Constitution In Crisis

The crumbling moral infrastructure

by Thomas Sowell - May 7th, 2012 - World Net Daily

Democracy does not mean mob rule. It means majority rule. If the “Occupy” movement, or any other mob, actually represents a majority, then they already have the votes to accomplish legally whatever they are trying to accomplish by illegal means.

Mob rule means imposing what the mob wants, regardless of what the majority of voters want. It is the antithesis of democracy.

In San Francisco, when the mob smashed the plate-glass window of a small business shop, the owner put up some plywood to replace the glass, and the mob wrote graffiti on his plywood. The consequences? None for the mob, but a citation for the shop owner for not removing the graffiti.

In Europe, both Greece and France have voted to continue spending money they do not have. The Nationalism on which these votes are based is a major element of this rejection of reality. People who have gotten used to sucking at the public trough are outraged that this easy way of life is being reduced and they reject the possibility that someone cannot be found to pay for their easy life. They expect more, not less, from society. Working for it is not something they are willing to do.

Of course the rational Thomas Sowell has pointed out the key problem with their demands. If they were a majority, they could vote for what they want. They believe if they keep screaming they may persuade enough additional voters to join them. Then their mob demands will, as in Greece and France, become merely the delusions that wealth exists in the abstract. No one has to work for wealth to exist. Just take it from the rich. The problem? That this has never ever worked. Ever! That there are not enough rich does not matter when you are voting your delusions. Greed without a willingness to work is the ultimate delusion.

Holder's Revenge

by John T. Bennett - April 2nd, 2012 - American Thinker

Reverse discrimination against whites has just begun, according to Attorney General Eric Holder... "The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin... When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?"

Entitled? Blacks make up 12.5% of the population while holding 18% of all federal jobs. Yet Eric Holder has complained that this is not enough. It appears from his comments that 50% of federal jobs constitutes what blacks are "entitled" to.

No wonder race relations have gone so horribly bad since Obama was elected. It is not just government spending that is out of control. We now have a government that is actively hostile to the majority of its population. Eric Holder calls black people, "my people." The Attorney General of the United States is actively fomenting the denigration of rights for the majority of the population. Whites are not "his people." Whites are not entitled to keep what they have earned until Holder is satisfied blacks have what they are entitled to.

As noted in the article, "... we are actually creating a government-sanctioned nobility -- a favored class of citizens with officially endorsed, race-based hereditary privileges." Eric Holder is happy with that. Equal rights means nothing to him. His only concern? What blacks are "entitled" to. This special treatment even includes blacks who immigrate to America and who can thus not claim to have ever been a victim of discrimination. When they enter our nation, their rights are superior to the rights of any white, even while they are not citizens.

It's All About Race Now

by Patrick Buchanan - March 30th, 2012 - Human Events

To much of America's black leadership and its media auxiliaries, what happened in Sanford was, as Jesse put it, that an innocent kid was "shot down in cold blood by a vigilante."

Yet, from police reports, witness statements, and the father and friends of Zimmerman, another picture emerges.

Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, and was punched in the nose, knocked flat on his back and jumped on, getting his head pounded, when he pulled his gun and fired. That Trayvon's body was found face down, not face up, would tend to support this.

But, to Florida Congresswoman Federica Wilson, "this sweet young boy ... was hunted down like a dog, shot on the street, and his killer is still at large."

Some Sanford police believed Zimmerman; others did not.

But now that it is being investigated by a special prosecutor, the FBI, the Justice Department and a coming grand jury, what is the purpose of this venomous portrayal of George Zimmerman?

As yet convicted of no crime, he is being crucified in the arena of public opinion as a hate-crime monster and murderer.

Is this our idea of justice?

Black's constitute only 12.5% of the American population. Yet they commit 83% of the gun assaults in New York City. The crime rate by blacks is more than seven times the rate committed by whites. Yet if you say this, or write it as I just did, you are condemned as being a racist. While I was running for public office one delusion I heard a couple of times was the argument that blacks were half the population and whites better get used to blacks being on top. Where does this erroneous belief come from?

As an example of what it leads to, one group of black men repeatedly raped a young white girl, forced her to endure oral copulation again and again, forced her to drink bleach to destroy the DNA evidence, and then buried her alive to die. Before her own ordeal, she was forced to watch as they brutally killed her fiancée. The blacks were caught despite their attempts to hide the evidence. Then the idiocy started. The black community was outraged when the death penalty was sought by the D.A. Friends and family of the perpetrators actually argued that they did not deserve to be punished since they were the victims of racism. The black community seemed incapable of understanding white outrage at this preposterous idea.

Accusations of racism have become the excuse for any black to commit the most egregious acts without consequence - as far as blacks are concerned. Barack Obama has aggravated this problem. Far from his election helping to heal race relations, his obvious belief that whites are at fault for every problem has increased white backlash at the constant accusations of racism where no racism exists. The black 12.5% of the population need to accept the risk of their constant outrage. They do not deserve half the jobs and half the elected legislative votes as one black racist demagogue insisted. Their outrage is getting old.

Every vestige of racism cannot be eliminated before blacks accept that massive progress that has been made. If blacks refuse to acknowledge the reality of today, and instead insist that every white be responsible forever for the actions of some whites of 200 years ago, they may soon see the white population become just as racist as the out of control black leaders who are advocating blacks go out and riot in the streets.

A racist backlash will not serve the interests of that small proportion of our nation who are black. Blacks really are only 12.5% of the country. In their self-segregated communities where they daily see the population as overwhelmingly black it would be a serious mistake to believe that they are equal in number to the much larger white population. If blacks trigger a misguided race war, numbers will matter. That reality is part of the reason the NAACP has condemned the race baiting of black leaders like Sharpton and Jackson. They cannot afford to lose the sympathy of most whites or reverse discrimination will come to a screeching halt. Blacks are well on their way to that reaction.

History Never Quite Ends

by Victor Davis Hanson - March 1st, 20122 - TownHall.com

The European Union and the United Nations, as well as globalization and advanced technology, were all supposed to trump age-old cultural, geographical and national differences and bring people together.

But for all the high-tech veneer of the 21st century, the world still looks a lot like it did during the last hundred years and well before that.

The brilliant writer, Victor Davis Hanson, is an equally brilliant historian. The problem with America today is that few of our leaders have studied history, nor do they understand it. There are predictable trends that cannot be ignored. Islam is, without question, the latest tyrannical system that allows the power hungry parts of humanity to justify their hunger for power and control over others.

Few Americans want to deal with this. Thus our leaders, democratically elected, prefer to tell us that this is not our real threat. Abortion is a small threat but it offends us. Thus, many of our leader's would much prefer to talk about abortion than to talk about the nuclear bombs that will soon be controlled by some of the most evil despots who have ever gained power in the world.

Visualize what might well have happened in World War II if Hitler had gotten the Atomic bomb first! That is the world in which we will soon live. Why do so few seem to care?

As Victor Davis Hanson notes, "...all we can do is to keep muddling through, stay vigilant, and hope for the best while preparing for the worst." Yet we have elected a President who is adamantly opposed to preparing for the worst. The American people have decided that the wishful thinking of the League of Nations is preferable to diverting any money from living happy to preparing to stay free. That will lead to only one disastrous result.

Evolve Or Die

by Ned Ryun - February 21st, 2012 - American Spectator

This February marks the three-year anniversary of the Tea Party, and with the 2012 presidential election in full swing, many are wondering whether the Tea Party will be a factor in bringing down the Obama presidency and have the ability to drive real government reform. Others are wondering if the movement has run out of gas at the start of the final lap (as a Ryun, I must periodically make running analogies). In all honesty, the answer is both. The Tea Party is at a crossroads in 2012. One route will slowly take it into relative obscurity and the other can lead it to having an even greater impact than it has had already.

Excellent article with some very useful information about the 3 national groups that are using the Tea Party movement for the personal benefit of the egos who are running them. These national groups are a part of the problem. They are not the movement. In fact they in many ways conflict with the movement. However the chaos that allows these groups to act as if they are movement leaders is one key to the growing negative view that many hold about the Tea Party movement and the Republican Party too.

Democrats have hated the Tea Party movement since its inception. Curiously, Republican Party leadership has also hated the Tea Party movement since the earliest elections the movement participated in, shortly after it started. Unless you understand why, it is hard to understand the problems that Ned Ryun is addressing.

However there is one other complicating factor to the hatred aimed at the Tea Party movement. That factor is the visceral hatred by "social conservatives" of anyone who interferes with their long term hijacking of the "conservative" label. Most "social conservatives" are not conservatives at all. They are totally okay with big government, as long as it does not discriminate against their institutions. That is why they became a key component within the "compassionate conservative" wing that Karl Rove and George W. Bush created to steer the party away from conservative principles. Big government programs, heavy involvement in promoting nation building overseas, expanding the so-called safety net with new wasteful entitlements, Wall Street dominated regulatory suppression of small business and tolerance for tax money funneled to both corporations and Christian charities - these were the basis for social conservative enthusiasm for the "compassionate conservative" concept.

None of the above fits in with true conservative principles. One key problem that both the Tea Party movement and the Republican Party are struggling with is the confused identity of the conservative label. We have several wings in both institutions, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, traditional conservatives, Wall Street, neo-conservatives, Constitutional conservatives, populists and moderates. To varying degrees each group claims the conservative label. Even the moderates claim the label when they argue that being pragmatic compromisers does not mean they are not embracing conservative goals!

The meaning of the term "conservative" has been stretched by the various wings that barely fit the traditional definition, yet each wing uses their view of conservatism to berate the other groups, usually using the meaningless term RINO for those who do not agree with their definition. I think the RINO term has become popular so that groups who don't really know what conservative means can label those who disagree with them and not try and defend the actual differences - because they can't.

One group that has been seriously reviled during the growth of the Tea Party movement has been Republican political consultants. With their need to help the campaigns of many candidates who are not purely conservative, these consultants have long since abandoned conservative principles and embraced pragmatism above all. This allows them to structure a winning campaign for candidates who are focused on the acquisition of power rather than the promotion of principles. Political power is important, but not more important that principles.

This has left the Tea Party movement and a key component of Republican leadership battling for the soul of the Party in a destructive internecine war over the conflict between principle and pragmatism.

This brings us to the key component in Ryun's article that will be such a challenge to pull off. Ryun sums up the need for the change he advocates with his sentence, "If the Tea Party will evolve, and become sustainable with a more concise mission (we're taking over the local city council vs. we just want more freedom) and ability to fundraise, it can and will be a force beyond 2012."

However the question I ask is, "How is this different than the pragmatic quest for power of the consultants who have long since abandoned all but the most superficial support of conservative principles?" Ronald Reagan was a pragmatist, and it is one of the core strengths that made him such a great leader. However he rarely compromised, and on some core principles, he was inflexible. If you doubt that, go back and study the lesson of Reykjavik. Reagan overruled every single advisor he brought with him to that event. All of them were eager to compromise for a short term victory of major value. Only Reagan saw the need for sticking with long term principle. As often as he compromised, Reagan stuck to his principles at the right times.

It is that balance that the Republican Party, and its voters, have lost. We forget the lesson of Reykjavik if we make it an inflexible standard of never compromising. The consultants, like Reagan's advisers, are ever eager to be pragmatic and compromise for power. That is as bad as never compromising. Refusal to compromise has become a serious problem within the Tea Party movement and thus the Republican Party.

What Ryun left out of his article was guidance in how to strike that balance between principles and pragmatism when the goal is (as he states it) "taking over the local city council." I don't see how we can strike an effective balance when the definition of "conservative" principle itself is so confused. When principle is not clear - pragmatism allows for compromise on everything.

For Republicans and the Tea Party movement, the key to our principles is a shared definition of conservative, and right now that does not exist.

As Time Goes By . . .

- by Victor Davis Hanson - February 20th, 2012 - National Review Online

It is hard to remember a more tense time in the last 20 years. Tiny Israel may be poised to preempt the nuclear capabilities of Iran (an Iran that itself once attempted, unsuccessfully, to take out the Iraqi reactor at Osirak before Israel finished the job), whose terrorist appendages and missiles have the ability to do it a great deal of damage in return. How such a war would escalate or end, no one knows. There is no sense of a global effort to stop Iran’s proliferation, given that China and Russia seem to enjoy the irritation that Iran causes the West. I think U.S. policy amounts to a sort of shrug (we publicly discourage the Israelis, privately sorta hope they do, and publicly will sorta condemn them if they do). Whatever is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq, no one seems to know, or — despite our tens of thousands of troops in combat — even seem to care, given that the administration seems irked more than engaged.

Barack Obama is simply one of the most disastrous elected officials in the history of our nation. And his election could not have come at a more critical moment in the last 80 years. The out come of World War II was always critical, and despite my disgust with FDR over his economic beliefs, he did a brilliant job of assuring America won the war. He saw it coming. When needed he even turned our capitalists loose to build the most powerful military armaments mankind had ever seen. In the midst of war, FDR established the economic dominance that allowed our amazing success after the war as well. Yet few in America seem to see the parallels in our current situation to that earlier crisis. It need not have turned out well.

However rather than another FDR, with his faults, this time the Democrat Party has turned to a man who despises what America did, both during that war and after. Barack Obama's policies are a foreign policy nightmare.

The most frightening line in the article is "It seems more like 1936 than 2012 in Europe." Just like 1936, the voters do not want to believe that war is coming. This time, that includes our President.

For that reason alone, this is not going to end well.

Poll: Ronald Reagan Named Best President

--- Since World War II

Ranks Second all time among the top three, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and George Washington

by Staff - February 2012 - KMAS News Radio

On the flip-side, George W. Bush and Barack Obama were neck-and-neck for the "Worst president since World War II" title. Twenty-seven percent of respondents said Bush was at the bottom of the pack...

The significance of this complete denigration of George W. Bush is the current candidacy of Rick Santorum, heir apparent to the big government, wasteful spending, ignore the people arrogance of "compassionate conservatism" which Bush and Karl Rove invented. Santorum is leading the pack among social-conservative-dominated Republican voters in the current primary campaign. I predict that like "W", Santorum's sanctimony and arrogance will not wear well, even if he wins. "W" is still adored by social conservatives and nothing he did is permitted to be criticized. They gave us Bush and it looks like they are about to give us another pious big government progressive as the so called "conservative leader". They are positive that opposing abortion is the only issue you have to agree on to make you a "conservative" and they are destroying the Party of small government in the process.

Social conservatives are not conservatives.

'The Mahdi Does Not Negotiate. Neither Should We'

by Charles S. Faddis - February 6th, 2012 - Tampa Bay Online

Several years ago, prior to my retirement from the CIA, I was meeting with a senior Iranian asset in the Middle East. I had finished debriefing him on the intelligence he had to provide, and we had launched into a more expansive conversation about the overall direction of American policy toward Iran. I was trying to explain the rationale behind our sanctions regime and the thought process that had led us to conclude that we could persuade the Islamic Republic of Iran to modify its behavior.

The asset interrupted me. "You really don't have any idea who you are dealing with, do you?" he asked.

The real answer to that question is NO! Americans are delusional. Those who have a clear understanding of what is happening in the world are smeared repeatedly by our press as extremists. And unfortunately, average Americans accept that. Even Republican leadership accepts that.

Do you really think that Mitt Romney has a clue who the Islamo-fascists are? Do you think he has the guts to contest a long term battle with them? Do you think he will spend an ounce of political effort in explaining to the American people how we survive? He will avoid the issue and try and be popular.

America is finished, whether Barack Obama wins another term or Mitt Romney replaces him. I would not put much trust in Gingrich, Paul or Santorum either. And that is truly sad. At a critical time in our history, we have failed to produce a leader that the people in our society will listen to. Don't you wonder whether it is a problem with our leaders or a problem with the idiots who vote?

Obama Eligibility Court Case… Blow By Blow

by Craig Andresen - January 26th, 2012 - The National Patriot

Please note: the original article is no longer accessible, so I have removed the link.

Court is called to order. 

Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.

Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.

Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.

Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.

June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.

Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.

It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.

The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.

This court case is the most fascinating legal process currently moving forward in America. At the very least it has finally addressed the issues in a rational way. Barack Hussein Obama II is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and thus is not eligible to be President. It has nothing to do with the delusion that he was not born in Hawaii. It has everything to do with the fact that his father was NEVER a citizen.

It is also clear that Obama has used a fraudulent SSN, provided a doctored birth certificate to the public, claimed Indonesian citizenship in order to pay for his college education and generally committed a number of criminal acts regarding his identity.

The question now becomes, what will the courts do? At least one lawyer I know has claimed declaring him ineligible to be re-elected will cause a race war. In addition, none of the Supreme Justices have the stomach for the cases that will be filed challenging every single action Obama has taken as President.

 If there is any single action that could precipitate a civil war, the wrong decision in this case is clearly it. Yet that gutless unwillingness to decide cases by the law of the land renders the rule of law in our nation a farce.

Bain Capital Saved America

by Daniel Henninger - January 19th, 2012 - Wall Street Journal

Not only did Bain Capital save America, but no matter what turn Mitt Romney's political career takes, Bain Capital may stand as the best of Mr. Romney's lifetime contributions to the nation's economic well-being. If only he'd tell the story.

We are of course putting forth "Bain Capital" as not merely the Romney private-equity house but as the stand-in for the period of American economic history that ran from 1980 to 1989. Back then it was called the Greed Decade, with asset-stripping barbarians at the gate. Virtually everything about this popular stereotype is wrong. Properly understood, the 1980s, including Bain, were the remarkable years when an ever-resilient America found a way to save itself from becoming what Europe is now—a global has-been.

What a biased and self serving discourse on how the good things that resulted from free enterprise - purging its losers - justified the near elimination of competition from the marketplace and the creation of government regulations which banned new competition. The current system is dependent on government subsidies of big corporations doing things that government wants done so that businesses that collude with bureaucrats win no matter what the market does. Or at least that was the premise. However the massive failures of "green energy" companies proves that such delusions never work in the long run.

The problem is that Wall Street has abandoned competition because it desperately wants some security for big profits. I agree wholeheartedly with the premise - whenever there are "unused or poorly deployed cash and assets" it is not just the business that loses, so does society. This premise is the justification for companies like Bain that buy poorly performing companies and reorganize them to produce strong companies in their place. The well known creative destruction process of capitalism always means some get hurt. The value to society of free markets is too important to stop the process though. That does not mean the process can be corrupted and still claim it is doing good.

The problem is when the process is interfered with as has happened here in America. The true engine of free markets includes entry into the marketplace. That entry process has been severely constrained by big corporations and government conspiring to create subsidies, special deals, regulations and barriers to competition, under the guise of consumer and worker protection.

Wall Street and its defenders are extremely defensive about the corruption that has resulted from the elimination of competition and the protection of big corporations that has become the anything but free markets of modern America. That is the reason Wall Street attacks anyone who points out the flaws of the current system with such venom.

There was a lot of good done by companies like Bain Capital during the 1980s. It sure as hell did not save America though. What has occurred instead is a collusion with government that has damaged the free markets that will serve our nation best in the coming years. We must restore competition and end stupid regulations that only protect corrupt existing businesses if we want to see our nation prosper. A corrupt Wall Street is fighting against that with every ounce of its being. Wall Street is determined to use its power to promote the concept of risk free business. Government (through its power to tax) is expected to provide Wall Street bailouts whenever business fails. That is not free markets.

Time To Purge The Republican Party

by Ben Shapiro - January 18th, 2012 = TownHall.com

The Republican Party is about to nominate Mitt Romney because it is a party in crisis. Instead of focusing on... Barack Obama -- Republicans are idiotically focusing on their internal differences. Unlike the Democratic Party, which is largely united around certain key issues... the Republican Party is all over the place. The Republican Party includes high-tax deficit hawks, and it includes low-tax supply-siders. It includes high-spending compassionate conservatives, and it includes low-spending small government types. It includes pro-gay marriage libertarians and pro-traditional marriage religious voters. It includes hard-line, anti-immigration believers and open-borders free marketers. It includes Ron Paul isolationists, George W. Bush Wilsonians and everything in between.

The Republican Party includes passionate supporters of free enterprise who defend small business while at the same time the party also includes the crony capitalist faction of Wall Street who promote the socialism of big corporations and government regulatory control.

With so much internal discord, it is no surprise that Democrats win elections even as Republicans exist in greater numbers. It is also the reason that so many independents are former Republicans who have tired of the internal Party conflict.

I am not sure how Shapiro thinks purging our ranks is a good thing, but I can certainly see how he has arrived at the idea.

Panetta: Iran Has Not Yet Decided to Make a Nuclear Bomb

by Associated Press Staff - January 8th, 2012 - Fox News

Panetta's remarks on CBS' Face the Nation, which were taped Friday and aired Sunday, reflect the long-held view of the Obama administration that Iran is not yet committed to building a nuclear arsenal, only to creating the industrial and scientific capacity to allow one if its leaders [d]o decide to take that final step.

The comments suggest the White House's assessment of Iran's nuclear strategy has not changed in recent months, despite warnings from advocates of military action that time is running out to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear-armed state.

What these comments suggest is that Panetta and the White House have nothing but contempt for the intelligence of the American people. To claim Iran has not been dedicated to building a bomb for several years may be a White House "assessment" but it is an "assessment" based on delusional thinking.

Such an assertion should be enough to frighten the American people. However first it requires a press that mocks the stupidity of the idea. It appears that even Fox News is afraid to alienate the White House by such a reaction. So it is reported as if it is a credible possibility. No wonder the American people are confused. Our Press is falling down on its job.

Newt Helped Formulate Christmas

by Ann Coulter - December 21st, 2011 - Human Events

Every few years, heinous Democratic policies -- abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, Hillarycare, Obamacare, to name a few -- compel previously uninvolved Americans to leap into politics.

This is great, except for two things: (1) We have to get heinous Democratic policies first; and (2) newcomers have short memories, sometimes no memories at all.

The second point is the only possible explanation for why some conservatives seem to view Newt Gingrich​ as the anti-Establishment outsider who will shake up Washington.

Newly active right-wingers would do well to spend a little more time quietly reading up on Newt's political career, and a little less time shaking their fists at some imaginary "Establishment" -- which now apparently includes Michael Savage, Mark Steyn​, Christine O'Donnell, Ramesh Ponnuru, Glenn Beck​ and me, all of whom oppose Newt's candidacy. (By the way, guys, are we car-pooling to the next Trilateral Commission meeting? I have a thing at the World Bank​ that same day.)

Only then will they realize that Gingrich would be a disaster for everything they believe in.

I love Ann. I don't always agree with her. Certainly, her candidate for President, Mitt Romney has some flaws that could be exploited to write an equally eviscerating article filled with humorous sarcasm. However this article is a great summation of the reasons I can't make Newt my first choice in this primary contest. I do though have a problem with Ann's excessive vitriol. If Newt wins the primary how is she going to backpedal and support him in the general election?

Or will she be happy to accept 4 more years of Barack Obama?

Are America's Best Days Behind Us?

by Janice Shaw Crouse - December 17th, 2011 - American Thinker

It takes more grit to be optimistic about the future, with all its uncertainties, than to be pessimistic. The greatest sin of today's liberals or progressives is that they refuse to learn from the multiple failures of historic, indeed tragic, attempts to achieve Utopia through big government, whether through Nazism, fascism, communism, or European socialism. On a smaller scale, ask anyone involved in trying to start up a new business, and you'll hear how hard it is and about the slim odds of succeeding. There is more than enough ammunition to be a naysayer about America's future.

After this opening paragraph, depressing enough in its own right, the author proceeds to enumerate a litany of troubles afflicting our nation. She then ends by listing positive indicators which she believes are evidence we can overcome the troubles she sees. From my perspective she is ignoring the nagging doubts that we can overcome our current problems.

Lets examine each of her 3 positives.

#1 - "America is still the world's best success story."

She may believe that. However 40 years of socialist dogma preached to our children in a school system that is under the control of unionized socialists has left few in our youngest generation who believe that. People who believe that are now in the minority. It is irrelevant whether the statement is true. The reality is colored by a famous quote, "perception is reality." Her perception is losing out among a majority of our citizens. At the same time we have a government that is actively working to sabotage small business and free enterprise. That is where we should be focused.

The party that should be resisting this, Republicans, are not for a simple reason. The corrupt crony capitalists of Wall Street control the beltway elites who are the power in the Republican Party. Together with Wall Street they are more focused on creating business monopolies who partner with government than in permitting capitalism to survive. The competition that comes with small business is being destroyed by government regulation to protect big corporations. Both major political parties are thus dedicated to this idiocy. How is this good news?

#2 - "The current crises have captured the attention of Middle America."

It is true that middle America has woken up from its indifference to the economic and culture war being won by the liberals, however it is not yet clear it is not too late. This Middle America is as brain washed by the left wing dogma as the rest of the nation.

As a perfect example of the susceptibility to this "perception", a great number of the Tea Party movement were convinced that we had to support Herman Cain to get blacks on our side. With nearly half of the people on TV commercials black, with a huge majority of sports figures also being black, with a constant parade of entertainment figures being black, I could not find one in twenty among my Tea Party friends who could accurately identify the actual percentage of blacks in America.

Most thought it approached half the nation, or would shortly. That it has instead fallen from 14% of our population to 12.6% of our population was rejected by more than two thirds of the Tea Party supporters. Rejected. They simply would not believe it. Let's assume that you could persuade some portion of the 95% of blacks who are dedicated to the socialism of the Democrats to switch sides. At best we are talking about a huge effort to change the minds of 1% or 2% of the total population. Personally, I doubt even that big a swing is possible. The reality is that more blacks are turned off by what they see as a traitor to their socialist cause, when we support a black conservative, and are thus less amenable to listening to the causes for their economic failure than they might otherwise be.

How do we change this blind acceptance of a lie by our own side?

#3 - "Conservatives are winning on numerous cultural fronts where decline is threatening the nation's well-being."

Rather grandiose statement of victory. Yet not a single example proving this true is provided. That is called an unproved assumption. It is followed by the argument that "pro-marriage, pro-family, and pro-life" values provide "opportunity for everyone willing to work." First, pro-life has little to do with jobs and anyway, their argument is losing. Pro-marriage and pro-family are really the same thing, and again the direct relation to jobs is at best long term, more likely non-existent. The number of illegitimate children continues to climb even as Planned Parenthood has successfully resisted any attempt to stop government promotion of abortion.

America's long term success may be related to the social issues, however the immediate crisis is economic in nature and whether abortion is reduced this year will make no difference in the crushing debt we are building. Yet pro-life adherents are determined that their battle must be won right now. They demand action which sucks political resources during this crisis. Even though I agree with them on their issues (though not on their solutions), I have become disgusted by the social conservative movement's blind refusal to prioritize. The author Crouse obviously has rejected my frustration (and a lot of other Tea Party supporters as well) as meaningless just as so many other social conservatives have. At this time of a clear need to reduce government telling us what to do with our lives, they want to empower government to a bigger nanny state for what they see as moral reasons. As a result, we have reached a point where I see social conservatives as my enemy as much as I see socialists as my enemy. What value do social conservatives accomplish making their allies their enemies?

Democracy is evil. Its slow corrosion of national focus from freedom to selfish self interest is insidious. Yet Crouse has ignored this problem and focused on issues that make no difference to national survival during this crisis.

Her positive outlook is not going to help. Making sure that "America's Best Days Are Not Behind Us" needs to start with some honest self appraisal that she has avoided. Unfortunately, a large part of the conservative movement is as self delusional as Crouse.

What Iraq changed

Editorial - December 16th, 2011 - New York Post

The flags came down in Baghdad yesterday as President Obama declared an end to an eight-year campaign in Iraq that removed a genocidal tyrant from power, defined new modes of battle — and shaped a generation of American warriors.

It also set into motion a chain of events that could transform the Middle East.

More than 1 million Americans served under arms in Iraq, facing battle conditions that challenged, tested and ennobled them.

The cost was heavy: Some 4,500 died there; more than 32,000 were injured.

The Iraq War was controversial from its inception, and — as always — history will deliver the final verdict as to its efficacy.

What is bizarre to me is that one of the most important consequences of this war is totally ignored in this article. Lybia and it's dictator Muammar Quaddafi decided to surrender its nuclear program to America. Though it was surprising, it is not unreasonable that Quaddafi would lose his nerve. He had barely survived death during the earlier attacks by President Ronald Reagan. Quaddafi was clearly influenced by the reality that American Presidents have a lot of military power at their disposal. With President Bush successfully invading Saddam Hussein's Iraq, how likely was it that he would not at some point discover the huge number of Iraqi scientists and engineers who were working on the Lybian nuclear program?

I still remember the articles about the surprises when we took over the program. Our "experts" could not believe how close Quaddafi was to success. We could not believe how many Iraqi and Syrian personnel were involved. If they had built their bomb, it would have meant that three rogue nations, Lybia, Iraq and Syria would all have attained nuclear bomb capability at the same time.

This was ended by our invasion of Iraq. No matter what others say, this delay in some of the worst of the tyrants in the Middle East getting nuclear bombs was the single best result of the war in Iraq. They may get them some day but we are far better off that they do not have them right now.