America's vanishing vision

America's vision is getting progressively worse. Maybe that's just what happens when you get older, but America really isn't all that old. On the other hand, it may be that America is suffering from a progressive disease- a disease where the carriers even identify themselves as "progressive."

Take a look at what is being said about Gingrich's announced plans for space exploration.  It doesn't matter whether you agree with the scope and direction of his plans or not;  the point is that no one else has even bothered to talk in any meaningful way about growth or goals in this election cycle.  Not only that, but the campaign rhetoric of all the remaining candidates of both parties is empty of any vision; focussing only on the question of which party can put the most money in the pockets of their respective supporters.

Now it is true that Obama did make some points in his State of the Union address, but mostly things like keeping college costs down, or tackling illegal immigration once and for all. Even that is hardly meaningful; Obama said the same things in his 2011 SOTU and even in his 2010 SOTU. In fact, he actually paraphrased (and in some instances, repeated) the same statements he made in earlier years. That is worse than offering nothing new. In some respects, it meets the colloquial definition of insanity; that is, doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. It hardly constitutes a vision of direction for the nation.

And Romney, when told of Gingrich's proposals on space exploration, said that if he were in business, he would fire anyone who came to him with such proposals. It seems Gingrich's proposals are getting that kind of response in many quarters, and no serious responses, counter-proposals, or even any serious discussion. 

It might be time to digress a bit and remember the politically incorrect history of America.  America was a land of vast resources, inhabited by tribal nations which had migrated earlier from Asia. The politically correct position, of course, is that all these tribes were living in perfect harmony with each other and with nature. Maybe they were, and it was all a utopia; but they weren't building roads, factories, cities; they weren't developing resources, medicines, or technology; they weren't training engineers, scientists, or doctors.  Those things remained for the children of the colonists.

Those first European colonists went to what they looked upon as a virgin and untouched land. One group found the hardships overwhelming and left. Another group simply disappeared in the 1580's; they colonized what is now North Carolina, and after the ships sailed away they simply were never seen again. Death, starvation, disease, hostiles were included in the risks these colonists faced. They went anyway, because they had a vision. Modern historians dismissively talk about the fact that the colonists just wanted to make money, but that is an injustice to the vision of these men and women.

These colonists and explorers had a vision bigger than money; they saw roads, farms, buildings. Their vision extended to the shadows of things not yet conceived, not yet a gleam in an inventor's eye: factories, skyscrapers, interstates, airplanes, nuclear submarines, moon rockets. Not because they saw those innovations themselves, but they had the vision to create a nation which could see challenges and scale the heights to achieve them.

Do modern Americans still have that vision, or is it turning inward, becoming myopic and self-serving? It's not that space exploration is in itself the "American vision." It is, however, an example of the type of expansive vision that was formerly so regularly seen in America, and whether practical or not, it's the type of thing missing from American culture today.  President Kennedy looked up, and America went to the moon, something no one else has ever done.  Yet even then, politicians lacked the vision to build upon that amazing infrastructure.  America needs to look up again and see heights to be conquered.

Global citizens don't need free speech

 There's a little firestorm brewing in Wisconsin, up at Shawano High School. It's all about bullying. Or the First Amendment; depends on your orientation. Not your sexual orientation, but your Constitutional orientation.

Apparently, the Shawano High School student newspaper decided to run a "pro and con" editorial on the practice of gay adoption, to which end they requested two students to prepare editorials, one supporting and one opposing the practice. Whether or not it was a good idea is moot, since they ran the article and thus jumped into the deep end of the debate. It's important to keep in mind that the students who prepared these editorials were asked to do so; this is not a case of disorderly conduct or incitement by a student, and not even a case of casual remarks being overheard.

After the article was published, a gay couple dutifully complained to the school district that they were "in shock," one stating that he was worried about how this would affect his kids, that "this is why kids commit suicide," could lead to "bullying," and, of course, was "hateful." Basically all of the leftist talking points.

If you haven't guessed by now, the source of the "hateful" language is the Bible. The 15 year-old author was simply quoting scripture and setting forth the traditional Christian position on homosexuality.  For that matter, of course, that was the traditional American position as well, until a few years ago, when the Courts became enlightened and abandoned morality.

After the complaint, the school issued the politically correct apology. The school then removed not the entire article, but only the offensive, hateful, Biblically-based editorial, leaving the pro-gay editorial untouched. And the school vowed to make sure this kind of bullying won't happen again, saying, "Proper judgment that reflects school district policies needs to be exercised with articles printed in our school newspaper. Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District."

Now the Liberty Counsel is involved, and fortunately so for the young author, for it seems he has been threatened with suspension if he will not recant his (Christian-based) views on this matter. Compelling the student to surrender his Constitutionally protected religious beliefs, in the school district's collective mind, is evidently not bullying; only expressing disagreement with homosexuality or the gay agenda is bullying.

Also, the school district has not even acknowledged the possibility of First Amendment issues; they seem to think their bullying policy (or their policy of bullying Christians) trumps all. Nonetheless, First Amendment concerns permeate this situation. Freedom of Speech, not only to present an opinion, but to not have it censored after publication. The right to freedom of Religion and religious expression also surely trump purported "shock" that someone would exercise those rights.

But then, maybe not. The Shawano School District website gives their Mission Statement: To develop citizens who contribute to a global society through an individualized and lifelong learning partnership with the family, school and community.  As nice as that sounds, it says nothing about developing American citizens who understand American values and contribute to America; the word "America" is conspicuously absent. "Global" society is all the politically correct rage, and it may be that to these modern, post-Constitutional, "global" citizens, the U.S. Constitution just isn't all that relevant. In that case, these global citizens will be the first to think that global citizens don't need free speech, especially if such speech affronts political correctness.

And Nowhere to Go

Ronald Reagan is famously quoted assaying, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" As far as it goes, the sentiment expressed in the quote is probably correct, although undoubtedly there are other terrifying phrases as well. Such as, "You have an incurable disease." Even there, though, at least in America, you can shop around for other tests and other medical treatments. Of course, that may end under the iron control of the Obamacare's IPAB after 2014.  Another example is "Your money or your life." This phrase announces to you that you are in immediate peril. In most cases, the assailant will be satisfied when you turn over your possessions. Of course, police protection may be available to protect you from an assailant as well. Most criminals are obviously aware of this and typically act where police aren't; after all, there is truth in the adage, "when seconds count, police are just minutes away." In some places in America, where your Constitutional right to bear arms has not yet been abrogated or denied by law, you may even choose to defend yourself from an assailant.

On the other hand, when the government comes to "help," you don't really have a choice. You don't have a choice about how much help you will get, how long you will get it, what you will have to do, or how long you will have to do it. And you don't get to decide the goals the government is helping you to achieve, either. Now, that's all good and well when you can trust your government, when their intentions and their goals are agreeable and beneficial.

Words, however, have slippery meanings, and intentions are not always what they seem. In America, for example, Judges are sworn to uphold the Constitution, but long ago announced that the Constitution is a "tissue paper bastion."  They change it as often as they desire, by "interpretation," and there is no recourse by the people. This is how government "help" goes too far - and goes wrong: although the people themselves established the Constitution, the Courts have fabricated for themselves the right to interpret it, oversee it, and control its application. None of that is in the Constitution.

In the past, when governments have gone wrong, citizens discerning the onrushing catastrophe have had some opportunity to go elsewhere and avoid it. Albert Einstein, a scientist and Jew born in Germany, emigrated to the United States in 1933, as the National Socialist (NAZI) Party rose to power.  Thousands of other Jews likewise fled.

Many starry-eyed idealists are pushing to expand the role, power, and reach of government today, dreaming of an impossibly benign world-wide government, the ballyhooed New World Order, which will solve all the world's conflicts and problems while at the same time never interfering with one's desires or activities. Good luck with that. Even today, where the United Nations is working to grow into the role of world governing agency, government "help" comes with a price.

In Haiti, UN peacekeepers came in to help after the earthquake. A major outbreak of a serious and virulent form of cholera coincided with their arrival. Now, scientists are saying that the strand of cholera came from Nepal with the Nepalese peacekeeper contingent and has never been seen in the Western Hemisphere.  The UN's response? According to Asst. Secretary General Anthony Banbury, "The scientists say it can't be determined for certainty where it came from." Actually, Mr. Banbury, they did; you won't admit the truth. And then there are allegations of rape by Peacekeeper forces.  The government is here to "help" indeed.

As the power of the world governing body grows, abuses of government "help" will without doubt become more common, and more terrifying. And should world government come, citizens can't leave- there will be nowhere to go. These words won't just be the most terrifying in the English language.

Meat Shields

In the world of computer and electronic gaming, a somewhat strange term has developed: Meat Shield. For those who do not engage in gaming, the term, as defined on Wikipedia, appears to have two slightly divergent meanings. First, it can mean a heavily shielded character such as a tank or other armored unit able to protect other, weaker characters such as soldiers (or "meat") characters which can be hidden or shielded behind it from enemy fire. The second definition provides for the use of a stunned (or dead) enemy character as a shield from enemy fire.

Now one might wonder what that has to do with anything. After all, gaming has obtained a reputation for taking one away from the real world, right? That is often true. Not, however, in Egypt; the liberals and secularists are learning just what it means to be a meat shield.

Of course, at the time of the Arab Spring revolution, the liberals and the secularists imagined themselves the Tanks, moving against Mubarak's forces, stoutly withstanding the brunt of the military's repression of the revolution. They imagined themselves the leaders, guiding the great unwashed, less-educated and weaker masses toward their utopian vision of a secular and undoubtedly socialist democracy. And at the time,it seemed so reasonable; after all, the masses of the Muslim Brotherhood seemed to be right behind them.

However, the secularists and the liberal elite are now learning how the second meaning of "meat shield" plays out in real life. Sure, the folks in the Muslim Brotherhood said, "We're right behind you." It simply meant they needed help to take down Mubarak, and wanted some extra bodies out there to shield them from Mubarak's troops. It is not likely that Islamists have any other use for the liberals; liberalism does not fit their political or religious agenda.

Now, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Secularist candidate, has announced he won't be continuing his run for President of Egypt. His withdrawal, he says, is a protest against the military leaders for not moving the country towards the democracy he envisioned. It seems that the government the people have elected, which gives to Islamists over two-thirds of the parliamentary seats along with tremendous input into the writing of the Constitution, does not satisfy the Secularists.

ElBaradei had apparently envisioned a constitution written by "a committee made up of delegates of political parties, universities, labor unions, and other institutions," because he and his constituency believe that only the liberal elite is qualified to lead the masses; that the great unwashed is not able to elect a government which can properly represent them.  Liberals and Secularists always imagine that the masses will just naturally recognize the inherent superiority of Liberalism, and will come and fall down before them, begging for their leadership.  It isn't happening; the people choosing to form a government which is not composed of or led by the liberal elite is giving ElBaradei and his Secularists a rude awakening.

The Islamists were always the majority in Egypt, and there was never any doubt of the outcomes of the elections; the Secularists served only as useful fronts for revolutionaries to present to the Western media, the Western Leaders to pin false hopes on, and cannon fodder and meat shields to throw in front of Mubarak's troops.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" takes on a new life

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," you may remember, was a policy implemented for members of the U.S. military in which the soldier's sexual preference was neither announced nor discussed. The rationale for the policy was that soldiers were being trained to conduct military operations, not conduct sexual escapades. Under the Obama Administration, the policy has been changed to "tell, tell" on the premise that the primary interest of soldiers is in fact sex, and that focusing the military on sex will not detract from military readiness. It remains to be seen whether social engineering on this scale will in fact have no bad consequences.

However, the Obama Administration and the Media have not killed DADT; rather, they have embraced and repurposed it so that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" takes on a new life.

It has beenrumored, and denied, that Obama is seeking to raise at least One Billion Dollars for his re-election campaign. At the same time, Obama is working hard to create a "common man" image, identifying with the OWS crowd.

This is where the new DADT comes into play. As part of Obama's fundraising campaign, Obama has been attending very expensive, and exclusive, fundraising dinners, which are closed to the media. The media seems content for the most part to allow these events to pass largely unreported and unremarked; the media neither asks nor tells, they just look the other way. Conversely, Obama attends widely publicized events, where the media appears with great fanfare and in-depth coverage, with the "commoners" to underscore his connection with them. The Obama Campaign has gone to great lengths to convince the public that their funds are primarily raised from grassroots support.

One example is the $45,000 dollar per ticket Democratic fundraiser recently attended by Obama. Media was reportedly not allowed to attend this event, and apparently they weren't interested, anyway. It appears they did not make any effort to identify or report on the presumably One Percenters who could afford this and did attend. Then there was the $100 per ticket New York fundraiser which did make the news; apparently everybody wanted in.

Another example? Well, there's the $38,500 per ticket California fundraiser , or the $38,500 per ticket fundraiser in Chicago with Warren Buffet, or the $38,500 per ticket Washington fundraiser with Spike Lee.  Perhaps $38,500 is just the going price for dinner with an OWS, 99 Percenter like Obama.  Or perhaps, in reality, Obama is a One Percenter himself.   No matter; in the major media, these little shindigs don't make headlines.  Obviously, it's just not considered news of interest to the average voter (probably because average voters can't get in.)  On the other hand, there's Obama having some chili dogs; that's news, and not just national news, but international news.

The new DADT is the Obama campaign's, and seemingly, the media's, secret weapon in the effort to re-elect Obama.

Principles? Don't need 'em, thanks.

At a Republican forum in New Hampshire, State Senator Gary Lambert, appearing for Mitt Romney, said, "I don't get it. This is not about picking a favorite, it's not about picking someone you like," Lambert said. "It's not about picking someone even with your own beliefs and principles. This is about picking a person who can beat Barak Obama, period." 

The Honorable Senator is right about only one thing; he doesn't get it. Politics in America is not about the quest for the mythical "electable" candidate. There is no such thing as the "electable" candidate. Rather, it is actually all about beliefs and principles. A candidate who expresses beliefs and principles in line with the majority of voters is the electable candidate. Mr. Obama won office in just that way in 2008; by assuring his ardent left-wing core of his solid socialist beliefs and credentials as a communist organizer, and luring moderates, who primarily are focused on making money and were thus disenchanted with Bush's economic failings, with a siren song of "hope and change."

Furthermore, if "electability" rather than beliefs is the sole criteria, the GOP could nominate Hillary. Despite the Honorable Senator's rhetoric, surely even he knows better than that.

As President, Obama has held true to his beliefs. He doesn't believe the Constitution is any check on his powers; he doesn't believe that Congress has any real role in government, except perhaps as a place to hold his opponents at bay; he believes he is accountable to no one. If you have any doubts, look at the changes he has made in the government. The military is now on its way to becoming a haven for gays and lesbians, with the demise of don't ask, don't tell; public schoolchildren sing the praises of Obama the messiah; illegal recess appointments made even when Congress is in session; Stimulus funds as political payback by the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars only to companies with Obama donors and bundlers; rampant voter fraud; and the list goes on and on. Not only that, but his fellow Democrats approve these lawless and corrupt practices, precisely because these practices are in line with their beliefs.  They would, and do, conduct themselves the same way whenever the opportunity arises.

Mitt Romney, like John McCain, is undoubtedly a nice guy. Unfortunately, even worse than McCain, Romney goes in whatever direction the polls blow him. That Romney will do well in New Hampshire only reflects his status as a contender for the left end of the Republican spectrum. The GOP, however, is based in the center-right and right-wing voters. It is no help that the media likes Romney; most journalists self-identify as leftists or Democrats. Romney will be no more capable of winning the general election than McCain was, unless he can demonstrate that he holds some beliefs and principles. The only thing close to a guiding principle he has demonstrated so far is "I wanna be President, and I'll say whatever you want to hear if you will vote for me!" Romney's only hope seems to be that the moderates are so disenchanted with Obama's economic policies that they will buy into no policy instead. That's not really a strategy, and economic policy alone, even if he had one, is not enough.

Despite what the GOP strategists may think, Obama's left-wing base will never leave him. If the left has any quarrel with Obama, it is only that he has not moved the country hard left fast enough. It is true that Clinton often quoted the mantra, "It's the economy, stupid," but as with Obama, the left knew he held true to their agenda. Conversely, McCain and now Romney have not convinced the conservatives that they have any interest in the social agenda of the right; so far, their attitude has been, "Principles? Don't need 'em, thanks all the same." However, "Vote for Palin, and that other guy you don't trust" did not work for McCain's campaign, and Romney looks to be in the same position. And without any serious clout with conservatives, Romney will have no coattails.

Moving left and abandoning the GOP core constituency did not work in '08, and the GOP should have serious concerns about following the same path in 2012. Should the GOP fail, Obama and his corrupt cronies will have a free hand in his second term to openly implement a very leftist agenda.

Furthermore, California Democrats have through Redistricting worked hard to deny the GOP any chance of participating in the political process there.  It looks like a classic case of deep corruption in politics. Yet, machine politicians like Obama and his cronies will very likely implement similar strategies on the national stage against their opponents, so 2012 could prove to be the last chance for the GOP and America's social conservatives.

Senator Lambert, it's all about principles. Without principles, all that is left is corruption.

Bringing Libya home.

Another novel legal argument by the Obama Administration has been presented by the President, surprisingly giving him the authority to do want he wants when and how he wants. Who wants to bother with those pesky "checks and balances" in the Constitution, anyway?

Remember Libya? Small country, under the despotic rule of a despised tyrant? Obama decided to drop a load of expensive ordinance on Libya and provide other military assistance to help the Islamist's revolution and ascendency to power. Under the War Powers Act, the President may initiate hostilities where necessary, but is obliged to come to Congress to seek approval to actually fight a war. Obama never showed up; he didn't see any need to bother Congress with what he considers a restraint on his authority. When pressed on the issue, the Administration provided a legal opinion which advanced Obama's reasoning. His reasoning was as follows: the U.S. military has bigger guns, and it was impossible for the Libyan military to shoot back effectively. Therefore, since we could shoot Libyans and they couldn't shoot us, it wasn't really a war.

A novel legal theory to say the least, and not a shred of truth in it; absent a war, the President has no authority to simply send the military off to attack countries that have not attacked or threatened the U.S. Even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were related in some manner to the terrorist's 9/11 attacks.

Now Obama is in the process of making "recess appointments."  He has appointed John Cordray to head the dubious Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Although nominated several months ago, the Senate has refused to confirm Cordray due to concerns with the overreaching powers granted under the CFPB act. He has also appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board. Obama said he had to act because he refused to take "no" for an answer.

The President, of course, has the power to make appointments when the Senate is in recess.

The Senate, however, is not in recess. 

The Senate chose not to recess, but to remain in Pro Forma Session precisely for the purpose of preventing the President from making recess appointments. In Pro Forma Session, the Senate is called to order every three days in accordance with Constitutional requirements. That may sound like "gridlock," and maybe it is, but it is better to be gridlocked than to move in the wrong direction.

So the Administration has trotted out another novel legal theory; they say the Senate is in Session not when the Senate says so, but when the Administration says so. If the Senate is not conducting business, the Administration says it doesn't count as being in Session. This flies in the face of the Constitution, of Separation of Powers, of a hundred years of tradition, and even of legal briefs by the Democrats during the Clinton Administration. As with Libya, war is not war unless Obama says so; he is just bringing the Libya argument home.

As usual, "Constitutional Lawyer" Obama displays with these appointments his disregard and disdain for the Constitution, the American People, and the concept of representative government.

Going, Going, (almost) Gone

The Bill of Rights is disappearing like the Ghost of Christmas Past in the classic "A Christmas Carol." In one version, George C. Scott portrays Scrooge, and after viewing the past, he turns upon the Ghost and declares, "And as for you, I've had quite enough of you!" Whereupon, he proceeds to forcibly extinguish the light of truth.

Obama ended December, 2011, by signing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Of course, just about everyone except Ron Paul and his libertarians believe it's necessary to provide in some measure for the defense of the nation. Even the Obama administration, with its abysmal record of closing the Southern border to gun-runners, human slavers (politely called "traffickers"), drug runners, terrorists and just about anyone willing to stroll in, has not suggested completely eliminating the military.

Yet, for all that, the NDAA should not have been signed. It should never have passed the Senate. It should never have passed the House. The NDAA should not even have been written, because it contains provisions which completely contravene and in practice obliterate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments contained in the United States Bill of Rights. 

The NDAA allows for the seizure and detention, without warrant, charges, or trial, of American citizens, even within the borders of the United States, that the agents and bureaucrats of the government conveniently identify as "terror suspects." While it is a laudable goal to prevent "terror," it may be that the NDAA places the government in a position to inflict as much terror as it purports to prevent. As Benjamin Franklin noted, we are most at risk from people with good intentions. Citizens detained under the NDAA, and not charged, will never have access to any court for the protection of their rights. Without access to the courts, all pretense of due process will disappear. Arguably, though, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination will still exist for those strong enough to resist any waterboarding or other persuasion the government may elect to employ.

Mr. Bush's "Patriot" Act went far along this path already, infringing the Bill of Rights in regard to searches and public trials, but the NDAA reaches a new low, and the GOP has been remarkably complicit in this effort. In effect, in their frenzied search for security, the American People are throwing away the very rights they allegedly treasure. When those Rights are gone, only blood and guts can buy them back.

Another Amendment under attack is the First Amendment. Secretary of State Clinton is working with the Organization of Islamic Countries to limit and control speech about Islam. The Congress is working to pass SOPA and Protect IP, to give the government a kill switch on speech it disagrees with.

The Second Amendment is also in the Administration's sights, as Secretary Clinton works hard to help the UN complete the Small Arms Treaty. Citizens are required to obey laws made pursuant to the Constitution and treaties. So, if that treaty becomes law, it will be interpreted to supersede the Second Amendment and thereby to eliminate the individual right to possess small arms (and that's not tanks, RPGs, or missiles; it's rifles, pistols, and shotguns.)

The First and Second Amendments protect all the others, but all are rapidly going. Our government is playing the Scrooge. Unhappy with what Truth shows, it is extinguishing the light, and removing the rights that uphold truth; with barely a whimper, our rights are quickly going, going, (almost) gone.