The Moral Bankruptcy Of The Left

     It is not that the Left has different morals from the Right, it is that the whole notion of morals is anathema to the modernity of Leftist thought. The deluding of oneself that morality does not exist outside the reach of the state, fairly puts into context the ideology of Leftism. One can not support and promote ubiquitous government programs, and the use of those programs to advocate fairness, equality, and "a level playing field," and still be tethered by moral moorings. At least not the moral moorings of the Judeo/Christian tradition or even that of natural law and common sense.
     It is morally bankrupt to believe that one solves issues of poverty by empowering government to make the wealthy less so in an effort to enrich the poor. For government can not create wealth but only confiscate it, and in so doing it mitigates that wealth's ability to promote economic growth and the creation of jobs. Even a million dollars placed into a savings account gives the bank who holds that money the ability to loan out 10 million dollars as a result of fractional banking. That same million dollars given to government has only about 100 thousand dollars impact on the economy because of the costs associated with bureaucracy.
     It is morally bankrupt to advocate for same sex couples (and presumably any combination of humans who "love" each other) to marry. This position suggests there is no difference between the sexes, and therefore they are interchangeable in the millennia-old tradition of marriage, which is the bedrock of civilized society. There is no morality in the notion that men as fathers and women as mothers provide no specialty to raising children, and that that function can be performed just as aptly by any two adults.
     It is morally bankrupt to allow, and even encourage infanticide because an unwanted pregnancy is an "inconvenience." It is especially morally bankrupt to turn a blind eye to the harvesting of organs from murdered fetuses to enrich an organization like Planned Parenthood. The barbarity of abortion, the killing of a unique human being, is practiced by the Left with reckless abandon, and even funded by taxpayer dollars, many of whom are opposed to this murderous practice. It is unfathomable in any civilized and moral society that such an inhumane and disgusting industry could be allowed to thrive.
     It is morally bankrupt to encourage the weeds of government to flourish in the garden of Liberty, choking off the fruits of freedom. There can be no greater moral bankruptcy than to limit the opportunities of some to participate fully in the pursuit of their happiness in exchange for electoral support for those who are wholly responsible for such limitations. And the greatest moral bankruptcy expresses itself in the continued advocating of systems of government that have not only failed spectacularly, but have caused more death and misery than any religion, ideology, or ethos in the long history of man.  

The Cold, Unfeeling Leftist State

     Leftist thought is like a cancer that has quickly metastasized in the healthy body of this great country over the last few decades. Barack Obama is not the problem, but a symptom of the problem. The cause of Leftism has existed even before the current president was born. It was sown in the filthy corrupt thought of Karl Marx, a man who never actually worked for a living (big surprise), and was given nutrition by progressives of the early twentieth century like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Louis Brandies, et al.
      The biggest lie of the Leftist is that he is the sole owner of compassion in this country, and all those who oppose his tyranny are cold, heartless beings who are only interested in lining their pockets with ill-gotten gains. The fact is that in locations throughout the world, and certainly across this great nation, where Leftist policies are in control, there is only hardship and pain for those who live under them. And the only real beneficiaries of the vileness of Leftist policy are those that have charged themselves with its administration.
     One recent and most glaring example of the Lefts inhumanity towards the downtrodden for their own political gain is the Bruce Jenner melodrama. The Left in all its heartless forms has celebrated the mental illness of Mr. Jenner, as well as others afflicted with his form of dementia. Instead of treating such mental illness with compassion, understanding, and therapy, the Left has chosen to use these unfortunate individuals to advance an agenda which aims to  eliminate the boundaries between male and female by artificially manufacturing sexes that do not exist.
     The cruelest form of child abuse existing in modernity is the Lefts insistence on teaching school children that they can choose what sex they wish to be. They encourage children in schools as young as five years old to explore their sexual identity and become transgender if they feel they have been accidentally placed into the wrong type of body. This is tantamount to encouraging someone to actively pursue multiple personalities or delusional paranoia as a functioning lifestyle.
     For those on the Left that do not understand human biology, there are two sexes, male and female. In some very rare cases individuals are born with both male and female sex organs and are called hermaphrodites. Those who feel that they are the opposite sex to that suggested by their genitalia have a mental illness, just as someone who thinks they are a chicken, a dog, or a tree. Would these same persons on the Left that encourage the afflicted like Bruce Jenner also encourage an individual with the other three delusions I mentioned to radically mutilate their bodies to become the physical manifestation of the delusion inside their mind?
     It has been amazing in recent years for me to watch the uncompassionate and cruel response of the Left to persons wishing to become transgender. It is a deliberate attempt to blur the lines between what male and female are because then a human being is just an empty vessel to be molded into any creature or form that can be dreamed of by the sick-minded and demented. It is a brave new world created by the Left where there is no grace, mercy, or understanding of the better nature of the human heart. There is only the deep, dark chasm of the ever present hand maiden of the Left, i.e. the State.
       

Howard Schultz: Arrogant Racist

     Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz, has begun a new program at his coffee shops that is the most blatant example of Leftist intellectual arrogance I have seen in a very long time. He has instructed his employees to write "Race Together" on cups of the chain's overpriced beverages in an effort to spark a "conversation" about race in America. This conversation is of course a sermon consisting of Mr. Schultz's Leftist views delivered to his customers by his mind-numbed baristas.
     The utter hubris of Mr. Schultz, and others on the Left, to think that not only is his political ideology somehow a moral imperative to be imparted on the ignorant masses in order to enlighten them, but that his employees actually believe as he does, shows an arrogance almost bordering on narcissism. The obtuse Mr. Schultz completely misses the obvious fact that to the extent that their is racial division in this country, it is the result of his own ideology that is shared by others on the Left like our current president and Attorney General.
     In his "rollout" of this new initiative CEO Schultz intimated that customers need to be inculcated with the knowledge that apparently he and the rest of the Leftist intelligentsia instinctively understand by virtue of their grand sense of fairness and obsessive devotion to equality. That knowledge is that there is racial inequality in this country, even though we have elected a black man president twice, the highest levels of the United States government are populated with blacks, and there are more blacks enjoying the middle-class lifestyle than at any time in this nations history.
     Mr. Schultz also talked about the person that may come into a Starbucks for a cup of coffee harboring subconscious racist feelings that the intrusive new policy may help to re-educate. In other words, Mr. Schultz just like the rest of the racist Left think that even if racism is unexpressed by whites, it exists nonetheless. This, in my opinion, is the worst kind of racism because it assumes certain ideas and opinions based purely on a person's skin color, i.e. white.
     Beyond the inherent racism and ideological snobbery of Starbucks' new program is the violation of personal boundaries between business and customer. I have never been what one would call a regular Starbucks customer, but now I will definitely not be even a casual one. The idea that along with an overpriced cup of coffee I must endure a lecture on race from one of Mr. Schultz's automatons, is a bridge too far and an incursion into my personal privacy. I hope Starbucks and Mr. Schultz suffer a rebuke of his ideologically driven new policy where it really maters, the bottom line. Maybe then he and other falsely perspicacious Leftist CEOs will learn to separate their politics from their business.

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.
    
    

A History Lesson In The Destructive Nature Of Progressivism

     The modern day progressive religion masquerading as a political ideology has roots stretching back to the beginning of the 20th century. Its leaders were not only Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, but Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt. Their commonality was the belief that government had a rightful place in pursuing a role in the interests of business, not to the benefit of its customers, but to shrink that in the private sector that was big so as to grow the authority and influence of government. In many cases, like that of the railroads, the government meddling of progressives destroyed industries and left both businesses and customers more impoverished.
     The rail industry in the United States got a late start in developing compared to other countries like France and England, but within the years between 1820 to 1840 the United States laid more track than all other countries combined. The growth of the railroad, by private interests, culminated in the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 by the Central Pacific Railroad and the Union Pacific Railroad. The privately run railroad industry, which included city trolleys, gave customers an inexpensive method of travel that was both faster and more comfortable than horseback or even stage coach.
     In the early 1900s, the rail industry kept the price of passenger fares low by subsidizing them by also hauling freight. That was until Louis Brandeis, the newly formed Interstate Commerce Commission, and Theodore Roosevelt, using the regulatory power of government, put enormous downward pressure on fees railroads could charge to haul freight. The mere mention of fare increases by the railroads set in motion advocacy groups like Joseph Eastman's Public Franchise League. Further demonizing the railroads as big, greedy corporations trying to use their unfair advantage in public transportation to price gouge.
     Many railroads were crushed by the heavy hand of government, aided in their task by the advocacy groups, simply because they were big. Progressives like Roosevelt and Brandeis made no secret of the fact that they considered big corporations evil simply for being big. The nationalization of the railroads by President Wilson during the first World War put the final nail in the coffin of the railroad industry. Even after the war when the railroads were denationalized, the epitaph for this once great and thriving American industry was written in the blood of government ink.
     Today, the passenger train industry is all but gone, run entirely by the government rail known as Amtrak. A government enterprise that every year, surprise surprise, bleeds red ink comprised of taxpayers' dollars. It is ironic that today's progressives who are pushing for passenger rail projects, funded of course with taxpayer dollars, are descendants of the progressives of the early 1900s who destroyed the passenger rail industry then and sent Americans running to buy automobiles. It is the perfect illustration of what Ronald Reagan said about those on the Left, "They see something moving and they want to tax it. If it keeps moving, they regulate it. If it stops moving they subsidize it." It is the Lefts cycle of government dependence for needs formerly supplied by the private sector which impoverishes us all and stomps on the throat of personal Liberty.

The Shackled Mind Of Leftists

     Last week during my vacation in the deep woods of South Eastern Ohio I had the opportunity to visit with a couple who are relatives of my camping partner, and were on their way to a wedding in New York. Anyone who conversed with this couple for only a minute or two on the subject of politics would clearly place them firmly and undoubtedly on the far Left of the political spectrum. The funny thing is, I do not think they would consider themselves as devotees of the Leftist religion they practice with the dedication of evangelists.
     The ignorance of their true political faith does not make my shirttail relatives bad people, nor does it put them into a category by themselves. The most insidious aspect of Leftism, I believe, is the complete obtuseness with which many of its votarients practice the faith. And make no mistake, Leftism is a religious faith, not a political ideology. It has been one of the most destructive religious faiths of the last hundred years because it seeks and aims to mitigate not only the natural rights of man burned into this country's founding, but also the natural laws that govern all of life.
     Of course my pseudo relatives are not the kind of dark and disturbed people that would knowingly engage in the hatefulness of oppression. And yet, when the anti-Semitism of the Left passes from the lips of these loving and decent people, it is enough to send the chill of history up my spine and wrap its icy fingers around my heart. It is a product of the Leftist faith to remove logic and reason from the minds of its practitioners and replace them with group-think and a soulless adherence to the tenets of big government.
     The failure and illogic of big government is all around us every day. One recent example of which I read is the push by New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer to ban 10 different fire retardant chemicals used in the manufacturing of furniture. The chemicals supposedly have been shown to affect small children exposed to them over time, as well as fire fighters who extinguish fires when this furniture does burn. The point is that it was the same government that now wants to ban these chemicals that regulated furniture manufactures to use them in the first place. So if the Schumer proposal passes and becomes law, government will have to grow even bigger to ensure that chemicals are not being used in the manufacturing of furniture that were not being used until government stuck its nose in and force their use.
     My aforementioned example of the ludicrous nature of big government would be completely missed by my shirttail relatives, not because of a lack of intelligence, but because of a lack of the natural curiosity present in the free mind that is not present in the intellectually shackled mind of the Left. The sadness of the Leftists who do not know they are Leftists is that they see their ideology, not as an ideology, but as a moral imperative for a "fair" and "just" society. The real and present damage that Leftism has done to our society is the suppression of free expression, speech, and even thought present in those who dare not place their personal liberty above the "common good" as defined by the very type of government that our Founders fought so hard to abate.
    
        

"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.

What Is Wrong With A Downton Abbey Economy?

     Lawrence Summers, former economic advisor to President Obama, recently stated that the U.S. is in danger of having a Downton Abbey economy. The popular PBS series tells the story of those who inhabit an English manor house at the turn of the twentieth century. Mr. Summers' comment is typical of the Left who hate wealth, unless it is their own, gained from the well of taxpayer dollars into which they freely and frequently dip their greedy little buckets. The fictional family who own Downton Abbey provide jobs to underclass Englishmen, as well as a better life than they would otherwise have. The family's wealth also supports the local economy with the many purchases necessary to keep the manor operating.
     All these facts are wasted on Leftists who believe that there is no legitimacy to wealth outside government's confiscation of it. Mr. Summers and his fellow Keynesians labor under the ridiculous formula that one equals two simply by virtue of having been touched by the heavy hand of government. Even though John Maynard Keynes' economic voodoo has been thoroughly discredited by history over the last 80 years, there are still those like Mr. Summers and his former boss, Barack Obama, that believe it can be used to stimulate a downtrodden economy.
     The basics of Keynesian economics is this: A man has $10,000 in the bank. Someone takes his money out of the bank and takes a cut for "administrative services." They return what is left, much less than the original amount, and tell the man he is wealther than before. This is the basis of the Left's government economic advocacy theory that has never worked, yet they still insist on its implementation. The reason is not because they do not know its inherent failure, but because success is not the goal, expanding the role and size of government is.
     The life "in service", as the English called domestic servants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as depicted in Downton Abbey, was a hard one to be sure. But working on a country estate, being well-fed and provided with medical attention when needed, was a better life than many servants' contemporaries, both in Great Britain and the United States. Many of them lived in squalid conditions in over-crowded cities with little food and no medical access. The structure in English manor houses allowed for the lowest of scullery maids to work her way up to housekeeper, and for the lowly hall boy to one day advance to the position of butler. The wages one could achieve in a manor house as a servant were very handsome indeed.
     Mr. Summers' comment is illustrative of the Lefts deliberate ignorance of the expansionism of free market principles over the economic contraction provided by government interference. The economy of Downton Abbey provided not only jobs and opportunities to the servants who worked there, but the money they spent in the broader economy created opportunity for those in the surrounding area. Of course, opportunity as an outcome of hard work, sans the heavy hand of government, is something that is kryptonite to Leftists who see it as vice and government dependence as a virtue.
      

Why Leftists Hate Christmas

     No reasonable person who has not been hibernating in deep space for the last decade can honestly contest the premise of my title for this blog post. From trying to remove the traditional symbols of Christmas, to changing its very name to "holiday," the Left has fought hard and tirelessly to drive underground the spirit of a holiday that aims to bring people together in peace, love, and joyous glad tidings. It use to perplex me how anyone could be offended by such a holiday, no matter which faith promotes it. But the dedicated Leftists who have declared war, not only on Christmas, but all traditional values, do so because of their hubris, arrogance, and unwavering faith in government.
     The act of persons in this country being publicly joyous over something that not only has a religious significance, but is outside the control of a centralized government, deeply offends those on the Left. And that which offends Leftists must, of course, be eliminated from public display and discourse. The real impetus for the Lefts war on Christmas is not about the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, but about the freedom that is the foundation of religiosity. It was, after all, the Founding Fathers' belief in the Almighty's blessing of rights on his people that formed the foundation of the greatest and freest nation in the history of man. And the Founders' legacy of liberty deeply offends and threatens the Left like nothing else can.
     Christmas is the complete antithesis of Leftism. It is a holiday that celebrates the birth of a child whose mother was a virgin, and father was a non-union carpenter and who was venerated and honored by three wise men from government for his divinity. Nothing elicits the ire and insecurity of the Left more than the placement of anything above government in the order of importance in a person's life, and the life of the nation. The public display of Christmas is a blatant reminder to the Left that tens of millions of Americans trust in God more than government, and that that trust strengthens people and makes them more independent in a way that government can not.
     If the Left were to rewrite the Christmas story, Joseph would be out of the picture, Mary would be a recipient of food stamps and other government programs, and the three wise men would be navigators visiting Jesus to sign him up for ObamaCare. Therein lies the real reason Leftists hate Christmas, it is an all too painful reminder that the thing in which they have chosen to place all their faith and trust, i.e. government, is just a placebo for the substance and healing power of real faith in God.
              

The Duplicitous Nature Of The Left

     One of the most vociferous accusations from the Left about conservatives is that we are constantly trying to impose our values and morals on everyone else. The blatant duplicitous irony involved in the Left accusing anyone of imposition is surely missed by people who bury their heads so far in the sand that even a metal detector would be unable to locate the ball bearings rattling around inside their otherwise empty heads. After all, these are the same folks that have no problem using the power of government to impose the radical homosexual agenda, the radical environmental agenda, the radical open-borders/amnesty agenda, and the radical feminist agenda, which includes government support of infanticide. All these positions are not supported by the majority of Americans.
     God help anyone who takes a moral stand against what is so obviously a destructive and immoral agenda. Those that do are figuratively tar and feathered by the Left in media and government alike. Government in a free society should encourage values and morals that lead to more prosperity and liberty for everyone. The Founding Fathers of this country called it promoting the general welfare. But Democrats, under the poisonous spell of Leftism, have so horribly bastardized the general welfare clause of the United States Constitution that they have made it unrecognizable from the founders' intent. Instead, they have redefined it to mean that big government should promulgate programs of dependence whose recipients are indebted to them. This indebtedness is paid for by their vote with the goal of keeping Leftist politicians in power in perpetuity.
      President John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address, spoke about the moral imperative of liberty and freedom, not only in this country, but throughout the world. He also spoke of the founding of this country as one based on the unique idea that the rights of free people come from God, and not the state. One would be engaging in an almost impossible task to find one Democrat in Washington who would promote such values publicly, let alone acknowledge them even in private. But then honest knowledge is a scarce commodity among the Left who engage in voluntary ignorance on a daily basis.
     The duplicitous nature of Leftists is inherent in their ideology. This is after all a political ethos that preaches fairness and equality, yet promotes a progressive tax structure that punishes success. It is an ideology that claims to protect the rights of the "little guy," while implementing laws that favor their wealthy and well-connected political donors. The Left preaches "equal protection under the law," and then imposes "hate crimes" legislation which treats one class of crime victims differently from others. They speak of choice when it involves murdering the unborn, yet have no tolerance for it as it relates to health care, light bulbs, smoking, soda-drinking, and trans fat intake. Leftists dispense self esteem to our children like candy at a parade, then indoctrinate them to believe that their own country as founded is so inherently evil that they have no chance of realizing theirs dreams without massive government interference in their daily lives.
     The Left has an infinite supply of duplicity and a finite respect for individual liberty, rule of law, and common decency. Unfortunately they also have brightly colored bobbles to lure the unsuspecting into lives of un-fulfillment and servitude to their masters in government. Our nation becomes more diminished by the duplicitous nature of the Left, and less free by our acceptance of it.  

The Kennedy Assasination And The Lefts Denial

     Living in denial is the true mark of a committed Leftist. As this truism relates to the Kennedy assassination, it is a two for one. Those on the Left have lied to themselves over the decades that John F. Kennedy was some sort of a standard bearer for the modern day Left, and that his assassination, though committed by one of their own, was really the work of those on the Right. Neither of these assertions by the Left have the slightest bit of validity to bring to the reality party. But then, when it comes to valid reality, most Leftists run screaming in the opposite direction.
   Today is the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, thirty fifth President of the United States of America. President Kennedy, a Democrat, would today be more comfortable and find a more suitable home in the Republicant party. John Kennedy believed in a strong national defense, fewer handouts to non-producers, and cutting taxes. All things that are kryptonite to the modern Democrat party. Not only would John Kennedy be a Republicant, but he would most likely take up residence in the Ted Cruz wing of the party. He certainly would not be in the John McCain/Lindsey Graham cabal.
     It has always fascinated me how all the conspiracy theories about President Kennedy's assassination have originated from the Left, many of the earlier ones being funded by the KGB of the old Soviet Union. We now know this for a fact because of the books written by former KGB agents after the fall of the Soviet Union. The reason for the attempted deception of conspiracy theories has always been quite obvious to me, Lee Harvey Oswald was a known communist and Leftist love communism with as much vigor as they hate conservatism. To accept that a Left-winger killed John Kennedy is an unacceptable reality to Leftists who rewrite history to suit their own agenda. So conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination are a two-fold attempt to exonerate the communist, Lee Harvey Oswald, while at the same time blaming the Right for his despicable act.
     And so on this fiftieth anniversary of Lee Harvey Oswald, a Left-winger, assassinating a president, who would be more conservative than half the Republicants currently serving in congress, the Left-wing media will attempt their best to rewrite the history of that awful day to somehow blame the Right for the actions of one of their own. Be prepared for the tortured twists in which the media will engage for the purpose of perpetuating the denial with which all Leftists cloak themselves in order to mindlessly practice their ideology.

It Is Not About Barack Obama

    In a time when hurricane Barack has been making every attempt to capsize liberty's small craft. And with an entire administration that is embroiled in more scandal than the last dozen or so Presidents combined. And with the leader of the free world, who took an oath to uphold the law of the land, now scoffing at said law and refusing to follow it when it is inconvenient to his schemes of a Leftist utopia. I have determined that it is a mistake for Conservatives to focus all their ideological energy on Barack Obama, even though he is currently the purveyor of the sort of tyranny that rips at the soft tissue surrounding the heart of liberty.
     The truth is that over the last 40 years, even though the United States has remained committed to the republican values upon which it was founded, at least in the hearts and minds of a majority of its citizens, the unconstitutional bureaucracies which govern those people, have taken a deep plunge into the black hole of Leftism. The results of this diseased thinking of Leftist governing is destruction.
     When I was a child, before government control of the health care industry was rooted very deeply, the average family could afford to pay for minor surgeries and medical procedures out of pocket. And they certainly could afford to pay for their own doctors' visits and prescription drugs. The more that government reached into the doctor/patient relationship with its tentacles of "benefits" for the few, the more costly health care became for everyone. And the destructive solution of Leftists to solve the nation's health care troubles caused mainly by too much government was even more government.
     The destructive nature of Leftist policies that has occurred in health care has been replicated in many other areas of American life, including but not limited to, education, energy and transportation. And the burden for these excursions into the failure that is Leftism is being borne by fewer and fewer of the citizens of this great nation. When I was a teenager, the top wage earners in this country shouldered 20% of the total tax burden, today those same wage earners shoulder 40% of the total tax burden. The increasing segment of the population that is being supported by an ever-shrinking segment of the population is illustrative of the diseased thought process of Leftist policies. It is a thought process that venerates parasitical behavior over industrious behavior and then demonizes the very industry of those who pay the bills racked up by the failed policies of Leftism.
     I know it is very tempting as freedom-loving Americans to focus our attention on the current source of tyranny in the White House. But the growth of government that has lead to the bureaucratic state that President Obama now leads, began long before he was even born. There is no greater threat to the liberty born of the founders' efforts than anything less than a rigorous opposition to the contrarian nature to that liberty posed by Leftism. Liberty has not been eaten alive by Barack Obama, but had been left unprotected and half-dead in the waste land of tyranny for decades by those who should be defenders of it. And the Leftist vultures like Mr. Obama have survived on the stinking carcass of what was once a proud, strong and free ideal that created the greatest nation in all of human history.   

Huma Stands By Her Man, And Further Encourages Leftist Men To Disrespect Women

     Huma Abedin, wife of disgraced ex-congressman Anthony Weiner who tweeted pictures of his private parts to females on Twitter, gave a press conference yesterday. The presser was designed to quell new allegations that her husband, under the name of Carlos Danger, has been having elicit cyber affairs with multiple women. This does not seem to bother Huma, and she is going to stay with Anthony through thick and thin, or at least until he has no political viability remaining.
     Mrs. Anthony Weiner was supposedly advised before her press conference by Hillary Clinton, a woman who knows what it is like to have a husband for whom bimbo eruptions is a weekly occurrence, but who also knows what side of the political bread her butter resides. In fact it seems as though Leftist women, who rant hysterically how strong and independent they are, will allow their politically powerful men to step all over them time and time again with their embarrassing behavior. And Leftist men, who designed and have executed the mythical Republicant "war on women," are the ones for whom respect of women is a quaint and outmoded form of gentlemanly behavior.
     It has always perplexed me how many voters will hold womanizing men like Anthony Weiner or Bill Clinton in high esteem and allow themselves to believe the worst about a thoroughly decent man like Mitt Romney. It is not a shock that Leftist politicians would try to tarnish their political opponents by accusing them of behavior that seems to be a pre-requisite for men on the Left. What is the source of flummox for me and many other Conservatives is that the voters in this country are so easily convinced that Leftist men hold women in such high regard. Even the current President received a pass when it was discovered how women in his administration were treated with an air of patronizing derision.
     So Huma has made her decision to stay with a man that not only made an error of discretion once and is repentant, but by all evidence continues his deviant behavior. And the voters of New York must decide if they want a man as mayor that has so little self-control that even with his political future at risk, he can not stop himself from engaging in lewd and lascivious behavior. I have no delusions that the Leftist New York will not elect a man like Anthony Weiner, who has no moral rectitude, to manage their city. After all, those on the Left apparently think that Republicants not wanting to use taxpayer money to pay for female contraception is somehow more disrespectful of women than a man who breaks his covenant with his wife and apparently has no intentions of changing his deviant behavior. It is this naked hypocrisy which drives the Left to place decency and morality under the bus of their political aspirations.  

Detroit: Poster Child For Leftist Policy

     Last week the city of Detroit, which has been hanging by its fingernails for decades, could not hang on any longer and dropped into the abyss of official bankruptcy. This largest municipal bankruptcy filing in the history of the United States is illustrative, or at least it should be to anyone who has the courage to face the truth, of the eventual outcome of Leftist policies. Whether the entity is a city, state or country, prosperity, order and virtue will always allude that which is managed by Leftist ideology.
     A time traveler to 1960 would have found a very different Detroit than the empty, diseased and impoverished city that exists today. Then, Detroit boasted a population of a million and half residents with the highest per capita income in the country. It was the manufacturing capital of the world and was an industrial powerhouse, the likes of which had never been seen before. Driven by the automobile manufacturing industry, as well as many others, the city of Detroit was a well-oiled business machine. And with business came jobs and wealth for the residents.
     Beginning in the early 1960s, and continuing to this day, Democrats controlled the city of Detroit, lock, stock and barrel. Over the decades, greedy Democrat politicians, using the wrecking ball that is Leftist policy, drove business from Detroit and bankrupted the city with ever obese and slothful public sector union benefits. In its bankruptcy filing, the city managers have had to make the inescapable admission that the majority of their 18 billion dollars of debt is owed to public sector union benefits. Democrat politicians, who controlled union contracts, had no reason to be frugal with the taxpayers money because union dues, through forced campaign donations, filled Democrat coffers. The more salary and benefits union members received, the more money was laundered back to Democrat campaigns. This system is not unique to Detroit, but is ubiquitous throughout the country.
     So now Detroit finds itself in bankruptcy court, a crime-ridden Leftist utopia with police response times of 58 minutes when the national average is 11 minutes. With forty percent of its street lights not in working order. With thousands of condemned, dilapidated buildings awaiting demolition because the city does not have the funds to proceed. With a school system that graduates less than 25% of its students. With neighborhoods that look like war zones and where criminals have been given free reign to do as they please. I am reminded that just a few years ago, in defense of spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up the automobile industry, President Obama said he was not going to stand idle and let Detroit go bankrupt. But it has been the ideology of people like our President that has directly lead to policies that have turned the silk purse that was once Detroit into the sows ear that is Leftist utopianism.            

Government Greed

     It is no coincidence that as the pool of those dependent on taxpayer money has expanded, the pool of those paying the taxes has shrunk. This process of creating more beneficiaries being supported by fewer benefactors is one of the primary functions of Leftism. The result of this function is to increase the need for an ever-powerful federal authority to extract funds from those who have earned them and give them to those who have not. After, of course, government takes its cut. Once this realization is understood, the motivation for every Leftist policy is easy to uncover. And that motivation is not defined by a thirst for liberty but by a hunger for power and control.
     We have seen this overwhelming hunger on the left especially out-of-control in the last four and half years. It is in full evidence by legislation like Financial Reform and ObamaCare, where government merely regulating industries for the public good has been transformed into a de facto active management of businesses by politicians who have never run a business entity. In both of these economic and freedom crushing pieces of legislation, the only wealth being created is the wealth of individuals within the sphere of government. In the case of ObamaCare, the object is to destroy private health insurance in this country and replace it with a single-payer, government-run system. Financial Reform's goal is to support large financial institutions at the expense of smaller ones, in addition to federal authorities sticking their greedy little fingers into private individuals' financial and investing pies.
     The philosophy of people on the Left, like Barack Obama, is that freedom and liberty can not be trusted in the hands of common people, because they will build wealth instead of uniformity of outcomes. Leftists strive to make everyone equal by using the trowel of big government to smooth out the highs and lows of a diverse and thriving economy, making the entire country blend together in a bland surface of mediocrity. This philosophy places faith in government over faith in the individual, a concept that is anathema to this great nation's founding.
     Government is unrestrained by the guardrails of the profit motive that keeps private enterprise focused on satisfying the needs, wants and desires of customers at a competitive price. When business thrives, so does the community. The success of business depends on people having money to purchase their goods and services. Big government feeds itself with a bigger chunk of every individuals' labor. And the fewer people that are laboring and the more there are benefitting from that labor, the more of that labor big government must confiscate through taxes. The big government of the Left thrives on more dependents, not fewer, so therefore their policies and programs are designed to fail the individual while succeeding in growing a bigger need for even more government. This rapacious greed of Leftist government has made corruption the standard operating procedure for many who are suppose to be public servants and is in the process of destroying the moral compass of this great nation.    
    

The President's Budget And The Immorality Of Leftism

     Well the white smoke finally drifted out from the White House chimney, a sure sign that the President's long-awaited budget has been penned by the almighty Himself. Never mind that, by law, the President is suppose to present his budget by the first Monday in February each year, making Barack Obama's budget 65 days late. It is par for the course for a President that has no respect for law and who has been running the government budgetless for the last four years. Or maybe it is the lackadaisical manner in which he approaches every aspect of his job.
     The President's budget is illustrative of the Lefts having blurred the line between government and the real economy. Mr. Obama, and the rest of his gang of think-alikes, actually are convinced that government is the economy. That is why President Obama thinks that by growing government he is growing the economy, because to his twisted way of thinking, they are one in the same. Just for the record, and with all due respect to our President's vast intellect, government is an economic negative. For each dollar that the federal government spends to ostensibly stimulate economic growth, it must first tax, borrow or print that dollar. Which means that dollar is taken out of the private economy before it is reintroduced, minus the cost of government which in some cases is more than the original dollar taken. This creates a scenario in which the private economy has to earn back the dollar that was taken, and in so doing it loses the opportunity to earn another dollar and to move the economy ahead by one dollar instead of just staying even.
     Leftists like to say that the glut of government workers that have been hired under President Obama help grow the economy by buying goods and services. First of all, those people would have purchased just as many goods and services had they been employed with private sector jobs. Secondly, even if those federal workers paid all their salaries in tax, the taxpayers would still be on the hook for the cost of their benefits. So government workers, while necessary in limited numbers, are also an economic negative. Only in the Leftist world is it a good thing to have an ever increasing percentage of the population working for the government and sucking up wealth from the private sector.
     The over-employment of government workers not only makes a claim on a larger chunk of private wealth, but destroys the incentive to create new wealth. Would-be entrepreneurs see no point in risking capital and sweat equity if a larger and larger chunk of what they earn is confiscated by government to pay salaries and benefits of an ever-increasing army of redundant government workers. Not to mention their hard earned dollars being squandered on a growing phalanx of people who choose to depend on government largess for their existence. This largess not only drains the created wealth of society, but prevents those who are on the public dole from contributing wealth through the use of their talents, abilities and hard work. And therein lies the immorality of Leftism, the confiscation of the very soul and essence of human endeavor and advancement.

Lady Thatcher Articulates Leftism In One Statement

     With the passing of Margaret Thatcher, the media has been replete with Lady Thatcher quotes. And while all have merit, it is her response to a Labor party member who accused her policies of widening the gap between the rich and poor, that is my favorite. In response to this typical Leftist charge that somehow wealth creates more poverty, Lady Thatcher said, "You are not concerned with the poor becoming poorer, as long as the rich become less rich."
     This charge by Prime Minister Thatcher is illustrative of the core of Leftist thought. Statist policies are not designed to help their stated beneficiaries as much as they are to punish a manufactured "boogy man" that is held responsible by the statist for the ills suffered by the less prosperous. This "boogy man" is usually the wealthy or a business entity, but it can also be a shared value system that the Leftist does not agree with or that does not fit his agenda, like traditional marriage. On issue after issue, if you examine the Leftist position, you will find as the driving force for their animation that simple yet eloquent statement made by Margaret Thatcher. The Lefts entire ideology and political fortunes are based on convincing one class of citizen that their troubles are the result of another class of citizens and that they, the Leftist ruling class, are the only ones who can even the score using the power and authority of big government. But the score is never evened, and everyone is worse off except the ruling class.
     The truth of Lady Thatcher's statement can be seen in the current debate over gun control in this country, even though it is not an issue specifically about rich and poor. At first glance, gun control may not seem to have anything to do with Margaret Thatcher's statement. But remember that the statement is a window into the Leftist soul which is driven by the desire to create a "boogy man" and then present big government as the only entity that can slay him. In the case of gun control, make no mistake, the boogy man is the second amendment specifically and the Constitution in general. And Leftists in the Democrat party do not care if their policies lead to people becoming less safe, as long as they also become less free and are more subject to an ever expanding central government that is under the control of Leftist ideology.
     Lady Thatcher knew, as all who even glance at history know, that Leftist policies and ideology do not work, have never worked and will never work. That is if the aim is to achieve a society that is the most free, the most just and the most prosperous. Free market capitalism with limited government involvement works best for achieving these goals because it can create wealth. Government can only confiscate wealth and redistribute it, it has no ability to generate wealth by its existence. Prime Minister Thatcher also knew, as the late great Milton Friedman said, that the best remedy for poverty is wealth. A wealthy and prosperous society breeds less government dependence which is a major source of corruption in any culture. I have always failed to understand how Leftists think that it is better for a society to have fewer rich people, but then again, prosperity and the liberty which ensues from the existence of wealth, is not the goal of Leftist ideology. A truism that Lady Thatcher knew and articulated in one succinct statement.