The End Justifies The Means: The Words "Lie" Or "Failed" Aren't In Their Dictionary. It's All Just 'Relative' After All.

Politicians are increasingly living in a world where everything is 'relative'. It's convenient because it allows them to avoid the inconvenience of being wrong about ... or accountable for ... anything they say or do. In that world there's no such thing as a 'lie' because behind whatever they actually lied about is some moral or other superior relativistic notion.

In their bizzaro world there's no such thing as "lie", "failed", "truth", "wrong", or "fact (historical or otherwise)". How convenient, huh?

Politicians in both major parties are increasingly inclined to think and talk in relative terms but there's an essence about it that is fundamental to progressive thinking. Theory often trumps human nature, historical facts, and honest data analysis. It trumps reality. To progressives among our political elite, their claimed superior end justifies whatever becomes screwed up getting there. And justifies it to such an extent that even debate about problems and failures is irrelevant. As if we can't learn from mistakes? As if fixing whatever got screwed up has no value ... especially if fixing it requires undoing it?

Engaging in debate before taking a vote on a progressive bill requires defending one's position which is very difficult when common sense and/or even actual history are against one. Which explains why congressional progressives keep doing end-runs around any process that requires honest debate. End runs around the constitution become not only necessary but justifiable. The end justifies the means after all.

Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, routinely keeps Republican proposals from even reaching the senate floor for debate because defending his position against them using logic and common sense would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Besides, debate would expose the negatives contained in a progressive's bill; would expose the lack of common sense or even wisdom. Which is why over a hundred jobs bills from the House sit in his in-basket rather than being advanced in the legislative process for consideration or debate. Which is why Democrats feel justified in claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans never proposed health care reform. Not doing it their way = blocking them. Whatever happened to compromise? Those Republican bills never got to debate; therefore, they never existed ... in Harry Reid's mind. Therefore, he has a convenient (but completely false) rationalization (everything's relative, remember) for his claims that Republicans haven't done anything about health care, jobs or anything else he's of a mind to criticize them about.

It explains why it has become unnecessary for Harry Reid's senate to even consider some legislation. He can hide behind claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans are blocking him (not doing it his way = blocking him) and then let President Obama implement what progressives want via executive order. Honest debate is an inconvenient thing that would get in the way of the progressive vision for America. So they use chicanery (to circumvent the constitution and its processes) and thuggery (to bully Republicans) to avoid an honest debate and make Republicans look like the bad guys when honest analysis proves the opposite. It's congress' progressive political elites who are the bullies. Who appointed them the deciders of what's right or wrong? Who appointed them deciders of what parts of the constitution should be ignored or what legislation should even be debated?

How many Americans even understand the constitutional process that's being hijacked by progressives? The House or Senate passes a bill and sends it to the other body. That other body either passes it too, modifies it and sends it back to the originating body for signing or both sides make their own proposals that are debated in conference that produces a compromise which both sign. That's messy though. It takes time and effort. Oh, and one must defend one's position/proposals logically(!) in debate. When what one proposes is based on relativistic and theoretical arguments that completely ignore things like human nature and historical fact, common sense and logic go out the window. The proposal becomes indefensible in debate so debate must be avoided at all costs. After all, the end justifies the means (including throwing away the constitution).

Why isn't congress debating major issues/legislation? Because both sides, especially progressives, are becoming averse to honest debate or for that matter honesty in general. It's too hard to get your way when your way fails against common sense and/or true(!) facts.

Here's an article by Victor Davis Hanson that adds further analysis to this. As I said, one can find Republican attitudes and thinking that are similar in some ways but it's clearly more fundamental to the thinking of progressive political elites.

If Detroit's Recovery Is Important Then We Must Begin By Understanding The Root Causes Of Its Problems

I say it every time about our nation's troubles/challenges: The Truth Matters! It matters because we CANNOT fix our country's problems until we have the courage(!) to BOTH understand the root issues AND fix those instead of succumbing to political correctness and doing things that feel good or simply have good optics. The appearance of doing something is perceived to represent progress whether it does anything good or useful. Appearance is everything. Honesty and integrity? Forget about it! That's too old-fashioned.

There are some facts, to the extent one cares about truth, that would be irrational on a cosmic scale to ignore. This research/analysis by The Heritage Foundation is relevant and important to anyone who actually cares more about fixing Detroit's problems than political agenda or political correctness.

Is it relevant that Detroit was one of the premier cities in the US, in the world in fact, in the 50's and 60's and is now in third-world condition? What happened there beginning 40 years ago? For one thing, it has been run by only liberal politicians/policies since 1972. Is that relevant? Let me answer that by asking a question: who would claim credit if that city were still a shining example as it was 50-60 years ago? Is it relevant that our country's explosion in union control over companies' management and in union-secured benefits began there 50 years ago? Is it relevant that Detroit's leadership has been among the most corrupt of all large cities in recent decades ... leading to conviction and jail time for many of those highest in city government? Is it relevant that about half of Detroit's adults are illiterate and only 7% of the kids entering high school are 7th grade level proficient in reading? (By the way, becoming educated requires(!) personal choice/commitment. No teacher or school can 'make' one become educated if one has no interest in it. One's attitude has everything to do with it. Check out Dr. Benjamin Carson's biography if you don't believe one can overcome poverty, a broken family, peer pressure, and even racism to become educated anyway.) Is it relevant that all these ills have resulted in spite of Detroit being one of the biggest consumers of state and federal (ie, taxpayer) largesse?

On a more general note, could it be more clear that what one would call tough love is not only necessary but sufficient? Detroit needs the city equivalent of what company restructuring can do to restore a company from bankruptcy thus restoring it to self-sufficiency and success. Now that a capable-appearing city manager has been put in charge, the extent to which Detroit can be restored depends almost entirely on what unions and the state of Michigan do to help solve Detroit's problems rather than holding illogically, in fact suicidally onto proven corrupt 'deals' (people went to jail but their deals stayed in place) of the past. It's time for honest and courageous introspection independent of any(!) political agenda or political correctness.

All-Knowing But Totally Oblivious

This is insane!

Leader after leader in this administration parades before congressional committees and claims ignorance about things they're paid to know ... and CARE ... about. Things they are PAID TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT!

A scandal breaks out within the Justice department and the guy in charge (Att'y Gen'l Holder) doesn't know what's been going on AND DOESN'T CARE ENOUGH TO FIND OUT? Recusing himself has far more to do with wanting to avoid it like the plague than doing his stinking job. He goes before the people in charge of our government and isn't motivated to come prepared with ANY answers as to why his organization is doing things that are causing a national uproar? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What, sir? Are you completely stupid in addition to being ignorant and incompetent? You must think WE are that stupid too!

The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, did the same exact thing. Someone decided to change ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE from "planned terrorist attack" to the completely MADE-UP(!) "the video caused a spontaneous mob action" and she neither knows that happened nor cares to find out who did it? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What, madam? Are you completely stupid in addition to being ignorant AND incompetent? You must think WE are that stupid too!

And then there's the President, who's the 'boss' of them all. He ALSO HAD NO CLUE either of these things were going on AND DOESN'T CARE ENOUGH TO FIND OUT what's really going on with either of them? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'll relentlessly pursue what's going on, TRUST ME! What, sir? Like you did with Fast and Furious and all the other scandalous things you promised(!) you'd take care of? Do YOU also think we're stupid?

You think you're not complicit just because YOU didn't cause any of this? You're THE MOST complicit by doing nothing about it when you're the people in charge! CEO's of real companies get fired ... immediately ... for this kind of nonsense. They're paid to make their companies successful and when trouble comes, to LEAD fixing it. The people currently in charge of our federal government seem to think they're only there to take credit for whatever good things happen whether they're responsible for them or not. You don't hear them saying I don't know when someone asks them about a success thing down in the ranks below them. In fact, they RUN to get in front of it to APPEAR like it was totally their doing.

These people are insulting our intelligence and defying common sense. And they're running our government? What's up with this?

Plausible deniability has morphed into bonehead ignorance in practice. Do we really want leaders who are this ignorant of what's going on in their organizations and don't care enough about bad things when they happen to PROACTIVELY(!) find out what's going on and practice REAL LEADERSHIP in getting to the root of them ... and fixing them?

What's wrong with these people? We didn't hire them to only work hard at remaining ignorant about what's going on beneath them! Good grief!

For 40 Years Americans Have INSISTED Our Government Close The Borders So Why Haven't They?

The ONE thing American citizens have been VERY clear about ... for 40 years(!!!) ... is wanting the federal government to close our borders to illegal entry. YES, conservatives ALSO want the immigrants here to have some kind of legal status. A work visa or some such thing at a minimum. To say conservatives don't want them to have some kind of legal status is a bald-faced lie.

You want proof? We relented TWICE on having amnesty first, having extracted a PROMISE by democrats to close the borders. We've done amnesty TWICE so by what warped logic can anyone claim we oppose it? How many times have democrats actually closed the border? ZERO times! Who is being intransigent and unsupporting? What's the REAL TRUTH? We are thoroughly fed up with democrats' collective passive-aggressive behavior on this! We have never opposed legal status (some form of amnesty) and we still do not! How much longer must we suffer their lies and thoroughly irresponsible behavior?

After TWICE getting screwed via democrats' broken promises, why should ANYONE be surprised that we now insist that the borders get closed FIRST? "Give us amnesty again and we PROMISE we'll close the borders first" democrats are saying again. Even republicans in the gang of eight are saying the same thing. On what RATIONAL basis are we to believe these guys .... AGAIN?

For 40 years, a majority of Americans have been saying the borders MUST be closed. What has been stopping mainly democrats the past 40 years from passing a bill that simply closes the border? Surely they could have closed it in all this time! IF they wanted to! Ah, there's the rub. Our politicians don't really want to do what a large majority of American citizens want them to do!!!

By the way, isn't it clear that closing the borders logically(!) requires NO preconditions to be done successfully? They could pass a bill tomorrow that does that and only that. Americans would support it by a huge majority. So why don't they do that?

We'd be STUPID to fall for the amnesty first argument ... AGAIN!

Democrat Hypocrisy Regarding The Killing Of OBL

President Obama criticized Romney last week for saying something he didn't even say and taking a position he didn't even take regarding going after Bin Laden.

Romney NEVER said not to go after OBL but he did say we'd best not lose our focus on the bigger problem we have with international terrorism. He always said we should go after OBL but warned against taking too many resources off the general threat in order to accomplish that. So, President Obama is quoting Romney totally out of context and stating a supposition as if fact that maybe Romney wouldn't have approved such a raid as the one that killed OBL. OBL committed the greatest act of terrorism against our homeland in our entire history. Does anyone except president Obama actually think ANY American president would not go after OBL? Turns out however that there is one president who actually failed to act and he's now lecturing Romney. (More on that below.)

Well, not so fast with your criticism Mr. President! Don't you remember that, contrary to what Romney actually said, your own VP (Biden) actually said we should not go after OBL? Obama's own VP actually said what Obama is falsely accusing Romney of saying. Hmmmmm. Mr. President your hypocrisy and tendency to bend/twist the truth are showing again.

We've also just seen President Clinton get on this bandwagon and criticize Romney for saying/believing something that Romney did not say/believe. I almost fell off my chair when I heard Clinton criticize Romney when it is factually true that Clinton is the only president who in fact did choose not to get OBL when he could have. And he did so not once but at three different opportunities!!!

The country's leading Democrats are coming unglued folks. This kind of nonsense is unbecoming a president and we have the last two Democratic presidents practicing this hypocrisy and mean-spirited behavior.