Saturday, June 28, 2014

Why The Mid-Terms Are Irrelevent

     Now with the Mississippi Republican senatorial primary having proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is one party rule in Washington, i.e. the political establishment, it makes this November's mid-term elections all the more irrelevant. The fact that entrenched Republican senator, Thad Cochran, joined forces with Democrats to slime and defeat Tea Party favorite, Chris McDaniels, is further evidence to conservatives that republicanism is in short supply among both political parties in the nation's capital.
     Many Republicans and political pundits on the Right look at the upcoming mid-term elections like some sort of branding exercise, the object of which is to sear a big "R" onto as many congressional seats as possible, whether they are prized steers, or piles of excrement excreted by said cattle. But simply collecting congressional seats like a political bag lady collecting useless junk along the side of the road to place in her shopping cart, does not help a nation being ripped apart by political elitists on both sides of the aisle.
     We have seen the political irrelevance of Republican control over the last three and half years since they wrested control of the House of Representatives away from Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. My, like many conservatives' frustration has been to watch a House behave as if it is still in control of President Obama's party of miscreants who with each passing day become more  malcontented with liberty and the founding principles of this great nation. It seems to matter little which party is in control, government grows, and the citizen shrinks with each passing year.
     Congress has made itself almost as useless as an appendix over the last several decades by ceding more of their legislative authority to bureaucracies within the Executive branch. And Republicans in congress during the Obama administration have fought any real opposition to President Obama, like that provided by Ted Cruz and the Tea Party, often times joining Democrats in besmirching the very principles of freedom they are charged with protecting.
     Even those on the Right outside the Washington establishment engage in political mollification with events like the recent Supreme Court decision to affirm the Constitution with regards to President Obama's 2012 recess appointments. It is analogous to a police officer pulling you over to tell you the guy in front of you was speeding. This decision only means something to someone who is either going to be forced to adhere to constitutional principles, or will do so on his own, neither of which is the case with our current president. 
     To borrow and paraphrase a line from Patrick Henry, I do not know what course other conservatives may choose, but as for me, give me candidates worthy of the constitution they serve, or go without my support.  

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Warren Buffet: The Ultimate Insider Trader

     The Obama administration has announced that it is eliminating the former restrictions on foreign exploration and drilling of domestic oil reserves. This means that a higher percentage of United States oil reserves will be extracted from the ground for foreign interests. It also means that the price of oil will increase substantially. Additionally, these foreign interests will not be refining their oil using U.S. refineries, but their own. And this is where billionaire investor Warren Buffett comes in.
     In the previous months, Mr. Buffett has been dumping his shares in domestic refinery companies, having been tipped off to this new Obama policy before it became general knowledge. For those paying attention, this is not the first time Mr. Buffett has benefitted from his cozy relationship with Barack Obama.
     There were the shares of General Electric he bought in early 2009 just before it was announced by the administration that GE would receive billions of dollars in TARP money. And who could forget Warren's purchase of Bank of America stock, which he was allowed by the Obama White House to receive dividends on while at the same time they forbade BofA from paying dividends to common shareholders. Finally, there is the Omaha environmental group that Mr. Buffet funds which has been instrumental in keeping the Keystone Pipeline Project from coming to fruition so as not to upset the profit that Berkshire Hathaway makes from transporting oil on their rail cars.
     In the 1950s, when Warren Buffett first founded his company, Berkshire Hathaway, he used his skill and cunning as an analyst of economics and business financials to make money. In recent years, especially since Barack Obama became president, Mr. Buffett has used less stock picking skill and more political connections with which to make money for his shareholders. He is the ultimate crony capitalist, and the richer and more influential he becomes, the more crony and the less skillful analyst he becomes.
     It was not always the perfect marriage between Warren Buffett and Barack Obama. In the beginning of the latters administration, Mr. Buffett was critical of the president's policies, which he saw as destroying the economy. But it seemed with each billion in profits Warren made as a result of being fed valuable information from the administration, the less concern he had for his country, and the more he turned a blind eye to Barack Obama's anti-capitalist agenda. Which is the antithesis of the free market principles that built Berkshire Hathaway.
     Mr. Buffett is the poster child for the crony capitalism that has destroyed the sanctity of self government and has given free markets a black eye, even though his behavior has no place in them. For now there seems to be no concern, let alone action to stop, Mr. Buffett's ultimate insider trading. It is the typical thing that happens in corrupt banana republics, which the United States of America is racing down the road to become.
    

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Christianity Faces Two Front War

     Recently the Holy Father, Pope Francis, stated that Christians around the world face persecution not seen since the Roman Empire. In fact, the Pontiff said, that there are more Christian martyrs now than there were in the heyday of Romans' favorite pastime, slaying Christians by whatever means was available. The Vicar of Christ's statements need no more proof of their validity than for one to pay even a modicum of attention to world events.
     The persecution of Christians in the modern world comes almost entirely at the hands of radical Islam. But the flocks of Jesus must not only face physical persecution, but the political persecution of their right to freely practice their religion. Not only in places like North Korea and China, where one might expect restrictions on faith, but in the United States of America, which was founded on freedom of religious conscience.
     The imposition of Sharia Law and the imposition of Leftist ideology have in common the desire to forbid any public expression of any other faith but theirs. The narrowing of religious rights by the Obama administration is no less disturbing than the same goal of Sharia Law in the Middle East and elsewhere. But while radical Islamists use violence and the threats of violence to impose their religious will upon those of other faiths, the Obama administration has used the power of an over-bloated central government with extra-constitutional instruments like federal bureaucracies and legislation like ObamaCare.
      The actions of the Left and radical Islam are not symbiotic, but the ideology that drives both are. The Left in America and throughout the world are as single-mindedly radically dedicated to the tenets of their faith as radical Islamists are to Sharia Law. There is no more rabid a creature than a Leftist who aims to impose his doctrine on the whole of society. One might make the same argument about Conservatives, but with conservative ideology the aim is to limit the role of government in the lives of average citizens, which leads to more personal liberty, just the opposite of the Leftist's goal.
     Islamists throughout the world have tried to silence the Christian faith by beating, imprisoning, and even slaughtering those who practice it. In the United States, Leftists like Barack Obama have fought to remove public symbols of the Christian faith upon which this country was founded and built, and they have even gone as far as to force Christians to violate the very conscience of their faith. By forcing Christian businesses to participate in homosexual weddings, and to provide aborta fascias to their employees as part of their health care plan, Leftists have practiced a religious tyranny on par with Sharia Law.
      When the Holy Father made his statement about the persecution of Christians being at its worst in history, he was not simply engaging in religious hyperbole. The onslaught against the freedom of religious conscience from radical Islam and the far Left has ramifications not only for the faithful, but for all those who seek liberty in any form. If the natural right of man to be free in expressing his relationship with his creator by practicing the tenets of his faith can be mitigated or disposed by government or the practitioners of a faith not his own, then no liberty is safe from dispossession.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

The ObamaCare Factor

     As the Obama administration and Democrats crow about the Affordable Care Act, and try to convince an evermore skeptic public that the sows ear of government-run healthcare is preferable to the silk purse of a free market system, one has to wonder if they are enjoying their trip to the land delusion over reality. The real delusion infecting the Obama White House and Democrats in congress is the one that informs them that no one will remember the "features" upon which ObamaCare was sold to the American public. A public, who in ever increasing numbers have little faith that the new law will improve their own healthcare.
     Even if one accepts the administration's number of eight million signups to ObamaCare, only 6.8 million have actually paid their first premium, and 87% of those persons are receiving a government subsidy paid by the taxpayers of this country. This is not a harbinger of good things to come, either for healthcare or for the financial health of this once great nation.
     During the propaganda campaign engaged by Democrats to try and sell their government-run healthcare to Americans, the number of uninsured Americans was stated to be somewhere between 30 and 50 million. No matter what the actual number was, half of the uninsured were healthy, younger persons who could afford coverage but decided not to spend the money. Of the remaining, half were eligible for Medicaid, but did not bother to sign up. Additionally, at least ten million of the uninsured maintained that status for four months or shorter because they were between jobs.
     One of the main promises of ObamaCare, besides "If you like your doctor and your plan, you can keep your doctor and plan," was the promise that every American would be covered by insurance. The fact is, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2016 there will be 30 million uninsured Americans. So even giving the promoters of this disastrous law a generous amount leeway, that means the entire healthcare insurance industry and the healthcare industry itself was uprooted at enormous costs to taxpayers, just to insure 15 million more persons. And that is if one believes the upper end of Democrats' estimates of uninsured persons before the law.
     The administration fought hard for the individual mandate before the law's passage, and have since created so many exemptions as to make the mandate non-existent. This move will create a permanent underclass of uninsured Americans that Democrats can use as a reason to expand subsidies and grow the federal behemoth. Even for those "fortunate" enough to be insured in the wake of ObamaCare, their premiums are up to 261% higher, their deductibles are 2 to 3 times higher, and their choices have been limited because insurance companies have had to eliminate some hospitals and doctors from their plans to make them comply with the law.
     To the extent that there was a problem with the healthcare industry before ObamaCare, it was government created. The legislation pushed through congress in the 1980s by Ted Kennedy, which created HMOs, was the precursor to government-run healthcare. Even with this government interference, 85-90% of respondents to polling over the last 25 years said they were happy with the system that was in place. So the push to upend the previous system was another Democrat manufactured crisis with the express purpose of growing government influence and power over the people, not to solve an existing problem. This is the way of tyranny which has become the modus operandi of the modern Democrat party, and is sadly seeping its way into the Republican party as well.

Monday, June 23, 2014

Madison: A Man Who Changed The World

     In reading Lynne Cheney's new book, Madison-A Life Reconsidered, I am struck by the miracle that is the United States of America. Previously, I had thought that defeating the British army, the most powerful in the world at the time, was the most unlikely outcome for the American Revolution. But the even more herculean task for the founding fathers was to unite 13 very independent states into a nation that would have a strong enough central government to protect the rights of a free people, without infringing upon them.
     Even James Madison realized the need for a strong central government, tempered of course with the self-governance of a representative republic. Madison having been a student of the history of republics and constitutions throughout history up to his own time, understood that a central government must be powerful enough to protect the rights of the minority, and yet be carefully constructed so the people would have the ultimate control.
     The fact that the former colonies, now states, were able to mesh differing priorities and disparate opinions of what their post revolution government would look like, is a testament to the political skills of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, et. al. Even after the Constitution was ratified by the states, and the new government formed, its success was not a forgone conclusion. There was much consternation over how much power this new government actually had, constitutionally speaking. The fight over assumption, the act of the federal government assuming the war debts of the states and raising revenue through federal taxing authority, was as contentious as any congressional battle waged today.
     Madison felt that there were few things more abhorrent than public debt, but he realized that for this government to have any credibility, it must pay its debts, whether they be foreign or domestic. And the practice by some states of passing laws to simply erase their debt, lead Madison to believe that the central government of the newly formed country must have authority to impose taxes to pay debts, thus saving the full faith and credit of the United States of America.
     But Madison did not wish to empower the federal government to the extent that the first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, seemed intent on doing. The two friends in the 1780s, when they collaborated on the Federalist Papers, had become bitter foes in the 1790s once the constitution they were promoting became animated in the form of the new government.
     I find the history of this great nation fascinating and engrossing. I truly believe that we can hardly understand where we are today, without knowing where we came from over two centuries ago. And while there were many men that contributed to the making of this great nation, none is so central and so important as the Father of the Constitution, James Madison. And no book like Lynne Cheney's book, in my opinion, reveals so much about the man and the pivotal times in which he lived, and how he shaped, not only those times, but the centuries that came afterward, and literally changed the world.     

Saturday, June 21, 2014

How "College For Everyone" Is Bad For Society

     Recently, the issue of student loan rate reductions for college students at the expense to taxpayers of billions of dollars, has been a hot topic. Maybe it is the looming mid-term elections for which Democrats need an energized base, of which greedy, entitled  students are a major part. Or maybe it is the diversionary benefit the Democrats can gain by diverting the attention of students away from the fact that Democrat policies have made it more unlikely that graduates will find gainful employment once their free ride is over. One thing is for sure, taxpayers, many of whom struggle from paycheck to paycheck, should not be compelled to support students who have the next 45 years to payback their loans.
     Beyond the morally bankrupt position that the privileged young should be supported by the hard-working old, is the data that suggests college for everyone comes at a high price to society. When one considers that half those who enroll in college, almost all of whom receive loans at taxpayer expense, drop out and never finish, that is a vault full of money left on the table. Of those who actually suffer the insufferable indoctrination by professors who would be more at ease in the company of Karl Marx than James Madison, sixty percent are employed after college in jobs that require no college diploma.
     An additional detriment to society as a result of the "college for everyone" mentality is the shortage of professionals in the trades. Not having usual contact with those in the trades, many may not realize that plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and other tradesmen have seen their numbers decrease significantly, as the need for such professions has increased with the rising population. But the young of today, and of the last couple of decades, have been convinced by Leftist politicians that they should not have to expend the energy, nor dirty their hands, doing the kind of work that the trades require.
     The Left in this country has made matriculation into their seminaries, called universities, a necessity for working in fields that only 50 or 60 years ago may not have required a formal education. I know a man, for instance, that is in his eighties, but when he was in his twenties he read everything he could about his passion, which was engineering. He proved he could do the job and was hired by Boeing Corporation, a feat today that would not be possible without going through the official college indoctrination.
     The fact is that while everyone complains, and the Left demonizes, "Big Oil," the price of their product has only increased a fraction of what education has over the last forty years. No one ever talks about "Big Education," at least not on the Left. And with a success rate of only fifty percent, universities would never survive in the free market like other private enterprises.
     The more responsible thing for us to be doing rather than encouraging every child to attend college, is teaching them how to recognize their strengths and weaknesses. If they have an aptitude for study, then fine, send them to college. But if they have mechanical aptitude, encourage more apprentice programs from which they can gain the skills needed to succeed in the trades.
     But the Left is not about securing equality of opportunity, but about securing parity of political thought. Hence, send everyone to college so they can be immersed in that political thought. It is not what is best for society, every student, or even those who do attend college, to have government raising tuitions, decimating the trades, and bankrupting taxpayers in order to consolidate power and perpetuate singularity of thought.

Friday, June 20, 2014

Obama's "Get Out Of Political Jail Free Card"

     The Obama administration is crowing about the "capture" of alleged mastermind of the Benghazi terrorist attack of September 11, 2012, Ahmed Abu Khatallah, like a child bragging about catching a goldfish in a 2 gallon fish bowl. My question is, "What took them so long?" A valid question since they have known where Khatallah was almost immediately following the attacks. And although it may have been difficult for the Obama administration to capture Ahmed immediately after the incident, having already put the filmmaker in jail who they were saying was responsible for the attack, it was not difficult for them to keep an eye on him as he sipped coffee in some of Libya's finest cafes.
     In fact, Obama's Department of State issued official permissions to journalists who traveled to Libya to sip coffee as well while they discussed the price of the fava bean with Khatallah. Khatallah would have been captured by any other administration within a week of the attacks, because most other presidents would have saw him as an enemy combatant responsible for the deaths of an Ambassador and three other Americans. But Barack Obama saw Khatallah as a get out of political jail free card. Just as he saw Osama Bin Laden, and how he tought the Bergdahl exchange would be viewed by the American public, had they not been too obtuse to see the brilliance of his clever negotiating skills. In each situation, action was delayed until such a time that it would provide the greatest political advantage to the Obama administration.
     The pressures on President Obama were mounting in the days and weeks leading up to Ahmed Abu Khatallah's "capture." There was the Veterans Administration scandal, Trey Goudy's committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, Louis Lerner's emails floating around in the ether before a hard drive crash fortuitously removed them from the face of the earth, and of course the backlash of the Bowe Bergdahl trade for the world's top five terrorists. Mr. Obama was feeling political pressure, and then he remembered Khatallah sipping coffee and chewing the fat with American journalists.
     But just when poor Barack was getting ready to pop the cork on the champagne to celebrate an end to Khatallah's cafĂ©-sitting days, those pesky terrorists in Iraq threw another road block in his path of freedom from political jail. The Islamist States of Iraq and Syria, ISIS for short, completely buried the president's latest accomplishment of "capturing" the mastermind of the Benghazi attacks. Just as the Bin Laden killing was soon buried by Obama's fiscal malpractice in August 2011 when the United States suffered its first downgrade of its credit rating in history. And just like any political benefit from the Bergdahl trade was buried by the fact that he was a deserter at best, and a traitor at worst.
     It is hard to say how many more get out of political jail free cards President Obama has in his bottomless bag of political gimmickry. But the mess he has made of Iraq is surely in need of something more than the tired old escape clause of, "It is Bush's fault." Maybe he has D. B. Cooper on ice in the White House basement being saved for just such an occasion.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

The Washington Redskin (Potatoes ?)

     Leftists like Barack Obama, and much of the modern Democrat party, sing the tired old refrain of separation of church and state whenever it suits their political agenda to deny Americans the freedom of their own religious conscience. Never mind that the concept is not contained within the bounds of the Constitution, and that these same Leftists do not apply it to their own religiosity.When it comes to the sacraments of their faith like abortion, climate change, and government imposed equality, they are more than happy to tighten the bounds between the state and the church of Leftism.
     A recent example is the Obama administration, through its Patent Office, cancelling the trademark registration of the professional football team, the Washington Redskins. You may remember that a few short weeks ago the tyrannical Senate of the United States of America sent a letter to the Redskins' ownership "requesting" they retire what they said was an offensive name. In typical Leftist fashion, this request came from white Democrats and not the alleged target of the offense, Native Americans. In fact, a recent poll completed by the Associated Press found that almost 80% of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins name.
     Further evidence of the complete lack of interest among the Native American community for what a professional football team calls itself, was seen at a recent event to honor Navajo code talkers from World War II. Two of the honorees wore Redskins jackets. This issue is illustrative of the hubris and arrogance of the Left, thinking that offended persons are too stupid to know they should be offended, therefore they as the "enlightened" Leftist must use the power of government to force people to live by their twisted sense of right and wrong.
     The other issue that this blatant disregard for the Constitution illustrates is how bloated the federal government has gotten with its own authority, granting itself powers well outside the purview of the Constitution. It has been a growing concern for a handful of decades, but has accelerated beyond the stratosphere of the tenets of sensible self-government in recent years. The mission of the U.S. Patent Office is to provide for trademark protection, not determine the political morality of said trademark. That morality is determined by the people in a free society. But the people did not see this as an issue, and therefore the Leftist in government took upon themselves to impose their religious beliefs, informed by political correctness, on the nation founded on personal liberty and limited government.
     The Washington Redskins faced this same cancellation of their trademark in the late nineties and prevailed on appeal. My guess is they will do so this time as well. My advice to them, if they do not prevail, is to keep the name and change the logo on their helmets to an image of a redskin potato. That way they can not be seen as offending any group, unless the Leftists in government decide that vegetables are a protected class.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

The Amazing Louis Lerner And Her Magical Hard Drive

     As sure as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, former IRS head Louis Lerner's alleged computer hard drive crash did not eliminate her sensitive emails from the face of the earth never to be seen again. I am not saying that they have not disappeared into the void of nothingness, only that her hard drive crash was not responsible. The Contingency Of Operations Plan created by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, insures that all government correspondence, data, and information be backed up to a safe, off-site location in case it is needed to restore lost data.
     The C.O.O.P. law notwithstanding, failed hard drives are mined for data everyday by firms whose business it is to retrieve data from crashed hard drives. Even drives that have been in fires or floods can sometimes have some of their data saved. Many times when the electronic circuit board has failed as well as the mechanics of the drive, the platters inside can be removed and placed into another drive and the data can be retrieved. I suppose the Obama administration never heard of computer forensic specialists.
     Even if the data from Ms. Lerner's emails was no longer on her hard drive, emails always originate from a mail server and then are sent to client computers. As far as we know, the government's mail server did not crash, only Louis Lerner's personal computer hard drive. The absolutely unbelievable lie told by IRS officials, and supported by the administration, is beyond the reach of decency, heck it is beyond the reach of indecency and plants itself firmly in the land of filthy behavior unbefitting even the political hacks in the current administration.
     The lie that has been told about Louis Lerner's emails is as obvious as the one told by the child with a tube of her mother's lipstick in her hand, with that same lipstick all over the drapes, saying she did not do it. But the actual lie is not so important as the fact that this administration felt confident enough that they would not be challenged in the telling of it. And but for some on the Right, they have not been. The lie, and the subsequent non-response by the main stream media and others, is illustrative of just how far this president and his administration have traveled into the darkness of larceny and hubris.
     But the ho-hum attitude being brought to bear against this blatant dishonesty by an organization that made its reputation on expecting complete honesty from taxpayers, and the complicity by the White House in the lie, is a harbinger of a culture in decline. Politicians are going to stretch the truth, and even lie. And Barack Obama could hold a seminar on how to do so. But when a large swathe of American opinion either becomes numb to the lies, does not see them as important, or incorporates them into their own daily behavior, we have knowingly and willingly abandon our own liberty. For the cornerstone of liberty is probity and rectitude, and without them, a culture can not survive its own freedom.
  

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

The Dumping On America; Not Only An Immigration Story

     The Obama immigration policy, or the lack thereof, has directly resulted in the dumping at our borders of Guatemalan, San Salvadorian, and Peruvian children. Turning trained defenders of the border, i.e. the Border Patrol, into nurse maids and babysitters. A recent survey conducted by the Border Patrol of the children has concluded that ninety five percent of them made the arduous trip through Mexico because family and friends in the United States had sent word that the Obama administration had changed U.S. immigration law, so once they crossed our border they were assured of staying.
     This dumping of thousands of illegal immigrant children by the Obama administration is not the first time they have dumped on America. The president began his administration by dumping onto the taxpayers the bill for his compassion in helping those who got in over their heads with a mortgage they could not afford. He has dumped almost 8 trillion dollars in debt, and counting, on Americans who have not even been born yet, and their children and grand children. He has dumped a choking, drowning, and crushing amount of federal regulations on business, which has created one of the worst labor markets since the Great Depression.
     One of the worst things that Barack Obama has dumped on America is a hopelessness and despair of average citizens who see their country, a country once the envy of the world because of its Rule of Law and individual liberty, quickly disappearing into a cesspool of corruption and lawlessness that is the current administration. And the more venal and debauched the Obama administration becomes, the less liberty the average citizen enjoys.
     With all the dumping that Barack Obama has done on America, it is no surprise that he would use these illegal immigrant children as a political human shield. The president, and most of the members of his party, are motivated entirely by the singularity of the treachery of politics. Those who refuse to step into the light and see this administration, and much of the modern Democrat party, for what it is, do so at their own and the country's risk. There is no compassion in any of their policies, let alone in any of their rhetoric or causes.
     When President Obama recently said that our future depended on these children, he was speaking of course about the Democrat party's future. And it is a sin of the highest degree for Democrats and Leftists like Mr. Obama to deplete and confiscate, not only these children's future, but America's future, for the sake of ensuring political power for his party. And as Americans we must no longer travel through our daily lives in the stupor of emotionalism that is doled out by Leftist politicians whose only goal is to retard our critical thinking skills and replace individual liberty with collective responsibility.
    

Saturday, June 14, 2014

The Race Card Is A Joker

     One of the favorite political ploys of Democrats is the employment of the Race Card. The functional use of which is based on the barbaric practice of slavery, ended by Republicans and the Christian Right 150 years ago. History matters little to Democrats, their intended political targets, or anyone else on the Left. What matters most is the Race Card's ability to verbally tar and feather anyone who opposes the imposition of their big government, liberty mitigating agenda designed to coral political power around themselves.
     The Race Card was first played by Democrats running against Abraham Lincoln in his bid for the presidency. They accused Honest Abe of having abolitionist sympathies to ruin any chance he had of garnering Southern votes. Back then, Democrats wore their racism proudly, not like today when they bury it under public policy that aims to convince blacks and whites that the former is incapable of achieving because of the latter. This necessitates the need for bigger federal programs designed to "level the playing field."
     The playing of the Race Card is easier for Democrats now that the only member of congress to have been a former member of the KKK, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, is deceased. The number of pretzels that Democrats from Senator Byrd himself to former President Bill Clinton, had to twist themselves into defending the good senator's racist past, would make Rold Gold jealous. Not to mention all the racist remarks made by Democrats from Harry Reid-"Barack is capable of slipping in and out of the negro dialect"- to Vice President Joe Biden-"Finally we have a clean, articulate black man we can run for president"- it is no wonder Democrats try to brand Republicans with the moniker of "racist" by employing the Race Card.
     Like they have done with the words rape, equality, sexist, and so many others, the Democrats have so expanded the definition of racism as to apply the term to anyone who disagrees with parts of their radical agenda that have nothing to do with the color of ones skin. And in so doing, the Race Card has become a joker. It is a placeholder to be used to represent any number of positions taken by those on the Left when they choose to have immunity from debate or close public inspection of their policies.
     I do not expect that Democrats will cease and desist from playing the Race Card anytime soon, essentially because it works. Until the mass of public opinion relegates the Race Card to the status of pariah on decent and moral public debate that it is, Democrats will continue to use it to try and rig the game of public policy in their favor. But the Democrats inability to defend their ideology without the bastardization of words like race, diminishes the unique tradition of American free speech and debate that the Founders of this great nation worked so hard to weave into the fabric of the free nation they created.
 

Friday, June 13, 2014

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory

     Well it took Democrats 11 years, and one and half presidential terms, but they have finally assured a United States defeat in Iraq. Mosul has fallen to insurgents, read: terrorists, as well as Fallujah. Baghdad is in danger of being lost and the Iraqi government has had their pleas for support from the Obama administration go mostly unanswered. To be fair, President Obama has been too busy giving the Taliban in Afghanistan their top generals back in exchange for an Army deserter, and millions in walking around cash that they can use to restock their munitions.
     I remember in the early days of the Iraq War, a letter surfaced from Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller to his fellow Democrats in congress on the best ways to sabotage their own country's war effort. This treachery was met with a big yawn by the main stream media, in fact they questioned the methods by which the memo was leaked. Of course we all know the "rest of the story." Democrats did everything in their power to destroy not only George W. Bush, but the progress toward victory he had made in Iraq.
     Now with the Al Qaeda-linked groups having their way with the country of Iraq, "help" for the embattled government there has come not from the United States government, which helped birth a more democratic form of government in that once oppressed nation, but from a once bitter adversary, Iran. It would require the height of obtuseness and naivetĂ© to think that Iran wishes in its heart of hearts to see Iraq succeed as a democracy. If the Ayatollah refuses to loosen the chains of tyranny on his own people, he certainly is not sending Iranian assets to Iraq to ensure freedom for its people.
     No, the intention of Iran in offering "help" to the Iraqi government in their time of national emergency can almost assuredly be for nefarious interests and not humanitarian ones. It was after all the Iranians that were supplying material support to the insurgents throughout the U.S. effort to stabilize Iraq and bring it the benefits of self-rule. It hardly seems that they would now be wanting to eradicate those same insurgents for the sake of a form of government that they abhor.
     This of course is not the first time that Democrats have tarnished the greatness of their own country by actively pursuing its defeat. The Vietnam War was decidedly and firmly in the win column of the United States, just ask any of the North Vietnamese generals who were licking their wounds after the Paris Peace Accords. Until, that is, Watergate and the subsequent take over of congress by Democrats because of it. The Democrats cut off all military and material support for South Vietnam which American soldiers had died and been wounded to secure for the cause of liberty. Without that support, the communist North overran the South and murdered hundred of thousands that would not have otherwise died, all because of Democrats in the U.S. Congress.
     I am without words as a result of the prospect of Democrats once again losing a war that the United States had won, purely for political placation of their radical base. It is a shame that Democrats have so little respect for the dead American soldiers and the dead Iraqis that sacrificed so much to give that country some semblance of liberty, only to have it handed to the forces of evil. But then I should not be surprised that an ideology of weakness and duplicity would surrender its country's laurels to an ethos of hate, despair, and oppression.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

"I Was Born A Poor Black Child."

     The quote which titles this post is from the 1970s classic movie, The Jerk, starring Steve Martin. In the movie, Martin's character Navin Johnson is a white man who was adopted by a black family when he was just a baby, and he does not realize he is not black until his adoptive mother tells him. The knowledge begins a rip roaring odyssey in one of the funniest rags-to-riches-back to rags-back to riches tales ever told.
      Barack Obama manipulated much of America during the presidential campaign of 2008 into believing he was a poor, disadvantaged minority just like Navin. The truth is Barack's step-father was an executive for Shell oil, and when he began to influence young Barry too much with his dangerous ideas about free market capitalism, Barack's mother sent him to live with her parents. Barack then grew up in Hawaii in a plush upper middle-class condo provided him by his grandmother who was a vice president of the Bank of Hawaii. He attended one of the finest prep schools in the country and benefited greatly from his grandparents affluence.
     The man who "poet," Toni Morrison called "The first black president," Bill Clinton, also convinced a gullible base of voters that he to was a poor kid who made it good. The Fact is that Bill's step-father, Roger Clinton, moved the family from the poorer environs of Hope, Arkansas to the more affluent community of Hot Springs when Bill was just a toddler. Roger Clinton provided many advantages to his new family as a result of his 400 acres of land and the Buick dealership he owned. Bill Clinton also went to some of the finest schools money could buy, but to this day he and Hillary still refer to his impoverished upbringing.
     And then of course there is Elizabeth Warren, who claimed native American blood to get a university job. When it was discovered years later that she had as much native American heritage in her family as General George Custer, she was forgiven by the Left, because she "really was in sync with the plight of native Americans." She went on to be elected Senator from the state of Massachusetts by gullible voters who did not seem to mind being lied to.
     What is my point to the preceding? Well, just that Democrats have a long tradition of not only being disingenuous about their policies, but lying about their own biographies in order to receive support from a gullible public. Those on the Left seem to have an innate aversion to telling the truth, even when it involves an inconsequential tidbit. Like when Hillary Clinton said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary after he scaled the heights of Mt. Everest. Only problem is that by the time Sir Edmund made his historic climb, Hillary Rodham was already five years old.
     There is a certain dishonesty to politicians on the Left that requires them to place a higher value on their politics than on probity. So if manufacturing a past for themselves that did not actually exist helps them get elected, they have no compunction in doing so. The problem with the Lefts manufactured biographies of economic hardship is that they often lead to very real hardship for the country.
     Modern Leftist politicians are a study in dichotomy. They feign poverty, yet gobble up others' wealth with an alarming rate of alacrity. They claim to be compassionate, yet heartlessly and deliberately create dependence. They claim to be liberty's protector as they create public policy that leaves it exposed to the danger of extinction. And the worst dichotomy of all is that they take an oath before God and man to protect the sanctity of the United States Constitution, and then proceed to shred it into confetti.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Cantor Loss Does Not Surprise Me

     House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's primary defeat in Virginia to the Tea Party backed Dave Brat illustrates two points clearly. One, the Tea party is far from dead, as some on the Left and in the Republican establishment had wished. And two, money in politics is not the pariah to democracy that some complain vociferously that it is.
     Mr. Brat, an economics professor at Randolph-Macon College, defeated Mr. Cantor by a comfortable twelve point margin. And in as much as the establishment on both sides of the aisle have been trying to talk the Tea Party to an early political demise, this victory over a Republican, who among other conservative transgressions, has supported a form of amnesty for illegal aliens, is a warning shot across the bow of any Republican who would sacrifice conservative principles for political expediency.
     Additionally, this defeat of an entrenched incumbent like Majority Leader Cantor, who out raised  his unknown challenger by $5 million to $206,663, is an example that money does not always mean political victory. In the end, it is a well informed electorate that decides election outcomes, and free speech should not be limited by restricting campaign donations or spending. The big spenders in politics lose more often than is admitted by those who wish to limit spending on political campaigns. Just ask Mitt Romney, who spent over $100 million of his own money on two bids for the presidency, and came up short both times.
     The political pundits are already enshrining Eric Cantor's loss in the tabernacle of immigration reform. Saying that his support for that one issue spelled demise for his hopes of two more years in the House of Representatives. But Mr. Cantor has shown himself to be weak-kneed and jelly-spined on other issues, most notably spending limit increases and continuing resolutions. Political observers should not underestimate the anger among the conservative base over Mr. Cantor and his fellow Republicans who supported the recent debt limit increase, when they essentially gave President Obama the ability to spend as much as he wants. After all, it was over spending by the federal government that gave rise to the Tea Party in the first place.
     The Eric Cantor primary loss may be a one off event, or it may be a harbinger of a political tsunami that will wash away some in Washington who wish to conduct the nation's business with constitutional disregard and a politics-as-usual modus operandi. We must all wait to see which path the electorate will choose this Fall and in the general election in 2016. The path of responsible government that travels the tightly constructed rails laid by the Founders, or the unrestricted, boundless and free-floating authoritarian path that has grown government in recent years to metastasize in the vital organ of liberty itself.
    

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

The Disaster Of Obama "Lone Cowboy" Foreign Policy

     President Obama, in defending his unilateral and illegal deal with the Taliban of Bowe Bergdahl the deserter for five top Al Qaeda leaders, has used the worn refrain, "We don't leave anyone behind." It is a shame that he did not feel that way in September of 2012 when his foreign policy was directly responsible for doing just that to Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans who died at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi, Libya. And it is a further shame borne entirely by the Obama administration that the deserter Bergdahl was given greater solicitude by his government than Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, who sits in a Mexican prison for making a wrong turn and winding up in Mexico with firearms in his possession which were legal in the U.S., and which he disclosed immediately to Mexican authorities.
     Actually, to call Bowe Bergdahl a deserter is an insult to previous deserters throughout history who may have had their reasons not to fight. A deserter is someone who leaves the field of battle to avoid the conflict. Mr. Bergdahl sought to associate himself directly with his country's enemies, which is what is commonly known as a traitor. A unanimous number of men who served with Bowe Bergdahl felt it was so important to dissuade the American people from believing the Obama subterfuge of Bergdahl as a hero, they violated a non-disclosure agreement they all signed with the U.S. military.
     Barack Obama and others on the Left, in the media and elsewhere, have tried to mitigate his disastrous deal with the Taliban by saying that the men released from Guantomino in exchange for Bergdahl were goat herders and farmers who were just swept up off the battle field with other enemy combatants. These men were most assuredly the Al Qaeda equivalent to members of Hitler's inner circle in the 1930s and 1940s. In fact, the administration was told by military advisors that these particular five were the last ones the administration should ever release from Guantomino.
     I have read many articles stating that prisoner exchanges are common in U.S.history, but none of the defenders of this concept will give any examples except the exchanges between the North and South during the Civil War, and other trades that consisted of rank for rank and number for number of prisoners from both sides of a conflict. They can not seem to proffer one example where a deserter at best, and a traitor at worst, was exchanged for a group of the enemies most valuable assets.
     The law that governs the kind of exchange made by Barack Obama, requires a president to do more than just give congress a heads-up. It requires the dissemination to congress of much more data in support of the exchange, and it strongly recommends that the president actually seek the counsel of congress. Neither of which the President did. It is the "lone cowboy diplomacy" with which the Left tried to plaster President Bush, in which President Obama has engaged throughout the entirety of his presidency. Contrary to the false narrative promulgated by the Left, President Bush did consult with congress on a host of foreign policy decisions, including two votes for the authorization of the use of force against our enemies in the Middle East.
     President Obama disdainfully ignoring congress and acting in a unilateral manner on domestic policy has proven to be an economic disaster. But in doing the same in the arena of foreign policy, he has embolden our enemies, alienated our allies, and made the United States and the world much less safe in the 21st century.

Monday, June 9, 2014

President Obama's Lack Of Greatness

     Last week's seventieth anniversary of the D-Day invasion which turned the tide of World War II in favor of the United States and her allies, and rang the first bells of demise for the Nazis and their allies, also was illustrative of the stark difference between our current president and great presidents of the past. Namely Ronald Reagan. But when comparing Barack Obama to his previous 43 predecessors, he stands alone in his lack of greatness. And a comparison between Ronald Reagan's fortieth anniversary of D-Day speech and Barack Obama's recent seventieth anniversary speech is a glaring example of this lack of greatness.
     Ronald Reagan in his D-Day speech spoke of the "boys of Point du Hoc" and  "the men who took the cliffs." Barack Obama spoke of an Afghanistan war veteran sitting with the first lady at one of his State of the Union shows. Where Ronald Reagan spoke of democracy being "worth dying for" because it is "the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man." Barack Obama spoke of buying a veteran at the celebration a hamburger because, "what could be more American."
     Hearing Ronald Reagan's fortieth D-Day anniversary speech last week, and re-reading it for my self several times, illuminates for me the true faith and belief that he had, not only in the greatness of America, but in all those who would employ the "use of force in liberation, not in conquest." Even when Barack Obama swerves into patriotic rhetoric, it is a meandering maneuver meant to placate the patriotic, not join them in commitment and dedication to the exceptionalism of America. An example of this behavior is when Mr. Obama refused to wear the U.S. flag lapel pin during the Democrat primaries for the 2008 presidential election because he felt it would alienate him from his base in the party. But once he was their nominee, he wore it in order to appeal to a wider swath of Americans in the general election.
     To Barack Obama, patriotism is a political tool used to cajole the patriotic, and dispensed with afterward like an old shoe that has served its purpose. To men like Ronald Reagan, the fidelity to liberty and honor were daily habits and lifetime avocations. Another example of the kind of honor that great men have that is absent from the character of our current president is the statement General Eisenhower wrote before D-Day, and never had to make. It was a note he kept in his breast pocket in case the invasion was a failure, in which he gave honor and praise to the troops and took all the blame for the failure upon himself.
     If Barack Obama would have been Ike in 1944, the statement in his breast pocket would have taken credit for his daring decision to land troops on the beaches of Normandy. Just as he did with the killing of Osama Bin Laden. An additional statement would have been in the breast pocket of Barack Obama on that day if the invasion failed, blaming its failure on Republicans. And that is what greatness in a man comes to, the ability to motivate honor and duty to a cause greater than self, standing in the shadow of success, and alone in the spotlight of failure. This is a quality sadly missing from Barack Obama, and sadly so not only for the United States of America, but for the world in need of that kind of leadership.

Saturday, June 7, 2014

The Udall Amendment = Death Of Free Speech

     For those rank and file Democrats out there that still believe the leaders of their party in congress support the founding principles enshrined in the Constitution and other essential documents, consider the Udall Amendment. This is an amendment to the United States Constitution introduced by Democrat senator, Tom Udall, which essentially repeals the first amendment. It severely limits the ability of campaign donors, as well as considering volunteer work for a candidate or issue to be "in-kind contributions," subject to draconian regulatory oppression.
     This effort by tyrants in our own government to restrict freedom of speech expressed with dollars, is not only the antithesis of the values that motivated the American Revolution, but catapults large boulders into the haul of liberty's ship. As Steve Forbes says, "It is time we get the politics out of money, not the money out of politics." Money is the mothers milk of not only politics, but freedom itself. If a candidate or idea is not able to garner financial support, then why would any sane person want to inflict them on a larger group of Americans?
     The Leftists in the Democrat party and elsewhere wish to restrict corporations and wealthy persons from spending their money to express support for an idea or individual running for office. But in what other context of our American way of life is spending restricted in this way? Corporations are allowed to spend hundred of billions of dollars each year promoting products from apple sauce to zip ties, but the over zealous government regulators, and the ones who want to empower them, aim to restrict corporations from financially supporting ideas. The first amendment was created to protect the free expression and support for ideas, and money is not a negation of that right, but a powerful expansion of it.
     The Udall amendment goes beyond just limiting a person or corporation's ability and right to give money to an individual or cause as they see fit, but it would limit books, movies, and other intellectual works that have, or could be considered to have, a political point of view in support of or opposition to a candidate or issue.
     Obviously the Udall amendment has about as much chance of becoming part of the Constitution as the Obama presidency has of being confused with the Reagan presidency. But the fact that it is being proposed at all is educative of how far the Democrat party has strayed from the values and principles of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The fact that there are any restrictions on campaign donations by individuals and corporations is anathema to the ethos that founded this great nation. And those who favor such restrictions, or the measures contained within the Udall amendment, aim to transform a free nation into one where political ideas are crushed under the heavy boot of group think and the tyranny of deliberately imposed ignorance. 

Friday, June 6, 2014

Edward Snowden, Hero Or Heritic

     Recently the little piss ant who thinks he is an aardvark, Edward Snowden, gave an interview full of the delusions that have bore their way deep into his psyche. The man who is still considered a hero by many libertarians, and confusingly, by many conservatives, spoke candidly about his role in the high security agencies within our government. Mr. Snowden can not seem to keep his big trap shut about anything, excepting his dishonorable behavior and subsequent defection to this nation's enemy.
     I do not want my intentions to be misunderstood, I am completely opposed to the National Security Administration using a dragnet approach to gathering every Americans' personal Internet and phone habits for possible use at some point in the future. Even if the Obama administration was completely trustworthy (I will give you some time to stop laughing hysterically) how do we know that the one that comes after will be, or the one after that, or the one after that, ad infinitum? Make no mistake, I am not now, was never, and will ever be in the future in favor of data being collected on innocent Americans by government in the off chance one of those innocent Americans squander their innocence by participating in a plot to harm the security of the United States.
     What I am opposed to is someone who has been given a trust, breaking that trust by exposing classified information to the media, then high tailing it to Russia for asylum. Mr. Snowden had many other options he could have exhausted before spilling his guts to the media. And if unburdening himself to the media was a last resort, and he took it, then he should have stayed in the country he claims to be protecting and face the consequences of his act. That is what men of honor do, they do not spray their own country with the bullets of their cowardice and then hide behind the coattails of Vladimir Putin.
     Additionally, if Mr. Snowden is so loosed-lipped with classified information, and so chummy with the Russians, who knows what other data he has given them. Data that may actually endanger American lives or make it harder to execute policy in the interest of the United States. We must also look at the result of Edward Snowden's actions, which was minimal at best. As much as President Obama talked of change in the policy, the private information of every American is still being gathered on a daily basis. So not only has Mr. Snowden failed at exhibiting behavior becoming a decent and honorable man, but he has also failed to advance the cause of liberty he high-jacked as a conveyance to his Russian asylum.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

The Legacy Of A Souless President

     I just figured out the difference between real men of honor and Barack Obama. It is that men of honor build their respect upon a foundation of accomplishments and conduct that becomes the purest definition of probity. Barack Obama has, throughout the entirety of his adult life, reviled the practices of rectitude that bestow respect upon a man, and has chosen to impose respect through titles he has managed to usurp from far better men than himself. Encapsulated in the vacuous suit worn by the president is all the substance of a puff of air.
     The preceding description of our current president was best exemplified by his recent speech at West Point to the best of our best. As hard as Mr. Obama tried to elicit the applause from the cadets that was so copious and vociferous for both President Bushes and Ronald Reagan, he could not attain  enough applause to even drowned out the sound of the flapping wings of a butterfly. The cadets instinctively know, as do many other Americans, that one can not simply place lipstick on a pig and call it a date.
     One of the effects of Barack Obama's vapidity will haunt this republic for decades, and even generations. It is that by the end of his second term, many young minorities will have spent the entirety of their lives, or a good portion thereof, listening to a president exemplify the vice of dishonesty, instead of the virtue of honor. They will have been raised on the bitter herb of self-loathing for their own country as it was originally founded, and taught to use their minority status as a weapon against those who refuse them what they believe to be their entitlement of imposition on society.
     The deleterious effects visited upon the United States by Barack Obama go beyond a flaccid economy and impotent foreign policy. The real shame of his presidency is the fundamental way in which he has changed America. No longer is truth expected from the next generation, because it has been banished to the sewer of political expediency by this president and his sycophantic gnomes in the media, academia, and entertainment. And the young, even though they may not consciously study the politics of the day, are nonetheless influenced by it in their behavior and character.
     How many teens of the 1990s de-moralized oral sex because President Clinton had engaged in the activity in the Oval Office, one of the most sacred and reverent symbols of our nation's rectitude. Not unlike Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama has dismissed all reverence and honor from the sentinel of our national pride. And it has been replaced with the dark, dreary, and dank rotting nothingness that is the asepticism of the Leftist ethos. This is the legacy bequeathed to a free and moral people by an empty and soulless president. 

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

The Soft Treason Of Political Folly

     The Obama administration's deal with the Taliban to release five of the most impressive terrorists from Guantanamo in exchange for deserter Bowe Bergdahl, is like trading a Reggie Jackson rookie baseball card for the stick of gum that originally was packaged with it. In fact, watching the Obama administration's jubilation over such an obvious victory for our enemy is analogous to people of the time applauding the Hindenburg for those who survived its inferno. Never before in American history has a president been either so totally obtuse or so entirely complicit in working against the interests of the United States, both options having their foundation firmly planted in dereliction of duty.
     Whether one thinks that Sargent Bergdahl was captured and held against his will as a prisoner of the Taliban, or as the note he left behind would indicate, he deserted the U.S. military for which he had shown so much contempt, the potential loss of life directly attributable to the release of the Taliban dream team is quite assuredly a victory for our foes. Mr. Bergdahl already has cost the lives of six of his comrades who went in search of a man that they knew was a deserter. The men who served with Sargent Bergdahl, many of them expressing their loathing for the man in emails to retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, were well acquainted with his sympathies for our enemy.
      I think there is little evidence that this young man is some kind of hero to traditional American values. But he does represent the values of the age of Obama, where duty, honor, and sacrifice are not so important as political theater and a rebuke of traditional U.S. military prowess. After all this is the age of manufactured heroes and the vilification of real heroes. Everyday we witness this administration and others on the Left attempting to destroy good men who uphold the sanctity of traditional American values, while they venerate those who represent the antithesis of those values.
     There is so much wrong with President Obama's "deal" with the Taliban. There is of course the price he has unwittingly put on the heads of American soldiers and civilians, a price which will encourage their kidnapping in the future. Furthermore, President Obama's actions may well be found illegal, having not involved the advice or permission of Congress. Additionally, Secretary Hagel was caught in a bald-faced lie when he said they had to act quickly because of Bowe Bergdahl's rapidly deteriorating health. But the most egregious aspect of this clumsy and juvenile affair was the Rose Garden appearance by the president and the deserter's parents.
     The president of the United States, while our country is at war with radical Islam, has the parents of a deserter at best and a traitor at worse to the White House, where the father sports an Islamic beard and asks for the blessings of Allah in Arabic. It is analogous to FDR having the parents of a Nazi sympathizer to the White House in 1944, and the father giving the Nazi salute and saying "Heil Hitler."  If nothing else it shows a complete and utter disrespect for all the innocent victims of Islamic terrorists and the brave men and women of the United States military who have given their lives to defeat this nefarious enemy.    
     Really, when all the other aspects of this "deal" are considered, from the ludicrous to the dangerous, the one that sticks in my crawl is the empowering of our enemy by our own president and the total disregard it shows for the armed forces under his command. Barack Obama has shown himself unfit to be Commander In Chief with this one action, an action that many, including myself, consider to be the soft treason of political folly.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Paradise Lost: A Stolen Refuge

     In the relatively short span of my lifetime, fifty two years and counting, our culture has been transformed from one of civility and decency, to one ruled by the crass and unruly. Those who just a few decades ago would have been banished from public participation in activities with decent persons, have now, in too many instances, been given preferential treatment over those with a sense rooted in decorum and grace. We are subjected to the preceding premise in more and more areas of every day life, from rude and selfish public behavior, to offenders actually being rewarded for their rule breaking.
     To Witt: My friend and I enjoy camping in the great outdoors and have been frequenting a family campground in mid Ohio for several years. We chose this particular location because we had grown tired of the party atmosphere that many of the other campgrounds tolerated much too easily. We were thrilled to have found a place whose stated motto was, "A quiet refuge." A place that not only featured the beauty of nature, but that catered to those who wished to enjoy its serenity unencumbered by the distractions and detractions of everyday life. All that changed this past weekend when our "quiet refuge" was stolen by the bad behavior in full exhibition by fellow campers, and complicity on the part of campground management.
     My friend and I were assaulted by the barbaric behavior of a tribe of miscreants that camped across from us and spent their trip not engaged in the pursuit of nature, but in a drug-induced vociferous odyssey that lasted through the night into the early hours of the morning. When my friend and I complained to campground management, they said they would talk to the group and let them know that if their behavior did not change, they would be asked to leave. The following night was worse, and the next morning when we approached management again they tried to placate us with empty praise for the groups manners and respectful behavior towards campground staff.
     As the reprobates across from us were leaving the park they drove their multi-vehicle caravan by our site, blowing their horns, clapping, and making as much noise as they could. As if to flaunt their victory over dignity and decorum. Our experience left us soured on the campground that was suppose to be a "quiet refuge," but also less sanguine about the general civility of our culture. The larger point beyond our ruined camping trip, is that there are fewer and fewer, if any, places one can escape the ribaldry of the immoral who would take not only comfort, but pleasure in wallowing in the sewage of human behavior.  
     Our neighbors from hell for two days at the campground are products of a society that has raised a couple of generations of children to believe they are the center of the universe. It is the result of a culture that teaches members of certain victim groups that not only are they entitled to respect, they are entitled to withhold their respect for others. It is a culture that has turned its people away from moral behavior in favor of the debauchery of selfishness. It is a culture that is in the death throws of anti-culture and depravity. It is a culture that had paradise in the palm of its hand as a result of its virtue, but has allowed the vice of ignorance to swallow it whole.