Left Becoming Meaner?

Food for thought:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287648/leftism-makes-you-meaner-dennis-prager

The last paragraph is interesting: "Leftists’ meanness toward those with whom they differ has no echo on the normative right [he's talking about degree and extent ... of course meanness exists on the right too]. Those on the left need to do some soul-searching — because as long as they continue to believe that people on the right are not merely wrong, but vile, they will get increasingly mean. The problem for the Left, however, is that the moment it stops painting the Right as vile, it has to argue the issues."

He isn't saying there's no meanness on the right (of course there is meanness on the right too), just that the left is taking it to a level that's pretty disturbing. Treating people who simply have an opposing view as inherently vile, stupid, ignorant, unkind, uncompassionate, racist, haters, etc is sooooo not good for our society.

The last sentence in the quote above is the most interesting to me. What is the left so afraid of that they refuse to calm down and simply debate the issues? Could it be that they don't have a rational argument?

Media Bias Against Conservative Values Is Exposed In Last Weekend's Republican Presidential Debate

Few editorial comments are necessary for this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TRiqgUyEuU&feature=youtu.be

I'll only say that throughout these debates Gingrich has been very consistent and very, very persistent calling out The Media and the current administration for their anti-conservative, anti-religion bias. Loooooong overdue and well-deserved criticism!

Santorum: Strong 'America First' Conservative Principles That Are Much Needed In America

On Family Values:

Santorum had a great response to the question last night about what each candidate thought was the single most important issue facing America. He said is was the erosion of family values.

The other candidates gave answers associated with the sorry state of our economy, national security and such. While those are certainly good answers, most conservatives I know tend to think that the erosion of traditional family values underlies most of our current problems to one extent or another. It's a 'root cause' matter, a view of things I'm usually pretty centered on.

If our traditional family values hadn't eroded so badly over the past 50 years or so, chances are we'd be better centered on the other issues in a way that could have avoided our current problems. Values, principles and morals matter in a culture. They not only define a culture's character; they guide and influence action.

Just one but perhaps the most important area in which we've suffered is the sorry state of our education. The root cause of that has everything to do with family values. Our problems in education are significantly behind increasing poverty for example. A country failing in education is doomed to fail in all the areas we're currently having problems.

Greed is pretty much absent among people who have and honestly practice strong family values. Selfishness is pretty much absent. Self-absorption is pretty much absent. More focus on one's iPad than on one's children sitting across the dinner/restaurant table is pretty much absent. Taking care of one's family financial resources and making wise savings/spending/work/education choices is well practiced.

That is not to say people who might rate low on family values (evaluated the way I have here) can't take care of business properly but I believe that they're more likely not to. And I believe that people strong on family values are more likely to do things that are good for their family and, therefore, for their community and their country.

Strong families have arguably been our greatest strength and resource throughout our history. We're far worse off for their erosion. Why do we so strongly resist returning to strong family values and why is discussing them honestly so hated, despised and ridiculed by The Media and the far left? Isn't it pretty obvious that they worked better than what's going on now?

On The Standard 'Issues' Of Our Day:

I couldn't have said it better than the author in the following link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287441/rick-santorum-conservative-stalwart-quin-hillyer

More On The Media's Distortion Of Santorum's Comments

The Media's feeding frenzy is getting ridiculous. I welcome information about and insights into Santorum's qualifications and positions on issues. But I want truth, not distortions.

Here's more on the facts in case you're interested in the truth about what Santorum has said/done:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287419/santorum-birth-control-kathryn-jean-lopez

Still More Re This Imperial Presidency ... The List Of Those Lending Credibility To That Fact Grows

Now we hear from Andrew McCarthy about this increasingly imperial presidency:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287424/obama-skirts-democratic-process-andrew-c-mccarthy

He also calls out 'Establishment Republicans' who have abandoned their roots whereby they historically made strong efforts to preserve and protect constitutional principles. Their failings this century is why the Tea Party exists and it is why "moderate" Republicans (Romney, McCain and any of that ilk) get scarce support from them.

How much longer shall we deem this to be a representative democracy while, increasingly, the people in power no longer care what The People think, say or want? When those (or one) in power flaunt self-proclaimed(!), self-assumed(!) authority over and contrary to constitutional processes, principles and precedents? When one man can grant to himself whatever authority over congress HE chooses? When the president can decide he's subject to neither congressional control nor The People's will?

We're becoming a representative democracy in name only and we WILL be the worse for it if we allow this trend to continue. Under the constitution, the president is answerable to congress which is answerable to The People. However, as Mr. McCarthy laments, the constitution, The People's bulwark against tyranny (a wonderful and wonderous gift from our founders), is being subverted as congress sits idly on its collective hands and takes no interest in defending, much less exercising their authority.

As Mr. McCarthy also laments and I've noted previously, the president's oath of office (to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitution) has been rendered utterly irrelevant by our current president who unilaterally claims by his actions that there are no boundaries on what he chooses to do and he's answerable to no one he doesn't want(!) to answer to. Sounds like imperial and supremely arrogant behavior to me.

Before Being Quick To Judge The Santorum's Regarding Their Dead Baby, Please Read This

The following article puts the furor surrounding how the Santorums handled the death of their baby in a fair and compassionate perspective:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287410/left-s-so-called-empathy-mark-steyn

Mr. Steyn also uses the situation to point out some interesting hypocrisy in some circles.

More On The New Imperial Presidency

I'm adding the following reference as a post-script to my other blogs this week about the new imperial presidency.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287323/imperial-sham-jonah-goldberg

In many circles I'd be called a loon for calling out this administration in this way but it's interesting to me that I find myself in good company (in my thinking process about this) with political analysts who have earned some respect I couldn't claim separate from validation like theirs.

It is important to us as a republic and even as a 'representative democracy' (which isn't a true discription of what was founded here) that we understand what's going on and how it IS relevant to freedom and representative government. This president is in the process of hijacking our RIGHT (per the constitution and founding principles) to representation in the federal government.

That President Obama thinks he can get away with such an audacious power grab is one thing. That he appears to be getting away with it and Democratic leadership is supporting it is alarming. This is not good for our country whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. After all, remember that with such precedence set a Republican president could just as effectively do an end-run around all Democrats' representatives. Maybe you Democrats out there are feeling okay with this but how would you feel about a Republican president doing whatever he wanted regardless what congress or the constitution wants him to do?

Does Truth And Honesty Matter? Apparently Not To President Obama Regarding His Recess Appointments This Week

First, please take a moment to reflect on what you believe the president has said this week was his justification for going forward with recess appointments to the NLRB without waiting for congressional hearings on and confirmation of the individuals.

Next, please read this:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/05/nlrbs-recess-appointees-didnt-even-get-a-committee-vote/

Does what you've heard the president actually say about why he used recess appointments instead of the normal congressional process have any similarity to the facts?

For example, did you think that Republicans have been standing in the way? That's not possible since Democrats control the Senate and all committees who might look into the recommended confirmations.

For another example, did you think that the relevant congressional committee has received all necessary information from and about the candidates and has just been sitting on it for purely political reasons?

For another example, did you think Republicans have been holding up the nominations for purely political reasons for around six months? That's not possible not only because Republicans have no control over that but because the Senate has not even received all the documentation required from the conferees themselves. In addition, two of the three nominations weren't even submitted to the Senate until December 15th, never mind all the required documentation needed for review of the candidates.

Can you honestly say that President Obama has been honest with us or is it more likely he's playing purely partisan political games by not allowing congress or Republicans to do due diligence and then blaming them for not finishing the confirmation hearings? Is it more likely perhaps that he decided he wanted these people appointed and didn't care what congress thinks? (Refer to my previous blog about this imperial presidency.)

Please think seriously about what's going on with this presidency. Such congress and constitution end-runs are no small matter, especially since he isn't even giving congress a chance to do its job. Perhaps a president's oath of office doesn't matter to you or to the country? Perhaps The People's representatives are irrelevant as these actions suggest? Imperial presidency indeed!

His Majesty, King Obama Can Do Whatever He Wants Irrespective Of Congress Or The Constitution

Obama's recess appointments this week are contrary to the letter of the Constitution, to constitutional principles and to Obama/Democrat principles when Bush was in office. First, check this out:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140770647994692.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

So, when Obama says he's only doing what George Bush did, he's flat lying. When he says there's precedent for what he's doing, he's flat lying. When he says what he's doing is constitutional he's flat lying.

So, what to make of this? Under Obama the presidency is becoming imperial. That means republic principles have been thrown out the window. In fact, this is no longer even something one could honestly call a "representative democracy" (which, in case you didn't know, is not the same thing as a republic).

Obama can basically do and is, indeed, doing(!) anything he wants without congress' consent/approval. If congress won't approve something on his agenda, he appoints czars to do it from the executive branch or gives(!) authority to one of several executive branch  bureaucracies (like the EPA, FCC and others) to implement his policies without congressional approval OR oversight. That means, my friends, that this is no longer a representative democracy. Your elected representatives in congress have nothing to say about any of this, including his appointments this week in very, very powerful executive branch bureaucracies.

The way it's supposed to work is, the president's party proposes an item on Obama's agenda in the form of legislation. Then either it advances in one house and then moves to the other for approval OR each house (senate and house of representatives) produce their own versions of the legislation at which point both bills go to a conference committee to work out a compromise.

Well, this president doesn't want(!) compromise that's required(!) under our constitution so he goes forward implementing his agenda the way he wants (ie, without the compromise that's required under our constitution!) via the executive branch within bureaucracies that don't answer to congress. In other words, his agenda is implemented without consideration of, consent by or oversight by The People's duly elected representatives.

The Constitution was specifically constructed to prevent any one person having this kind of power. After all, it was such one-man authoritarian control by the king of England without representation from the colonists that led to our declaration of independence and separation from English control. We fought a revolution against one-man, representative-ignoring control over us.

Read the Declaration of Independence. In it, we outlined our grievances with him which include several along the line of these quotes:

"He has dissolved (in our current case, ignored, which is the same in effect/principle) Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasion on the rights of the people."

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our consitution (ie, czars and executive branch bureaucracies in general), and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation." Ie, without approval by the people's representatives.

"... for suspending our own legislature and (executive branch authorities) declaring themselves(!) invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." Ie, without involvement by the people's representatives.

Our Constitution was constructed to prevent such abuses of power by one man or many men. It was never(!) intended for a president to have such authority over us without congress' involvement in every respect that has significant effects on us. In fact, the constitution was constructed to give congress(!) ultimate authority over such things via their veto-override authority. Therefore, the Constitution says Congress may pass legislation without the president's approval. And the president may NOT put legislation into effect by any means outside the authority of congress. Instead, President Obama is acting like HE has ultimate authority regardless what congress will or will not support. He won't even give them a chance to work out compromise legislation because he wants to get his way 100% and has no interest in compromise as structured into our constitution.

This is becoming an imperial presidency and that's abhorent to truly freedom-loving people.

Want To Know The Date By Which Iran Will Be Nuclear Capable? January 20, 2013

January 20, 2013 is not only the date our president will be sworn in next year. It's the date by which you can bet Iran is planning(!) to have a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it. Why? Because that's the date by which a Republican president, if elected, will stop taking any nonsense from Iran.

That means Iran will have a nuclear weapon test later this year to ensure they have a deliverable weapon by January 20, 2013 at which time a Republican, if elected, would take a stronger position on Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Unfortuately, all this blustering by Republican candidates about preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons is moot. By the time a Republican can be sworn in, Iran will, in all likelihood, already have deliverable nuclear weapons.

Iran having nuclear weapons is a scary thing to contemplate but an honest person has to acknowledge it's likely to happen because the current administration is unwilling to do what's necessary to prevent it. The appeasement approach they thought would work (which conservative America consistently said wouldn't work) ... as in 'be nice to them and they'll stop wanting us all dead' ... was destined to fail from the start. After all, Iran's leadership has repeatedly sworn their most important goal is to bring ruin to us and Israel because(!) it's Islam's destiny to rule the world. This is not just bluster from them. They believe it to their core and are 100% committed to it. Why so many Americans are unwilling to take them at their word on that is mind-boggling.

History has proven that denial and appeasement do NOT work with bullies either on the playground or on the international level. The only thing that gets a bully's attention is a poke in the eye. Bullies bluster and carry on. Allow them to continue and they'll just keep pushing the boundaries. Inevitably, as history tells us is true 100% of the time, someone must stand up to bullies or they win.