Today marks the first 9/11 anniversarry with a new POTUS holding the reigns of the American military.  In case anyone has forgotten, we are still involved in the wars that event kicked off.  How has the new POTUS handled the job of defender of the free world?  That is what is coming to light in this week.  Ben pointed this out to me, and I thank him.  Presidential policies matter in world events and during a hot war, they matter to each and every volunteer in our armed services because their careers, reputations, and especially their lives may be called on the line at any moment.

So, let us examine the president's performance in the war effort.  August 31, 09 the McClatchy reported that the Pentagon is Worried About Obama's Commitment to Afghanistan.  

[The prospect that U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal may ask for as many as 45,000 additional American troops in Afghanistan is fueling growing tension within President Barack Obama's administration over the U.S. commitment to the war there.]

Violence has been escalating in Afganistan and three different polls indicate support for the war in Afghanistan is declining in the American public.  Obama and staff are said to have thought there would be more support for the Afghan war effort though they criticized the Iraq war effort as wrong.  (??) Dopes!  The left don't support any military action or use unless its peaceful.  Without decisive action, of course the people don't want to be involved in putting troops into engagement with their hands manacled.  War is not a place or time for half measures.  The POTUS position is one of leadership, not polling the public for followship.

[However, administration officials said that amid rising violence and casualties, polls that show a majority of Americans now think the war in Afghanistan isn't worth fighting. With tough battles ahead on health care, the budget and other issues, Vice President Joe Biden and other officials are increasingly anxious about how the American public would respond to sending additional troops.]

The troop level assessment indicates bureaucracy is hampering military effectiveness.  It isn't specifically stated, but the indication is that this bureaucracy is rolling down from the administration, a fear running through the brass that an 'incident' may be used to prosecute military staff and nobody wants to fall on their proverbial sword to cover the president's political ass since his administration is demonstrating their own willingness to be the political steam roller that threatens them, so brass will not take the necessary risks to win this war.

[The assessment also calls for more U.S. government civilians to be sent to Afghanistan and for the streamlining of the military's command structure, saying that too much bureaucracy is making it difficult for commanders to make decisions on the ground.]

Tuesday September 8, 09.  McClatchy again, this time reporting about the cost to troops in blood due to the indecisive commanders in the field afraid to risk an incident.  "We're Pinned Down!" 4 US Troops Die in Afghan Ambush

(Not an image of this story)

[U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.]

Back to the Pentagon is worried piece; at the same time that the violence is escalating and the troops are suffering greater losses, due to bureaucratic failure to risk an incident, the commanders are feeling added pressure to make progress.  Bureaucracies suck.  They suck exponentially when a commander in chief adds fear in his officers by his indecisive  waffling for fear of criticism from the world and its left leaning press.

[ Meanwhile, U.S. military commanders in Kabul feel the political clock ticking, saying they think they have no more than 18 months to show some kind of progress, even as most agree that they don't have enough troops.]

Taliban's Growth in Afghanistan's North Threatens to Expand War  Friday August 28, 09 McClatchy

This kind of crap is what encourages our enemies to hang on, if they just hold out, America will defeat itself.  Eight years in and now we're seeing a growth in the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Mr. President, be the leader you have to be.  If you could see past your ego, you might recognize that George Bush was a far superior intellect if for no other reason than his commitment to finish what he started.  Oh but wait, this isn't YOUR war, is it?   Today, at least four military men would say, "No, it isn't."

What do the actions of a professional ethicist say of him when he calls Sarah Palin and 'her ilk' ignorant, nefarious, and just plain stupid?  Since I am of Sarah Palin's 'ilk,' I take offense at Dr. Nuland's summation of my principles, knowledge, understanding, and motives.  Allow me to demonstrate my ignorant, nefarious and just plain stupid concerns regarding the socialism of my liberties and freedom, my self reliance and desire to control what I have made or earned, my choices with regard to my own health care, wealth, and my participation in philanthropy.  

Stupidity is a luxury.  The more separated you are from the consequences of your stupidity, the more stupidity you can survive, the more stupid you become.  Or, you can reverse the observation and state:  The closer you are to the consequences of your stupidity, the sooner and the more you pay for your stupidity, the more incentive to acquire objectivity.  The further we get from the last generation to be raised with the values and commitment to truth, right, and good, the more stupid our culture becomes.  We know that generation as the Greatest Generation.  That generation acquired its name by facing down the greatest evils of the last century and by producing the most successful economy the world has ever known.  They are the generation which grabbed onto the technology revolution with both hands and turned little ideas into great companies and generated productivity advances by leaps and bounds.  They faced the great challenges and defeated them and they ignored the most important duty they would ever have.  The duty to pass their values on to the next generation.  Their progeny were the stupid generation.  That generation which brought us the sit-in demonstration, the drop-out and drug cultures, and another return to the Utopian vision of world peace.  Why?  Because they were protected from the consequences of stupidity by their parents' wealth and blind faith in the professors to educate them with the best information and intent.  Unfortunately, those colleges were infected by the home grown communists.  Literal communists.

So, the stupid generation went to college.  Then, they went into entertainment and journalism and education.  These are three industries which do not depend on truth or objectivity.  All three industries with few exceptions, are protected from the consequences of objectivity blindness.  In education we find the hard sciences are the only place you can find conservatives and Republicans dominating on the college campus.  In entertainment, the only place you can find a conservative dominated field is sports.  Why?  Because the hard sciences are dependent on hard facts, objectivity.  The same with sports, the ball goes through the goal or the ball does not go through the goal.  It doesn't matter how many times and how well you explain the evil nature of the Jew and the Christian.  I'm sure I've mangled my attempt to title this observation by mixing Latin and French but... The defacto trifecta une betement is roughly translated 'the state of a perfect storm of foolish misinformation' resulting in full blown cultural delusion. 

When I was a kid, horror movies were truly horrific.  These days the entertainment industry creates image driven horror but back then, these movies had plots that laid out circumstances anyone could imagine themselves falling victim to such as a radio dj being stalked by a woman who appeared to be normal and in full control of her faculties, but who would set him up to be arrested and ruined if he did not meet her desires.  (Play Misty for Me)  Another was a nice looking motel which happened to have a caretaker who would kill overnighters and restore the room to normal before morning. (Psycho)  These movies took you into the lives of either the victims or the perpetrators if not both.  I bring this up because the next movie I mention is very much like the couch potato voter's experience in America today.  A woman is hired to be an office worker in an insane asylum.  She is received by the doctor and his staff and is pleased by their warm spirit.  She is set to work and goes through half the movie doing her job but finding odd things happening from time to time.  Before the movie is over, she realizes the good doctor and his staff are the inmates and the actual doctor and those remaining alive of his staff have been locked away in one of the padded rooms for weeks.  By the time this woman figures out what's going on, many of the other patients have been killed or maimed and her life is in dire jeapardy.

Let me just analagyze for a moment here.  If America is the insane asylum and socialist/communist/extremists' violence is against the founding fathers' ideals and the staff are those who hold true to those ideals, then the couch potato voters are the non-violent inmates, rather than the new hire.  A new hire would be an immigrant who values the same principals as the founding fathers.  New hires and non-violent inmates are being killed and maimed right along with the staff.  Immigrants, unsuspecting voters, and patriots to the founding fathers ideals are suffering tyrranny at the hands of the enemies of the founding fathers' ideals.  You guys helped these nuts get control of the asylum because they promised you a bunch of stuff you want, but they aren't delivering, because they can't deliver.  First they don't have the will to give you all the things they promised you.  Second, they couldn't if they tried, nobody has the resources to deliver on all those promises.  Third, even if we did have all those resources, they don't have the self discipline to deliver them because they first take everything they want.  Foruth, when you realize you aren't going to get what they promised you, the nuts are going to turn on you with all the vehemence they used on the staff.

I'm saying, America is literally headed toward becoming a communist state.  The nuts are destroying our Constitution right by right, legal precedent by legal precedent.  If the Republicans are going along, then they fall into the couch potato/non-violent role right beside you.  Their motivation is just like yours.  Personal profit.  But the modern day Liberal, the controlling force in American culture today, are literally parcing out favors and rights to promote their control and methodically destroying all the rest of our rights and wealth.  All the traditional information venues are controlled by these Modern day Liberals.  There is no police force to call in to set things right.  The framers of our Constitution wrote that right into the founding documents.  You have a right and the responsibility to ensure the government does not wrest control of our culture from the hands of those who value the framers' ideals.  Personal liberty comes with personal duty.  Your duty is to protect the individual's rights and hold government accountable to the rule of law.  If you won't, then liberty and rights are dead and the grand experiment of the culture of freedom is gone, perhaps forever more.  If we are not the next 'greatest generation' there may never be another opportunity for our children to be one.  Our only police force is you and the few who are finding other information venues like the internet are awakening to the real dangers, but it is highly unlikely enough will be motivated to act before its too late because this perfect storm of misinformation is keeping the majority either ignorant or in opposition to the steps we have to take. 

The following videos are long, approximately 35 minutes each, but you will not hear a more important message about the current condition of the Modern day Liberal's frame of mind.  Two years ago, Evan Sayet gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation that went viral and this year gave another expanding his examples.  The first video is the most recent.   If I haven't been clear enough or conveyed the dangers well enough for you to understand or believe my warnings, please listen to Evan explain the insanity we are observing in Wathington, in the media, in our kid's schools, and in the entertainment industry.

To quote Evan Sayet, "Every single medium in which there is honest open discussion, the Liberal looses.  He has to loose because he's always in opposition to the truth.  Take the same arguments the Liberals make on TV news and in the newspapers, into talk radio where they have to answer questions and they loose.  Take them to a townhall meeting or onto online debate forums and they loose.  Right?  Cable newstalk shows with representatives of both sides, they loose.  Viewers go to FOX news.  The only talk radio station they have has to have millions of dollars pumped into it by George Soros.  Their radio station is basically on welfare.  Liberal ideology cannot win in the marketplace of ideas."
KILL YOUR TV!!!

If the new New Deal wasn't scary enough, perhaps the strangling of the constitutionally designed checks and balances is.  The Obaba administration is pulling out more stops than most pundits knew existed.  Here is yet another.   The Liberals are amassing power to themselves in ways that haven't been attempted since their initial trial back at the beginning of the Great Depression.  Are you ready for this?  No dissent allowed.

Effort to Stack Supreme Court Taking Shape

World AffairsPolitics & Opinions

posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:20 PMBy jmalmberg

February 17, 2009 – In 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt was not happy with the Supreme Court. The Court had declared a number of the measures he was trying to implement in the name of fighting the Depression unconstitutional. Effectively, the Court was telling Roosevelt that he was meddling in state matters where the federal government didn’t have jurisdiction. So a dirty little trick was hatched, and in 1937 the administration advanced a proposal to stack the Court. Although the proposal failed, it created an environment that called the independence of the court system into question and in which the Court was actually afraid to overturn legislation in the name of the Constitution. And now a group of 31 intellectuals and former politicians with some of the most liberal leanings in the country are proposing that Congress take up a similar measure.

Roosevelt’s proposal was simple. He wanted Congress to allow him to make one judicial appointment for every federal judge who served past the age of 70 years and six months. This would have allowed him to appoint six new Supreme Court Justices as well as 44 other appointments to lower courts. Because the Supreme Court had been divided on a number of decisions regarding the New Deal, the scheme would have assured Roosevelt that the Court would no longer overturn his proposed laws.

As it turned out, just the threat of the court packing scheme was enough to stop the Court from voting against him. And its effect was profound. In fact, from 1937 to 1995, not one single piece of legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by a President was declared unconstitutional. And during that same period of time, the federal government began to regulate everything from drug usage to the number of hours per day that schools are required to teach. In short, Roosevelt’s plan allowed the federal government to not only intrude on every day life, but to heavily regulate it.

The new proposal being put forth is called the Supreme Court Renewal Act of 2009. It differs in certain respects from the 1937 proposal but its effect would be similar. Among other things, it would allow the President and Congress to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice every two years without forcing the retirement of sitting justices, rotate the position of Chief Justice and force the court to decide cases it doesn’t want by placing the decision for which cases are heard in the hands of lower court judges.

The effect of the proposal would be to grow the size of the court and to politicize it. Sitting Presidents would have much greater influence over the court than they currently do. No longer could decisions rendered by the court be considered independent.

The proposal would also put much more influence into the hands of lower courts. With some limitations, those deciding which cases the Court should hear could effectively avoid having their decisions overturned by not submitting certain cases to the review process. This is neither desirable nor efficient.

To understand the reason for the proposal, you really need to take a look at those who are making it. Vikram D. Amar is a law professor at Berkley and UC Davis and has received awards from the ACLU. Paul D. Carrington is a professor at Duke who has openly lamented about the removal of Rose Bird - who was ultra-liberal even by California standards - by California voters as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. (Note: As a native Californian who remembers Rose Bird vividly, I can tell you that she deserved to be shown the door.) Lino A. Graglia, although leaning conservative in many areas, has compared the US Supreme Court to Iran’s “grand council of ayatollahs” and argues that the courts should be used to pursue social changes.  And that covers just a few of the thirty one people who are making the proposal to Congress. Most of the others have similar credentials. These so called intellectuals are largely opposed to the idea of a conservative Supreme Court.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is not, and should not be, to advance political views or a social agenda. The Court is there to insure that laws are constitutional and applied as intended by Congress. If the Court becomes stacked or more political, the Constitution is likely to take a back seat to the political winds of the day; a situation that would jeopardize each of our constitutional rights.

It is also important to note that an independent judiciary is constitutionally required. The changes being proposed by this “group of 31” would certainly bring that independence into question.

But the risk posed by this proposal is real. Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff has said that “you never want to let a serious crisis go to waste.” And the circumstanced under which Obama comes to office are all to similar to those surrounding FDR’s assent. This means that the proposal can’t simply be dismissed.

This new scheme to stack the court must be viewed with great concern by anyone who believes in the principles laid out in the Constitution. It is worth noting that many years after Roosevelt pushed through his New Deal, one of its chief architects – Rexford Tugwell – said of it, “To the extent that these policies developed, they were the tortured interpretations of a document (the Constitution) intended to prevent them.” He is clearly saying that the Roosevelt administration understood that the New Deal was unconstitutional but that they didn’t really care.

Note: When posting a comment, please sign-in first if you want a response. If you are not registered, click here. Registration is easy and free.

In this video, Charles Wiley explains the important role the media plays in our society to a student audience at UC Berkley.  I think its important enough to know how important that I'm going to transcribe his description word for word so those who cannot view the video can get that message.  Wiley- "The news media is the most powerful organization in our society  The news media is more powerful than the president or Congress or anybody else.  The news media decides what you think about.  They decide what you think about, what you talk to your friends, your fellow workers, your fellow students about.  The news media decide what problems we're going to try to solve, the order in which we try to solve them.  Not only do they decide the agenda and the priorities, but they decide, to a great extent also what is the framework to work within which we're going to hold the public discussion about the problems."

He goes on to define two kinds of reporters.  The Objective reporter and the Advocate journalist.  The objective reporter is trying to inform you.  The advocate journalist is trying to influence you.  There is a tremendous amount of advocacy reporting going on in the United States.

I have struggled with honesty.  I had such a secretive life prior to becoming a Christian that lies were first nature to me.  I would avoid blame at all costs and seek any avenue of convenience as long as I could avoid blame and condemnation.  Suffice it to say, I know the subtleties of lying.  It was a hard job overcoming this practice and once I learned the cost vs. benefit, I concluded the benefit far outweighs the cost.  But it required work.  I had to break patterns and habits and face consequences at the same time.  Through commitment to God, I did break them but it wasn't until the hardest part was done that I began to see the benefits.
 
A long term study was done with a class of kindergartners where the kids were all given cookies and told they could eat them now but if they waited a while they would get another cookie.  Of those who held out, the study concludes, as adults they proved to be more integritous and honest and had achieved much higher goals and many were known for their philanthropy.  On the other hand, those who held out less than a few minutes turned out to be criminals and very dishonest.  The study goes on to explain the consistent gradations between the two extremes.  So in psychological terms, I was getting negative feedback in the form of consequences immediately like the kindergarten kid in the psychology study was suffering the unmet desire but the promised extra cookie for me was the benefit of social trust if I waited. 

The last vestige of those habits and patterns was the practice of lying by omission.  You can speak a lie designed to misinform.  Everybody recognizes this as a lie.  While everybody recognizes and condemns it, many still continue the practice.  That is hipocrisy but we know how to deal with that.  You can also withhold all or portions of the storyline which allow the uninformed to draw the wrong conclusions.  The intent is the same and the results are often far more effective in convincing your audience but many do not consider this lying.  Its still a lie, you just didn't have to form the new story.  Well you do, but its a convoluted means of getting the recipient to invent for themselves a storyline or conclusion you desire them to believe.  In advocate journalism, there is a slight bend in this practice.  The self aware advocate uses this practice in full awareness that he is attempting to mislead his audience.  These are more and more numerous today.  But there is another kind of advocate I call the believer.  He is purposeful in his use of this tactic, but he doesn't believe he is misleading his audience and the result is often far subtler.  He believes he is telling them the truth without the muddling details which confuse the important conclusions we need to draw from his story.  This is the same means by which we dillude ourselves.  We begin to internally 'edit' what we observe.  Part of this process includes assuming excuses for your favored subject and assuming evil motivations for your disfavored subject, 'writing' them into the narrative. 

I am often accused of this in the commentary on my articles, but guess who makes these charges.  There is a verse in the Bible which explains who is able to correct this assumption narrative.  The blows of a friend are more faithful the the kisses of an enemy.  So let me encourage my 'friends' to please deliver blows to my articles and especially my dialogue in the comments.  I am not likely to accept the criticism of my enemies unless the criticism points to a glaring inaccuracy.  I mean, I try but the hardest part of recovering from a lying habit is this tendency to dillude one's own narrative.  (How's that for brutal honesty?  I'm sure I've just opened myself to being dismissed out of hand by my opponents.  But then, any use of this will only point to their denial of their own self dellusions.  Folks, everybody has them because everybody lies, but as a recovering liar I am accutely aware of this in myself)

These days, I am passionate about the consequences of lies.  I understand there is evil in the world and in no way do I expect this world to suddenly eliminate the evil of dishonesty and thereby usher in an utopia.  However, an industry we rely on more than any other has been largely taken over by lying advocates and the document which governs us all protects their abuse as one of our highest ideals.  This is a conundrum.  How do we protect the Constitution from the Constitution.  The only answer is personal integrity and responsibility to be informed.  Each of us have to be concerned about the power of this industry and each individual hold them accountable by rejecting their influence.  This is a difficult task and not one to be taken lightly.  Unfortunately, its not likely to be taken at all by the majority of our citizens and that means we are doomed as a culture and a nation.  Freedom is not free and every citizen must pay the price of eternal vigilance in order to maintain it.

I'm writing this on inauguration day because of my observation of the information industry and their performance over the course of the presidential election.  At no point through the entire cycle did the press perform their self described 'watchdog' service with regard to our current president.  Instead, they acted to counter the criticism of their candidate in the new media upstart on the internet.  Some of the old media's strongest critics began to refer to them as the right arm of the Democrat National Committee.  Their reporting of the 'dirt' on President Obama was naught unless that dirt had already made it into the national discourse via the new media and then we of the opposition were left perplexed with all the techniques I've described above and more, much of it glaring advocacy.  We were not perplexed by their efforts for long, but we were, and are perplexed even now at the absolute ignorance of the general populace.  Intelligent, learned people could not identify the vice presidential candidate for the Democrats.  They could not name a single accomplishment or identify one promise aside from the campaign slogan for 'change' in their candidate.  Most telling, they could not identify any of the controversial figures in their candidate's past.  This in no way reflects on President Obama but it is an indictment against the voters of our Democratic Republic who are passionately, emotionally invested but do not care enough to know what matters.  The habit of relying on the news industry for their information has created a vacuum for responsible Democratic elections which advocates have joyously filled with irresponsible Democratic influence.

Everybody refers to the United States' form of government as a Democracy.  We do not live in a Democracy.  God forbid it.  We live in a Republic.  Liberals sneer at the term Republic often referring to it as the "Banana Republic" alluding to the despotism of South American countries self titles of Republics.   Our Constitution does not contain the word Democracy.  Our founding fathers were very critical of democracies and rightly so.  Democracies are violent, short lived and less free than any limited government.  What's more, we have been taught that the spectrum of forms of government range from the far left (Communism) to the far right. (Fascism)  In truth, Communism and Fascism are sisters on the far left in terms of freedom while anarchy or zero government is on the far right.  This video lays it out with examples from history.  The American example of limited government provides the greatest degree of freedom by representative (Republican) ministration.  The founding fathers wanted to be as near to zero as possible while maintaining and orderly society which provides for the greatest amount of freedom for all.

I like the sentiment in this song, but I think they're wrong on what to buy the liberal.  I've been linking some of the best sources I've found for moral clarity, factual information, and the smartest economic prophets.  Rush is OK, but Dennis makes moral clarity both simple and acceptable.  I like the Right Brothers for sure, but FOX news doesn't replace the Middle East Forum with Daniel Pipes or the ACT! for America Newsletters.  Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly can't bring enough experts on their shows to compete with the clarity and understanding and concise presentation of common sense found in the books written by Thomas Sowell, Thomas E. Woods, and Milton Friedman.  Most of all, nothing opens the reasoning like an understanding of applied Biblical principals.  Its no good just reading it, you have to put into practice all of the principals of the Bible as you learn and understand them.  You can't be selective and say, "I like this one and I agree with that one, but this other stuff sucks."  You either get it or you don't.

Originally I started this post to demonstrate some of the big lies we are taught; nay, which are preached to us.  For their doctrine is more a faith than any religion.  But when I found this video, I realized I had to focus in on this main Nazi-Germany like political environment which is driving the global climate debate.  People are literally dying by global climate control policies and they are being prevented from developing their economy and technological advancement.  The environmentalists think of the "old days" or the "romanticization of the peasant life" when we were getting around by horse and each plowed their own field and traded their talents locally.  The reality is that we were burning trees for fuel to cook and heat.  Firewood smoke is vastly more pollutant to the atmosphere, including co2 gasses, than burning coal for electricity.  Africa has vast regions of indigenous people still living in that way and worse and prevented from taking advantage of their own resources including fossil fuels and coal.

In fact, the greenies are advocating for wind and solar only in these would-be developing regions.  But, wind and solar technology are a century behind internal combustion engines, coal and hydro-electric generation.  The wind and solar technology we do have is 3 times more expensive than conventional forms of electrical generation.  If we in the first world can't afford it, how will those in the third world?  If we are telling them they can't have electricity unless they use wind and solar, what we are telling them is that they cannot have electricity.  Without electricity, there aren't even able to stay up much past dark.  What's the point, you can't even see who you are talking to, much less study or work on the house or a hobby.  These advocacy groups are not earth friendly, they are anti-human.

The more I learn about the government, the more I can understand why those 9/11/1 conspiracy nuts exist.  The government representatives ARE telling you lies, but they are lies designed for their personal benefit.  Some authority writes a report that initiates the political storm.  Some key politicians spread the word around to test the public reaction to such 'facts.'  If its a winner, they make a comment on a talk show or do an interview with a paper.  The appropriate activist group takes it up and begins to whip up a frenzy.  The news agencies now go to a 10 member protest or rally and make it look like a lot of people are there with the close up interview and background filled with shouting protesters.  It goes out onto the left wing blogs and suddenly its an issue the legislatures must 'do something about.'  Grant money begins to flow to the science organizations and they give back studies and reports that agree, "We HAVE to do further studies."  This one grew to global proportions by design.  Its the big money machine for politicians. 

The following documentary video is an hour long.  Lets see what you think.