There has been much consternation about the two Ebola victims flown into Georgia to be treated at Emery university this week. Some have sounded the alarm bells that this could be the end of civilization as we know it, others have claimed some nefarious scheme on the part of the Obama administration that centers around biological warfare. Why the most powerful military in the world, with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons would need to infect anyone with a flu-like virus, is beyond logical thought. But then reason is not in large supply when fear mongering is.
First of all, to all those worried about catching the Ebola virus, an infected person would have to vomit directly on you in order for you to become infected. You can not catch the virus from a cough or a sneeze. Secondly, while the virus can be deadly (just like any strain of flu can be if untreated) most will survive its effects as long as they remain hydrated and well rested. The problem in Africa is that the shortage of clean water and restful environs makes the virus more deadly than it would be here in the United States.
And although over 900 persons in Africa have died in the past four months as a result of Ebola, the spread of the virus is much slower than that of many other afflictions, like malaria, dysentery, and even the common flu. But the relatively small number of Ebola victims does not seem to matter to its promoters, who have their own agenda that has little to do with public health.
So why the big show and the "lights out" scare tactics? Simple, it is all about research dollars. There is more money allocated to viruses and diseases whose researchers claim can wipe out the world in a matter of days, than the dull everyday viruses like malaria or diseases such as cancer. Consider AIDS, the scourge of mankind that was suppose to have wiped out half the world's population by now, according to those who were in a relentless pursuit of research dollars back in the 1980s and 1990s. The fact is that there are so few AIDS related deaths today that the Center for Disease Control has been classifying death of HIV patients as resulting from the disease, even if the infected person gets hit by a bus, or dies in some other manner unrelated to the disease.
This whoreification of science for the benefit of a political agenda is part and parcel to the Leftist ideology. We have witnessed it through the years with the DDT scare, global cooling, over-population, AIDS, global warming, swine flu, bird flu, and now Ebola. The end game for the Left is to syphon taxpayer dollars into the coffers of researchers and provide an unlimited grant of authority to the political class to deal with the "crisis." The usual result of this mugging of the American people by Leftist politicians is that we awaken in the dimly lit back alley of truth to find that the "epidemic" never occurred and the wallet of our freedoms has been ravaged and emptied, strewn amongst the remnants of our liberty.
Friday, August 8, 2014
Thursday, August 7, 2014
End Of An Era?
The fact that the Harry Reid-controlled senate is the least productive in history is bitter/sweet. On the bitter side there has been fewer bills passed by this senate than any other in recent memory. On the sweet side there has been fewer bills passed by this senate than any other in recent memory. The lack of production by the United States Senate under Mr. Reid's authority is not from inability but from deliberation.
Between the time that Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term election, and the time they officially took control in January of 2011, Barack Obama gave Harry Reid specific marching orders that he was not to bring any House bills to the floor of the Senate for debate, let alone to be voted on. Hence the over three hundred bills passed by the House, many with House Democrat support, that now languish in a pile on Harry Reid's desk.
Mr. Reid proudly proclaimed the tyranny of his majority by announcing bill after bill passed by the House to be "dead on arrival" in the Senate. Many of said bills, almost twenty, were job creation bills that had bi-partisan support in the House and would have gone a long way to helping this beleaguered economy.
Now there are those who say that when Republicans take control as a result of this Fall's mid-term election, they will be able to use their control of both houses of congress to slow down an out-of-control president. I am not so sure about that, considering that Republicans have been so reticent to use the power of the purse they have had as part and parcel to their control of the House of Representatives since January of 2011. Additionally, Senate Republicans, at least in leadership roles, have shown no sign of tacking away from the course set by Mr. Reid and the Democrats with regards to amnesty and spending.
Even if Republicans win control of the Senate this Fall, and hold onto their majority in the House, and receive a spine transplant that causes them to vigorously oppose the president, they will not be able to relieve him of his pen and his phone. As the House and Senate have been a "do nothing congress," President Obama has been a busy little legislative beaver, passing executive orders to implement an unpopular agenda with the people's representatives. All, I might add, against the United States Constitution.
It bares repeating that a president has the most executive order authority when his order supports a decision upon which congress has previously ruled. He has dubious authority when his order implements policy which congress has not ruled one way or the other. And he has the least amount of authority when his order is in direct conflict with a previous congressional ruling. As we go forward, it may behoove Republicans to keep in mind that, constitutionally, congress makes the laws and the president, through the executive branch of government, enforces those laws.
The Founders knew that when the creation of laws and the enforcement of laws resides in a single branch of government, the gravity of tyranny is too great a force on the moorings of liberty. The era of government that we have entered with the Obama administration is not only the era of an ever expanding government, but of a fundamentally changed government. A government where the people, through their representatives in congress, have little participation in the making of laws that have their operation on the mass of citizens for whom the constitution was written to protect.
Between the time that Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term election, and the time they officially took control in January of 2011, Barack Obama gave Harry Reid specific marching orders that he was not to bring any House bills to the floor of the Senate for debate, let alone to be voted on. Hence the over three hundred bills passed by the House, many with House Democrat support, that now languish in a pile on Harry Reid's desk.
Mr. Reid proudly proclaimed the tyranny of his majority by announcing bill after bill passed by the House to be "dead on arrival" in the Senate. Many of said bills, almost twenty, were job creation bills that had bi-partisan support in the House and would have gone a long way to helping this beleaguered economy.
Now there are those who say that when Republicans take control as a result of this Fall's mid-term election, they will be able to use their control of both houses of congress to slow down an out-of-control president. I am not so sure about that, considering that Republicans have been so reticent to use the power of the purse they have had as part and parcel to their control of the House of Representatives since January of 2011. Additionally, Senate Republicans, at least in leadership roles, have shown no sign of tacking away from the course set by Mr. Reid and the Democrats with regards to amnesty and spending.
Even if Republicans win control of the Senate this Fall, and hold onto their majority in the House, and receive a spine transplant that causes them to vigorously oppose the president, they will not be able to relieve him of his pen and his phone. As the House and Senate have been a "do nothing congress," President Obama has been a busy little legislative beaver, passing executive orders to implement an unpopular agenda with the people's representatives. All, I might add, against the United States Constitution.
It bares repeating that a president has the most executive order authority when his order supports a decision upon which congress has previously ruled. He has dubious authority when his order implements policy which congress has not ruled one way or the other. And he has the least amount of authority when his order is in direct conflict with a previous congressional ruling. As we go forward, it may behoove Republicans to keep in mind that, constitutionally, congress makes the laws and the president, through the executive branch of government, enforces those laws.
The Founders knew that when the creation of laws and the enforcement of laws resides in a single branch of government, the gravity of tyranny is too great a force on the moorings of liberty. The era of government that we have entered with the Obama administration is not only the era of an ever expanding government, but of a fundamentally changed government. A government where the people, through their representatives in congress, have little participation in the making of laws that have their operation on the mass of citizens for whom the constitution was written to protect.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
The Historical Candidate Syndrome
I fear that we have reached a point in our nation's history that has made George W. Bush the last historically insignificant president elected. My thesis being that Mr. Bush may be the last elected president based on his experience and ability to coherently articulate his ideas, and for his fidelity to the constitutional principles which built the greatest nation in the world's history. I fear from this point forward the American people will be guilted and cowed into electing historically significant persons to the presidency, and not those who have accomplishments, experience, or the temperament for the job.
We have seen my thesis fulfilled to fruition in the two elections of Barack Obama. He ran and was elected based on being the first black man to do so. Other than that, he had no other experience or an articulated plan for the country. The two election victories of Barack Obama has, for the Democrats, become a template for all other candidates going forward. That is why many are supporting Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren as their presidential nominee for 2016. But whether it is the first black man, the first woman, the first black woman, the first Hispanic, the first Hispanic woman, or the first openly gay candidate, the Democrats see this tact as giving them electoral victory for decades to come.
The election of a completely unqualified candidate, by experience and temperament, is only the first step in the process of the Historical Candidate Syndrome. The "rest of the story," as the late Paul Harvey use to say, is that a person with the stink of history all over them can repeal opposition to their agenda without having to defend it legitimately. We have seen this tactic used against the opponents of Barack Obama's policies by labeling them as racists. With the first woman president, any opponents will be called sexist. The opponents of the first gay president will be called homophobic. And so on, ad infinitum. The Left never has to defend their positions as long as they never elect another straight, white man to the presidency.
The garden that produces the historical candidate has been sown by the Left over the last 40 years and fertilized with political correctness. They have created a population of sheep that are so afraid of being called intolerant, that they will actually vote against their own self-interests as well as the interests of liberty.
Being in possession of the insignificance of race, sex, sexual preference or anything else is not enough, the historical candidate must also be part of the Leftist group think. That is why members of minority groups who espouse conservatism are fair game for racial and non-racial slurs from those on the Left. One can well imagined the tar and feathering someone on the Right would have received had they engaged in the kind of rhetoric that those on the Left engaged in against candidates like Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, et al.
It is certainly a brave new world, where affirmative action has entered into a precarious marriage with presidential politics. We have seen Barack Obama be elected twice based on his personalization of the victim status of his race. And he has continued to use his alleged victimization to advance his agenda, sans any vigorous opposition. If the Historical Candidate Syndrome is allowed to manifest itself in subsequent election cycles, representative government as founded by the framers of the Constitution, will be in jeopardy of fading into a past that no longer exists.
We have seen my thesis fulfilled to fruition in the two elections of Barack Obama. He ran and was elected based on being the first black man to do so. Other than that, he had no other experience or an articulated plan for the country. The two election victories of Barack Obama has, for the Democrats, become a template for all other candidates going forward. That is why many are supporting Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren as their presidential nominee for 2016. But whether it is the first black man, the first woman, the first black woman, the first Hispanic, the first Hispanic woman, or the first openly gay candidate, the Democrats see this tact as giving them electoral victory for decades to come.
The election of a completely unqualified candidate, by experience and temperament, is only the first step in the process of the Historical Candidate Syndrome. The "rest of the story," as the late Paul Harvey use to say, is that a person with the stink of history all over them can repeal opposition to their agenda without having to defend it legitimately. We have seen this tactic used against the opponents of Barack Obama's policies by labeling them as racists. With the first woman president, any opponents will be called sexist. The opponents of the first gay president will be called homophobic. And so on, ad infinitum. The Left never has to defend their positions as long as they never elect another straight, white man to the presidency.
The garden that produces the historical candidate has been sown by the Left over the last 40 years and fertilized with political correctness. They have created a population of sheep that are so afraid of being called intolerant, that they will actually vote against their own self-interests as well as the interests of liberty.
Being in possession of the insignificance of race, sex, sexual preference or anything else is not enough, the historical candidate must also be part of the Leftist group think. That is why members of minority groups who espouse conservatism are fair game for racial and non-racial slurs from those on the Left. One can well imagined the tar and feathering someone on the Right would have received had they engaged in the kind of rhetoric that those on the Left engaged in against candidates like Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, et al.
It is certainly a brave new world, where affirmative action has entered into a precarious marriage with presidential politics. We have seen Barack Obama be elected twice based on his personalization of the victim status of his race. And he has continued to use his alleged victimization to advance his agenda, sans any vigorous opposition. If the Historical Candidate Syndrome is allowed to manifest itself in subsequent election cycles, representative government as founded by the framers of the Constitution, will be in jeopardy of fading into a past that no longer exists.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Hubris Of The Fed
The stock market has had a little trouble lately on its fairytale expedition to never, never land where shares prices increase simply because the sun rises and the Federal Reserve bunnies dance with magical monetary policy in fields of brightly colored flowers of delusion. You may wonder why, after recent record highs, the stock market seems to have throttled back a little.
Well it certainly is not earnings, economic data, the crisis on our Southern border, the hot war between Israel and Hamas, the cold war between the United States and Russia over the latter's incursion into the sovereign nation of Ukraine, the Argentine debt crisis, the European debt crisis, or arguably the worse U.S. economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s. No, what moves the market now is talk of the Federal Reserve increasing their benchmark interest rate from its historic low of zero to a quarter percent, which it has maintained for six years.
The stock market is like the Roman Emperor Nero, who played his fiddle while Rome burned. As long as the market has its security blanket of Federal Reserve monetary policy, which has pumped almost 4 trillion dollars into what would otherwise have been a flaccid market at best the last 5 years, they are as quiet as a baby suckling at his mother's breast. But as soon as there is talk of raising interest rates in conjunction with the Fed reduction in the amount of bonds they are buying each month to drive money into the market, those in the market scream like that little baby when he is detached from his mother before he has had his fill.
The economic reality is that during the last decade the median wealth amongst American families has decreased from $87,000 down to $56,000. A majority of that decrease has happened in the last 6 years that Barack Obama has been president, and the Federal Reserve has been handing out the candy of higher share prices at the expense of average Americans. Too low of interest rates over an extended period of time has the same effect as too high of interest rates, both stifle economic growth. Low interest rates have conspired with excessive federal regulations and laws like ObamaCare, to constipate real economic growth.
The real irony of the Obama-led Federal Reserve keeping interest rates so low for so long is that Democrats screamed from the rooftops that it was just this kind of monetary policy which lead to the financial crisis of 2008. Recently in a congressional hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen would not agree to setting any metrics on when certain monetary policy would be implemented by the Fed. This hubris on the part of Ms. Yellen is typical of those in government who have never worked in the private sector economy, but somehow think their economic theories cooked up in the vacuum of the university can change the economic reality of a free market.
Well it certainly is not earnings, economic data, the crisis on our Southern border, the hot war between Israel and Hamas, the cold war between the United States and Russia over the latter's incursion into the sovereign nation of Ukraine, the Argentine debt crisis, the European debt crisis, or arguably the worse U.S. economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s. No, what moves the market now is talk of the Federal Reserve increasing their benchmark interest rate from its historic low of zero to a quarter percent, which it has maintained for six years.
The stock market is like the Roman Emperor Nero, who played his fiddle while Rome burned. As long as the market has its security blanket of Federal Reserve monetary policy, which has pumped almost 4 trillion dollars into what would otherwise have been a flaccid market at best the last 5 years, they are as quiet as a baby suckling at his mother's breast. But as soon as there is talk of raising interest rates in conjunction with the Fed reduction in the amount of bonds they are buying each month to drive money into the market, those in the market scream like that little baby when he is detached from his mother before he has had his fill.
The economic reality is that during the last decade the median wealth amongst American families has decreased from $87,000 down to $56,000. A majority of that decrease has happened in the last 6 years that Barack Obama has been president, and the Federal Reserve has been handing out the candy of higher share prices at the expense of average Americans. Too low of interest rates over an extended period of time has the same effect as too high of interest rates, both stifle economic growth. Low interest rates have conspired with excessive federal regulations and laws like ObamaCare, to constipate real economic growth.
The real irony of the Obama-led Federal Reserve keeping interest rates so low for so long is that Democrats screamed from the rooftops that it was just this kind of monetary policy which lead to the financial crisis of 2008. Recently in a congressional hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen would not agree to setting any metrics on when certain monetary policy would be implemented by the Fed. This hubris on the part of Ms. Yellen is typical of those in government who have never worked in the private sector economy, but somehow think their economic theories cooked up in the vacuum of the university can change the economic reality of a free market.
Monday, August 4, 2014
The Shame Of A Nation
There are those events that are difficult to morally judge, conflicts between two sides where both appear to have a valid claim to righteousness. The Bible says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." But that passage is often misused by today's culture to mean that we should be tolerant of every behavior, no matter how deviant or evil. The true intent of the passage is that the disposition of a man's soul should not be judged by man, but only by God. As human beings with the God-given ability to think critically and being divinely inculcated with the knowledge of good and evil, we are implored by all that is righteous in the eyes of God to judge holy from profane, morality from immorality, and right from wrong.
There has never been, is now, nor ever will be a more clearly demarcated line between good and evil than the Israeli/Hamas conflict. And the fact that the world community, lead by the largest repository of anti-Semitism in the world, the United Nations, and I am ashamed to say, by the United States government, has clearly taken the side of evil. That may sound blunt, but sometimes the truth can not be made less severe by sugar coating it.
Hamas and the Palestinian people talk about occupation and blockades, but there has not been a single Jew in Gaza since 2005, and the only items not being allowed into the country by Israel are military weaponry. And what have the Palestinian people lead by Hamas done with the country that the Jews left in much better shape than they found it? They have destroyed any implements of prosperity and have used the thousands of tons of cement provided to them by the international community to build public buildings and homes, and have instead built tunnels into Israel from which they launch terror campaigns and kidnappings. They have continually fired thousands of missiles into their neighbor Israel and have called publicly for their destruction.
The Lefts phony outrage over the deaths of innocent Palestinians can not veil their blatant anti-Semitism. If their concern was purely humanitarian, then why have we not heard a peep from the Left about the 1500 innocent Palestinians that have been killed in the Syrian conflict? Or does the Left only place value on Palestinian life when it is loss as a result of Israel defending itself from incessant attacks by Hamas?
Barack Obama's support of Hamas is befitting the Democrat tradition began by Jimmy Carter, who in 1979 gave radical Islam the country of Iran by supporting the ouster of the Shah and replacing him with the radical Islamist government of the Ayatollah, whom the obtuse Mr. Carter compared to Gandhi. Up to that critical point in history, radical Islam existed on the fringe of the Muslim religion. Once it gained state sponsorship through Carter's gift of Iran, the radicalization of Islam accelerated and the creation of armies of terrorists was born of the demon seed planted by Jimmy Carter.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Michelle Obama said that for the first time in her life she was proud of her country, ostensibly because her husband was the first black man chosen by a major political party to run for the nation's highest office. After the abandonment by this president of not only our closest ally in the Middle East, but the world, I am ashamed of my country. I am ashamed that enough of my fellow citizens elected as president a man who has not only abandon Israel in her time of crisis, but has the indecency to openly support her enemies whose goal it is to destroy her. Unfortunately this is not only my shame, but the shame of a nation.
There has never been, is now, nor ever will be a more clearly demarcated line between good and evil than the Israeli/Hamas conflict. And the fact that the world community, lead by the largest repository of anti-Semitism in the world, the United Nations, and I am ashamed to say, by the United States government, has clearly taken the side of evil. That may sound blunt, but sometimes the truth can not be made less severe by sugar coating it.
Hamas and the Palestinian people talk about occupation and blockades, but there has not been a single Jew in Gaza since 2005, and the only items not being allowed into the country by Israel are military weaponry. And what have the Palestinian people lead by Hamas done with the country that the Jews left in much better shape than they found it? They have destroyed any implements of prosperity and have used the thousands of tons of cement provided to them by the international community to build public buildings and homes, and have instead built tunnels into Israel from which they launch terror campaigns and kidnappings. They have continually fired thousands of missiles into their neighbor Israel and have called publicly for their destruction.
The Lefts phony outrage over the deaths of innocent Palestinians can not veil their blatant anti-Semitism. If their concern was purely humanitarian, then why have we not heard a peep from the Left about the 1500 innocent Palestinians that have been killed in the Syrian conflict? Or does the Left only place value on Palestinian life when it is loss as a result of Israel defending itself from incessant attacks by Hamas?
Barack Obama's support of Hamas is befitting the Democrat tradition began by Jimmy Carter, who in 1979 gave radical Islam the country of Iran by supporting the ouster of the Shah and replacing him with the radical Islamist government of the Ayatollah, whom the obtuse Mr. Carter compared to Gandhi. Up to that critical point in history, radical Islam existed on the fringe of the Muslim religion. Once it gained state sponsorship through Carter's gift of Iran, the radicalization of Islam accelerated and the creation of armies of terrorists was born of the demon seed planted by Jimmy Carter.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Michelle Obama said that for the first time in her life she was proud of her country, ostensibly because her husband was the first black man chosen by a major political party to run for the nation's highest office. After the abandonment by this president of not only our closest ally in the Middle East, but the world, I am ashamed of my country. I am ashamed that enough of my fellow citizens elected as president a man who has not only abandon Israel in her time of crisis, but has the indecency to openly support her enemies whose goal it is to destroy her. Unfortunately this is not only my shame, but the shame of a nation.
Saturday, August 2, 2014
A True History Of Slavery
While it is true that the United States of America, and the British colonies before that, practiced what Abraham Lincoln called one of the twin relics of barbarism, slavery (the other one being polygamy), it was not the only nation in the world to do so. In fact, all other nations of the world practiced some form of slavery, and the United States was the first nation in the world to outlaw the practice, having fought a bloody war against itself to do so.
One of the myths of slavery is that the American South benefitted economically from the practice. The theory goes that with free labor the South was able to prosper on the backs of the enslaved. But the labor of slaves was not free to the landowners, they incurred expense in housing, feeding, clothing, and providing medical care to the slaves in their possession. Whether they paid a work force that then used that money to provide all those things for themselves, or in the case of slavery, the landowners provided those necessities for their work force, it was still an expense.
Slavery did not make the South more prosperous, in fact, the free North had a much more thriving and diverse economy than did the South. And had the Civil War not ended the barbaric practice of slavery, the free market would have. As manufacturing grew to replace agriculture as the mainstay of the American economy, and rural life was replaced with urbanization, the impracticality of slavery would have rendered it useless.
Many people, especially on the Left, in deriding the Constitution argue that since many of the Founding Fathers had slaves, that fact somehow nullifies our founding. The Founding Fathers in the South were born into a culture which had included slavery for over a hundred and fifty years before they came into existence. So while they detested the practice, they were trapped in the maze of slavery they did not create. But they very wisely devised a Constitution that they knew could be used by men in a subsequent time to insure the undoing of slavery. Had they pushed for an end to slavery as part of the founding of their new country, there never would have been a union of the colonies that became a beacon of freedom and hope, not only to former slaves in this country, but to the millions of enslaved and oppressed throughout the world.
Many of the physical abuses suffered by American slaves were exaggerated for political effect. I am not saying that no slaves were ever abused, only that it made no sense for plantation owners to pay good money just to abuse them. It is analogous to someone today buying a car and then beating it with a baseball bat. It could happen, I suppose, but it is not likely in most cases. In fact in the case of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, their estates were managed by trusted slaves the years they were absent during the revolution and the early days of the new government.
I would not want anything I have written here to misconstrue that I somehow support the idea of slavery, or think it was anything but a blemish on this great nation's past. But I also think what is purposely lost in the teaching of slave history in the United States is the fact that it was the goodness of our founding which eventually lead to slavery's eradication.
One of the myths of slavery is that the American South benefitted economically from the practice. The theory goes that with free labor the South was able to prosper on the backs of the enslaved. But the labor of slaves was not free to the landowners, they incurred expense in housing, feeding, clothing, and providing medical care to the slaves in their possession. Whether they paid a work force that then used that money to provide all those things for themselves, or in the case of slavery, the landowners provided those necessities for their work force, it was still an expense.
Slavery did not make the South more prosperous, in fact, the free North had a much more thriving and diverse economy than did the South. And had the Civil War not ended the barbaric practice of slavery, the free market would have. As manufacturing grew to replace agriculture as the mainstay of the American economy, and rural life was replaced with urbanization, the impracticality of slavery would have rendered it useless.
Many people, especially on the Left, in deriding the Constitution argue that since many of the Founding Fathers had slaves, that fact somehow nullifies our founding. The Founding Fathers in the South were born into a culture which had included slavery for over a hundred and fifty years before they came into existence. So while they detested the practice, they were trapped in the maze of slavery they did not create. But they very wisely devised a Constitution that they knew could be used by men in a subsequent time to insure the undoing of slavery. Had they pushed for an end to slavery as part of the founding of their new country, there never would have been a union of the colonies that became a beacon of freedom and hope, not only to former slaves in this country, but to the millions of enslaved and oppressed throughout the world.
Many of the physical abuses suffered by American slaves were exaggerated for political effect. I am not saying that no slaves were ever abused, only that it made no sense for plantation owners to pay good money just to abuse them. It is analogous to someone today buying a car and then beating it with a baseball bat. It could happen, I suppose, but it is not likely in most cases. In fact in the case of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, their estates were managed by trusted slaves the years they were absent during the revolution and the early days of the new government.
I would not want anything I have written here to misconstrue that I somehow support the idea of slavery, or think it was anything but a blemish on this great nation's past. But I also think what is purposely lost in the teaching of slave history in the United States is the fact that it was the goodness of our founding which eventually lead to slavery's eradication.
Friday, August 1, 2014
The Left Refuses To Press Charges After Being Mugged By Reality
To say that the Left is obtuse about the utter failure of their ideology is an understatement, in fact they are daily mugged by reality and yet refuse to press charges. From the anti-prosperity of their economic policy to the pro-chaos of their foreign policy, the Left has proven throughout recent history that bad ideas reside in the very ether of their thoughts. This truth has been evident for some time, but has never had a more spectacular poster-child than the current occupant of the White House, Barack Obama.
President Obama has been mugged by the reality of economic policy that has produced the lowest percentage of the population participating in the work force in almost half a century, but refuses to veer from the rocky path of his policy. He has been mugged by an ever more aggressive Vladimir Putin, but refuses to show the spine necessary for an American leader to counter the growing threat. President Obama has been mugged by the reality of ISIS in Iraq and Syria moving ever more closer to confiscating those lands to be used as a launching pad for world-wide terrorism, but he blindly continues his policy that has given birth to the resurgence of such terrorist groups.
President Obama has been mugged by the reality of the terror organization Hamas continually attacking its neighbor Israel, whose destruction Hamas has said is their ultimate goal, and yet Mr. Obama joins the anti-Semite chorus lead by the United Nations in condemning Israel. The president has been mugged by the reality of a Southern U.S. border that is so porous it has allowed almost half a million illegal aliens to breach it in just the last 6 months, yet he refuses to enforce immigration law, or even allow border states to do so on their own.
In a speech this week in Kansas City, President Obama engaged in hate speech while simultaneously accusing Republicans in congress of being hateful and angry. He was incredulous that there are those who could disagree with his failed policy up to this point in his term, and he can not understand why they do not acquiesce to his current round of destructive policies. I fail to understand why anyone in congress would want to board the train of failure that exemplifies this administration. A pathetically weak economy at home and a Middle East and Eastern Europe that is burning in large part to this president's policies and ineptness, should be evidentiary of the need for a mass exodus from this disaster, even by those in the president's own party.
With all this mugging by reality, one would think that those on the Left would abandon failure and search for a more successful path. The reason they do not is simple, the Left does not define success with prosperity, peace, and security. Their definition of success is how many federal programs can be created with the expressed purpose of, not helping anyone or solving problems, but to suck up hard earned taxpayer dollars like some giant, money-sucking vacuum. Yes, President Obama and the rest of the Left have been mugged by reality, but far from pressing charges they choose to bring the mugger home so he can ply his trade on the rest of the family.
President Obama has been mugged by the reality of economic policy that has produced the lowest percentage of the population participating in the work force in almost half a century, but refuses to veer from the rocky path of his policy. He has been mugged by an ever more aggressive Vladimir Putin, but refuses to show the spine necessary for an American leader to counter the growing threat. President Obama has been mugged by the reality of ISIS in Iraq and Syria moving ever more closer to confiscating those lands to be used as a launching pad for world-wide terrorism, but he blindly continues his policy that has given birth to the resurgence of such terrorist groups.
President Obama has been mugged by the reality of the terror organization Hamas continually attacking its neighbor Israel, whose destruction Hamas has said is their ultimate goal, and yet Mr. Obama joins the anti-Semite chorus lead by the United Nations in condemning Israel. The president has been mugged by the reality of a Southern U.S. border that is so porous it has allowed almost half a million illegal aliens to breach it in just the last 6 months, yet he refuses to enforce immigration law, or even allow border states to do so on their own.
In a speech this week in Kansas City, President Obama engaged in hate speech while simultaneously accusing Republicans in congress of being hateful and angry. He was incredulous that there are those who could disagree with his failed policy up to this point in his term, and he can not understand why they do not acquiesce to his current round of destructive policies. I fail to understand why anyone in congress would want to board the train of failure that exemplifies this administration. A pathetically weak economy at home and a Middle East and Eastern Europe that is burning in large part to this president's policies and ineptness, should be evidentiary of the need for a mass exodus from this disaster, even by those in the president's own party.
With all this mugging by reality, one would think that those on the Left would abandon failure and search for a more successful path. The reason they do not is simple, the Left does not define success with prosperity, peace, and security. Their definition of success is how many federal programs can be created with the expressed purpose of, not helping anyone or solving problems, but to suck up hard earned taxpayer dollars like some giant, money-sucking vacuum. Yes, President Obama and the rest of the Left have been mugged by reality, but far from pressing charges they choose to bring the mugger home so he can ply his trade on the rest of the family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)