Which Are More Important: Local Or National Elections?

obamapointing

Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill once said, “All politics is local.” That may have been true in Tip O’Neill’s day, but some elections are decisively on national issues — and the Congressional elections this year are overwhelmingly national, just as the elections of 1860 were dominated by one national issue, namely slavery.

In 1860, some abolitionists split the anti-slavery vote by running their own candidate — who had no chance of winning — instead of supporting Abraham Lincoln, who was not pure enough for some abolitionists. Lincoln got just 40 percent of the vote, though that turned out to be enough to win in a crowded field.

But what a gamble with the fate of millions of human beings held as slaves! And for what? Symbolic political purity?

This year as well, there are third-party candidates complicating elections that can decide the fate of this nation for years to come. No candidate that irresponsible deserves any vote. With all the cross-currents of political controversies raging today, what is the overriding national issue that makes this year’s Congressional elections so crucial?

That issue is whether, despite all the lawless edicts of President Obama, threatening one-man rule, we can still salvage enough of the Constitution to remain a free, democratic nation.

Barack Obama will be on his way out in two years; but if he can appoint enough federal judges who share his contempt for the Constitution’s limits on federal government power in general, and presidential powers in particular, then the United States of America can continue on the path to becoming another banana republic, even after Obama has left the White House.

President Obama understands how high the stakes are, which is why he is out fundraising all across the country — seemingly all the time — even though he has no more elections to face himself. Obama came to power saying that he was going to fundamentally change the United States of America — and he intends to do it, even after he is gone, by giving lifetime appointments as federal judges to people who share his view that this country’s institutions and values are fundamentally wrong, and need to be scrapped and replaced by his far left vision.

If only Obama’s critics and opponents understood this momentous issue as clearly as he does!

The issue is whether “we the people,” as designated by the Constitution, continue free to live our own lives as we see fit, and to determine what laws and policies we want to live under.

President Obama’s vision is very different. In his vision, our betters in Washington shall simply order us to live as they want us to live — telling us what medical insurance we can have, what doctors we can go to, what political groups shall be favored by the Internal Revenue Service, with more of the same coming in the years ahead, long after Obama has left the White House.

Critics who deplore President Obama’s foreign policies in general, and his weak response to the ISIS threat in particular, as showing incompetence — and who see his incessant fundraising as just a weird distraction — fail to understand how different his priorities are from theirs.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Will America Survive Obama?

Photo credit: DVIDSHUB (Flickr)

From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia…could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide. – Abraham Lincoln

Barack Obama has become the instrument of that suicide.

In a manner reminiscent of a pubescent potentate, Obama appears to be both disengaged and autocratic as he recklessly attempts to implement his catastrophic domestic programs and a feckless foreign policy.

The maniacal pursuit of goals so at odds with the country’s values and traditions, or even its survival, can only be attributed to a flawed character and an uncompromising devotion to a demonstrably unworkable leftist ideology.

Obama, who often mistakes himself for a messiah, displays many of the characteristics of a narcissist: expecting constant praise and admiration; has a grandiose sense of self-importance; expecting others to go along with his ideas and plans; lacking empathy and taking advantage of others to achieve his own ends; regularly shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes; exaggerating his achievements or talents; thin-skinned/being easily hurt and rejected.

Narcissists are frequently detached from reality, emotionally distant from others, and have a deficit of self-awareness.

It is not surprising then, that Obama, who oversees the most incompetent, unaccountable, and secretive administration in US history would have the audacity to lecture African leaders (U.S.-Africa Leaders’ Summit, August 6, 2014) on good governance, accountability, and transparency:

“And so the good news — and we heard this in the summit — is that more and more countries are recognizing that in the absence of good governance, in the absence of accountability and transparency, that’s not only going to have an effect domestically on the legitimacy of a government, it’s going to have an effect on economic development and growth. ”

In contrast to previous presidents, virtually everyone who has played an important role in the life of Barack Obama loathes all that the United States represents: e.g. Frank Marshall Davis, Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, Bill Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, George Soros, and Michelle Obama.

Obama’s politics are ideologically-driven and, like all members of the far left, are not motivated by compassion for the suffering, but by hatred of the successful. He is the poster child of the “you didn’t build that” mentality, reaching high office not through his own achievements, but through Affirmative Action and the assistance of fellow travelers.

Modern liberals like Obama have “weaponized” altruism; that is, the belief that people should sacrifice themselves for others has been transformed into the belief that people should be forced to sacrifice themselves for others. Or, to state it more simply, liberals believe in doing good with other people’s money.

Because liberalism cannot appeal to human virtues like responsibility, ambition, and hard work, they must to appeal to human weaknesses like guilt and envy and must eventually resort to deceit and coercion in order to accomplish their objectives.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Video: Common Core Lesson Teaches Abraham Lincoln’s Religion Was “Liberal”





What is going on in our classrooms? Common Core lesson lists Abraham Lincoln as a liberal.





First As Tragedy….

Dr. Marvin J. Folkertsma, FloydReports.com

Karl Marx famously quipped that great historical events and personages appear twice, first as tragedy and second as farce. The tragedy he had in mind was the French Revolution and the farce was its pale successor that took place in France in 1848. To the contrary, events leading up to the revolution turn Marx’s formulation around, in that farce preceded tragedy. A second example that demonstrates this historical dyslexia was an attempt to forestall the Civil War called the Crittenden Compromise. Both historical occurrences offer hard lessons for political leaders today.

First, events leading to the French Revolution demonstrate a sort of perfect storm of fiscal insanity by a regime that, in modern parlance, was enthralled to its political “base” at the expense of responsibility to the great majority of citizens in the most advanced country in Europe. The problem began at the top with Louis XVI, an unimaginative slob who was more interested in gluttony than governing; his most insightful observation was that he was not fit for the job that fell into his lap when his grandfather, Louis XV, died in 1774. The elder left him with an aristocracy that was expensive, parasitic, politically intransigent, and economically harmful. He also bequeathed a huge debt dating back to Louis XIV. This trio of Louises left France bankrupt.

Now a responsible leader would have exercised leadership by hiring tough and experienced counselors, acting on their advice, and dealing with the problem aggressively, but Number XVI did none of that. Instead, he continued to seek short-term political advantage, blaming and firing advisers and much more, against the backdrop of looming national catastrophe. The fiscal mess did not get better, and in fact took a huge turn for the worse when the horrible winter of 1788-89 afflicted the country, instigating famine, hatred, radicalism, and eventually revolution. The only thing left for Louis to do was to call for a meeting of the Estates General, inaugurating a series of events that eventually led to his beheading.

Many lessons emerge from this experience. For one, real reform is impossible unless you have a leader with the stomach for the job and, frankly, the courage to carry it out. Second, playing musical chairs with advisers is a waste of time; ministers come and go, but unless hard decisions are made, problems remain. Statesmanship succumbed to farce in that Louis XVI’s thick-headed efforts to keep his regime in power and avoid tragedy virtually guaranteed its occurrence on a much vaster scale.

Pairing these points with the lesson of the Crittenden Compromise completes our story. This proposal was a last-ditch effort to preserve the Union by restoring the Missouri Compromise, forbidding the….

Read more.

The Huffington Post Gets Punk’d

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

Despite a newfound reputation as an unbiased news source, an influx of hundreds of millions of dollars, and the new ownership of a massive media conglomerate, The Huffington Post is apparently incapable of fact-checking the articles that appear on its website. An entry posted late this morning on the website attributes an apparently erroneous quotation to Sen. John McCain.

The line comes in a Huffington Post article written by legal scholar Bruce Fein entitled, “McCain Dethrones the Rule of Law.”

This author reported last month that Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against Bill Clinton, has drafted articles of impeachment against Barack Obama over the president’s unwise, unauthorized, and unconstitutional military action against Libya. This author is fully supportive of Fein’s goals and actions on this matter.

Unfortunately, it appears an online prank got past him – and The Huffington Post.

Too-Subtle Satire

Fein quotes McCain as saying, “Any [p]resident, Republican or Democrat, should be able to deploy armed forces whenever and wherever he deems necessary.”

This author has written extensively about the president’s usurpation of the Congress’ war-making power, as well as the collective Congressional abdication led by John McCain. After reading Fein’s article, I started to include the quotation in a short post on the topic. However, I could find no authentication for it anywhere.

It appears to have originated on the website of the Arizona Sunlight, which bills itself as….

Read more.