We were amazed this week at the news of Democratic  Senator Evan Bayh's decision not to run for re-election this year.  Even more amazing was the fact that he left his political party only one week to find a suitable Liberal to take his place.  Senator Bayh's decision points to what is becoming a serious problem in the Democratic party.  You know you're in trouble when the mere mention of any one of the Democratic leader's names elicits an animated gag response from those in earshot.

In fact, those Democrats who seem to be running for the hills --well-prior to any "known" stimulus--reminds us of the scientifically documented reaction that certain beasts of the field and air exhibit in precognition of  earthquakes, tsunamis, twisters and other natural disasters before they actually occur.  The creatures scurry away--and yet--for no "apparent" reason evident to most.  Perhaps we can find a few soon-to-be jobless Global Warming Scientists to investigate this phenomena.

Missing Apocalyptic Hockey Sticks

In news of the greatest import this week, we were treated to the apocalyptic truth that the Earth is not actually warming according to news reports from the "true media," which apparently only resides in the United Kingdom as opposed to the US with its lack of reporting this same news to date.  British Scientists have been reviewing the available data utilizing the old-fashioned discipline of science, which is based upon critical observation rather than hyperbole.

The Scientists stated that the well-over one thousand Weather Stations used for temperature readings actually date back over 150 years.  Apparently, a large number of these stations have been subject to extreme urbanization, or in many cases are located near industrial areas which will always exhibit data that is based upon the local environment rather than the environment as a whole, which will dramatically push temperature readings up over time.

As a figurative exclamation point in this regard, we also have from the British Media another Global Warming story of a missing hockey stick.  This hockey stick was used in a game, and this game apparently had a great many pucks; however, the pucks were not used on ice but rather towards furthering the fictional tale of a "lack of global ice."  The pucks--in fact--being those scientists and governments who signed on to play the Global Warming hooey game that has cost the world hundreds of billions of dollars (or more) for absolutely no gain whatsoever.

Follow the Yellow Brick (Shovel-Ready Stimulus) Road

Professor Phil Jones has confirmed now that the hockey stick data which showed a Global Warming spike in temperatures is now missing.  Perhaps his dog ate the data.  However, in further revelations Jones indicates that his office is a hopeless jumble of papers and files and the data is now unprovable because it simply cannot be found.  A monument to neglectful disorganization to be sure, but Jones still insists that Global Warming is real, indeed, along with Santa Clause, Easter Rabbit and the Wizard of Oz.

There are still quasi-scientists who insist on gripping the flotsam of sinking debris that is what remains of the man-made Global Warming fiction.  Yet, with the High Priests of the movement resigning from their positions in evermore plentiousness, we can now see where this argument is headed.  It will be fascinating to observe the various remaining snake-oil selling World Leaders who will continue their efforts in plying  their naive citizenry of this  generational-long fiction in order to exert their needful and yet slipping control.  In fact, the Administration has now entered into a fantasy world much like "The Land of OZ" in its colorful perfidy.

The Administration and its All-Star Cast seems to be following a Yellow Brick Road full of fascinating threats at every turn of the drama but insists on plying a self-deluded belief system that contraindicates common sense in virtually every major policy effort and decision.  Doubtful of this fact?  Think of the bank-breaking stimulus, massive budget deficit(s), Cap and Trade, Global Warming obstinence, healthcare grab, auto-maker grab, bank grab, opposing party shut-out, deafness to the American people, terrorism slips...and we can go on and on.

Pull Out in Defeat...or Spew Forth in Victory ?

In keeping with our fantasy theme of perfidy, Washington lay fallow in the blizzard of snow to the tune of $ 100 Million lost per day--despite a state of the art subway system--this past week.  This while constantly jabbering Vice-President Joe Biden lay startling if not ambiguous claim to the  victory in Iraq as having been "A great achievement of the Obama Administration" on the Larry King Live show.

The fact that both Obama and the Vice-President had, over the past several years, continually lambasted the Iraqi conflict as being "unwinnable" did not seem to give pause to Biden's disingenuous crowing.  In truth, the current administration has had essentially nothing to do with the conflict in Iraq other than trying to pull American soldiers out in defeat prior to the surge championed by President Bush and Senator John McCain among others.

Both Obama and Biden had unequivocally stated in 2007 that the surge would not work due to sectarian violence.  Harry Reid had scurrilously indicated that "the war is lost."  Nancy Pelosi rather cravenly called Iraq "a failure."  It seems wise to always remember that these are the same individuals who think themselves competent to blueprint a "New America" after having been proven misguidedly wrong in their policy assertions time after time.  So far their "New America" has been an abysmal disappointment to us all as the Liberals in government perpetually seek any Federal cause that might avoid addressing actual problems.  As a result of this ongoing non-sense, the American people have made it clear that they would like an electoral do-over and, in the absence of that possibility, will settle for the closest thing come November.

Indeed we find it lurid that the Administration, after dispassionately inheriting an already won war, would then claim the conflict as their own victory after having spewed disparagement of it for so very long.  This while knowing the extreme left that is their base simply despises any war effort.  Yet we must also note that a victory of any type seems to be what this Administration so desperately requires in order to perhaps prop up what must be a severely lacking sense of success at this point.

Individual  Rights Are Important Unless....

The President, also laying dubious claim to the financial bail-out and the saving of the economy, while this also was accomplished by former President Bush, as well, with the dubious TARP bail-outs.  Obama's true claim to policy success might lie  in the Stimulus Package--had it actually worked.  But in fact the Stimulus only aided state governments and their overspent budget deficits but at a cost of increased benefits outlays by these same governments in the future--along with a long list of sad if not ridiculous items that seem destined to future comedy routines.

As the Constitutional onslaught continues, an ever more important question of individual privacy rights has also come into menacing question this week as a result of what some consider to be ambiguous laws as it regards modern cell phone tracking capability. In a case has come before the US 3rd Circuit of Appeals in Philadelphia which questions whether cell phone records are subject to a search warrant or not as a result of a Pennsylvania ATF drug trafficking case.

The fact that the Constitution is very clear on the matter of  "illegal search" under Amendment 4  did not phase the the Obama Administration.  In fact, the Administration stated that Americans "enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy" as it regards the Government's ability to track cell phones.  Please allow us to refresh your memory with regard to Amendment 4:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We believe that the above enumerated right can be easily construed as an individual right of security against any sort of government intrusion into an individual's right to go wherever they please without fear of being tracked by the equivalent of electronic blood hounds.  In fact, any erosion of individual security based upon electronic advances in technology should always be maintained as if the electronic tracking device were in fact an interested corporeal individual.  Such an interpretation--would then--be in historic league with the spirit of the individual rights as initially set down and intended.

Authoritarian Commandment # 1: Thou Shalt Not Expect Cell Phone Privacy

The simple fact is that the Liberal Democratic Executive Branch has come out in yet another Authoritarian snub of Constitutional Liberties this week by stating that Americans should not expect privacy as it regards cell phones, in an effort to further "protect" us.  While noting that certain aspects of  President Bush's Patriot Act were also rather damaging to individual liberties--no one can deny that the Leftward Leaning Politicians whom are now in positions of power were actually the first to decry Bush's Patriot Act when it was initially instigated.  The corrupting influence of power has apparently caused the former "eloquent champions" of obvious Constitutional Rights to lose their grip on what would seem to be the most basic of individual liberties--which brings up a most interesting issue.

In fact--that our Constitutional Liberties have seemingly been under assault for some time by those in power seems to be a source of ideological confusion.  Further, questions of what certain political affiliations and or ideologies believe or adhere to are also an ever-more prevalent source of angst as the political winds continue to steer us into the ideological position which those among us believe to hold strongest.  There are also numerous misconceptions at play that seem to be holding forth ever more prevalently as these ongoing political shifts in ideology occur.  In that vein, it might prove interesting to explore a few political disciplines and ideologies and define each as to its mainstays and belief systems.

Democracy versus Republic

Many are confused as to the actual political system America enjoys.  Some seem to think of America as a Democracy, which is not exactly true.  In fact, America is first and foremost a Republic and is formally defined as a Constitution based Federal Republic as opposed to a Democracy.  In order to understand the difference between these two forms, we must first look to the meaning of each:

A Democracy is defined as government by the people; especially a rule of the majority and a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

The problem of a pure Democracy is that, when a majority rules, certain individuals can be left out or selected against.  When a majority actually rules they, in essence, can take advantage of those whom are the lesser in number.  Racism and myriad such excesses could prove to be rampant when a pure majority rules.

A Republic is a political order whose head of state is usually a president and where the supreme power lies in a body of citizens but subject to laws as opposed to majorities. Citizens of a republic are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them in periodic elections.  A true Republic operates at a subservience to the law.  This allows the Government to be limited in the actions that it can take against its citizenry.

In fact, a Republic and its rule of law is what limits the excess of a majority when in power. Democracies, historically, have always been shown to eventually fail when the respective Government's intrinsically try to take on too much by way of over-redistributing capital while stifling individuals and eventually bankrupting itself in a self-defeating loop of ill-Designed Utopia to misery.

Democrats Versus Republicans

Understanding the philosophy of the two primary American political parties can, in many ways, be divined from the meaning of a Republic as opposed to a Democracy.  As we have now actually, if not painfully seen, the Democrats when in near total power will rely heavily on social spending programs via higher taxation and social activism. Most prefer larger Government and reactionary over-corrections, which while "normally well-meaning" will actually stifle a free-market economy while ultimately--if not ironically--harming the various groups they are trying to aid.  Conversely, Republicans tend to favor private enterprise, smaller Government and a powerful military, while espousing individual self-determination assuming they hold true to established ideals.

A natural offshoot to the ideology of the various parties would then be the age-old question of what defines Liberals as opposed to Conservatives.  There is no strict "easy definition" to this question, as the events and issues of the day often determine how one gauges one's ideology, but suffice it to say--true American Conservatism will overwhelmingly be grounded in upholding the ideals and the Government limitations of the US Constitution along with individual liberties and free market principles.

The Constitution and Its Champions

In stark illustration of this--the symptomatic problems which many Conservatives and Republicans can see as taking shape within our Republic is what has spurred the proliferation of Tea Parties and the like.  Many in the Media and the Liberal "Intelligentsia" point to these concerned and yet historically informed citizens as being radical right-wingers,dumb rednecks, etc.; however, this is an old Leftist's trick and bears little if any attention.

In fact, those who reside on the Extreme Left-side of Government are the ones who seem ever more hungry for the power to control people's lives in an effort to "help those less able" or seemingly "less brilliant" than they believe themselves to be in their "infinite wisdom."

Conservatives simply believe that all individuals are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and that further any Government of Man is woefully inadequate to determine such measure to each.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

~ Thomas Jefferson

Barry Secrest