As predicted, Congress (after taking five more weeks of vacation) has returned to deal with the impending self-made crisis of the government running out of money before they will act.  The games being played in Congress have become so ideological, they are predictable to anyone with a brain and hence, are void of any authentic leadership.  The Founding Fathers and Framers would be amazed how this country has become so divided - not because of economic or racial issues, but because of what I like to call, "If I lose I am going to take my ball and go home" syndrome.  Instead of acting responsibly, Congress has ignored the reality of a government shut down all with the risk of serious damage to the Country's economy and credit.  I mean, who cares if the government shuts down?  How about all of the rest of us Americans that believe that government is something more important than a bargaining chip to be played at the high risk tables controlled by interest groups and ideologically driven demagogues.
     Just look at what has happened since the re-election of Barack Obama.  Has anything come out of Congress addressing the important needs for infrastructure improvements and spending?  Nope.  Has anything been done to assist middle class families get by (ie., tax breaks or incentives when those families face crippling student loan options for their children to obtain a quality education)?  Does anyone else feel a bit uncomfortable with the current talking points and narratives that "not everyone is cut out for college?"  Although I agree with that sentiment, I cannot agree with it being used in a broad sense.  If money is the only reason some are not "cut out for college" then we must do something to remove that hurdle so that students otherwise capable of successfully obtaining a higher education have the chance to do so!   
     What about all of the recent efforts to cut food stamp assistance to the poor?  Under the guise that they are "moochers and takers", the poor not only take the blame for a country's fiscal house being in disorder, our Congress makes sure they are also the first to suffer with cuts to supporting programs.  Food?  I mean, who needs to eat.  It reminds me of the old joke "eating and sex…its like breathing - you never miss it unless you are not getting enough!"  No one in America should be starving for food. No one.  But that's "socialism" you say!  I guarantee you that a vast majority of Americans couldn't define socialism even if given a primer by talking head pundits.  
       Speaking of talking head pundits, the Sarasota County Republican Party did it again!  Last year they named Donald Trump their "Statesman of the Year" - apparently because of his leading efforts to portray Obama as "UnAmerican" and ineligible to be President (thanks to Ted Cruz, we now know how hypocritical those on the Far Right can really be).  So this year, the group names Fox New's very own Sean Hannity as their Statesman of the year!  Sean Hannity?  When did he negotiate a treaty with a foreign country?  When did he address a major policy problem and provide solutions that led to a betterment of society?  "Statesman" is defined as "one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies" (Merriman-Webster Dictionary). Where in this definition can anyone find anything Mr. Hannity has done to deserve this illustrious title?   Regardless, the local GOP's event was filled to the brim with a reported 1600 in attendance.  And what did Hannity say to the crowd that got it on its feet?  "We should be so lucky' Hannity said of a shutdown..."there's one day we don;'t have to pay taxes, anyway."  Huh?  His assessment of the GOP if a shut down happens?  "...it will lead them to great success!" (Sarasota Herald Tribune, 9.28/2013).  "Success" for whom?   Sounds really statesmanlike, doesn't it?  I guess after losing the White House to the Democrats, Republicans need to get themselves excited over anything they can get.   But Republicans (once again) have forgotten that a vast majority of Americans do not agree with their extreme views.  Most Americans are suspect that the talking points and narratives about ObamaCare are slightly "off-base" and have become viewed for what they are - political rhetoric.  In fact, according to the Pew Research Center, 57% of Americans believe a compromise must be made to avoid a shut-down, yet 71% of those identifying themselves a "Tea Partiers" want the government to shut down.   Are so blinded by a hate for Obama, their ideology of demand, demand, extort and if losing, "take the ball and go home" is all they have?  Most Americans have not forgotten the last time the GOP pushed for the debt ceiling to be ignored.  Thinking themselves clever, the GOP pushed the country to the brink, resulting in America's credit rating to be downgraded.  Why?  So they could then blame Obama as the first sitting President to preside over an economy where America's credit suffered.  This was a clever twist on the concept of the GOP killing their parents and then demanding mercy from the court as an orphan.  Despite their best efforts, Obama was re-elected.    Yet now polling indicates that both parties will be blamed for a shut down.  But what is this ultimate threat really about?  ObamaCare?  Has anyone really thought about the real impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act?  Has anyone been really honest in this debate?  
     So where are we now?  Sen. Ted Cruz stands before an empty Senate Chamber (except for a few of his fellow minions, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio) to take up space to make a point that ObamaCare must be repealed.  Except the entire effort was nothing more than a self-promoting charade.  When the chance came up to delay discussion on the Senate budget bill including provisions to fund the government (including ObamaCare), who voted to close the debate so a vote may be had?  None other than Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and EVERY SINGLE SENATOR.  The Cloture Vote was 100-0!  So much for wanting to delay anything…until after Cruz had the national attention of the media and his less than educated supporters in the Tea Party.
     Ah the Tea Partiers.  Hello folks.  They are NOT a movement any longer.  The sooner the American public recognizes they ARE the GOP,  the sooner they will be marginalized and real work can be done again in Congress.  I have met many Tea Party supporters and I have found they are legitimately concerned about America and the course we are on.  The only problem with them is that they lack an understanding of what America was really founded on and how the Constitution created a system of Federalism.  As a result, the gullible masses of the Tea Party blindly follow the talking points and narratives of the ideologically supporting for-profit media.  As such, they are simply the victims of manipulation.  Hell, even when the movement started, their very own founders were kept in the dark believing they were a real grass roots movement.  They had no clues they were being manipulated by the Koch Brothers and their funding was Astro-turf and not home grown.   But where is the media to ensure distortions are identified and corrected?  Where is the Media to shame others within the industry for perpetuating lies in order to only abandon their traditional roll as the "Fourth Rail " of government, but to now become the adjunct for political persuasion and power?   Why else would those on the Far Right still "tar and feather" the  liberally control "Lame Stream Media?"   How can these very same folks believe this while also bragging that Fox News has the largest audience in the broadcast media?  If Fox is the biggest and greatest, aren't they then a major player in the Media?  Perhaps then the Left should begin labeling Fox and its fellow media as the "Fake Stream Media?"  But labels are just that - intellectually lazy approaches that substitute real discourse on real problems, not those created to distract.   Which gets me to my main point.
      The Democrats have allowed all of the misinformation about ObamaCare to linger in the hopes most Americans will figure out the Republicans' real intent - to delegitimize a Democrat in the White House (they have engaged in this same tactic ever since Woodrow Wilson's Presidency).  Same old, same old.  But Democrats have not adjusted to the fact that "Fake Stream Media" now has a bigger influence over shaping public opinion than ever.  How else would an entertainer and political flame thrower like Sean Hannity get standing ovations for making proclamations that the Framers of the Constitution would consider treasonous?   Why haven't the Democrats done a better job of defining ObamaCare?  Why have they allowed the GOP to control the message since 2010?  Why do they allow the GOP to set an agenda that brings us repeatedly (again) to the brink of self-made crises?  Because the Democrats believe that the GOP will eventually implode under the weight of their own distortions and narratives?  But how many Americans now believe everything the GOP says about "Progressives, Communists and Socialists?"  How many Americans believe that Sarah Palin was right when labeling government review boards as "Death Panels" or Michele Bachmann's claims that ObamaCare will "Kill Women, Children and Senior Citizens?"  Democrats dismiss this nonsense for what it is, nonsense.  But uneducated Americans, susceptible to manipulation by the likes of Cruz, Hannity, Trump, Palin and Bachmann see it only in the light cast down by their ideological leaders.  They do not have enough sense to realize they are being manipulated.   An supporters of the Democratic Party seem disinterested in detailing the hypocrisy of the Right?  Why?  Perhaps because there is enough hypocrisy on the Left as well!?
      When Obama hit his stride with the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, Republicans immediately crafted a message that those following Obama were "Sheeple" who "drink the Obama koolaid."  Doesn't it still amaze you how many folks that preach a life that is totally opposite from their public stance?  How many "religious and family oriented"  men and woman get caught up in sex scandals?  How many preach law and order only to find themselves indicted for wrongdoing themselves?  How many Republicans AND Democrats fall into this category of shame?
       So once again we are at a crossroads.  Democrats are just as much to blame for the ideological wars splitting our great nation apart.  Both seek power and the money that flows from interest groups.  The Media has become lapdogs that have abdicated their long-standing role of reporting news, instead of creating it.  Media's First Amendment rights were created to allow it freely critique government and political affairs, not become their adjunct communication arms.   Until Americans can trust a real watchdog Media, America is in jeopardy of being a stagnant and divided nation.  It's time for REAL Americans to stand up and demand real leadership from members of Congress,  Enough rhetoric.  Enough self-aggrandizing promotion.  Enough gamesmanship and brinkmanship.  We need LEADERSHIP! If they cannot get it done, it's time to Sweep Congress Clean in 2014. Republicans AND Democrats!   As President George Washington once wrote; "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself frightful despotism.  But this leads to a more formal and permanent despotism."  And the Tea Party calls Obama a tyrant?  Revenge is not an American virtue.  It is a current political play for naked power and its time for Americans to demand we elect real leaders that put ideology aside and America first!

    Just returned from the Florida Authors and Publishers Association's 2013 President's Book Awards ceremony held last night in Daytona Beach, Florida.  Along with a great dinner and social hour, I was fortunate to be included in last nights honorees for this years FAPA Awards.  Awards are awesome to receive, but even better when they are received amongst colleagues and fellow winners!  "How Our Government Really Works, Despite What They Say" won a FAPA President's Book Award Gold Medal in the Category of Education and a FAPA President's Book Award Silver Medal in the Category of Current Events/Politics.  Many thanks to the members, judges and Board of the Florida Authors and Publishers Association for these awesome book awards!  

    With all of the talk about whether to strike Syria, I could not help but notice an article published in our paper by our local U.S. Representative,  Vern Buchanan.  It was not that Mr. Buchanan disapproves of President Obama's initial desire to attack Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons that caught my eye, but it was his explanation as to why he opposes the President.   In his article, Buchanan legitimately points out that taking sides in a civil war is problematic for obvious long-term reasons, while also pointing out there are serious doubts whether any such U.S. involvement will help in the long run.  When it comes to this position, I find myself in agreement.  But Mr. Buchanan did not stop there with his opposition to any US intervention in Syria.  He went on to make a couple of points that I find both predictable and disturbing.
      After making his point about Syria clear, he could not avoid falling into the now-common GOP talking points that attack Mr. Obama. Instead of ending his Op-Ed on a serious note, Buchanan claims that the United States can no longer afford to be the World's Policeman, because of high unemployment and "skyrocketing deficits." Excuse me, but unemployment has steadily been dropping (currently 7.3, lower than when Obama took office in 2009) and according to the Congressional Budget Office, next year's projected federal spending will be reduced by approximately 80% due to Sequestration cuts.  You know, that darn C.B.O. - the one federal group that is NON-Partisan and whose mission is to always accurately report on the nation's actual spending. If I was to inform my students that I dropped their class grades 80%, do you think they would celebrate that their grades would be "skyrocketing?"  You see, Mr. Buchanan, like all well-trained Republicans these days, can't seem to avoid politicizing everything, even if it comes at the expense of national security.  National Security?  Huh?
      Mr. Buchanan asks in his Op-Ed whether the United States can afford to be the World's Policeman.  Really?
Seems Vern thinks (as suddenly do many of his Republican supporters) that it is too damn expensive policing the World and that we need to pay more attention to our national needs (as IF the Congress has done ANYTHING towards approving internal infrastructure projects in the past 3 plus years)!  But that too misses my point. Instead of asking whether the United States can afford to be the World's Policeman, I would pose the same question to Mr. Buchanan differently - "Can the United States afford NOT to be the World's Policeman?"  Is there any single country capable of protecting American interests across the globe better than our own military? Can we trust anybody else to become the World's Policeman if we choose to step away from this enormous responsibility?  I certainly would not!
       But what gets me irate with Mr. Buchanan and his supporters' logic is the sheer lack of thought behind the notion.  I mean, Vern and his supporters seem to be placing a dollar value on the cost to be the World's Policeman instead of paying attention to the costs in human lives and dollars to earn it.   Since Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policy of "Walk Softly and Carry a Big Stick", the United States has, in our own self-interests taken the role as policeman and done so gladly.  In fact, through WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam and countless "police actions", the United States has already spent tremendous amounts of treasury providing such services to the World.  I'm not saying the United States has always done the right thing in intervening in disputes around the World, but to simply opine that we "cannot afford to anymore" turns our backs on the brave men and woman of the Unites States armed forces who through the years, have sacrificed their lives and bodies to safeguard American interests around the globe.   We have invested dearly with our military personnel for over a hundred years.  To simply turn away from that sacrifice because it might cost too much money is irresponsible and down right disrespectful.  Do we have to stick our noses into every World conflict? No, and we don't.  If we did, we would be actively engaged in current battles all over the World.  But, if we find a conflict demanding our attention, we are ready (as we should)! And for those agreeing with Mr. Buchanan that the U.S. should not get involved in every Middle-Eastern conflict, does that include protecting Israel should it be attacked again in the future?  
     The last thing Buchanan mentioned also offends me.  Below his Op-Ed was a paid advertisement of a public town hall meeting on Syria.  According to the Ad, citizens were welcomed to come out and voice their opinion on the matter (as if they have a better access to foreign intelligence information than a United States Congressman). According to the local paper, the Town Hall was filled with citizens opposed to intervening in Syria.  And most agreed we can no longer afford to be the World's Policeman (Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sept. 15, 2013). 
     I am not saying we should join our president in a lock-step approval of his actions.  Personally, I OPPOSE intervening in Syria.  But, can his political opponents please stop using lame excuses to use the Syria matter as fodder for their perpetual obsession for what I like to call Obama-Tourettes.   Yes, America has paid dearly to become the World's Policeman, paid with both a treasury of money and military lives.  Yes, we need a clear vision of our objectives before utilizing our military strength.  But to proclaim alleged dismay that our enemies perceive the President as "Weak" and a "Failure" proves how dishonest his opponents are.  After all, these terms have been familiar elements of his political opponents' rhetoric since before the man was inaugurated.  
     Am I disappointed in Obama?  You bet!  Do I think he is weak?  Yes, but only because of the self-inflicted, poorly crafted policies pushed upon him by his advisers.   Do I think he made a critical political mistake seeking the advice and consent from Congress for Syrian intervention?  Yes!  As a result, Mr. Obama may become one of the earliest presidents to attain "Lame Duck" status so far ahead of upcoming Mid-Term elections!  Is it any wonder the disingenuous debt ceiling arguments are being raised again by the Far Right?  Will their obsession to succeed in shutting down the government in return for a refusal to erase Obamacare from the books prevail?  
   For Obama's opponents to politicize everything, without regard to the complexities of Ge0-Political realities reflects a basic ignorance of diplomacy and foreign policy.  When it comes to foreign policy, we need an honest debate before committing American troops. But to even remotely forget the human sacrifice made by our brave members of our military over the past one hundred years because of the perceived dollar costs of protecting the World is short-sighted and incorrectly politically based.  I mean, where were all of these isolationists when George W. Bush and his administration beat the war drums for intervention in Iraq?   As President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said; "Our problem, then, is not our strength, it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow" 

     For the president's entire tenure in office, opposition leaders led a chorus of rhetoric laced with allegations of  a "Failure to lead" and of a president having an unclear and "ambiguous" foreign policy.  The Speaker of The House and his supporters in the Senate used their positions to lambast the president at every turn in an effort to convince the American public that the president had a basic misunderstanding about the role America played in the World and that the Commander In Chief was aimless and in need of Congressional guidance.  The media tore the president apart for failing to advance the obvious objectives of those demanding America take on anyone that stood in the way of the country's vital national interest.  And what did the president do?  When he was finally exasperated with the constant obstructionism of his political opponents, he finally gave up his authority under Article II of the Constitution and abdicated his responsibility to the Congress to decide whether America should enter a War that many were unconvinced was necessary.
        The president that allowed us to go to an unpopular war that led to a failure to meet pre-war objectives?  Not Barack Obama, but President James Madison, Founding Father and Framer!  That war?  The War of 1812! Congress, led by the War Hawks and Speaker of the House Henry Clay, proclaimed repeated outrage at the British policy of interfering with American merchant ships and impressing American sailors.  Britain itself was focusing instead upon the Napoleonic War in Europe and had little to gain from a war with America.  The real reason for the Americans to demand a war was the naive belief former American loyalists would support U.S. intervention in Canada and a subsequent civil war that would lead to the annexation of Canada into America. 
What it did result in was a loss of over 1,300 American lives and the Executive Mansion (White House) being burned by British troops.  With the valiant fight in Baltimore Harbor (see F.S. Key's Star Spangled Banner), America was able to sue for peace offering nothing more than a stalemate with Britain (See Treaty of Ghent).
       My point is this - President Obama was painted into a corner by the war hawk Republican opposition.  Their constant demands relating to Egypt and then Libya and now to Syria pushed Obama into a diplomatic corner by rendering him "weak" in the area of foreign policy.  As a result, Obama miscalculated by allowing these modern day war hawks to define his foreign policy through the media.  By doing so, Obama acquiesced and publicly expressed a very public "Red Line" that would force America's military hand.  Since we already have declared such a line with Iran, the opposition and their supporting media have painted a picture of Obama as a "failed leader, leading from behind" that has "severely crippled America's standing and credibility in the World."  Obama's reaction?  Push the decision to attack Syria onto the Congress - a group that has become so dysfunctional no more than 22 bills have been passed in the current session (2/3 less than the Truman declared "Do Nothing Congress" - 1948).   But does America really have to engage in any military action in Syria as claimed by the War Hawks?  Should the United States intervene in a Civil War in which our interests may lose, no matter who is victorious?  If we are sending a poor message to Iran, perhaps military intervention there would dissuade naysayers?  
         To add insult to injury, Obama's political foes created the talking points and narratives that Obama was a failure before ninety days of his first term had passed.  Fox and other like-minded ideologically supporting for-profit media have continued to paint Obama as something "less" than a real American, yet today they proudly proclaim the World views Obama as "weak" and "ineffectual."  Could it be the result of GOP's constant bashing of Obama?  As I have written earlier, how patriotic is it for Obama's political opponents to tear apart the sitting Commander In Chief while our enemies evaluate the president's ability to act in the foreign policy arena?  Wasn't there a time (not so recent past) that Americans did not disrespect a sitting president when it came to foreign policy or the military (see the Dixie Chicks)?  Just recently a County GOP Party email blast painted the "Invisible Liberal Left" when it comes to moving forward with war plans.  But what exactly has been established and proven that requires an American military response in Syria?  And the War Hawks claiming Hussein's WMD's are all really in Syria is another nonsense argument (yet many a Fox News viewer accept it at face value).  
         President Obama has no one but himself to blame for the corner he is currently in when it comes to Syria.  Most Americans did not "buy into" the Benghazi rhetoric coming from his opposition.  So why the faux push for military intervention in Syria?  A "Red Line has been crossed!"  But has it?  And why do chemical weapons earn the right to condemnation in the form of U.S. action when thousands are killed all over the World by bombings, beheadings, tribal wars (our eventual use of cruise missiles), or shells and bullets utilizing depleted uranium or White Phosphorous? Why are these weapons deemed "acceptable?"  Dead is dead and nothing brings victims back to life.  And what happens when it is quite possible nothing is accomplished by our intervention?  What damage will result to American foreign policy then?  And at what human cost and treasury?  Have we learned absolutely nothing from the war in Iraq?  
        If there was ever a "Red Line" we should prepare to enforce, it is with Iran and its suicidal insistence on obtaining nuclear weapons.  Iran will use their nukes and we therefore, will need to stop them before they can. Perhaps it would behoove us to plan  a real strategy for stopping Iran rather than hastily planning to temporarily soothe the War Hawks in Congress with an inconclusive intervention in Syria?  As President George Washington said in 1796, "...it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet be reproached with ingratitude for not giving more.  There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation.  It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard." Perhaps Obama should read more about the War of 1812 and the first war America did not win?