There has always been a question in my mind since the election of 2012 how Americans could re-elect as president a man who so badly executed the job that he knocked Jimmy Carter out of the worst president in history category. But after a Face Book post I read today, I have a little clearer picture of how that happened, and how it may keep the Republicans from gaining the majority in the Senate in this Fall's mid-term election and the presidency in 2016.
The Face Book post in question shows President Obama in a tan suit and makes the connection of the color of that suit to dictators and totalitarians throughout history wearing the same color. And here I thought those ideologies were based on a philosophy and belief system, it turns out oppression and tyranny has no other basis than the color of a man's clothing. It is this kind of nonsensical blather coming from those on the Right that drives people in droves to President Obama and the Democrat Party.
It was the belief by many that while Barack Obama may have been a complete failure as a president, the Right was populated with persons who judge on the color of a suit, engage in questions about the president's birth certificate 4 years after his first election, and proffer the wasting of political energy to bring about an impeachment of Barack Obama, which has less than a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.
Barack Obama has brought economic malaise to the United States through crushing regulations, security malaise to most of the world through a feckless foreign policy, and a general constitutional malaise through his lawlessness. And the thing that really upsets some on the Right is the color of a suit he wore to a press conference. No wonder Republicans have been losing elections, and will continue to do so as long as their message borders on conspiracy theory rather than solid conservative principles that work.
In addition to the tan suit, the birth certificate, the running for a third term, and myriad other delusional fantasies of some on the Right, is a picture of a student ID, supposedly Barack Obama's when he attended Columbia University. The ID is stamped "Foreign Student." I do not know if this ID is authentic or not, it does not really matter. What those propagating this "evidence" fail to understand is that Mr. Obama is in his second term. They can use all their energies to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is from another planet and it would not remove him from office at this point.
Those on the Right would be wise to make the case against President Obama and the Democrats' policies which have ruined this country's economy and made the world much less safe. Making an issue of the color of his suit is diverting attention away from the important issues, which maybe is exactly what President Obama was trying to do. Ah Ha, now there is a conspiracy theory. Barack Obama deliberately wears a tan suit in order to change the subject from a world on fire and a slothful economy to the color of his suit. Any of you conspiracy theorists sitting in your parents basement in your underwear scouring the Internet for the next big conspiracy are free to use that one with my permission. You can even name it, "The Tan Suit Diaries."
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Friday, August 29, 2014
The Left Sees No Separation Of Mosque And State
Some of Barack Obama's opponents accuse him of being Muslim, his supporters vehemently defend his Christianity. Me, I think he is a practicing narcissist. That being said, I do believe he sympathizes more with Islam than Christendom, in fact there are dozens of examples of his fondness for the Muslim faith that are part of the public record on the subject. The one that I feel is most damning is when he stated, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
This statement by Barack Obama as President of the United States is telling in so much as it is not something that any other president has said, or would say. It is also interesting that he chose the expression must not instead of should not, as the former denotes action to prevent, and the latter is just a statement of wishful thinking. President Obama, as president, is stating that action must be taken to prevent the future from belonging to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
Another truth about Mr. Obama's statement is what it does not say. He did not say that the future must not belong to those who slander any faith, only Islam. So apparently in the world of Barack Obama, slanderers of Jesus Christ, Buddha, or any other religious icon can own as much of the future as they wish as long as they leave Mohammed alone. This is probably because the practitioners of these other faiths have thicker skins and do not go around beheading those who do not believe as they do.
Barack Obama's statement is also interesting as it relates to the Lefts preaching the gospel of separation of church and state, which does not exist anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. One could argue that what President Obama did in the officiousness of his position was directly in violation of the constitution's establishment clause of the First Amendment. He singled out Islam, not only for special mention, but since he denoted action with the phrase must not, he singled out the faith for special protection from those practicing their First Amendment right to free speech. There is no bigger violation of the concept of separation of church and state, and the First Amendment, than for the President of the United States to single out a particular faith for special protection.
The Left does not give special attention to Islam out of fear as much as it does so out of a kinship of ideology. It is no coincidence that the largest Leftist organization in the world, i.e., the United Nations, is also the most anti-Semitic. And anti-Semitism is not the only sacrament that the Left shares with Islam. The Left hates Western culture almost as much Islam does, and in so doing works to reduce its power and influence in the world at large. The Left also aims to keep women subservient as does Islam. The former accomplishes this goal through dependence on government, the latter through obedience to a male-dominated ideology.
Mr. Obama's aforementioned statement about the prophet of Islam also shows a defense of a brutal and intolerant enemy of Western values and culture. There is no more intolerant statement than to say, in no uncertain terms, that free speech against religious doctrine and icons must not be allowed. And in this way, President Obama's statement is analogous to if President Roosevelt would have said, "The future must not belong to those who slander Adolf Hitler." What Barack Obama does not seem to understand is that the First Amendment of the constitution that he took an oath to defend and protect, not only acknowledges the right of free people to advocate for a particular faith, but it equally protects the right of those people to advocate against any faith by practicing their right of free speech.
This statement by Barack Obama as President of the United States is telling in so much as it is not something that any other president has said, or would say. It is also interesting that he chose the expression must not instead of should not, as the former denotes action to prevent, and the latter is just a statement of wishful thinking. President Obama, as president, is stating that action must be taken to prevent the future from belonging to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
Another truth about Mr. Obama's statement is what it does not say. He did not say that the future must not belong to those who slander any faith, only Islam. So apparently in the world of Barack Obama, slanderers of Jesus Christ, Buddha, or any other religious icon can own as much of the future as they wish as long as they leave Mohammed alone. This is probably because the practitioners of these other faiths have thicker skins and do not go around beheading those who do not believe as they do.
Barack Obama's statement is also interesting as it relates to the Lefts preaching the gospel of separation of church and state, which does not exist anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. One could argue that what President Obama did in the officiousness of his position was directly in violation of the constitution's establishment clause of the First Amendment. He singled out Islam, not only for special mention, but since he denoted action with the phrase must not, he singled out the faith for special protection from those practicing their First Amendment right to free speech. There is no bigger violation of the concept of separation of church and state, and the First Amendment, than for the President of the United States to single out a particular faith for special protection.
The Left does not give special attention to Islam out of fear as much as it does so out of a kinship of ideology. It is no coincidence that the largest Leftist organization in the world, i.e., the United Nations, is also the most anti-Semitic. And anti-Semitism is not the only sacrament that the Left shares with Islam. The Left hates Western culture almost as much Islam does, and in so doing works to reduce its power and influence in the world at large. The Left also aims to keep women subservient as does Islam. The former accomplishes this goal through dependence on government, the latter through obedience to a male-dominated ideology.
Mr. Obama's aforementioned statement about the prophet of Islam also shows a defense of a brutal and intolerant enemy of Western values and culture. There is no more intolerant statement than to say, in no uncertain terms, that free speech against religious doctrine and icons must not be allowed. And in this way, President Obama's statement is analogous to if President Roosevelt would have said, "The future must not belong to those who slander Adolf Hitler." What Barack Obama does not seem to understand is that the First Amendment of the constitution that he took an oath to defend and protect, not only acknowledges the right of free people to advocate for a particular faith, but it equally protects the right of those people to advocate against any faith by practicing their right of free speech.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Why A Deputy Press Secretary?
Nancy Pelosi once said that Mother Hubbard's cupboard is bare and there is nothing left to cut from the federal budget. The incomprehensible dishonesty of this statement illustrates in stark terms the utter contempt that Democrats have for the American public, a public they think has the combined intelligence as low as the combined honesty of congressional Democrats. Anyone with a sixth grade education knows that it can not possibly take almost 4 trillion dollars to run the United States government. And anyone who has looked at the budget for this country would immediately notice the literally hundreds of departments and programs that are mere duplicates of each other.
I heard a news report recently that is just one small example of what is wrong with the federal government. The deputy press secretary defended President Obama's never ending round of golf by saying that sports and leisure activities are a good way to "clear the head" and "relieve stress." Beyond the stress of playing bad golf, I am not sure what stress the president has, and if his head was any clearer we would be able to see through it.
Putting aside the deputy press secretary's high schoolish statement is the fact that it came from the Deputy Press Secretary. Is the job of press secretary really that tough, the whole hour a day he has to brief the White House press corpse, that he needs a deputy? I know that the Press Secretary probably does more than brief the media everyday, but still, is the position's responsibilities so great that the taxpayers of this nation must shell out their hard earned dollars for a Deputy Press Secretary?
The waste of government is further exemplified by lower level bureaucrats having their own speech writers. In fact, the federal government employs, using taxpayer money, hundreds of speech writers that are at the disposal of bureaucrats, some of which may only give one speech a year. Our first president, George Washington, wrote his own speeches or had Congressman James Madison write them for him, without the use of public funds. If the federal government is hiring managers who can not express themselves in front of a group of people without having a highly paid speech writer put words in their mouths, maybe the nation can survive without their "management skills."
Speech writers may only add millions to the budget, but there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of items in the federal budget just as wasteful. And millions of dollars turn into billions and hundreds of billions of dollars poured down the bottomless sewer of government waste. In fact, I contend that at least twenty five percent of the federal government can be eliminated without the slightest disruption to the citizens of this great nation, and in many ways the lives of the citizenry would improve immeasurably.
The expansion of the federal government has taken place from the top down. George Washington had four members in his cabinet, today there are 16. Each cabinet level secretary has a department with thousands of employees and multi-billion dollar budgets. So when Nancy Pelosi says there is nothing to be cut from the federal budget, she is either being disingenuous, dishonest, obtuse, or all of the above. And when the Deputy Press Secretary says anything at all, I have to question why the Press Secretary can not say it, or better yet, give those duties to the Vice President. Not only would it save the taxpayers money, but it would provide some very humorous entertainment indeed.
I heard a news report recently that is just one small example of what is wrong with the federal government. The deputy press secretary defended President Obama's never ending round of golf by saying that sports and leisure activities are a good way to "clear the head" and "relieve stress." Beyond the stress of playing bad golf, I am not sure what stress the president has, and if his head was any clearer we would be able to see through it.
Putting aside the deputy press secretary's high schoolish statement is the fact that it came from the Deputy Press Secretary. Is the job of press secretary really that tough, the whole hour a day he has to brief the White House press corpse, that he needs a deputy? I know that the Press Secretary probably does more than brief the media everyday, but still, is the position's responsibilities so great that the taxpayers of this nation must shell out their hard earned dollars for a Deputy Press Secretary?
The waste of government is further exemplified by lower level bureaucrats having their own speech writers. In fact, the federal government employs, using taxpayer money, hundreds of speech writers that are at the disposal of bureaucrats, some of which may only give one speech a year. Our first president, George Washington, wrote his own speeches or had Congressman James Madison write them for him, without the use of public funds. If the federal government is hiring managers who can not express themselves in front of a group of people without having a highly paid speech writer put words in their mouths, maybe the nation can survive without their "management skills."
Speech writers may only add millions to the budget, but there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of items in the federal budget just as wasteful. And millions of dollars turn into billions and hundreds of billions of dollars poured down the bottomless sewer of government waste. In fact, I contend that at least twenty five percent of the federal government can be eliminated without the slightest disruption to the citizens of this great nation, and in many ways the lives of the citizenry would improve immeasurably.
The expansion of the federal government has taken place from the top down. George Washington had four members in his cabinet, today there are 16. Each cabinet level secretary has a department with thousands of employees and multi-billion dollar budgets. So when Nancy Pelosi says there is nothing to be cut from the federal budget, she is either being disingenuous, dishonest, obtuse, or all of the above. And when the Deputy Press Secretary says anything at all, I have to question why the Press Secretary can not say it, or better yet, give those duties to the Vice President. Not only would it save the taxpayers money, but it would provide some very humorous entertainment indeed.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
The Morally Inverted World Of Barack Obama
"There has never been so little violence in the world as there is now." These words, spoken as part of a recent speech by President Obama, are not evidence of a deluded mind, a flimsily constructed lie, or even an out of touch ideology. These things are all true to a certain extent, but more importantly these words are exemplary of a historically out of proportion hubris from a man who believes in his ability to make what is not, is, simply by saying so.
Democrat Adlai Stevenson once said that when "America stumbles, the world falls." And so it has been under the non-leadership of Barack Obama. The current president was inaugurated with an Iraq well on its way to becoming a self-governing, stable nation. Egypt was under the control Hosni Mubarak, a dictator, but who kept his country's peace with its neighbors and terrorists in check. Libya was ruled by the iron fist of Muammar Khadafy, who in turn had been militarily neutered by George W. Bush. Ukraine was enjoying a Russian-free existence. There was no ISIS, 150,000 Syrians were still alive that have since been killed in that country's violent war, and Israel had no questions about the friendship and support of the United States.
Barack Obama and the rest of the Leftist intelligentsia mistakenly think that the projection of American power is the cause of conflict around the world, instead of the absence of that power leading to the encouragement of world conflict. The president's wager that if America backed out of a dominant role in influencing world events there would be less violence, has come up snake eyes in a big way. We now see what the world looks like without strong American leadership, and like it or not, the United States has an obligation to promote the values of liberty and civilization, especially in parts of the world where those principles are anathema to those in control.
It is Barack Obama's inability to see evil in the world, except when he can wrap it in the U.S. flag, that has contributed the rise of Islamic radicalism. This flawed and dangerous thinking was in evidence in the campaign of 2008 when he answered a pointed question from Pastor Warren about what he considered evil, and Mr. Obama said poverty in America's streets. It is the desire on the part of Barack Obama to equate half a century of failed Leftist policy with the concept of evil, and apparently give a pass to the truly evil of the world, that is the most obtusely dangerous quality I have ever seen in a president.
In the morally inverted world of Barack Obama there is no evil except the United States. There is no earned wealth, only enforced poverty on the many by the few. And there can be no world peace when America is strong in practicing its founding principles because those values are corrupt and evil. Also in Barack Obama's morally inverted world, evil men are not evil but just responding to the nefarious nature of American foreign policy. And finally, in Barack Obama's morally inverted world, big government is necessary for fighting manufactured evil domestically and limited government is employed to fight the real evil of those around the world who would subjugate our liberty to the dark sewer of their ideology.
Democrat Adlai Stevenson once said that when "America stumbles, the world falls." And so it has been under the non-leadership of Barack Obama. The current president was inaugurated with an Iraq well on its way to becoming a self-governing, stable nation. Egypt was under the control Hosni Mubarak, a dictator, but who kept his country's peace with its neighbors and terrorists in check. Libya was ruled by the iron fist of Muammar Khadafy, who in turn had been militarily neutered by George W. Bush. Ukraine was enjoying a Russian-free existence. There was no ISIS, 150,000 Syrians were still alive that have since been killed in that country's violent war, and Israel had no questions about the friendship and support of the United States.
Barack Obama and the rest of the Leftist intelligentsia mistakenly think that the projection of American power is the cause of conflict around the world, instead of the absence of that power leading to the encouragement of world conflict. The president's wager that if America backed out of a dominant role in influencing world events there would be less violence, has come up snake eyes in a big way. We now see what the world looks like without strong American leadership, and like it or not, the United States has an obligation to promote the values of liberty and civilization, especially in parts of the world where those principles are anathema to those in control.
It is Barack Obama's inability to see evil in the world, except when he can wrap it in the U.S. flag, that has contributed the rise of Islamic radicalism. This flawed and dangerous thinking was in evidence in the campaign of 2008 when he answered a pointed question from Pastor Warren about what he considered evil, and Mr. Obama said poverty in America's streets. It is the desire on the part of Barack Obama to equate half a century of failed Leftist policy with the concept of evil, and apparently give a pass to the truly evil of the world, that is the most obtusely dangerous quality I have ever seen in a president.
In the morally inverted world of Barack Obama there is no evil except the United States. There is no earned wealth, only enforced poverty on the many by the few. And there can be no world peace when America is strong in practicing its founding principles because those values are corrupt and evil. Also in Barack Obama's morally inverted world, evil men are not evil but just responding to the nefarious nature of American foreign policy. And finally, in Barack Obama's morally inverted world, big government is necessary for fighting manufactured evil domestically and limited government is employed to fight the real evil of those around the world who would subjugate our liberty to the dark sewer of their ideology.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Boots On The Ground Only Option
The depths of ignorance and an inability to understand human nature by the Left is as breathtaking as it is dangerous. The obtuseness of Leftist ideology rests on its ability to transpose their faulty conclusions about human behavior onto others, and then feign disgust and surprise when their policies fail to accomplish anything close to what they promote. In fact, many times the Lefts "solutions" to problems actually make the situation worse. Such is the reality with Iraq and the ever growing-in-power ISIS.
An interfaith council in Great Brittan has implored Prime Minister Cameron to convince the United Nations that they must accuse ISIS in the strongest terms possible of human rights violations. Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder has said there will be a vigorous investigation of the beheading of photo journalist James Foley, and that the guilty party(ies) will be brought to justice. ISIS is quaking in their sandals. They can handle air strikes and bombing runs, but my Allah, lawyers and a UN condemnation will scare the hell out of them.
Even President Obama has talked of the Foley beheading and the other atrocities committed by ISIS in terms of human rights violations, and an outcome where the perpetrators are "brought to justice." So let me stop and see if I have this straight: The United Nations saying that ISIS is in violation of their flaccid human rights treaties, and Eric Holder threatening criminal prosecution of terrorists, and President Obama waving the wet noodle of his definition of "justice," is all going to frighten terrorists around the world from wanting to wage jihad anymore?
It is scary to think that we have persons in charge of our country and its security who think that accusing someone of human rights violations is a viable substitute for a muscular foreign policy. Let us not forget that it was ISIS in Syria that only a year ago President Obama was calling "freedom fighters." Mr. Obama was handed by former President Bush an Iraq that was stable, peaceful, and maturing in its ability to self-govern. But due to President Obama's promise to his base, he pulled troops out before it was safe to do so, emboldened ISIS in Syria by ignoring them, and allowed them to equip themselves with over 100 U.S. tanks and literally tons of other weapons and ammunition.
It has been said by many that ISIS is capable of growing into a much more destructive force than that of Al Qaeda. In fact, ISIS formed because they felt Al Qaeda was not sufficient in their violent proselytization of radical Islam. President Obama missed the opportunity to take out ISIS when it was a force of a few hundred in Syria, and again in Iraq when it was a force of several thousand. Now the estimated troop strength of ISIS is somewhere North of 20,000, and growing. This terrorist genie can not simply be put back in the bottle with a few air strikes.
The choice is clear, 20-30 thousand boots on the ground now in Iraq to decimate ISIS, or 20-30 thousand Americans killed in the homeland by an ISIS-sponsored terrorist attack. If you think that is far fetched, how many Americans, some even in our government, would have thought in early 2001 that a band of cave dwellers half a world a way in Afghanistan would kill 3,000 Americans with a handful of box cutters?
An interfaith council in Great Brittan has implored Prime Minister Cameron to convince the United Nations that they must accuse ISIS in the strongest terms possible of human rights violations. Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder has said there will be a vigorous investigation of the beheading of photo journalist James Foley, and that the guilty party(ies) will be brought to justice. ISIS is quaking in their sandals. They can handle air strikes and bombing runs, but my Allah, lawyers and a UN condemnation will scare the hell out of them.
Even President Obama has talked of the Foley beheading and the other atrocities committed by ISIS in terms of human rights violations, and an outcome where the perpetrators are "brought to justice." So let me stop and see if I have this straight: The United Nations saying that ISIS is in violation of their flaccid human rights treaties, and Eric Holder threatening criminal prosecution of terrorists, and President Obama waving the wet noodle of his definition of "justice," is all going to frighten terrorists around the world from wanting to wage jihad anymore?
It is scary to think that we have persons in charge of our country and its security who think that accusing someone of human rights violations is a viable substitute for a muscular foreign policy. Let us not forget that it was ISIS in Syria that only a year ago President Obama was calling "freedom fighters." Mr. Obama was handed by former President Bush an Iraq that was stable, peaceful, and maturing in its ability to self-govern. But due to President Obama's promise to his base, he pulled troops out before it was safe to do so, emboldened ISIS in Syria by ignoring them, and allowed them to equip themselves with over 100 U.S. tanks and literally tons of other weapons and ammunition.
It has been said by many that ISIS is capable of growing into a much more destructive force than that of Al Qaeda. In fact, ISIS formed because they felt Al Qaeda was not sufficient in their violent proselytization of radical Islam. President Obama missed the opportunity to take out ISIS when it was a force of a few hundred in Syria, and again in Iraq when it was a force of several thousand. Now the estimated troop strength of ISIS is somewhere North of 20,000, and growing. This terrorist genie can not simply be put back in the bottle with a few air strikes.
The choice is clear, 20-30 thousand boots on the ground now in Iraq to decimate ISIS, or 20-30 thousand Americans killed in the homeland by an ISIS-sponsored terrorist attack. If you think that is far fetched, how many Americans, some even in our government, would have thought in early 2001 that a band of cave dwellers half a world a way in Afghanistan would kill 3,000 Americans with a handful of box cutters?
Saturday, August 23, 2014
The Smoke And Mirrors Of The Obama Recovery
I recently came into possession of an issue of Newsweek magazine from June 14, 1982. I was attracted to the issue because of the cover story, which hawked the ten year anniversary of the Watergate scandal. The picture on the cover was of Richard Nixon with a sweaty upper lip and downwardly cast eyes, as if he was a nine year old child who had just broken the neighbor's window with his baseball. Of course this was not a look back at what actually happened, but a celebration of the media's accomplishment at having taken down one of their most hated political foes. Even Bill Bradley, editor of the Washington Post during the Watergate scandal, admitted that they created out of whole cloth large swathes of the Watergate narrative for the purpose of making Richard Nixon look worse.
Even though it was the cover story that attracted me to the issue, it was a story on the contemporary economy that really caught my interest. One must remember that at the time of this issue, Ronald Reagan had been president for about a year and half. This economic article was lamenting whether or not Reaganomics would produce an economic recovery. The author of the article doubted that the Reagan tax cuts would produce anything more than a temporary bump in consumer spending. He also spoke disparagingly about the previous month's jobs data that showed 800,000 new jobs were added to the economy, and 10.5 million people were still out of work.
During this dragging, slothful, slow-as-molasses Obama economic recovery, the best months have only seen job growth around 200,000, and there are nearly 100 million people without full time work. And yet Newsweek has many times over the last 5 years bragged about the robust recovery that President Obama's policies have produced. The older issue of the magazine in my possession provided a tangible record of the dichotomy that I already knew existed in the media.
Another gem from the old Newsweek article on the economy was the statement that the unemployment rate was hovering at 9.5 percent. A number which kept decreasing during the Reagan recovery, supported by explosive job growth and a Gross Domestic Product that was advancing by 5-7 percent a quarter, not the 2 percent we now have. Additionally, if the unemployment rate was calculated today using the same formula as in the 1980s, our current rate would be closer to 13 percent, not the fantasy of 6.3 percent.
One of the first acts of the Obama administration was to change the unemployment calculation to cut out millions of unemployed, thereby giving the illusion of growth. In a nut shell that is the difference between the Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery, the former was constructed of nuts and bolts results, the latter has been mostly smoke and mirrors.
Even though it was the cover story that attracted me to the issue, it was a story on the contemporary economy that really caught my interest. One must remember that at the time of this issue, Ronald Reagan had been president for about a year and half. This economic article was lamenting whether or not Reaganomics would produce an economic recovery. The author of the article doubted that the Reagan tax cuts would produce anything more than a temporary bump in consumer spending. He also spoke disparagingly about the previous month's jobs data that showed 800,000 new jobs were added to the economy, and 10.5 million people were still out of work.
During this dragging, slothful, slow-as-molasses Obama economic recovery, the best months have only seen job growth around 200,000, and there are nearly 100 million people without full time work. And yet Newsweek has many times over the last 5 years bragged about the robust recovery that President Obama's policies have produced. The older issue of the magazine in my possession provided a tangible record of the dichotomy that I already knew existed in the media.
Another gem from the old Newsweek article on the economy was the statement that the unemployment rate was hovering at 9.5 percent. A number which kept decreasing during the Reagan recovery, supported by explosive job growth and a Gross Domestic Product that was advancing by 5-7 percent a quarter, not the 2 percent we now have. Additionally, if the unemployment rate was calculated today using the same formula as in the 1980s, our current rate would be closer to 13 percent, not the fantasy of 6.3 percent.
One of the first acts of the Obama administration was to change the unemployment calculation to cut out millions of unemployed, thereby giving the illusion of growth. In a nut shell that is the difference between the Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery, the former was constructed of nuts and bolts results, the latter has been mostly smoke and mirrors.
Friday, August 22, 2014
The Coursening Of America
This week's beheading of photo journalist James Foley, and the subsequent viewing of the final agonizing minutes of his life by millions of morbid voyeurs, has rekindled in me one of the aspects of a declining society. The coarsening of our culture has lead us, not kicking and screaming, but willingly sharing barbarism with each other, to the edge of the cliff overlooking the crushed and shattered bones of civilized society.
The ghoulish appetites of those on the Left, the Right, and in the center have lead them to believe that their taste for the macabre is warranted by the actions of an evil enemy. I have heard some say that we must view these types of atrocities on video to appreciate the real nature of our enemy. But anyone who has witnessed the murder of 3,000 Americans on 911, the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl and contractor Nick Berg, the countless images of burned bodies hanging from bridges, and even the video and photos of our soldiers' bodies being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu in 1994, and still does not understand the nature of our enemy, has a serious lack of moral outrage that will not be satisfied by any number of beheading videos.
The coarsening of America is not only illuminated by the morbidity present in the mindset it requires to voluntarily view the violent death of another human being, but has crept into our daily lives as well. The ease with which we as Americans accept crass and crude behavior is alarming to say the least. Behaviors that only twenty years ago would have been socially unacceptable, are now not only accepted, but in some cases encouraged.
The coarsening of which I speak goes beyond the mere curious and swerves headlong into the barbaric. It transforms the acknowledgement of evil in the world into the desire to witness the performance of evil acts. It has extricated evil from its dark and dreary hole in the earth and given it top billing on the brightly lighted stage of our public discourse. And it has darkened and devoured the part of man's soul where decency and decorum once lived in harmony with outrage and despise.
Individuals may choose for themselves whether they view videos of beheadings and the like, as for me, I respect life and death too much to turn it into a circus sideshow. There is a certain decorum present in death that allows for the dignity of the dying not to be viewed as a spectacle. This respect once existed as one of the tenets of our great nation, but sadly has been replaced by the sensational, which many times is also just lurid. Those who viewed the beheading of James Foley this week are not better informed about the true nature of our enemy, but they should be better informed about their true nature that would allow the justification for such ghoulishness into their lives.
The ghoulish appetites of those on the Left, the Right, and in the center have lead them to believe that their taste for the macabre is warranted by the actions of an evil enemy. I have heard some say that we must view these types of atrocities on video to appreciate the real nature of our enemy. But anyone who has witnessed the murder of 3,000 Americans on 911, the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl and contractor Nick Berg, the countless images of burned bodies hanging from bridges, and even the video and photos of our soldiers' bodies being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu in 1994, and still does not understand the nature of our enemy, has a serious lack of moral outrage that will not be satisfied by any number of beheading videos.
The coarsening of America is not only illuminated by the morbidity present in the mindset it requires to voluntarily view the violent death of another human being, but has crept into our daily lives as well. The ease with which we as Americans accept crass and crude behavior is alarming to say the least. Behaviors that only twenty years ago would have been socially unacceptable, are now not only accepted, but in some cases encouraged.
The coarsening of which I speak goes beyond the mere curious and swerves headlong into the barbaric. It transforms the acknowledgement of evil in the world into the desire to witness the performance of evil acts. It has extricated evil from its dark and dreary hole in the earth and given it top billing on the brightly lighted stage of our public discourse. And it has darkened and devoured the part of man's soul where decency and decorum once lived in harmony with outrage and despise.
Individuals may choose for themselves whether they view videos of beheadings and the like, as for me, I respect life and death too much to turn it into a circus sideshow. There is a certain decorum present in death that allows for the dignity of the dying not to be viewed as a spectacle. This respect once existed as one of the tenets of our great nation, but sadly has been replaced by the sensational, which many times is also just lurid. Those who viewed the beheading of James Foley this week are not better informed about the true nature of our enemy, but they should be better informed about their true nature that would allow the justification for such ghoulishness into their lives.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
And This Is What They Call Justice?
This week the rioting and looting in Furguson, Missouri has abated, not from some kind of spiritual awakening on the part of the rioters and looters, but because of an increasing lack of merchandise to be looted and businesses to be destroyed. Additionally, the Washington Redskins players made complete donkeys of themselves by running onto the field before their game against the Cleveland Browns Monday night with their arms raised in symbolic solidarity with Michael Brown, whose actions would better elicit a show of solidarity by running onto the field of play assaulting a police officer.
The Police in Furguson are trying to extricate themselves from between the rock of being too hard on rioters, thereby drawing the ire of the "social justice" crowd, and the hard place of not doing enough to protect local businesses and drawing the righteous indignation of the law and order crowd. Meanwhile, President Obama is sending his courier, Eric Holder, to Furguson with further instructions for the enforcement arm of the Obama administration, i.e., The New Black Panther Party. These special instructions will, I am sure, include the next "community organizing" tactics developed by Saul Alinsky that he learned while studying at the knee of Al Capone.
The exculpating reasoning that supports the criminal acts of the looters and rioters is that it is in response to a lack of "justice." But what justice is to be had for the community by eliminating businesses that serve it, the only businesses to which some in the community can travel. And what justice is served to those hard working business owners who have, in many cases, lost their life's work. Furthermore, what justice is served to the employees of those businesses, many of them from the neighborhood that has been transformed into a war zone by derelicts, who have now lost their only source of income. These business owners and their employees had nothing to do with the death of Michael Brown, but are being made to pay regardless.
Finally, it is one of the cornerstones of Leftism to excuse criminal behavior by members of one of their constituency victim groups. The Lefts aversion to holding individuals responsible for their own criminal behavior, and the results thereof, encourages members of victim groups to think justice for the deceased is carried out along with a pair of sneakers, a flat screen TV, or cases of beer. Even the looters' slogan, "No Justice, no peace," assumes a premise in its first part which permits their criminal behavior that is defined by its second part.
It is the mutilated and mangled justice of the Left that has driven the events in Furguson, Missouri the last week and a half. It is the bastardization of this virtue by political opportunists like our current president, who have victimized those they have kept poorly educated for their own political and financial gain. There are victims in the black community, but they are not victims of white police, white politicians, or "white privilege." They are victims of the Leftist ideology that has failed over five decades to fulfill even one of its promises. They are victims of "community activists," who have enriched themselves by fanning the flames of racism and division. They are victims of each other by abandoning the principles of respect and decency just to gather in their arms as many pairs of Nikes as they can carry. And this is what they call justice?
The Police in Furguson are trying to extricate themselves from between the rock of being too hard on rioters, thereby drawing the ire of the "social justice" crowd, and the hard place of not doing enough to protect local businesses and drawing the righteous indignation of the law and order crowd. Meanwhile, President Obama is sending his courier, Eric Holder, to Furguson with further instructions for the enforcement arm of the Obama administration, i.e., The New Black Panther Party. These special instructions will, I am sure, include the next "community organizing" tactics developed by Saul Alinsky that he learned while studying at the knee of Al Capone.
The exculpating reasoning that supports the criminal acts of the looters and rioters is that it is in response to a lack of "justice." But what justice is to be had for the community by eliminating businesses that serve it, the only businesses to which some in the community can travel. And what justice is served to those hard working business owners who have, in many cases, lost their life's work. Furthermore, what justice is served to the employees of those businesses, many of them from the neighborhood that has been transformed into a war zone by derelicts, who have now lost their only source of income. These business owners and their employees had nothing to do with the death of Michael Brown, but are being made to pay regardless.
Finally, it is one of the cornerstones of Leftism to excuse criminal behavior by members of one of their constituency victim groups. The Lefts aversion to holding individuals responsible for their own criminal behavior, and the results thereof, encourages members of victim groups to think justice for the deceased is carried out along with a pair of sneakers, a flat screen TV, or cases of beer. Even the looters' slogan, "No Justice, no peace," assumes a premise in its first part which permits their criminal behavior that is defined by its second part.
It is the mutilated and mangled justice of the Left that has driven the events in Furguson, Missouri the last week and a half. It is the bastardization of this virtue by political opportunists like our current president, who have victimized those they have kept poorly educated for their own political and financial gain. There are victims in the black community, but they are not victims of white police, white politicians, or "white privilege." They are victims of the Leftist ideology that has failed over five decades to fulfill even one of its promises. They are victims of "community activists," who have enriched themselves by fanning the flames of racism and division. They are victims of each other by abandoning the principles of respect and decency just to gather in their arms as many pairs of Nikes as they can carry. And this is what they call justice?
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Furguson Missouri And The Juvinalization Of The Culture
One of the deeper issues illustrated by the reaction to the Furguson, Missouri riots precipitated by the police shooting of Michael Brown, is something I have not heard much about in any of the coverage. It is the incessant, almost obsessive way in which the media and others keep referring to the dead man as a "teen," "student," or even in some cases as a "child." This selection of a noun used as an adjective is not random, but very carefully calculated by the Left in media and elsewhere to give the impression that Michael Brown was anything other than a violent thug.
The attempted labeling of Mr. Brown as a teenager reaches even further than providing an excuse for rioters and looters in Furguson, it is a systematic effort to juvenilize the culture for the nefarious purpose of increasing dependence on government. It is why the Affordable Care Act essentially defines a "child" as someone 26 years of age or under. It is also why 18 year old 300 pound criminals are likewise described as "teens."
This description of someone over 18 years old as a child would have been anathema to Americans of only a couple generations ago. In fact, many would have considered 16 and 17 year olds as adults, capable of adult decisions and responsibilities. Actor Audie Murphy was only 17 when he enlisted in the army during World War II, and by the time he was twenty had become the most decorated war hero in American history. Commodore Perry was only 27 years old when he lead his sailors to victory over the British in the Battle of Lake Erie during the War of 1812.
Walter Reed, after whom the famed medical center is named, was only 17 years old when he received his medical degree from the University of Virginia, the youngest ever to do so. This young doctor served the poor in the slums of New York city for six years until he was commissioned as an army doctor at the age of 23. He traveled with the army to some of the most inhospitable places in the country and won over the Indian tribes with his medical skill. Later, he and his research team found cures for yellow fever and malaria by letting infected mosquitoes bite themselves.
Teddy Roosevelt, at the age of 26, after having become the youngest person ever elected to the New York legislature, and after the death of his wife and mother on the same day, moved out west and became a rancher and cowboy. Teddy Roosevelt today would have been encouraged by the culture to become a burden on the system because of his sickly nature as a child. Instead he lived a full life as a soldier, politician, environmentalist, and author.
I fear that our country has reached a very dark chapter in which our culture no longer produces exceptionalism in our youth, instead inculcating them with an entitlement for extended childhood. A nation of children can never truly be free as the Founders intended. There are many cause for the criminal activity in Furguson, all germinating from juvenile entitlement. Unrestrained juvenile entitlement leads to the dissolution of civilized society and leaves liberty standing in the rubble of Furguson, Missouri crying, "Where are the Audie Murphys, the Commodore Perrys, the Walter Reeds, and the Teddy Roosevelts?"
The attempted labeling of Mr. Brown as a teenager reaches even further than providing an excuse for rioters and looters in Furguson, it is a systematic effort to juvenilize the culture for the nefarious purpose of increasing dependence on government. It is why the Affordable Care Act essentially defines a "child" as someone 26 years of age or under. It is also why 18 year old 300 pound criminals are likewise described as "teens."
This description of someone over 18 years old as a child would have been anathema to Americans of only a couple generations ago. In fact, many would have considered 16 and 17 year olds as adults, capable of adult decisions and responsibilities. Actor Audie Murphy was only 17 when he enlisted in the army during World War II, and by the time he was twenty had become the most decorated war hero in American history. Commodore Perry was only 27 years old when he lead his sailors to victory over the British in the Battle of Lake Erie during the War of 1812.
Walter Reed, after whom the famed medical center is named, was only 17 years old when he received his medical degree from the University of Virginia, the youngest ever to do so. This young doctor served the poor in the slums of New York city for six years until he was commissioned as an army doctor at the age of 23. He traveled with the army to some of the most inhospitable places in the country and won over the Indian tribes with his medical skill. Later, he and his research team found cures for yellow fever and malaria by letting infected mosquitoes bite themselves.
Teddy Roosevelt, at the age of 26, after having become the youngest person ever elected to the New York legislature, and after the death of his wife and mother on the same day, moved out west and became a rancher and cowboy. Teddy Roosevelt today would have been encouraged by the culture to become a burden on the system because of his sickly nature as a child. Instead he lived a full life as a soldier, politician, environmentalist, and author.
I fear that our country has reached a very dark chapter in which our culture no longer produces exceptionalism in our youth, instead inculcating them with an entitlement for extended childhood. A nation of children can never truly be free as the Founders intended. There are many cause for the criminal activity in Furguson, all germinating from juvenile entitlement. Unrestrained juvenile entitlement leads to the dissolution of civilized society and leaves liberty standing in the rubble of Furguson, Missouri crying, "Where are the Audie Murphys, the Commodore Perrys, the Walter Reeds, and the Teddy Roosevelts?"
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
We Need More Hate Speech, Not Less
One of the most despicable tactics employed by the Left is the suppression of free speech through the labeling of opposing views as "hate speech." The Left and the Democrat Party have used this strategy to avoid debating the merits of an issue by simply eliminating it as a topic of discussion. In the early days of Leftist venality they were able to strike certain words from the public lexicon by tagging them as "hateful." As the years have progressed along with the Lefts corrupt ideology, they have used the "hate speech" moniker to encompass ideas as well as words. Now the Left is able to discount in much of the publics' mind the entire conservative ideology.
I am advocating for more hate speech, not less. We need more hate speech against the culture of dependence and entitlement that has robbed the sweat off the brow of hard working benefactors while at the same time robbing the beneficiaries of the incentive of the human spirit to succeed. Nothing is less compassionate and more hateful than to encourage dependence in whole populations of citizens for the political benefit of those in government.
We need more hate speech against the truly evil in the world, whether it be religious zealots who oppress and terrorize, or whether it be domestic madmen who make it unsafe for citizens to walk in their own neighborhoods. The morally inverted Left spews hatred against those who expect women in America to pay for their own birth control, but are thunderously silent about the genital mutilation and general oppression of women in many parts of the world. There is little that is more hateful than to base one's support or concern for any group on the ability to syphon hard earned dollars from other groups.
We need more hate speech against the race whores in this country who keep minorities eating from the hand of big government just to benefit a multi-billion dollar industry that feeds off the misery of their own. The race profiteers speak of justice as if it is their own creation to be patented, packaged, and sold into the slavery of their bigoted view of America. Nothing is more hateful than to use the hammer of oppressive ignorance to deconstruct the very nation founded on justice, liberty, and freedom.
We need more hate speech against the idea of hate-free zones at universities that engender hate against anyone who strays in thought from the narrow field of Leftism. There is nothing more hateful than sentencing America's youth to the intellectual prisons called universities. The bigoted purveyors of hate against all thoughts and ideas that may crush the thin shell of their world view, use hate, not logic or reason, to keep their students in the shackles of ignorance.
Properly directed hate can lead to improvement, in one's own life, or in the life of a nation. In a more religious sense, God wants us to hate evil and sin. We can love sinners, but never the sins they commit. If America is to survive as a free and moral nation, we must reject in the strongest terms possible those ideas that are antithetical to our founding principles. The strongest terms possible means we must motivate change with hatred for tyranny, oppression, and dependence. And we must renew, with vigor, the virtues of liberty, personal responsibility, and self-directed governance.
I am advocating for more hate speech, not less. We need more hate speech against the culture of dependence and entitlement that has robbed the sweat off the brow of hard working benefactors while at the same time robbing the beneficiaries of the incentive of the human spirit to succeed. Nothing is less compassionate and more hateful than to encourage dependence in whole populations of citizens for the political benefit of those in government.
We need more hate speech against the truly evil in the world, whether it be religious zealots who oppress and terrorize, or whether it be domestic madmen who make it unsafe for citizens to walk in their own neighborhoods. The morally inverted Left spews hatred against those who expect women in America to pay for their own birth control, but are thunderously silent about the genital mutilation and general oppression of women in many parts of the world. There is little that is more hateful than to base one's support or concern for any group on the ability to syphon hard earned dollars from other groups.
We need more hate speech against the race whores in this country who keep minorities eating from the hand of big government just to benefit a multi-billion dollar industry that feeds off the misery of their own. The race profiteers speak of justice as if it is their own creation to be patented, packaged, and sold into the slavery of their bigoted view of America. Nothing is more hateful than to use the hammer of oppressive ignorance to deconstruct the very nation founded on justice, liberty, and freedom.
We need more hate speech against the idea of hate-free zones at universities that engender hate against anyone who strays in thought from the narrow field of Leftism. There is nothing more hateful than sentencing America's youth to the intellectual prisons called universities. The bigoted purveyors of hate against all thoughts and ideas that may crush the thin shell of their world view, use hate, not logic or reason, to keep their students in the shackles of ignorance.
Properly directed hate can lead to improvement, in one's own life, or in the life of a nation. In a more religious sense, God wants us to hate evil and sin. We can love sinners, but never the sins they commit. If America is to survive as a free and moral nation, we must reject in the strongest terms possible those ideas that are antithetical to our founding principles. The strongest terms possible means we must motivate change with hatred for tyranny, oppression, and dependence. And we must renew, with vigor, the virtues of liberty, personal responsibility, and self-directed governance.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Rick Perry Indictment Illustrates Democrats' Lack Of Moral Clarity
The 2014 mid-term election is still months away, and the first targeted salvo against a Republican contender for the party's presidential nomination in 2016 has been launched. Last week Texas governor, Rick Perry, was indicted for supposedly misusing his veto of funding for the Texas Public Integrity Unit. The reason, they say, is that he was trying to coerce Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg into resigning after she pleaded guilty to a drunk driving charge. The Public Integrity Unit is run by Ms. Lehmberg's office. As the old saying goes, "A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich."
I am sure that Governor Perry's indictment has nothing to do with the fact that Rosemary Lehmberg is a Democrat. And I am equally sure that the timing of the indictment, coming on the heels of Governor Perry enforcing immigration laws to protect his state, thereby making President Obama look like BoBo the roller skating chimp, is not suspicious in the least. The Grand Jury indictment of effective Republicans by Democrats is a debauched political tactic that would make Saul Alinsky proud. It was only a few years ago Democrats plied this venality against former Speaker of the House, Tom Delay. Mr. Delay was eventually found not guilty, but Democrats did not care, they were able to force his resignation as a substitute for being able to effectively compete with him politically.
Rick Perry's political capital has increased significantly in recent months, due not only to his leadership producing some of the best economic results in the country, but by taking action on illegal immigration he illustrated the strength of his conviction for protecting the public. Something that President Obama so glaringly has not only failed to do, but has actually encouraged just the opposite to happen with his blind eye towards the illegal immigration flood. There is an old saying that the best way to highlight a crooked stick is to place a straight stick next to it. The straight stick Rick Perry has illuminated just how crooked a stick Barack Obama is, not only on border policy, but in every way that is important to good leadership.
President Obama, in a recent New York Times interview, burped up one the most frightening things, while at the same time one of the most ignorant things, I have ever heard uttered by a United States president. He said that the U.S. would not entangle itself in foreign conflicts unless there were "no victor and no vanquished." It is obvious from this childlike statement that President Obama views the real and dangerous world of international politics as nothing more than a new age baseball game where "nobody keeps score, and there are no winners and no losers."
When Ronald Reagan was asked what his policy was for dealing with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, he said, "We win, they lose." It is this kind of moral clarity that makes great leaders. It is the kind of moral clarity that appeals to the American spirit. It is the kind of moral clarity which leads men into battle and citizens into supporting the cause of liberty. It is the moral clarity that Rick Perry posses and our current President lacks that has facilitated the current indictment against the former. An indictment which is illustrative of just how morally bankrupt the Democrat Party has willingly become.
I am sure that Governor Perry's indictment has nothing to do with the fact that Rosemary Lehmberg is a Democrat. And I am equally sure that the timing of the indictment, coming on the heels of Governor Perry enforcing immigration laws to protect his state, thereby making President Obama look like BoBo the roller skating chimp, is not suspicious in the least. The Grand Jury indictment of effective Republicans by Democrats is a debauched political tactic that would make Saul Alinsky proud. It was only a few years ago Democrats plied this venality against former Speaker of the House, Tom Delay. Mr. Delay was eventually found not guilty, but Democrats did not care, they were able to force his resignation as a substitute for being able to effectively compete with him politically.
Rick Perry's political capital has increased significantly in recent months, due not only to his leadership producing some of the best economic results in the country, but by taking action on illegal immigration he illustrated the strength of his conviction for protecting the public. Something that President Obama so glaringly has not only failed to do, but has actually encouraged just the opposite to happen with his blind eye towards the illegal immigration flood. There is an old saying that the best way to highlight a crooked stick is to place a straight stick next to it. The straight stick Rick Perry has illuminated just how crooked a stick Barack Obama is, not only on border policy, but in every way that is important to good leadership.
President Obama, in a recent New York Times interview, burped up one the most frightening things, while at the same time one of the most ignorant things, I have ever heard uttered by a United States president. He said that the U.S. would not entangle itself in foreign conflicts unless there were "no victor and no vanquished." It is obvious from this childlike statement that President Obama views the real and dangerous world of international politics as nothing more than a new age baseball game where "nobody keeps score, and there are no winners and no losers."
When Ronald Reagan was asked what his policy was for dealing with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, he said, "We win, they lose." It is this kind of moral clarity that makes great leaders. It is the kind of moral clarity that appeals to the American spirit. It is the kind of moral clarity which leads men into battle and citizens into supporting the cause of liberty. It is the moral clarity that Rick Perry posses and our current President lacks that has facilitated the current indictment against the former. An indictment which is illustrative of just how morally bankrupt the Democrat Party has willingly become.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Rand Paul The Pander Bear
Recently, in a Newsweek article Rand Paul, senator from Kentucky, stated that he thought the police department in Furguson Missouri, as well as police departments across the country, are too well-armed. Senator Paul also opined that the American justice system was used against blacks in disproportionate numbers, and that that fact proved that we still have a serious racial problem in this country. With this one article Mr. Paul has made himself the king of the Pander Bears, those politicians who will support what they think are populous positions in order to benefit themselves politically.
While Senator Paul is fatuously calling for the demilitarization of the nation's police departments, I am calling for the de-congressionalization of Rand Paul. I have heard the Paulies suggest that Mr. Paul's foreign policy is aligned with that of Thomas Jefferson, but nothing is further from the truth. Mr. Jefferson brought to bear the force of the United States military against the Muslim pirates on the Barbary coast of Africa, and he also spent years overseas entangling the U.S. in foreign relations. Something that the Paulies seem to forget when quoting Thomas Jefferson's inaugural address when he spoke against "foreign entanglements."
Thomas Jefferson's pragmatism would also lead one to believe that he would not be allied with Rand Paul if the former were alive today. Mr. Jefferson never would have suggested that his statement condemning foreign entanglements applied to an age after his own when missiles, nuclear weapons, airplanes, and a whole host of dangers existed that precluded American foreign policy from being limited by our borders. The view of Rand Paul and his devotees that all we need to do to ensure our security is to protect our borders is both childish and naive.
The naiveté that instructs many followers of Rand Paul informs them that the United States has no enemies, save those that are created by our foreign policy. And we would just be safe and could ignore the rest of the world if we just would stay in our cocoon and not "interfere" with other countries. But this world view is not only dangerously naïve, but is not fair to the rest of the world. Freedom and prosperity has come to the rest of the world in quantities never before seen in history, precisely because the United States has taken responsibility for influencing world events.
Mr. Paul sees a growing Libertarian movement in this country and is trying to capitalize on it politically by pandering to its misdirected tenets. But I think the Pander Bear is miscalculating the strength of this movement and will be politically disappointed with his results. I shudder to think of the dark and oppressive world that would exist today had the United States followed a foreign policy over the last hundred years like the one suggested by Rand Paul. And apparently from his recent statements, not only does he not believe in a muscular foreign policy, but he does not believe in a muscular domestic one either in order to protect citizen from rioters and looters.
While Senator Paul is fatuously calling for the demilitarization of the nation's police departments, I am calling for the de-congressionalization of Rand Paul. I have heard the Paulies suggest that Mr. Paul's foreign policy is aligned with that of Thomas Jefferson, but nothing is further from the truth. Mr. Jefferson brought to bear the force of the United States military against the Muslim pirates on the Barbary coast of Africa, and he also spent years overseas entangling the U.S. in foreign relations. Something that the Paulies seem to forget when quoting Thomas Jefferson's inaugural address when he spoke against "foreign entanglements."
Thomas Jefferson's pragmatism would also lead one to believe that he would not be allied with Rand Paul if the former were alive today. Mr. Jefferson never would have suggested that his statement condemning foreign entanglements applied to an age after his own when missiles, nuclear weapons, airplanes, and a whole host of dangers existed that precluded American foreign policy from being limited by our borders. The view of Rand Paul and his devotees that all we need to do to ensure our security is to protect our borders is both childish and naive.
The naiveté that instructs many followers of Rand Paul informs them that the United States has no enemies, save those that are created by our foreign policy. And we would just be safe and could ignore the rest of the world if we just would stay in our cocoon and not "interfere" with other countries. But this world view is not only dangerously naïve, but is not fair to the rest of the world. Freedom and prosperity has come to the rest of the world in quantities never before seen in history, precisely because the United States has taken responsibility for influencing world events.
Mr. Paul sees a growing Libertarian movement in this country and is trying to capitalize on it politically by pandering to its misdirected tenets. But I think the Pander Bear is miscalculating the strength of this movement and will be politically disappointed with his results. I shudder to think of the dark and oppressive world that would exist today had the United States followed a foreign policy over the last hundred years like the one suggested by Rand Paul. And apparently from his recent statements, not only does he not believe in a muscular foreign policy, but he does not believe in a muscular domestic one either in order to protect citizen from rioters and looters.
Friday, August 15, 2014
Turning Dust Bunnies Into Monsters
The city of Furguson, Missouri is burning and its storefronts and other buildings are suffering damage at the hands of criminal opportunists who wish to use the occasion of a black man being shot by police to steal and damage other people's property. The race industry sees every black man shot by police, deservedly or not, as a boon to their business. And that is why the larcenist, Al Sharpton has made his presence known, right along side of the community organizers known as the New Black Panther Party.
As the riots rage and the police do their best to stem the violence and looting, Libertarians like John Stossel are concerned that police departments may be too well armed. I have seen this kind of conspiracy theory rhetoric on social media and elsewhere on the Internet, but their general paranoia seems to have spread to others in the "real" media. The paranoia that, while they support local police departments in keeping the peace, they nonetheless do not want those law enforcers to be too well armed against the bad guys.
The theory by the paranoid goes that local police departments, like the one in Furguson, have been equipped with armored vehicles, grenade launchers, and other military-grade equipment because at some point these instruments of keeping the peace will be turned into instruments of oppression. That President Obama is sitting in the White House next to a big switch, which when he engages it, will signal all these military-style local police departments to begin oppressing the masses. And Andy and Barney will ride around in their armored vehicle and collect every gun in Maybury. Additionally these peace officers, beloved in their communities, will suddenly turn against their neighbors and friends as they become mindless tools of a tyrannical dictator.
The fact that criminals have become better armed and more fearless of police does not occur to the tin-foil-hat crowd as a reason for better equipped police departments. The paranoid seem to think that equipment used to protect the citizens from bad guys abroad, somehow takes on a nefarious quality when it is used to protect those very same citizens from domestic bad guys. As if the threat to security posed by domestic gangs is somehow more acceptable than the threat posed by Al Qaeda in the Middle East. And to the illogical mind of the paranoid, the military, which is under the command of the executive branch of government, is somehow less likely to turn on the citizens than police that are under the control of locally elected officials.
The idea that we as freedom-loving Americans should fear well equipped local police departments probably has been circulating for decades. I am sure the first city to equip its police with motorized vehicles early in the 20th century was accused by the paranoid of the day of being a threat to liberty. Only back then there was no Internet to spread the contagion of paranoia so rapidly, and there were no high profile Libertarians like John Stossel shining a flashlight in every dark corner and turning dust bunnies into monsters.
As the riots rage and the police do their best to stem the violence and looting, Libertarians like John Stossel are concerned that police departments may be too well armed. I have seen this kind of conspiracy theory rhetoric on social media and elsewhere on the Internet, but their general paranoia seems to have spread to others in the "real" media. The paranoia that, while they support local police departments in keeping the peace, they nonetheless do not want those law enforcers to be too well armed against the bad guys.
The theory by the paranoid goes that local police departments, like the one in Furguson, have been equipped with armored vehicles, grenade launchers, and other military-grade equipment because at some point these instruments of keeping the peace will be turned into instruments of oppression. That President Obama is sitting in the White House next to a big switch, which when he engages it, will signal all these military-style local police departments to begin oppressing the masses. And Andy and Barney will ride around in their armored vehicle and collect every gun in Maybury. Additionally these peace officers, beloved in their communities, will suddenly turn against their neighbors and friends as they become mindless tools of a tyrannical dictator.
The fact that criminals have become better armed and more fearless of police does not occur to the tin-foil-hat crowd as a reason for better equipped police departments. The paranoid seem to think that equipment used to protect the citizens from bad guys abroad, somehow takes on a nefarious quality when it is used to protect those very same citizens from domestic bad guys. As if the threat to security posed by domestic gangs is somehow more acceptable than the threat posed by Al Qaeda in the Middle East. And to the illogical mind of the paranoid, the military, which is under the command of the executive branch of government, is somehow less likely to turn on the citizens than police that are under the control of locally elected officials.
The idea that we as freedom-loving Americans should fear well equipped local police departments probably has been circulating for decades. I am sure the first city to equip its police with motorized vehicles early in the 20th century was accused by the paranoid of the day of being a threat to liberty. Only back then there was no Internet to spread the contagion of paranoia so rapidly, and there were no high profile Libertarians like John Stossel shining a flashlight in every dark corner and turning dust bunnies into monsters.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Common Myths About Common Core
Let me begin this post by saying I do not believe that the federal government should have any role in education. I think it is clear that since education was nationalized in the United States in 1978 with President Carter's creation of the Department of Education, the education system in this country has failed miserably. I think nationalized education only leads to localized ignorance. Education has been transformed from a system that prepares children for successful adulthood, to a system designed to gain benefits for teachers and their unions.
The preceding being said and understood, I think there have been many misconceptions, and much ignorance, about Common Core. The idea of Common Core was created by some individual states Governors who wanted to ensure that all students were receiving a minimal standard of instruction in math and reading. The idea germinated in the early 2000s became the metrics for the Obama administration's Race To The Top initiative as part of the 2009 stimulus package. While the Common Core standards are not a panacea for fixing what is wrong with education in the United States, neither are they a pariah to that system.
Common Core is a set of recommended goals that students at different grade levels are required to reach. They do not include a curriculum, recommended methods, or materials for reaching those goals. Common Core provides no oversight to textbook publishers, therefore the latter are able to stamp their materials with the Common Core label. Local school districts then tell concerned, and sometimes upset, parents that the materials are part of Common Core. The implementation of the Common Core standards are left to the states and local school districts.
The Common Core standards are what we use to expect from our students and teachers decades ago before teaching became a union function. The problem that Common Core espouses to address is the fact that according to American universities, forty percent of all incoming college freshmen do not have the skills to succeed in college level courses. And this sad state of public education in this country is a direct result of its nationalization, and its main emphasis being transferred from the child to the teacher.
So while Common Core is not the nefarious plot that some are making it out to be, it also is not the remedy to what ails our education system. For that we need more competition and privatization. The more localized the control over education, the better the results. That is why homeschooling has the best results; one can not get more localized than educating in the home. Vouchers for charter schools have been shown to improve education greatly, the competition for education dollars being a great incentive for the schools to provide a better result that is student-centered. In the final analysis, I do not think the Common Core standards will do much to help, neither do I think they will do much to harm. Concerned parents would do well to address education problems in their local schools and not expend energy fighting federal standards whose effect are neutral at best.
The preceding being said and understood, I think there have been many misconceptions, and much ignorance, about Common Core. The idea of Common Core was created by some individual states Governors who wanted to ensure that all students were receiving a minimal standard of instruction in math and reading. The idea germinated in the early 2000s became the metrics for the Obama administration's Race To The Top initiative as part of the 2009 stimulus package. While the Common Core standards are not a panacea for fixing what is wrong with education in the United States, neither are they a pariah to that system.
Common Core is a set of recommended goals that students at different grade levels are required to reach. They do not include a curriculum, recommended methods, or materials for reaching those goals. Common Core provides no oversight to textbook publishers, therefore the latter are able to stamp their materials with the Common Core label. Local school districts then tell concerned, and sometimes upset, parents that the materials are part of Common Core. The implementation of the Common Core standards are left to the states and local school districts.
The Common Core standards are what we use to expect from our students and teachers decades ago before teaching became a union function. The problem that Common Core espouses to address is the fact that according to American universities, forty percent of all incoming college freshmen do not have the skills to succeed in college level courses. And this sad state of public education in this country is a direct result of its nationalization, and its main emphasis being transferred from the child to the teacher.
So while Common Core is not the nefarious plot that some are making it out to be, it also is not the remedy to what ails our education system. For that we need more competition and privatization. The more localized the control over education, the better the results. That is why homeschooling has the best results; one can not get more localized than educating in the home. Vouchers for charter schools have been shown to improve education greatly, the competition for education dollars being a great incentive for the schools to provide a better result that is student-centered. In the final analysis, I do not think the Common Core standards will do much to help, neither do I think they will do much to harm. Concerned parents would do well to address education problems in their local schools and not expend energy fighting federal standards whose effect are neutral at best.
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Robin Williams: Product Of The Overly Examined Life
I did not know much about the personal life of the late comedian, Robin Williams. I did not think much of his comedy, and his acting was competent only when he worked with a director that could mitigate Mr. Williams' personality. I know, some readers may be saying that I should not talk ill of the dead. Well the intent of this post is not to speak ill of the deceased Mr. Williams, but to understand and define what lead to his desperate final act.
Having not known Robin Williams personally, I can still draw some accurate conclusions about him, not from the way he lived, but from the way in which he died. I know, for example, that he was not only a self-absorbed individual, as most addicts are, but an ungrateful one as well. Anyone who would allow depression to guide them into suicide can not be thankful or grateful for the good things in one's life. And from all appearances, Mr. Williams had much to be grateful for, a loving family, a successful career, and the ardor of millions of fans.
I think those who have lionized him after his death from extreme selfishness have made the mistake of confusing celebrity with importance. They have confused the commodity of comedy with a substantive contribution to mankind. They have confused a pampered self-centered star with a person of substance and rectitude. While thousands of Christians throughout the world are having the Islamist's sword put to their throats for refusing to abandon their faith, Robin Williams voluntarily put a rope around his because he had no faith.
He had no faith in his family to occupy a more important place in his life than his addictions. He had no faith in God who blessed his life in so many ways, all of which Mr. Williams threw back at Him with his final act. He had no faith in himself to be stronger than any demons that may have haunted him. Worst of all, Mr. Williams had no faith in life itself to meander into happiness and to take up residence in contentment for those who seek it.
The lesson to be gleaned from the selfish death of Robin Williams is that life must always be lived outside the individual. Those who intensely focus on self to the exclusion of gratefulness and thanksgiving will invariably be left alone with the demons that reside in all of us. And those demons feed on selfish thoughts and acts, like depression and drug addiction. The affliction of inward thinking can lead one to feel very alone in the world. Socrates stated that, "The unexamined life is not worth living." But the overly-examined life leaves no room for living. And the overly-examined life feeds the demons of addiction and depression that grow in the garden of discontent. Robin Williams, unfortunately for his family and friends, was a product of the overly-examined life.
Having not known Robin Williams personally, I can still draw some accurate conclusions about him, not from the way he lived, but from the way in which he died. I know, for example, that he was not only a self-absorbed individual, as most addicts are, but an ungrateful one as well. Anyone who would allow depression to guide them into suicide can not be thankful or grateful for the good things in one's life. And from all appearances, Mr. Williams had much to be grateful for, a loving family, a successful career, and the ardor of millions of fans.
I think those who have lionized him after his death from extreme selfishness have made the mistake of confusing celebrity with importance. They have confused the commodity of comedy with a substantive contribution to mankind. They have confused a pampered self-centered star with a person of substance and rectitude. While thousands of Christians throughout the world are having the Islamist's sword put to their throats for refusing to abandon their faith, Robin Williams voluntarily put a rope around his because he had no faith.
He had no faith in his family to occupy a more important place in his life than his addictions. He had no faith in God who blessed his life in so many ways, all of which Mr. Williams threw back at Him with his final act. He had no faith in himself to be stronger than any demons that may have haunted him. Worst of all, Mr. Williams had no faith in life itself to meander into happiness and to take up residence in contentment for those who seek it.
The lesson to be gleaned from the selfish death of Robin Williams is that life must always be lived outside the individual. Those who intensely focus on self to the exclusion of gratefulness and thanksgiving will invariably be left alone with the demons that reside in all of us. And those demons feed on selfish thoughts and acts, like depression and drug addiction. The affliction of inward thinking can lead one to feel very alone in the world. Socrates stated that, "The unexamined life is not worth living." But the overly-examined life leaves no room for living. And the overly-examined life feeds the demons of addiction and depression that grow in the garden of discontent. Robin Williams, unfortunately for his family and friends, was a product of the overly-examined life.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Iraq: The Loss Of An Ally
In March 2003 when President George W. Bush ordered troops into Iraq with the full consent of both Republicans and Democrats in congress, then Illinois sate senator, Barack Obama, said there was no national security interest to do so. In 2006 when he was a U.S. senator, Mr. Obama voted against the surge of troops in Iraq which eventually turned the War in favor of the United States, saying once again that there was no national security interest there. During the presidential campaign of 2008, candidate Obama promised to retreat from Iraq because, once again, there was no national security interest in prosecuting the war any further. After becoming president, Barack Obama could not pull troops out of Iraq fast enough, leading to the current enervation of peace, a peace which he was handed by the Bush administration in January of 2009.
When George W. Bush decided, after digesting all the available information at the time, that it would be necessary to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein according to the official policy of the United States made so by President Clinton, he made his case to the American people and the United Nations. The evidence was clear that Saddam Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 for blowing themselves up in Israel and taking with them as many Jews as possible. Other evidence showed that Saddam was hosting Al Qaeda training camps inside his country. And of course there was Saddam's own admission, backed by most of the intelligence agencies in the world, that he was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
All the reasons given for invading Iraq eventually revealed themselves to be frighteningly true. Even the weapons of mass destruction, many of which have recently shown up in Syria, was proven to be a valid reason for invading Iraq. My question is that if Barack Obama has spent the last decade preaching the "No national security interest" sermon, why now is he saying his bombing campaign is going to be a protracted operation? If there is no security interest, why provide any military intervention? Certainly Mr. Obama, as well as the rest of the intellectual garbage disposals on the Left, realize that national security is the primary mission of the U.S. military. There is no valid reason to use the military for a primarily humanitarian mission.
It requires a super-sized portion of denial not to understand that the world is a less safe place with weak American leadership. The current mass killings, kidnappings, and the wreaking of general havoc in many parts of the world is a direct result of a United States president that gave material support to the terrorist group ISIS in Syria, allowed them to escalate violence in Iraq, and then dropped a few bombs to make it look as though he was trying to fix that which he broke. All the while blaming his predecessor, who by the way, has not been president for over five and half years.
Mr. Obama, as a function of running for president, called Iraq a "bad" war. In typical Leftist fashion, he was more interested in ending a war than in winning it. Somewhere in the dark recesses of his mind, Barack Obama knows he screwed up by pulling troops out of Iraq too soon. But he can not very well send them back in there, so he will conduct bombing raids until they do not work, then he will say Iraq was lost by George W. Bush. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama will have trained another ally not to trust the United States. That is the real shame of the president's Iraq policy, it has denied the U.S. an ally in a region where we desperately need them.
When George W. Bush decided, after digesting all the available information at the time, that it would be necessary to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein according to the official policy of the United States made so by President Clinton, he made his case to the American people and the United Nations. The evidence was clear that Saddam Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 for blowing themselves up in Israel and taking with them as many Jews as possible. Other evidence showed that Saddam was hosting Al Qaeda training camps inside his country. And of course there was Saddam's own admission, backed by most of the intelligence agencies in the world, that he was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
All the reasons given for invading Iraq eventually revealed themselves to be frighteningly true. Even the weapons of mass destruction, many of which have recently shown up in Syria, was proven to be a valid reason for invading Iraq. My question is that if Barack Obama has spent the last decade preaching the "No national security interest" sermon, why now is he saying his bombing campaign is going to be a protracted operation? If there is no security interest, why provide any military intervention? Certainly Mr. Obama, as well as the rest of the intellectual garbage disposals on the Left, realize that national security is the primary mission of the U.S. military. There is no valid reason to use the military for a primarily humanitarian mission.
It requires a super-sized portion of denial not to understand that the world is a less safe place with weak American leadership. The current mass killings, kidnappings, and the wreaking of general havoc in many parts of the world is a direct result of a United States president that gave material support to the terrorist group ISIS in Syria, allowed them to escalate violence in Iraq, and then dropped a few bombs to make it look as though he was trying to fix that which he broke. All the while blaming his predecessor, who by the way, has not been president for over five and half years.
Mr. Obama, as a function of running for president, called Iraq a "bad" war. In typical Leftist fashion, he was more interested in ending a war than in winning it. Somewhere in the dark recesses of his mind, Barack Obama knows he screwed up by pulling troops out of Iraq too soon. But he can not very well send them back in there, so he will conduct bombing raids until they do not work, then he will say Iraq was lost by George W. Bush. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama will have trained another ally not to trust the United States. That is the real shame of the president's Iraq policy, it has denied the U.S. an ally in a region where we desperately need them.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Fortieth Anniversary Of Democrat Shame
Today is the fortieth anniversary of President Nixon's resignation from the presidency (yesterday having been the fortieth anniversary of his announcement to the American people of his intent to resign). Although there has been a multitude of myths about the break-in and cover-up that have become the accepted version of history, one thing is clear, the scandal had far-reaching implications that stretched far beyond Washington D.C., or even the United States of America.
For anyone interested in the truth about the Watergate scandal, Robert Gettlin and Len Colodny's book, Silent Coup, is necessary reading. Mike Wallace, of Sixty Minutes fame, called it the best researched book he had ever seen, and almost quit his position when his bosses refused to allow him to do a story on the book and its authors. The problem for Mr. Wallace's bosses was that the truth in the book conflicted greatly with the Washington Post's version, which became the Left's version and consequently became the official historical version accepted by even some on the Right.
Bill Bradley, editor of the Washington Post during the scandal, admitted they printed stories about the scandal they knew to be false for the purpose of making a better case against Richard Nixon. Years later, in defense of Mr. Bradley, Dan Rather stated that, "Richard Nixon was a corrupt president and we (meaning the media) had to do everything we could to remove him from power." No wonder Mr. Rather felt no compunction about falsifying the Air National Guard records of George W. Bush, which lead to him losing his position at CBS news.
But putting aside the Lefts behavior and deceit surrounding the Watergate scandal itself was the deaths it caused in South Vietnam and Cambodia at the hands of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Mr. Nixon's greatest accomplishment was winning the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese generals who would write about it years later admitted they went to the Paris Peace talks with their tale between their legs. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger received the Noble Peace Prize for negotiating what in essence was the surrender of the communist North.
In the wake of the Watergate scandal, and Richard Nixon's resignation, the Democrats gained huge majorities in both houses of congress in the 1974 mid-term election. In so doing they were able to cut off funding for the support America had promised South Vietnam, and warned the North would be brought to bear if they incurred against the South. Without that support, the South fell to the North and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were slaughtered. Pol Pot's troops were enabled by the instrument of slaughter handed them by congressional Democrats.
The Democrats lack of sorrow for what they had caused was best summed up by Senator Fullbright, Bill Clinton's mentor and political hero, when in response to how he felt about the slaughter compared it to the University of Arkansas basketball team losing a game. So much for the compassion of Democrats. It was this compassion which caused Prince Sirik Matak of Cambodia's response to the American ambassador there when he offered to airlift the prince to safety after his country was overrun by the communist Khmer Rouge. His response, directed at the United States, was an instrument of Democrat Party politics and lead not only to the death of the prince, but 1.6 million others.
I thank you very sincerely for your letter and your offer to transport me towards freedom. I can not, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I should die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we are all born and must die. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you.
For anyone interested in the truth about the Watergate scandal, Robert Gettlin and Len Colodny's book, Silent Coup, is necessary reading. Mike Wallace, of Sixty Minutes fame, called it the best researched book he had ever seen, and almost quit his position when his bosses refused to allow him to do a story on the book and its authors. The problem for Mr. Wallace's bosses was that the truth in the book conflicted greatly with the Washington Post's version, which became the Left's version and consequently became the official historical version accepted by even some on the Right.
Bill Bradley, editor of the Washington Post during the scandal, admitted they printed stories about the scandal they knew to be false for the purpose of making a better case against Richard Nixon. Years later, in defense of Mr. Bradley, Dan Rather stated that, "Richard Nixon was a corrupt president and we (meaning the media) had to do everything we could to remove him from power." No wonder Mr. Rather felt no compunction about falsifying the Air National Guard records of George W. Bush, which lead to him losing his position at CBS news.
But putting aside the Lefts behavior and deceit surrounding the Watergate scandal itself was the deaths it caused in South Vietnam and Cambodia at the hands of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Mr. Nixon's greatest accomplishment was winning the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese generals who would write about it years later admitted they went to the Paris Peace talks with their tale between their legs. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger received the Noble Peace Prize for negotiating what in essence was the surrender of the communist North.
In the wake of the Watergate scandal, and Richard Nixon's resignation, the Democrats gained huge majorities in both houses of congress in the 1974 mid-term election. In so doing they were able to cut off funding for the support America had promised South Vietnam, and warned the North would be brought to bear if they incurred against the South. Without that support, the South fell to the North and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were slaughtered. Pol Pot's troops were enabled by the instrument of slaughter handed them by congressional Democrats.
The Democrats lack of sorrow for what they had caused was best summed up by Senator Fullbright, Bill Clinton's mentor and political hero, when in response to how he felt about the slaughter compared it to the University of Arkansas basketball team losing a game. So much for the compassion of Democrats. It was this compassion which caused Prince Sirik Matak of Cambodia's response to the American ambassador there when he offered to airlift the prince to safety after his country was overrun by the communist Khmer Rouge. His response, directed at the United States, was an instrument of Democrat Party politics and lead not only to the death of the prince, but 1.6 million others.
I thank you very sincerely for your letter and your offer to transport me towards freedom. I can not, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I should die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we are all born and must die. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you.
Friday, August 8, 2014
Ebola: Epidemic Du Jour
There has been much consternation about the two Ebola victims flown into Georgia to be treated at Emery university this week. Some have sounded the alarm bells that this could be the end of civilization as we know it, others have claimed some nefarious scheme on the part of the Obama administration that centers around biological warfare. Why the most powerful military in the world, with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons would need to infect anyone with a flu-like virus, is beyond logical thought. But then reason is not in large supply when fear mongering is.
First of all, to all those worried about catching the Ebola virus, an infected person would have to vomit directly on you in order for you to become infected. You can not catch the virus from a cough or a sneeze. Secondly, while the virus can be deadly (just like any strain of flu can be if untreated) most will survive its effects as long as they remain hydrated and well rested. The problem in Africa is that the shortage of clean water and restful environs makes the virus more deadly than it would be here in the United States.
And although over 900 persons in Africa have died in the past four months as a result of Ebola, the spread of the virus is much slower than that of many other afflictions, like malaria, dysentery, and even the common flu. But the relatively small number of Ebola victims does not seem to matter to its promoters, who have their own agenda that has little to do with public health.
So why the big show and the "lights out" scare tactics? Simple, it is all about research dollars. There is more money allocated to viruses and diseases whose researchers claim can wipe out the world in a matter of days, than the dull everyday viruses like malaria or diseases such as cancer. Consider AIDS, the scourge of mankind that was suppose to have wiped out half the world's population by now, according to those who were in a relentless pursuit of research dollars back in the 1980s and 1990s. The fact is that there are so few AIDS related deaths today that the Center for Disease Control has been classifying death of HIV patients as resulting from the disease, even if the infected person gets hit by a bus, or dies in some other manner unrelated to the disease.
This whoreification of science for the benefit of a political agenda is part and parcel to the Leftist ideology. We have witnessed it through the years with the DDT scare, global cooling, over-population, AIDS, global warming, swine flu, bird flu, and now Ebola. The end game for the Left is to syphon taxpayer dollars into the coffers of researchers and provide an unlimited grant of authority to the political class to deal with the "crisis." The usual result of this mugging of the American people by Leftist politicians is that we awaken in the dimly lit back alley of truth to find that the "epidemic" never occurred and the wallet of our freedoms has been ravaged and emptied, strewn amongst the remnants of our liberty.
First of all, to all those worried about catching the Ebola virus, an infected person would have to vomit directly on you in order for you to become infected. You can not catch the virus from a cough or a sneeze. Secondly, while the virus can be deadly (just like any strain of flu can be if untreated) most will survive its effects as long as they remain hydrated and well rested. The problem in Africa is that the shortage of clean water and restful environs makes the virus more deadly than it would be here in the United States.
And although over 900 persons in Africa have died in the past four months as a result of Ebola, the spread of the virus is much slower than that of many other afflictions, like malaria, dysentery, and even the common flu. But the relatively small number of Ebola victims does not seem to matter to its promoters, who have their own agenda that has little to do with public health.
So why the big show and the "lights out" scare tactics? Simple, it is all about research dollars. There is more money allocated to viruses and diseases whose researchers claim can wipe out the world in a matter of days, than the dull everyday viruses like malaria or diseases such as cancer. Consider AIDS, the scourge of mankind that was suppose to have wiped out half the world's population by now, according to those who were in a relentless pursuit of research dollars back in the 1980s and 1990s. The fact is that there are so few AIDS related deaths today that the Center for Disease Control has been classifying death of HIV patients as resulting from the disease, even if the infected person gets hit by a bus, or dies in some other manner unrelated to the disease.
This whoreification of science for the benefit of a political agenda is part and parcel to the Leftist ideology. We have witnessed it through the years with the DDT scare, global cooling, over-population, AIDS, global warming, swine flu, bird flu, and now Ebola. The end game for the Left is to syphon taxpayer dollars into the coffers of researchers and provide an unlimited grant of authority to the political class to deal with the "crisis." The usual result of this mugging of the American people by Leftist politicians is that we awaken in the dimly lit back alley of truth to find that the "epidemic" never occurred and the wallet of our freedoms has been ravaged and emptied, strewn amongst the remnants of our liberty.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
End Of An Era?
The fact that the Harry Reid-controlled senate is the least productive in history is bitter/sweet. On the bitter side there has been fewer bills passed by this senate than any other in recent memory. On the sweet side there has been fewer bills passed by this senate than any other in recent memory. The lack of production by the United States Senate under Mr. Reid's authority is not from inability but from deliberation.
Between the time that Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term election, and the time they officially took control in January of 2011, Barack Obama gave Harry Reid specific marching orders that he was not to bring any House bills to the floor of the Senate for debate, let alone to be voted on. Hence the over three hundred bills passed by the House, many with House Democrat support, that now languish in a pile on Harry Reid's desk.
Mr. Reid proudly proclaimed the tyranny of his majority by announcing bill after bill passed by the House to be "dead on arrival" in the Senate. Many of said bills, almost twenty, were job creation bills that had bi-partisan support in the House and would have gone a long way to helping this beleaguered economy.
Now there are those who say that when Republicans take control as a result of this Fall's mid-term election, they will be able to use their control of both houses of congress to slow down an out-of-control president. I am not so sure about that, considering that Republicans have been so reticent to use the power of the purse they have had as part and parcel to their control of the House of Representatives since January of 2011. Additionally, Senate Republicans, at least in leadership roles, have shown no sign of tacking away from the course set by Mr. Reid and the Democrats with regards to amnesty and spending.
Even if Republicans win control of the Senate this Fall, and hold onto their majority in the House, and receive a spine transplant that causes them to vigorously oppose the president, they will not be able to relieve him of his pen and his phone. As the House and Senate have been a "do nothing congress," President Obama has been a busy little legislative beaver, passing executive orders to implement an unpopular agenda with the people's representatives. All, I might add, against the United States Constitution.
It bares repeating that a president has the most executive order authority when his order supports a decision upon which congress has previously ruled. He has dubious authority when his order implements policy which congress has not ruled one way or the other. And he has the least amount of authority when his order is in direct conflict with a previous congressional ruling. As we go forward, it may behoove Republicans to keep in mind that, constitutionally, congress makes the laws and the president, through the executive branch of government, enforces those laws.
The Founders knew that when the creation of laws and the enforcement of laws resides in a single branch of government, the gravity of tyranny is too great a force on the moorings of liberty. The era of government that we have entered with the Obama administration is not only the era of an ever expanding government, but of a fundamentally changed government. A government where the people, through their representatives in congress, have little participation in the making of laws that have their operation on the mass of citizens for whom the constitution was written to protect.
Between the time that Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term election, and the time they officially took control in January of 2011, Barack Obama gave Harry Reid specific marching orders that he was not to bring any House bills to the floor of the Senate for debate, let alone to be voted on. Hence the over three hundred bills passed by the House, many with House Democrat support, that now languish in a pile on Harry Reid's desk.
Mr. Reid proudly proclaimed the tyranny of his majority by announcing bill after bill passed by the House to be "dead on arrival" in the Senate. Many of said bills, almost twenty, were job creation bills that had bi-partisan support in the House and would have gone a long way to helping this beleaguered economy.
Now there are those who say that when Republicans take control as a result of this Fall's mid-term election, they will be able to use their control of both houses of congress to slow down an out-of-control president. I am not so sure about that, considering that Republicans have been so reticent to use the power of the purse they have had as part and parcel to their control of the House of Representatives since January of 2011. Additionally, Senate Republicans, at least in leadership roles, have shown no sign of tacking away from the course set by Mr. Reid and the Democrats with regards to amnesty and spending.
Even if Republicans win control of the Senate this Fall, and hold onto their majority in the House, and receive a spine transplant that causes them to vigorously oppose the president, they will not be able to relieve him of his pen and his phone. As the House and Senate have been a "do nothing congress," President Obama has been a busy little legislative beaver, passing executive orders to implement an unpopular agenda with the people's representatives. All, I might add, against the United States Constitution.
It bares repeating that a president has the most executive order authority when his order supports a decision upon which congress has previously ruled. He has dubious authority when his order implements policy which congress has not ruled one way or the other. And he has the least amount of authority when his order is in direct conflict with a previous congressional ruling. As we go forward, it may behoove Republicans to keep in mind that, constitutionally, congress makes the laws and the president, through the executive branch of government, enforces those laws.
The Founders knew that when the creation of laws and the enforcement of laws resides in a single branch of government, the gravity of tyranny is too great a force on the moorings of liberty. The era of government that we have entered with the Obama administration is not only the era of an ever expanding government, but of a fundamentally changed government. A government where the people, through their representatives in congress, have little participation in the making of laws that have their operation on the mass of citizens for whom the constitution was written to protect.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
The Historical Candidate Syndrome
I fear that we have reached a point in our nation's history that has made George W. Bush the last historically insignificant president elected. My thesis being that Mr. Bush may be the last elected president based on his experience and ability to coherently articulate his ideas, and for his fidelity to the constitutional principles which built the greatest nation in the world's history. I fear from this point forward the American people will be guilted and cowed into electing historically significant persons to the presidency, and not those who have accomplishments, experience, or the temperament for the job.
We have seen my thesis fulfilled to fruition in the two elections of Barack Obama. He ran and was elected based on being the first black man to do so. Other than that, he had no other experience or an articulated plan for the country. The two election victories of Barack Obama has, for the Democrats, become a template for all other candidates going forward. That is why many are supporting Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren as their presidential nominee for 2016. But whether it is the first black man, the first woman, the first black woman, the first Hispanic, the first Hispanic woman, or the first openly gay candidate, the Democrats see this tact as giving them electoral victory for decades to come.
The election of a completely unqualified candidate, by experience and temperament, is only the first step in the process of the Historical Candidate Syndrome. The "rest of the story," as the late Paul Harvey use to say, is that a person with the stink of history all over them can repeal opposition to their agenda without having to defend it legitimately. We have seen this tactic used against the opponents of Barack Obama's policies by labeling them as racists. With the first woman president, any opponents will be called sexist. The opponents of the first gay president will be called homophobic. And so on, ad infinitum. The Left never has to defend their positions as long as they never elect another straight, white man to the presidency.
The garden that produces the historical candidate has been sown by the Left over the last 40 years and fertilized with political correctness. They have created a population of sheep that are so afraid of being called intolerant, that they will actually vote against their own self-interests as well as the interests of liberty.
Being in possession of the insignificance of race, sex, sexual preference or anything else is not enough, the historical candidate must also be part of the Leftist group think. That is why members of minority groups who espouse conservatism are fair game for racial and non-racial slurs from those on the Left. One can well imagined the tar and feathering someone on the Right would have received had they engaged in the kind of rhetoric that those on the Left engaged in against candidates like Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, et al.
It is certainly a brave new world, where affirmative action has entered into a precarious marriage with presidential politics. We have seen Barack Obama be elected twice based on his personalization of the victim status of his race. And he has continued to use his alleged victimization to advance his agenda, sans any vigorous opposition. If the Historical Candidate Syndrome is allowed to manifest itself in subsequent election cycles, representative government as founded by the framers of the Constitution, will be in jeopardy of fading into a past that no longer exists.
We have seen my thesis fulfilled to fruition in the two elections of Barack Obama. He ran and was elected based on being the first black man to do so. Other than that, he had no other experience or an articulated plan for the country. The two election victories of Barack Obama has, for the Democrats, become a template for all other candidates going forward. That is why many are supporting Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren as their presidential nominee for 2016. But whether it is the first black man, the first woman, the first black woman, the first Hispanic, the first Hispanic woman, or the first openly gay candidate, the Democrats see this tact as giving them electoral victory for decades to come.
The election of a completely unqualified candidate, by experience and temperament, is only the first step in the process of the Historical Candidate Syndrome. The "rest of the story," as the late Paul Harvey use to say, is that a person with the stink of history all over them can repeal opposition to their agenda without having to defend it legitimately. We have seen this tactic used against the opponents of Barack Obama's policies by labeling them as racists. With the first woman president, any opponents will be called sexist. The opponents of the first gay president will be called homophobic. And so on, ad infinitum. The Left never has to defend their positions as long as they never elect another straight, white man to the presidency.
The garden that produces the historical candidate has been sown by the Left over the last 40 years and fertilized with political correctness. They have created a population of sheep that are so afraid of being called intolerant, that they will actually vote against their own self-interests as well as the interests of liberty.
Being in possession of the insignificance of race, sex, sexual preference or anything else is not enough, the historical candidate must also be part of the Leftist group think. That is why members of minority groups who espouse conservatism are fair game for racial and non-racial slurs from those on the Left. One can well imagined the tar and feathering someone on the Right would have received had they engaged in the kind of rhetoric that those on the Left engaged in against candidates like Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, et al.
It is certainly a brave new world, where affirmative action has entered into a precarious marriage with presidential politics. We have seen Barack Obama be elected twice based on his personalization of the victim status of his race. And he has continued to use his alleged victimization to advance his agenda, sans any vigorous opposition. If the Historical Candidate Syndrome is allowed to manifest itself in subsequent election cycles, representative government as founded by the framers of the Constitution, will be in jeopardy of fading into a past that no longer exists.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Hubris Of The Fed
The stock market has had a little trouble lately on its fairytale expedition to never, never land where shares prices increase simply because the sun rises and the Federal Reserve bunnies dance with magical monetary policy in fields of brightly colored flowers of delusion. You may wonder why, after recent record highs, the stock market seems to have throttled back a little.
Well it certainly is not earnings, economic data, the crisis on our Southern border, the hot war between Israel and Hamas, the cold war between the United States and Russia over the latter's incursion into the sovereign nation of Ukraine, the Argentine debt crisis, the European debt crisis, or arguably the worse U.S. economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s. No, what moves the market now is talk of the Federal Reserve increasing their benchmark interest rate from its historic low of zero to a quarter percent, which it has maintained for six years.
The stock market is like the Roman Emperor Nero, who played his fiddle while Rome burned. As long as the market has its security blanket of Federal Reserve monetary policy, which has pumped almost 4 trillion dollars into what would otherwise have been a flaccid market at best the last 5 years, they are as quiet as a baby suckling at his mother's breast. But as soon as there is talk of raising interest rates in conjunction with the Fed reduction in the amount of bonds they are buying each month to drive money into the market, those in the market scream like that little baby when he is detached from his mother before he has had his fill.
The economic reality is that during the last decade the median wealth amongst American families has decreased from $87,000 down to $56,000. A majority of that decrease has happened in the last 6 years that Barack Obama has been president, and the Federal Reserve has been handing out the candy of higher share prices at the expense of average Americans. Too low of interest rates over an extended period of time has the same effect as too high of interest rates, both stifle economic growth. Low interest rates have conspired with excessive federal regulations and laws like ObamaCare, to constipate real economic growth.
The real irony of the Obama-led Federal Reserve keeping interest rates so low for so long is that Democrats screamed from the rooftops that it was just this kind of monetary policy which lead to the financial crisis of 2008. Recently in a congressional hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen would not agree to setting any metrics on when certain monetary policy would be implemented by the Fed. This hubris on the part of Ms. Yellen is typical of those in government who have never worked in the private sector economy, but somehow think their economic theories cooked up in the vacuum of the university can change the economic reality of a free market.
Well it certainly is not earnings, economic data, the crisis on our Southern border, the hot war between Israel and Hamas, the cold war between the United States and Russia over the latter's incursion into the sovereign nation of Ukraine, the Argentine debt crisis, the European debt crisis, or arguably the worse U.S. economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s. No, what moves the market now is talk of the Federal Reserve increasing their benchmark interest rate from its historic low of zero to a quarter percent, which it has maintained for six years.
The stock market is like the Roman Emperor Nero, who played his fiddle while Rome burned. As long as the market has its security blanket of Federal Reserve monetary policy, which has pumped almost 4 trillion dollars into what would otherwise have been a flaccid market at best the last 5 years, they are as quiet as a baby suckling at his mother's breast. But as soon as there is talk of raising interest rates in conjunction with the Fed reduction in the amount of bonds they are buying each month to drive money into the market, those in the market scream like that little baby when he is detached from his mother before he has had his fill.
The economic reality is that during the last decade the median wealth amongst American families has decreased from $87,000 down to $56,000. A majority of that decrease has happened in the last 6 years that Barack Obama has been president, and the Federal Reserve has been handing out the candy of higher share prices at the expense of average Americans. Too low of interest rates over an extended period of time has the same effect as too high of interest rates, both stifle economic growth. Low interest rates have conspired with excessive federal regulations and laws like ObamaCare, to constipate real economic growth.
The real irony of the Obama-led Federal Reserve keeping interest rates so low for so long is that Democrats screamed from the rooftops that it was just this kind of monetary policy which lead to the financial crisis of 2008. Recently in a congressional hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen would not agree to setting any metrics on when certain monetary policy would be implemented by the Fed. This hubris on the part of Ms. Yellen is typical of those in government who have never worked in the private sector economy, but somehow think their economic theories cooked up in the vacuum of the university can change the economic reality of a free market.
Monday, August 4, 2014
The Shame Of A Nation
There are those events that are difficult to morally judge, conflicts between two sides where both appear to have a valid claim to righteousness. The Bible says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." But that passage is often misused by today's culture to mean that we should be tolerant of every behavior, no matter how deviant or evil. The true intent of the passage is that the disposition of a man's soul should not be judged by man, but only by God. As human beings with the God-given ability to think critically and being divinely inculcated with the knowledge of good and evil, we are implored by all that is righteous in the eyes of God to judge holy from profane, morality from immorality, and right from wrong.
There has never been, is now, nor ever will be a more clearly demarcated line between good and evil than the Israeli/Hamas conflict. And the fact that the world community, lead by the largest repository of anti-Semitism in the world, the United Nations, and I am ashamed to say, by the United States government, has clearly taken the side of evil. That may sound blunt, but sometimes the truth can not be made less severe by sugar coating it.
Hamas and the Palestinian people talk about occupation and blockades, but there has not been a single Jew in Gaza since 2005, and the only items not being allowed into the country by Israel are military weaponry. And what have the Palestinian people lead by Hamas done with the country that the Jews left in much better shape than they found it? They have destroyed any implements of prosperity and have used the thousands of tons of cement provided to them by the international community to build public buildings and homes, and have instead built tunnels into Israel from which they launch terror campaigns and kidnappings. They have continually fired thousands of missiles into their neighbor Israel and have called publicly for their destruction.
The Lefts phony outrage over the deaths of innocent Palestinians can not veil their blatant anti-Semitism. If their concern was purely humanitarian, then why have we not heard a peep from the Left about the 1500 innocent Palestinians that have been killed in the Syrian conflict? Or does the Left only place value on Palestinian life when it is loss as a result of Israel defending itself from incessant attacks by Hamas?
Barack Obama's support of Hamas is befitting the Democrat tradition began by Jimmy Carter, who in 1979 gave radical Islam the country of Iran by supporting the ouster of the Shah and replacing him with the radical Islamist government of the Ayatollah, whom the obtuse Mr. Carter compared to Gandhi. Up to that critical point in history, radical Islam existed on the fringe of the Muslim religion. Once it gained state sponsorship through Carter's gift of Iran, the radicalization of Islam accelerated and the creation of armies of terrorists was born of the demon seed planted by Jimmy Carter.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Michelle Obama said that for the first time in her life she was proud of her country, ostensibly because her husband was the first black man chosen by a major political party to run for the nation's highest office. After the abandonment by this president of not only our closest ally in the Middle East, but the world, I am ashamed of my country. I am ashamed that enough of my fellow citizens elected as president a man who has not only abandon Israel in her time of crisis, but has the indecency to openly support her enemies whose goal it is to destroy her. Unfortunately this is not only my shame, but the shame of a nation.
There has never been, is now, nor ever will be a more clearly demarcated line between good and evil than the Israeli/Hamas conflict. And the fact that the world community, lead by the largest repository of anti-Semitism in the world, the United Nations, and I am ashamed to say, by the United States government, has clearly taken the side of evil. That may sound blunt, but sometimes the truth can not be made less severe by sugar coating it.
Hamas and the Palestinian people talk about occupation and blockades, but there has not been a single Jew in Gaza since 2005, and the only items not being allowed into the country by Israel are military weaponry. And what have the Palestinian people lead by Hamas done with the country that the Jews left in much better shape than they found it? They have destroyed any implements of prosperity and have used the thousands of tons of cement provided to them by the international community to build public buildings and homes, and have instead built tunnels into Israel from which they launch terror campaigns and kidnappings. They have continually fired thousands of missiles into their neighbor Israel and have called publicly for their destruction.
The Lefts phony outrage over the deaths of innocent Palestinians can not veil their blatant anti-Semitism. If their concern was purely humanitarian, then why have we not heard a peep from the Left about the 1500 innocent Palestinians that have been killed in the Syrian conflict? Or does the Left only place value on Palestinian life when it is loss as a result of Israel defending itself from incessant attacks by Hamas?
Barack Obama's support of Hamas is befitting the Democrat tradition began by Jimmy Carter, who in 1979 gave radical Islam the country of Iran by supporting the ouster of the Shah and replacing him with the radical Islamist government of the Ayatollah, whom the obtuse Mr. Carter compared to Gandhi. Up to that critical point in history, radical Islam existed on the fringe of the Muslim religion. Once it gained state sponsorship through Carter's gift of Iran, the radicalization of Islam accelerated and the creation of armies of terrorists was born of the demon seed planted by Jimmy Carter.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Michelle Obama said that for the first time in her life she was proud of her country, ostensibly because her husband was the first black man chosen by a major political party to run for the nation's highest office. After the abandonment by this president of not only our closest ally in the Middle East, but the world, I am ashamed of my country. I am ashamed that enough of my fellow citizens elected as president a man who has not only abandon Israel in her time of crisis, but has the indecency to openly support her enemies whose goal it is to destroy her. Unfortunately this is not only my shame, but the shame of a nation.
Saturday, August 2, 2014
A True History Of Slavery
While it is true that the United States of America, and the British colonies before that, practiced what Abraham Lincoln called one of the twin relics of barbarism, slavery (the other one being polygamy), it was not the only nation in the world to do so. In fact, all other nations of the world practiced some form of slavery, and the United States was the first nation in the world to outlaw the practice, having fought a bloody war against itself to do so.
One of the myths of slavery is that the American South benefitted economically from the practice. The theory goes that with free labor the South was able to prosper on the backs of the enslaved. But the labor of slaves was not free to the landowners, they incurred expense in housing, feeding, clothing, and providing medical care to the slaves in their possession. Whether they paid a work force that then used that money to provide all those things for themselves, or in the case of slavery, the landowners provided those necessities for their work force, it was still an expense.
Slavery did not make the South more prosperous, in fact, the free North had a much more thriving and diverse economy than did the South. And had the Civil War not ended the barbaric practice of slavery, the free market would have. As manufacturing grew to replace agriculture as the mainstay of the American economy, and rural life was replaced with urbanization, the impracticality of slavery would have rendered it useless.
Many people, especially on the Left, in deriding the Constitution argue that since many of the Founding Fathers had slaves, that fact somehow nullifies our founding. The Founding Fathers in the South were born into a culture which had included slavery for over a hundred and fifty years before they came into existence. So while they detested the practice, they were trapped in the maze of slavery they did not create. But they very wisely devised a Constitution that they knew could be used by men in a subsequent time to insure the undoing of slavery. Had they pushed for an end to slavery as part of the founding of their new country, there never would have been a union of the colonies that became a beacon of freedom and hope, not only to former slaves in this country, but to the millions of enslaved and oppressed throughout the world.
Many of the physical abuses suffered by American slaves were exaggerated for political effect. I am not saying that no slaves were ever abused, only that it made no sense for plantation owners to pay good money just to abuse them. It is analogous to someone today buying a car and then beating it with a baseball bat. It could happen, I suppose, but it is not likely in most cases. In fact in the case of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, their estates were managed by trusted slaves the years they were absent during the revolution and the early days of the new government.
I would not want anything I have written here to misconstrue that I somehow support the idea of slavery, or think it was anything but a blemish on this great nation's past. But I also think what is purposely lost in the teaching of slave history in the United States is the fact that it was the goodness of our founding which eventually lead to slavery's eradication.
One of the myths of slavery is that the American South benefitted economically from the practice. The theory goes that with free labor the South was able to prosper on the backs of the enslaved. But the labor of slaves was not free to the landowners, they incurred expense in housing, feeding, clothing, and providing medical care to the slaves in their possession. Whether they paid a work force that then used that money to provide all those things for themselves, or in the case of slavery, the landowners provided those necessities for their work force, it was still an expense.
Slavery did not make the South more prosperous, in fact, the free North had a much more thriving and diverse economy than did the South. And had the Civil War not ended the barbaric practice of slavery, the free market would have. As manufacturing grew to replace agriculture as the mainstay of the American economy, and rural life was replaced with urbanization, the impracticality of slavery would have rendered it useless.
Many people, especially on the Left, in deriding the Constitution argue that since many of the Founding Fathers had slaves, that fact somehow nullifies our founding. The Founding Fathers in the South were born into a culture which had included slavery for over a hundred and fifty years before they came into existence. So while they detested the practice, they were trapped in the maze of slavery they did not create. But they very wisely devised a Constitution that they knew could be used by men in a subsequent time to insure the undoing of slavery. Had they pushed for an end to slavery as part of the founding of their new country, there never would have been a union of the colonies that became a beacon of freedom and hope, not only to former slaves in this country, but to the millions of enslaved and oppressed throughout the world.
Many of the physical abuses suffered by American slaves were exaggerated for political effect. I am not saying that no slaves were ever abused, only that it made no sense for plantation owners to pay good money just to abuse them. It is analogous to someone today buying a car and then beating it with a baseball bat. It could happen, I suppose, but it is not likely in most cases. In fact in the case of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, their estates were managed by trusted slaves the years they were absent during the revolution and the early days of the new government.
I would not want anything I have written here to misconstrue that I somehow support the idea of slavery, or think it was anything but a blemish on this great nation's past. But I also think what is purposely lost in the teaching of slave history in the United States is the fact that it was the goodness of our founding which eventually lead to slavery's eradication.
Friday, August 1, 2014
The Left Refuses To Press Charges After Being Mugged By Reality
To say that the Left is obtuse about the utter failure of their ideology is an understatement, in fact they are daily mugged by reality and yet refuse to press charges. From the anti-prosperity of their economic policy to the pro-chaos of their foreign policy, the Left has proven throughout recent history that bad ideas reside in the very ether of their thoughts. This truth has been evident for some time, but has never had a more spectacular poster-child than the current occupant of the White House, Barack Obama.
President Obama has been mugged by the reality of economic policy that has produced the lowest percentage of the population participating in the work force in almost half a century, but refuses to veer from the rocky path of his policy. He has been mugged by an ever more aggressive Vladimir Putin, but refuses to show the spine necessary for an American leader to counter the growing threat. President Obama has been mugged by the reality of ISIS in Iraq and Syria moving ever more closer to confiscating those lands to be used as a launching pad for world-wide terrorism, but he blindly continues his policy that has given birth to the resurgence of such terrorist groups.
President Obama has been mugged by the reality of the terror organization Hamas continually attacking its neighbor Israel, whose destruction Hamas has said is their ultimate goal, and yet Mr. Obama joins the anti-Semite chorus lead by the United Nations in condemning Israel. The president has been mugged by the reality of a Southern U.S. border that is so porous it has allowed almost half a million illegal aliens to breach it in just the last 6 months, yet he refuses to enforce immigration law, or even allow border states to do so on their own.
In a speech this week in Kansas City, President Obama engaged in hate speech while simultaneously accusing Republicans in congress of being hateful and angry. He was incredulous that there are those who could disagree with his failed policy up to this point in his term, and he can not understand why they do not acquiesce to his current round of destructive policies. I fail to understand why anyone in congress would want to board the train of failure that exemplifies this administration. A pathetically weak economy at home and a Middle East and Eastern Europe that is burning in large part to this president's policies and ineptness, should be evidentiary of the need for a mass exodus from this disaster, even by those in the president's own party.
With all this mugging by reality, one would think that those on the Left would abandon failure and search for a more successful path. The reason they do not is simple, the Left does not define success with prosperity, peace, and security. Their definition of success is how many federal programs can be created with the expressed purpose of, not helping anyone or solving problems, but to suck up hard earned taxpayer dollars like some giant, money-sucking vacuum. Yes, President Obama and the rest of the Left have been mugged by reality, but far from pressing charges they choose to bring the mugger home so he can ply his trade on the rest of the family.
President Obama has been mugged by the reality of economic policy that has produced the lowest percentage of the population participating in the work force in almost half a century, but refuses to veer from the rocky path of his policy. He has been mugged by an ever more aggressive Vladimir Putin, but refuses to show the spine necessary for an American leader to counter the growing threat. President Obama has been mugged by the reality of ISIS in Iraq and Syria moving ever more closer to confiscating those lands to be used as a launching pad for world-wide terrorism, but he blindly continues his policy that has given birth to the resurgence of such terrorist groups.
President Obama has been mugged by the reality of the terror organization Hamas continually attacking its neighbor Israel, whose destruction Hamas has said is their ultimate goal, and yet Mr. Obama joins the anti-Semite chorus lead by the United Nations in condemning Israel. The president has been mugged by the reality of a Southern U.S. border that is so porous it has allowed almost half a million illegal aliens to breach it in just the last 6 months, yet he refuses to enforce immigration law, or even allow border states to do so on their own.
In a speech this week in Kansas City, President Obama engaged in hate speech while simultaneously accusing Republicans in congress of being hateful and angry. He was incredulous that there are those who could disagree with his failed policy up to this point in his term, and he can not understand why they do not acquiesce to his current round of destructive policies. I fail to understand why anyone in congress would want to board the train of failure that exemplifies this administration. A pathetically weak economy at home and a Middle East and Eastern Europe that is burning in large part to this president's policies and ineptness, should be evidentiary of the need for a mass exodus from this disaster, even by those in the president's own party.
With all this mugging by reality, one would think that those on the Left would abandon failure and search for a more successful path. The reason they do not is simple, the Left does not define success with prosperity, peace, and security. Their definition of success is how many federal programs can be created with the expressed purpose of, not helping anyone or solving problems, but to suck up hard earned taxpayer dollars like some giant, money-sucking vacuum. Yes, President Obama and the rest of the Left have been mugged by reality, but far from pressing charges they choose to bring the mugger home so he can ply his trade on the rest of the family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)