mohamed Morsi was removed by the Egyptian military in a coup six weeks ago, President Obama justified their actions by saying Morsi was not responsive to the voices and needs of his people (Remind you of anyone we know?). Now the ever-fickle President seems to be distancing himself, with strong admonitions, from the Egyptian military. Never has one man been so wrong, so many times on the same issue as Barack Obama on Egypt in the last two and half years.
     While I am not a big fan of military take-overs of countries in general, the only alternative in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood. With the growing strength of radical Islam in the Middle East, and spreading throughout the world, allowing the grandfather organization to all Islamic terrorist groups, to control a country of 85 million people in the Middle East would be disastrous, not only for the Egyptian people but for the cause of peace and decency throughout the world. This is a time for strong U.S. leadership in the world, but Barack Obama's shallow and limited habit of seeing world events strictly in political terms precludes him from providing the moral certitude needed to confront evil where it exists, support allies of liberty in their struggle against the forces of tyranny and provide the necessary example of leadership, founded on principle, tempered with decency and fueled by the strength of conviction.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

The President Calls For An End To Deficit Reduction

     The forked-tongued President is at the same time touting a reduction in the federal budget deficit he had nothing to with, and calling for an end to the sequester cuts which in part have been responsible for that very reduction. The federal deficit has been cut in half, from 1.2 trillion dollars to only 600 billion dollars. It is good to know that our federal government is only spending 600 thousand million more dollars than it takes in, and this is being touted by the Spendthrift In Chief as a positive achievement. That slimmer budget deficit represents what the entire federal budget was just thirty years ago.
     So President Obama receives credit from the mainstream media and low-information voters for halving the deficit, but no blame for increasing it four times the amount it ever reached under most of the Bush administration. And one of the few things that has led to a reduction in the budget deficit, i.e., the sequester, Barack Obama wants to eliminate. President Obama fought the commencement of the sequester cuts this past January after having hood-winked Republicants into voting for them in August of 2011 as part of the debt ceiling negotiations.
     The President thought the sequester cuts would never go into affect, and that he could use the threat of the cuts to hold political sway over Republicants. But when he was unable to do so, he chose to cut expenditures that would hurt the American people the most. Remember the air traffic controllers, cancellation of White House tours and shuttering of national parks? But maybe the President has once again gotten the better of Republicants. Many on the right have been positively giddy over the reduction in the deficit, which may make their case for further cuts, especially in entitlements, a moot point. The fact that anyone on the Right would be happy about cutting a deficit in half that was bloated beyond the point of good governance, is sort of like a man on a sinking ship with a twelve foot hole in its side being happy about having a thimble with which to bail out the flood of water.
     The fact that this government needs to be cut, not by measly single digit percentage points, but by double digits, has not stopped President Obama from rattling the cage of the sequester beast. He is not promoting the removal of the sequester cuts because they have had a negative effect on the programs and agencies he favors, nor because they have had a negative effect on the economy at large. No, the reason the President is bringing up the issue of the sequester now, when it is totally off the radar screens of most Americans, is so that he can blame it for the negative and pathetic economy that has resulted because of his policies.  
     President Obama knows that there is not much chance that the economy is going to improve before next year's mid-term elections, it is the reason he has engaged in the illegal activity of delaying large parts of ObamaCare. But it is also why he is now trying to characterize the sequester as the Republicants fault and the reason for high unemployment and low Gross Domestic Product growth. And Mr. Obama may just succeed because once again the Republicants are being trumped in the PR war, choosing not to even have a dog in the fight. The Republicants need to get out in front of the President's latest scheme to blame them and explain to the American people that after five years of this recession, the policies of the man in the White House have continued the economic hardship for Americans that should have been a distant memory by now.
    
    

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Eric Holder's Decriminalization Of Black Crime

     For the umpteenth time, the Obama administration's strict adherence to a rigorously Leftist ideology has trumped any respect for the law, this time in the person of Attorney General, Eric Holder. The severely rule of law-challenged Holder has decided that he and the United States Attorneys under his command, will no longer enforce the mandatory minimum criminal penalties as they apply to crack and powder cocaine offenses. The reason for the Attorney General violating his oath to uphold the law of the land is that he says it is racist because a disproportionate number of blacks are charged under it than whites. Never mind that according to the Constitution of the United States, the Attorney General has no authority to dismiss laws, in part or in whole, from being enforced. The real dichotomy is that the mandatory minimum penalties for crack and powder cocaine are similar in nature to those for methamphetamine, which results in crimes that are committed almost entirely by white offenders. Those mandatory minimums will, of course, continue to be enforced.
     The Attorney General repeated the same myth used by pro-criminal advocates, i.e., our prisons are filled with non-violent offenders who are drug users, mainly of marijuana. The data from Eric Holder's own Justice Department shows that the vast majority of those in prison for drug crimes are major traffickers or those engaged in violent crimes while in possession of drugs. The Obama administration has already increased the amount of crack cocaine that one must be in possession of before they are charged with a major felony by a factor of 25. Drug offenders are not a majority of the prison populations in this country as criminal advocates would have us believe. In fact, only twenty percent of those incarcerated in state prisons are there as a result of drug felonies. Only seventeen percent of those twenty percent have been convicted of crimes involving marijuana. And only three tenths of one percent of those charged with marijuana crimes are non-violent possession cases. But the Attorney General, the President and other criminal advocates would have us believe that the country's prisons are bursting at the seams with people who were caught simply toking a joint on a Saturday night in the wrong place at the wrong time.
     Attorney General Holder supported his position to ignore the law by saying that those caught in the harsh mandatory minimum sentencing for crack and powder cocaine are usually black, and because of that fact the supposition can be arrived at that the criminal justice system in this country is racist. The Attorney General and others are actually hurting the black community at large, from which the innocent victims of the criminals Mr. Holder is trying to protect are culled. Instead of decriminalizing black crime, the Attorney General, the President and other advocates should address the issues which cause it. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among the inner city black population is 75% and unemployment is at a similarly high rate. But the remedies of Leftists like Mr. Holder only perpetuate the pain for those they claim to want to help.
     When the Attorney General characterizes the U.S. prison system as some sort of receptacle for the discarded black youths of a racist society, once again the data does not support his position. Half of all those in prison are Hispanic. No one, even the most ardent advocates for the criminal element in this country, are saying that the large number of blacks in prison are innocent of the crimes of which they have been charged. What the advocates and Eric Holder are suggesting, is that somehow by decriminalizing certain illegal behaviors, it will bring down the crime rate in predominantly black neighborhoods. But as bloviating Leftists like the President and Attorney General Holder will point to their policy of simply ignoring certain crimes as achieving a lower crime rate, the increased number of victims of those crimes will continue to live in fear and find no representation in their government or civic leaders.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

The NSA Defenders' Case Ignores The Constitution

     Since National Security Administration data mining leaker and all around weasel, Edward Snowden, made his startling outing of just how wide spread and massive the government's collection of Americans' personal data has become, there has been defense of the program from both the Left and the Right. At times, the Obama administration's degree of rigorous support for the existence of the program has been over-shadowed by the case made for it by those on the Right. And while I am no fan of Mr. Snowden nor the program he exposed, I can not understand why anyone who values the Constitution of the United States can defend such an obvious aberration of it.
     The defense of the NSA's extreme snooping program consists of two prongs. One, that the program is the only way in the known universe to uncover the communications of terrorists who mean us harm. It is a miracle that those responsible for U.S. security during World War II were able to fight the Germans, Japanese and Italians without rummaging through the garbage cans of every American. The second prong of the NSA's data strip mining program defense is that no innocent American has had their rights violated by the program, and because of that, the program passes the Constitutional sniff test. The promoters of such nonsense distract the unsophisticated with a no-harm-no-foul argument as it relates to any one individual's civil liberties, but misses the larger issue of the whole Constitutional concept of civil liberties being placed on the chopping block.
     A corollary argument to the no-harm-no-foul one that some on the Right have made in defense of the data mining operation being performed by the peoples government, is that national security is one of the few tasks in which the founders believed the federal government should engage. So, they say, all good Conservatives and believers in the Constitution should therefore support the NSA's collection of every one's phone records and Internet transactions. This leap in logic proposed by the proponents of the program is at best woefully uniformed and at worst deliberately disingenuous. The founders would agree that the national security duty charged to the federal government by the Constitution must be restrained by the civil liberties of individuals. There is nothing more important to the free and proper functioning of the republic than the concept of individual liberty and freedom, without it, national security is a moot point.
     Finally, the defenders of such widespread confiscation of civil liberties via a dragnet approach to collecting data, have suggested that it must be constitutionally legitimate because federal judges have said it was okay. If judges were so infallible when it came to civil liberties, we would still have slavery in this country as a result of the Dred Scott decision arrived at by judges. The fact that, as James Madison pointed out, men are not governed by angels, is exactly the reason that he placed individual liberties as the cornerstone of the Constitution as a limiting principle on the powers and authority of the federal government. The massive data mining program conducted by the NSA chips away at that cornerstone and threatens to topple the very edifice of liberty and freedom in this nation.
      

Monday, August 12, 2013

The New American Ethos

     I recently heard one of the winners of a mega lottery contest exclaim that he could now decide what kind of car he would drive and where he would live. I thought it was sad that people have become so hopeless in the age of Obama that they no longer think those basic decisions are a natural part of the American experience. This resignation that independence and prosperity are no longer within the control of the individual, is illustrative of the deliberate substitution of the rugged can-do spirit that built this great nation with the hopelessness that is government dependence.
     The idea that someone can work hard and attain a certain level of success, and that that success would precipitate an increase in the availability of choices for the individual, is lost to the Leftist-sponsored entitlement mentality that now permeates this country and is used by Democrats to ensure their re-elections. And with this new mentality comes an acquiescence by individuals that government has more control over their lives than they do themselves. This new American ethos is antithetical to  the opportunity society that the founders of this nation endeavored so diligently to create.
     When men like Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams and others created the documents that formed the foundations of a new kind of nation, for the first time in history they built a nation on the inversion of the previously accepted model of organized societies. Whereas in most other systems the power of governance emanated from the top down, this new nation of the United States of America, with its Declaration of Independence, Constitution and other founding documents, gave the most power to the individual, then to local governments. The least amount of power was given to the federal government. The founders knew that the more freedom individuals had to unlock their own potential, the more opportunity would be created for others.
     The new American ethos imposed by Leftist ideology teaches individuals, like that recent lottery winner, that choice is not their birthright, but is the result of luck or government largess. It teaches that the only opportunity is that which is graciously doled out by a central government that decides who is deserving and who is not. This new American ethos, created by people like Barack Obama, has elevated selfishness to the level of virtue and has replaced individual generosity with government confiscation of wealth. The new American ethos created by politicians with a rapacious appetite for power has inculcated the public with a rapacious appetite to indulge in the fruits of other peoples labor. The new American ethos, born of the soulless and immoral trappings of Leftism, devours the ideals that built this great nation and has sustained it for over two hundred years. The new American ethos is not all that new, it is born of the same defective thinking that has caused most of the strife in the world and is as old as man himself. It is the thinking that says governments can manage the affairs of individuals better than that of the individuals themselves. This is the basis of all tyranny and the enemy of all liberty.    
    

Saturday, August 10, 2013

The Tale Of The Taper

     This week, the stock market declined one percent after having been on a record-breaking run in recent months. The decline was driven by some lackluster earnings and unsatisfactory economic data, but mainly by ever-increasing talk of an end to the Federal Reserve's bond buying program to the tune of 85 billion dollars a month that has put the market on a sugar high for the last couple of years.   
     The dichotomy of Ben Bernanke's quantitative easing strategy he has imposed on the free market for the last three years, is that by its very implementation it has prevented the environment by which it can be safely tapered and eliminated. The theory behind Bernanke's academic exercise is that if the Federal Reserve prints enough money (85 billion dollars a month) and uses that money to buy government bonds, it will have a stimulative effect on a lackluster economy. The Fed's bond buying is suppose to keep interest rates low, driving money into stocks and making it more likely that banks will loan money to individuals and businesses. The increased economic activity that quantitative easing was suppose to create, the theory goes, would absorb the negative effect to the economy of its necessary end.
     The problem with the simplistic and shallow economic theory of academics like Bernanke, is that by its very implementation, quantitative easing has stifled economic growth and proof of that fact is in the pathetic growth rate of Gross Domestic Product, which has averaged under two percent for the last four years. This is hardly enough growth to create the number of jobs needed to keep pace with new entrants into the job market, let alone, replace the millions of jobs lost since Ben's boss, Barack Obama, took the oath of office in January of 2009.
     Now comes the time when Ben Bernanke is being forced by the laws of economics, the only law that Barack Obama and his administration can not successfully ignore, to end the seemingly endless printing of U.S. dollars being used to buy government bonds. I do not think that Ben Bernanke is a stupid man (he has degrees from universities, so that means he can not be stupid, right?) he is just an arrogant puppet master who believes that with a wave of his hand he can bring to life the dead wood of an economy that has been sitting on his lap with his hand up its backside. But alas, Big Ben's hand up the backside of the economy not withstanding, the only thing that will bring it to life is real economic growth, spurred by lower taxes, less government interference in the affairs of business and less wealth redistribution and more wealth creation that can only be accomplished by the free market. 
     I use to foolishly believe that the stock market was driven by fundamentals, the profit and loss of individual companies and the macro conditions of the economy at large, and maybe at one time this was the case. But what has driven the market for the last few years is the arrogance of Ben Bernanke and Barack Obama, two men who have never held positions in the private sector, but still somehow think they are more qualified to direct it than those who operate in it daily. And the exercise in ego-boosting that is engaged in by the President and the Chairman of the Fed of moving the market one way or another by a single word, is not to be overshadowed by the market mavens who are foolishly given some solace by that exercise. But the reaction of those who move money around in the market is endemic in our society at large. It is the desire for big poppa government to be there with his bottomless wallet to bail them out, whether it be because of bad investment choices or bad life-style choices. In the end, we all must suffer the bad choices that are born of arrogance from men like Ben Bernanke and Barack Obama.

Friday, August 9, 2013

It Is Not About Barack Obama

    In a time when hurricane Barack has been making every attempt to capsize liberty's small craft. And with an entire administration that is embroiled in more scandal than the last dozen or so Presidents combined. And with the leader of the free world, who took an oath to uphold the law of the land, now scoffing at said law and refusing to follow it when it is inconvenient to his schemes of a Leftist utopia. I have determined that it is a mistake for Conservatives to focus all their ideological energy on Barack Obama, even though he is currently the purveyor of the sort of tyranny that rips at the soft tissue surrounding the heart of liberty.
     The truth is that over the last 40 years, even though the United States has remained committed to the republican values upon which it was founded, at least in the hearts and minds of a majority of its citizens, the unconstitutional bureaucracies which govern those people, have taken a deep plunge into the black hole of Leftism. The results of this diseased thinking of Leftist governing is destruction.
     When I was a child, before government control of the health care industry was rooted very deeply, the average family could afford to pay for minor surgeries and medical procedures out of pocket. And they certainly could afford to pay for their own doctors' visits and prescription drugs. The more that government reached into the doctor/patient relationship with its tentacles of "benefits" for the few, the more costly health care became for everyone. And the destructive solution of Leftists to solve the nation's health care troubles caused mainly by too much government was even more government.
     The destructive nature of Leftist policies that has occurred in health care has been replicated in many other areas of American life, including but not limited to, education, energy and transportation. And the burden for these excursions into the failure that is Leftism is being borne by fewer and fewer of the citizens of this great nation. When I was a teenager, the top wage earners in this country shouldered 20% of the total tax burden, today those same wage earners shoulder 40% of the total tax burden. The increasing segment of the population that is being supported by an ever-shrinking segment of the population is illustrative of the diseased thought process of Leftist policies. It is a thought process that venerates parasitical behavior over industrious behavior and then demonizes the very industry of those who pay the bills racked up by the failed policies of Leftism.
     I know it is very tempting as freedom-loving Americans to focus our attention on the current source of tyranny in the White House. But the growth of government that has lead to the bureaucratic state that President Obama now leads, began long before he was even born. There is no greater threat to the liberty born of the founders' efforts than anything less than a rigorous opposition to the contrarian nature to that liberty posed by Leftism. Liberty has not been eaten alive by Barack Obama, but had been left unprotected and half-dead in the waste land of tyranny for decades by those who should be defenders of it. And the Leftist vultures like Mr. Obama have survived on the stinking carcass of what was once a proud, strong and free ideal that created the greatest nation in all of human history.   

Thursday, August 8, 2013

The Cancer In The Republicant Party

     There is a cancer that has grown strong in the Republicant party. It has metastasized and transformed the healthy body of rigorous opposition into a weak and sickly patient that can not feed itself. The source of the cancer is the uncontested false charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry and mean-spiritedness. It causes members of the infected body to run like scared little rabbits into the weeds of  acquiescence and acceptance. The cancer has infected parts of the body to such a great degree that they have attacked healthier and more principled parts of the body.
     The current residence of the cancer growing in the Republicant party is in the debate over whether or not to risk a government shutdown over defunding ObamaCare in the continuing resolution at the end of September. I have even heard radio talk show host and alleged Conservative, Michael Medved, say that we should never stand on principle unless we are sure we can win. Using that flawed and ridiculous thinking, the American revolution would have never been fought. Standing on principle only when one thinks he can win, as Mr. Medved suggests, is not standing on principle at all unless your principle is the shallow goal of always winning.    
     The argument of the "we are going to get blamed for something bad if we stand on principle" crowd would have us believe that because the Democrats and the Left own the main stream media, they own the debate. If that is the case, the Republicant members of the House and the Senate should not even bother showing up for votes anymore. The cancerous crowd in the Republicant party think that since the party is lousy at messaging, they should never make a stand based on principle for fear of not having Democrats agree and subsequently being pummeled in the media.
     I do not even buy the cancer crowd's theory that because of a powerful media, bought and paid for by the Democrats, that Republicants can never make their case. Obviously Ronald Reagan was able to overcome the Left-leaning media by speaking directly to the people and articulating Conservatism. Even before he was President, he was able to accomplish this herculean, but none the less attainable feat. Otherwise he would have never been elected President.
     The Republicants have never been in a better position to make their case to the American people as they are on the defunding of ObamaCare. A majority of the American people want the law repealed and have seen the impending disaster of its full implementation if it is not stopped now. Even the President seems to be handing the Republicants a gift of his support by admitting the failure of the new law with his selective delaying of one of its largest parts, i.e., the employer mandate. But even with the position of strength that the Republicants seemingly have on this issue, the cancer crowd wants to surrender their principles and the liberty of the nation before the battle has even begun.
     Yes, there is a cancer growing in the Republicant party and its name is defeatism. It overwhelms principle with fear, action with acquiescence and courage with capitulation. But it is not only the Republicant party that has and will suffer from this growing cancer, but all freedom-loving people in this great nation. And to a larger extent, without vigilant and rigorous defense against the forces of tyranny, the cause of freedom and true justice will also be made weak by the growing tumor of Leftism that has attached itself to the healthy body of constitutional government that makes liberty possible.  

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Liberty Sacrificed At The Altar Of Security

     The closure of over 20 United States embassies this week were the result, we were told by the administration, of credible intelligence of an increased threat of terrorism culled from the National Security Administration's massively intrusive data mining operation. The same operation that puts the liberty of millions of Americans at risk, whether any law abiding citizen has of yet been snared in the extra-constitutional net or not. And, of course, the timing of such a public announcement of a threat large enough to close almost two dozen embassies, and the credit for saving possibly hundreds of lives of U.S. diplomats being given to the controversial NSA snooping program, is at best a fortuitous coincidence for an administration that has recently been  caught with its hand in liberty's cookies jar.
     The unlimited net cast by the NSA in the sea of Americans phone calls and Internet transactions is similar to the general warrants issued by the British, which was one of the reasons the American colonists were so upset and went to war to break their ties with the motherland. But the current incarnation of general warrants is condoned and supported by some on the right, which is the most disheartening thing to anyone who values the Constitution of the United States. The reason that liberty and freedom have been sacrificed at the altar of security is that the Obama administration has transformed the intelligence gathering apparatus of the U.S. government into a data analysis operation. The number of actual agents on the ground mining for intelligence has been cut in half by the Obama administration and replaced with computer geeks who pour over yours and mine phone and Internet records looking for bits of information that use to be gathered with real honest to goodness spying.
     The people doing the intelligence gathering now, for the most part, are people like Valerie Plame. Remember her? She was the so-called "spy" who the Bush administration was accused of outing, resulting in Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby going to prison for a process crime in an investigation that should have never taken place. Ms. Plame was not a spy as you or I might define that term, but was a desk jockey whose days were spent analyzing reams of raw data. And the fact that the Obama administration has increased the number of Valerie Plames in U.S. intelligence agencies, has made it necessary for the NSA to keep them all fed with data to analyze.
     Supporters of the NSA program claim that it makes it easier to foil terrorist plots, thus keeping Americans safe. Easier than what? Having agents infiltrating terrorist organizations, developing relationships with human assets and tracking the phone calls and Internet traffic of those individuals actually involved in terrorism. Or are we now to accept the disappearing of our liberty anytime it makes it more convenient for our government to "protect" us? Even the most ardent supporters of the NSA data mining program could not make a credible case that the founders of this great nation would condone its intrusion upon the personal liberty of millions of Americans. There is nothing to be gained from safety at the expense of liberty, and no more intolerable a sin than that of government intrusion upon the private communications of Americans without just cause. We can no longer allow the carrot of security to be used by supporters of the NSA program in order to pummel the cause of liberty with the stick of tyranny,   

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

The Congressional Exemption From ObamaCare Slaps The Face Of The Constitution

     The recent carving out of the United States Congress and their staffs from the ObamaCare law has raised quite a stir on the Right, but not with the American people at large or the propaganda arm of the Obama administration known as the main stream media. Back in 2010, when ObamaCare was passed in the dead of night using the subterfuge of reconciliation, previously only used for budgetary issues which had no opposition, Republicant Senator Grassley was able to attach an amendment to the bill which required Congress to live under the same rigors of health care reform that they were imposing on the rest of the nation.
     Just last week, as he has done so many times when law interferes with his ideological goals, President Obama pushed for Congress and their staffs to be exempted from the new law because it was going to be too much of a financial burden for them. Barack Obama, of course, has no similar concern for the people of this great nation, even those low-information voters who supported him and will now have to suffer the only torture this administration has not outlawed, it policies and edicts.
     This Congressional exemption from ObamaCare violates the spirit of the Constitution as outlined in The Federalist Papers, Madison #57, when he wrote:
      I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining 
     them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation
     on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been
     deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people
     together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of
     which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government
     degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from
     making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I 
     answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all,
     the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America -- a spirit which nourishes
     freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
     The fact that Barack Obama pays no homage, honor or respect to the very constitution which made possible his current position, is not a surprise to those who have paid attention the last 5 years. He has continually disparaged the Constitution by saying if Congress failed to enact his policies he would act on his own, a complete reversal of the Constitutional principles he took an oath to uphold. He has expressed his disdain for the document that breathed the life of freedom and liberty, not only into this great nation, but in nations throughout the world where its ideals and values have been an inspiration.
     But Barack Obama's transformation of America from a society based on laws to one based on the whims of rulers, has been made possible by the abandonment of what Madison called "the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America--a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it." Without the advocacy and outrage of the American people, the Constitution is just a collection of words that has no ability to restrain the authoritarian ambitions that drive men like Barack Obama.

Monday, August 5, 2013

Embassy Closings A Sign Of U.S. Weakness

     Over the weekend, the Obama administration announced the closures of some embassies in North Africa and the Middle East until Saturday because of credible threats of terrorism uncovered by intelligence sources. The necessary security to defend the embassies in question apparently was not as cost effective as the 1.4 billion dollars spent last year on the Obama Royal family for their lavish vacations every month and various other trappings related to being First Family. Embassy security in strategic countries to the war on terror is also not as important to the Obamaites as the billions of taxpayer dollars still being doled out like candy at a parade to phony green energy companies run by the President's campaign donors. Or the myriad other wasteful government expenditures like lavish conferences and bonuses to various agencies that spit in the eye of fiscal responsibility and probity.
     Beyond the ludicrous nature of closing embassies that may be subject to attack because there is a lack of funds to keep them open with proper security, is the obvious, i.e., would the terrorists planning these attacks not just wait a week and attack once the embassies are reopened? Now that the Obama administration has publicly informed the terrorists of the closures, mainly so the President can look as if he is being "smart" in the wake of the Benghazi debacle, it allows the terrorist forces aligned against the U.S. to adjust their plans and not be caught off guard by attacking empty embassies.
     In addition to the terrorists being given free intelligence by the Obama administration about the embassy closures, is the pathetic weakness that the closures portend to both our enemies and our allies about the new posture of the United States under the Obama regime. A posture that says it is wiser to close diplomatic outposts than it is to provide proper security for fear of provoking people who mean us harm. According to the Obama philosophy, if we show our enemies that we are weak and unable to defend ourselves and our interests around the world, they will simply pack up and go home without firing a shot. It is a philosophy that truly believes we have enemies because of our conspicuous military superiority.
     President Reagan once said that of all the wars fought in the last hundred years, none were the result of America being too strong. This is a truism that the current occupant of the Oval Office (when he is not on vacation or playing golf) seems to have no ability to understand. But what Barack Obama and others on the Left fail to learn from history and common sense is that the opposite is true. When the United States is either weak or perceived as such, there is more insecurity and outright war throughout the world. A strong U.S. is a benefit to the world, and closing embassies because defending them is a show of strength that this President abhors, only benefits the cause of our enemies.

Saturday, August 3, 2013

The Russian Bear Kicks American Eagle Feathered Butt

     Almost from the moment that Barack Obama was declared President of the United States after the 2008 general election, he has been Vladimir Putin's political paramour. The affair between the U.S. President and the Russian Prime Minister has been the stuff of fairy tales, culminating in the transformation of the most powerful office in the free world into an outpost for Russian foreign policy. So much of the Obama foreign policy is aligned with that of Vladimir Putin, that one would be hard pressed to find many areas on which they disagree.
     First, there was the way in which Barack Obama went back on the word of the U.S. government to provide radar installations in the Czech republic and missile defense in Poland, two former allies of the U.S. But betraying allies like Czechoslovakia and Poland was a fair trade-off in the mind of President Obama for keeping the Russian bear happy with the United States. The radar installations and missile defense were and are essential to the safety of our allies in the region against an ever-growing threat from a nuclear-tipped Iran.
     And of course who could forget the way in which President Obama has lead from behind with regards to the Russian proxies in Iran and by extension, Syria. The President's non-support of the 2009 Green Movement in Iran to overthrow their oppressive government could not have been scripted better by Vladimir himself. And President Obama's complete lack of leadership on Bashar Al Assad's murder of over 100,000 of his fellow Syrians, and the willingness now of Mr. Obama to arm the terrorists who have co-opted the rebel cause, are the stuff of dreams for an old KGB man like Mr. Putin.
     Could anyone forget the way in which Mr. Obama told Russian President Medveded  in 2012, before the election, that he would have more flexibility to reduce America's nuclear arsenal after he was safely re-elected? Who could forget the Rocky and Bullwinkle-like way in which President Medveded said he would "transmit the message to Vladimir?" One could almost hear the men turning over in their graves who died fighting Communist aggression in Korea during the early 1950s and in Vietnam in the 1960s, over the prospect of an American President bending to the will of his Russian masters.
     The latest dismissal of respect that should be afforded to the presidency of the United States by the Russian government, is the granting of NSA leaker and fugitive from justice, Edward Snowden, temporary political asylum. The drum that the Left beat daily during the eight year term of President George W. Bush was that his cowboy antics had lost respect for the United States with countries around the world. But it appears that our allies trust us less and our enemies mock us more under the Obama regime.
     And of course none of this disrespect for the United States troubles Barack Obama, to the contrary, he encourages it as part of his plan to reduce American influence around the world which he and his band of misfit democrats see as the cause of all the strife throughout modern history. It is late in the fight, and the Russian bear has badly damaged the American eagle in the fight for freedom and decency around the world. And the question that is salient is whether or not the eagle can withstand the punishing blows from the bear until there is strong American leadership once again in his corner.

Friday, August 2, 2013

The Invisible President

     The Invisible President is once again crossing the country spreading his political toxic waste disguised as an economic plan. The same plan he sold as "new" during the 2008 presidential campaign, during his first months in office, after the "summer of recovery" turned out to be a bust, during the 2012 presidential campaign and throughout the economic turmoil caused by his policies. President Obama's new idea in economics is the same worn old Leftist plan of confiscating wealth from those who have it and using it to grow the size of the federal government through more and more regulatory bodies. The programs that Leftist politicians impose on American liberty have never even come close to achieving their stated goals of leveling playing fields, attaining economic equality (whatever that means or why it is a good idea in a free economy), creating racial justice or the myriad other schemes that are used to sell oppressive government policies to voters.
     Even after having witnessed the stupidity of so many low-information voters in America, I am still flummoxed by the ability of people to believe Mr. Obama, when his policies have failed so spectacularly. The Obama presidency has been the longest period in post-World War II America that economic growth has stayed below two percent, causing the work force participation rate to one of its all time lowest levels. Nine million fewer people are working today than when the Invisible President took office, and a recent study found that eighty percent of Americans will struggle with joblessness and poverty in their lifetimes. Added to the over 12% of Americans on food stamps (double what it was at the end of the George W. Bush administration) the data paints a picture of an economy on the verge of collapse.
     Now that the federal government has taken control of the 17% of the private economy that was once the best health care business in the world, and has all but nationalized the banking industry with Dodd/Frank, the Leftists have achieved a coup without firing a shot. The President has done all this while never saying why his ideas are good, but only characterizing his political opponents ideas are mean-spirited and selfish. A case in point is the tired old line that Barack Obama and others on the Left trot out like a broken down old race horse whose owner thinks he has one more race left in him, the idea that the President's political opponents on the Right want an "On Your Own Economy."
     Well speaking for myself as an American and a believer in the founding principles of this great nation, I say, "Hell yeah we want an on your own economy." The men and women who fought a revolution and spilled so much blood, did it for the expressed purpose of creating a country where people were free to reap the rewards of success or use the occasion of failure as a stepping stone to success, all with limited government interference. They did not pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the cause of liberty so that someone, who has never accomplished anything in the private economy, could create a collective out of the great nation that their ideas and values brought to life.
    President Obama's statement shortly after he was elected in 2008 that no one succeeds unless everyone succeeds is not only juvenile in its formulation, but dangerous for the kind of oppressive government that is required to bring it to fruition. The kind of society that Mr. Obama intends on creating is one in which government plays a prominent role in the lives of each citizen, and success is measured by government dependence. It is a society where the reigns of government restrain the engine of freedom and prosperity and personal liberty is buried by the mountain of collective misery created by bureaucrats and power-hungry politicians. The outcome of the Invisible President is the very visible destruction of the founding principles of the greatest nation in the history of man.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

The Government Corruption Of Business

     Conventional wisdom would have us believe that it is greedy businesses, only interested in securing ever increasing profits, that corrupts the sanctified inhabitants of the Washington power structure. The theory goes that evil corporations pay lobbyists top dollar to tempt pure as the driven snow politicians to do their bidding with favorable legislation and loopholes to laws that may mitigate ill-gotten corporate gains. Well, I am here to tell you that conventional wisdom on this subject is 180 degrees out of alignment with reality.
     Think about it, if the businesses that hire lobbyists were so greedy, why would they want to spend money on lobbyists unless the expectation existed that they would have some success in influencing politicians to give them favorable treatment? Politicians, in some cases, pass restrictive legislation that results in bureaucratic regulations on businesses that require the assistance of members of Congress to provide workarounds to that very legislation. If businesses were largely regulated by the patronage of their customers or clients, they would have no financial incentive to hire lobbyists to influence members of Congress. As it is, some industries such as banking and financial services, are so heavily regulated by government that their very survival is dependent upon currying favor with politicians and regulators that have a stranglehold on their industry.
     It is easy to see, for those with the courage to face the truth, that in large part it is not business that corrupts government, but government that corrupts business. The very over-bearing government that many on the Left think is a good thing, creates cronyism between big business and big government. The taxing of Internet sales is exemplary of big business using big government to crush their smaller competitors. Companies like Amazon.com are lobbying for Internet sales tax legislation because they know that their smaller competitors would never have the resources to comply with the almost 10,000 different taxing authorities in the United States. The large established Internet companies are trying to use the power of big government to eliminate competition just as the big banks accomplished with so-called financial reform, also known as Dodd/Frank.
     Many on the Left and the right have been very vociferous in their support of stricter guidelines being placed on the lobbying industry. But the effectiveness of spending millions on lobbyists to influence the heavy hand of government on business would be mitigated if that heavy hand were simply removed from the equation. Some have even suggested banning lobbyists, but the practice is as old as the republic and is guaranteed by the Constitution in the "right of the people to petition their government." 
     The very term lobbyist was coined by General Grant during the Civil War when he came to Washington to meet with President Lincoln and found advocates hanging around the lobby of the hotel where he was staying, which was also the place where members of Congress stayed when they were in town. The influence of lobbyists has grown so great since then due to the ever-increasing scope and power of government, that lobbyists are often involved in the drafting of legislation. And this situation, created by corrupt politicians, is anathema to the very Constitutional authority of Congress to make laws. The "right of the people to petition their government," i.e., lobbying, has been corrupted by a government that has grown too large in its influence over the daily activities of the governed.