Political Idol Worship

In my Facebook feed, I have lots of friends that have a picture of the First Family as a way to honor them and show their love for our previous president. I suppose their reasoning is that the Obama’s are a great example of what a family should be. Sorry, but the whole notion disgusts me.

The whole adoration of a President and his family sickens me because it implies that they are somehow superior to us, know more than us and should therefore be granted more privileges to govern in a manner they see fit. The fact is all tyrants believe they are somehow superior to the people and, once given unlimited power, tend to act in the cruelest and most oppressive manners.

It reminds me of the British propensity for endlessly fawning over the royal family. It takes no hard earned talent to become a royal. It a simple case of winning the genetic lottery. At least today it is. In centuries past, to become and remain a member of the royal family, one had to be willing to be ruthless, deceitful and the willing to use unrestrained physical force. The members of the royal family today are the direct descendants of some of the most vile people to have ever governed. They lived and prospered off the backs and works of others by benefiting from their ability to control, kill and enslave. Think I’m wrong? Henry VIII was just one example. He ruled England from 1509-1547 and was directly responsible for over 72,000 executions during his reign. This number does not include the numerous citizens he killed during wars with France.  Ironically, the premise of the television show  “Game of Thrones” is how European houses ruled their countries. The show’s popularity is partially based on the cruelty and depravity of its rulers.  Still, the British love their royals!

In the U.S, there is a movement called “reparations” which demands that African-Americans  be compensated for the crimes committed against them by their government. The hard part of reparations is determining a suitable payment plan for a group of immigrants with no long lineage to speak of.  Yet in England, there is no call for “reparations” even though those alleging wrongdoing could, in fact, trace their own lineage and that of their oppressors, back to some past King or Queen who committed great atrocities. There are no calls by the British people or their heirs for lands or lives lost as a result of the actions of past royals. There is only love for their descendants because the British people are committed to tradition and awed by the mystique of royalty.

The irony of political power is that people who would be best at its use avoid it like the plague…while those who seek it tend to be flawed, twisted individuals such as Hitler, Stalin and Castro: leaders who killed millions of their own through misuse and abuse of power. In modern U.S. history, aside from perhaps Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower who I would argue were called to power, the majority of U.S. Presidents have taken steps within the political system to amass, deploy and in some cases, hold on to power during and after leaving office. (Obama is so soon after office globe trotting for hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees in order to remain in the limelight and keep a firm grasp on the illusions of fame and relevance). Returning to a life of ordinary citizen, as exemplified by George Washington, is simply not in Obama’s playbook.

My outlook, generally, on politicians is that they tend to be some of the most unprincipled and immoral people around. Bill Clinton remains beloved by Democrats but I doubt any of them would leave their teenage daughter alone in a room with him. What bothers me are the rose-colored lenses with which the Left looks upon its chosen leaders, especially Obama.

Like any other political operative, Obama should be closely watched and monitored lest he destroy our country even now, out of office.  When he first ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his competitor Jack Ryan, had his sealed divorce records mysteriously released and was forced to withdraw from the race as a result. During his time as a community organizer, Obama spent most of his time working with Acorn; but, that organization had to be dissolved once they were caught engaging in major voter fraud. These are actions we should we should condemn, not condone, and certainly not ignore. Yet, for the Left nothing negative can be associated with Obama lest it be racist…and nothing negative about him gets media traction.

People have mistaken me as a Republican based upon my criticisms of Obama; but, I am not a Republican.. I am for any politician that believes in my Constitutionally protected freedoms, less regulation and less taxation.  Given that criteria, I am able to support very few politicians.

Barack Obama’s treatment of the Tea Party, the Justice Department’s investigations into their tax status and his use of the IRS to silence his critics makes Richard Nixon’s crimes pale by comparison. For many, Nixon will always be considered a pariah while Obama continues to be cast as a saint. Both of them should have been treated with scorn for their abuse of power. Yet, the Left’s vision is obscured by blinders as it continues to adore a President who ignored the Constitution, used government agencies as political weapons, and set back race relations to the 1950’s.

The Tea Party was created as a grass roots movement to stop many of the policies Obama wanted to implement. In Kim Strassel’s book , The Intimidation Game, the author details the vigorous enforcement and harassment of individuals who tried to create legally permissible political action committees supporting The Tea Party between 2010-2012.  Political Action Committees (PAC’s) are the best way for citizens to address their grievances towards the government. It is the ultimate check upon public servants by individuals. The effective silencing of the Right during this period essentially shut down The Tea Party. Kim Strassel’s conclusion is that Obama silenced them because they represented a real threat to his reelection. Had they been allowed to freely operate, the 2012 election might have turned out differently.

We live in challenging times of radical and rapid change.  We also live in sad times when the Left can view The Tea Party as being more of a danger to their well being than the threats posed by radical Islam. This fact alone should tell you how far we have fallen.

If we are unwilling to view all politicians, regardless of party affiliation, with a general sense of distrust and confer upon them the degree of scrutiny they deserve from us, we may well look back upon these difficult times as having been “the good old days.”

Steve

sleeclark@gmail.com

 

An Open Letter To Senator Ted Cruz

NOTE: Last week I posted an Open Letter to radio talk show host and author Mark Levin. Ironically, I am re-posting it here with one minor change. Its now an Open Letter to Senator Ted Cruz.

I was a Cruz supporter early and to the bitter end. I defended my support of him to my many friends and colleagues who could not comprehend why standing on principles was more important than winning. Now, sadly with Senator Cruz’s endorsement of Donald Trump, it seems the Senator doesn’t understand the distinction either.

In response to Senator Cruz’s justification, articulated this morning on the The Glenn Beck radio program, that its a “binary election” and therefore the reason he has decided to back Trump, I direct the Senator to my post to Mark Levin (re-posted below) who also perceives this to be a “binary election.” 

One week ago I was able to use Senator Cruz’s memorable speech at the Republican Convention to make my point to Mr Levin. I believe that the content of the speech still stands as truth. The only change is that Senator Cruz abandoned that truth.

I have a great deal of respect for talk show host Mark Levin.  As a lawyer, author of several outstanding books on the U.S. Constitution, cabinet advisor in the Reagan administration, chief of staff to Attorney General Ed Meese, secretary for elementary and secondary education for the U.S. Department of Education and deputy solicitor for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Mr. Levin can claim an impressive resume which garners him respect and credibility on matters of politics and policy.

Recently, on his syndicated radio show, Mr. Levin followed through with his promise to announce, post-Labor Day, for whom he would be voting in the upcoming Presidential election.  Early on, he had been a Ted Cruz supporter; but, once Cruz’s candidacy ended, Levin spent months railing against the weaknesses of both Clinton and Trump, so I was eagerly awaiting his announcement.

It came, as promised, earlier this week. Levin is voting for Donald Trump because this is a binary election. It is a rationale that, for me, is flawed.

We owe “binary thinking” to Aristotle. He was the progenitor of the concept of absolutes and dualistic thinking. Black or white…yes or no…up or down…summarized mathematically as “x” or “not “x.” (or think of it as X or Y).  It was, and still is the basis for decision making in Western cultures. In fact, its where we get the word dilemma, “di” meaning two and “lemma” meaning argument or choice.

It is in the West our method of thinking; but, it is not the only method of thinking. In fact, its a very limiting approach to problem solving. It is just such an approach that has caused Mr. Levin to think there are only two choices in November, making this the “binary” election he perceives.

Nagarjuna, Hindu turned Buddhist philosopher, lived about 500 years after Aristotle. He put forth the concept of a “tetralemma.”  Tetra means four and, as stated above, “lemma” means argument or choice. So in an Eastern approach to problem solving, there are four possible choices or resolutions:  (1) X;  (2) Y;  (3) both X and Y; (4) neither X nor Y.  Such an approach widens and opens up the possibilities and creative thought process for problem solving.

Back to Mr. Levin’s binary election. In the dilemma approach that Mr. Levin applied, he had two choices: X=Hilary Clinton or Y=Donald Trump. But in tetralemma problem solving we have (1) X=Hilary Clinton; (2) Y=Donald Trump; (3) =both Clinton and Trump; (4) = neither Clinton nor Trump.

Obviously number (3) is not an option. But number (4) is!  Mark Levin, and every other voter who thinks that neither Hilary Clinton nor Donald Trump is fit to hold the office of the Presidency, has other options. There are other candidates running. The Libertarian, Constitutional, and Green Parties all have candidates in this race. There is a write in option as well. I know the “dilemma” knee jerk reactions. People say either (1) a vote for any of those is a wasted vote or (2) it won’t matter anyway because the Electoral College elects the President not the popular vote. Again, thank you Aristotle!

I’d like to take a broader and longer view of the problem. I’d like to look at it as something other than an absolute and from a higher perspective as well.

When Ted Cruz spoke to the Republican Convention, he angered many Republicans by suggesting that people vote their conscience. He did not explicitly endorse Donald Trump and his suggestion was interpreted as having the effect of a vote for Hilary Clinton. But Cruz was doing what we say we want in our leaders. He was standing by his conviction. He was following his conscience and suggesting others do the same. He stood with his country, and his party, but would not overtly and in good conscience endorse a man he did not believe to be fit for the office. We would all do well to listen to our own internal guidance system, which some call intuition and others call “gut”, and act in accordance with its prompting.

Further, have we not learned by now that there are as many choices in or lives as we have the courage to make? Have we not yet come to understand that media and politicians and people who lust after power want us to believe we have only the choices they put before us? Have we not yet grasped the true blessing of free will… as well as the responsibility that accompanies it and the consequences of abdicating it?

I hear only one voice publicly espousing and living the broader option. Radio host Glenn Beck has held firm in that neither Clinton nor Trump is fit for office and so he is voting otherwise. Beck is more focused upon voting his conscience than on limiting himself to what externals tell him he must do. I get that. I didn’t vote for Barack Obama in 2008 because I had an intuitive feeling that he was not what he appeared to be.  Almost everyone I knew voted for him.  I look back knowing I did the right thing for myself and my country. In the end, that’s all we have. Our word and our conscience. I want to be able to live with both. I suspect so does Mr. Beck.

AI and technology are teaching us, at warp speed,  just how little we comprehend about reality and the limitless boundaries of human creativity and consciousness. We are on the cusp of experiencing just how literally we create our reality. And so, Mr. Levin, I already live in a world and have an understanding of the critical importance of my thoughts and my actions.

Therefore, Mr. Levin, this is not a binary election. To the contrary, it is much more than that. It is an opportunity to be the best we can be by refusing to settle for the least among us.  That is the future I and others are creating and we ask you to join us in that creation.

Carole Gold

comtact@carolegold.com

 

 

What al-Sisi Knows About Obama

This isn’t the first time I’ve written that I didn’t vote for Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012.

soros

I had my reasons. But today I listened to a caller, an African American man, who explained why he didn’t and it struck me like a ton of bricks.

My reason back then had been based upon a book I read by a former NY Times African American writer who, having been raised in a mixed family similar to Obama’s and shared significant other similarities, set forth the reasons why Obama didn’t know who he was. Wasn’t sure if he was Black or White. Didn’t know in which community and culture he belonged. The book was so well written, and reasoned, I closed it after the last page and knew Obama wasn’t fit for the job.

The rationale of the African American who called in today was quite different. He said, simply, “Obama was trained to be a community organizer. He was trained to play upon discontent, stir it up and use it to create civil unrest to accomplish a political agenda. This is who he is and this is why, eight years later, he has done just that to the nation. It is the unrest and violence that has erupted everywhere. It’s the effect of Alinsky-like tactics that he and those he surrounds himself with were trained in.”

Whoa!

It isn’t as though I didn’t know Obama was a community organizer or that he was friends with Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dorn, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Vann Jones and others.  Or that they all have Socialist leanings. Or that George Soros is funding the whole game. It’s that I never connected the dots in quite the way this guy had done it.

Suddenly, even the Muslim Brotherhood connection and support made sense.  After all, doesn’t radical Islam in its early stages (before it gets to the beheadings) use community organizing tactics to foment discontent within the Arab world? It would be a natural for Obama to find common ground with such organizations that were using the same, or similar, tactics and strategies he had learned to “help liberate oppressed” communities both inside and outside the U.S.

So the riots taking place across the country and the blood in the streets, such as tonight in Charlotte, North Carolina are the direct result of the down and dirty tactics of a community organizer dressed in Presidential garb and wrapped in an American flag.

He’s had, by the standards of the radical Left, a great run. He’s brought the nation within a stone’s throw of Socialism, brought bloodshed to our streets and imported enough radical Islamists to assure the inevitable, massive, terror attack just waiting to happen.

However, by the standards of freedom loving, independent, hardworking people everywhere, he has been a plague upon us. His protégé, chomping at the bit, wants you to elect her to continue his “legacy.” If we are blind enough and dumb enough to do so, it won’t be a legacy as much as a terminal metastatic event that will eat away at what pockets of health and sanity still exist within our Republic.

Sometimes the only way to really see ourselves is in the reflection of another.

Today, President al-Sisi of Egypt went public, having met with both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. No one knows the Muslim Brotherhood better than the Egyptians who, despite Obama and Clinton’s ill-devised support of the Arab Spring, unseated the Muslim Brotherhood and have been keeping them at bay ever since.  Al-Sisi and other high-up Egyptian leaders stated that they don’t trust Hillary Clinton and that they have suffered under the non-support of the Obama Administration as it cozied up to, and supported, the Brotherhood against the will of the Egyptian people.

So, if you’ve been unable to see Obama and Clinton for who they really are (and I am not a Trump supporter) take a look at our reflection in the eyes of the Egyptians.  For the moment, they are a lot closer to the problem, and far enough away from here, to have a vantage point you may not have considered. Looking through their eyes may open you own.

Carole

contact@carolegold.com

In Response To Mark Levin

I have a great deal of respect for talk show host Mark Levin.  As a lawyer, author of several outstanding books on the U.S. Constitution, cabinet advisor in the Reagan administration, chief of staff to Attorney General Ed Meese, secretary for elementary and secondary education for the U.S. Department of Education and deputy solicitor for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Mr. Levin can claim an impressive resume which garners him respect and credibility on matters of politics and policy.

options

Recently, on his syndicated radio show, Mr. Levin followed through with his promise to announce, post-Labor Day, for whom he would be voting in the upcoming Presidential election.  Early on, he had been a Ted Cruz supporter; but, once Cruz’s candidacy ended, Levin spent months railing against the weaknesses of both Clinton and Trump, so I was eagerly awaiting his announcement.

It came, as promised, earlier this week. Levin is voting for Donald Trump because this is a binary election. It is a rationale that, for me, is flawed.

We owe “binary thinking” to Aristotle. He was the progenitor of the concept of absolutes and dualistic thinking. Black or white…yes or no…up or down…summarized mathematically as “x” or “not “x.” (or think of it as X or Y).  It was, and still is the basis for decision making in Western cultures. In fact, its where we get the word dilemma, “di” meaning two and “lemma” meaning argument or choice.

It is in the West our method of thinking; but, it is not the only method of thinking. In fact, its a very limiting approach to problem solving. It is just such an approach that has caused Mr. Levin to think there are only two choices in November, making this the “binary” election he perceives.

Nagarjuna, Hindu turned Buddhist philosopher, lived about 500 years after Aristotle. He put forth the concept of a “tetralemma.”  Tetra means four and, as stated above, “lemma” means argument or choice. So in an Eastern approach to problem solving, there are four possible choices or resolutions:  (1) X;  (2) Y;  (3) both X and Y; (4) neither X nor Y.  Such an approach widens and opens up the possibilities and creative thought process for problem solving.

Back to Mr. Levin’s binary election. In the dilemma approach that Mr. Levin applied, he had two choices: X=Hilary Clinton or Y=Donald Trump. But in tetralemma problem solving we have (1) X=Hilary Clinton; (2) Y=Donald Trump; (3) =both Clinton and Trump; (4) = neither Clinton nor Trump.

Obviously number (3) is not an option. But number (4) is!  Mark Levin, and every other voter who thinks that neither Hilary Clinton nor Donald Trump is fit to hold the office of the Presidency, has other options. There are other candidates running. The Libertarian, Constitutional, and Green Parties all have candidates in this race. There is a write in option as well. I know the “dilemma” knee jerk reactions. People say either (1) a vote for any of those is a wasted vote or (2) it won’t matter anyway because the Electoral College elects the President not the popular vote. Again, thank you Aristotle!

I’d like to take a broader and longer view of the problem. I’d like to look at it as something other than an absolute and from a higher perspective as well.

When Ted Cruz spoke to the Republican Convention, he angered many Republicans by suggesting that people vote their conscience. He did not explicitly endorse Donald Trump and his suggestion was interpreted as having the effect of a vote for Hilary Clinton. But Cruz was doing what we say we want in our leaders. He was standing by his conviction. He was following his conscience and suggesting others do the same. He stood with his country, and his party, but would not overtly and in good conscience endorse a man he did not believe to be fit for the office. We would all do well to listen to our own internal guidance system, which some call intuition and others call “gut”, and act in accordance with its prompting.

Further, have we not learned by now that there are as many choices in or lives as we have the courage to make? Have we not yet come to understand that media and politicians and people who lust after power want us to believe we have only the choices they put before us? Have we not yet grasped the true blessing of free will… as well as the responsibility that accompanies it and the consequences of abdicating it?

I hear only one voice publicly espousing and living the broader option. Radio host Glenn Beck has held firm in that neither Clinton nor Trump is fit for office and so he is voting otherwise. Beck is more focused upon voting his conscience than on limiting himself to what externals tell him he must do. I get that. I didn’t vote for Barack Obama in 2008 because I had an intuitive feeling that he was not what he appeared to be.  Almost everyone I knew voted for him.  I look back knowing I did the right thing for myself and my country. In the end, that’s all we have. Our word and our conscience. I want to be able to live with both. I suspect so does Mr. Beck.

AI and technology are teaching us, at warp speed,  just how little we comprehend about reality and the limitless boundaries of human creativity and consciousness. We are on the cusp of experiencing just how literally we create our reality. And so, Mr. Levin, I already live in a world and have an understanding of the critical importance of my thoughts and my actions.

Therefore, Mr. Levin, this is not a binary election. To the contrary, it is much more than that. It is an opportunity to be the best we can be by refusing to settle for the least among us.  That is the future I and others are creating and we ask you to join us in that creation.

Carole

contact@carolegold.com