America's useful idiots cheer their attackers

Imperfections notwithstanding, humans are a rather forgiving bunch. We've been known to forgive people who've stolen from us, damaged our property, or attacked us outright. We've forgiven con artists, robbers, and swindlers of all stripes. The more magnanimous among us can even forgive their rapist, or their loved one's murderer. A big heart is essential to granting absolution in lieu of vengeance. Therefore, when such forgiveness is accorded, the gracious party rightly earns public respect.

To revere a forgiving victim is one thing. But what would we think of someone who encouraged their assailant? What would we think of a woman who cheered her attacker during a sexual assault? How about someone who applauds while their neighbor is being murdered, or roots for the thief who's burglarizing their home, or praises the thug who's vandalizing their property? We'd think them foolish, if not tetched.

"C'mon," you say, "no one is stupid enough to cheer their attacker."

You could lose the farm on that bet. Blindly crediting people for common sense and rationality is a risky proposition. Americans regularly cheer their attackers, especially when the consequences from the attack aren't immediately perceptible or experienced.

Washington has been herding America into centralized despotism for generations and the Obama administration is quickening the pace. Eventually, we'll be left groveling before government for our every need, or begging from the foreign nations to whom our so-called leaders have indebted us. Who would cheer the charlatans who are selling us down the river? Listen to the audience at an Obama rally.



Whenever President Obama proposes increased federal spending or another bankrupting entitlement program his supporters shower him with adulation. He promises a few hundred billion dollars for "shovel ready" jobs, or "green energy," or to keep teachers, police, and firemen on the job, and his audience glorifies him like a redeemer, as if he were riding a donkey down a road paved with palm branches. Such was the case when the President touted his $447 billion jobs proposal during a speech at North Carolina State University.

The President invariably claims his spending initiatives will be "paid for." The rhetoric is deceptive, if not a full-blown lie. Washington is overspending by $1.5 trillion annually, has accumulated a debt ten times that amount, and holds long-term benefit obligations that exceed our total national assets. No federal spending is "paid for." Every dime is borrowed against the future incomes of the people who cheer Obama, like the students at N.C. State. Obama pledged debt to them and their children and they showered him with love and adulation in return.

Obama is sinking the country even further into unsustainable programs and unimaginable debts. His attack on our fiscal future is a repeated punch in the gut. And the "useful idiots" cheer him wildly, as if he is delivering us from evil.

Bearing no faith or allegiance to the Constitution

Before taking a seat in Congress, all elected Senators and Representatives must swear an oath of office. In summary, they are required to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, bearing full faith and allegiance to our nation's foundational law. Their oath confirms their willingness to bear these duties freely and without reservation. It seems the vow was changed when the people weren't looking.

Too many members of Congress, predominately the Democrats, regard the Constitution as an obstacle, not as a sacrosanct document they must support and defend. They bear little faith, and less allegiance, to its directives. The Constitution, now a "living" document, has devolved into a legislative and bureaucratic playground where anything goes. Alleged representatives have decreed the federal government above the restraints imposed by a 200-year-old parchment. There are no constraints, no delegated federal powers, and no reservation of non-delegated powers for the states and the people. Anyone who dares question Congress' obvious contempt for the Constitution is dismissed as a crackpot.

Our once-revered Constitution is now reserved for political grandstanding and posturing. Otherwise, it's increasingly irrelevant to the central government's actions. Federal disdain for the Founding Father's crowning achievement was thoroughly displayed during the debt ceiling debate. Rep. James Clyburn, a high-ranking but woefully inept Democrat from South Carolina, encouraged President Obama to "sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment" to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, bypassing Congress altogether. His colleagues reportedly applauded his proposal.

Ironically, Clyburn and his political kin once condemned a president for usurping congressional authority. That president was accused of going to war unilaterally, ignoring Congress' power to declare war under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The accusations were pure demagoguery. U.S. troops weren't deployed to either theater, Afghanistan or Iraq, via presidential decree. Congress voted on both wars, expressly granting authority to the president to use military force as he deemed necessary.

The same legislators who falsely accused a previous Executive of abridging congressional authority encouraged the current Executive to do just that. Politics, not principles or delegated duties, drove these legislators' interest. The Constitution, and their oath to uphold it, became an afterthought. The disingenuous nature of James Clyburn and his ilk is thereby established. But are their claims about the 14th Amendment accurate? Does the Constitution enable the Executive to raise the nation's debt ceiling arbitrarily?

Sen. Barbara Boxer agreed with Clyburn. "As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, I urge every American to get their Constitution and read it. It says the debts of the United States shall not be questioned."

Boxer is correct in one regard. We should read our Constitution, all of it, especially the 14th Amendment. There, in Section Four, are Boxer's words, but only in part. Predictably, she hasn't born full faith and allegiance to the document. The Constitution's language regarding the public debt doesn't support her position, so she simply ignored the words she found politically inexpedient.

The 14th Amendment indeed addresses "the validity of the public debt of the United States." However, that debt must be "authorized by law." Raising the debt ceiling naturally increases the government's access to revenue. Therefore, to be authorized by law, any attempt to increase the federal government's ability to borrow must arise in the House of Representatives in order to comply with Article 1, Section 7. Furthermore, according to Article 1, Section 8, "Congress shall have power . . . to pay the debts of the United States" and "to borrow money on the credit of the United States."

The 14th Amendment itself grants the President no authority to increase the nation's indebtedness by a single penny, or to secure debt in any manner. Section Five of the 14th Amendment explicitly entrusts authority for enforcing the article's provisions to Congress, not to the presidency. The President can do nothing in regard to the public debt of his own volition. In fact, neither the President nor the Executive branch is mentioned in the 14th Amendment's text, save for the recognition of voting rights.

I hope Sen. Boxer is satisfied. I read my Constitution and found her in utter violation of both the document's spirit and language. She, Rep. Clyburn, and their nefarious left wing cabal are totally ignorant of the Constitution's division of powers and authorities, or they've born untrue faith and allegiance to the same in blatant violation of their oath of office. Barbara Boxer, James Clyburn and their cohorts should be expelled from Congress. So should any Senator or Representative, regardless of party or ideology, who so disregards their oath.

The Legislative Branch is far too comfortable shifting their constitutional duties to the Executive Branch, when it's politically convenient. Such an arrangement, allowing a single public officer to make key decisions, may expedite government activity. But it's not how representative government functions. It's dictatorial, pure tyranny. The Founders designed our Constitution to restrain the central government, compelling it to move deliberately. It should never be unfettered and able to act on the whims of a single authority.

Our representative republic is in perilous condition. By and large, congressional delegates possess contempt for the Constitution they've sworn to uphold, and for the electorate they represent. Too many Representatives and Senators care nothing about constitutional checks on federal authority, the separation of powers, or their responsibility to the public's trust. They pledge loyalty to a document they haven't the slightest intention of honoring, making them liars from the moment they utter "So help me God." Yet they have the audacity to lecture the population as if we're ignorant or irresponsible.

Our Senators and Representatives, especially Barbara Boxer and James Clyburn, should read the Constitution. It's past time they bore full faith and allegiance to its principles, as their oath demands. Said oath of office has not changed. If Congress members honor their vow they can remain the people's delegates in a representative republic. If not, they are despicable tyrants who should be removed from office without delay.

This article first appeared at American Thinker.

Democrats are the butt of the Weiner jokes

Anthony Weiner left the House of Representatives as the butt of a thousand jokes. And why not? Any man named “Weiner” who spreads his digitized anatomy around the Internet should expect ridicule. Yet while the Weiner saga overexposed a congressional member, the Democrat Party emerged the biggest joke of all.

Anthony Weiner is a man of poor judgment and unmitigated arrogance. Internet anonymity is a long shot even for the most obscure person. Add celebrity to the equation and privacy dissipates like a vapor. Only a man of indescribable juvenility and pomposity would believe he could beat the stacked deck. Weiner lost his bet, with his own party calling his hand.

No one would’ve batted an eye had Republicans called for Weiner’s resignation. Manipulating promiscuity for political advantage is somewhat a tradition in Washington. Democrat’s struck the David Vitter and Mark Foley scandals with the venom of a thousand cobras. But Republicans had little to say about the Weiner matter.

Republicans were content to let Democrats rebuke Anthony Weiner. Their silence was a wise strategy, leaving Democrats caught in their own web. Defending Anthony Weiner would’ve again exposed the Democrat Party’s lack of moral conscience. In showing Weiner the door the Democrats have screamed their hypocrisy at the top of their collectivist lungs.

What did Anthony Weiner do that was worthy of resignation? So he sent risqué photos to a few women, some of whom were willing participants. Sure, he exercised poor judgment, loose morals, and complete dishonesty. But such depravity is common fare in Washington. If every irresponsible, immoral, or lying politician were forced to resign few would remain on Capitol Hill. Frankly, Democrats showed exceptional gall in demanding Weiner’s departure.

Anthony Weiner is far more virtuous than one of the Democrat Party’s ultimate heroes, William Jefferson Clinton. All Weiner did was engage in cyber sex: a text here, a photo there, his Congressional member everywhere. But it doesn’t appear he touched another woman. Clinton touched another woman, and another, and another, and another: Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinsky.

Bill Clinton didn’t waste his time on sexting and exhibitionism. He settled for nothing less than the genuine article. Not only did he and Lewinsky have an affair, but the affair occurred in the Oval Office on the taxpayer’s dime. Yet the Democrat Party excused not only the Lewinsky relationship but also Clinton’s other escapades. Not even feminists, who preach hellfire and brimstone against self-indulgent men, would criticize Clinton for routinely objectifying women.

But didn’t Anthony Weiner lie during his press conference? He did. Weiner’s claim that his Twitter account was hacked is akin to Newt Gingrich blaming his adulterous affairs on his love of country. Weiner lied, but Clinton lied worse.

Bill Clinton waved his finger in America’s face and lied like a used car salesman. But he wasn’t finished. Clinton also denied the Lewinsky affair in a sworn deposition. Sexual contact itself was redefined under Clinton’s watch. Oral sex was no longer sex; it was stress relief, like visiting a massage therapist. What’s more, the Democrat Party and their blind apologists excused both Clinton’s adultery and dishonesty. They explained how everyone lies about sex. If promiscuity and falsehood were acceptable behavior for Clinton, why weren't they acceptable for Weiner?

Anthony Weiner made several mistakes that led to his downfall. First, he erroneously believed his electronic erotica would remain anonymous in a techno age. Second, Weiner thought the best cover for an immoral act was another immoral act. But his greatest error was becoming embroiled in a congressional sex scandal and thereby embarrassing his party.

Anthony Weiner has learned a hard lesson: Congressmen are expendable, Presidents aren’t. The same Democrat Party that defended Clinton to the ends of the earth tossed Weiner aside like last week’s leftovers. It may be Washington politics as usual, but the hypocrisy makes Democrats the ultimate butt of the “Weiner” joke.

Arrogance and narcissism reign in King Barack’s Court

Arrogance is defined as an inflated degree of self-importance with a supplementary contempt for others. Narcissism describes a person totally infatuated with their own persona and possessing an overblown sense of ability or worth. Arrogance and narcissism are somewhat synonymous. Yet there is sufficient difference between the terms to apply both to the persona our current Commander-in-Chief embodies.

President Obama is a walking contradiction. Acts he once considered an abuse of authority are but policy recalculations when he exercises them personally. Other presidents have overstepped their authority. Obama, however, is uniquely intelligent and supremely qualified to properly wield powers he once considered abusive and to rule a free people. “Rule” isn’t a word chosen at random; it’s a term Obama himself has used to describe his administration.

Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t see himself as merely the United State’s 44th President; he is her liege, King Barack the First.

Obama’s use of signing statements confirms his narcissism and arrogance. Obama’s position on signing statements is similar, but in mirror image, to John Kerry’s position on the Iraq War. Remember how Kerry voted for the war prior to voting against it? Obama was against presidential signing statements before he used them.

Before his coronation Obama considered signing statements beyond the president’s constitutional authority. He pledged not to use such statements to circumvent Congress, a charge he leveled at his predecessor. However, when Obama’s signing statement accompanied the recent budget deal he had to redefine his position.

King Barack has changed his mind. Signing statements aren’t beyond the president's power after all, as he stated when campaigning in 2008. But such executive statements shouldn’t be abused in the way his predecessor abused them. Note the arrogance and narcissism. Other chief executives have abused the signing statement. Obama, however, possesses the virtue, wisdom, and sound judgment necessary to exercise the signing statement effectively without crossing the line into abuse.

Obama further displayed his royal manner in his refusal to comply with Congress’ ban on White House czars. Worse than his contempt for Congress, a feeling with which most Americans can empathize, is his disregard for the U.S. Constitution.

The President, according to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, will appoint various officers of the United States subject to the Senate’s review and consent. The language represents a problem for czar appointees, who aren’t presented for Senate review. The President may also appoint inferior officers, which could be interpreted to include czars, at his discretion. However, such discretionary appointments can be made only if Congress has empowered the presidency to make them. A Congress that can grant discretionary appointment authority to the president via legislation may revoke that authority in like manner, as this Congress did in the budget bill.

Yet the czars remain and Congress’ duly passed law is ignored. King Barack the Arrogant and Narcissistic simply snubs Congress and the Constitution’s directives on presidential appointments.

Instances abound to confirm His Majesty's elevated sense of worth and authority. Obama also thumbed his nose at a judge’s decision declaring Obamacare unconstitutional. If you or I ignored such a ruling we would be arrested. But people of superior intellect and insight, like King Barack, can't be bothered with trivialities, such as court rulings, that would apply to those of us in the great unwashed.

Arrogance allows Obama to travel on the publicly-funded Air Force One at $70,000 per flight hour while demonizing corporate CEOs for flying privately-funded aircraft at a fraction of the cost. Narcissism vindicates King Barack the First when he compensates his supporters with taxpayer provided stimulus cash while praising his administration’s exemplary ethics.

Signing statements aren’t the problem, be they issued by King Barack or a simple president. But a President serves within the office’s authority at the pleasure of the governed. A King serves at his own discretion, believing the contemptible governed are beneath questioning or comprehending their ruler’s decrees. Rulers embody arrogance and narcissism individually and simultaneously, a feat thoroughly possible in the Court of King Barack the First.

Dr. Hoyer diagnoses the TEA Party

Steny Hoyer’s time as the House’s second in command is complete. But he didn’t accept his demotion quietly. Instead he delivered a psychological evaluation of TEA Party activists. Dr. Hoyer’s diagnosis: “My presumption is they have unhappy families.”

Thank you Dr. Hoyer. Your keen insight has revealed the true mental state driving the TEA Party. TEA Partiers hate their mothers. They have low self-esteem due to incessant emotional and physical abuse suffered at the hands of their domineering fathers. Likely as not they want to wed their siblings, or perhaps their family pets. The root causes of their familial dysfunctions are limitless. But obviously TEA Partiers were forced to eat too many Brussels sprouts when they were young.

There’s only flaw (only one?) in Dr. Hoyer’s dysfunctional family theory. Steny Hoyer isn’t a doctor.

Hoyer’s résumé includes a substantial list of accomplishments. He holds two degrees, both from prestigious universities. Hoyer has served on numerous boards and caucuses in both the private and public sectors and he’s a career attorney. But nothing in his background qualifies him to render a psychological evaluation on Aunt Matilda’s Miniature Schnauzer, much less on a grassroots political movement comprising millions of individuals.

Someone on the congressman’s staff must’ve realized the nature--and possible repercussions--of his gaffe and made an attempt at damage control. According to an Investors.com article, his office released this statement:

Mr. Hoyer clearly meant that everyone has to compromise sometimes as part of a family and that compromise is necessary to successfully govern. He obviously was not referring to the personal family life of a large group of people.

Yeah. And then there’s the one about the goose that laid the golden egg. Hoyer’s “clarification” spins like a category five hurricane. And spin is exactly what one might expect from an attorney who is also a left-wing politician.

If Hoyer didn’t intend to snipe at his political opponents, why comment on the TEA Party at all? He certainly wouldn’t have reached into his “Li’l Shrinks Junior Psychologist Kit” for a psychopathic connection between political activism and family contentment. Had he really meant to highlight the TEA Party’s lack of interest in compromising with Democrats he could’ve said so. It’s not like that's a guarded secret or deep revelation. In terms of discovery, uncovering acrimony between the TEA Party and liberalism isn’t exactly Columbus’ landing at San Salvador.

Hoyer’s statement wasn’t meant to question the TEA Party’s willingness to reach across the aisle. He meant to discredit his opposition to the greatest possible degree. That’s how demagogues operate; casting dispersion on threatening opinion is a fundamental tactic of the tyrant. It’s Orwellian in theory and totalitarian in practice.

Well, it appears I’m psychoanalyzing Steny Hoyer’s motives. So what? My qualifications for determining another person’s mental state are at least on par with his. After all, I’m not a doctor.

Nancy Pelosi: A ruler of fools

Nancy Pelosi isn’t long as Speaker of the House. But if there’s one constant in our ever-changing world it’s that Pelosi will prove unconscionable until the gavel is wrested from her hand. During a recent speech on the House floor she expressed opinions about unemployment insurance and tax policy that seem irrational even for her.

Pelosi supports extending unemployment insurance beyond the current 99 week limit. To substantiate her position she touted unemployment benefits as a burgeoning economic catalyst. All we need do is and tap into their power. Pelosi informed Congress, “Unemployment insurance . . . returns $2 for every $1 that is put out there.”

A two dollar return for every one invested is a lofty promise. No financial advisor would make such a guarantee, especially in these days of stagnant stocks, miniscule interest rates and sunken real estate values. Not even a gold-plated, platinum diamond could augur a 100-percent return on investment.

Is Pelosi a pecuniary Nostradamus? If so, it’s imprudent to squander her financial perception. To realize the full economic impact unemployment insurance portends, every American from restaurant bus boys to Fortune 500 CEOs should cease work immediately. According to Pelosi’s two-for-one estimations, living on unemployment alone would boost our gross domestic product from 2009’s $14.1 trillion to $28.2 trillion. In an instant the U.S. economy would exceed that of the European Union, China and Japan combined. And this can be accomplished while we sit home watching reruns of Hogan’s Heroes.

Does Pelosi sound crazy? As the old saying goes, “Brother, you ain’t seen nothing yet.” If Pelosi’s take on unemployment benefits has your blood boiling, you’ll erupt over her thoughts on taxation.

“Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America does add $700 billion to the deficit,” Pelosi claims. Of course, extending the current tax rates gives nothing to anyone. Furthermore, Congress doesn’t have to “pay” for tax cuts even when reductions are on the table. But remember, in Pelosi’s world a static tax rate equals a cut because all wealth is first and foremost government property.

Even the casual observer knows that when tax rates are static, or reduced, Congress doesn’t send the taxpayer a check. Tax rates simply determine the percentage of wealth that remains with its rightful producer instead of going to Washington. Money that never arrives in Washington cannot add to the deficit. The $700 billion budget hole that Pelosi laments--superficially, I might add--didn’t result from insufficient taxation but from Washington’s lust to spend like drunken sailors in foreign ports.

At this point it’s natural to conclude that Nancy Pelosi is the stupidest woman on earth. If not stupid, she must certainly be ignorant. Would that either case were true, for both stupidity and ignorance are correctable.

If Pelosi is stupid, teaching her will be yeoman’s work, for she knows very little and resists learning. Yet she can learn if her teacher is patient and persistent. It will be difficult, but not impossible. Correcting an ignorant Pelosi is much easier. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge or understanding, nothing more. Expose an ignorant Pelosi to facts and the ignorance dissipates like vapor.

Nancy Pelosi will benefit from neither approach because she isn’t stupid or ignorant. She is a spin master, an epic fraud, an insufferable boor and a pathological liar. But she isn’t dumb. No one could attain her position while drinking the sociopolitical Kool-Aid she serves up. No, Pelosi isn’t stupid or ignorant. She does, however, credit those characteristics to her constituents. Sadly enough, she’s correct. Otherwise, her seat in Congress wouldn’t be so secure.

A people’s representative respects the intelligence of the people he or she represents. That may sound outdated, but it’s nonetheless true. A ruler expresses utter contempt for their subject’s intellect. Therefore rulers, unlike representatives, treat people like stooges and serfs. Rulers quickly become proficient in the artistry of condescension and falsehood, confident that the masses are too dense to discern the truth.

Is Nancy Pelosi a representative or a ruler? Anyone who can’t answer that simple question needn’t worry about representation. They should prepare to be ruled.

This column first appeared at American Thinker.

TV ads are annoying, but Senators are worse

If there’s an area in which U.S. Senators excel more than tossing tax dollars down rat holes it must be in blowing hot air. List grandstanding and pandering among their attributes, too. The recently passed Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM, S. 2847) displayed these Senatorial “skills” for all to see.

If you watch television you’ve noticed the difference in volume between programming and commercials, with commercials being much louder. Condemn those blaring commercials as annoying and I’m right there with you; they’re like raking your fingernails across a chalkboard. But does an annoyance warrant congressional action? Let’s think about that one for a moment.

Congress may claim authority to regulate a television commercial’s volume through their typical mischaracterization of the Constitution. Perhaps they’ll cite the commerce clause, which Congress routinely abuses to legitimize its unwarranted meddling. However, if we look at the Senate’s action in light of how the Founding Fathers viewed proper government we must conclude that Senators missed the mark on the CALM Act.

Governments exist to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But CALM achieves none of those goals beyond what we can do for ourselves. It doesn’t defend our lives, as no one has died from an obnoxiously loud used car commercial. Our liberty isn’t protected since we can mute offending commercials, turn down their volume, or change channels. CALM doesn’t secure our pursuit of happiness, either. We can pursue happiness with or without television and its advertisements.

The CALM Act isn’t about protecting consumers at all. It’s about providing a populist stage whereupon grandstanding politicians can crow to voters about how they stuck it to the Madison Avenue man, as the bill’s sponsoring Senators inadvertently attest.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) claims CALM reduces the stress Americans face. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) says this “common sense” bill “prevents airing ads at unbearable volume levels.” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) explained that viewers shouldn’t fear “losing their hearing” during commercials.

My! Aren’t they the champions of the public interest? Maybe not. Genuine common sense (not the kind Rockefeller touts) shows this bill for the pandering twaddle that it is.

No one has fallen deaf due to an overzealous word from the sponsor. Furthermore, there’s quite a distinction between an annoying noise and an unbearable one. Whining jet engines are unbearable. So are blaring train horns. Include any form of rap music in the mix, too. Television commercials are actually quite tame by comparison.

The most indefensible position comes from Sen. Whitehouse, the bill’s primary sponsor. So, loud commercials add “unnecessary stress” to people’s lives? Talk about an oxymoron. Sen. Whitehouse and his colleagues should look inward if they seek the source of America’s stress.

Congress--your Congress, Sen. Whitehouse--has spent this nation into a black hole. No tax rate can satisfy Washington’s insatiable spending lust. Each American’s share of the gross federal debt is $45,000. Focus solely on children under 18 and each is saddled with $119,000 in unsecured debt. Americans fight radical Islam overseas while politicians seem content to tolerate it here. Healthcare “reform” is a pig in a poke that will increase the aforementioned debt while promising performance similar to Medicare, Social Security and Walter Reed.

Are Americans uneasy, unnerved, and perhaps stressed? Yes Sen. Whitehouse, and justifiably so. But of the problems we face loud TV commercials aren’t high on the stress-o-meter. In fact, they’re almost a respite from the harsh gale emanating from blowhard politicians.

Don’t fall for the Senate’s feint. CALM isn’t about TV viewers. It’s about creating a populist position for politicians seeking public approval. It’s an overblown reaction to a miniscule problem, one that Congress should have no authority to address. That S. 2847 passed unanimously is all the more discouraging. Considering the problems our country faces the Senate should find better things to do with its time.

Silence is Jimmy Carter’s remedy

A viral infection can be dangerous to an 86-year old man, even if that man is a former United States President. Best wishes to Jimmy Carter for a full recovery. However, that sympathy doesn’t exclude a hope that he will keep his mouth shut.

Carter was making headlines even before falling ill. During an interview to support his new book, White House Diary, Carter belied the humility for which he is credited. “I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents,” he meekly declared. He also blamed the late Ted Kennedy for preventing his administration from imposing socialized medicine in 30 BO (Before Obama).

Such ranting does nothing for Carter’s thoroughly tarnished image. He whines because his administration didn’t implement health reforms that have endangered the Obama presidency if not the entire Democrat Party? And his one alleged quality—humility—he tosses aside like an oily rag. That’s not a great day at the office, Mr. Carter.

Carter apologists and history revisionists tout his presidency as one of international accomplishment and domestic reform. But there’s precious little evidence to support those claims. Carter’s presidency was fraught with poor decisions, so much so that political jokesters labeled his administration the “Carter Error.”

In fairness, Carter brought Israel and Egypt to the peace table at the Camp David Accords. But the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis generated his greatest international fame. Under Carter our military preparedness degenerated until we couldn’t get our helicopters off the ground. He also surrendered control over the strategic Panama Canal at a time when the Soviet Union’s influence was surging in Central America.

His direct dealings the Soviets left much to be desired, too. Carter apologists point to his administration’s negotiation of SALT II as instrumental to world peace. Instrumental it was, but to Soviet superiority, not peace. Basically, this Carter “victory” banned nuclear weapons systems in which we held an advantage--such as depressed trajectory missiles--while allowing the Soviets to develop and deploy their advanced technologies. Some deal.

Domestically, Carter is better remembered for 20-percent interest rates, double-digit inflation, a stagnant economy and the misery index than educational and environmental reform. His “superior” post-presidency includes the Oslo Accords, a one-sided Israel-Palestine peace agreement that the PLO and Hamas violated before the signatures dried. And his nuclear negotiations with the North Koreans during the mid-90s lulled the world into a false sense of security. We soon learned that the communist regime had developed the very nuclear technology Carter was credited with preventing.

Neither Carter’s health nor his age requires us to ignore his self-aggrandizement or his attempts to reform his abysmal presidential legacy. I don’t wish him poor health. But if he must fall ill, why not a case of laryngitis? His silence would make his supporters’ chronic amnesia slightly more tolerable.

Death to FOX News and the GOP

The headline reads like an al-Qaeda recruiting poster. You know, “Death to the infidels,” and all. But this headline wasn’t ripped from a suicide bomber’s blog. It’s simply another celebrity’s attempt to confirm that Hollywood’s orbit is somewhere beyond the arc of Pluto.

This time it’s John Cusack--hero of stage, screen and stupidity--proving that Tinsel Town’s brightest lights are the dimmest of bulbs. Using his Twitter account Cusack wrote, “I am for a satanic death cult center at FOX News HQ and outside the offices of Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, and all the GOP welfare freaks.”

The easy reaction is to tell Cusack to button his lip. Yet the Constitution’s First Amendment protects his right to trumpet his witlessness. What’s more, the most effective method for proving someone a fool is to grant the fool a stage. Fools can no more resist the urge to display their lunacy than Barack Obama can pass a teleprompter without reading the words on the screen. So John, I’d like to encourage you to keep talking, by all means.

Hollywood tradition holds that image is everything. Well, Cusack’s vitriolic rhetoric is cultivating an image; make no mistake about that. But what kind of image? Cusack would do well to recall the damage that outlandish behavior has wreaked on his contemporaries in the entertainment field.

Does anyone pay attention to Susan Sarandon these days? Or to Tim Robbins? Or Sean Penn? The tone of their anti-war protests offended large numbers of their fans. The Dixie Chicks, once the hottest thing in Nashville, are less popular than the Confederate flag at Rev. Wright’s church picnic. And let’s not forget the outspoken but otherwise irrelevant Jane Fonda. Is she recognized for anything other than being Henry’s daughter, marrying Ted Turner and manning North Vietnamese artillery? John Cusack, you’ve made great strides toward joining them in the land of who-cares-about-you.

Cusack’s ranting “tweet” could be a gimmick designed to keep him in the public eye. But toward what end? Outrageousness has undoubtedly kept Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears visible beyond their significance. However, their greatest exposure is in supermarket tabloids and police line-ups.

So keep talking, John, or tweeting, or blogging, or Facebooking, or My Spacing; whatever you choose. You’re on the path toward the intellectual credibility of Hilton, Lohan and Spears, the irrelevancy of Sarandon, Robbins and Fonda and the insignificance of the Dixie Chicks. It’s your choice. Whatever course you take I remain confident that you’ll reveal the fool within.

The Bad, the worse and the foolish: A frustrated look at recent events

Maxine Waters aided the sub-prime crisis

You might consider Rep. Maxine Waters’ funneling of TARP money to her husband’s friends and business associates at OneUnited Bank an abuse of both her office and the public’s trust. Not so for her California constituents.

Arturo Yrbarra, a director at the Watts Century Latino Organization, praised Waters’ for persuading banks to increase lending, thus increasing home ownership. Translated that means she helped pressure banks into approving mortgages they otherwise wouldn’t have touched with ten-foot poles. Excuse me, but wasn‘t that the cause of the economic downturn, which led to high unemployment and the exponential growth of our already enormous national debt? For this she receives praise from her constituents?

Waters is far from alone. Her actions are part and parcel to the Democrat Party platform, a platform congressional Republicans have lacked the courage to identify, much less oppose. Small wonder our fiscal house is out of order.

Bad news from the Gulf

Since the Deep Water Horizon oil spill we’ve been treated to one doomsday scenario after the other. The Louisiana bayous would be flooded with oil, with the advancing crude ruining the delicate wetlands. The Gulf Stream would pick up the oil, spread it across every inch of Florida’s beaches and deposit tar balls and sludge from Georgia to Maine. Fisheries would die and the entire Gulf of Mexico would become a giant dead zone. Communist organizers and their empty-headed zealots called for the federal government to seize British Petroleum.

That was then; this is now.

The marshes are healing and the gulf is cleaning up the crude, essentially eating the oil. Marsh grass is growing through the dead plants and new growth is evident in the mangrove trees. Only a month ago both were given up for lost.

This isn’t the word of Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity or some other “anti-environment” conservative pundit; it’s the word of scientists. And it’s bad news for environmentalists who’d hoped the BP spill would spark the public outrage necessary for them to forcibly implement their “green” agenda.

So, the earth is addressing a perfectly natural substance that has escaped its proper place, much like our bodies deal with infection. Is it just barely possible that God, the Creator of both crude oil and the Gulf of Mexico, knows a little bit more about how the two interact than does the Sierra Club and Greenpeace?

Tyranny gets a makeover

A New Zealand teenager was stripped of her beauty pageant title for conduct the pageant director considered unruly. There appears no evidence the young lady posed nude or sent compromising photographs to her boyfriend via her smart phone. She doesn’t appear to be a budding Lindsay Lohan. Her transgression is far more severe; she dyed her hair. Director Barbara Osbourne confronted the girl, Olivia O’Neil, on Facebook.

“You’re not going far in this world,” Osbourne raged, “Hand over your crown.”

O’Neil merely returned to her natural hair color. It’s not like she dyed her hair the colors of the rainbow and joined the gay and lesbian liberation front (bet you wouldn’t have heard a peep from Osbourne if she had). And shouldn’t beauty pageants have more important worries, like their winners engaging in the aforementioned unbecoming activities?

Yes, rules are rules. But petty tyrants are petty tyrants, too. They are every bit as evil as other tyrants, save on a smaller scale. Barbara Osbourne is the one with the problem. For her to lash out at a teenage girl over such a trivial matter indicates a person with one foot outside the plane of reality and the other seated firmly in Adolf Hitler’s boot.

A new purpose for the Supreme Court

Despite attempts to rally opposition, no one realistically expected Elena Kagan’s judicial nomination to fail. She was presented by a Democrat president, reviewed by a Democrat Senate and had public support from four Republicans, meaning a filibuster was out of the question. With the confirmation secure, President Obama was free to speak candidly concerning his desire for Kagan to be a judicial activist.

A White House press release expressed Obama’s pride in how Kagan would make the SCOTUS “a little more inclusive, a little more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”

May I remind Obama and Kagan that the Supreme Court’s job isn’t to be inclusive, or to be “reflective of us.” And we have the House to represent us, in theory at least. Those qualities aren’t prerequisite to sit on the Supreme Court. Justices are to apply the U.S. Constitution to the cases brought before them; no more and no less. But, admittedly, that notion’s a little quaint these days.

Harry Reid is at it again

Does anyone remember when Harry Reid complained about visitors to Congress smelling of body odor? He’s at it again. Reid said, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?”

No Mr. Reid, you’ve said plenty. Let me talk for a while.

Frankly, I don’t see how anyone with the requisite mental capacity to tie their own shoes could be a Democrat. I don’t know how anyone could vote for a man who rammed a mammoth, unread healthcare bill down our throats and then bitched about its contents. That would be you, Senator Reid.

I don’t know how any poor person could be a Democrat when the party’s policies have ensured a perpetual underclass the sole purpose of which is to ensure Democrat electoral victories. I don’t know how any poor person can be a Democrat, Sen. Reid, when you and your ilk have robbed the poor of their independence and their self-esteem.

I don’t know how any urban black person can be a Democrat when the problems urban black people face--drugs, blight, illegitimacy and family decline--are as bad, or worse, as when your party first promised to fix them.

I could go on, Mr. Reid. Do I need to say more?

From Islam, peace by upon it

Everyone knows about the brutal execution of ten Christian medical missionaries in Afghanistan (peace by upon it). Essentially, these people were treated with less respect than the cattle at your local abattoir. Not only were they executed, their bodies were unceremoniously dumped in a wooded area.

The Taliban (peace be upon it) claimed responsibility for the killings. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid (peace be upon him) said the Christians were killed for “preaching Christianity.”

Well, at least there was good reason to systematically shoot these dangerous, although unarmed, subversives. And if that’s not enough reason to kill the infidels, they were found in possession of Bibles translated into the local language. Hmmm? Perhaps shooting was too good for them after all.

This is done in Afghanistan (peace be upon it still) in the name of Islam (peace be upon it) while the American Left (no peace be upon them) gives itself a collective pat on the back for its tolerance and open-mindedness in approving construction of a mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero. We wouldn’t want Muslims (peace be upon them) to soil their prayer rugs (on them, too), hijabs (once more) and burkas (ditto) during a long trip to spit on our 3000 incinerated countrymen, would we?

It’s a good thing Islam (peace be upon it once more), is a religion of peace. Otherwise, Muslims might get ugly about this infidel thing.

A parting dose of tolerance

Regressives claim that conservatives never say anything positive about the Obamas. Well, when you can’t think of something nice to say it’s better to remain silent. Therefore I’ll say nothing about Her Royal Highness Michele Obama’s trip to Spain, the taxpayer funded entourage that accompanied her, or the Spaniards who were shooed from their beaches so Her Highness could frolic in the surf. Consider my silence an act of tolerance.

The façade of elitist empathy

Few expressions are more vacant than the political elite’s public displays of empathy. Empathy is a vicarious emotion, allowing empathizers to feign compassion for other people’s hardships without the actual experience. It is a handy device, and one the elite class routinely utilizes.

Elitists relish the opportunity to parade their empathy before their underlings. Who better to provide an example than Vice President Biden?

Biden credits the administration with saving our financial system and preventing an economic disaster that would’ve sent Western Civilization spiraling toward a quasi-Stone Age existence. Everyone now has health care and the sewer called Wall Street--whose alleged abuses the federal government initiated, exacerbated and subsidized--has been thoroughly sanitized. These steps were necessary because Biden’s opponents (meaning Republicans) “are wildly out of touch” with America.

Mr. Biden has suffered yet another recurrence of foot-in-mouth disease, a chronic malady among elitist empathizers. Biden championed the administration’s achievements during a speech he delivered to $500-per-person Democrat donors in Chapel Hill, NC. How many truck drivers, welders, nurses and retail sales clerks attend $500 political fundraisers? Tell us again, Mr. Biden, who is out of touch?

The elitist’s empathic expressions are a façade intended to conceal their love for the private luxuries they publicly condemn. If only Biden were alone in is condescending attitudes. Sadly, he has ample company on Empathy Hill.

President Obama stands on that hill too, sided by the wealthy real estate potentate Neil Bluhm. Don’t let Bluhm’s apparent capitalist successes fool you. He is a Regressive to the core, having contributed more than $60,000 to various Democrat political causes over the last two years.

Mr. Bluhm also hosted a birthday party for our 44th President. But the downtrodden, toward whom Regressives extend their boundless empathy, didn’t attend. They couldn’t afford the prerequisite $30,000 donation to the Democrat National Committee that Bluhm assigned to his extravaganza. If the attendees were truly concerned about the unfortunate, why not make $30,000 contributions to the nearest children’s home? After all, to paraphrase ex-President Clinton, no donation to the DNC ever fed a hungry child.

The Clintons are also elitists in good standing. Chelsea’s recent nuptials are estimated to have cost between $3 and $6 million dollars. Chelsea herself was reportedly adorned with a quarter of a million dollars worth of jewelry. The driveways at the wedding’s plush mansion locale were widened, not to accommodate an influx of public transportation buses but swanky limousines.

The portable toilet facilities cost $15,000. Minimum wage employees--routine targets for elitist empathy--will barely earn that amount for a year’s labor. Even the electricians were instructed to wear tuxedos, perhaps with a combination cummerbund and tool belt. There was no word on the dress code for stand-by plumbers.

In all honesty, the Clintons, Obama and Bluhm can spend any sum they desire on their parties; it is their business. Their extravagances would be wholly inconsequential save for one small detail: their duplicity. Elitists, illuminated in the Clinton-Obama-Bluhm triumvirate, wallow in the wealth and luxury they condemn for anyone outside their clique. Small wonder Rasmussen polling finds an extensive disconnect between “regular” Americans and the ruling political elites.

Wealth is acceptable only when the elite class controls its use. A person must adhere to the elite political ideology; otherwise their attainments are attributed to avaricious philosophies. Achievers are deemed winners in life’s lottery, born to the silver spoon. The elites’ strategy is to divide and conquer, leaving the elites themselves to determine for whom wealth and luxury are acceptable.

The elites who lead the Regressive Movement are experts in smugness and sophistry. They think nothing of flaunting their wealth and status while claiming empathy with the poor and obscure. Elitists then ease their consciences with “charitable” government entitlement programs funded through legislative theft.

We of the great unwashed are to stoke the elitists’ egos, marvel at their wisdom, praise their compassion, beg their generosity and grovel for their acknowledgment. We are to unquestionably adhere to the diktats of our superiors, forsaking our individual goals for their vision of the collective good.

The elitists’ empathy extends only to the point that their agenda is served. Actually, elitist is a misnomer. They are the contemporary royalty, bidding us live as they decree while they indulge as they wish.

Truth and reality must prevail in immigration debate

With respect to the wisdom of old adages, repeating a lie doesn’t make it the truth. A lie is a lie. The uninformed may accept the lie as truth, but it’s still a lie. And the lie is the preferred tactic for opponents of Arizona’s immigration law.

Arizona’s law neither encourages nor condones racial profiling. Claims to that affect are fabrications. Section 2(B) of SB 1070 states that police must make “lawful contact” with an alien before “reasonable suspicion” of legal status can be established. According to Section 2(E) officers can arrest suspects only when there’s probable cause to believe that a deportable offense has been committed. Police are granted no authority to demand “papers” from Hispanics simply because of their race.

Verifying identity is standard procedure when police interact officially with civilians. Anyone who has been stopped for a simple traffic violation has provided “papers” (identification) to an officer. This is where probable cause and reasonable suspicion come into play; it’s nothing more than common sense. Under Arizona’s law, if a detainee behaves in a manner common to an illegal alien their immigration status is investigated. That’s not racial profiling. That’s behavioral profiling.

Facts and reason are inconsequential to opponents of Arizona’s law, who dutifully repeat the talking points until the lie is considered truth. Even Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon joined the chorus, echoing the sanctimonious twaddle that passes for a defense of illegal aliens.

Calderon stood in our nation’s capital, before our congressional representatives, and belittled any attempt to control the US-Mexico border. Basically, he said that anyone opposed to an open southern border is a knuckle-dragging bigot. Worst of all, our Congress gave him a thunderous ovation for his criticism of Arizona and border control, especially when he addressed them in Spanish.

President Obama also embraced Calderon. Obama will shun the Dali Lama, ditch the Israeli Prime Minister and offend the British without a second thought. But when a foreign dignitary criticizes our country Obama welcomes him like a long-lost brother.

Yet for all this distortion, the lie still hasn’t become truth. What it has become is an effective tool for constructing a political coalition of the ignorant. Democrats are betting that supporting amnesty, open borders and Felipe Calderon while denouncing immigration enforcement measures will enhance the party’s standing with Hispanics.

So, can immigration law please everyone? Only if it doesn’t promote America first, promote cultural superiority, or offend aliens. Reform must also be acceptable to Mexico and Calderon. That’s a tall order, but not impossible. We simply treat aliens and immigrants with the same warmth and courtesy found in Mexico.

Mexico’s immigration law is a constitutional matter. Chapter 1, Article 11 recognizes a right to enter, leave and travel freely inside Mexico. However, that right doesn’t apply to immigrants and “undesirable aliens.” Chapter 2, Article 32 reserves preferred occupations for natural born Mexicans. Chapter 3, Article 33 authorizes the Mexican President to deport foreigners without regard to due process or legal status. That same article bars foreigners from participating in Mexico’s political affairs.

Suppose America amended its immigration laws to mirror those in Mexico’s Constitution? Would Calderon then declare his reverence for our laws? Would Congress reward his support with fervent applause? Don’t hold your breath on either count. Hypocrisy would swell and America would be reviled as even more racist, xenophobic and intolerant than now.

Neither our Constitution nor our Congress exists to alter society for the benefit of illegal invaders, or to cater to smug windbags like Felipe Calderon. Arizona’s immigration law is just what the doctor ordered. It should become the model for every state in the union, opponent’s lies and prevarications notwithstanding.

Boxer demands fealty, not respect

Proper etiquette once invited respect and using “Sir” and “Ma’am” was considered reverential. The insult arose when the words were warranted but not used.

Within the military structure referring to a ranking officer as “Sir” or “Ma’am” still represents proper protocol. In fact, it’s mandatory. For example, a subordinate can use “Sir”, “Ma’am”, or rank while addressing a superior officer and remain soundly within the realm of civility.

Such courtesy once worked in the Halls of Congress, too. That was before self-absorbed lords such as California’s Barbara Boxer assumed royal authority in Washington.

Boxer chastised Brigadier General Michael Walsh during a recent Senate hearing. The video is everywhere and you can see it for yourself. However, to summarize for clarity, Walsh addressed Boxer as “Ma’am” instead of “Senator” and you’d have thought he called her the “C” word.

She promptly informed the General that she preferred to be addressed as Senator Boxer because she had “worked so hard to get that title.” How can anyone simultaneously be so arrogant, narcissistic and insecure?

Mr. Walsh showed proper respect for both Boxer and her office with the term “ma’am.” “Ma’am” is a contraction of “madam” and refers to a woman of refinement. It’s a compliment. And it’s arguably more than Barbara Boxer deserves.

Boxer must be extraordinarily insecure in her person and inordinately proud of her power to have taken offense. She just couldn’t resist calling attention to herself and shoving her credentials in someone’s face. It’s a trait of outward arrogance that also indicates inner weakness.

Maybe her insecurity arises from the possibility that becoming a Democratic Senator from California isn’t overly difficult. Daffy Duck could run as a Democrat and defeat a Republican in a state-wide race. It’s just no great trick for a Leftist to win a general election in California.

Even winning the Democrat primary isn’t as monumental a task as Boxer claims. How hard is it to promise more government, more spending and more of everything to 51-percent of the population at the expense of the other 49-percent? And whatever your Leftist opponent may promise, double the offer. What’s so difficult?

Who is Boxer to claim that she “worked hard” for what she has anyway? Americans work hard to attain success everyday. They use their talents to please their neighbors, customers and clients. Yet Boxer has no qualms with disrespecting such commoners, or with redistributing what they’ve earned. They are, after all, the winners of life’s lottery.

Now she has the gall to demand acknowledgement of her hard work? Forget it!

By the way, the silver star Michael Walsh wears doesn’t mean he’s the Marshall of Dodge City. And he didn’t get it from a Cracker Jack box. In fact, I’ll wager that Walsh worked harder to attain the rank of Brigadier General than Boxer did to win a Senate seat. I’ll also wager that he wouldn’t be mortally offended if a subordinate called him Sir.

Boxer’s condescending attitude is born from an odd marriage of inner weakness and insecurity with an outward sense of royalty and unmitigated authority. It’s time her highness faced the reality of her contradictions.

No one is forcing women back to the barefoot, pregnant, cookie-baking days with the use of ma’am. Boxer’s offense at this traditional term of respect reflects both a hollow personality and a shallow intellect.

Attaining a Senate seat is a rare accomplishment; there are only 100 Senators at a time. She can be proud of her office. But public office grants her no right to demand fealty from another American citizen, especially a Brigadier General. Barbara’s panties were wadded over nothing.

Boxer’s childish demand didn’t enhance her authority nor command anyone’s respect. She merely proved that arrogant insecurity isn’t an oxymoron and that she’s undeserving even of the obeisance she received, much less that which she demands.