The U.S. Constitution-Long On Limits, Short On Remedies

     For anyone who reads social media, listens to talk radio, or scans the letters to the editor in archaic newspapers, the phrase, "Clean house" has been a repeating theme for as long as there has been public debate. The idea that we can somehow magically get rid of all the people in power in our government and replace them with angels is contradictory to what even our Founders believed. It is why they wrote into our founding documents the idea of limitations on government, and balancing the remaining power between three branches.
     So one might ask the salient question, "How did we get here?" Here being the place where laws are no longer made by the people's representatives in congress, but by bureaucracies under the control of the executive branch of government. Many are upset with Barack Obama for over-extending his constitutional authority, and they wonder why nothing has been done legally to stop him. The framers of the constitution created a beautiful document that relied heavily upon the honor of the men who took its oath.
     All presidents have wanted to extend their authority to implement an agenda, that is nothing new. But where past presidents have consulted legal minds in order to keep them in the good graces of the constitution, Barack Obama has consulted legal minds to allow him ways to operate outside those good graces. The constitution is loaded with limitations but very few remedies for those who exceed those limitations. Impeachment is about the only remedy, and it has only been used twice before in American history, both times without the ultimate success of removing a president.
     I suspect that the Founders deliberately left out remedies for constitutional limit breakers so that they could be judged by the people of the United States with their power of the vote. The unfortunate part in American modernity is that the culture which elects representatives has become corrupted in the sense that it no longer wants limits on government. Too many in the culture have willingly abandon those limits for the worthless bobbles of government largess.
     If we are to keep self-governance in this country, and we want also to have honest representatives, we must change the culture that produces our representation. A military coup (as some short-sighted persons have suggested) or term limits, are not going to solve the problem that the culture has created. To do that we must change the culture, then we can change our government. Trying to change the government with the current culture left in place is like attempting to bail the sewage from your basement without first repairing the cracked pipe from where the sewage is coming.
    

Net Neutrality To Ruin Internet

     Today is the day that the Federal Communications Commission votes to increase its own power over the Internet. Which would be somewhat humorous in an Orwellian way if it were not so dangerous and tragic. As one of the Republican commissioners at the FCC put it, "This is a solution that will not work to fix a problem that does not even exist." Never is there so much repair of non-existent problems as there is in the big government model promulgated by Leftists like our current president, and those who have infested the bureaucracies of the federal government.
     The FCC's Net Neutrality regulations that will change the Internet for the worse comes in a 300 plus page document that is illustrative of Ronald Regan's characterization of the Left as "They see something moving and want to tax it. If it keeps moving they want to regulate it. If it stops moving they subsidize it." And in typical Orwellian fashion, the name Net Neutrality sounds harmless enough, but the devil, as they say, is in the details. 
     The primary argument against any further government incursion into the Internet is that it is not needed. The Internet grew to its current level of technological achievement and free market prosperity with very little government intrusion, and it certainly does not need it now. It was one of the few things that Bill Clinton got right, along with support from a bi-partisan congress, when in 1998 they decided the Internet should proceed unfettered by massive government regulation and control.
     Net Neutrality would allow the FCC to direct Internet traffic to particular sites, or away from particular sites, based on their definition of over-served or under-served segments. Additionally it would place so much regulatory burdens on providers that the incentive to improve speeds and services would be squashed under a mountain of government. The added costs to end users for slower speeds and mitigated content would spell a worsening of the Internet experience for most users. And all to fix problems that do not exist.
     The worse part is that this statist control of the free Internet would be decided by the 6 Democrat members of the 10 member commission at the Federal Communications Commission. To the extent that the internet must be regulated to mitigate restraint of trade and anti-competitive practices, current laws on the books do, and have done, a fine job. The new FCC regulations being voted on today are about limiting free speech on the Internet and giving government control of the greatest vehicle for Liberty, both political and financial, that the world has ever seen. 

The Ukraine-Russia-Iran Connection

     Many of Benjamin Netanyahu's opposition, both in Israel and the United States, have characterized his upcoming speech to congress and the American people as some sort of cheap election year parlor trick. The more likely truth is that the Prime Minister is giving his speech three weeks before the United States secret deal with Iran is signed. A deal, like the Democrat's health care law, that must be passed before anyone can know what is in it.
     From all accounts gleaned from previews of Mr. Netanyahu's speech, the Obama administration's deal with Iran will ensure a nuclear Iran and spell disaster, not only for Israel, but for the entire region of the Middle East. One may ask why the Obama administration is want to empower the original state sponsor of radical Islam. Some have postulated that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim and wants to destroy Israel, the United States, and all western values. The Answer is much more political than ideological.
     First, one must understand that the Obama administration's limp-wristed response to Russia invading Ukraine is directly related to the administration's deal-making with Iran. The Obama gang understands that to the extent that Iran has a nuclear program currently, the Russians have been a major contributor. Furthermore, any deal with Iran must receive the blessing, explicitly or implicitly, of Russia.
     The Iran nuclear deal is further complicated by the fact that Iran is Shiite, which comprises about 15% of the Muslim community, the Sunnis make up the rest. In the past, for the most part, the United States et al have aligned themselves with the Sunni majority. President Obama has turned this formula on its head by supporting the minority Shiite, which explains his soft response to Radical Islamists like ISIS.
     One may ask further why the Obama administration has chosen to side with the more radical aspect of Islam by tending to support the Shiite. We may never know for sure, but I think that is where the Leftist ideology of revering a minority, any minority, and rejecting the majority kicks in. In the Leftist world, minorities are always right and just and majorities are always corrupt and evil, accepting when that majority is Democrats in congress.
     When Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks before the United States congress and the American people, he will most likely not mention the connection between the Obama administration's eagerness to complete their deal with Iran and the danger it has caused to Ukraine and NATO allies in the region. Benjamin Netanyahu is concerned with the survival of his country and the continuation of the freedom they enjoy. A freedom that use to be supported by the United States government, but is now only supported by its people. The Prime Minister is hoping, through his speech, he can sway the U.S. government back to its principles of promoting Liberty and vigorously opposing evil. He has a tall order to fill with the Obama administration in control.   

Moral Clarity, Not Immoral Ambiguity

     When Rudy Giuliani had his moment of clarity about Barack Obama's love of this country, or lack there of, it was quickly followed this weekend by a back peddling demonstration by the former New York mayor that made trained circus bears look amateurish. The purpose of this post is not to litigate the decision of Mayor Giuliani to bow and crack to political pressure and walk back his comment about the president, but to examine his original statement.
     I have always felt that it is not so much that Barack Obama hates America as he does not love it as much as some. Barack Obama sees America like many women see their less-than-perfect boyfriends, a chance to change him into something with which they can peacefully coexist. Hence the remark by candidate Obama about fundamentally changing the country. That statement made by him just days before the 2008 election should have told anyone with half a brain his real intentions.
     To fundamentally change something, anything, one must have, if not hate for the thing as originally formulated, at least an extreme dislike. And America for Barack Obama, just like that less-than-perfect man for all those women out there, was and is an entity that does not live up to his standards and precepts. He runs around claiming that America falls short in being sensitive to his (and others) needs while trying to force sensitivity with outright aggression.
     Mr. Giuliani did not make a mistake claiming that Barack Obama does not love America, his mistake was in weakening his argument by seeming as to not believe it himself. This is an endemic problem in the Republican Party as of late. You hardly ever hear of a Democrat walking back any of the outrageous comments they make on a daily basis, but let Republicans support traditional American values and they fold like a cheap tent in a strong wind when they encounter the least bit of resistance.
     I have mentioned before on this blog the adherence to principles exhibited by men of principle, like Calvin Coolidge. President Coolidge believed in federalism, that federal money should not be used to the benefit of one group or another chosen by politicians in Washington. He took heaps of criticism and insults when he refused to call special sessions of congress so that taxpayer money could be dolled out to flood areas, first in Mississippi, then in his home state of Vermont.
     Coolidge knew that principles meant nothing if they were malleable and loosely defined. There are some on the Right, like Ted Cruz, who are devoted to the tried, tested, and true principles of values that founded this great nation. If those like Mr. Giuliani are not going to stand on principle it would be best if they kept silent and allowed men of principle to take the lead. The one thing that can save our country from the thousand years of darkness that Ronald Regan spoke of is moral clarity, not immoral ambiguity.   
    

Why The Presidency Has Alluded Republicans?

     There is much talk about the 2016 presidential race. Much of that talk on the Right has been a clattering of opinions between those who feel that a more moderate candidate like Jeb Bush has a better chance of winning, and those who opt for a more conservative nominee like Ted Cruz. I only mention those two men because they are the bookends of the Republican field, from the most Left-leaning to the most Right-leaning.
     The Republican base has been very frustrated as of late in national elections, but have made gains in both mid-term elections of the Obama era. Six years ago President Obama enjoyed Democrat control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In the span of two mid-term contests the Republicans have taken control, not only of those two national bodies, but many governorships and states legislatures.
     But have the Republicans' presidential losses as of late been due to the weakness of their candidates, or how they campaigned. John McCain, while he was not a particularly strong candidate should have had a better showing against the virtually unknown Barack Obama. And Mitt Romney should have easily unseated the incumbent president, after four years of a worsening economy, foreign affairs disasters like Benghazi, and domestic scandals like Solendra and Fast and Furious. After all, Barack Obama was the first president in history to preside over a downgrade of the nation's credit worthiness, and a weaker job market than when he took office.
     All of the above aside, I think the reason Republicans lose presidential elections is that they allow their political opposition to define them rather than defining themselves. The Obama campaign defined John McCain as being out-of-touch and feeble-minded. He proved it by not having a strong conservative approach to the financial crisis. Barack Obama did not have a clear response either, but he did not need one. His party not having been in power during the collapse, he could sit back silently and advantage himself with the ineptness of Senator McCain's response.
     The 2012 contest between President Obama and Mitt Romney saw much the same approach from the Obama campaign that worked so well in 2008. His campaign drew a picture of Mitt Romney as an elitist billionaire who had contempt for the common man. Even though the Obama campaign benefitted from money donated by 2/3 of Wall St. firms and PACs that were funded by billionaires like George Soros. And the glimmer of hope for conservatives that was provided by Mitt Romney in the first presidential debate quickly faded to political horror when he refused to mount an all out assault on the president for Benghazi and other examples of his incompetence.
     If Republicans have any chance of winning the presidency in 2016 they must clearly articulate who they are and what conservatism is. They must not allow the Democrats to define them and make them unpalatable to not only moderate voters, but the conservative base of the Party. The Republicans need to acquire the marketing skills of the Democrat Party. The Democrats have been able to sell the American voters on rotting meat package in an appealing package while the Republicans have had filet mignon wrapped in a dirty old tarp.

Is Barack Obama A Secret Muslim

     Many on the Right firmly believe that Barack Obama is a secret, or not so secret Muslim. The theory goes that the president's Islamic leanings have caused him to go easy on radical Islamic terrorism and is the reason that he will not utter the words Islam and terror in the same sentence. In fact, the votaries of this Obama-as-Muslim theory also say the president is trying to destroy America from within and make it fertile ground for the Islamic caliphate.
     The videos one can watch on YouTube purporting to show President Obama "admitting" to being Muslim show the president speaking positively about the faith. Not exactly proof of matriculation into said faith. I speak positively of Judaism, but that does not make me a Jew. I guess the difference is that we are actually at war, or at least should be at war, with the most radical parts of Islam. It is analogous to if President Roosevelt spoke kindly about Nazis during WWII.
     But is the current president's seeming respect for our enemies a result of faith or ideology? Sometimes the two blur into one line and it is difficult to judge which is which. But in the case of Barack Obama, I think I can say with certainty that his remarks that allegedly support the Muslim Faith are more a product of Leftism than of Islam. Many of the tenets of Leftism and Islam are similar and some of the goals remain shockingly symbiotic, but the two diverge in the realm of subtlety.
     Where the radical Islamist beheads, burns, and tortures his victims, the radical Leftist seeks to destroy his opponents by mitigating the general public's ability to think critically and reason rationally, therefore eliminating the need to actually execute opposition. President Obama's faux support of Islam the faith is simply the practice of Saul Alinsky's marginalizing your political opposition. What better way for Barack Obama to marginalize conservatives than with the hammer and sickle of applying political correctness to the acts and personage of this country's enemies?
     The way it works is that the Leftist morally equates the acts of our enemies with that of the dominant culture of our own country. Hence the statement by President Obama at the recent National Prayer breakfast where he equated the current acts of barbarism committed by radical Islam with the Christian crusades of a thousand years ago. But it could have been the acts of any faith or group that Mr. Obama thought he could use to silence conservatives, or any political opposition for that matter.
     The real truth I have seen in action over the last six years is that Barack Obama has no particular love or connection to blacks, Hispanics, or Islamists. He is a classic narcissist who will take any position or defend any group in order to advance his personal agenda of the accumulation of power and influence. A narcissist wants the love and admiration of everyone, and those who do not give him that unconditional adulation are automatically his enemies. He does not see political opposition, only devotees and enemies. And he will align with anyone or anything that will lead to the destruction of his enemies. 

Federal Injunction Gives Cover To Weak-Kneed Republicans

     So a federal court in Texas has issued a temporary injunction against President Obama's constitutionally-challenged amnesty executive order. And once again some on the Right have been placated by legalese that means very little. My theory is that the Texas court issued the injunction, not to stop President Obama, but to give cover to weak-kneed Republicans who are afraid of standing up for what is right if it involves "shutting down" part of the federal behemoth, namely the Department of Homeland Security.
     For at least the last four years that they have been able to, the Republicans have refused to employ one of the most effective tools available to them, the power of the purse. And before all those moderates out there begin to sing the same old sad song about how government shutdowns only hurt Republicans, the refusal to leave government shutdown on the table as a bargaining chip neuters any attempt to mitigate the destructive policies of this president.
     Besides the Republicans receiving cover from the Texas court, there really is no benefit to the injunction issued. President Obama has a history of disobeying orders by federal judges. Remember the two injunctions against his moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of the BP spill? In that case the administration was even caught red-handed cutting and pasting scientists names to a completely different report than the one they wrote in protest of the president's moratorium.
     And then there was the time when a federal judge issued an injunction to prevent implementation of ObamaCare, which the president also ignored. The injunction was before Chief Justice Roberts twisted himself, and the law, into a pretzel in order to pass constitutional muster, but it is illustrative of Barack Obama's disdain for any Rule of Law that negatively affects his agenda for a "New America."
     So now we have arrived at yet another showdown between President Obama and the Rule of Law. Some on the Right have been strangely mollified by the federal injunction issued yesterday, even though it will be used for toilet paper by the administration currently occupying the White House. But Republicans in congress can use the federal order as a reason to once again do nothing and ensure the continuity of the Leftist domination of the "People's Government."

Texas Sharia Law And The Easily Escalated

     In the high charged, 24/7 information overloaded environment which technology and political evangelism have created in this country, sometimes those on both sides of the aisle cut the tethers of reason which keep human emotions in check. The latest of these tethers comes out of Texas where some on the unhinged Right have convinced their brethren across the country that Sharia Law is coming to every town and hamlet for the purpose of transforming the United States of America from a Christian nation into an Islamic one.
     Let me state for the record that I think radical Islam is a danger to peace, freedom, and the tenets of Liberty enshrined by the founders of this country in its originating documents. But is what is being suggested in Texas anathema to those values, or just a legitimate practice of them? The fact is that the Islamic Tribunal suggesting that Sharia Law be allowed in Texas only applies to willing Muslims in the course of practicing their religion. And they have said that civil U.S. law will take precedence.
     Now of course the solicitude for the American justice system by Mujahed Bakhach, a member of the Islamic Tribunal in Texas, could be just a subterfuge practiced in order to get Sharia Law's foot in the door of the United States justice system. After all, the tribunal's function sounds fairly innocuous; settling disputes among its members, including the practice of Khula, which is when a woman initiates a divorce against her husband.
     Many religious faiths in America have tribunals and courts to mete out the justice of their faith's religious tenets on their congregants. The Catholic church has its council of bishops and even requires votaries of the faith in other countries to follow the edicts of a Pope who is domiciled in Rome, Italy. But always the precepts of any faith's system of justice can not directly challenge the laws of the United States' constitution.
     Many of the easily escalated on the Right have recently been trying to convince others that if the Texas Islamic Tribunal is allowed to engage in the practice of their religion in the same manner other faiths have done in this country since its founding, they will somehow destroy our form of constitutional government and we will all end up slaves of radical Islam.
     We should approach with caution anything which threatens the natural laws which originate the rights of all human beings, and which were outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Federalist Papers. But in so doing we should not restrict those rights for any segment of the population, no matter their faith. The legitimate practice of one faith in limitation by civil law is a limitation on all faiths and therefore an affront to the very values and principles in which we believe and hold dear.    

No, No, No To Re-Authorization

     President Obama's request for war re-authorization is his best imitation of a political tight-rope walker. He must at least act as though he wishes to destroy, degrade, deflate, or denigrate ISIS, so as to appear to the vast majority of Americans like he is protecting the homeland. On the other hand, his request is laced with so many restrictions, one would be hard pressed to see it as anything but an obligatory Democrat attempt to look tough on America's enemies, that is if he even admits that we have enemies.
     The president's telegraphy is laced with the seeds of failure. With its timetables, boundaries,  and troop limits, it is analogous to the head coach of a football team making a pre-Super Bowl announcement that during the game his players will only run the ball and never pass and will not traverse the fifty yard line. But still somehow the coach brags that his team will annihilate their opponent.
     It is hard to believe that it was only a year or so ago that President Obama called ISIS the junior varsity team. And yet this JV team has wreaked havoc in the Middle East and been able to recruit fighters, kidnap western hostages, and share video of their executions with the world, almost entirely at will. This JV team has taken control of oil fields and use the wealth therein to supply their terrorist network with almost unlimited funding. This JV team has caused the U.S. victory that was Iraq to be  transformed into defeat like some sadistic magician's trick.
     It has been a busy 6 years for Barack Obama, transforming the Middle East from tentative unrest to complete and utter chaos. But then chaos is the watch word of a community agitator like our president, whether it is racial and class division domestically, or the rise of radical Islam halfway around the world. Chaos, either directly created by Barack Obama or allowed to happen under his watch, is the main ingredient needed for the poisonous stew of big government.
     For any intellectually honest person, the pre-Barack Obama Middle East was much more stable and peaceful than it is now. Iraq, pre-ISIS, was not perfect but was well on its way to peace and self-governance. Egypt under Mubarak was at least a stable U.S. ally, not a country that may erupt into chaos at any moment and oust the seemingly pro-Western government. Libya under Kaddafi's control had been declawed and was subdued. Yemen was not a tourist location, but it also was not a place where the U.S. had to close its embassy either. And pre-Obama Iran was against the ropes and getting very close to abandoning its nuclear ambitions.
     I am not opposed to the president asking congress for re-authorization of war powers, as long as they will be used to their fullest to defeat, destroy, and decimate an enemy called radical Islam. But if this authorization is the tight rope upon which Barack Obama will perform his political dance theatrics, then I say no, no, no.      

What Is Next After ObamaCare?

     Last night I made my annual pilgrimage to my accountant to file my taxes. There was the normal perennial items; the W-2s, the bank statement for interest on my savings account, and the accounting of the small taxable stock trading account with which I play. But this year in addition to those normal items of ritual there was the levying of a penalty by the federal government against me for not buying the commercial product of a health care insurance plan.
     My accountant referred to the penalty as a fine levied by the government against me for staying healthy the entire year. Eerily similar to something I would have read in a George Orwell or Aldous Huxley book in high school. My accountant said I could go on the exchange and find a bronze plan (the absolute minimum of coverage) for a monthly premium equal to what I paid for my penalty for the full year. But to me coverage is not the point.
     I never would have thought back in the 1970s when I was in high school reading those tomes of terror about out-of-control statist governments that that would be the United States in just one generation. My anger, disappointment, and resentment is not focused on the Leftists in congress that passed this law which grants the federal government unlimited power over the lives of the citizens in this country, but the opposition Party which have acquiesced and accepted it as something they must revise and improve.   
     The Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term elections, and control of many state legislatures, based solely on the fact that they promised to do everything they could to rid the nation of the beast, not simply "change it and make it better." Apparently the best they could do was to pass 57 repeals of the legislation they knew were not going to make it to the floor of the Senate, let alone to the desk of the president where they were sure to meet with a presidential veto.
     Then came a warrior for Liberty in the person of Ted Cruz, who took the last stand against the unconstitutional law in October 2013. Senator Cruz was supported by only a few of his Republican brethren, the rest killed his effort to defund the ObamaCare law because...well they always run like scared little rabbits at the mention of a government shutdown. Or maybe there was something else happening in that situation.
     Mr. Cruz's filibuster to defund was actually working. Polls showed that Americans were beginning to support him and his effort, and even Barack Obama had moved from a posture of  "There will be no negotiation on this issue," to "I would be willing to sit down and talk with Republicans."  The moderates in the Republican Party used the mollifying sentiment of "ObamaCare will die of its own weight once the complicated law is fully implemented." A sentiment that was designed to forestall further action against it until the opiate of subsidies addicted a large swathe of the American public.
     The moderate Republicans have accepted the law because they, like their Democrat comrades, are sentinels of big government and use the empty promise of making the law more consistent with free market principles to hang onto their positions of power. After all, that is what the new health care law is about, empowering government, and deflating the citizen. As I sat in my accountant's office and reveled in the light of the intellectually superior in government who were confiscating my money because I refused to buy a particular product, I wondered, "What next?" Is the government going to force me to buy an electric car, and fine me if I refuse?  

Marijuana: Opiate Of The Asses

     Anyone who has not been stoned to the bejesus over the last 20 years realizes that potheads, and the politicians who benefit from a stoned electorate, have been very successful in decriminalizing marijuana in the minds of the many Americans who do not use it. In fact, recent polling has found that a majority of Americans see marijuana as no more harmful than alcohol, and that it should be legalized. That may have been true 30 years ago, I doubt most of those none-users would support legalization if they realized that today's marijuana contains 8 times the amount of THC, the chemical that is responsible for the drug's effect and addictive nature, than marijuana of a generation ago.
     The potheads, and their political masters, have pointed to Colorado's recent legalization as a positive experience for the taxpayers of that state due to the increase tax dollars brought into its treasury. Of course they conveniently ignore the very real statistics from the state's law enforcement bureaus, which show substantial increases in marijuana-related crimes and deaths. Also the state of Colorado has seen a thirty percent rise in the number of 12-17 year olds that smoke marijuana since its legalization.
     The comparison of marijuana to alcohol has always befuddled me. Mainly because if trying to deflect criticism of marijuana by veering into the evils of alcohol is the primary argument from the pro-pot crowd, it shows the weakness of their argument. Even if everything they say about alcohol is true, so what! Does that mean we as a society should legalize yet another substance just as harmful? The fact is that even without legalization, according to the American Psychological Association, there are more teens in rehab in the United States for marijuana addiction than for all other drugs combined. Anyone think legalization is going to decrease that number?
     The potheads have advanced the specious argument that for some patients suffering from pain, smoking marijuana is the only way on earth they can achieve some kind of relief. Smoking marijuana as opposed to getting the same benefits from THC in pill form from the drug Marinol, is like ramming your head into a wall to alleviate a headache. And well over 70% of recipients for medical marijuana in California are males between the ages of 18-25. The vast majority of which suffer from "back problems."
     University studies have continually shown a link between regular marijuana use (which can be defined as at least one time a week) and depression, anxiety, lung disease, heart disease, kidney disease, lack of motivation, and an inability to set and achieve goals. Recently it has also been discovered that use of marijuana can reduce a user's IQ by a full 8 points. There is only one reason that political leaders, mostly on the Left, are supporting legalization of this harmful substance, i.e. it is easier to extract honey from a beehive when the inhabitants are under the influence of smoke. And it is easier to extract freedoms from Americans when a substantial portion are stoned and docile, not to mention made more dependent on government by this "innocuous" drug.
    

Williams A Piker When It Comes To Media Lies

     I have recently become disappointed with my so-called conservative brethren in talk radio and elsewhere. It seems that some on the Right have fallen for the distraction of the tabloid-like story about, surprise, surprise, a member of the mainstream media lying. What a shocker! The fact that anyone who has been even half aware over the last twenty years thinks that it is shocking, and worthy of prattling on about for a week, when a member of the media embellishes and makes themselves part of the news, is shocking in and of itself.
     The Lie(s) told by NBC News anchor Brian Williams is one of those big yawn moments, even for anyone who may be left in this country foolish enough to believe that the media has even a scintilla of integrity and honesty.  Because even if one does belong to this unfortunate group, the lie(s) told by Williams do not affect the average American in the least. It did not cause new legislation to be passed through congress based on it. And it did not endanger the men and women of the military serving abroad.
     Mr. Williams ego-driven fallaciousness was intended only to increase his stature among his ignorant viewers with regards to his bravery, compassion, and ability to keep his head under fire. No one was hurt, excepting Williams himself, and even that is not yet for sure. Unlike other lies told by the main stream media of the past.
     There was of course the lie admitted to by Washington Post editor during the Watergate scandal, Ben Bradlee, who said years later that they knowingly printed stories they knew were untrue just to make a better case against Richard Nixon. Dan Rather, years after Ben Bradlee's admission, defended the practice of deception engaged by the Post during their Watergate reporting by saying, "This was a corrupt administration and we had to use any means we could to bring it down." Gee, and I thought the media's responsibility was to report the news, not "take down" administrations they, in all their intellectual glory, deem corrupt.
     The above media lie actually greatly affected world affairs because it lead to the resignation of Richard Nixon and the Democrats taking control of the congress, which they promptly used to go back on their own government's word to South Vietnam. Which lead to the previously defeated communist North overrunning the South and millions of dying who would have otherwise not died.
     And of course who could forget the years of lies engaged in by CNN news at the behest of Saddam Hussein during the 1990s. The editor of CNN news at the time, Eason Jordan, admitted they were mouth pieces for the Hussein regime, which involved broadcasting stories they knew were untrue. Mr. Jordon glibly said they engaged in this purposeful deception in order to keep their Bagdad bureau open. This deception enabled Saddam to forestall action by the "world community" and lead to much more bloodshed than would have been necessary.
     So in the grand scheme of media lies, Brian Williams is a piker, and his lie is not worth much more than a quick mention and moving on from it. I am still waiting for anyone on the Left or the Right to mention the other media lies I have mentioned, which affected historical events and lead to more instability in the world.

How The Team Culture Devalues The Individual

     Most people, especially those that are politically aware on the Right, have seen the cancer that is Leftism infect the healthy body of corporate America. The politicization of the work place has reared its ugly head with the imposition of the chains of political correctness, from whitewashing humor to interfering with the natural male/female relationship. The latter has revealed a growing dichotomy over the last few decades between a woman's "right" to engage in ever more salacious fashions, and her "right" not to have males (who, surprise, surprise are visually fixated beings) comment on said attire.
     One of the more insidious Leftist diseases to infect the workplace and cause a devaluing of workers is the Team Culture. I have nothing against teamwork to achieve a common goal. But corporate America, advised by high paid consultants with their heads in the cloud of Leftism, have convinced American workers that somehow their worth must be sacrificed to the gods of the Team Culture.
     I have experienced the Team Culture first hand. It is a culture that not only says individual workers are worth less, but any complaint about lower compensation or undefined job responsibilities is met with the accusation, "You are not being a team player." Team work is all fine and good, but no one attends work to be on a team, they do it to make money for themselves and their families. The seeds of Marxism have been firmly planted in the tainted soil of the Team Culture.
     It is no surprise that over the last few decades wages have stagnated while expectations placed on workers have increased significantly. This is all explained by the corporate consultants who sight studies purporting that American workers are more concerned with feeling appreciated and part of a team than they are with higher compensation. Balderdash! To the extent that statement is true, workers have been made to think if they feel differently they are somehow defective. It is how the Left pushes their agenda in every aspect of American life, i.e. by using the innate desire in humans to be part of the group to intimidate them into accepting the shackles of Leftism which aim to replace individualism with the collective.
     Teamwork is just one more concept that the Left has polluted with a corrupt ideology in order to impose their control. It is an imposition that has crept its way so slowly and innocuously into the corporate culture that it is hardly noticed, or it is hailed as having created a more "collaborative" workplace. Meanwhile, the high paid corporate masters and their high paid corporate consultants are grinning all the way to the bank having pulled the wool of self-depreciation over the eyes of corporate workers.
    

Why Obama Said What He Said About Christians

     President Obama's recent comments at the National Prayer Breakfast comparing Christians of a thousand years ago to today's radical Islamists were illustrative of the core function of Leftism. That core function is to remove distinctions and de-moralize the actions of immoral groups and ideologies. It is Barack Obama and the Lefts inability to embrace moral clarity for fear of being judged as judgmental and in some way less sophisticated than those who they consider "intolerant," that drives their every public action.
     First the historical problems with what the president said. The crusades of a thousand years ago were a Christian response to Muslim aggression against the followers of Christ. The Christian crusaders conducted the first war on terror, and it does not take much imagination to understand what the world would have looked like had they not fought radical Islam and had instead allowed a world-wide caliphate ten centuries ago.
     Barack Obama, laboring under his twisted view of history, also said that slavery and Jim Crow laws were perpetrated in the name of Christ. Let us not forget that the anti-slavery movement, which eventually freed black slaves, was a Christian movement. And the Jim Crow laws in the South were a result of Democrat political ideology, not Christian doctrine. In fact, the civil rights movement, lead by Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., was fueled by the good reverend's Christian values and his belief in the United States constitution.
      The blurring of separation between opposite sides of morality or tenets of natural law is the primary function of Leftism. As radio talk show host and author Dennis Prager puts it, "The Left aims to destroy the separation between God and man, man and woman, man and animals, good and evil, and holy and profane." The proceeding statement is the core function of Leftism, and has been the outcome of almost every legislative activity engaged in by the Democrat Party in recent decades.
      So President Obama's misstatement of history and his moral equivalency acrobatics at the prayer breakfast was not motivated by disdain for Christianity or his sympathy with radical Islam, as some have suggested, but from his deep seeded desire to create a moral-less society that is more dependent on government. Lack of religiosity necessarily increases the need for bigger government in any society. The Left has figured this out and made it their all-consuming passion to eliminate morality from the public sphere and replace it with the immorality of big government.
    
    

Wealth And Poverty In America

     The more I read about the past history of this great country, the more I realize we are currently living through one of its least impressive periods. It should be a lesson to future civilizations, as the rise and fall of ancient republics were to our Founders, that the simple lesson of more government means less advancement is a truism that can not be repudiated or denied. The United States of America has advanced the human condition more than any other nation in world history, but that advancement has come as a result of free markets and commerce, not by the crushing edicts of government.
     As centralized government becomes more entrenched and more powerful in the United States, its primary duty of national defense is left more and more wanting. And even the subterfuge of "social" programs and improvement only improves the status and wealth of government. The proceeding assertion is easily proven by the government's own data. According to census data from the last half century, the poverty rate has actually ticked up. And that after the largest transfer of wealth in human history. The ten trillion plus dollars that has been confiscated from producers and given to none producers has only resulted in enriching government and impoverishing the nation as a whole.
     I know what some will say, "The United States is the wealthiest country on earth, and can afford to help the less fortunate." This is the opiate of compassion that Leftist politicians on both sides of the aisle have used to sell the transfer of wealth. Lack of money does not, in and of itself, cause poverty, it is simply a corollary to it. Just as an abundance of money does not cause wealth but is a result of  behavior and choices of the wealthy.
     Put another way, college education does not cause intelligence, but is simply a corollary of the human trait of intelligence that is inherent in human beings. In the same way money, or lack of it, has no role in the causation of wealth or poverty, but is simply a road sign on the highway of both. Wealth and poverty are deeper issues than the ephemeral nature of money, they are rooted in human traits, or lack there of, which leads one to the former or the latter. And no amount of confiscation and redistribution by government can mitigate poverty or create wealth.
     It is said that if the riches of the wealthy were taken away and given to the poor, in a relatively short period of time the previously wealthy would be so again and those that were poor would resume their former life of poverty. So the result of wealth, i.e. money, will never eliminate poverty, it only can enrich those who play middle man between commerce and individuals. The last 50 years since President Johnson's War On Poverty began has not helped its intended beneficiaries, but has succeeded at impoverishing the nation's morals and values while simultaneously making wealthy a political class which simply lives off the sweat from other men's brows.