Obama Will Settle For a Military Big Enough to Defeat Arizona! Limited Terms!

The end of March is fast approaching and the Obama Administration will announce how many have signed up for "The Affordable Health Care Program."

So far every projection the administration makes has proven inaccurate but I have it on good authority that the following have, in fact, signed up:

12 million illegal Mexicans, 1600 tourists here on visas and 8 American citizens!

Obamacare explained in language, at least, golfers would understand.

(Receptionist) Hello, Welcome to ObamaGolf . My name is Trina. How can I help you?  (Customer) Hello, I received an email from Golfsmith stating that my Pro V1 order has been canceled and I should go to your exchange to reorder it.  I tried your web site, but it seems like it is not working. So I am calling the 800 number. (Receptionist) Yes, I am sorry about the web site. It should be fixed by the end of 2014. But I can help you. (Customer) Thanks, I ordered some Pro V1 balls. (Receptionist) Sir, Pro V1's do not meet our minimum standards, I will be happy to provide you with a choice of Pinnacle, TopFlite , or Callaway Blue. (Customer) But I have played Pro V1 for years. (Receptionist) The government has determined that Pro V1s are no longer acceptable, so we have instructed Titleist to stop making them.  TopFlites are better, sir, I am sure you will love them. (Customer) But I like the Pro V1.  Why are TopFlites better? (Receptionist) That is all spelled out in the 2700 page "Affordable Golf Ball Act" passed by Congress. (Customer) Well, how much are these TopFlites ? (Receptionist) It depends sir, do you want our Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum package? (Customer) What's the difference? (Receptionist) 12, 24, 36 or 48 balls. (Customer) The Silver package may be okay; how much is it? (Receptionist) It depends, sir; what is your monthly income? (Customer) What does that have to do with anything? (Receptionist) I need that to determine your government Golf Ball subsidy; then I can determine how much your out-of-pocket cost will be.  But if your income is below the poverty level, you might qualify for a subsidy.  In that case, I can refer you to our BallAid department. (Customer) BallAid ? (Receptionist) Yes, golf balls are a right, everyone has a right to golf balls.  So, if you can't afford them, then the government will supply them free of charge. (Customer) Who said they were a right? (Receptionist) Congress passed it, the President signed it and the Supreme Court found it Constitutional. (Customer) Whoa.....I don't remember seeing anything in the Constitution regarding golf balls as a right. (Receptionist) There's no explicit mention of golf balls in the Constitution, but President Obama is a former constitutional scholar and he believes it would have been included if the Constitutional had not been drafted by a bunch of slave-owning white men.  The Democrats in the Congress and the Supreme Court agree with the President that golf balls are now a right guaranteed by the Constitution. (Customer) I don't believe this... (Receptionist) It's the law of the land sir. Now, we anticipated most people would go for the Silver Package, so what is you monthly income sir? (Customer) Forget it, I think I will forgo the balls this year. (Receptionist) In that case, sir, I will still need your monthly income. (Customer) Why? (Receptionist) To determine what your 'non-participation' cost would be. (Customer) WHAT? You can't charge me for NOT buying golf balls. (Receptionist) It's the law of the land, sir, approved by the Supreme Court. It's $49.50 or 1% of your monthly income..... (Customer)(interrupting) This is ridiculous, I'll pay the $49.50. (Receptionist) Sir, it is the $49.50 or 1% of your monthly income, whichever is greater. (Customer) ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What a ripoff!! (Receptionist) Actually sir, it is a good deal. Next year it will be 2%. (Customer) Look, I'm going to call my Congressman to find out what's going on here. This is ridiculous. I'm not going to pay it. (Receptionist) Sorry to hear that sir, that's why I had the NSA track this call and obtain the make and model of the cell phone you are using. (Customer) Why does the NSA need to know what kind of CELL PHONE I AM USING? (Receptionist) So they get your GPS coordinates, sir (Door Bell rings followed immediately by a loud knock on the door) (Receptionist) That would be the IRS, sir. Thanks for calling ObamaGolf , have a nice day...and God Bless the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

===
News from/about Israel. (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
Dr. Ben Carson and I are in agreement.  (See 2 below.)
===
Which direction for Ukraine?  (See 3 below.)
===
Obama wants a military only big enough to defeat Arizona so he can get rid of its Governor who is a thorn in his side. (See 4 below.)
===
Is Obama educated?  (See 5 below.)
===
My candidate for Congress, Dr. Bob Johnson, has pledged to limit his tenure should  he be successful.  (See 6 below.)
===
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)  Israel Daily News Stream

Today’s Top Stories

1. Looks like the Israeli Air Force attacked a Hezbollah target in eastern Lebanon, or possibly in Syrian territory. Though it’s hard to judge the credibility of cited Al Arabiya and Daily Star reports, Reuters quoted an anonymous Israeli security source who confirmed ”unusually intense air force activity in the north.” And NOW Lebanon identifies one of the dead as Hajji Hassan Mansour, a Hezbollah field trainer.

While Jerusalem never comments on these things, Avi Issacharoff notes that Hezbollah’s denials of any attack are based on necessity rather than honesty:

Hezbollah, which has always boasted about being the defender of Lebanon, is trying to downplay the attack in a bid to avoid an ill-timed confrontation with Israel.

2. At a press conference, Angela Merkel and Benjamin Netanyahu discussed peace efforts (mostly eye to eye), settlements (less so), and BDS (Merkel’s against, but is compelled to follow EU guidelines on matters like labeling settlement products). Times of Israel coverage.

The press conference will be better remembered for one photo sparking all kinds of buzz

1a)  Unstable Neighborhood: Terrorist Groups Encircle Israel

A breakdown in state sovereignty among Arab countries bordering Israel has created a vacuum eagerly filled by radical non-state actors.

In lawless areas around Israel, both Sunni and Shi'ite terrorist organizations are reaching out across borders and moving personnel and weapons. This means that an eruption of violence in one area carries the potential to ignite other arenas around Israel.

To Israel's south and west, Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist networks are growing. They operate in both the Gaza Strip and in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, and maintain a relationship with Gaza's rulers – Hamas – as well as with Islamic Jihad.

Smaller Gazan terror groups, such as the Popular Resistance Committees (which are heavily involved in firing rockets at Israel) have taken to “sub-contracting jobs” to terrorists in the neighboring Sinai Peninsula, to avoid exposing Hamas in Gaza to Israeli retaliation.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad use the same “trick” when they wish to attempt low signature terror attacks. It also allows them to build up their own rocket arsenals to prepare for a future clash with Israel.

The transnational terror networks in Gaza and Sinai will likely soon link up with extremist jihadi groups in Syria and Lebanon, meaning that pro-Al-Qaeda elements can be expected to pose a tactical threat to four of Israel's borders: Egypt, Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon.

To Israel's north, Shi'ite Hezbollah has sent large numbers of fighters to Syria: at the moment, in addition to its traditional bases in southern Lebanon, the Iranian-backed terror organization, armed with some 100,000 rockets and missiles, can use Syria as a staging ground for future attacks on Israel. In the same vein, terror networks link the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.

Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad are actively trying to construct terror cells in the West Bank and east Jerusalem; so far, these efforts have been successfully stopped by Israel's domestic intelligence agency, the Shin Bet.

Even if efforts by Gazan terrorists to orchestrate attacks in the West Bank fail, however, a future flare-up in Gaza will likely lead to a rise in spontaneous violent disturbances in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, as already occurred during a 2012 conflict in Gaza between Hamas and Israel.

Egypt's ongoing lack of stability has made it difficult for Cairo to exercise control over the Sinai Peninsula, despite the best efforts of the Egyptian military to combat the threat. Under the leadership of its military chief, Field Marshal Mohamed Fattah Al-Sisi, Egypt, like Israel, views the Gaza Strip as a national security threat, due to the movement of hundreds of Salafi jihadi terrorists and weapons between Gaza and Sinai through underground tunnels. It is these terrorists who are now frequently attacking Egyptian security forces there.

Meanwhile, to Israel's north, Syria has, to all intents and purposes, imploded, with the Assad regime controlling, according to some estimates, no more than 40% percent of the country. Syria has also become the world's top recruitment area for Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups; some 30,000 jihadi fighters are thought now to be active there.

The IDF's Rimon special-forces unit conducts a training exercise in the Golan, near the Syrian border, on Feb. 2. (Image source: IDF)

Lebanon, which has hinged its existence as a state on a delicate sectarian balance, is reeling from the war exploding in next door Syria — a conflict that has seen over a million Syrian refugees, as well as radical Sunni groups, move into Lebanon.

It is this uncertain reality for which the IDF is preparing. These initiatives include enhanced intelligence, strengthened border security, improved surveillance capabilities, and swift responses to any sudden eruption of conflict on multiple fronts.

The dramatic changes in the region have prompted the Israel Defense Forces to put a special focus on its intelligence and precision-fire capabilities.

Hi-tech intelligence-gathering techniques give Israel a superior chance of receiving a prior warning before threats materialize, while precision-guided weapons, which can be deployed by the air force or from ground-based platforms, enable the IDF to strike targets both near and far at a moment's notice.

Israel is prepared, even if it hopes that these preparations will not be necessary.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)

Politics-govt

Dr. Ben Carson: America going over Niagara Falls, time to unite

By

Dr. Ben Carson and Eric Metaxas spoke at the annual National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville.  The topic was, "Life, God and Other Small Topics."

Dr. Carson, who brought a message of unity, tells OneNewsNow that conservatives should understand the power of unity and overcome minor disagreements.

"Right now we have a ship that is about to sail off the Niagara Falls and everyone is going to be killed," Carson warns. "We have people looking over the bannister saying, But we have a barnacle on the side. Forget about the barnacle. Let's get the ship turned around, then we can talk about the barnacles after that."

Carson is the former director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

He grew up in an impoverished inner-city home in Detroit and is now Emeritus Professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery, and pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

- See more at: http://onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2014/02/25/dr-ben-carson-america-going-over-niagara-falls-time-to-unite#.Uwz9gvRDttY




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)  Ukraine Turns From Revolution to Recovery

By George Friedman

The uprising in Kiev has apparently reached its conclusion. President Viktor Yanukovich and the opposition reached an agreement, negotiated by the Polish, German and French foreign ministers. The parliament is now effectively in charge, deciding who will be ministers and when elections will be held, whether to dismiss judges and so on. It isn't clear whether the parliament can fire the sitting president without impeachment and trial, but all of this is now moot. What is interesting is that the Polish, French and German foreign ministers negotiated an outcome that, for practical purposes, ignored the Constitution of Ukraine. It sets an interesting precedent. But for Ukraine, the constitution didn't have the patina of tradition that a true constitution requires, and few will miss Yanukovich. 

The question now is whether all of this makes any real difference in Ukraine or the world. There is a new temporary leadership, although it is still factionalized and the leaders of the factions have not fully emerged. The effect of hostile gunfire will forge unity in Kiev for a while, but in due course, ideology, ambition and animosity will re-emerge. That will make governing Ukraine as difficult as in the past, particularly because the differences among the neo-Nazis, the liberals and groups in between -- all of which manned the barricades -- are profound. A government of national unity will be difficult to form.

Another issue is what will happen the next time crowds storm government buildings. The precedent has been set -- or rather, it was set during the 2004 Orange Revolution -- that governments and regimes can be changed by a legalistic sleight of hand. At some point a large crowd will gather and occupy buildings. If the government opens fire, it is run by monsters. I don't mean that ironically; I mean it literally. But if the government allows itself to be paralyzed by demonstrators, then how can it carry out its constitutional responsibilities? I don't mean that ironically either. The Ukrainian Constitution, new or old, is meaningless because Ukrainians will not endure the pain of following it -- and because foreign powers will pressure them to deviate from constitutional democracy in order to create a new one.

There should be no mistake. The Yanukovich government was rotten to the core, and he will not be missed. But most governments of Ukraine will be rotten to the core, partly because there is no tradition of respect for the law and because of the way property was privatized. How could there be a tradition of law in a country that was reduced to a province of another state and that numbered among its rulers Josef Stalin? Privatization, following the fall of the Soviet Union, occurred suddenly with vague rules that gave the advantage to the fast and ruthless. These people now own Ukraine, and however much the crowd despises them, it can't unseat them. The oligarchs, as rich people in the former Soviet Union are called, are free; they can eliminate their critics or bribe them into silence. The only thing that is more powerful than money is a gun. But guns cost money and lives.

The idea that what will follow the Ukrainian revolution will be the birth of a liberal democracy reminds me of the Arab Spring. In the West, there is a tradition of seeing a passionate crowd massed in a square as the voice of the people. Reporters interview demonstrators and hear that they want an end to a corrupt and evil regime and subliminally recall the storming of the Bastille, the founding myth of the revolutionary tradition. A large crowd and a building anger at government evil points to the millennium. 

In the Arab Spring the hope was great and the results disappointing. There was genuine hope for change, and observers assumed that the change was for liberal democracy. Perhaps it will yet be. Sometimes it was a change to a very different type of regime. What is portrayed and seen in this situation are the corrupt leaders commanding brutal soldiers. If the regime and the soldiers are wicked, it follows by this storyboard logic of good and evil that then their victims must be virtuous. It is rarely that easy. It is not only that the crowd is usually divided into many factions and bound together only by anger at the regime and the passionate moment. It is also that unexpected consequences lead them far from what they intended.

How Long Will Unity Last?

The deepest symbolism of revolution, and the most problematic, is that the people in the square speak for the people as a whole. The assumption made by the three foreign ministers was that in the negotiation between the three leaders of the demonstrators and the president, the protests' leaders were more faithful representatives of the people than the elected president. They may have been in this case, but it is not certain.

Parts of Ukraine are bitterly angry about the outcome in Kiev. A Russian flag was raised over the city hall of Sevastopol, located in Crimea in the south, over the weekend. Crimea has historically belonged to Russia. In 1954, Nikita Khrushchev took it away from Russia and gave it to Ukraine. The Russians in Crimea have never really liked being part of Ukraine and the demonstrators didn't represent them. Nor did they represent all those who live in the eastern part of the country, where Russian is commonly spoken and where being close to Russia is both an economic and cultural desire.

Thus there are two questions. The first is whether there is enough unity in the Ukrainian parliament to do what they must now do: create a government. The excitement of the moment has hidden the factions, which will soon re-emerge along with new ones. Yanukovich was not without support, for good reasons or bad. His supporters are bitter at this outcome and they are biding their time. In addition, the oligarchs are weaving their webs, save that many of the lawmakers are already caught in their web, some happily and some not. The underlying constraints that created the Yanukovich government are still there and can create a new Yanukovich out of the most enlightened Ukrainian leader.

The second question is whether Ukraine can remain united. The distinctions between the region oriented toward the West and that oriented toward Russia have been there from the beginning. In the past, governments have tried to balance between these two camps. Our three foreign ministers and the leaders of the demonstration have signaled that the days of taking Crimea and the east into account are over. At the very least their interests weren't represented at the talks. Those interests could be rebalanced in the parliament, or they could be dismissed. If the latter were to happen, will Ukraine split in two? And if it does, what will be the economic and social consequences? If parliament takes to accommodating the two sides and their respective oligarchs, then how does it avoid winding up with a more photogenic and sympathetic Yanukovich?

The Motives of Outsiders

What happened to Ukraine mattered deeply to the Germans, French, Poles and Americans, all of whom had a deep involvement and sympathy for the demonstrators and hostility toward Yanukovich. Certainly it matters to the Russians, for whom maintaining at least a neutral Ukraine is essential to the national interest. This entire crisis began when Yanukovich decided to reject closer ties to the European Union. It was that decision that triggered the demonstrations, which, after violent repression, evolved from desiring closer EU ties to desiring regime change and blood.

The Ukrainian government has $13 billion in debt, owed mostly to Western institutions. The Russian government has agreed to provide Ukraine with $15 billion in aid doled out in tranches to cover it, since Ukraine can't. Russia is now withholding additional aid until it can be confident the emerging government in Kiev is one with which it can work. It has also given Ukraine discounted natural gas. Without this assistance Ukraine would be in an even worse situation.

In turning toward Europe, parliament has to address refinancing its debt and ensure that the Russians will continue to discount natural gas. The Europeans are in no position politically to underwrite the Ukrainian debt. Given the economic situation and austerity in many EU countries, there would be an uproar if Brussels diverted scarce resources to a non-member. And regardless of what might be believed, the idea that Ukraine will become a member of the European Union under current circumstances is dismal. The bloc has enough sick economies on its hands.

The Germans have suggested that the International Monetary Fund handle Ukraine's economic problem. The IMF's approach to such problems is best compared to surgery without anesthesia. The patient may survive and be better for it, but the agony will be intense. In return for any bailout, the IMF will demand a restructuring of Ukraine's finances. Given Ukraine's finances, that restructuring would be dramatic. And the consequences could well lead to yet another round of protests.

The Russians have agreed to this, likely chuckling. Either parliament will reject the IMF plan and ask Russia to assume the burden immediately, or it will turn to Russia after experiencing the pain. There is a reason the Russians have been so relaxed about events in Ukraine. They understand that between the debt, natural gas and tariffs on Ukrainian exports to Russia, Ukraine has extremely powerful constraints. Under the worst circumstances Ukraine would move into the Western camp an economic cripple. Under the best, Ukraine would recognize its fate and turn to Russia.

What the Europeans and Americans were doing in Ukraine is less clear. They had the triumphant moment and they have eliminated a corrupt leader. But they certainly are not ready to take on the burden of Ukraine's economic problems. And with those economic problems, the ability to form a government that does not suffer from the ills of Yanukovich is slim. Good intentions notwithstanding, the Ukrainians will not like the IMF deal.

I will guess at two motives for European and American actions. One is to repay the Russians for their more aggressive stance in the world and to remind them of how vulnerable Russia is. The second is as a low-risk human rights intervention to satisfy internal political demand without risking much. The pure geopolitical explanation -- that they did this in order to gain a platform from which to threaten Russia and increase its caution -- is hard to believe. None of these powers were in a position to protect Ukraine from Russian economic or military retaliation. None of them have any appetite for threatening Russia's fundamental interests.

As stated above, the question now is two fold. Will the Ukrainian parliament, once the adrenaline of revolution stops flowing, be able to govern, or will it fall into the factional gridlock that a presidential system was supposed to solve? Further, will the east and Crimea decide they don't want to cast their lot with the new regime and proceed to secede, either becoming independent or joining Russia? In large part the second question will be determined by the first. If the parliament is gridlocked, or it adopts measures hostile to the east and Crimea, secession is possible. Of course, if it decides to accommodate these regions, it is not clear how the government will differ from Yanukovich's.

Revolutions are much easier to make than to recover from. This was not such a vast uprising that it takes much recovery. But to the extent that Ukraine had a constitutional democracy, that is now broken by people who said their intention was to create one. The issue is whether good intentions align with reality. It is never a bad idea to be pessimistic about Ukraine. Perhaps this time will be different.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)  Sources: Brewer Will Veto Gay Discrimination Law

By Drew MacKenzie

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will veto a controversial bill that would allow business owners to refuse service to gays and lesbians on the grounds of their religious conviction, NBC News is reporting via Twitter.

Brewer has been under intense pressure from business groups and political leaders to diffuse the situation and veto the legislation which they fear will draw unnecessary attention to Arizona a year before it hosts the next Super Bowl and following economic losses on controversial immigration stances.

At the same time, three GOP state senators who initially ratified the measure have written to Brewer, a Republican, asking her to reject Senate Bill 1062, according to The Los Angeles Times. 

Brewer, in an interview with CNN, said she is weighing her options. "I will do the right thing for the state of Arizona," she said.

Brewer, who overturned a similar bill last year, has the power to veto the legislation or sign it into law. She has until Friday to make a decision, but it could come as early as Tuesday  after she returns from a National Governors Association convention in Washington.

"I have a history of deliberating and having open dialogue on bills that are controversial," Brewer told CNN's Dana Bash, dismissing any indication that she would rely on "her gut" instinct to make a decision.

In their letter to the governor, the three state senators said, "While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens' religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance. 

"These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm. As Arizona leaders, we feel it is important to loudly proclaim that we strongly condemn discrimination in any form."

The state senators — Adam Driggs, Steve Pierce, and Bob Worsley — wrote to Brewer saying they changed their minds on the position just days after they voted with the entire 17-member Senate GOP state caucus for the legislation. With those three Republican state senators joining all 13 state Senate Democrats in opposition, there would be enough votes to defeat the measure in a re-vote Tuesday.

The state lawmakers have joined forces with both U.S. senators from Arizona, Republicans John McCain and Jeff Flake, who have urged Brewer to veto the measure.

Brewer has been a conservative champion during her five years in office, although her record on gay rights is questionable, according to CNN. Her GOP supporters were, in fact, surprised last year when she enrolled Arizona in the controversial expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. She called it a "moral" obligation to provide healthcare for the poor and uninsured.

And she gave no hint as to which way she was leaning on SB1062 when she told CNN, "I have to look at what it says and what the law says and take that information and do the right thing." 

The law, which would allow business owners the right to turn down service to anyone if it violates their strongly held religious brief, was sparked by a case in New Mexico where the state Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a wedding photographer who refused to take pictures of their commitment ceremony. 

Earlier this month, Tennessee introduced a similar bill, which would allow businesses such as venue owners, caterers, cake makers, party planners, photographers, and florists to refuse service to gay and lesbian marriages if they go against their "sincerely held religious beliefs." 

The Arizona legislation has led to a political firestorm, with business owners claiming that it will lead to a boycott of the state while gay rights leaders maintain it is unconstitutional and discriminates against gays and lesbians.

But supporters claim the bill is not intended to discriminate against anyone, but to allow individuals to practice their religious convictions. "The religious beliefs of all Arizonans must be respected, and this bill does nothing more than affirm that," Republican state Sen. Steve Yarbrough, who introduced the bill, told the Los Angeles Times.

Christians, in particular, believe their faith defines marriage solely between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is a sin. They claim that by having to take part in a same-sex ceremony, the intended law would force them to act against their religious beliefs.

But American Airlines, Apple and Marriott are hoping that Brewer overturns SB1062 because they fear that Arizona will feel a backlash from potential visitors who will be turned off by the law, says the Times.

In a letter to the governor, Marriott wrote, "It is exceedingly difficult for us to sell Arizona as a destination against a backdrop of negative attention suggesting certain travelers or conference attendees would not be welcome here — as a matter of law."

Apple, which announced in November that it would open a manufacturing plant employing 700 workers in Mesa, has also voiced its opposition to the measure, while the Arizona Super Bowl Committee says it would "deal a significant blow" to the state's economy. Arizona is scheduled to host next year’s Super Bowl.

The liberal think tank Center for American Progress pointed out that a previous boycott following passage of the immigration bill cost the state more than $23 million in lost taxes and $350 million in spending. The Greater Phoenix Economic Council has also called on Brewer to veto the bill, according to the Times. 

"With major events approaching in the coming year, including Super Bowl XLIX, Arizona will be the center of the world’s stage," the group said in a letter to the governor. "This legislation has the potential of subjecting the Super Bowl, and major events surrounding it, to the threats of boycotts."

The Times also revealed that a string of protest petitions on Change.org have received a great deal of support, especially one created by Jacqueline Todd of Phoenix, which has 60,000 signatures.

The bill, however, is being pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that opposes abortion and gay marriage. CAP President Cathi Herrod has urged Brewer to sign the legislation while deriding what she called "fear-mongering" from its opponents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Why Obama is Uneducated

By Selwyn Duke

A few years ago I participated in a radio debate on "white privilege" with a certain man, whose name is unimportant, who had a Ph.D. in "ethnic studies." At one point he introduced an argument by saying, "If whites are 80 percent of the population...," which prompted me to interject and point out that whites (non-Hispanic) are now only 63 percent of America. Of course, you might think that someone with a doctorate in "ethnic studies" would know what the ethnic and racial composition of the country is.

While no one wants to be a real-life Cliff Clavin (of Cheers fame), mistaking trivia for intellectualism, facts matter because they're small snippets of reality. They're little pictures - and, as with a jigsaw puzzle - if you have enough of them, assembled properly, you can see the big picture. This is otherwise known as being in touch with reality.

This is why a certain trend in that liberal bastion called education is quite interesting. Educators will often say today, "We don't just teach kids facts[uttered dripping with derision]; we teach them how to think." This is quite convenient. After all, it's easy to test knowledge of facts; thus, such measures can reveal modern education as a fraudulent enterprise. But "how to think" is a bit more nebulous, and, if you define the expression of feelings-derived folderol as reason, your students cannot fail.

Yet there is a deeper reason why liberals eschew facts: they refute fiction. And since leftist agendas have no basis in reality, exposure to snippets of it is deadly; for, just as one small pin can pop a balloon, one little fact can shatter a rationalization.

This brings us back to Dr. Ethnic Studies. His field of expertise isn't about anything as old-fashioned as facts, but he can expound at length on oppression, white privilege, critical-race theory and "micro-aggressions." These things, you see, are the stuff of sophisticated modern men. Never mind that they're complete fiction.

But liberals are raised on fiction. Fiction about America's nature and Western influence; fiction about the races and sexes (not to mention "genders"), and fiction about sex; fiction about history and culture; fiction about economics; fiction about religion. Heck, with how liberals claim old fairy tales are destructive, they're raised with fiction about fiction. This brings us to another fiction: Barack Obama as educated man.  

If we were to mention, again, that he thought "Austrian" was spoken in Austria, pronounced "corpsman" "corpse-man" (three times in one speech) or that he called the "transcontinental" railroad the "intercontinental" one (Amtrak to Bangkok, anyone?), we'd obviously have to be racists. After all, anyone can make a mistake. But it's one thing to commit a Spoonerism and say "a scoop of boy trouts" or, like Dan Quayle, correct a spelling-bee participant based upon the antiquated word form "potatoe" (which The New York Times used as recently as 1988). But then there are those mistakes indicating that, just perhaps, you don't really possess the knowledge base one might expect from an educated Western gentleman.

And a fact about Obama's upbringing is that it was defined by fiction. Clergyman Hosea Ballou said, "Education commences at the mother's knee...," but not only was Obama's mother's knee not around all the time, but what an odd knee it was. Her father had given her his first name, Stanley, because he'd wanted a boy, and Stanley Ann Dunham's personal development reflected that bizarre beginning. She attended Mercer Island High in Seattle, which had a wing known as "anarchy alley" that was infested with radical leftist teachers. It is said that Dunham "thrived" in that atmosphere, and she became a committed left-wing atheist herself. Then there was Obama's mentor in Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis, a pornographic-novel writer and anti-white, card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA. And how radical were Obama's leftist grandparents, with whom he lived in the Aloha State? Obama's grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, was the one who chose Davis to be scrambler of young Barry's brains.

The point is that there was no prominent person in the young Obama's life who could or would expose him to reality. It was all anti-American, anti-Western isms and destructive schism. This brings us to Obama's mind-numbingly ridiculousdescription of his 2008 campaign travels: "I've now been in 57 states; I think, one left to go." Where does such a bizarre mistake come from? After all, that there are 50 states is drummed into every American child so that it just instinctively rolls off the tongue: 50 states, 50 states, 50 states....

That is, again, every "American child."

It's not that I don't think Obama knew there are 50 states. Rather, he doesn't have the intellectual foundation you'd expect of an educated Western man, and this includes a lack of the rote knowledge that, like an actor who has spoken a certain line in 500 rehearsals and performances, is expressed the same way every time. And this, by the way, has nothing to do with where anyone thinks Obama was born.

But to fully grasp the nature of leftists' ignorance, an understanding of their philosophical foundation is necessary. There is a certain experience many conservatives know very well: You debate a liberal, and he just seems immune to facts and reason. No matter how airtight your point, it rolls off him like water off a duck.

To explain this, let's start with an analogy. Becoming proficient at golf involves gaining knowledge about the swing. And if you realize you've fallen victim to a misconception, improvement depends upon rejecting it and accepting the truth in question. But what if you were so bent on using your old swing - so attached to "hackerism" - that you simply would not accept that truth? A pustule on the face of the game you'd remain.

So it is in all of life. Everyone falls victim to certain misconceptions, and growing in knowledge and wisdom involves rejecting them when we're blessed enough to discover refutative truths. But this can be difficult for two reasons. First, it may involve relinquishing ideas to which we're strongly attached. This could be because they're integral pieces of an incorrect jigsaw puzzle we've glommed onto, an example of which would be a committed atheist who insists there are no moral absolutes because he knows their existence implies God's. Or it could be that an incorrect belief is embraced as a justification for a behavior (e.g., sexual perversion, heavy drinking) to which we're attached. Or it could be both.

Second, pride can get in the way, as correcting oneself involves admitting error, often with respect to ideas we've spent an entire lifetime defending. It can be like giving up a cherished son.

And while most everyone exhibits to some degree this tendency to rationalize, leftists are defined by it. They are, to use a favored psycho-babble term, morally and philosophically "dysfunctional" people. They live lives of rationalization - which is when you lie to yourself, sell yourself on a fiction - and for this reason only intensify whatever dislocation from reality their upbringing, sometimes, might have wrought.  

Their greatest act of self-delusion - their ultimate denial of reality and the one that facilitates all others - is their embrace of moral relativism, the idea that there are no moral absolutes. The appeal of this fiction is that it allows one to justify any behavior imaginable. After all, my sins are not sins if there's no vice, only viewpoint. Who is to judge? Who is to say? There's no black and white, only gray.

But once you unmoor yourself from objective moral reality, there is no limit to how immoral you can become. This is why Fyodor Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov said that without God, "everything is permitted." It's why occultist Aleister Crowley insisted, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." And it explains leftists' bizarre thinking. Did you ever wonder, for instance, how modern liberals can say something so preposterous as "The truth is no defense against a hate-speech charge"? It's not hard to understand.

When a person who lives a sincere life finds that part of his ideology conflicts with the Truth, he alters his ideology. But what if you not only were attached to your ideology like a drunkard to drink, but didn't acknowledge Truth's existence? It is then that you, instead, rationalize away the Truth.

In fact, with his denial of Truth, the leftist places his ideology where Truth should be: the center of his life. This ideology, which just reflects his emotions, anyway, then takes on the role of God. It becomes the ultimate arbiter, the fiction that becomes "fact." This is why Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels once said, "National Socialism is a religion. ...My Party is my church...." Like him, today's leftists have repeated a big lie to themselves so often that it has become the "truth."

Interestingly, or maybe ominously, the Bible speaks of the end times in 2 Timothy 3 and writes of "men of depraved minds" who are "always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." I don't know if these are the last days, or just the last days of freedom, but our republic is now beset by millions of fiction voters who elected a fiction president based on fairy-tale promises. And it's looking less and less like our story ends with "happily ever after."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6)

Four-Year House Terms Would End the Gridlock

Eisenhower and LBJ knew members need more time to learn to govern.

By William Galston

As the final year of the 113th Congress began in January, cockeyed optimists (of whom I was one) imagined that there might be a window for legislation before the midterm election. Democrats and Republicans have since failed to find a formula to extend long-term unemployment insurance, and Republicans are resisting an increase in the minimum wage. Speaker John Boehner couldn't persuade his caucus to move forward on immigration reform. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid told the president to forget about the trade promotion authority he had requested in his State of the Union address.

Under pressure from his party's left, Mr. Obama removed last year's proposal to switch to the chained-CPI method of measuring inflation from this year's budget proposal. Reluctant to offend either organized labor or the environmental community, the president is delaying the long-deferred decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. Although House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp is releasing a proposal for comprehensive tax reform on Wednesday (see his op-ed on a nearby page), Senate Republicans are unlikely to make a deal before finding out whether they will control their chamber next January.

Getty Images

For those who believe that good government does as little as possible, 2014 will offer no end of satisfaction. Between them, the parties' congressional leaders have taken just about everything significant off the agenda, and President Obama's forthcoming budget is designed to rally his party's base rather than present a program with a realistic chance of enactment.

I'm reminded of the famous scene in "A Night at the Opera" where, provision by provision, Groucho and Chico rip a draft contract to shreds. Now, as then, there ain't no Sanity Clause.

All this makes a kind of awful sense. Leaders on both sides are determined to unify their troops for the midterm battle, and that means taking uncomfortable issues off the table. Immigration and the minimum wage divide the Republicans, trade and Keystone the Democrats. Why not postpone them to a better day?

But in today's politics, that day never comes. In the endless struggle for power, policy making is squeezed out. No wonder our friends overseas are coming to doubt our capacity for self-government even as the American people are losing hope.

This is the bitter fruit of the partisan and ideological divisions that have deepened in recent decades. Unfortunately, there's no reason to believe that this polarization will abate any time soon. It is a structural feature of current arrangements, not a fever that will break.

We face a stark choice: Either accept the status quo or consider structural changes that would allow a polarized political system to produce better results. The place to begin is the House of Representatives.

When the Founders decided on a two-year term for the House, they could not have anticipated the consequences more than two centuries later. For newly elected members, the "permanent campaign" is the reality of daily life.

They must begin raising funds for their re-election the day they are sworn in. Because their terms are so short, they have no time to demonstrate the long-term merits of decisions that defy the passions of the moment, so every deviation from the sentiments of their constituents—including a modicum of cooperation across party lines—can be fatal.

The modern primary system intensifies the risk. Worst of all, turnout in midterm elections averages 20 points lower than in presidential years, so off-year elections hinge on the intensity of the party faithful, and relatively small changes in the electorate can generate huge swings. This system intensifies polarization and magnifies instability.

The solution is straightforward—four-year House terms synchronized with the presidential election cycle. This is not a new idea. In his memoirs, former president Dwight Eisenhower said that "By the end of four years [in office] . . . . I had become convinced that the term of members of the House of Representatives is too short." In his 1966 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson went further, calling for a constitutional amendment providing a four-year House term that would give newly elected members a chance to learn their craft and allow more time for governing rather than campaigning.

In today's circumstances, four-year House terms would also increase the chances of effective governance. If the winning presidential candidate and House majority are of the same party, the president would have a better chance of enacting promised legislation, giving the people a chance to judge its consequences. If the electorate instead divides the partisan control of the Oval Office and the House, both the president and the leaders of the House majority would be on notice that neither could outlast the other, forcing them to choose between compromise and a full term of gridlock.

A constitutional amendment may sound radical, but nothing less will address the problem. The alternative is wishful thinking that today's hyperpolarization somehow will vanish like a bad dream.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------