Some Republicans Have Taken To Eating Their Young

Some Republicans Have Taken To Eating Their Young

With congress unable to put forth meaningful and significant budget cuts, it seems that some Republicans have taken to “eating their young.” Recently elected Republicans, responding to overwhelming calls from their constituents to get government spending under control and reduce the size and scope of government, are being attacked by members of their own party who, in many cases, have become little more than professional politicians. It seems that the “old guard” on both sides of the aisle are tone deaf, so entrenched in “the politics of politics” that they are able to ignore the message sent by the voters.

And now some of that “old guard” on the Republican side, fearful of losing power for their party and of losing their precious seat in congress, have begun attacking their party’s own who represent the new message from the people. This must stop. Those who see themselves as permanent residents of DC could—and it’s still a very big COULD–soon be looking for employment elsewhere.  If they fail to represent the will of their constituents—the task they were hired to do—they COULD be terminated. Unfortunately their fate is yet to be determined.  Career politicians have built powerful political machines able to overpower most opposition. After all, blocks of votes are regularly purchased for the price of political favors, union concessions, and backroom deals.

Unfortunately, while some of the new political voices are refreshing, many are just modified versions of the same old partisan politics, guaranteed to deepen the chasm separating opposing political views. However, those who truly present constructive options must be supported, and their numbers increased; and those who fail to support the principles of a government of the people, who sleep with our enemies, and who are unwilling to take the bold steps necessary to restore our economy must face the consequences of their actions. It is up to the voters to remain vigilant and monitor the actions of our elected officials. While they may offer clever political rhetoric, what they actually support and accomplish will demonstrate their worthiness to keep their elected positions.


Drowning in Ignorance

For almost four decades I’ve participated in the electoral process, and during most of the elections I’ve observed, I’ve been appalled at the lack of interest and sheer ignorance of the average voter. While millions complain about our nation’s problems, few actually take time to understand the issues they’re complaining about. Our nation will never reach solutions or resolve the partisan divide, until voters become involved. As long as voters rely on news absorbed through a disinterested perusal of biased sources, nothing will change. John Kennedy understood the dangers when he said: “The ignorance of one voter in a Democracy impairs the security of all.”

In the past I’ve refrained from making a blanket indictment of American voters. I did so out of respect for those few who dedicate their time and efforts to participating in government and in the hope that conditions would miraculously change. However, after listening to the comments of hundreds of voters during the recent presidential campaign, it seems obvious that the dumbing down of voters has been a complete success. And whether or not the results are due to some sinister plot by the political class or are simply the consequences of the continual stream of mind-numbing mush spewing from our TVs, the outcome is the same.

Countless “man on the street” interviews have demonstrated that millions of voters don’t have a clue. Too disinterested or too lazy to discover the truth on their own, they rely on the twisted news of their favorite news channel, opinions gleaned from talk radio, and the extreme partisan rhetoric of politicians whose prime focus is to undermine the positions of political opponents by spreading half-truths and outright lies.

While I’d like to offer a solution to the core problem, I see none, at least none that can be implemented from the outside. The only hope is that voter interest somehow increases; but such an outcome seems hardly likely as long as reality TV exists. Short of economic or societal calamity, apathy and ignorance will continue to reign. The problems of the U.S. will escalate until the proverbial fan becomes so clogged with feculence that the level of pain exceeds the nuisance of participation. Then, and only then, may Americans once more grasp their responsibilities as citizens, and renounce the role as servants to the political class.


The Truth about the Fiscal Cliff

Dangers of Political Inaction

With the election over, the media is now focused upon what they perceive as the next most news-worthy event, the fiscal cliff, that looming financial crisis alleged to destroy the U.S. economy and the American way of life . . .  at least that’s the way it’s often presented. The truth about the fiscal cliff is that it’s only one symptom of a much larger problem; and that problem is debt.

And even though the press continues to ballyhoo the fiscal cliff, most Americans go about their lives unaware of just what such a cliff entails. After all, when you have great TV like, “Doomsday Preppers,” “Dancing with the Stars,” and “Punkin Chunkin,” who has time to try to understand vague economic concepts. The recent election perfectly demonstrated that Americans have little time for participating in the trivialities of governance.

In reality, the hype over the so-called fiscal cliff is just that. It’s hype. When 2013 dawns, the world won’t have ended—of course, the ancient Mayans have already warned us that we won’t make it to January, that planet earth is doomed to destruction on December 21, 2012. But in the event that their calendar may have been off by a millennium or two, it might be wise for us to pull away from the TV and see what all the hype is about.

The fiscal cliff currently drawing so much media attention is the result of a super committee established by our political “leaders.” In August of 2011, when the country was approaching the debt ceiling, the amount of debt allowed by law, Democrats and Republicans named a committee, the purpose of which was to reach a compromise on the terms for lowering the deficit. In the event agreement could not be reached, the committee established severe cuts, a fiscal cliff, which would cripple the nation’s economy. Of course, both parties assumed that the other would ultimately yield to their demands, that a compromise agreement would be reached, negating the necessity of the fiscal cliff. (Politicians love measures that allow them to postpone difficult decisions for they live in an alternate reality where the future is forever avoidable. They are also inherently stupid, but they believe the opposition party to be more so.)

Now as we approach the deadline of December 31, our leaders have begun to question the wisdom of their actions. The fiscal cliff is only weeks away, and it poses a real threat to the economy. But those of us on the outside know exactly what will happen. It’s extremely unlikely that politicians will allow disaster to occur on January 1. They’ll do what they do best, nudge the can a bit further, and take sufficient measures to insure that their constituents won’t blame them for allowing the economy to collapse. Their focus won’t be upon solving the problem, but upon attempting to make it appear as if the opposition is responsible for both the confusion and chaos that have become the trademarks of the legislative process.

What politicians will also do is to refuse to seriously address the very real dangers of our burgeoning debt and deficit. That’s where the true perils exist. While it’s possible to devalue the dollar and make it easier to repay our debt, at some point, our debtors will refuse to purchase it. The only reason that U.S. Treasury Bonds remain attractive is that the economies of most other nations are worse.

In the end, we may discover that the ancient Mayans did an incredible favor to DC; by establishing 12/21/2012 as the end date for our world, our leaders may just avoid the ultimate catastrophe. If they can postpone the crisis into 2013, their culpability for the looming fiscal cliff and the effects of overwhelming debt just might be avoided forever.


The Election is Over and America is Screwed

The election is over and America is screwed. Why? It’s not because Barack Obama won a second term, and it’s not because conservatives were incapable of mounting a coherent strategy for winning. Quite honestly, had Romney been declared the winner, the country would be in no better shape; we’d just postpone the inevitable for a bit longer. The results of the 2012 election and the billions spent in getting us to this point are just symptoms of a disease that has been eating away at our country for decades.

Americans have lost their vision. We have allowed the political class, driven by big business, unions, and other special interest groups, to determine the path of our country. I’d like to say it’s time for that to stop, that “we the people” must take charge; but the reality is the folks don’t want to be in charge. Many Americans—I fear it’s now the majority—prefer to leave the governing of our country to the politicians, content to spend their time watching their favorite sports or reality show. Until the wheels come off or some disastrous event gets their attention, they’re happily apathetic.

Sure, voters sometimes make a lot of noise, but even then, they are not sufficiently engaged in the process. Most are clueless, blindly accepting the ridiculous claims and charges made by those they support. Many of those who voted to give Obama a second term, as well as the millions who voted against him, lacked a true understanding of the implications of their votes. While they may attempt to justify their support by regurgitating their candidate’s talking points, they refuse to consider the realities of what could be or what was accomplished.

Neither candidate’s supporters get a free pass. Few could present logical arguments in support of their candidate or his positions. The lame reasoning presented by both Romney and Obama supporters is an indication that not only are American voters disengaged from the process; they have abdicated their responsibilities as citizens of our once-great nation.

Is there hope? Four short years ago Obama supporters thought there was. Sadly, most fail to grasp that the promises made by all political candidates are meaningless. They’re nothing more than clever marketing, slogans intended to confound and enrapture a gullible electorate. And while Romney supporters may fear the disastrous consequences of the next four years, their fears are misplaced. It’s not what Obama will do during his final term that should be the concern, but rather what politicians on both sides of the aisle refuse to acknowledge. Our nation’s serious problems cannot—will not—be solved by a political class whose main objective is the continuation of the very system that threatens our destruction.

Finally, I must address an issue I have long avoided, the mixing of politics and religion. Having read numerous posts and comments during the past few weeks lamenting the godless state of our country and of the leaders from both political parties, I feel I must address what I believe to be a significant threat. An omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent Creator, whomever or whatever you perceive that to be, by virtue of its very nature, can have neither political interest nor affiliation. Those who see their beliefs as the will of the TRUE GOD are misguided at best and destructive to the very tenets of their faith. None have the right to force their religious beliefs upon another, regardless of how vehemently they believe it necessary to do so. Religious beliefs must be separated from the governance of our nation, for to allow the doctrines of one group is to open the door to the beliefs of all groups, who may, at some point, triumph politically over the others.

I realize that hard-core religious fanatics will disagree. Just like their counterparts in the political arena, they refuse to consider any but their own narrow-minded points of view.  However, an impartial analysis of the views from all sides, including the willingness to compromise, is the only path that will lead us from dangers which grow ever closer. Yes, the election is over and America is screwed—some might say we’ve been raped. But this is no act being perpetrated by others. Through our laziness, apathy, and self-serving lifestyle, we’ve chosen to despoil ourselves.


Does it Matter Who Won the Presidential Debates?

The following article from Stratfor provides some thought-provoking answers to the question: “Does it matter who won the presidential debates?” I think the critical issue is: “Will the American electorate take responsibility for discovering what the election actually represents?” I’m not sure we’ll be comfortable with the answer to that question on November 7th.

The Purpose of Presidential Debates

By George Friedman

Monday night’s presidential foreign policy debate probably won’t change the opinion of many voters. Proponents of President Barack Obama are still convinced that Mitt Romney is a fool and a liar. Proponents of former Gov. Romney have the same view of the president.

Of course, this is normal in any American presidential race. Along with the eternal conviction that the party in power is destroying the country, we have regarded Abraham Lincoln, during the 1860 election, as a simple-minded country bumpkin with a touch of larceny; Franklin Roosevelt as a rich dilettante and socialist; and Dwight Eisenhower as a bumbling fool who is lazy and incapable of understanding the complexity of the world — this about the man who, during World War II, led the most complex military coalition on the planet to victory.

We like to think that our politics have never been less civil than they are today. Given that Andrew Jackson’s wife was accused of being a prostitute, Grover Cleveland was said to have illegitimate children and Lyndon Johnson faced the chant “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” I will assert that the Obama-Romney campaign doesn’t even register on the vilification scale.

The founders wouldn’t have minded this culture of contempt for politicians. In founding the republic, their fundamental fear was that the power of the state would usurp the freedoms of the states and individuals. They purposefully created a political regime so complex that it is, in its normal state, immobilized. They would not have objected if professional politicians were also held in contempt as an additional protection. Ironically, while the founders opposed both political parties and professional politicians, preferring to imagine that learned men take time from their daily lives to make the sacrifice of service, many became full-time politicians and vilified one another. Thomas Jefferson’s campaign said of John Adams that he had a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Adams’ campaign stated that Jefferson was “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw sired by a Virginia mulatto father.” And Jefferson and Adams were friends. I would suggest suspending the idea that we have never had so vicious a politics.

Let me move to a more radical thought. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are capable men, as well intentioned as ambitious men seeking power can be. Just as I doubt that Jefferson and Adams were as stupid and malicious as their campaigns tried to portray one another, the same can be said of Romney and Obama. I am not suggesting for a moment that the circus of accusations stop, however. To the contrary, seeing how one endures slander is an outstanding measure of a leader’s character and an opportunity to learn how the candidate will react to the sorts of unreasonable and unfair conditions that the president is sure to encounter.

A president will face a world that does not wish the United States well in all cases and an opposition that will try anything, fair or foul, to make the president fail. A president who breaks down when he is mistreated — as Edmund Muskie, a senator running for president in 1972, did over charges made against his wife — is a non-starter. Muskie’s campaign immediately collapsed, as it should have. A president who expects to be treated fairly is an immediate liability.

The True Objective of Debates

A debate is not about policy. It is impossible to state a coherent policy on any complex matter in 90 seconds. The debates between Lincoln and Steven Douglas did go far in that direction, but then it wasn’t on national television, and it was for senator of Illinois, not the presidency. That left room for contemplation. It should be remembered that prior to the Kennedy-Nixon race of 1960, there were no debates, partly because there was no television and partly, perhaps, because the ability to debate was not seen as the appropriate measure of a president.

Debates test one thing: the ability to quickly respond to questions of numbing complexity that are impossible to answer in the time available. They put a premium on being fast and clever but don’t say much about how smart a candidate is. Nor are they meant to, in part because being smart, in an academic sense, is not essential to be president — as many have demonstrated. At their best, debates test a candidate’s coolness under pressure and ability to articulate some thought at least vaguely connected to the question while convincing the viewers that he or she is both personable and serious.

That is, after all, what leadership is about. We have had enormously intelligent presidents who simply couldn’t lead. Here, I think of Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, both of whom had substantial and demonstrable intellects but neither of whom, when confronted by the disastrous, could rapidly contrive both a response and a commanding and reassuring presence in public. In that sense, their intellects betrayed them. Each wanted the right answer, when what was needed was a fast one. Each was succeeded by someone who could provide a fast answer. FDR’s famous first 100 days did not solve the Depression, but they did give the sense that someone was in charge. FDR and Ronald Reagan could reassure the country that they knew what they were doing while they rapidly tried things that might work.

Therefore, the question of who won Monday’s debate is not one that a viewer who spends his time focused on foreign policy can answer. The candidates weren’t speaking to those who make their livings involved in or watching foreign affairs. Nor can we possibly extract from the debate what either candidate intends to do in foreign policy, because conveying that was not what they were trying to do. They were trying to show how quickly and effectively they could respond to the unexpected, and that they were leaders in the simplest sense of being both likeable and commanding, which is the incredibly difficult combination the republic demands of its presidents.

Technology’s Impact

It is important to remember that for most of our history there were no televisions and no debates. Knowledge of the candidates filtered through speeches and letters. The distance between the president and the public was even greater than today. In a sense, the imperial presidency — the president as first among equals of the three branches of government — really began with FDR, who used radio brilliantly. But there were no debates or public press conferences in which to challenge him.

The distance collapsed with television and rapid-fire interplays, yet at the same time increased in another way, as the president became the most public and pseudo-known character in government. I say pseudo-known because, in fact, the president’s greatest skill lies in revealing himself selectively, in a way and to the extent that it enhances his power.

What could be sensed in debates were things like meanness of spirit, ability to listen, willingness to improvise and, ultimately, there was a chance to look for humor and good will. There was also a danger. The debate put a premium on articulateness, but it is not clear that the well-spoken candidate — or at least the candidate who could speak most clearly most quickly — also thought more clearly. There are many people who think clearly but speak slowly while acting quickly. They are not meant for Bob Schieffer or Candy Crowley’s meat grinder.

The point of this is to continue a previous argument I have been making. The issues-based candidacy is a fallacy, especially because events determine the issues, and the most important events, such as 9/11 and the financial crash, are not always expected. Therefore, reality divides the candidate’s policy papers from the candidate’s policies.

I am arguing that the subject of the debate and the specific answers in the debate are doubly unimportant. First, the nature of these debates makes coherent presentation impossible. Second, the stated policies, such as they are, have little to do with the results of the debate. Nor will the better debater win. The winner of the debate will be the one whose soul, when glimpsed, appears able to withstand the burdens of the presidency. Romney’s surge had less to do with Obama’s performance and more to do with what the viewer learned of Romney.

This has always been what American presidential campaigns are about. All that has happened is that television intensified it and the debate purified it. A debate is a 90-minute opportunity to see a candidate under pressure. What the viewer determines he saw will be critical.

I am also making a parallel argument that our perception of today’s political campaigns as uniquely vicious is untrue. We have always been brutal to our candidates, but this served a purpose. We may not know what his policy on trade reform is, but we need to know what kind of person he is for the unexpected issues that will come faster and be more deadly than any moderator’s questions. I think this is the purpose debates serve. They are not some public policy review but a dissection of the soul of someone who wants to be president. It is not necessarily a good one, or always an accurate one. It is, however, why we have them.

The question may come up as to who I think won the debate. My opinion on that is no better than anyone else’s, nor, as I pointed out, do I think it really matters. The winner of the debate may or may not have persuaded enough voters of his virtue to be elected. But in the end, our response to the debate is idiosyncratic. What moved me may not have moved others. After all, the country appears divided down the middle on this election, so obviously we are seeing different things. Therefore, who I think won the debate is as irrelevant as who I think should be president. Besides, there are more important questions than our own opinions on the candidates. For me, one of those is trying to understand what we are doing when we elect a president.

The Purpose of Presidential Debates is republished with permission of Stratfor.


I Love My Country, But its Government Sucks

I Love My Country, But its Government Sucks

The United States of America is, for me, the greatest nation in the world. I am grateful for having been born here. Begun as an experiment that few believed would succeed, The USA has become a magnet, drawing citizens of other countries eager to prosper from the fruits of their labor.

However, as the nation has evolved during the past 250 years, a number of flies have been dropped into our ointment. Well-intentioned—and a large number of ill-intentioned—politicians have distorted the principles upon which our nation was founded in their attempts to “level the playing field” for the citizenry. Elected officials have passed laws with the intent that everyone could have a piece of the American dream. And while such efforts may seem laudable, they are grossly unfair, and often harm the very groups intended to receive benefit.

Not all Americans are willing to do what is necessary to achieve success; and that’s the crux of the problem. We cannot legislate “fairness,” nor can we guarantee success for everyone. Success is achieved through hard work, creativity, patience, perseverance, and sometimes a bit of luck. Regardless of the number of laws passed in Congress, we will always have a significant percentage of the populace who are unwilling to do what is necessary to succeed.

Attempts by our leaders to “level the playing field” or to “spread the wealth around” encourage some who would otherwise be willing to work, to become wards of the state, awaiting their next government handout. And those handouts seem to grow each year as politicians attempt to pacify and increase their political base.

It’s human nature to try to make our lives easier; and when our leaders begin taking from “each according to their means” and distributing to “each according to their needs,” ever-growing numbers willingly enslave themselves to government, awaiting the largess of their political benefactors. It’s the same in the animal kingdom. In areas where locals or tourists regularly feed the wildlife, animal populations increase, and the animals become dependent upon humans for their survival.

I do believe in a government “safety net.” I believe that we have a responsibility to assist those who, for whatever reason, cannot help themselves. But I also believe that many of the government programs now in place, do nothing to lift up those who could ultimately succeed on their own. In most cases the opposite is true. Our poorly managed assistance programs have become insensitive to the actual needs of those seeking their services. Like parents who suffer guilt for ignoring their children, such efforts are little more than bribery, in reality, a thinly veiled purchase of votes.

What has happened to individual responsibility? Where is our pride of accomplishment? When we willingly allow our government to take the fruits of one’s labor and freely give it to us or others, with little regard for true needs, we have abandoned both reason and responsibility. And when the electorate sit idly by, allowing politicians to encourage such a system, we have failed our fellow citizens and our government.


The Buck Doesn’t Stop with Obama . . . It Doesn’t Even Slow Down

Although the President has often said the buck stops with him, the buck doesn’t stop with Obama . . . it doesn’t even slow down. During his term in office, the President has referred to the famous Harry Truman quote a dozen or more times, but in reality he has “passed the buck” on almost every issue when the credibility of his Administration was at stake.

The phrase “The Buck Stops Here,” was popularized by Truman, and the plain-talking President had a sign on his desk as a reminder that he meant it. Never one to mince words, he was also popularized by the slogan, “give ‘em hell Harry, and for good reason. While not as well-known as some presidents, Truman understood the importance of taking responsibility, a trait that our current president not only lacks, but seems to deliberately avoid.

The most recent, and perhaps one of the most blatant, examples of Obama shunning responsibility, occurred during an interview on the Spanish network, Univision, in which he placed blame for the current gun-running scandal squarely on the Bush Administration, “I think it’s important for us to understand that “Fast and Furious” was begun under the previous administration,” he said. “ When Holder found out about it, he discontinued it.” (Neither statement is true.)

And while I’ll leave out the details of the significant differences between “Fast and Furious” and the program begun under Bush known as, “Operation Wide Receiver,” the Bush program was halted in 2007. “Fast and Furious” was begun in 2009.

What I believe this demonstrates is the President’s effort to confuse voters and to have them believe that his Administration is not at all responsible for “Fast and Furious” or for the deaths of two Border Patrol agents and several hundred Mexican citizens killed with guns which our government deliberately placed in the hands of known drug dealers. However, the botched gun program is just one example of the President’s inability to take responsibility for events that occurred under his watch. Below I have listed several others.

The President has blamed:

High unemployment: Bush, Japan’s tsunami, and the European debt crisis

The failure of Solyndra: The Chinese

High oil prices: Speculators and Middle East unrest (Fails to mention his part of that unrest)

Lack of economic improvement: Bush created a bigger mess than he thought

Exploding the national debt: Bush

Gulf oil spill: Bush era regulations

Failure of Simpson-Bowles: Paul Ryan

Loss of U. S. AAA rating: The Tea Party and Standard & Poor’s

Failure to enact immigration reform: Congress and the financial crisis

Failure to protect the U.S. Embassy in Libya: An Internet video

Shortly after taking office, Obama stated that if he didn’t get the job done (improving the economy) in three years, he’d be a one-term president. When questioned about that statement, he refused to acknowledge that he even made it, and once more attempted to redirect the focus from him to the “huge mess he inherited.”

Finally, the President places the responsibility for his re-election on the backs of his supporters. Stating that he doesn’t have as much time to campaign as he did in 2008 (he’s held twice the number of fundraisers as Bush), Obama says that it’s up to his supporters to make it happen.

In the end, the problem with this President is that he is unwilling to take responsibility for his actions; and he has failed miserably to provide the leadership necessary to solve the serious problems our country faces. Are some of his failures due to inaction in Congress? Of course. But a president is elected to lead. When tough decisions are required he must make them; he must be willing to compromise; and he must be honest with himself and with the American people when his policies fail. A president who cannot do those things is unworthy of either our trust or our support.


We Have Seen the Problem, and it is Us

Some people seem to believe that our nation’s problems are due to the evils of a single political party (the one they oppose). In reality, extreme partisanship is the problem, for it blinds us to the positive contributions of the opposition and creates such divisiveness that cooperation is impossible.

As we approach the coming election, we can continue pointing out the mistakes and shortcomings of our political adversaries, or we can agree to come together with open minds. The choice is ours—we the people—it’s not that of a few hundred partisans in Washington. Of course, the politicians believe their supporters to be simpletons, myrmidons who eagerly and blindly support their deceitful tactics; and in far too many cases they’re right. But their tactics are leading us on a one-way path to destruction.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could ignore the rhetoric—if only for one brief moment—and collectively demand that our leaders follow the Constitution and uphold their oath of office?


Toady Nation

Toady Nation

Change the system, not just the faces.

As the presidential election nears, politicians and their media toadies are turning up the rhetoric, aware that the average voter is too (stupid, apathetic, distracted, gullible, or biased—pick one) to see beyond the lies and distortions that are being bandied about. And therein we discover America’s problem. With a majority who, for whatever reason, refuse to educate themselves before casting their ballots, voting has become corrupted to the point of being a meaningless component of the electoral process. Perhaps Mark Twain was correct when he said: “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.”

While I wasn’t born a pessimist, decades of observing the decline of our once-great nation has hardened my heart and filled me with doubts that our country can be salvaged. It isn’t that I don’t want to believe in the dream; it’s just that I see the damage created by the growing divisiveness and partisanship that has infected the thinking of otherwise rational and intelligent people. Each day I read comments on Facebook, Twitter, and blogs that make it evident that most voters haven’t a clue. While they shout “lies” about the candidates they oppose, their vituperative comments are most often based upon the biased representations of others or sometimes direct quotes from them. Many appear so insecure in their beliefs that they feel compelled to criticize the positions of those who disagree, regurgitating the biased views of comics, political pundits, politicians, and media lackeys . . . perhaps because they fear the truth.  Unless that mind-set changes, the U.S. will continue careening toward disaster, the results of which could leave us so fragmented that repair is impossible.

Some may criticize my words as being too harsh, that our problem is with a vocal few, but I disagree. Our problem is with the majority who refuse to do their part in ensuring that our nation is properly governed. As a nation we’ve grown soft, willingly accepting the largesse of politicians who establish programs purely for political gain, and who’ve seen that once such programs are established, the level of dependency increases and the level of personal responsibility declines. Politicians are well aware that they can count on the votes of the indentured masses.

The problem begins with leadership . . . or more appropriately the serious deficit thereof. When our leaders lack ethics, principles, and honesty, there is little hope. How can redemption be possible if we cannot trust our leaders to be truthful? And if the purpose of the media is to inform, that purpose has long since been forgotten, exchanged for the opportunity to distort and prejudice. The game of politics is no longer a game, but has been transformed into a sinister mechanism benefiting a few, while heaping suffering upon future generations.

Sadly, our current president, who promised a new era of bipartisan cooperation, is a willing accomplice to the politics of politics; but this is not an indictment of one person. The previous administration and those before were equally guilty.

At this point our options seem few. We can continue down this path or we can demand leadership from our so-called leaders; we can demand that the press do their civic duty by presenting unvarnished reports of actual happenings—not what they wish us to believe; and we can stand up and be counted as those who refuse to allow the corruption of our political system continue for one more day. Will that happen? Of course not. While it might be nice to imagine such a scenario, the stark reality is that the coming election, regardless of which political party is triumphant, will not reverse the course of a nation bent upon destroying itself . . . a consequence growing ever more certain in a world where such losses are mourned by a dwindling minority.

When November comes I will once again cast my ballot; and I will continue to point out the hypocrisy and deceit I see. However, my voice is but one. My protests, regardless of how vehement they may be, seem quickly engulfed in a cacophony of mindless chatter. The masses refuse to listen and the partisans refuse to hear. But yes, I will vote, and I will do so remembering the words of Samuel Adams: “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” If we will but pause and think, perhaps those fires may once more be kindled.


Will Either Presidential Candidate Deliver on Their Promises?

As we near the November elections, serious voters want to know: Will either presidential candidate deliver on their promises? And the serious answer to that question is a resounding NO. While gullible voters from both major political parties seem determined to make certain their candidates win—although a large portion are unable to articulate why—regurgitating to the trite phrases fed by the puppet masters, the results of this election will, once more, fail to equal expectations. Emotions are continually being inflamed to: save the Republic, make those damned billionaires pay their “fair share,” or to create, save, or stimulate jobs—but the reality is that none of that will happen . . . at least not in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

Fading Liberty

What politicians and most voters seem to be ignoring is that the U.S. is on a collision course with disaster—truly a crisis of biblical proportions—and politicians and the electorate continue “whistling past the graveyard,” seemingly oblivious to the looming crisis. Now some have speculated that there is some sinister plan, that the ill-fated course on which the nation has been steered has been intentional. They see the looming crisis as politicians’ way to aid the implementation of their plans. I disagree. Our lawmakers are too stupid, ill-informed, dishonest, or so blinded by decades of partisanship that they cannot conceive the possibility of the total collapse of our economy or the loss of our nation’s position of leadership.

And while some may be shocked to learn that our “leaders” are not the brightest and best, such a conclusion is easily confirmed. I’d put the number that belong in the ignorant or dishonest category embarrassingly close to half, a sad commentary on the state of this union. But four decades of observing our republic’s decline provides at least anecdotal confirmation for me.

As a nation, we’re screwed. We’re been duped by politicians and bureaucrats whose lack of ethics and leadership has taken us far beyond the point of no return. Sure, I’ll continue to go to the polls and cast my ballot, but the reality is that the die has been cast; our collective votes, regardless of the outcome, cannot possibly save us from the ruination that approaches. I’m more than alarmed; I’m now relegated to the stark reality that the few concerned voters and politicians who remain cannot possibly reverse our march toward destruction; and I’m sick of it.

I’m sick of it when I hear political propaganda presented as legitimate news; I’m sick of it when I read of the incompetence of a bureaucracy wasting billions of tax dollars; I’m sick of hearing reports of how the IRS cannot even get its own employees to pay their taxes; and I’m sick of lying politicians who refuse to honor their oath of office and knowingly distort the truth in order to support their agenda. And while I may be mad as hell, the reality is that I probably will “take it,” for the system has grown so monstrous that the wailings of a few have little impact. And though “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,” it appears that the majority will continue to “eat cake” as long as this party continues.

Will either presidential candidate deliver on their promises? No, and those gullible enough to fall for their knavery are nothing more than accomplices, “useful idiots,” who through their indifference or indolence help to bring about the very system they criticize.