As we approach the end of 2013, we all have to admit that it has been a year of accusations and deceptions worthy of any top ten list in history.  I mean, throughout 2013, we heard non-stop use of the words "Lies" and "Liars" in arguments ranging from Benghazi,  the Affordable Health Care Act, to the NSA's over-reach into our private lives and privacy all told by the slimy and disgustingly
"Un-American" Obama Administration.  But what "lies" are real?  
       We have also heard the constant clamoring for the impeachment and/or arrest of Obama for, well, just being Obama.  But the lying, distorting and outright onslaught of allegations by members of Congress and their supporting Media also have taken center stage in the arguments asserting "we need to take America back!"  My constant question has been "from whom?" If it is the pursuit of the faux argument that Obama is a "tyrant" then no, I am not interested.  If you are fighting to free America from the over-extended reach of corporate America and its related Super-PACs and Astro-turf entities, than I'm all in.  But where does the truth come into play?  When can we all expect the truth to "rear its head" and destroy the myths popularized by certain members of Congress, their supporting ideological interest groups and Media?  Are you holding your breath yet?
          True to form, Sarah Palin was in the news (again) not because she is a darling of the intellectual class in America, but for her "down home, folksy, telling it like it is" opinions.  This time, she publicly took to the airwaves and social media to blindly support the "Duck Dynasty" guy when his ugly statements about Gays and Blacks were published in GQ Magazine.  Really, GQ?   Am I missing something here?  Anyway, typical of Palin, when pressed about why she believed the guy was only speaking of the "Gospels" she learned more about what the guy actually said.  Not surprisingly, Palin admitted she never read what exactly was said, so she just reacted (as usual) viscerally/emotionally to what she was told he said (in an effort to show his support for real "American Values"). Once again, Palin engaged in the current practice of many Americans to "shoot first and ask questions later" when it comes to subjects near and dear to them.  Classically defined as Selective Reinforcement, Palin exhibited a reaction that has unfortunately become standard practice for many, many Americans.  "If I don't agree with what is said, I attack it and if I agree with what is said I applaud and promote it."  The only problem with this behavior is the admission that none of the positions articulated need be based upon fact, just gut-wrenching emotions.  What response was there for Palin's admission she had no real idea what the Duck guy had said?  Not much.  You see we as a society have become numb to pundits and purveyors of lies that we just readily accept them and perpetuate them.  Why?  Because somehow it makes folks feel smarter (and perhaps better with themselves).  Personally, when I make a mistake, I at least try to accept it, apologize and pledge to do better the next time I speak.   But not in America; now we just clamor on down the road "Standing our Ground" no matter whether it is atop quick sand of deception and lies.  I know, I am ranting.  But I am beginning to see this type of "denial" behavior in my everyday life.  Folks I know opine freely when it comes to history and politics, but rarely are correct.  And instead of accepting their ignorance of the facts and the need to learn more, they resent being corrected and become defensive to the point that one wonders whether they are really interested in anything remotely tied to the truth?
          Which gets me to my final point.  Most of the nonsense perpetuated by the Right Wing and its supporting Media (Fox, Newsmaxx, Brietbart, Drudge, et al) have continued to paint Obama as a liar.  Although they have struck a real chord in America when it comes to the ACA (which may still prove them all to be wrong), they really earned the Liars of 2013 Award for their continuous attacks on Obama over Benghazi.   Seems, Lyndsey Graham, Darrell Issa and their fellow Republican "Truth Seekers" have known all along that their allegations of wrongdoing by Obama in the Benghazi tragedy have been lies.  Instead of Obama being the liar, they have been the liars and continue to be so.  According to an article by David D. Kirkpatrick just published in the New York Times, the tragedy of Benghazi was not a well planned al-Qaida mission, but instead was an attack put together by local militants that had previously sought and obtained US support against Gadhafi.  More importantly, the researchers found that many of the local militants were spurred into action by the repeated broadcasting of that inane Anti-Islamic movie over Egyptian television - you know the one, that very one Susan Rice was eviscerated  over.  Seems the film was one of the reasons for the tragic reaction in Benghazi!  Is it possible that the New York Times is covering up for the Obama Administration, as any "Lame Stream Liberal Media Outlet" would?  Or is it possible that those crying "Wolf" have themselves been "pulling the wool" over a large segment of American society that reacts before engaging (what's left of) their brains?  Can we expect (please) a new round of exposes on those members of Congress that have kept the truth from the American public in a cynical effort to manipulate public opinion against Obama (and more importantly Hillary Clinton)?  Ah, but many will then shift gears and claim the article proves the Obama Administration had no clue about how to handle the events leading up to the tragedy!  Yes, it does.  But so did the bombing of our troops in Beirut under President Reagan, the bombing of North Vietnam by President Nixon and for argument's sake - foreign policy mistakes that can be traced as far back as 1795 and the Jay Treaty fiasco (feel free to look it up).  
          So my wish for 2014 is for the American public to re-engage their brains (they do have them) and begin to wonder what angle is being employed by politicians and their supporting Media when making outlandish statements, especially those designed to manipulate through emotional talking points and narratives.  As President Woodrow Wilson once quipped; "I not only use all the brains that I have, but all that I can borrow."  Isn't it time for Americans to start using their brain first, before strictly borrowing those from the likes of Sarah Palin, Darrell Issa, and their related ideologues in the Media?  And just to keep it square - I tell everyone of my students to be cynical with anything I tell them and to independently look up facts for themselves.  Even I have an obvious bias, but one thing I am consistent with is encouraging my students and readers look things up for themselves!  Now if we could only get all Americans to start doing so in 2014!  Have a great, happy, healthy, safe and prosperous New Year filled with intellect and brain power!  

    Recently, a couple of folks supporting Lyndon LaRouche set up shop in my town in front of a Publix grocery store, seeking financial support and signatures for a petition demanding the impeachment and arrest of President Barack Obama.  Unfortunately, their makeshift tent included eye-catching signs depicting Obama as Hitler with the caption proclaiming Obama a "Tyrant."  Predictably, some local folks parted with their cash and signed the petition.  Two of the new supporters interviewed by the local newspaper indicated they supported the notion Obama is a tyrant worthy of comparisons with Hitler because of his "unlawful executive orders and moves to amend laws."  Really!  
      Since I have explained the sheer lunacy and ignorance of these folks with my classes, one of my students informed me she could not help but ask a teacher known for their ideology about their thoughts on Executive Orders. Their response?  "Executive Orders are unconstitutional as evidenced by the overreach of the Obama White House!"  As my students have learned, nothing is actually considered unconstitutional unless and until the Supreme Court has so ruled, so they were all taken aback by such a comment.  You see, Executive Orders have been signed by every president since George Washington (with the exception of Harrison who fell ill on inauguration day).  Not only has the Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of Executive Orders, but Obama has signed far less than many of his predecessors to the office.  
      Knowing opponents of the president will grasp at anything to discredit and/or delegitimize  Obama, they fail to recognize Republican presidents routinely signed Executive Orders as well.  Would Obama's opponents criticize Republican  presidents for their extensive use of Executive Orders too?  I wonder?  Where was the outrage when President Calvin Coolidge signed 1,203 Executive Orders?  Herbert Hoover's use of 968 such Orders?  Or Reagan's 381 or George W. Bush's 291?  According to Obama haters, the president has signed far too many to be legitimate.  The total number through Obama's presidency until today?  166!  Yes, One Hundred Sixty-Six such Orders have been signed by Obama.  Overreach?  Unconstitutional?  Hardly! And what about future presidential use of Executive Orders?  Would there be such outrage if a President Perry, Christie or Cruz used Executive Orders like their predecessors?  Doubtful.
      Cue to the real problem with the LaRouche portrayal of Obama as Hitler (and any previous or future president's portrayal).  Obama is NOT a tyrant.  Obama is NOT Hitler.  If he was, those setting up the tent and those signing the petition would have been treated quite differently.  Instead of being allowed under the First Amendment to freely speak and assemble, a tyrannical Obama would have dispatched secret police to approach the dissenters in front of Publix and proceed to very publicly put a bullet into each of their heads, leaving their bodies as evidence that opposition of any kind would not be tolerated.  Anyone comparing Obama to a tyrant or Hitler should be ashamed.  Nothing in the modern World comes close to the tyranny of Hitler and his fascist regime. To compare Obama to Hitler weakens the public's perception of the true evil incarnate in Hitler and his fascist followers and perpetuates the myth about Obama while demeaning the survivors of the holocaust, the brave American GI's that fought to defeat Hitler's Fascist Germany and the presidency itself!
        Yes, history repeats itself, but some things must surely be guarded against - and that is the tyranny of ignorance!  As Winston Churchill once famously wrote; "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."  Although Americans do have a Constitutional right to be stupid, it is certainly not an American virtue.   Have a great, safe and happy week!

     As we head into the holiday season and we are reminded of the "spirit of the season" to help others less fortunate, let us ponder the current efforts by some to trash minimum wage earners by skewing opinions that reveal an indifferent or condescending attitude towards economic realities.   We all know there is an effort underway by many in the fast food industry to raise the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15.00, but what are the arguments for and against such a raise?  Well, could it be that the current arguments against raising the minimum wage are the very same arguments traditionally raised by pro-business pundits for decades?  "Raising wages immediately either cuts into the profits of a business or all increased labor costs will be passed along to the consumer.  Either way, the economy suffers and the average stiff will be paying more for goods and services." " Government should not dictate the wages of labor that is free to contract already with employers!"  Sound familiar?  Add a touch of anti-labor sentiment and you have duplicated the exact same argument raised by the mine owners in the Anthracite Mine Strike of 1902.  No, I am not going to lecture on American labor history, you can look that Strike up if you like.  My point is simple - every time there is an effort to raise the minimum wage, pro-business/pro-profit ideologues raise the same tired flags of opposition.  Why, because once again, the American public is misinformed and too lazy to engage critical thinking.  I mean, it's easier to be told the same talking points over and over and then dismissing reality than to think for ones self anymore (thank you media).
         Case in point.  How many Americans currently are employed at minimum wage?  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a whopping 3.7 million workers out of a total of 138 million working Americans earn the minimum wage of $7.25/hour.  So, no more than 2.6 % of American workers would be affected by increasing the minimum wage.  More importantly, out of this group, millions of Americans work jobs that are exempt from the minimum wage!  Huh?  The Federal Minimum wage for waiters, waitresses and hotel/motel maids is not the lofty and luxurious $7.25 pro-business advocates claim.  It is actually a paltry $2.13 per hour!  How many of you tip the maid when leaving your hotel daily?  Yet, wait staff are paid tips (that vary by every customer on every meal), and their employers collect set prices and never have their wage tied directly to the whims of a consuming (and fickle) public.   So why the hysteria about rising costs of goods and services if the minimum wage is raised if so few Americans currently earn the minimum?  Because any effort to pinch employers' profits is seen as Anti-American and viewed instead as a "socialist" attempt to improve the economic lives of folks "deserving" such low pay. Ironically, these pro-business folks are also the same Anti-Immigration advocates that claim immigrants take good jobs from unemployed Americans (meaning White Americans).  Except, could those that have ceased looking for employment be tied to the notion that work requires clothes, transportation and perhaps child care, and minimum wage can't begin to cover these real expenses?  And what about the fact that prior to ObamaCare, minimum wage workers had no access to employer provided health insurance, so their health needs were routinely paid for by the rest of US?  All to ensure profits for big businesses like McDonalds and WalMart?  Some American dream huh?  Name one person that enjoys being poor or wishes their family could always be poor!
        Housing costs have risen considerably since the last time the minimum wage was raised (2009).  Average rent for a place to live in 2009 was $780/month and now is over $1,045/month.  But who needs to worry about a roof over their heads, right?  Gas in 2009 averaged $2.61/gallon and today hovers around $3.91/gallon (average over all of 2013).  But the poor can't afford a car anyway, so who cares?  Bread went from $1.77 a loaf to $1.88, eggs from $1.34 to $1.54 and toilet paper from $3.49 to $3.96, just to name a few necessary commodities.  All the while the minimum wage earning poor can afford less and less, corporate employers and their bosses are making more and more.  Just take a look at the Dow Jones Average. In 2009 it was 9,131 and today, Dec. 15, 2013, it is 15,755 (enough said).
        'Tis the season to stop listening to the pro-business anti-labor factions and start realizing that the American Dream is about moving ahead in life, not being pushed further and further behind while relying on the faux generosity of big business.  It's time to review what it will take for all Americans to have a threshold of economic security, and its time to tell the pro-business pundits and ideologues that they have had their way for far too long. It's time to end the American nightmare many working poor face daily.  As Republican President Theodore Roosevelt once said; "Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of modest means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our natures."  Envy and hatred indeed!  Have a great week!

        Did anyone catch President Obama's live interview with Chris Matthews on Hardball this week.? Matthews and Obama met before students at American University to speak about a variety of topics, including Obama's remaining second term strategies.   Honestly, for the first half of the program, I continued to read and write on my laptop, but suddenly a question was posed to the President that caught my attention.  The issue?  The size of the Federal government.  As most are aware, the Far Right Tea Party contingent in Washington continues to slam the Federal Government for its ballooning size and inefficiency, so I focused my attention on what Obama had to say about this topic.  To my utter amazement, the President explained a long-standing effort to shrink the government. Whoa now.  Did I hear that right?  I immediately set aside my laptop and focused in on what Obama was saying.
         According to the President, he has been trying now for about five years to have Congress address serious inefficiencies in the Federal Government. He has been asking that several agencies be consolidated in order to promote efficiency and cost savings.  Obama cited an example that a small business owner seeking answers might have to consult five different Federal agencies for simple answers, instead of consulting just one.  Obama then stated that he has tried to convince Congress to consolidate many of the duplicitous agencies but all efforts thus far have been unsuccessful.  When asked why his efforts have failed, his response fell directly into the curriculum I am currently teaching my students.  
        Under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress can create Federal departments, agencies and Cabinet positions.  Also under Article I, only Congress can fund these departments, agencies and Cabinet positions.   By having such authority, Congress maintains what is commonly known as the "Power of the Purse" - which includes the ability to maintain oversight over them all.  
        According to the President, every time he has addressed the issue of consolidating wasteful agencies and departments, Congress itself has declined!  Obama indicated that by consolidating four or five departments or agencies into single more efficient entities, a like number of Congressional Oversight Subcommittees would also have no further reason to exist, hence the reluctance of members of Congress to give up any individual power they may have.  When pressed further, Obama stated he would continue over the next three years to address this serious issue.  I sat dumbstruck after hearing Obama's claim!  A "liberal, Marxist, Socialist, Kenyan, Muslim" president actually calling for the elimination of wasteful government agencies and departments - shrinking the size of the Federal Government?  Had I really fallen asleep on my couch only to be transported to a parallel universe to hear such talk?  Not surprisingly, his comments received no traction from the Media!
          If Obama is being truthful in this regard, then why has he not made this a serious topic for bully pulpit use? Why hasn't he been telling the American public on a regular basis that he wants to shrink the size of the Federal Government but has been hampered (and/or obstructed) by Congress?   It certainly gives one pause to think.
         When I mentioned this to a couple of my "fair and balanced friends" they immediately reacted. "He never said that!" "Obama is a LIAR, he never wants to shrink the government!"  "Under Obama the government continues to expand!"  When I pointed out that I agreed Obama has done a poor job of communicating (virtually everything) to the American Public, they seemed a tad mollified, but they then went on a screed that Obama's unemployment numbers are also a "Lie" because the 7% unemployment rate included Federal Workers returning to work after the shut-down furloughs.  Clearly my "fair and balanced" friends do little to learn anything except that which is broadcast to them by their supporting ideological media!  How come?   According to the most recent jobs report, unemployment HAS been cut to 7% due to unexpected jobs growth, not including the return of furloughed Federal employees (they were accounted earlier in the October jobs report).  (See; 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2013/12/06/jobs-report-u-s-economy-added-203k-jobs-in-november-unemployment-down-to-7/).    More importantly, Federal employment has been trending down over the past several months, despite the return of furloughed workers (See; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/12/06/federal-workforce-declines-even-as-overall-jobs-picture-improves/).
         So instead of perpetuating politically designed and orchestrated talking points and narratives about the President simply being a "Liar", perhaps folks should be reviewing news from sources that do not promote themselves as "Fair and Balanced?"  As mentioned last week, when a strong majority of Americans distrust each other and now boil down their entire understanding of their President as a "Liar", perhaps it is time to step back and see the "forest from the trees."  According to all financial indicators, the economy is improving and America is actually moving forward, despite the rancor and distrust fomented by pundits and their ideological For-Profit supporting Media.  As President Harry S. Truman once said; "You can never get all of the facts from just one newspaper, and unless you have all of the facts, you cannot make proper judgments about what is going on!"  Proper Judgments indeed!  Have a great week!

         Just this past week, as Americans were seemingly enjoying preparations for Thanksgiving and running up their personal debt for gift-giving, an Associated Press-GfK poll was released asking folks how much they trust one another.  Not surprisingly, the poll found that most Americans are less trusting of one another than ever before.  According to the poll, "78% have little faith in people they meet, 75% mistrust people driving cars while they are driving and 67% have little confidence in people that swipe their credit cards when they buy something."  According to University of Maryland professor Eric Uslaner, "People who believe the world is a good place and it's going to get better and you can make it better, will be more trusting" while "if you believe it's dark and driven by outside forces you cannot control, you will be a mistruster."  (See: http://ap-gfkpoll.com/).  Hmm, what to make of this?
        When Americans feel things are "out of their control" they mistrust more.  I wonder where people could have ever gotten the impression these days that things are out of their control?  It wouldn't start from economic inequality would it?  It wouldn't come from education inequality would it?  It wouldn't come from political rhetoric reinforced time and time again with calls of "we need to take back our country" would it?    It sure seems a lot of people are mad these days.  Mad about government, social interactions, money, and I guess life in general. But how does this reconcile with the public face of thanksgiving and the upcoming holiday season of "Good Will to All Mankind?"  If we are a mistrusting nation as a whole, aren't we simply kidding ourselves when we rationalize the holiday spirit for a temporary gratuitous purpose?  
        Recently, addressing the homeless has become a major issue in our area of Florida.  Being homeless is a problem, but it is not the sole problem folks out on the streets face.  Psychological, economic and societal factors play a huge role in determining their collective predicament.  Yet, as the issue is moved to the forefront, local citizens have voiced their indifference to those in desperate need as instead being "the underclass of society" who somehow enjoy their low station in life.  Amazing how just those views alone make myself less trusting in my fellow man (whom is obsessed with their own personal wealth and happiness to the exclusion of those less fortunate).
        And it goes much deeper than just dealing with the homeless.  Americans mistrust their fellow man so much they see no need to share collective obligations to pay for local schools and health care.  A letter was printed just today in the local newspaper that says it all about our society.  It reads, "It's not fair to have to pay school taxes if you don't have kids.  It's not fair for young, healthy people to pay more for health care so that the old and unwell can be insured.  It's not fair to have to help the homeless who have self-inflicted drug and alcohol problems and will not help themselves... these are forms of wealth redistribution..Makers should not be punished by making them support takers." (See Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 12/1/2013).  Do I trust this gentlemen to determine what is fair or unfair in today's World?  Uhm, NO!  There but for the grace of G-D go I and I will forever believe that I am not simply lucky to have what I have, but also Blessed.  If I am blessed, does that mean that the sick, poor, hungry and homeless have somehow been forgotten by G-D?  Do some have no sense of morality today in America?
       And doesn't some of the blame for our current mistrust of others have to do more and more with the role our Media plays?  Shouldn't the Media stop bashing everything that goes on in this world by sensationalizing it as a form of Infotainment and instead start educating Americans again as to what is really going on and what can be done to improve our lives and those that share our communities? Caring for American society should not be considered being a liberal or a conservative.  Caring for fellow Americans should be considered being a real American!  Frankly, reading letters and message board postings (that are seemingly popping up everywhere) is beginning to shake MY trust in America.   I maintain that losing sight of what "community" means is far more dangerous to America than fearing and mistrusting perceived redistributions of monetary "wealth."  
      As President James Madison once wrote; "I have no doubt but that the misery of the lower classes will be found to abate whenever the Government assumes a freer aspect and the laws favor a subdivision of property." I suppose if someone wrote that today, Americans would claim it to be  "an Un-American thought." I will put my trust however, in Washington, Franklin, Adams, Madison and Hamilton - and all of my fellow Americans that feel an obligation towards all fellow Americans.  Have a great week!