The Self-Delusion Of The Left

     A friend of mine has recently made me aware of a situation that exemplifies the unwillingness, lack of desire, and inability of the Left to solve problems, even in their own communities. Instead they opt for symbolism over substance and deliberate misdirection of community energies toward feel-good events instead of the hard work of solving real problems. This attitude is present in the national politics of the Left as well as in local groups, and it is why, with the dominance of the Left in our culture, problems go unsolved, while those who put their faith in such non-remedies feel as though they are really helping their communities.
     My friend owns rental property in the Cleveland inner-city and has always tried to continually improve his properties as well as the communities in which his properties exist. He recently joined a community group whose purpose was to address problems in the neighborhood like crime, dilapidated properties and general urban blight in their area. The group is comprised of all Leftists except for my friend.
     My friend's neighborhood group has sponsored events having to do with art and culture, and  attended by them and their friends. Basically this community group has paid for their own entertainment using public funds earmarked for "community improvement." When my friend suggests solutions to real problems being experienced in the neighborhood, they look at him like he is from outer space. I guess the hard work of solving societal problems is too much for them, and they would rather delude themselves that they are making a difference by sponsoring and attending "art walks," "parties in the park," and wine-swilling soirees.
     My friend's neighborhood group is exemplary of the Lefts practice of addressing real problems by diverting taxpayer money to their own private ego-builders. Programs and events that make the participants feel as though they are making a difference in people's lives, without actually having to do the hard work of making a difference. It is this lack of desire to do the sometimes uncomfortable work of real community improvement that has lead to the two most helped groups by Leftist policy over the last fifty years, Native Americans and blacks, to be the most impoverished groups in our society.
     The individuals in my friend's neighborhood group are illustrative of the Leftist ethos that lives in denial and self-congratulatory ardor for ideas that range from solving urban blight by planting "community gardens" to solving crime by sponsoring "midnight basketball." It is all designed to make the Leftists feel good about being "involved" without ever having to go into the belly of the root causes of their communities problems. It is this arms length approach to community improvement that keeps the community from actually improving, while allowing the Leftist to continue their delusions of being "part of the solution."

The Self-Marginalized Right

     It is fairly common knowledge, or at least it should be 6 years into Barack Obama's term as president, that he has for most of his adult life been a disciple of the gangster/community organizer Saul Alinsky. Furthermore, it should not be a surprise to anyone that has had their ear to the rail of politics in this country for at least part of the last few years, to understand that marginalizing your political opposition is the cornerstone of the modern day edifice of community organizing built upon the unholy foundation of Alinsky's Rules For Radicals.
    Barack Obama has been very successful implementing the marginalization tactic that Mr. Alinsky learned at the knee of Al Capone, and has added to it a racial component that has increased its abilities with a population that has been weaned on white guilt and black victim hood for the better part of the last 40 years. But Mr. Obama has had the added benefit over Mr. Alinsky in so much as he has had a portion of his opposition engage in self-marginalization.
    You may have run across these persons on social media and elsewhere, the ones that swear the practice of local police departments buying armored vehicles is not a function of facing more well-equipped criminals, but a prelude to the Obama administration imposing marshal law on the citizens. Additionally, there are the bullet paranoids, who have marginalized themselves by turning an industry shortage of bullets in some parts of the country into a conspiracy on the part of the Obama administration to keep citizens with guns unable to purchase ammo for those guns.
     This has existed practically ever since there has been people upon the earth. I call it the Delusion of the Irrelevant. Those who feel they have no control over the aspects of their lives they do not like, must then impute blame for those aspects to some sinister force, usually government or rich people. It is the process of transforming themselves from irrelevant to relevant, which takes the form of superiority over those ignorant masses that do not know or do not agree with their paranoid, conspiratorial conclusions.
     Another form of self-marginalization that has recently become popular is the insistent impeachment syndrome. These are persons on the Right, like Sarah Palin, who have as much chance of impeaching this president as the proverbial snowball rolling through hell has of remaining intact, and yet they continue to marginalize themselves and harm their political cause. Mr. Obama is indeed fortunate to have such foolhardy political opponents.
     If the political Right in this country is ever going to have a prayer of wrestling the reigns of power away from the destructive Left, we must stop marginalizing ourselves with our support for conspiracy theories and bad political strategies that are bound to fail. We have better ideas, ideas that have a proven track record of being successful. We must concentrate our political energies on articulating those ideas and winning over converts to the cause of liberty, free markets, and common sense.

George Will's Support For The Obama Wealth Redistribution Program

     The de facto scribe for the Washington establishment, George Will, stated over the weekend that we should distribute the "children" currently breaching our Southern border throughout the country, placing 20 in each county. Beyond Mr. Will's naiveté in believing that most of these children are "eight year old criminals with Teddy bears," is the fact that his numbers do not add up. Maybe demographic arithmetic is not a subject in George's wheelhouse, we already can surmise from his Teddy bear statement that being intellectually tethered to reality certainly is not.
     Primary to the ridiculousness of Mr. Will's comments on the current illegal alien invasion on the Southern border of the United States of America, is the fact that less than twenty percent of those that have breached our borders since this past April have been children. Unless of course you classify children as being anyone up to and including the age of twenty six, as the administration has done through the Affordable Care Act. The percentage of actual illegal alien children being dumped at the border as a direct result of Obama policy, is miniscule compared to the number of adults making the trek.
     Of the actual children, defined as those persons under the age of 18, more than three quarters are teenagers, according to the border patrol. These teenagers are capable of violent crimes as a function of their common matriculation into gangs like MS-13. And contrary to what George Will would have us believe, gang members do not carry Teddy bears. But they do carry disease, mental illness, and a predilection to engage in violent crime.
      George Will's statement, either deliberately or by design, misses the fact that the twenty "children" every county would be compelled by the force of law to welcome with open arms, and open checkbooks, will grow into hundreds or even thousands twenty years hence. The increase will be insured not only through others pouring over our open borders, but by those already here having children, all of which the taxpayers must support.
     Mr. Will made the point that we can surely absorb these poor, innocent, Teddy bear carrying "children" into our national family. That may well be true. But the issue that is missed by those who have been distracted by the phony refugee status of these "children," is the fact that a country without strictly enforced borders can hardly expect to maintain its sovereignty. Those on the Left, and those like George Will who swerve into it from time to time, are adamant about the United States butting out of other nations' affairs, except of course when it comes to receiving with open arms their citizens who have crashed our borders illegally in order to participate in the Obama Wealth Redistribution Program. And those on the Right like Mr. Will have unwittingly become supporters of this program, not out of compassion, but because the Republican establishment has bought into the myth that support for open borders will lead them to electoral victory.

A Prescription For Lasting Peace

     There is nothing new that I can say in analysis of the Israeli/Hamas conflict currently reaching a violent crescendo in the Middle East, and the corollary ignorance on the Left in the main stream media, the Obama administration, and elsewhere. If ever there was an opportunity for moral clarity and a vigorous certitude of good and evil to be understood by anyone with even a modicum of decency, it is the violence perpetrated by Hamas against the Jews for the expressed purpose of killing as many as possible, and the defensive response by the nation of Israel which is committed to peace.
     And where is the official United States government response on the continuum of decency and morality to the conflict? Well it is just barely above that of the soulless, feckless, and anti-Semitic United Nations. Those committed to the soulless religion of Leftism like Barack Obama and his bumbling clown-like Secretary of State John Kerry believe that true peace comes, not at the tip of the victor's sword, but from the tip of their own duplicitous and snake-like tongues. The former proposition is born out by many millennia of history, the latter has been proven by that same history to end in abject failure.
     The reason that a cease fire strategy is bound for the ash heap of history's greatest failures is that it solves nothing. Hamas will still be unyielding in their commitment to their charter which calls for the destruction of Israel, and Israel will be committed to its survival and the ultimate peace of the region. There is no compromise that can be had between such diametrically opposed goals. But the hubris of the Left to believe in the power of their words to magically reconcile good and evil without the former defeating the latter militarily, is not only foolhardy, but a threat to the lasting peace that such a battle would produce.
     The reasons to believe in the goodness of Israel and the evilness of Hamas has its roots in the last seventy years of history. From the time that Israel occupied statehood in the modern era beginning in 1948, their persecutors have refused to allow them to live in peace. The million Palestinian refugees that the Left blames on the Jews were created when Arab armies invaded Israel and forced those refugees out. Since then it has been Israel that has made concessions to peace, like in 2005 when they forcibly removed their own people from the Gaza Strip, leaving it completely free of Jews. Yet to this day, Hamas claims that Israel "occupies" the Gaza Strip.
     What is my solution to the conflict? The world should support Israel in their attempt to remove the thorn that is Hamas, not only from their own paw, but for the benefit of all mankind. And why should the world side with Israel? Because it is the right thing to do, and is the function of morality and decency. Two things which are glaringly foreign to the ethos of Leftism. 

The Communist Plot Of Single Motherhood

     There are few things that have contributed to the downfall of our culture, and the meteoric growth in the size of government, than the explosion of out-of-wedlock births over the last half century. Back then, before the War On Poverty, The Great Society, and even government run health care, out-of-wedlock births clocked in under ten percent of all births in the general population, and barely occupied a place in the teens for inner city blacks. Today, the general out-of-wedlock birth rate is 43 percent and a whopping 72 percent for inner city blacks.
     While demographers and social "scientists" pontificate on the causes for the lack of children being born to two parent traditional homes (the most optimum method for insuring responsible contributing members of society) those who have created this seismic shift in our culture are rubbing their hands together with glee. It has been no accident that the rise in out-of-wedlock births has been accompanied by an expansion in government.
     The modus operandi of the Left over the last fifty years, through entertainment, media, and education has been to place the desires of adults over the needs of their children. Hence the no fault divorce laws, the redefinition of marriage away from its prime directive to raise responsible children to just a union between any two persons who love each other, and the outright veneration of single motherhood. The feminization of the American male and the enervation of fatherhood has been in fulfillment of the communist manifesto that centered around destroying the family to increase dependence on an all-powerful centralized government.
     The Left has released all restraints on government in order to place them on individuals for the expressed purpose of unmaking the founding of this great nation. And the deliberate and methodical destruction of the traditional family has been the centerpiece of that unmaking. A corollary to the destruction of the family is that of the communities in which they use to reside. When one belongs to a strong traditional family, one is less likely to engage in anti-social behavior for fear that that family will be ostracized from the community. It is this sense of community, and the individual family's role in that community, along with the role of religious organizations, that were the threads which wove the moral fabric of our nation.
     The communists knew three quarters of a century ago that if America's strong families could be compromised, America as a beacon of freedom to the world could be destroyed. Arguably there would not have been a President Obama if there were not an over-abundance of single mothers to vote for his big government policies. The proliferation of big government programs walks hand-in-hand with the scarcity of liberty. It is a cycle that begins with the redefinition of family and ends with the redefinition of freedom. A cycle that sadly is in its final stages in a country that was built upon, and owes its successes to, the culture of the traditional family. 
    
    

The Top Five Stupid Things Leftists Believe

     Following is a collection of five "truths" that Leftists hold near and dear to their political hearts. This is by no means meant to be a complete list, just the ideological claptrap of the Left that I believe is the most damning to the culture of liberty. They are born of inconsistencies of logic and blatant ignorance of historical facts and economic data.
     1) There shall be no limit on government to compel business to provide salary and benefits to their employees. Ask any Leftist if government should be empowered to limit the benefits and salary that private enterprises give their employees, and they would say no. However, those same Leftists have no problem empowering government to compel private enterprises to provide ever more generous benefits to those in their employ. Hence the minimum wage, health care, family leave, etc.
     2) Poverty creates wealth. Leftists talk about taxing the wealthy to make things more "fair," as if the wealthy became so by stealing from the poor. This bit of nonsense assumes that the impoverished in this country and throughout the world had wealth at one time, and that nefarious rich people swindled them out of it. Part and parcel to this belief is the idea that the process of government confiscating wealth from those who have it and filtering it through bureaucracy, will magically make the poor wealthier. This belief ignores the simple but prescient statement by Abraham Lincoln that "a man can not build his own house by tearing down his neighbors."
     3) Upon entering into a business venture, a person not only loses his Constitutional rights, but his humanity as well. This argument is buttressed by the Lefts statement that corporations are not people. Which completely dehumanizes those who constitute a business, while at the same time forbidding them from participating in the principles of liberty outlined in this country's founding documents. Hence, according to the Left, businesses are allowed to make public pronouncements when advertising their products, but should be forbidden from such statements that posses the very political views that our constitution protects.
     4) Government is the mother of invention, not necessity. This belief is the impetus behind the corrupt practice on the Left, made into an art form by Barack Obama, of using taxpayer money to fund "green" energy companies that are operated by political donors of the president. This practice ignores the history of invention which almost entirely sprouted from the private sector of the American free market economy. It is also one of the ways in which the Left confiscates money from private hands, ostensibly for the "greater good."
     5) Minority status automatically imputes a moral superiority. This belief of Leftists can be seen in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, where those on the Left support the much more militarily weak, and smaller population of the Hamas-lead Palestinians over the much stronger and more firmly planted on moral high ground Israelis. But this belief is also played out on a daily basis in the United States with the Lefts assumption that the "little guy" occupies the moral high ground by virtue of being smaller and weaker. This morally inverted theory applies to labor vs. management, poor vs. rich, and the infirmed vs. the healthy.
     As previously stated, these five beliefs of the Left are not meant to encompass the whole of polluted thinking by those who subscribe to the very flawed ideology that currently has its bony, twisted fingers around the throat of liberty upon which this country was founded. But they do, I believe, illuminate for the reader the basic misconception that colors the world view of those who blindly follow the destructive force of the Leftist ethos. 

The Millionaire President

     The bowel movement that is the lurch towards the Left in this country over the last 40 years has been responsible for a disgusting smudge placed on the Constitution, obscuring the enumerated powers of the federal government. It is hard to believe that in slightly over two hundred years we have been transformed from a country capable of producing men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to lead us, to burping up the current occupant of the White House who could not lead a pack of wild, hungry dogs with fresh raw meat.
     Within a decade of leaving office, Thomas Jefferson was selling his 6500 book collection to the Library of Congress because he needed the cash, and the Library needed the books, having lost most of their material in the burning of Washington by the British during the War of 1812. Today Mr. Jefferson could, as a former president, rent himself out at a million dollars a speech like some sort of intellectual U-Haul truck. But men of Jefferson's ilk had too much rectitude to think that their mere presence was worth the equivalent of twenty times the median income of their fellow citizens.
     Which brings me to our current president, who by all accounts has failed miserably to reach any of his stated goals. He said unemployment would dip under six percent by the end of his first term, it did not, and still has not half way through his second term. He said the other nations of the world would respect and love the U.S. under his leadership, our allies have given up looking for our leadership and our enemies...well they have not stopped laughing long enough to tell us how they feel. He said that health care would become less expensive under his take over of that industry, deductibles and premiums have grown beyond the ability of many Americans to pay them. He said he would be a post-partisan, post-racial president, but he has ignored and derided his political enemies, many times using race as a blunt instrument to beat free speech into submission.
     When this pitiful excuse for a president leaves office in a couple of years, he will suck up millions in speaking fees for having left the country almost 20 trillion dollars in debt, the lowest percentage of workers participating in the work force in half a century, and a people crushed under the weight of an obese federal government that has feasted on a high calorie and high fat diet of regulations and bureaucracy. This is the modus operandi of the Left, i.e. reward for failure, whether it is individuals making bad choices in their own lives, or it is a president that has turned a vigorous and healthy constitution into a feeble and groping entity on the edge of extinction.
    Men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would be anachronisms if they were alive today. For this is the age of the weakness of entitlement over the strength of character. An age of political correctness over free speech. It is an age of the profanity of spin over the holiness of truth, and the mitigation of evil over the exultation of good. This is the age of failure snatching reward from the jaws of success, and the veneration of men not worthy of it. It is the age of the millionaire president, and the pauper citizen that must grovel at his feet even for the God-given rights of liberty guaranteed by the founding documents of a once great and free nation.  
    

Sarah, I Love Ya, But You Are Wrong On Impeachment

     I respect and admire Sarah Palin a great deal for her fidelity to the principles and values prescribed by the founding documents of this great country. I have also watched her with great veneration for her political ability in articulating those values. That is why I have grown very solicitous lately with her insistence that congressional Republicans begin impeachment proceedings against President Obama. Not because I think there are no violations by this president that rise to the legal definition of impeachment, but because as it has been stated, impeachment is not so much a legal remedy as it is a political one.
     There just is not the political support among the population of American citizens to travel the road of impeachment with wild-eyed Republicans hoping to accomplish God knows what with an effort that is guaranteed for failure. The House of Representatives leadership must draw up articles of impeachment that must then be supported by a majority of House members. So far, so good. The Republicans control the House with a comfortable majority. But then those articles of impeachment must then be prosecuted by the Senate, which even under Republican control, would need a two-thirds majority vote of support to impeach. If that miracle somehow happened, then the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America would have to agree to hear the charges and decide in favor of impeachment.
     We already know that Chief Justice Roberts has no stomach to mitigate the agenda of the first black president, let alone impeach and remove him from office. Even attempting an Article 5 impeachment would require so much time to get implemented in every state, that Barack Obama will be long gone from office before the state legislatures could vote on impeachment. And even if they could do the deed before he left office, the proponents of impeachment would need three-quarters of the state legislatures to support their position in order for them to succeed. Considering that just over forty percent of the state legislatures are Democrat, and assuming that the rest voted for impeachment, there would still not be enough support to impeach the president.
     An impeachment movement against President Obama would be a political disaster for Republicans and a civic one for the country. Barack Obama, who is failing in popularity, would recover his lost support through a Republican impeachment attempt. The process would end in defeat for the impeachers, while garnering the president a lifeline out of the sea of political disaster in which he is currently drowning. Impeachment would have the added benefit to the president of allowing him to claim the congress is not working for the American people, but for their own partisan agenda.
     With the border crisis, the economic crisis, the unemployment crisis, the foreign policy crisis, the budget crisis, and the entitlement crisis, impeachment should not even be on Republicans' radar. Sarah Palin has been right about so many issues, she was bound to swing and miss on one sooner or later, and impeachment is that issue. Hers and Republicans energy would be better spent articulating conservative principles that will save the Republic, rather than trying to impeach a president that will be out of office in a couple of years anyway. The real fight is not with Barack Obama, but with the ideology of Leftism, which is what really needs to be impeached and removed from the American culture.

How The Left Defines Success

     The expectation for success in Leftist public policy is analogous to a man trying to commit suicide by sitting in his electric car with the garage door closed. Program after program, at great expense to hard working taxpayers, has failed miserably, and yet Democrats and others on the Left continue to engage in an almost rabid support for said programs. For example, just a few years ago a federal government study showed that the Head Start program, that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year, has shown no evidence of being the least bit successful. Yet Democrats scream bloody murder whenever Republicans try to fight growing the program even bigger. 
     The relationship between Democrats and unsuccessful programs is similar to that of a welfare mother to her offspring; it matters little if they work, the goal is to receive taxpayer funding for them. This strict religious adherence to growing the budget every year, and borrowing money to do so, is the most sacred and revered sacrament of Leftists like Barack Obama and the modern Democrat party.
     The utter failure of the Head Start program is replicated on a daily basis by the federal government because of the simple fact that government, and the bureaucracy it creates, is the least efficacious way in which to accomplish any meaningful success in the arena of public policy. The reason is simple; bureaucracy and bureaucrats see cracks in the human condition as key ways to greater funding, not as opportunities to improve that condition. I submit the Veterans Administration debacle that has recently come to light as evidence for my argument. But it is by no means an isolated failure of the big government model of the Left. And the Lefts support of bigger and bigger government is dichotomous to their utter fear of the same growth in private enterprises.
     The recent outcome of a study completed by the Inspector General responsible for analyzing the Affordable Care Act, has revealed that the ObamaCare website is so completely incompetent in tracking who has received subsidies and who has not, and the metrics used to determine the health insurance subsidies, that the Inspector General's office has estimated that upwards of four million Americans have received unwarranted subsidies. The colossal failure of ObamaCare has not only damaged the quality of care received by American patients, but has raised costs on premiums and deductibles to a level that has and will cripple economic activity.
     The utter obtuseness as it relates to the failure of their programs exists on the Left because they measure success by the percentage of the overall economy government occupies, and the control that gives those in government who dole out taxpayer dollars to groups and individuals they deem worthy of the fruits of other people's labor. The Lefts greatest sin against the Constitution is its hubris in thinking they can cram the square peg of socialism into the round hole of history and somehow create a better society than what once existed in this country as a direct result of the tenets of limited government set forth in our founding documents.     

Feminism: The Scam Of Leftist Men

     Many of those now proffering the phony War On Women supposedly being waged by Republicans and Conservatives, were prattled at the knee of the 1960s feminist movement. A movement that promised to free women from...well free them from being women. Because to the Left being a woman meant slavery, not complimenting men in ways that lead to a better society for everyone.
     The real aim of the 1960s feminist movement was not so much about freeing women as it was about freeing Leftist men. Freeing them from the responsibility of the families they create, because the government would support their children by confiscating other people's money who had no part in creating them. Freeing them from having to treat women with respect and honor, because the feminist were instructing new generations of women that free love meant guilt-free sex. Not so beneficial for women, but very beneficial for the Leftist men who came up with the idea of inculcating the sex drive of men in women.
     The male of the species being exonerated from the responsibility of their breeding, and for the outcome of that breeding, has been the linchpin of the modern feminist movement. It has destroyed the fabric of manhood in this country and has encouraged single-motherhood. All for the purpose of increasing dependence on government and Leftist programs.
     When one listens to the War On Women babble from the Left, it all centers around contraception, as if women only have one body part, and their entire beings are dedicated to it. There is nothing in the War On Women rhetoric about economic issues or foreign policy issues, or any issue not related directly to women's vaginas. So not only is the Lefts characterization of the Rights position on birth control a complete myth, but even if true, their monolithic view of women being centered on this one issue is worse.
     The reason that the Left has been driven to such extreme lies about this issue is because of Republican's true position on it, i.e. that birth control should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars. The Lefts entire industry is geared toward government using its taxing authority to confiscate money from taxpayers in order to relieve the burden of personal responsibility from as many different groups of Americans as possible. The Rights message of the freeing power of individualism is a grave threat  to the Lefts continued existence. The more free people do for themselves, the less they need, want, or desire the big government programs of the Left.
     Feminism has not only been one of the best ways for Leftist men to satisfy their lusts with the full cooperation and participation of women, but it has had the added benefit of creating more single-motherhood, which in turn creates more dependency on government. Not only dependence by the single mothers, but the children they raise who are much more likely to draw on government services as they enter adulthood than those raised in two-parent traditional homes. So by creating the subterfuge of feminism, Leftist men have insured their ravenous political appetite as well as their physical one.
    

Barack Obama's Southern Strategy

     During the 1960s, Democrats were playing the same race card that dominates their political strategy today. They accused Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater of having some secret "Southern Strategy" that appealed to racists in the South. As per usual, Democrats never presented any evidence for their charge, and none was required by minority voters who were more than willing to accept the word of a political party that had a long history of displaying racism. It was a ridiculous charge on its face considering that Richard Nixon was the father of Affirmative Action through his Philadelphia Project, and was the first major white politician of either party to meet with the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
     Unlike the Democrats charge of a Southern Strategy attached to Richard Nixon, Barack Obama's Southern Strategy is blatant, palpable, and real. Only the South President Obama is courting is South America, and the many Democrat-Voters-In-Waiting that live there. The numbers are worrisome; one in six Hondurans and one in five El Salvadorians that existed in those countries twenty years ago are now residing in the United States, some legally, but many illegally.
     Some, even on the Right, still refuse to believe that the current invasion of the children's crusade on the Southern U.S. border is part and parcel to President Obama's agenda. Even with the evidence staring them in the face like a rabid dog ready to attack. The very impetus for the current invasion was the Executive Order Mr. Obama signed in 2012 allowing for illegal alien minors to stay in the United States.
     Additional evidence of a planned "crisis" was the hiring by the administration of transport and logistic personnel as far back as the beginning of this year, months before the supposed "crisis" began. The issuing of debit cards to the over 300 thousand illegals that have crossed the border since April, most of them adults, many of them gang members, is further proof of a deliberate erasing of the border by the Obama administration. And finally, the multi-year lease the Obama administration signed with a resort to house current and future border crashers is evidentiary of an administration that does not intend on stemming the flow of illegal aliens any time soon.
     The importation of Democrat voters from South America is ancillary to the tenets of Liberation Theology that Barack Obama studied for twenty years in Reverend Wright's "church." The real goal of President Obama's Southern Strategy is to return what he sees as America's ill-gotten wealth to the peoples he sees as the victims of an imperialistic America. And that is the real sin of Barack Obama; he is unable to understand that America has added to the world, not subtracted. And that the enormous advancement in the human condition driven by the United States of America has come as a result of our founding being an exception to anything that came before or since.      

The Success Of Obama Nation

     In the interim between the time that Barack Obama was elected president in November of 2008, and when he was inaugurated in January of 2009, conservative radio talk show pioneer, Rush Limbaugh said he hope the newly elected executive would fail. Those on the Left with more larceny in their hearts than love of the truth, deliberately misinterpreted Mr. Limbaugh's statement to mean he hoped the country would fail just to sabotage the first black president. They, like everyone else who heard Rush's comment, knew that he, like many conservatives, felt that President Obama's successful implementation of his agenda would mean failure for the country.
     Once again Rush was right. President Obama's success in manipulating monetary policy through his marionettes at the Federal Reserve in order to reward his Wall Street campaign donors with a market infusion of over three trillion dollars, has insured failure for the Average American trying to participate in the economy. President Obama's success in raising health insurance rates and deductibles into the stratosphere and essentially reducing the work week of millions of Americans to under thirty hours, and his successful public intimidation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to twist himself and the law into a pretzel to give ObamaCare the undeserved status of "constitutional," has caused a failure in what was the best health care industry in the world.
      President Obama's successful creation of a regulatory state to replace a thriving free market, has insured failure for the 95 million Americans who are now without full time employment. President Obama's success in expanding the food stamp program, nearly doubling it in 5 years, has caused a failure in the American people to see hope springing eternal from this once great country. President Obama's economic policies producing chronically high unemployment, the lowest labor force participation in almost forty years, and Gross Domestic Product growth at or near historic lows, has lead to a failure in the self-reliance that built this country, and has insured increased dependence on government.
     Whether one agrees with Rush Limbaugh or not, it can not be denied that he has used constitutional consistency for the better part of thirty years when putting forth his analysis. Many of his contemporaries on Right-Wing radio have not been so consistent. They run the gambit from the scared moderates like Michael Medved, who still defends the President as only incompetent, to Glen Beck who began Barack Obama's first term saying he was giving him a hundred percent approval rating, then jumping on the conservative band wagon only after others paved the way in criticizing the president. Then there are those on talk radio who think that broadcast excellence comes wrapped in a package of invectives aim at other hosts, as Michael Savage does.
     The success that Barack Obama has had in remaking America has been exemplified by the recent border crisis. Many on the Right still believe that the invasion of our Southern border is borne of President Obama's incompetence, and not his deliberate attempt to grow government at the same time he grows the Democrat party voter base. Barack Obama has been wildly successful in implementing his agenda, while convincing his political opponents on the Right that he is merely in over his head. This is what success for Barack Obama looks like, it is why that lone voice cried through the hysteria of an "historic" election to say, "I hope he fails."

American Mobster

     There are some things that happen in the course of American life that makes one scratch one's head in wonder at the corrupt behavior that appears to be legal for certain groups in and out of government. Two such examples is the 300 million dollars that the organized crime syndicate known as the AFL-CIO is dedicating to defeating five Republican governors this Fall. The other is the 94 million dollar "fine" being paid by Cleveland Brown's Owner Jimmy Haslam for allegedly corrupt activity in which his Pilot/Flying J truck stops engaged.
     The whole idea that some Americans are forced to join unions and pay dues as a condition of their employment is completely against the principles and values that the founders fought so hard to ensure. But for those dues to then be laundered to the Democrat party by way of defeating Republican office holders, is beyond the pale of American rectitude. It is a legalized protection racket where those who fund the criminal activities of the mob, in this case the union, have no choice whether they contribute or not.
     The "fine" paid by Jimmy Haslam, as well as the recent fine paid by Citigroup to the tune of $7 billion, is the traditional mob "shakedown," only in these instances practiced by the Department of Justice. Godfather Eric Holderini has promised no prosecution in exchange for the blood money being paid by these companies. If there is wrong doing, prosecute, if not, then leave them alone. To require millions, and in some cases, billions of dollars be paid in "fines" to government agencies in exchange for "protection" from prosecution, is the highest form of lawlessness.
     If a tracking device could be placed on each dollar of "fines" paid to federal agencies, it would be interesting to see how many of those dollars wind up in Democrat campaign coffers. The money is laundered through programs and bureaucracies ostensibly created for a purpose with which no one could argue, like civil rights or helping children. But the criminal practices in these programs run the gambit from hiring political allies at outrageous salaries and benefits, to funding "events" which in all reality are Democrat campaign get-out-the-vote functions.
     The use of union dues for political purposes, and the fining of organizations by federal agencies in exchange for protection from prosecution, are two outrageously criminal enterprises that should not exist in a free country founded under the Rule Of Law. These lawless activities diminish the probity of this great country and enervate the very fabric of our morality.

The Frightenting Face Book Fray

     One of the hazards of writing this blog, or trying to do anything in the public sphere where the goal is to attract attention, is the homage one must pay to social media. As such, I friend a lot of people on Face Book hoping they will read this blog. I have also had to unfriend many people for reasons of good taste and sanity. After reading thousands of posts from hundreds of persons on Face Book, I have determined there are four basic groups of Face Book users.
     The first group is that of the family poster. Those who want to share pictures from the most recent family event, or stay in touch with members of the family who may live out of the area. This group can also include friends updating other friends about the happenings in their lives, or what they may have had for breakfast, saw on the way to work, or whether they awoke this morning with a headache or other feelings of illness. This group is fairly innocuous and can even provide humor to one's day.
     The second group is the political poster. I include myself in this group, however I do not subscribe to the tactics or language used by some of my fellow posters. This group runs the gambit from posting a link to an interesting article, video, or blog  (like this one), to ranting incoherently about "build-a-bear," Billdebergers, or whatever they call the group that is taking over the world so behind the scenes that no one knows who they are, except these conspiracy theorist on the Internet. The other political posters are those who can not seem to string together cogent thoughts into a well articulated argument in support of their view point, so they post strings of classless derogatory insults against politicians that do not support their beliefs.
     The third group is the attention-starved poster. These are the persons who always complain about how much tragedy has befallen them in life in order to elicit sympathy from total strangers. This group also includes the female-attention-hog and their subset of uncontrollably-drooling-trained-apes who make favorable comments about the salacious photos the female-attention-hogs post on their timeline. This group uses Face Book as an electronic self-esteem booster and a way to make themselves feel relevant to total strangers.
     The fourth, and final, group of posters is the invitors. These are persons who invite those on their friends list to either play some online game or respond to their posts with a single word or phrase. Sometimes members of this group can also drift into the previous group, trying to elicit a response in order to make themselves feel relevant. But mostly those in this group are trying to receive comments or likes for pictures of things from the past, some religious message, or an inane quiz that is suppose to show how intelligent the responder is.
     There is of course another group, which is advertisers (remember when Face Book derided MySpace for having ads?). While ads may be annoying at times, their intention is always clear, to make money. The intentions of some members of the other groups I mentioned may not always be immediately apparent. It is a brave new world inside the bounds of the Face Book universe, and one must be careful when negotiating through it. Above all, do not be afraid to use the "unfriend" button, it can remove much stress and aggravation from your life. It is just a shame that there is not one available in the tactile world that can be employed to avoid the unwanted shenanigans of the chronically annoying.       

Death's Warm Embrace

     Yesterday, as I was signing up for a BJs membership to replace the Costco one I terminated after they let their Left-wing politics mar an otherwise good business, I was having a discussion with a friend about death. Yeah, I know, sounds like a great Sunday afternoon. But the discussion was not so much about our deaths, but how our culture has become less mature in how we deal with death in general. For as technologically advanced as we have become as a society, we have regressed on the issue of death to a level of immaturity not even held by our ancient ancestors.
     People of other eras in history would lose a loved one, grieve for a respectful amount of time, and then go on living their lives. We, with all our trappings of modernity, lose a loved one, grieve an excessive amount of time, think of ourselves as victims for having gone through this basic eventuality of life, and sometimes spend thousands of dollars on therapy. Our forbearers, while they never forgot their departed loved ones, would turn their grief to the essential task of survival.
     Therein lies the crux of the matter, our abundance of free time to dwell on these common events of life experienced by everyone who has ever lived, or will ever live. No one escapes this earth without dying, and without experiencing the death of those close to us. But many have turned this normal occurrence into an opportunity to gain sympathy as a victim. This is a result, I think, of the ideology of the Left that has venerated victim hood and has implemented a reward system for personal weakness.
      The hero worship of victims promulgated by the Left, in combination with less of our energy and thought having to be spent on survival, has lead to the normality of death being treated as an anomaly. When one considers that the average American spends just under 40 hours a week working to provide for themselves and their families, according to the Labor Department, it is no wonder we have become neurotic about death.
     Additionally, the ever increasing number of hours that the average American spends watching TV, has overtaken the number of hours they spend working. This has contributed to the lines between fiction and reality being blurred in the minds of many. I am amazed and shocked, living without any TV except DVDs, how much of some people's entire life experience is wrapped up in the fictional lives of those they watch on television. This, in my estimation, has lead to a skewed sense of reality in these persons, who then are unable to shoulder the typical burdens of life, like death.
     Death has become the ultimate pass into the club car of sympathy on the train to victim hood for those left behind by the decedent. I have news for those victims, we are all going to die. Death is immaterial compared to how we all spend our time while on this earth, however many years we are granted. Grieve for those you have loss, and then set about the task of making your life, the lives of those around you, and your piece of the world a little better before you too must leave it and head towards the enlightenment of death's warm embrace.
    

P.J. O'Rourke And Others Wrong About Younger Generation

     Some of those on the political Right, such as P.J. O'Rourke, have mollified the sting over the cultural defeat the Right has suffered over the last couple of decades by advancing the theory that today's young have become so disillusioned with Washington politics that they will be more conservative in their politics than their parents generation. This theory depends on two very big assumptions. One, that the growing ineptness of the federal government will be blamed on Democrats, and two, that disillusionment with government somehow translates into the disillusioned practicing conservatism as a remedy for their disillusion.
     The fact that Democrats have control of the White House and the Senate, and had control of the House of Representatives the first two years of the Obama presidency, means nothing. What is important to the younger generation is the culture, which has influenced politics in the last 20 years like at no other time in our nation's history. And that culture, comprised of news media, entertainment media, education, and even sports, has carried the message to young people that Republicans and conservatives are responsible for all the societal angst under which the United States is currently suffering.
     Another data point that makes it unlikely that the young will start voting Republican is the support they have shown for Libertarians like the Pauls and others. Conversion of Leftist youths to Libertarians does not mean automatic votes for Republicans. It does, however, mean Republican-syphoning votes for Libertarian candidates. P.J. O' Rourke, et, al are correct that the recent lurch to the Left may produce a rubber band effect and snap the younger generation in  the opposite direction. But there is evidence to suggest that they will overshoot the small government of republicanism and propel their politics into the land of no government libertarianism.
     Meanwhile, as per usual, the Republican leadership in Washington sows their seeds of electoral victory firmly in the toxic ground of amnesty for illegal aliens. They have been told, by their political opponents no less, that they must support illegal immigration in the form of "comprehensive reform" to sway Hispanic voters from Democrats. So how stupid do Democrats think we are, I will tell you how stupid, it looks as though the establishment Republican types are plowing ahead on amnesty, even though with the invasion currently on our border it would be a perfect time for them to be talking security first.
     The younger generation may turn more conservative in how they live their lives, but they will never relate those values to a week and ineffectual Republican party. In fact they may continue voting Democrat just because they see them as the strong horse, and thereby worthy of following. Or they may support third party candidates or become so disillusioned that they do not vote at all. I just do not see them flocking to the Republican party, unless the Republican party stands for something different than the Democrats.
         

The Lefts "Withdraw Strategy"

     The Left, in defending their anti-military position, often uses the tired and worn refrain that America "can not be the world's policemen." Fair enough, but if one accepts that side of the equation then one must also accept the side that says America "can not be the world's social worker." If America is to withdraw from the world, it must do so on providing financial support with as much gusto as the Left shows in wanting to withdraw militarily. If the latter is a sign of imperialism, then so is the former.
     The recent Obama Illegal Immigrant Child Dump program on our Southern border is a glaring example of the Left wanting to impose their will on peoples of other countries, even if that imposition comes sans military intervention. It is the height of hypocrisy for those who advocate for an American military withdraw from world affairs, and also advocate for dispersing 50,000 illegal immigrant children throughout the country with God-Knows-Who as guardians. I can just imagine families throughout South America preparing their hash tag campaigns on twitter holding up placards that read, "#KeepOurChildrenAndFeedAndEducateThem."
     There is no greater hypocrisy than that of the Left, saying out one side of their mouths that the United States has been a bully throughout the world, while at the same time out of the other side suggesting just the kind of bullying they say they abhor. The Lefts bullying does not only affect peoples of other nations, but also those of the United States. There is no bigger bullying tactic than to impose illegal immigrants on the nation for the sake of "compassion."
     The American Left has had a long history of bullying the rest of the world. The most glaring example is of course the global warming scam, which they, through the United Nation, have forced other nations to submit to at the cost of economic growth and prosperity. But the Lefts bullying goes back even further than that. It was environmental Leftists at the Environmental Protection Agency, in contradiction to a federal judge's ruling and hard data, that banned the use of DDT. This resulted in the rest of the world following suit, and it is why malaria is a problem in Africa today when it had previously been eradicated thanks to that miracle chemical.   
     The Lefts hypocrisy informs them that America should only withdraw from world events where it can actually bring liberty to the oppressed, as the United States military has had a long tradition of doing. Instead they opt for meddling in the affairs of other nations, and the citizens of their own country, when it is to impose their twisted sense of morality born of the demon seed of their politics. Hence they have no compunction about using taxpayer money to feed, house, and cloth illegal immigrants, and disperse them among the U.S. population to deal with, instead of doing the right thing and sending them back to their families in their countries of origin.      
     Second only to the fact that Leftist policies engender oppression rather than liberty, the hypocrisy illustrated by their "withdraw strategy" is clearly evidentiary of a morally bankrupt and irrational ideology.

Why Cleveland ?

     If there is one area in which the Republican National Committee excels, it is its ability to make bad decisions based on faulty political analysis. The decision to hold their 2016 convention in Cleveland, Ohio, I am sad to say, is no exception to this ever increasing common behavior of the GOP leadership. There is a reason that Cleveland has not been chosen to host a national political convention since the 1930s.
     I understand that the GOP leadership felt they had Texas all sown up vote-wise for the 2016 presidential election, so Dallas would not have gained them any ground politically. Furthermore, they felt having the convention in Cleveland would allow them to ingratiate their party to the voters in the all important swing state of Ohio. Well I really question how many voters will be switched to the Republican cause simply by having their convention in the Democrat cesspool of Cleveland. Additionally, trying to impress new voters by having your convention in Cleveland, Ohio is analogous to a young man trying to impress his date by taking her to a vomitorium.
     Before all those rabid Clevelanders start taking up a collection to pay for my tar and feathers, consider the following. Cleveland use to be a thriving metropolis of over a million people, home to 13 Fortune Five Hundred companies, and had healthy neighborhoods that were 85% owner-occupied. After sixty years of mostly Democrat control, the city's population has shrank to under 400,000, all 13 Fortune Five Hundred companies have fled for greener pastures, and the city is 80% rental.
     The recent shellacking of the Cleveland police Department for last year's shooting of a couple of crack heads who were evading them and then tried to run over officers with their car, should be a signal to any potential visitor to the city that leadership cares more about protecting criminals than law-abiding citizens. I just hope none of the convention attendees venture very far from the convention location or their hotel.
     As for having your party's convention in a city that is in a swing state in order to swing that state in your direction come election time, I am not sure if there is any hard evidence that that actually produces results. Additionally, Ohio has not voted for a Republican since George W. Bush in 2004. Twelve years (by the time of the 2016 election) is a long time to still be called a "swing state." And if the GOP wanted to have their convention in Ohio to continue their delusion of picking up votes, they could have chosen one of many other cities in the state that would have been more suitable. Like Mount Vernon, named after our first president's estate. At least there conventioneers would not have to dodge gunfire and step over homeless people on their way to convention events.

Costco Removes America From Stores

     I am saying good-bye to my 7 year relationship with Costco, cutting up my card and mailing it back to them. I will miss the snacks, the lower prices on items from mouth wash to raisins. I will miss the clean stores and friendly and efficient employees. I will miss my weekly trip to Costco, but some things are just more important than getting a good price on a gross of sandwich bags.
     I had always known that Costco had a slight lean to the Left, this being obvious from their monthly magazine they mail to all their members. A magazine in which they push the radical "green" agenda, among other Leftist sacraments. But I ignored it because of the great price I was getting on frozen blueberries. But no more, Costco in the person of their founder, James Sinegal, has made my membership in the wholesale club a bridge too far.
     Mr. Sinegal ordered Dinesh D' Souza's book, America: Imagine the world without her, to be removed from sale in all his stores. His stated reason was that he was being a good Liberal by protecting his president. This pseudo book burning by the Left is nothing new, they often engage in keeping opposing viewpoints from public consumption because of their fear of them. The truth about this country's past does not support the group think of the Left, and it violates the tenets of their indefensible ideology.
     James Sinegal, like many Leftists in big business, have no great principled reason for supporting the glaringly failed presidency of Barack Obama, other than the ill-gotten gains of crony capitalism. Like all crony capitalists, Mr. Sinegal has benefitted his mega company with his cozy relationship with those in government, while advocating for policies that he knows would hurt his smaller competitors.
     The Affordable Care Act is one example of Mr. Sinegal's hypocrisy. He publically supported the new health care law while lobbying for and receiving one of the many exemptions handed out by the Obama administration like candy to compliant children. Knowing full well that the law would be a huge burden on his much smaller competitors, costing some of them their very businesses, Mr. Sinegal's support for the law was intended to give Costco the unfair advantage of government connections eliminating his smaller competitors.
     James Sinegal's removal of Dinesh D' Souza's book from his stores was a cowardly act practiced much too often by those on the Left because of a lack of courage in their convictions to stand against opposing views. Mr. Sinegal, as well as others on the Left, do not understand that truth exists outside the bounds of political battlefields. They see it as a malleable substance that can be molded, twisted, and shaped into whatever supports their political agenda at any given moment. This is the reason that Mr. Sinegal allows unionization of only certain locations and certain job descriptions within his company. He, like many in business, pay lip service to Leftist principles as a means of purchasing immunity from the normal demonization and criticism of big business by the Left.
     So good-bye Costco, I unlike you, have principles that gnaw at my conscience and inform me that the higher values that formed this great nation, like freedom of speech and open debate, are more important than getting a year's supply of toothpaste at a discount. Let it be known that by removing America from your stores, Mr. Sinegal, you have also removed at least this one American from them as well.
 

Illegal Immigration And Reckless Compassion

     Anyone who has not spent the last few months in a bunker three miles under the earth's service with no radio or cable TV, is aware of the 52,000 unaccompanied illegal children from Ecuador, El Salvador and Guatemala that have journeyed up to a thousand miles to breech a border that has been so enervated by the Obama administration that...well unaccompanied children could sneak across it. Now we have also been told by way of a crowing Left Wing Media Complex that almost another 250,000 adult illegal immigrants have come across the border since April of this year.
      These 300,00 are only the ones that were caught or gave themselves up to border security. In the case of the children, who are being released into the custody of anyone who claims to be a relative, many may end up being condemned to working in the sex-slave market. This is the result of the Left and the Obama administration's "compassion." As per usual, the Left's "compassion" is severely suspect in its origins, and anything but compassionate for its intended targets.
     Another interesting aspect of the Obama Illegal Child Dump program is that many of these children were ferried over our border by coyotes, who are Mexican mercenaries who sneak across the U.S. border those looking for a better life, many times ending up cooked in a hot cargo van. My question is, "Who paid the coyotes for their services rendered in relation to these children?" We know that coyotes are not looking for humanitarian awards, they want cold hard cash for their "services." I have to wonder with everything else that this administration has done to pay lip service to the Rule Of Law, while at the same time grinding it into dog food in the basement of the White House, if some taxpayer money did not end up in coyotes' pockets.
     The obvious maneuver of overwhelming the systems of government in order to justify more government to compensate, is a classic of Marxist tyrants of the last hundred years. Mr. Obama is engaging one of the oldest tricks in the book for consolidating power in the central government. He has requested two billion dollars to fund his "compassion," and that is only seed money. More, a lot more, I am sure, will be forthcoming over the next few months.
     The Left in this country has tried to take control by appealing to the people's compassion. But   compassion practiced with reckless abandon always leads to the mitigation, and eventual elimination of liberty. This is why James Madison, Father of the Constitution, stated that there is no compassion in the Constitution. In order for free people to remain free it is essential that any compassion be exercised by the people, and not the government. Compassion consolidated in the hands of government leads only to tyranny because it involves the immoral act of funding said compassion with other people's money.
     The most compassionate outcome for these children would be for the United States to send them back to their families in their countries of origin. It would send a clear message to others that the trip to the U.S. border is not worth the struggle. It would also be the most compassionate thing for the tax-paying citizens of the United States who would have to end up supporting these kids. It is odd how the Left seems to have compassion for everyone but the U.S. taxpayer who ultimately pays for the implementation of that compassion.

Independence From Exceptionalism Is Lefts Goal

     It is befitting on this Independence Day that every American stop and appreciate the truly unique exception of this great country. Our current president, Barack Obama, showed his ignorance early in his first term when he stated that America is exceptional like every other country in the world thinks it is exceptional. The complete lack of historical perspective and lack of understanding about our founding that resides in this statement is not surprising for a man who does not believe in American exceptionalism.
    Barack Obama, after all was weaned on hatred for America in his formative years by the admitted communist, Frank Marshall Davis, and Barack's own grandfather, Stanley Dunham. He then proceeded to ingest the hateful rhetoric of Saul Alinsky, who developed his Rules For Radicals at the knee of Al Capone and the Chicago mobs of the 1920s. Young Mr. Alinsky was enamored with the power of mob bosses who used words and violence to intimidate and bully people into not opposing them.
     The American exceptionalism which alludes Barack Obama and others on the Left does not spring from its people being better or different from other peoples of the world. It has grown for the last 240 years from its founding documents, especially its constitution, which unequivocally pronounces that the rights of free people come from God, and not government. It has been this very basic, yet essential tenet that has allowed the United States to become not only the greatest force for good in the world, but the only nation in the history of mankind that has advanced the human condition to heights never experienced before.
     The Lefts indoctrination of our younger generation to advocate for communism is frightening. Especially when one considers that that ideology was responsible for well over 100 million deaths in the 20th century, between Mao in China, Stalin in the Soviet Union, and the thousands killed by Che Quevera and Fidel Castro in Cuba, as well as North Korea and elsewhere. These were innocent people who died opposing communism. There has never been one death attributable to anyone opposing freedom. In fact if one were to put an imaginary fence around each country and then open the gates, the question to ask in each case is whether people run into or out of said country. In the United States people have always wanted in, no one has risked life and limb to escape America.
     So on this Independence Day I wish for all of you the continued blessings of liberty, for our country a return to perspicacious leadership dedicated to the founding principles, and for the world a stronger and freer America that once again shines as a beacon of hope, freedom, and rectitude.
                

The Real War On Women

     The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, which reinforced the Constitution of the United States' first amendment right to the freedom of religious conscience, has driven those on the Left completely insane. And the thing that really sticks in their crawl is that a majority of the Justices actually saw fit to judge an action based on constitutional principles instead of the "social justice" that the Left thinks is more enlightened.
     Contrary to what Democrats and other Leftists are whining through clenched teeth of indignation about, the Supreme Court's decision does not eliminate birth control choices for women. It only says that no one, not even a corporation, can be forced by the heavy hand of government to pay for types of contraception which violate their religious conscience.
     Hobby Lobby already provides a very generous maternity package for their employees, and even with this decision, they will still be providing 16 different kinds of contraceptives for women in their employ who wish to use them. Only four forms will not be paid for by Hobby Lobby, but can be purchased by the women themselves. Therein lies the rub, the Left is not so much about availability of birth control, but funding for it by someone other than the user.
     Since the 1960s, the  Left has proffered the notion of "free love," by which they actually mean "freeloading love." The object of the exercise for the Left has always been to remove personal responsibility and replace it with taxpayer-funded safety nets that they control. The very last thing the Left wants is individuals making their own decisions and being responsible for the results of those choices. It is why communism, whether in the Soviet Union or the communes of the 1960s, never worked. Human beings are motivated and enlightened by individual failure and success, not by having those basic instincts placed into a communal caldron where they become diluted and useless.
     There is also an additional factor involved in eliminating responsibility, and it comes from the very base instincts of Leftist men. The more they can convince women to be like men with regards to satisfying their primal sexual urges, the better it is for Leftist men who really only want sex without consequences for themselves. Leftist men have convinced women to abandon their virtue, not to set the women free, but to enslave them in the men's desire for sex without consequence.  
      The real "War On Women" has been conducted by the Left with their insistence that women are not resourceful enough to pay for their own contraception. The Left has reduced women to the biology of their genitals, and they have painted them all with the narrow brush of this one issue. This is how Democrats and the Left dehumanize people with identity politics. When they look at the people of the United States they see voting blocks that can be manipulated into voting Democrat by appealing to a single issue affecting each group. This political tactic by the Left has balkanized the United States and conservatives and Republicans must find ways to appeal to the spirit of liberty that naturally dwells within all humans.  
    

Union Decision A Boon To Constitution

     The significance of this week's Supreme Court decision that stated home health care workers in Illinois could not be compelled to join a union, is not just the effect it will have on that relatively small group of workers, but on the nation as a whole. The decision supports the Constitution generally, and the first amendment specifically, like no other in recent memory. It almost makes me believe that the Supreme Court of the United States "gets it."
     There has been no greater threat to or violator of the concept of free association contained within the first amendment than the unions. Their power comes from politicians, mostly on the Left, and not from the workers they represent, who are compelled to associate with an organization that they may feel does not represent their values or political interests.
     Some union supporters say that the mandate placed upon workers in union shops to join under threat of losing their employment must exist in order to fully benefit from collective bargaining. That it is not fair if some workers are able to opt out and still benefit from the union's representation of their co-workers. But this situation is not without precedence, the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association represent the interests of all doctors and lawyers respectively without membership being required by everyone in those professions.
     Union membership in Wisconsin after Governor Scott Walker removed the membership mandate that was weighing down workers resulted in many of them choosing not to join. There, unions must register every year in order to keep their status as a labor union. The result has been that many unions have decided not to register and instead classify themselves as political advocacy groups. This is much more honest than claiming to represent workers and then laundering their dues back to Democrat politicians who support policies which benefit their organizations.
     I have never understood the dichotomy of union support and pro-constitutionalism. The compulsory nature of union membership and their aversion to the principles of freedom as they relate to right-to-work states, should be sufficient evidence in convicting unions as enemies of real liberty. Their origins may have been motivated by justice for workers, but in today's world where workers' rights are not threatened, except by the unions that supposedly represent them, unions have become the antithesis of their founding. They have become bloated and corrupt organizations where the elite leadership live lavish lifestyles, not off the sweat of their own brow, but off that of their captive membership.