It Is Time To End Tolerance

     I have been watching in disgust the barbarians at the gate of Baltimore, as they were at the gate of Ferguson Missouri, and will be at the gates of any city with whom they claim has not given the disrespectful respect and the uncivilized the privileges of civilization. Baltimore is the ravages of tolerance, tolerance and a developmentally challenged understanding that makes thugs into choir boys and race-baiting violence into the twisted tool of a new civil rights movement which is more industry than movement.
     It is time to end the tolerance for those who assault police in the performance of their jobs by smashing their car windows and throwing rocks at their heads. It is time to end the tolerance for the notion that justice can be had by those who are not victims, victimizing those who own businesses and have not engaged in victimization of anyone. It is time to end tolerance for city leaders, who are paid by the hard working taxpayers of their city of every color and background, giving "space" to those who wish to vandalize the product of others' hard work.
     It is time to end the tolerance for those who have self-applied the label "reverend," but whose message is based on Marx and Alinsky, not Moses and Jesus. It is time to end the tolerance for a government that has transformed a justice department into a "social justice" department, where crimes of a victim class go unpunished and religious conscience does not. It is time to end the tolerance for political leaders who encourage law-breaking by exculpating the law-breakers by virtue of their politically manufactured victim status.
     It is time to end the tolerance for all racism, whether it is initiated by white men, black men, or any other race against any other race. It is time to end the tolerance for guilt held by those who never held slaves, or even had ancestors that did. It is time to end the tolerance for the teaching of fabricated guilt to our children and a manufactured history of this great nation that refuses to acknowledge that greatness. It is time to end the tolerance for the intolerant ideology that is prevalent in popular culture and universities that closes the minds of our young adults in a herding process known as "progressivism."
     There is no greater sin that a culture can commit against itself than to constantly flog the institutions which weaved its fabric of Liberty. And there is no greater injustice to justice itself than to devalue and make it irrelevant by placing a prefix on that word. It is time to end the tolerance of a nation that has been thrashed about its head for sins it did not commit, nor does it sanction. It is time to end the tolerance for the train taking us over the cliff of tyranny that is fueled by hatred of everything our founders held dear, and that rides on the tracks of a corrupt and debauched ideology that crawls on its belly like a snake until it swallows whole the purity of individual Liberty and the morality of freedom.
      

Hillary Clinton: Politics Version Of Bruce Jenner

     So last week the nation heard that former world champion athlete Bruce Jenner is a woman trapped in a man's body, and that world class freeloader Hillary Clinton is a president trapped in the body of an ageing, feckless, avaricious woman. The former is seeking resolve for his delusion through transgender surgery, the physical substitute for the greatly needed therapy that those suffering from his affliction desperately need. The latter is seeking a remedy for her disorder by trying to convince the gullible to look past her greedy, grasping fingers and elect her President of the United States of America.
     Hillary Clinton's effort to convince enough people to elect her to the highest office in the land is dependent on trying to also convince them that somewhere in this politically awkward and failure-laden woman lies a politically savvy savior that is just what this nation requires to save it from the last six years and counting. Even though much of the damage visited upon this country in those years has been a result of her own tenure as Secretary of State.
     The fact that even Mrs. Clinton's most ardent supporters can not name one single accomplishment to assign her, does not seem to matter to those whose only requirement for the next president is female genitalia and a Leftist ideology. I am constantly amazed how the ideologically blinded on the Left can look past all of Hillary's failures, from Hillarycare to Benghazi and the famous "reset" with Russia, which we now know included them getting control of twenty percent of the U.S. uranium supply and the Clinton's receiving millions of dollars from Russia for their slush fund called "The Clinton Family Foundation."
     Although Mrs. Clinton is as full of artifice as her husband, she has nary the ability to deflect criticism for it through her beguiling of her intended audience. Where Bill Clinton can, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, tell the nation to got to hell in a way that makes us look forward to the trip, Hillary Clinton makes us dread any trip with which she has had anything to do.
     Which brings me back to Bruce Jenner and his "gender reassignment." Hillary Clinton is employing her own transformation, we will call it a "political personality reassignment." The purpose of which is to convince a significant number of Americans that somewhere under her quotidian, gawky pant suit beats the heart of a brilliant leader and that all observers of her campaign should ignore what they have seen and vote instead for the reassigned Hillary Clinton.
    

The Opposition-For-Opposition-Sake Crowd Vs. Loretta Lynch

     Yesterday the United States Senate voted 56 to 43 to confirm President Obama's nominee to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder. Loretta Lynch's nomination was proffered by the president 163 days ago and was delayed by senate Republicans over passage of a human trafficking bill, which passed the senate earlier this week. The last yeah in favor of Ms. Lynch's confirmation was still lingering in the air above the senate like the last remnants of a campfire when the opposition-for-opposition-sake crowd took to lambasting the ten Republican senators who voted for her.
     No one argued the imminent qualifications of Loretta Lynch as they applied to the job for which she was nominated. The opposition was based on ideology, namely her refusal to denounce President Obama's executive order on immigration signed last November. These same persons on the Right vociferously decried Democrats opposing George W. Bush's nominees based on ideology, but here they were engaging in the same behavior. It is inconsistent at best and hypocritical at worse.
     Ms. Lynch was correct in not responding to calls for her to comment on a signed executive order by the sitting president that nominated her. Especially when that executive order is under legal challenge by a federal judge's injunction. The disposition of signed executive orders with respect to their constitutionality and legality is not for the Attorney General to decide, that is within the purview of the Supreme Court of the United States, for a subsequent executive order to reverse, or for congress to override in legislation which then must be signed by the president.
     Opposition to Ms. Lynch's confirmation after the attainment of the human trafficking bill would have been senseless. Do the opposition-for-opposition-sake crowd really think that Barack Obama would have put forth a conservative candidate had Loretta Lynch not been confirmed? No, he would have put forth an even more Left wing choice, which after having opposed Ms. Lynch, the Republicans would have had to confirm or run the risk of looking like they are part of the opposition-for-opposition-sake crowd. Nominating candidates to executive branch positions is an authority given to the president by the constitution, and no president is under any obligation to please the opposition party with his choices.
     I understand the frustration of some on the Right with the lack luster and limp-wristed performance of congressional Republicans during the Obama administration. I too have pulled out the precious remaining shocks of hair from my balding head over the capitulation of those who are suppose to be representing me, and more importantly the constitution. But the Loretta Lynch confirmation for Attorney General with only 20 months left in the Obama presidency is not one of those times. In the final analysis, considering her qualifications and the passage of human trafficking bill, this nomination was just not one of those to make a stand on principle. I am not even sure that those who opposed her know the principle upon which their opposition rested. 

The Founders' Vision, Not One Of Purism

     I am a devotee to the constitution, and to the republic which James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, et al established almost 240 years ago. Additionally I am of the belief that the United States in the year of our Lord 2015 has drifted far from the currents of that republican form of government our Founders envisioned for this nation. But I am also a pragmatist, and as such I realize that our society has become pluralistic. And those who believe as I do no longer constitute a majority of the population, but perhaps only twenty percent.
     As an observer of this culture in which we live I have resolved that we are a society of fifths. One fifth believe as I do, in the original republican government of the Founders. Another fifth believes in some form of fiscally conservative, but socially progressive form of government. A third fifth has no opinion on government. The fourth fifth of the population believes in a robust and generous federal authority. And the final fifth believes in the Utopian society of Karl Marx.
     I have proffered the proceeding as a prelude to a discussion on the upcoming presidential election and the purists who wish to have it "their way or no way." I am going to support in the Republican primaries the most conservative candidate that is running. But with a reasoned eye on the improbable nature of such a candidate winning the nomination, I will support the inevitable Republican candidate, whoever he or she is.
     Which lands me on the doorstep of the conservatives' least favorite presidential candidate, Jeb Bush. I heard an interview with Governor Bush yesterday and found him to be not as much of a Lefty as some have tried to make him out to be, and more conservative than those same people are willing to admit. I am in no way saying I would support Mr. Bush in the primaries, however I would not let my vote be wasted by sitting out the election or voting for a third Party candidate that has a snow ball's chance in hell of winning.
     I think conservative principles and values are the best path to Liberty, prosperity, and freedom. But the absolutism of those principles in the face of a culture that has drifted as far from them as ours has, is foolhardy and illogical. We are not going to right the Ship of State in one fell swoop, it being so far off course due to 100 years of progressivism. The Left has not veered off the course set for this nation by its Founders in one election cycle or even in one generation, neither are we going to put it right in the same amount of time.
     I implore my brethren on the Right to support the most conservative candidate in the Republican primaries, but cast your vote for the eventual nominee, whomever it is. For to do any less in the name of purist values would be voter malpractice and an insult to the Founding Fathers. Men like Madison and Jefferson accepted political realities and built and operated the best republican government they could for the time, knowing that they would not always be able to implement the purity of their values, for that in itself is a form of tyranny. Let us not as conservatives have the hubris to think that we can accomplish that which the Founders did not with their actions, nor support with their words.
    

Democrat Party Sets Sights On 2020

     There are times when a political Party, knowing that their chance of winning a national election is small, that they will concede that election to their opponent by the champion they choose to represent them. This happened when the Democrat Party chose George McGovern to run against Richard Nixon in 1972 and were trounced by the Republican incumbent, who carried 49 states. It was also the case in 1984 when the Democrats conceded the election to Ronald Reagan by nominating as their candidate Walter Mondale, who like McGovern was destroyed by his Republican opponent's ability to win 49 states.
     Republicans have also conceded elections, like in 1996 when they nominated the aged and lackluster Bob Dole to run against the popular president and vibrant campaigner, Bill Clinton. Or more recently when the Republicans ran the outclassed John McCain in 2008 to run against Barack Obama. To the chagrin of the nation we all know how that decision by Republicans turned out. Sometimes a political party just succumbs to the punditry class when they tell them they just can not win.
     The Democrats are in the position with respects to next year's presidential election that they are throwing in the towel and placing a rather limited amount of chips on Hillary Clinton. No intellectually honest Democrat can realistically predict a win for the aged and uninspiring Mrs. Clinton. The Democrat big wigs feel that after throwing her over in 2008 for Barack Obama, they must now give her this last opportunity to run for president. They figure if they flush her out of the pipeline now it will clear the way for a more qualified candidate to beat the first term Republican president in 2020.
     By 2020 Hillary Clinton will surely be too old and even less inspiring. And many of her competitors within the Democrat Party will be more seasoned and in the sweet spot of their political careers. Look for Democrats to develop their bench in the next 4-5 years in anticipation of unseating whomever the Republican is that will win 2016.
     The Democrats are politically savvy and have conceded the election of 2016 by choosing Hillary. They do not wish to sully their up-and-comers with a loss, so they will hold them in reserve until 2020. That is not to say that Mrs. Clinton will have no competition for the Democrat nomination, she may. But that competition will be minimal and designed to make Hillary look better to the voters than she is.
     And when she loses, the Democrat establishment can say they kept their promise to Hillary in exchange for her defense of her husband all those years and for being the good loser to Barack Obama. Remember she had more than enough reason to challenge Barack Obama's nomination on legal grounds vis-à-vis the Obama campaign's shenanigans. Hillary Clinton will ride off into the sunset, with one more failure to place in a lifetime of failures, for which she will receive hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour to speak about to the slobbering masses of Leftists that value ideology over success.
    
    

The Corker Bill: One Step Closer To The Past

     President Obama's social justice plan for Iran is proceeding according to the Ayatollah's desired schedule, and nothing seems poised to stop or even slow its progress. The lowering of sanctions on the world's foremost supporter of terrorism and repository of anti-Semitism, seems to be a fait accompli. Considering that the sanctions were the mechanism for strangling the effectiveness of the Iranian regime to produce terrorism, President Obama's naiveté in lifting them, i.e. thinking if we are nice to them they will be nice to us, is more dangerous than a president who would be over zealous in prosecuting a war against the rouge nation.
     Some estimates have the lifting of sanctions on Iran to be a $50 billion dollar windfall to the brutal regime. These funds would be in the form of unfrozen assets of Iran that the sanctions prevented them from accessing. These funds would be available to the Ayatollah on the day that any deal is signed with the hapless Obama administration. Contrary to what State Department mouthpiece Marie Harf said in a recent press briefing (she actually claimed the Iranian regime would use the funds to moderate their terrorist tendencies), the billions of dollars would most assuredly help in vastly expanding Iran's terrorist franchise.
     Stepping into the malaise, and worsening it, is Senator Bob Corker and his band of misfit Republicans. The Corker Bill, which recently passed the Senate, would essentially allow President Obama to veto the Senate's constitutional authority to ratify this treaty with a 2/3s majority. The legislation states that congress has the authority to support or reject any deal the president makes with Iran with an up and down vote. But since the bill replaces congress' constitutional authority to approve or reject any such deal with legislation that gives them that authority, the president can simply veto an unfavorable decision by congress.
     It would be incumbent upon congress to then muster the 2/3 majority needed to override the president's veto. So in essence instead of President Obama needing 2/3 majority to approve his ill-fated deal, congress would need 2/3 majority to deny him such a deal. If we did not know that this piece of legislation was written by Bob Corker, one would think it was written by Barack Obama. It increases not only President Obama's authority in the executive, but sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
     It is shocking how rapidly the congress has given up its constitutional authority over the last few decades. The Corker Bill seems to be accelerating the drive to create in the executive branch of government a scepter of power at least equal to that of King George III, whom those brave and principled men fought a revolution to eject as their leader and forever changed the world for the better. Have we now cycled back to find ourselves in a post-Liberty world? Have we lost the insight to elect leaders, who without fatigue or wavering, will fight to defend the natural rights of free people to their personal Liberty? I do not have the answer, but I do know that the Corker Bill moves us as a nation closer to a pre-revolutionary past.      

The Bogus First Term Senator Argument

     The 2016 campaign season has just begun and one of the most often repeated assertions by those on the Right is that we do not need another first term senator like Barack Obama. The reason most cited is that the lack of experience is a hindrance to an effective presidency. This theory has been applied to Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul by the governors-only-need-apply crowd. Maybe they have a point, but that point is certainly no where near being made by citing the Obama presidency as an example.
     As inexperienced as Barack Obama was when he was elected the first time in 2008, no one can say that he has not been effective. Unfortunately his effectiveness has benefitted his radical Leftist ideology more than it has the cause of Liberty. He rode into Washington with barely more than community agitating on his resume and has flummoxed, fouled, and flaxed men who have orchestrated the machinations of the nation's capital for decades.
     When one compares the state of the union in 2009 when Barack Obama was inaugurated, and its state in 2015, the transformation is breath-taking. The best healthcare industry in the world has been transmogrified into the federal government's whore. The influx of illegal aliens has essentially been codified in U.S. law by an unlawful executive order. Poverty has increased, and along with the dependence on government for basic subsistence. The banking industry has been put in chains through the Dodd/Frank legislation which rewards large banks and drives smaller community banks out of business with insurmountable compliance expenses.
     I could go on, but if the reader has not gotten the point by now, there is no sense in engaging in useless prosecution of my charge. Point is that this first term senator, with no experience in the private sector, has been more effective than any president since Franklin Roosevelt. Unfortunately his effectiveness has taken this nation on a collision course with tyranny and oppression. Just imagine the good he could have done, and the prosperous and balanced government we could be enjoying now had this first term senator used his effectiveness for good instead of ill.
     I understand the desire for some to have a governor as president. The executive experience gained from running a state is equal to that of heading a fortune five hundred company. But first term senators can also have the skill and political acumen to move the country in one direction or the other. The fact that Barack Obama was a first term senator and has been effective at moving the country in the wrong direction, does not imply that this is a trait of all first term senators. I am for any candidate that can move the country back to constitutional rule, whether he or she is a governor, a former CEO of a major corporation, or even a lowly first term senator. 

The Case Against Term Limits

     In this time of political and cultural upheaval, many are looking for a magic bullet that they say will fix all our problems and return us to a constitutional society. In the effort to do this many on the Right have been transfixed on term limits for members of congress. They say it will mitigate corruption in Washington and provide a more responsive congress to the needs of the people rather than the desires of the well-connected capitalist cronies of the current system.
     Many of the defenders of congressional term limits proffer the argument that the Founders never intended for there to be career politicians running the government by, for, and of the people. These termies ignore the fact that many of the Founders themselves were career politicians. Three fourths of the first congress was comprised of men that had spent most of their adult lives up to that point serving in their states' legislatures under British colonial America. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, never had employment outside of government, and Thomas Jefferson spent most of his adult life in public service.
     So can we finally dispel the myth that the idea of career politicians is somehow unconstitutional or inherently bad for the country? Even if the termies get their way and congress becomes a revolving door, the poisonous well of our culture will still exist. One can not simply ladle out clean, pure water from that well by dipping into it more frequently. Our leaders are culled from the culture that produces them, no term limits will change that fact.
     Besides the aforementioned, is the fact that term limits limit the people's choice of representation, which I am against. The theory of term limits basically says, "We have some bad leaders, so we must therefore rid our government of all leaders through the force of law, because the voter can no longer be trusted to do so."  And if this last part is true, then we have lost something in this country which will not be returned simply by limiting the amount of time someone can serve in the government.
     It is strange that the termies claim to want to change the constitution in order to save it. Sort of like when George W. Bush during the 2008 financial crisis said he had to "abandon free market principles in order to save the free market." The Founders were wise enough and had every confidence in the American people to select their own representation in congress. That is why they did not include term limits in the constitution. If we are saying that the Founders' confidence is no longer valid, then we have admitted that the republic which they built is no longer relevant.

A Message To Those In The Selfish Party

     The 2016 presidential campaign season has just begun, four candidates have thrown their hats into the ring with many more to come. The Republican voter has a luxury of choices this time around, with many young, principled candidates, and yet the purists are already beginning to set themselves up to boycott the election if their favorite does not receive the nomination. This selfish and childish expression of dissatisfaction with not getting one's way use to be closely and almost exclusively associated with grade schoolers, but has in recent years become a virtual political Party unto itself.
     I have not made up my mind as to who I will support in the primaries, but I do know that I will support the Republican nominee in the general election. Because even my least favorite candidate in the primaries will be superior to Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat being bandied about as a possible choice. And after all, is not selecting the best candidate, who has a chance of winning, out of those running the intended purpose of voting?
     I know that those in the Selfish Party have a problem with allowing what is good to succeed when what is perfect has been eliminated. And those in the Selfish Party refuse to extricate themselves from their temper tantrum of staying home on election day, or just as useless, voting for a third party candidate. The Selfish Party stands on its principles, even if those principles are fed by the defeat of reason and maturity. Those like the Selfish Party who do not vote based on not wanting someone to win who holds only 60% of their values, by their absence at the polls are supporting a candidate who may hold none of their values.
     My imploration of those in the Selfish Party is this: Work hard in the primaries to elect your candidate as the nominee. But if you lose, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and vote for the good of your country and for the continuation of Liberty. Not participating because your candidate was not chosen to represent you is not standing on principle, it is just the opposite. Were John McCain and Mitt Romney my choice for president in 2008 and 2012 respectively? Of course not. But do I think with all their faults and moderate views that had either of them become president things would be immeasurably better in this country today? Of course they would.
     If you have identified yourself as a member of the Selfish Party, please reconsider and join the rest of maturation in the world of voting for the candidate that best reflects your values, not sitting out because none of the candidates reflect all your values. If you use the latter as your yard stick for whom to vote, you will most probably never vote again. In which case you will have allowed your principles to disenfranchise you from the political process. 

The Hillary Announcement

     The yawn-fest that was Hillary Clinton's announcement of her intention to run for the Democrat nomination to be that Party's 2016 presidential candidate had its lassitude exceeded only by its insulting nature, to women specifically and the American voter in general. The fact that the voters, and women in particular, would vote for Hillary Clinton because of the historic nature of a "first female president," treats them as if they are spectators of the republic in which they live instead of active participants. But then for the last 25 years the Clintons, as well as much of their Party, has looked at Americans as voters and not as citizens.
     The idea that Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy in a video on the Internet instead of in front of a large crowd of supporters says much about her handlers' lack of confidence in her ability to be an effective public speaker and connect with the throngs. It also shows the financial venality of Mrs. Clinton, to make money on having her announcement monetized with ad revenues for the shameless advertising preceding her announcement. But then anyone who does not understand that the Clintons' have always been about enriching themselves at the expense of the nation, has probably been brain dead over the last quarter century.
     As for Mrs. Clinton's bona fides to be president of the United States, other than being Bill Clinton's wife, she has none. In fact I thought I would never say this, but Hillary Clinton is less qualified and has fewer accomplishments than Barack Obama when he ran in 2008. Even her most ardent supporters can not articulate one success she has had in being First Lady, senator of New York, or Secretary of State.
     This last position that was granted to her by the demigods of the Democrat Party was especially concerning to and disastrous for the American people. With Russia on the advance in Eastern Europe, Iran having its way with the Middle East and the Obama administration, Libya, Iraq, and Yemen hotbeds of terrorist activity, and no place in the world better off and more peaceful than it was in 2009 when Mrs. Clinton became the chief diplomat for the United States, no case can be made for Hillary's competence, let alone exceptionalism.
     And are not Democrats who support Hillary the most sexist persons of all, expecting the American voter to support her just because she is a woman and it would be historic to have the first woman president? There is no greater bigotry than that which sacrifices achievement and accomplishment at the altar of identity politics. It remains to be seen if the American voters will make Mrs. Clinton the beneficiary of such a sacrifice or if they will finally stand up and demand principled, responsible, and competent leadership.  

    

The Lesson Of Rand Paul

     Rand Paul's newly announced presidential candidacy has hardly had an opportunity to advance his ideas and solutions for this country when it has tripped over his rather large and abrasive ego. The latest non-issue related aspect of his campaign to take center stage has been his rude and obnoxious behavior during an interview with Savannah Guthrie. Although some of the rabid members of the far Right see his performance as some sort of comeuppance for a blatantly biased media. I too am always sanguine about the media being revealed as the fools they are, but only in the course of articulating conservatism.
     Senator Paul seems to have abandon any semblance of discussing his various flip-flops on issues for the cannons of retribution aimed squarely at a media that he obviously despises. There is no sacred veil of decorum for Rand Paul when it comes to the Leftist media, or for that matter anyone who does not share his Libertarian views. I capitalize the word libertarian in this case to show that Mr. Paul's views are more aligned with the modern Libertarian political Party than the ideology of libertarianism upon which this country was founded.
     I am not opposed to the media being roundly criticized and repudiated, only not by our candidates hoping to seek the Republican nomination for president in 2016. That repudiation is better left in the hands of talk radio and other right-leaning punditry. Our presidential candidates should conduct themselves at all times with the utmost respect, even for a hostile media. Our candidates must cleave to the sanctity of the issues and be careful to only allow their tongues to operate in defense of conservatism.
     Mr. Paul's arrogance is far too reminiscent of our current president, only much more craggy and abrasive. The whole of the base in the Republican Party is more likely to support the decorous and gentlemanly behavior enshrined in the personality of Ronald Reagan than the flagrantly self-righteous condescension of Rand Paul. Mr. Paul, et al would be wise not to engage in a battle with the main stream media along their path to the White House. While this vocal revolt against the media may feed the red meat appetite of the fringe base of the Republican Party, it is a losing strategy for any candidate that wishes to attract converts to conservative ideas.  

The Al Sharpton Factor

     The murder of Walter Scott by now former police officer Michael T. Slager is a tragedy in the scope of its brutality. There seems to be no reason or mitigating circumstances to support the former officer in the actions he took. And even though he was immediately stripped of his badge, charged with murder, and jailed for his crime, one can guarantee that these appropriate actions will not be near enough for those in the race industry who make their bread and butter off police shootings, trying to equate all of them with what happened in South Carolina.
     Walter Scott's body barely had the life drained from it by the evil act of Michael Slager, and the "Reverend" Al Sharpton was preparing to organize protests and acts of thuggery. I put the word reverend in quotes because I wonder when the last time was that anyone witnessed Al Sharpton reciting scriptures, inspiring congregants with spiritually-based sermons sans political motivation, or engaging in any other behavior in which any other reverend would. The term "reverend," when applied to Al Sharpton, is analogous to applying the term jumbo to shrimp, or intelligence to government.
     Al Sharpton is the somewhat buffoonish figure head of the politically correct race-baiting industry that has stolen the identity of the 1960s civil rights movement. The goal of the political correctness movement, among many others, is to transform truth into controversy to avoid its dissemination. It is also the tactic of the practitioners of this bastard child of Karl Marx to build an edifice of fear and lies from a grain of truth.
     In the coming weeks I am sure that the public will be treated to pronouncements by the race-baiting industry that what has happened in South Carolina is endemic of any police shooting anywhere in the country, rather than the truth, that it was more of an anomaly. It certainly looks as though Michael T. Slager murdered Walter Scott as he was running away. However, we have no information as of yet that would suggest that the shooting was based on the color of Mr. Scott's skin.
     It is a shame that former officer Slager sullied the reputation of his fellow officers, and gave the deplorable race-baiters like Al Sharpton the ammunition to tag all police with his misdeed. Justice will be carried out in South Carolina, just as it was in Ferguson, Missouri. Unfortunately the race-baiters, disguised as reverends and the political purveyors of ignorance, will forever see no difference between the two events. They only see in terms of color and their conclusions and beliefs are based purely on this most bigoted view of life.  

The Rand Paul Announcement

     So today at noon Rand Paul released the white smoke from the chimney of his holy place and announced he would be running for the Republican nomination to be its candidate for the 2016 presidential race. The yawner was not a surprise, in fact I thought with the attention he has been receiving recently from the Randbots, he had already announced his intentions to run, win, and save the nation from the clutches of Washington politicians.
     It is the last thing that provides me with amusement and flummox. Rand Paul, much like Barack Obama before him, speaks about himself as being outside Washington looking in with disgust on the corruption, secrecy, and elitism. However, I fail to see any difference between Senator Paul and many other Washington politicians who claim to be "outside" the system, yet live and breath the stale air of political opportunism that swirls around this nation's capital.
     If you have surmised that I am not one of Rand Paul's glassy-eyed, slobbering devotees, you are correct. He has been soft on immigration and has supported President Obama's goal of allowing Iran to be admitted to the council of the world's civilized nations. He has also taken a very hands-off, almost isolationist approach to U.S. foreign policy in general. And domestically he has supported the legalization of marijuana, something no self-respecting doctor could abide unless he were also a senator looking to capture the youth vote.
     It is this capturing of votes from different blocks of voters that distresses me most about Rand Paul. He openly admits to being a purveyor of identity politics. His supposition is that Americans have divided themselves into groups, so therefore anyone running for high office must appeal to them all. This characterization of Americans as not having a common culture and common values belies a loss of American exceptionalism that many conservatives are not willing to accept as easily as Mr. Paul seems willing to accept it.
     It seems that Senator Paul believes the United States of America has become so balkanized that it is impossible for any president to be elected without having malleable values that will appeal to disparate groups at the same time. Rand Paul thinks the lesson from the two presidential wins by Barack Obama is that a candidate can no longer be a complete picture containing the bright colors of his convictions. That the successful candidate in the new millennium must be s sketch that the voter can themselves complete with whatever they wish their candidate to be. Mr. Paul is hoping that no one voter will look too closely at him, but that enough will see him as the complete picture of a president that they have in their mind.
       

Stand Up America!

     When did we become a nation where virtue has been made a slave to the vice of instant gratification and political expediency? When did we become a nation where individual Liberty surrenders itself to the despotism of equality? When did we become a nation where religious bigotry is so much more easily accepted than religious freedom? And when did we become a nation where the ethic of hard work is dishonored by the reverence for slothfulness?
     When did we become a nation that sees the benefit of a prosperous society exemplified by income diversity as an evil to be dispensed with by more centralized power in the federal government? When did we become a nation where political grievance is a substitute for individual responsibility? And when did we become a nation where science is a tool of tyranny used to oppress the soul of Liberty? 
     I say we can be a nation that lives the values of Ozzy and Harriet without the bigotry of Jim Crow. We can be a nation that feeds the better nature of our angels, while starving the temptations of dependence. We can be a nation that honors diversity without allowing our unique American culture to be swallowed by it. We can be a nation where the legitimacy of government lies in its ability to do less, not more.
     We can be a nation that fulfills the charter of Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin instead of the dictates of Marx, Lennon, and Mao. We can be a nation where the measure of a man's worth is in his own accomplishments not in his ability to mitigate the accomplishments of others. We can be a nation that respects the sanctity of religious conscience for the benefit to society that it is. We can be a nation where wisdom is revered above education, and where tolerance is applied equally to all points of view.
     Stand up America! Gain your passage back to what you once were; a beacon of light, a compass of morality, and a vessel of hope to the world. Stand up America! Live free without the encumbrances of a master government. Break those chains and once again make government your servant. Stand up America! Increase the worth of your freedom by devaluing the importance of government in your daily life.
     Stand up America! Save the precious gold of your founding, do not bury it under the unsanctified soil of oppression that shamelessly presents itself as fertile ground for a better society. Stand up America! Heed the admonition of Abraham Lincoln that it is within your grasp to "nobly save or meanly lose this last best hope of man on earth." Stand up America! Stand up America! Stand up America! Because if you do not, who will? 

At Least Chamberlain Had A Signed Agreement

     When British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stepped off his flight from Munich after he ceded the Sudeten region of Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler in 1938, he claimed he had secured "Peace in our time." He did after all have an agreement to which Heir Hitler's signature was affixed. Yesterday our very own Appeaser In Chief, Barack Obama, claimed much the same as Chamberlain had over 80 years ago. However, President Obama's "agreement" with the terrorist state of Iran was not signed, was not even an agreement, but a "framework" for an agreement.
     Claiming success, as the president did yesterday, for simply producing a framework for an agreement after over 15 months of negotiations is a bit analogous to a builder calling your new house complete after only nailing together a few 2x4s. The real tragedy of the Obama/Kerry framework is that is gives Iran the losing of sanctions without having to provide any concessions themselves.
     President Obama, being even more obtuse than Neville Chamberlain, has put his trust, and the security of the region and the world, in the hands of a radical Islamist regime that has murdered thousands of Americans over the last 4 decades, has spread terrorism throughout the Middle East region and beyond, has engaged in chants of "Death to America" while negotiating with the American representatives, and has refused to allow for Israel's right to exist.
     President Obama claimed that sanctions were not working, yet it was the effects of the sanctions on the Iranian economy that brought them to the bargaining table in the first place. President Obama said that sanctions could be (not will be) re-imposed if the Iranians break the agreement, that by the way does not exist. But by the time the Iranians break the agreement, it will be too late. President Obama stated that inspectors would insure that the Iranian regime was not violating the agreement, but when have inspectors ever been successful in this task, can anyone say, "Hans Blix in Iraq?"
     With the economy at home unraveling even further as a result of the Obama economic policies, Barack Obama is so desperate to achieve something before he leaves office that he is wiling to make any deal with the Iranians. The Iranians have coyly used the President's desperation to move the goal posts far from where they began 15 months ago. The policy of the U.S. government before that time had always been to stop Iran from building a bomb, period. Now the Obama administration has changed that goal into making sure it would only take the Iranians a year to build a bomb, commonly referred to as the "break-out time."
     Neville Chamberlain, putting his trust in a signed agreement with a despot was naïve. Barack Obama placing his trust in an unsigned framework of an agreement with a regime that has been waging war on the U.S. and her allies for almost forty years is suicidal. But Mr. Obama has something that Chamberlain did not, i.e. a slavish media that will not report that the emperor's agreement has no clothes, an ill-informed public that will believe it, and a network of spin masters that will blame the inevitable failure of his agreement on a future president or congress.
    

The Twin Tenets Of Tyranny

     I am not surprised by the number of big businesses that have aligned themselves with the religious bigots against the state of Indiana. Businesses like Apple, which just two weeks before they inked a retail deal with Saudi Arabia, that country sentenced a man to 450 lashes. His crime; being homosexual. I wonder how Apple CEO Tim Cook reconciles his passive support for such blatantly anti-homosexual practices with his company's profiting off a culture that engages in such behavior. But then Mr. Cook will never have to answer for his hypocrisy in the bubble of Leftism in which he lives and operates.
     The other interesting contradiction I find on the Left that has been illuminated by their hysteria over the freedom of religious conscience is their insistence that corporations are not people. When it serves the Lefts political purposes in denying conservative businesses from participating in the political process, they have their personage stripped from them. However, in the case of denying freedom of religious conscience to all Americans, the Leftist mob claims these same businesses somehow magically embody the very human characteristic of bigotry.
     If businesses are not people, as the Left has so often claimed, then it is impossible for them to discriminate, and the Lefts whole argument is null and void. Inversely if businesses can discriminate against certain groups, by that very act they are considered persons. But the Leftist mob does not see logic, reason, or even fairness. For their ability to distinguish justice from injustice has been strained through a filter of hatred and intolerance for anyone with varying beliefs.
     I fail to see how someone refusing to participate in an event that violates their religious conscience can be conflated with discrimination in any form against those that do participate in such an event. Does the fact that I refuse to attend a sporting event mean that I am discriminating against those that do attend? Of course not. And are we to now accept in the twisted, mangled, and upside down world of the Left that participating in commerce somehow voids the constitutional rights of the participants?
     The founders of this great nation intended that citizens have freedom of commerce, but more importantly they felt freedom of speech and the free exercise of one's religious faith was more important. That is why those ideals were outlined and protected in the First Amendment. It is a long slide away from Liberty that we have taken as a country when the government can compel violation of conscience using the twin tenets of tyranny embodied in forced commerce and coercion of association.