The Shackles Of The Candy Land Mentality

     Some on the political Right have taken to calling Barack Obama evil, even though they have received verbal lashings from some of their brethren who are more fearful, acquiescent, and moderate. Barack Obama is not evil, but he is depraved. His complete unconcern for even those who call themselves supporters, being proof of said depravity. It is that same depravity that spews hatred and racism for his political opponents that also drowns his supporters in despair, victim hood, and hopelessness.
     Hillary Clinton is cut of the same cloth as Barack Obama, both being huge devotees of the political opportunist, Saul Alinsky (about whom Hillary wrote her masters thesis). One morsel of advice from Mr. Alinsky to up and coming community agitators was "never have a conservation with your opponent because it humanizes him, and your job is to demonize him." Both Clinton and Obama have sited Mr. Alinsky's book, Rules For Radicals, which he dedicated to the Prince of Darkness by the way, as a source of great influence upon their characters and political ideology.
     We have seen the Alinsky sewage politics employed by the current administration to great extent and effect over the last five plus years. Obama and Clinton have not simply elevated their politics to the level of religiosity, but have lowered every aspect of life into the sewer of politics. A good example is the comparison between the George W. Bush administration and that of Barack Obama. President Bush was non-partisan to a fault, having in his administration Democrats like Hank Paulson (Secretary of Treasury), Ben Bernanke (Chairman of the Federal Reserve), and Robert Gates (Secretary of Defense who remained in that position into the Obama administration).
     Some have suggested that if Mr. Obama wishes to clean up the disgrace that is the Veterans Administration scandal, he would employ Mitt Romney, who would be more than willing to see it as a patriotic duty, more than likely requiring no financial renumeration. This move would also help Obama with his image and may translate into warmer feelings for Democrats in this Fall's mid-term elections. But alas, Barack Obama, like most other Democrats, has no desire to resolve problems for the good of the American people. It is not in the Leftist DNA to look at problems as things to be solved, but as vehicles to growing government and increasing budgets.
      Electing Barack Obama twice says much about the American people who would do so knowing that he so heartily embraced a man who dedicated his book to Satan, the same man who propagates such hatred as to recommend his disciples look at those who disagree with them as less than human. Have the American people lost their way in a big government Candy Land? Or is Barack Obama an anomaly? The answer to those questions must wait for subsequent elections from which hope for common sense and decency springs. But if we are to survive as a free republic, we must shake off the shackles of the Candy Land mentality and return to grown up pursuits like personal responsibility, public decorum, and spiritual enlightenment. Additionally we must elect leaders who are worthy of our greatness as a people.
    

Private Gun Ownership Is Foundation Of Liberty

     Elliot Rodger's bullets barely had time to lodge themselves in those he shot, and the blood barely had time to dry on his knife blade, before some on the Left tried to use the six dead and thirteen wounded as a political tool to advance their anti-second amendment agenda. The Left does not have an aversion to guns, only the ownership and possession of them by law abiding citizens. The reason is that it is not in Leftists' DNA to deal with root causes of problems, in this case mental illness, instead  choosing to blame and punish those who have committed no crime, i.e. law abiding citizens.
     Elliot Rodger was a disturbed young man who blamed his ineffectualness with women on the women who rejected him, and not on the presentation he made of himself to them. He was caught up in the surreal world of social media on the Internet, where he felt even more neutered by believing the lies everyone told about their successful hedonism. Making him feel even more ineffectual.
     It is ironic that Elliot's father was a second unit director on the Hunger Games films, in which teens killed each other. But is the Left calling for "movie control" in the wake of real life imitating art? No! The almost sacrament-like reverence the Left has for Hollywood, and everything it produces from the bowels of its depravity, can never be considered as a root cause of societal rot.
     It is more than a little hypocritical that those on the Left are not calling for stricter knife control, since half of Elliot's dead were stabbed to death. Just as the Left was eerily silent in calling for box cutter restrictions after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in which those tools essentially led to the deaths of 3,000 Americans. The reason is simple: the Left cares little about the loss of human life, unless it can be used as a pry bar against liberty. Box cutters and knives, while dangerous enough to take human life, are not politically charged enough to enervate individual freedom. Some of the most violent cities in this country are the ones with the strictest gun control laws. It is not a coincidence that when government disarms the law abiding populace, it makes it easier for the lawless to ply their trade.
     As the man said, "Facts are stubborn things." The facts about gun violence in the United States reveal that while the number of hand guns in private ownership has increased substantially in the last twenty years, gun violence has decreased over that same period, according to Justice Department data. In fact, most violent crime has decreased over the most recent twenty year period. Many do not realize that two thirds of all hand gun deaths are suicides. One could surmise from the data that "more guns equals less crime." Certainly the Lefts insistence that more guns will lead to more violent crime does not have any statistical basis.
     One more little tidbit. Several times more crimes are prevented by the lawful use of a gun than are committed by their unlawful use. Our forefathers were wise enough to know that no government, if it was to be birthed by liberty, had the right, nor the moral imperative, to restrict a citizen's right to protect himself and his liberty. A liberty which is built on the foundation of private gun ownership.

The Crushing Boot Of Tyranny

     Two recent items in the public sphere of attention may at first seem to have nothing to do with each other, but upon closer inspection they are part and parcel to the same dangerous cancer that is spreading through our society like a wild fire. I am making reference to Los Angeles Clipper's owner Donald Sterling being forced to sell the team he has owned for over thirty years, and fifty United States senators signing a letter penned by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to the Washington Redskins organization "requesting" they change their name in order to be politically correct.
     In both situations, the tyranny of political correctness is the driving force, whether the instrument of that tyranny is the National Basketball Association commissioner Adam Silver, or it is fifty senators from the U.S. senate. In the case of the latter, it is also illustrative of an abuse of authority by politicians with an agenda. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, even in the most extreme interpretation, can one find support for the senate to send a letter of intimidation to an individual or organization, the aim of such a letter being to impose a radical agenda upon private citizens or enterprises.
     In the Donald Sterling case, as offensive as many may have found his comments, they were uttered in private and recorded against California state law. For Adam Silver to use his position to compel adherence to the code of Leftist political correctness, is not only dictatorial, but violates the basic fairness of American values. Because in America, one is free to hold any view one wishes, as long as that view does not cause criminal behavior. And even then, the criminal act should be punished, not the thoughts.
     In  the case of Harry Reid's letter to the Redskins' organization, the violation of American values cuts even deeper than in the Adam Silver case. In 2007, Rush Limbaugh said something on his radio show that Harry Reid mangled out of context. He then sent a letter signed by a number of senators to Mr. Limbaugh's syndication partner demanding he be fired. In true Limbaugh style, Rush auctioned the letter on eBay and raised 2.1 million dollars for charity.
    The Letter sent in 2007 to Mr. Limbaugh's syndication partners, and the one sent to the Washington Redskins organization, shows a total lack of respect and fidelity by Harry Reid and others in the United States Senate to the Founders' concept of enumerated powers. Adam Silver and the NBA "punishing" Donald Sterling for not "having his mind right" illustrates just how far down the road of group think we have traveled as a nation.  
     The imposition of authority over liberty is not limited to the United States Senate and the NBA, but has made its way onto college campuses with "speech codes" and "hate free zones." These Orwellian measures are meant to silence all views but one, and all thoughts but those approved by the Leftist intelligentsia, to whom freedom is anachronism. We have become a nation so afraid of riling one group or another's sensitivities, that we have abandon the principles and values that make the United States an exceptional nation. If we continue along this path that leads only to dark desperation, not only will America be the worse for it, but the history of the world yet to be written will be done so under the crushing boot of tyranny.      

Obama Math: Two And Two Is Five

     To say that the Obama administration has been soft on illegal immigration is an understatement on par with saying that radical Islam is a little naughty. It seems all but forgotten that only a few years ago, the Obama administration distributed pamphlets to Mexicans in Mexico instructing them on how to sign up for benefits provided by the confiscated wealth of others, once they crossed the border. At the same time, to avoid the appearance that he is not executing his constitutional duty to protect the sovereignty of the United States, President Obama has bragged that deportations are at an all time high under his regime.
     The number of deportations has increased in recent years only because the Obama administration has required the border patrol to transfer into Immigration and Custom Enforcement's custody those illegals snatched at the border. This practice jukes the stats to make it look as though ICE is deporting more illegals than they actually are. Subtracting the border catches from their totals, interior U.S. deportations have actually decreased under Obama. Further Obama restrictions on ICE have decreased illegals' subjectivity to deportation, making it a tiny sliver of what it use to be.
     The new regulations require catch-and-release practices by ICE when local law enforcement officials detain illegals for other infractions of the criminal code. This has caused the impression, and rightly so, in the minds of illegal immigrants, that once they breech our borders they are home free and it is very unlikely they will be deported.
     Herman Goerhing once said that "If the fuhrer says two and two is five, then it is." So it is with the Obama administration. They have reformulated the economic and public policy statistics to bend the truth in whichever direction they wish. So that persons no longer in the work force due to despondency are not counted as unemployed. And those who visit the government health care website and request information, but never pay a premium, are counted as sign-ups. And that two percent growth in the economy is a roaring recovery. And illegal immigrants caught at the border before entering the country are counted as deportations.
     The Obama administration takes full advantage of the fact that controlling statistics allows them the ability to control the truth, or at least the perceived truth. It is a phenomenon that the less the populace trusts the government, as has happened over the last five years, the more they acquiesce to that government. So in essence, by the acceptance of lower economic performance as typical, more illegal immigrants as inevitable, and gay marriage on a national scale as "equitable,"  the general fatigue among the citizenry has resulted in two plus two actually becoming five. And when truth becomes as malleable as cheap campaign slogans, and just as fleeting, then the foundation of liberty suffers and tyranny fills the vacuum left behind.      

The Angry President

     Barack Obama has spent half his time in the Oval Office being angry with policies that he has spent the other half implementing. Mr. Obama reminds me of an old Twilight Zone episode where a girl waiting for a bus is constantly blamed by the attendant for things her double from an alternative universe has done. And while there has been no accountability visited upon anyone in the Obama administration for Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Solendra, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor," the IRS targeting conservative groups, and myriad other corruptions of an out-of-control federal government, somehow the no-information voter believes that Barack Obama getting steamed over an issue is a substitute for a solution.
     And so it is with the Veterans Administration scandal, the president will huff and puff, but will fail to displace even one twig in the house of government bureaucracy. Republicants meanwhile think that giving the inept Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki, more power and authority will somehow stem the tide of the administrative orgy taking place at the VA. Having all the qualifications needed to run a monstrosity like the VA, i.e. the willingness to criticize former President Bush, General Shinseki has wonderfully matriculated into the Obama administration.
     The Founders of this great nation knew from history that government was the least efficient method of achieving success in most endeavors. That is why they limited its authority to a very short list of enumerated powers. Inversely they knew that the private sector, with its guardrails of the profit motive, was the least corrupt and most efficacious way to operate a society. The public sector has no profit motive or competition, therefore it grows arrogant and bloated while serving the needs of its "customers" less, while requiring more from them. 
     The VA debacle reminds me of the famous observation by Thomas Paine that, "Government at its best is a necessary evil, and at its worse it is a intolerable one." Secretary Shinseki's management of the Veterans Administration has abundant qualifications to place it firmly in the second category of Mr. Paine's statement. In the private sector, he would have been summarily dismissed without so much as recommendation. But in the public sector, and especially among those on the Left, incompetence is rewarded, and failure raises one's stature among his peers.
     And as for our angry president who must contend with his double from an alternative universe who keeps implementing policies that our president must "resolve," the VA disgrace will, in time, be placed into the drawer that contains all the scandals, disgraces, and corruptions of the Obama administration. A drawer that has become a sort of political Pandora's box, that if opened, would require hell to be paid. But it is a drawer that is safely kept shut by media complicity, Republicant timidity, and public complacency and ignorance.
    

Source Of VA Scandal: Barackracy

     United States veterans and other concerned Americans can rest easy, Barack Obama has vented his anger over the shabby way in which veterans were treated at the Phoenix VA, and ostensibly other facilities across the country. And once our current president publicly decries a scandal with his fully-bloomed disgust and antipathy, heads roll and reforms are made at a dizzying pace. Barack Obama and his outrage have solved scandalous behavior by myriad government bureaucrats from Benghazi to the IRS, or at least that is what he has convinced his legions of woefully uniformed voters.
     Truth be told, which is an impossibility for this president, the scandalous behavior from the Veterans Administration is the direct result of Obama policy. When Mr. Obama slithered into the Oval Office in January of 2009, he said he was going to streamline the care received by our nation's heroes at Veterans Administration facilities throughout the country. Little did we know this meant giving bonuses to bureaucrats for wait listing veterans, many of whom died waiting for an appointment just to allow administrators to meet their goals.
     The Veterans Administration has metastasized with the addition of 100 thousand new employees over the last ten years. Some would say this is a result of the number of veterans being treated having nearly doubled in the same time period. But the new hires at the VA have almost entirely been administrators and other bureaucrats, not actual medical professionals who treat our nation's heroes. In the Phoenix facility, which has recently been exposed as the poster child of Obama policy, fifty nine percent of its budget is spent on administration, not on medical care for veterans.
     Bonuses given to administrators for short shrifting veterans' care is only one problem with the Obama policy. The other is regulations which severely limit the number of patients doctors can minister to in a single day, especially specialists who see the more severe cases. Some doctors are limited by Obama money-saving policies to only seeing 2 or 3 patients a day. The limiting of participation by health care providers at VA facilities, and the seemingly unlimited expansion of number-crunching, pencil-pushing bureaucrats is illustrative of the Leftist ethos which values bureaucracy over competence.
     The real problem with the Veterans Administration is that it is a cabinet position. Any function once exclusively within the purview of the states, being raised in political stature by being made a cabinet position with a secretary, budget, and put under federal control, loses its ability to function for the good of the citizen. Veterans should be given vouchers to receive care at any private facility of their choice and not be herded like cattle into the government slaughterhouse. By the way, no one has ever been held accountable in the many scandals over which President Obama has been outraged, concluding that he is either the most unconcerned president in history, or the most powerless.  
    

The Post-Partisan President

     Many seem to have forgotten that when Senator-for-a-minute Barack Obama was campaigning for his current position, he promised to be a post-partisan president. He waxed eloquent about bridging the divide between Republicants and Democrats and ushering into existence a new era of cooperation. Or some such hooey. But almost immediately after being elected to the presidency of the United States of America, he was marking his territory with the scent of his victory. Remember the novice president telling Republicants, "I'll consider all points of view but I won the election."?
     In the little over five years of his presidency, Barack Obama has stated that, "I could get a whole lot more done if I didn't have Republicans in congress obstructing my agenda." He also has lamented several times how, "The Founders made real change difficult." And of course who could forget the famous, or infamous, statement, "If Congress won't act, I have a pen and a phone and I will use them to enact change." He also touched John Boehner's arm during one of their early negotiations and said, "John, I have complete confidence in my ability to sway the American people."
     These statements of despotic hubris solidly in evidence, Barack Obama has been anything but non-partisan. And it would actually be a herculean task to make the case he has even been constitutional. It really is a shame, because with the gift he obviously has for communication, he could have ushered in a new age of cooperation between parties with varying visions for the country. But to Barack Obama nothing is more important than destroying his political enemies, not compromising with them.
     The "Affordable" Care Act is illustrative of the unwillingness, and even the overwhelming desire, by this president to rule by dictate and eliminate any policy or issue debates with disagreeing parties. The fact that Barack Obama would not incorporate even one Republicant idea into the new health care law to secure a bi-partisan bill, illustrates not partisanship, but despotism. It was the first time in American history that such legislation was passed with only the votes of a single party.
     Although maybe that is the point, that the state of a post-partisan America can be achieved by eliminating the part that disagrees with Barack Obama, leaving only the unity of thought that is autocracy. Maybe partisanship is part and parcel to the rigorous tension of opposing ideas that the Founders built into this nation's soul.
     The principles of partisanship are the linchpins that secure freedom and liberty through vigorous debate and a saturation of political thought. It can not, nor should not, be lead to the gallows of post-partisanship. Post-partisanship supplies the building stones of tyranny and oppression, and is what we have had for the last five years under President Obama. So I guess in a way he has fulfilled his promise of a post-partisan society, along with post-prosperous, post-liberty, post-employment, post-independence, and post-constitutional.   
    

Snatching Democrat Defeat From Jaws Of Republican Victory

     In recent years, many on the Right have suggested that the only way to send the electorate running to conservative solutions was to allow them to glimpse life under dominant Democrat control. And for the last five years this nation has been buried alive in Democrat Leftist policies without hardly slowing down long enough to laugh and poke fun at Republicants as they try to hang on desperately to the rail of the caboose on the run away train that has become our nation.
     One would think that nary a Democrat would be left in office after 2016, with the disaster of ObamaCare, which becomes more unpopular the longer it exists. And the myriad scandals from the deadly, like Fast and Furious and Benghazi, to the simply corrupt, like the IRS declaring war on conservative groups and the administration handing out fistfuls of taxpayer dollars to their donors' energy companies like Solendra.
     But even with Democrats distancing themselves from President Obama to ensure electoral survival, they seem to be pushing the same big government programs that a majority of voters say they do not support. Like the Earned Income Tax Credit, the government bonus given to poor people for simply having a job. Beyond the program being rife with corruption and fraud, the government's own statistics showing that nearly a quarter of the beneficiaries are not legitimately eligible, the program is unconstitutional. I challenge anyone to find the verbiage in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to incentivize work among one group of individuals by transferring money to them from another group of individuals.
     But beyond wasteful entitlements like the Earned Income Tax Credit, Democrats running for office have to do so in the worst economy since the Great Depression. With real unemployment over 12%, the lowest percentage of workers even participating in the labor force in 40 years, over 40 million people on food stamps, an economy that is creeping along at a pace that aspires to be mediocre, and a health care industry under ObamaCare that is going to transform every American's health care into the nightmare of the VA system, Democrats do not have much on which to run.
     Even Hillary Clinton in a recent speech only gave a glancing mention of the Obama administration, for which she worked for four years, instead choosing to focus mostly on the past history of her husband's administration which ended 14 years ago. Which means someone voting for the first time in this Fall's mid-terms would have been four years old when her husband's administration ended, and someone touching the screen for Hillary in 2016 would have been two years old at the end of the Bill Clinton regime. Past history for most of the "younger generation" that is a core constituency of the Democrat party.
     No one can predict with absolute certainty the outcome of this Fall's mid-terms, let alone that of the general election in 2016. But one thing is for sure, as per usual Democrats are not going to be able to run on their record of failure. It does not mean they can not win, because Republicants seem always willing to snatch Democrat defeat from the jaws of Republicant victory.         

The Bureaucratic Disconnect Of Government

     According to Federal Reserve Chairman, Janet Yellen, the economy is right where she wants it, with rising inflation and a labor market that features the lowest participation by workers in almost forty years. But Ms. Yellen, who has never held a job in the real economy, let alone operated a business, thinks that the current economic conditions are just peachy. It is illustrative of the total disconnect between the reality with which most Americans live their daily lives, and the theoretical blather that passes for sound monetary policy from people like Yellen and Bernanke, who live in the surreal world of acedmia and government all their lives.
      For Janet Yellen and the theoreticians in government, the fact that a record number of Americans are unemployed, and are now saddled with paying more for the daily items they need, is a good thing. The trouble with economic theory that is spewed from the depths of ignorance and formed into policy that affects the lives of hard working Americans, is that it is 180 degrees out of phase with economic reality.
     Another example of this bureaucratic disconnect is Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki, commenting on the recent disgrace of the Phoenix VA saying that "a good portion of it works." That one statement encapsulates the ethos of mediocrity that is the best argument for limiting the functions of government. Does anyone think that Apple CEO, Tim Cook, would retain his position if he announced that, "A good portion of the tech giant works." Of course not. In the private sector excellence is expected and mediocrity is met with unemployment, not bonuses.
     This glaring difference between the private and public sectors was also comically demonstrated in the 1984 film, Ghostbusters. When Dan Ackroyd and Bill Murray's characters lose their university jobs, the Murray character suggests they get jobs in the private sector. Ackroyd's character says, "No way. I have worked in the private sector, and they expect results." But not only are public sector workers like the Phoenix VA not expected to demonstrate excellence in their jobs, but they are rewarded with bonuses for not doing so.
     Not only is bureaucratic lackluster mediocrity ubiquitous, but it is expensive as well. Every year the federal government's budget increases and the quality of services received by the taxpayers footing the bill gets worse. Our veterans, as well as the average citizen, deserve better from a government that is suppose to serve the populace, not the other way around. And as someone once said, "That government is best which governs least."
    

Phoenix VA Scandal Illustrative Of Big Government Failure

     The recent revelations about the Phoenix Veterans Administration's secret wait lists and substandard care for our military men and women, is illustrative of the ultimate failure of big government. It should be a harbinger of the kind of bureaucratic, nightmarish scenario that will come to be all too familiar for every American if ObamaCare is allowed to proceed to its planned destination. Beyond the secret wait lists to which veterans were assigned for the purpose of keeping the VA's wait time below fourteen days, which in itself is an appalling figure, is the greed of government officials whose bonuses were based on their own specious record-keeping.
     The existence of a well-funded, fee-based system that allows the VA to seek private medical care for veterans whom they can not treat in a timely fashion, and the fact that it was not used by administrators who received bonuses for its non-use, makes the mistreatment of our nation's heroes even more appalling.
     The deplorable situation uncovered in Phoenix would be unacceptable enough, but by all indications it is being replicated in VA facilities throughout the nation. The veterans who have served their country honorably are placing their very lives in the hands of bureaucrats who have no more incentive to provide the best care than a mail carrier has to get letters in the right box.
     Bonuses in the private sector are culled from corporate profits and are merit based contingent on the employee's exceptional performance of their job. Government workers already receive twice the salary of their counterparts in the private sector, and gold-plated benefits. A bonus for doing a mediocre job is sinful and disgusting. Besides which, government is a non-profit, where the "donors'," i.e., taxpayers' money should not be allocated to lavish vacation conferences or bonuses for serving the public.
     Recently, it was reported that some Internal Revenue Service employees received bonuses even after having multiple reprimands recorded in their files for the time period in which the bonus was being paid. Some even owed back taxes! Instead of movements like Occupy Wall Street protesting against the one percent who invest in businesses that create jobs and propel the nation's prosperity, they should expend their energy protesting against the eight percent in government jobs who seem to think those for whom they work, i.e., the taxpayer, exist to serve them and their rapaciousness.
     The Phoenix Veterans Administration's scandalous behavior towards the veterans of this country is a symptom of government that has outgrown its accountability to the people it is suppose to serve, and whose avarice has created an entitlement to taxpayer money it does not deserve. Congress, the president, and all other government employees should receive their health care from the Veterans Administration. Maybe then freedom's most essential personnel, i.e., our military, will receive the care they so richly deserve.       

The Racism Of Inaction

     The current Nigerian problems with the radical Islamic group Boko Haram inside that country that threatens the Christian population can, at least in part, be attributable to what I have termed the Racism of Inaction. Racism of Inaction is an affliction whose causes are the pathogens of political correctness, and whose symptoms are an inability to assign accountability or criticism to certain protected groups of people. In some severe cases, Racism of Inaction can cause the afflicted to deny certain truths about individuals and groups which may be uncomfortable to acknowledge, or that may take courage to admit.
     The discussion in America seems to have centered around whether or not sending highly trained troops to Nigeria to find kidnapped girls is advisable. Or how the hash tag campaign #bringbackourgirls will melt the evil hearts of Boko Haram and cause them to sit down to tea with Michelle Obama in the Rose Garden of the White House and swap discrimination stories. The real crisis is who was the First Lady's target of the pathetic pleading hash tag anyway. Some on the Left have blamed the Christian Nigerian government for the kidnappings because the Racism of Inaction requires them to do so. Because not only is Boko Haram comprised of radical Islamists, but they are also black. Two victim groups for the price of one.
     Hillary Clinton suffered from Racism of Inaction a couple of years ago when the CIA, FBI, and her own State Department pleaded with her to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. Which would have subjected them to financial and law enforcement remedies that may have slowed them down. Mrs. Clinton's bout of Racism of Inaction pleaded more vociferously than the tenets of reason, common sense, and decency. Which resulted in her refusal to violate her oath to the Leftist sacrament of victimology and innocence by virtue of race or radicalism, as long as the practitioners of such radicalism are not Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist. Or the individual of a protected race is not conservative.
     The shielding of criminal activity performed by members of certain groups considered put upon by bigoted cultures and others, has taken place in this country for many years, but has accelerated under the Obama administration and metastasized into Racism of Inaction. Attorney General Eric Holder had a fierce bout of the disease when he refused to prosecute members of The New Black Panther party who were caught on video threatening white voters in Philadelphia during the election of 2008. He had a further bout during the Treyvon Martin dust up when he turned a blind eye to that same group's death bounty placed on the head of George Zimmerman.
     The Racism of Inaction is the immunity from accountability based on one's race or religious/political persuasion, and it hides in the shadows of ignorance, dishonesty, and cowardice. It is an affliction which mostly affects those on the Left, but in recent years has spread to some on the Right. It is self-righteous indignation raised to the level of spiritual enlightenment, and true justice lowered to the insignificance of a get-out-of-jail-free card. The only known antidote to the Racism of Inaction is reason, common sense, and a strong mooring to the pylons of justice. Unfortunately those who now control our government are riddled with the disease and are terminal. The solution to the problem is simple, but not easy.We must elect leaders who judge actions and not skin color, who prosecute on violation of law not exonerate on racial or ethnic grievance, and who administer justice with a blindfold not a checklist of exemptions.    

The Hollowing Of American Greatness

     Lately I feel as though I am living the world of opposites, where a long cold Winter is a sign of global warming, free speech is only free as long as it is practiced in the echo chamber of political correctness, and the U.S. stock market is hitting new highs in the midst of one of the worst economies in post-World War II America. Every day I scratch my head as I watch the glut of bad macro-economic data, historically low corporate earnings, and a deterioration of geopolitical stability as has not happened in decades, and yet the market rises.
     Gross Domestic Product growth in the first quarter of 2014 barely managed to grow, clocking in with a one tenth of one percent increase. The average in the last 70 years has been 3.2%, a level that the Obama recovery considers a pipe dream. Most recoveries from recessions of the past grew out of economic malaise with GDP growth rates of 4-5%. But I guess when you have the lowest number of people ever participating in the work force, the economy does not need to grow much.
     The current earnings season on Wall St. has seen all thirty of the Dow Industrial Average component companies reporting earnings and revenue below last year at the same time. Not that last year's earnings were anything to pick daisies over, but is not the definition of a recession when the economy begins to recede? Most of the other companies reporting earnings, even when they have achieved the low expectations of the analysts, have had revenue that has fallen below that of only a year ago.
     And yesterday the retail sales data for the month of April showed an increase in sales of only one tenth of one percent. In essence no growth at all. I remember the good old days of the Bush administration when the media was trying to convince everyone that the country was in the depths of recession with an unemployment rate at 4.9%, GDP growth averaging 3.6%, and data like retail sales would show improvement of 2-3% a month. But then those were the evil days when companies actually made a profit and hired workers who spent their paychecks in the economy creating even more wealth to create even more jobs.
     This mediocre, slowly grinding, stuck-in-mud-up-to-its-knees economy does not seem to trouble the Obama administration, or their trained seals in the media. In fact they applaud it like a mother of a four year old fawning over the colored scribbles her child created on construction paper. And while this president and his administration act like four year olds, they are in control of one of the most powerful institutions in the world. It is analogous to putting an emotionally disturbed child in charge of Apple computer. 
     With this economy that produces chronically high unemployment, a barely growing domestic product, massive expansion of entitlements, and a foreign policy that is in desperate need of some sort of leadership Viagra, the United States may just as well fill out the application for admittance to the European Union and call it a day. Barack Obama has succeeded to do in five years what our enemies have failed to do in over 200, he has hollowed out the core greatness of America that has sustained us through many a bad times. And he has done so with the unwitting approval of a population that has allowed itself to be told it is incapable of anything greater.
    

The New Dark Ages

     One of the things that scare me about the foreign policy of isolationists like Rand Paul, is the seeming ignorance they have of history. It has never been good for the world when America withdraws its interest from what happens outside its borders. Many think that somehow the United States can exist is some geographical vacuum where no amount of evil in other parts of the world can touch our pampered little lives.
     I would have surmised that this kind of thought process would have been expelled from the main stream of American thinking after fighting World War I, or even World War II. I certainly thought that the leave 'em-alone-and-they will-leave-us-alone crowd would have been relegated to the outer fringes of public discourse after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. And yet these folks persist in saying that America can not be the policemen of the world. Well, maybe not. But does that mean America should not use its influence to shape world events?
    The world, especially during the last five years, has suffered from too little American influence, not too much. With Europe becoming more irrelevant each day they abandon their individual sovereignty to the intellectual elites in the European Union, and most other nations of the world having squandered their defense dividend (paid by the U.S. providing 80% of the world's security) on massive social welfare programs, there is little stopping the world from plunging into the debts of a new Dark Age, except America.
    The demographics of Europe, Canada, Australia, and even some Asian countries have populations that are shrinking, not expanding. Even the U.S. has a population rate that insures static growth. The fastest growing population in the world is the Muslim one. And with an average age under 30 years old, and the rate of radicalization closing in on warp-speed, the world does not need egghead multiculturalists from the UN or the EU, but the American values of liberty, freedom, and self-rule. One would have to be the clown jewel of ridiculousness to deny that these values insure peace and justice throughout the world.
     United States national security is not just about defending our borders (which even that Democrats refuse to do) but about redistribution, not of our wealth as Barack Obama aims to do, but of the values that created our wealth and political stability. There is no question that the American experiment has advanced the human condition more than any other nation throughout history. Is it not the duty of such a nation to gently, and at times more forcefully, influence world events towards the values that have benefitted mankind so greatly?
     The responsibility toward ultimate peace, prosperity, and security is that of the nation that has proven its values to be superior to the ethos of despotism and essential to the propagation of the aforementioned goals. It becomes more clear with each passing day that the rest of the world passively allows itself to be swallowed in a suicide pact with multiculturalism that America virtually stands alone in the battle to keep itself and the world from plunging into the abyss of the new Dark Ages.            

The Question Of Term Limits

     In this age of top-down, heavy-handed, over-reaching, crushingly-oppressive government, many have grasped desperately for some way to restore the liberty intended for this country by its founders. And while it can be said, as Thomas Paine wrote so many years ago, "These are the times that try men's souls," a solution to our modern governmental problems must be carefully considered. The wrong solution could indeed become a worse poison and not the healing salve that some may think it to be. So it might be with what some see as a panacea to limiting the power of the federal government by limiting the terms of those who serve in the congress.
     Term limits, as a way to limit the power, influence, and corruption of the federal government, is an idea that has been around for a long time. But the idea has gained momentum in recent decades as politicians in Washington have seen fit to outgrow the bounds of the Constitution. While I am sympathetic to those who support term limits for congressional members, it is that very constitution, and its framers intent, that make me unable to throw my support behind the idea.
     Primarily, the framers of the United States Constitution specifically did not limit the terms of those serving in congress, not as an oversight, but to purposely place more control in the hands of the American people. The founders of this country, and framers of its unique constitution, trusted the decision-making prowess of the people more than that of government. It was this trust placed in the populace by the framers that prevented them from limiting the choice of the individual citizen with a constitution that forbade them from exercising their full and unencumbered voting rights. Term limits would be such an encumbrance.
     In essence, those who support term limits are saying that the trust placed in the people by the Founders is no longer valid. That the average citizen can no longer be trusted to look beyond the benefits of incumbency and make a reasonable and rational choice when electing their congressional representatives. And if this is the case, then the very foundations of this great republic have been compromised to the extent that term limits, if implemented, would be analogous to attempting to extinguish a house fire with an eye dropper. Lest we forget that this great nation was built on the foundation that the people were more trustworthy than the government. Term limits are an admission that this is no longer apparent.
     In addition to the preceding argument given against term limits is the practicality of such a constitutional change ever seeing the light of day. Using normal means to change the Constitution in order to impose term limits would require two thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and three quarters of all fifty state legislatures. Even if Republicants controlled both chambers of congress with the necessary majorities, they would never vote to limit their terms. If by some miracle term limits passed both chambers of congress, the states would never provide the three quarters majority needed to change the Constitution. Even with Republicant control of sixty percent of state legislatures, they would all have to vote in lockstep and obtain fifteen percent of the Democrat legislatures to vote with them.
     Asking state legislators to limit their opportunities for career advancement, the United States Congress being the goal for many, is like asking lawyers to voluntarily limited lawsuit awards to a hundred dollars. Even if congress is bypassed using a constitutional convention of the states for the expressed purpose of imposing term limits, the problem of achieving three fourths support in those legislatures is just a bridge too far. The energy wasted trying to achieve a constitutional amendment to limit terms for congress could be better spent on actual achievable goals. Besides, the wise and sagacious Framers gave to the people the ability to throw out the bath water of bad representation without also throwing out the baby of good representation. It is called the vote.

Real Justice On Benghazi May Have To Wait

     The House select committee to investigate the happenings surrounding four dead Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, has a chairman in the person of former prosecutor and current congressman, Trey Goudy. The committee is comprised of seven Republicants that have already been named, and five Democrats, not yet assigned. In fact the Democrats have been discussing a boycott of the committee, which could spell political suicide if something earth shattering were to be revealed by the investigation. And although the Republicants genuinely want to uncover the truth about those tragic events, one would have to be drowning in a pool of delusion not to admit the political implications for both parties.
     For the House Republicant leadership, who have all but ignored this issue, and given President Obama a pass on many others, it is essential that they are seen as being tough on the administration prior to this November's mid-term elections. The base of the party having been shunned by the establishment, this special Benghazi committee gives the latter a way toward political redemption with the former.
     It is troubling that the appointment of the select committee had to come only after the Ben Rhodes email, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the administration consciously and deliberately concocted the YouTube video story to keep the American public from the truth just weeks before Barack Obama's re-election. The surreal tapestry of lies played out by the administration on television, in press releases, and on the tarmac with the grieving families of the dead being told simultaneously by then Secretary of State Clinton that they were going to "get the film maker who was responsible," and Joe Biden, administration king of crass, telling the parents of dead Seal Ty Woods that their son's testicles were as large as cue balls, was more befitting a Martin Scorsese film than the honor and dignity that once was befitting the highest officials of this great country.
      This would all be disgusting enough, but is made even more so by the fact that the night of the attack, as President Obama hid under the presidential bed, those in charge of the administration's response, or non-response as it were, knew the attack was well orchestrated by terrorists, and had nothing to do with any video. Mrs. Clinton, who was a congressional aid on the Watergate investigation back in the 1970s, famously said that any president that lies to the American people should be forced to resign. It is dubious at best whether or not President Nixon actually lied directly to the American people, he certainly did not go before the United Nations to continue his lie, and there were no dead Americans, including an ambassador, in the wake of Watergate.
      I am not buoyant  about this committee's chances of producing any real outcomes on those in the administration responsible for such an egregious violation of public trust. I fear any repercussions for their abhorrent behavior must wait for a higher prosecutor, not of this world, but of the next. Because before the court of the Almighty there can be no lies, nor mitigating of sins, there is only the truth which convicts the sinners of their transgressions.

The Walker Set

     It has become a rite of passage for those reaching the age of 65 in this country to file for Social Security benefits, apply for a frequent filler card at their local pharmacy, take full advantage of senior citizen discounts even on items they do not need or want, and accessorize their life with a walker. Because now that you are retired, not only should you not have to work, but you should not have to expend your valuable energy keeping your balance so you do not fall down. That energy is better spent watching re-runs of Bonanza.
     The fortunate seniors today have more choices in wheeled crutches than their predecessors, who only had one choice. Now in addition to the basic four wheel model, there is the tri-walker that has three wheels and folds conveniently to fit in the back seat of your Smart car or SUV. There are also models that double as a chair, so today's prepared senior can plop down whenever they are feeling a little puckish, even in the doorway of public buildings.
     The seniors of yesteryear, like one of my grandfathers, only had the choice of a cane when they reached the wobbly stage of life. Of course my grandfather got the most out of his cane by making it double as a rod which he did not spare, thus not even coming close to spoiling his grandchildren. It would be difficult for a feisty grandparent to break up a grandchild's temper tantrum using a walker.
     Do not mistake my premise, the walker is a great medical device for those who need them. But the majority of seniors I see rushing pass me at 6-8 miles an hour pushing a walker, can hardly be considered disabled enough to need the assistance of a wheeled contraption. Besides, the constant bending over a walker while pushing it can cause neck and spine troubles, which are much worse than a possible fall.
     The fear of living life without a constant security blanket has created a growing population that focuses, and even obsesses, on its weakness, even when that weakness is mostly perceived. What we have done to our seniors, making them dependent on medical devices like walkers that they do not need, is a societal corollary to increasing peanut allegories in children by keeping them away from that legume. An entire society has had to change its nut-eating habits because fewer than a dozen persons die each year from a reaction to peanuts. Children are now trained by smothering parents to break out into a cold sweat whenever they are within 20 feet of a peanut.
     The walker set is growing, and as the selfish and needy baby boomers age, the dependence on these wheeled security blankets is only going to increase exponentially. Which is good news for the walker manufacturers, but bad news for the seniors they addict. In the future, the walker and the senior will fuse into one being, like some fantastic science fiction creature. Only instead of taking over the world, these aliens will hold up grocery store lines counting out 98 cents in pennies instead of breaking a dollar, drive fifteen miles an hour under the speed limit, and frighten their grandchildren almost to death by giving them peanuts in their Easter baskets.
        

The Big Summit With The Big Brains

     The naively delusional leaders of the "international community" like Barack Obama want to believe so badly, and want just as badly for others to believe, in their power to persuade using diplomacy, that they are willing to give large chunks of Ukraine to Vladimir Putin for what they term as "peace." The thing that the self-deluded Western "leaders" fail to understand is that diplomacy only works when rendered from a position of strength. At the conclusion of this crisis, Mr. Putin will enjoy a "diplomatic solution" which gives him most of what he wants, and the "international community" will claim diplomacy as the medium that paved the road to peace.
     In the beginning, when Vladimir Putin was laying claim to Crimea, Western leaders, including Barack Obama, said his naked aggression would not stand. So they clothed it in the diplomatic term of "containment," thinking they could stop him from laying claim to any more of that country. Of course, Mr. Putin had designs on the industrialized Eastern part of Ukraine, and employed small groups of highly skilled Russian-trained specialists to foment rebellion in the Russian-speaking population of the East.
     The limp-wristed diplomats from the European Union, United States, and Ukraine met in Geneva just a couple of months ago, and returned to their home countries in Chamberlain-esque fashion saying they had secured peace with nothing more than the use of their big diplomatic brains. None of the Geneva agreement was implemented, but it matters little because the "Big Brains" had the right intentions, even if their follow-thru was sorely lacking.
     Yesterday, Vladimir Putin met with members of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe, or some such feckless group. The peace-at-all-costs addicts are all laying back enjoying the high generated from the opiate of diplomacy, while Mr. Putin, in the mean time, is speaking peace from one side of his mouth, and speaking European domination from the other. Apropos of the "international community's" Pollyanna geopolitical posture is the reporting by media sources that gave the impression that Vladimir Putin had pulled his troops back from the Ukrainian border as a result of the meeting. Truth is, Mr. Putin denied the troops were recently there at all, a big difference from what was reported.    
     From what I read, the only "concession" the Russian president proffered was that he "encouraged" Russian separatists in the East to postpone their referendum vote to become part of the Russian Federation. Other than that mostly symbolic gesture by Vladimir Putin, which may or may not be heeded by the rebels, and his statement about the Ukrainian elections on the 25th of this month being "a step in the right direction," nothing has changed much from the big summit with the "Big Brains."     
     Any sensible person outside the "international community's" diplomatic core can surmise that Mr. Putin would not have put this much effort into Ukraine without ultimately gaining more control in that war-torn country. Do the "Big Brains" of the "international community" really think that old Vlad is going to walk away with nothing after deploying up to 50,000 troops to his border with Ukraine, supplying well-trained Russian special forces inside Ukraine to stoke the fires of rebellion, and threatening the economic stability of Europe using a possible disruption of Russian oil? It is any one's guess how this crisis is going to end, but one thing is for sure, no matter what happens, the "Big Brains" will claim victory because that is just what "Big Brains" do.

Radical Islam And Western Leftism: Two Heads Of The Same Beast

     During the 2008 presidential campaign, Joe "The Hyena" Biden said that Barack Obama had a spine of steel, and when tested by world events he would prove his mettle. Throughout the disasters of the "Arab Spring," Iranian nuclear program, Syrian civil war, Benghazi, South America, Russian dominance and expansion in Ukraine, on and on ad infinitum, Mr. Obama has illustrated a spaghetti spine that has made very economical use of any mettle. But the lack of courage, perspicacity, and foresight has not existed in Barack Obama because of any character flaw, but rather because of an ideology flaw.
     The Leftism which has eaten away at the healthy body of the Democrat party, and most of the rectitude of American culture, is in symbiotic harmony with radical Islam. The goals of Western Leftism and those of radical Islam are frighteningly similar, to the point of making the two ideologies comrades in the fight against decency, honor, and the tenets of liberty.
     The first, and most important goal that radical Islam shares with Western Leftism is a deliberate attempt to mitigate or even eliminate traditional Western values from the global stage. Both radical Islam and Western Leftism have attempted to use the destructive force of multiculturalism to blunt the sword of liberty, and create a cultural vacuum, that in many countries is being filled by the tyranny of radical Islam. Western countries are dying demographically, reproducing at a rate that is causing them to lose population. While Islamic populations within those countries have birth rates which are growing their numbers by leaps and bounds. And those Islamic populations are much younger than Western ones, and they are being radicalized with alarming alacrity. It does not take a demographic genius to see where this is headed.
     The second goal shared by radical Islam and Western Leftism is the subservient role woman play in each ideology. Women in the Islamic world must obey the rules and laws set forth for their lives by men of the faith. So it is with Western Leftism, but instead of wearing the burqa and being kept from a career, Western Leftists cover their women in the garb of "sexual freedom" and discourage them from the traditional wife and mother role. In each ideology, radical Islam and Western Leftism, the women have little choice in the life they choose. Women who disobey are beaten privately in the Islamic world, and humiliated publicly in the Western Leftist one.
     Finally, radical Islam and Western Leftism share a disrespect and even hatred for Jews and the state of Israel. Secretary of State John Kerry's remarks recently about Israel being an apartheid state unless they submitted to a two state solution with a people who have publicly called for their destruction, is all the proof one needs. The fact that a nation like Israel can hardly negotiate with people who a) do not recognize their existence as a sovereign state, and b) have their decimation written into their charter, shows a total cluelessness on the part of Western Leftists like Barack Obama and John Kerry.
     The two-peas-of-the-same-pod nature of radical Islam and Western Leftism is only differentiated by the fact that the radical Islamists are deliberately using the clueless Western Leftist to actually destroy himself and his culture. A sort of conquest by getting your enemy to commit suicide. Unfortunately, I fear the Western Leftists are much too contemptuous and detached to realize they have taken part in their own demise, until it becomes much too late for all of us.    

Holder Takes Page Out Of Reno Book

     To understand one of the main reasons why the economy has slumped along at a snail's pace for the last five years, one only needs to consider the announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday morning. The titular head of the New Black Panthers announced that the United States Department of Justice was going to pursue criminal prosecutions against U.S. banks. This announcement underscores the fear induced in the economy by an administration that uses intimidation to advance an anti-capitalist agenda. It is also eerily reminiscent of the Janet Reno Department of Justice that threatened banks with criminal prosecution unless they made more sub-prime loans to persons who would never be able to pay them back, thus accelerating the conditions that lead to the financial crisis of 2008.
     The prosecutorial form of governance practiced by Barack Obama and his thugs in the executive branch, has caused a fear of expansion among businesses, and a fear among banks of loaning money to fuel economic growth. This government cleaver at the ready over the heads of banks who must now conform to the thousands of new regulations spawned by Dodd/Frank, and the thousands yet to come, has caused a slump in loan making.
     The very practice which caused the financial meltdown of 2008, i.e. the sub-prime loan market, has been encouraged by federal regulators in order to please the social engineers in the White House. The fact that Democrats were able to force banks to make loans to unqualified borrowers to fulfill some twisted and nefarious sense of "fairness," and get away with it once, means they have been encouraged to keep engaging in the practice. 
     Democrats were more surprised than anyone that they were not fully blamed for the out-of-control sub-prime loan market which was the impetus for the financial crisis. Even Bill Clinton, on Morning In America in early October of 2008, said Democrats had to take responsibility for the financial collapse because they thwarted efforts by himself and George W. Bush to reform the bad actor agencies at the epicenter of the crisis, i.e. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Of course former President Clinton never tried to reform the agencies and his statement was an attempt to distance himself from the crisis.
     It was not long after the meltdown that the Community Reinvestment Act, which began the practices that lead to the crisis, was operating at full steam. And with a new president who had no compunction about using the full power of the federal government to force loans by banks to those who could not afford them, the stage is being set for another crisis.
     Attorney General Holder's zeal to prosecute banks for behavior that Democrats in congress, the Clinton Department of Justice, and banking regulators encouraged and required, is analogous to a parent punishing a child for cleaning his room, taking out the trash, and eating all his peas. These frivolous prosecutions are almost as bad as the Holder Department of Justice threatening banks with discrimination investigations unless they paid hundreds of millions of dollars in "protection" money to his criminal enterprise that passes for the Department of Justice. The aforementioned practiced was discovered a couple of years ago, but did not make even the slightest ripple on the sewage laden pond that passes for a media in this country.
     There can be no question why the economy has never really recovered from the Great Recession. Mountains of regulations from the bureaucratic branch of government as a result of opened ended legislation like Dodd/Frank and The Affordable Care Act, as well as intimidation of industry through frivolous prosecution like the kind announced by Attorney General Holder, has stifled growth and suffocated the very economic freedom for which our founders fought a revolution.    

Do Republicans Really Have A Lock In The Mid-Terms ?

     The stale wind of complacency, and the over-active imagination of wishful thinking, have lately been rushing over those on the Right in gale force. Even some stalwart Conservative radio talk show hosts seem to suggest that Republicant control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate is just a matter of academics, and this Fall's mid-term elections are just a formality. They site waning support for the president, national disgust with ObamaCare, and a sluggish-at-best economy that just can not seem to shift out of neutral. Not to mention the historically low voter turnout for the party in control of the White House during mid-term elections.
     The preceding are all valid points, and yet they still do not make me any more sanguine about the Republicants chances for attaining a majority in the Senate, and holding onto as large of a majority in the House. Primary to my trepidation about the mid-terms is the fact that in the last 10 years Democrats have bested Republicants in every national election except 2010. In that year, the Tea Party was responsible for John Boehner and his troupe of misfits succeeding in wresting control of the House away from Nancy Pelosi and her band of merry socialists. The recent passage of ObamaCare motivated traditional Republicant voters to show up at the polls and elect those representatives who promised to repeal the nasty thing.
     During the past four years, John Boehner and the rest of his Democrat-lites in the House, and their counterparts in the Senate, have disenfranchised many of those voters who gave them control of half the congress. Added to this is the Republicant establishment's constant attacks, snarky comments, and downright public distaste for the Tea Party, who gave them their only national electoral victory of the last decade. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
     As for the effects of ObamaCare on the Democrat party, it has become ensconced in the fabric of American public life. Many Americans are now dependent on its subsidies and will not vote against their own self-interest in favor of the larger ideal of limited government. This was the danger of the Republicant establishment not supporting those like Ted Cruz who sought to stop ObamaCare before the spigot of federal subsidies was activated. Now it will be near impossible, not only to repeal ObamaCare, but for Republicants to win elections being opposed to it. Because, they run the risk of alienating their own voters if they do not oppose ObamaCare, and alienating everyone else if they do.
     Some on the Right have become giddy with examples of main stream media sources being critical of the Obama regime. This breaking-of-the-ranks by some on the Left is seen as weakness in the Democrat party. But in actuality it is just a slavish media trying to salvage some remnants of the thread of credibility they possessed before they blindly played a major role in electing Barack Obama twice. Once the 2016 presidential campaign commences, most likely the day after the mid-terms, the media will once again be extolling the "virtues" of the Democrat candidate and manufacturing dirt on the Republicant.
      For Republicants to win control of the Senate and keep control of the House, they must distinguish themselves from the Democrats. They must become what Ronald Reagan termed as a party that "Raises the banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all issues troubling the people." The Tea Party contingent, along with other Conservatives in the Republicant party, wish to paint broadly with bold colors. Unfortunately the establishment wishes to lead the party down the path of pale pastels that make electoral victory much less likely.     

The Deflowering Of Obama And The West

     Barack Obama is analogous to a high school cheerleader disheveled in the back seat of a car after her virtue has been ravaged by the much stronger captain of the football team, who in our example is represented by Vladimir Putin. And not even the snake oil salve of the non-farm payroll number for the month April, which showed the economy allegedly added 288,000 jobs, can despoil the victory in Ukraine that is close at hand for Mr. Putin.
     In real mathematical numbers, math being hard for an administration that is populated with people intellectually barely out of diapers, the economy lost over a half a million jobs in April. The 809,000 people that left the labor force during the month, causing the Labor Force Participation Rate to its lowest level in almost 40 years, are apparently inconsequential to a White House that has lost more jobs than any administration in recent history. Of working age persons in this country, 92 million are now without full time work.
     But I digress. To say that Vladimir Putin has bested Barack Obama and the Western eggheads who have thought the world into the most dangerous era of the last several centuries, is the understatement of history. Mr. Putin has cleverly invaded Ukraine without invading it. With small groups of highly skilled special operations experts, Moscow has taken one city at a time in Eastern Ukraine, then turned over control to local Russian separatists. The historical nature of one country absorbing another with only small numbers of human assets risked, has been missed by the prince of obtuseness, Barack Hussein Obama.
     In the eyes of many people, Vladimir Putin has taken the high ground by purposing a peaceful solution to the crisis with the withdraw of Ukrainian troops from the East, and insuring that the tenets of democracy are fulfilled with a referendum similar to the one in  Crimea. Since Mr. Putin does not officially have any troops in Eastern Ukraine, it makes the hastily assembled Kiev government look like the aggressors.
     Vladimir Putin has built a trail of justification for sending his regular troops into Eastern Ukraine to "protect" democracy-loving Russian separatists from being slaughtered by Ukrainian troops under the control, of what many see, as the illegitimate government in Kiev. He has masterfully manipulated events to make the Ukrainian government protecting its own sovereignty look like the provocateurs. And what has our brilliant and brave president done, cut off bank accounts and travel privileges to some Putin inner-circlers and sent the Ukrainians comfort food in the form of meals-ready-to-eat. The United States and the world is in deep trouble, not because we have weak leadership, but because Barack Obama has created a vacuum of leadership that Vladimir Putin has been more than happy to fill with his expansionist desires.

The Militarization Of Bureaucracies

     It has become painfully discernible that the main thrust of the Obama agenda is to demilitarize the United States armed forces, while at the same time militarizing the bureaucracies of the federal government. This arming of agencies within the sphere of the Executive branch's authority was the most disturbing aspect of the recent standoff between the Bureau of Land Management and rancher, Mr. Cliven Bundy. In fact, many of the agencies controlled by the President have obtained their own S.W.A.T. teams and have armed their bureaucrats with military grade weapons. This gives the President the ability to attract less attention than a show of force with traditional military, and having the added advantage of not suffering the blather from those Neanderthal generals.
     This recent militarization of federal bureaucracies is a result of the basic mistrust by Mr. Obama and his comrades of traditional military sources, and the undying faith they place in government administrators. It is also corollary to the mistrust and fear of individual Americans exercising their freedom and liberty that is the basis of the Leftist ethos. Knowing that it would be difficult at best, and downright provocative of revolution at worst, the Obama administration will not use regular military against the citizens of this country, but will instead use heavily armed bureaucrats. A sort of SS for the 21st century.
     The Leftist hubris which informs President Obama and his commissars that their intellects are so well developed that they can solve geopolitical troubles without the use of major military conflict, also instructs them that because of that pesky Second Amendment, they will need armed government agents against their own citizenry.
      One of the reasons that President Obama has felt the need to militarize the federal bureaucracies, is that while his policies have greatly increased dependence on government, his administration's behavior has greatly decreased trust in government. It is one of the great dichotomies of history that while Mr. Obama is decreasing the strength of the most powerful military, and force for good in the world, he is increasing the military prowess of the white shirt and tie set within the federal government. Bean counters and paper pushers within the federal labyrinth are now counting beans and pushing papers with one hand, and readying AK-47s with the other.
     The militarization of federal bureaucracies may seem odd behavior for members of the anti-gun crowd. But President Obama and his militants are not anti-gun as much as they are pro having a subservient and cowed populace they can rule. It is one thing to have guvment workers in dangerous situations like "managing land" armed with nine millimeter handguns, it is quite another to have them armed with high-powered, military-grade, semi-automatic, shoulder-carried rifles and backed up by snipers and armored vehicles. But this is the new reality in America, a reality brought into existence by the world view of Barack Obama who sees enemies in the American populace, and nowhere else in the world.

The New Phase In The Obama Recovery: No Growth

     At any other moment in this country's history, the government's release of a Gross Domestic Product growth rate of one tenth of one percent, would be proof positive that our economy is in recession. Yesterday's release by the Obama government of first quarter GDP that dragged itself across the finish line at 0.1%, was hardly noticed by the main stream media and financial markets. But this reaction is par for the course in the age of Obama, where the "recovery" has only managed to average GDP growth that barely touches the 2.0% level, well below the average for the last 70 years of 3.2% a quarter.
     Those in government and the financial industry have blamed Winter weather for the decrease in growth. But even accounting for the "severe" Winter, their expectations for first quarter growth were 1.2%, which is of course 12 times the actual number reported. Talk about a miss. The Winter of 1978-1979 was much worse than this Winter and actually broke more weather related records than this year's Winter season. But listening to the media, you would have thought that the earth had never experienced a Winter with as much snow and as cold of temperatures as this year. And in the first quarter of 1979 the economy grew by well over 1%, and that was during the depths of the Carter malaise.
     So much for the "Winter weather" excuse for a slowing economy. In this upside down world of Obamanomics, the stock market has abandoned any pretense of being tethered to the economy's performance or the earnings of the companies that participate in it. The financial markets have left the tracks of common sense and fundamentals, instead opting for an unholy marriage to the Federal Reserve. And the Fed has also abandon its charter and has willingly allowed itself to acquiesce to its unhealthy union with the market, judging its success based entirely on market performance. A performance the Fed has assured through its ability to print money and pump it into a market that otherwise would be feeling the effects of a flaccid economy.
     It causes me a great amount solicitude to realize that those who I thought occupied positions in the last vestiges of reason and common sense, those in the financial industry, are no more being lead by intellect than a teenage boy at a nude beach. There are a few brave souls in the financial world who are actually ringing the alarm bell of this debilitated economy. But they are called outliers and kooks by the vast majority of the Obama sycophants who occupy positions in the financial media and institutions. 
     This morning, the weekly initial claims for unemployment will be released. The administration and their lapdogs in the markets have been beating themselves senseless with joy because the number of people applying for first time benefits has been dropping. They claim this is a sign of an improving job market. But with a plunging Labor Force Participation Rate, the drop in first time claims only means the economy is operating with a skeleton crew of workers, and there are fewer working people to be laid off. It is like a morbidly obese individual going on a diet and exercise plan. In the early weeks, the pounds melt off in double digits. The more weight that is lost, the fewer pounds remain to be lost.
     This country can hardly afford anymore Obama "growth." But I fear that the American people have forgotten what real prosperity looks like. It has been a long time since the 6-7% growth of the Reagan economy, or even the recent 3-5% growth of the George W. Bush economy. When our financial leaders are so cowed as to not recognize the obvious signs of a slowing economy, then truly the America of prosperity and financial freedom is a foggy quaint memory of a past we have convinced ourselves was a dream.