Some narcissists who are in positions of power, but believe more power should yet be theirs, seek to make the entire world their stage. But what will they risk to achieve this end? Will they dismantle the world's greatest democracy?

Today, I suspect the founding fathers of this country must be rolling in their graves. For years, we have talked about the wonderful system they put into place, especially because of all of its checks and balances.

I suppose this presented an irresistible challenge to some suffering from pathological levels of narcissism, however. Could the greatest democracy in the world withstand the tinkering of brilliant men like them?

Yes, this was probably a challenge simply too good to resist.

The honorable men who were our founding fathers undoubtedly wanted to believe that only honorable men would lead this country in future times, too. Obviously, though, they weren’t naïve about human nature, especially the nature of the narcissistic, or those men who would be Kings.

Yes, they likely realized some people might be inclined to manipulate our government for their selfish ends. And yes, some of these same people might lie or cheat their way into positions of power, only to display their true colors after much damage was already done to this great nation.

The founding fathers realized this country had to be protected from people who might be inclined to demonstrate that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Except really, don’t most people tend to behave consistently? Thus, as the narcissistic attain more wealth and power, they will engage in even more self serving behaviors—with the intent of gaining even more wealth and power yet. Kind and benevolent people, on the other hand, will likely use their wealth and power for philanthropic endeavors.

While our forefathers would probably be dismayed by what is happening today, I suspect that some of the instigators of these destructive actions are laughing loudly and gleefully. They are probably bursting with pride because they have shown their ability to manipulate a system once thought to be immune to such manipulations.

Like the hacker who might bring a major company to its knees by infiltrating its computer system and data processing, could our country fall because of the games narcissistic leaders play?

No one likes to think of that possibility. But as I watched Ken Burns's powerful documentary on PBS about World War II in recent days, a film told from the perspective of American citizens who fought in the war plus family members at home who prayed for their survival, I was reminded of how the actions of one man led to the destruction of millions upon millions of people.

I suspect when most of us have given thought to this World War, we were inclined to think primarily of the millions that died in the concentration camps. Did we overlook the millions who died trying to rectify what one man had set into motion?

Hitler might have died in the war he brought on. But before he shot and killed himself, did he sit back and bask in the knowledge he had been the cause behind so much havoc, death, and destruction worldwide? I suspect he might have done so. Certainly, he assured himself quite a place in history. And for some people, even negative attention is better than no attention whatsoever.

Certainly, I hope an increasingly destructive scenario doesn’t get played out in this country and other parts of the world. But since the game of narcissistic leaders might well be to see how much more power they can confiscate, including in our country where the founding fathers had tried to ensure this never happened, in doing so, they could destroy our democracy.

Do they themselves seek to be destroyed? I suspect not. However, many narcissists will march forward to the point of self destruction in their quest for more money, more power, or those spoils of war. Also, they really don’t care who or what they take down with them. I also suspect that rather like the suicide bombers, they might believe their lives had ended in glory.

Indeed, we can’t afford to sit back, complacent in the belief that the destruction of our country is an impossibility.

By: Diane England, Ph.d.
Diane England, Ph.D. is a clinical social worker with degrees in family studies and child development. Discover articles about his narcissism, addictions, and abuse plus her likely codependency as well as recovery through personal development and spiritual growth at http://www.NarcissismAddictionsAbuse.com.

I recently heard about a young mother who received an unexpected call from a collection agency for a bill for a medical test that was performed on her infant son two years ago. Certainly, it's a hassle for this busy working mother to go through her records to try to prove that she never received the original bill. But I'm betting this mother is thankful that she lives in a country where she can still choose her children's doctor…where her children can receive prompt medical care…and where she can rest easy at night knowing that competent care from her pediatrician, ob/gyn, and family doctor is only a phone call away.

The issue of children's medical care is now centerstage in our national political debate, due to the controversy over the State Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as SCHIP. President Bush has pledged to veto a compromise bill that would expand the program, calling the plan a move toward "government-run health care for every American."

The draft compromise legislation would mean some 35 billion additional dollars would be pumped into the program over five years. As a result, total spending on SCHIP would be a whopping $60 billion. As you might expect, the growth in spending would be paid for through a tax increase—in this case, an increase in the tobacco tax.

The President further stated, "I believe this is a step toward federalization of health care," noting that the Congressional plan "is beyond the scope of the program, and that's why I'm going to veto the bill."

Keep in mind President Bush is what's known as a compassionate conservative. In other words, he's not against government programs. In fact, he's not even against expanding SCHIP—he himself is asking for $5 billion more for the program. He's made it clear that he wants poor children to have health insurance—he just doesn't want to bankrupt families while doing it.

The Democrats approved this pork barrel plan knowing that the President would veto it. As the President has stated, "Members of Congress are putting health coverage for poor children at risk so they score political points in Washington."

As evidence of that, consider this statement, issued by the Democratic caucus in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives:

"President Bush is about to punish thousands of Pennsylvania children whose 'crime' is that their working parents cannot afford expensive private health insurance. He is threatening to veto legislation that would reauthorize and improve federal support for state children's health insurance programs because, he says, it's too expensive.

"Yes, President Bush, caring for kids costs money. That doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in them. The low- and middle-income working parents who are struggling to meet their kids' basic necessities are what Pennsylvania's Children's Health Insurance Program is all about."

What low- and middle-income working parents really need is for our public officials in Washington to hold the reins on runaway government spending. They need their tax bills reduced so that they can stretch their hard-earned dollars to pay for necessities—including health care for their children.

The last thing they need is for Uncle Sam to determine the course of their children's health care. Yet, that's exactly what the Democratic leaders in Congress are pushing for. Call it what you will—I call it universal health care—another name for old-fashioned socialism.

By: Nathan Tabor
http://www.theconservativevoice.com.
Nathan Tabor is the Founder and CEO of TCVmedia.com and TheConservativeVoice.com. After just eighteen months, TheConservativeVoice.com gets over 250,000 unique visitors a month, 1.7 million page views and has over 150,000 email subscribers. The Conservative Voice has over 100 columnists and features up-to-the-minute news. He is heard daily on over 250 stations nationally with AConservativeMoment.com.

Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.

Take a break, have some laughs, visit our Lawyer Jokes pages.

For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.

After watching the interview by Chris Wallace of former president Clinton the thing that struck me most was not his self-righteous anger but that people are still buying his act. Those on the left of the political spectrum here in the U.S. are indeed fools. If they are not fools then they are traitors. Either way they should be kept from high office. By high office I mean they should not ascend higher than say, plan review in a local building department. That is as long as they're not structural plans.

By Clinton's own admission he tried and failed to capture or kill bin Laden. If only bin Laden were an obscure Christian sect living in Texas (Waco) or a small child from Cuba (Elian Gonzales) maybe then the full weight of the Federal Government could have been brought to bear on bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

No, all bin Laden did was orchestrate a few terrorist attacks against U.S. Troops: the U.S.S. Cole, the Khobar Towers and launch simultaneous attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa. These offenses were not serious enough to warrant Clinton getting creative with the law (as he is wont to do) and get rounds downrange to kill bin Laden.

I needn't get into the first attack on the World Trade Center. I won't even bring up the fact that September 11 was planned years in advance of its execution, nor will I mention Able Danger or Jamie Gorelick's memo putting up a wall between our intelligence agencies or the incident in Somalia now known as "Black Hawk Down" in which we lost 19 Army Rangers. Following this debacle the military was forced to withdraw by the new president.

As Commander in Chief he was sorely lacking. As soon as he took office Clinton implemented his homosexual advocacy program known as "don't ask don't tell." What possible good came from that is a mystery to me. Before you start whining about discrimination I will remind you that it is an honor to serve in the U.S. Military not a right.

One of Clinton's motives for this could have been his open contempt of the armed services and those that serve therein. Incidentally, Clinton was good enough to put that in writing to a colonel on a draft board during the Vietnam War. While pleading his case to stay out of the military Clinton wrote, "so many fine people find themselves loathing the military". Perhaps he was repaying a debt to far left campaign contributors. Either way it seems a strange way to start your tenure as Commander in Chief. Compounded with the fact that Clinton did not win the popular vote and was elected with a very slim majority of electoral votes he certainly made no attempt to govern from the center. Nor did he win the popular vote in his second term. Do the words, " No clear mandate" ring a bell?

Very credible rumors abound of Hillary Clinton berating Marines and demanding they not wear their uniforms in her presence. She is not fit to carry their water let alone have them serve her. The fact that she is a senator from New York does not escape me. It does astound me however. A very timely pardon of some Puerto Rican terrorists by Bill may have played a role in Hillary's election. The Clinton model for handling terrorists leaves much to be desired.

With very credible allegations of rape (notice it is plural) and Clinton’s horrendous treatment of and taste in women you see where the title “The Louse That Roared" comes from.

If only Clinton could have worked up that much rage over the Chinese stealing nuclear secrets (or was that buying nuclear secrets?) my children could be safe from Chinese nuclear missiles for another 20 years or so. Clinton signed many a waiver for Loral Space to sell very sensitive guidance systems to the Chinese. This technology moved Chinas I.C.B.M. program from 30 years behind ours to as close as 3.

Save your bluster Bill. Hillary will not win. Feigned outrage may work to jinn up some more cash but the folks that were going to donate to you and yours would do it without the sideshow.

By: Dan Doherty
Dan Doherty is the creator, editor and author of http://www.strikebackusa.com. He is a former Recon Marine. Dan served as a squad leader in an infantry company in the first gulf war. After rotating back to the U.S. and recieving an Honorable Discharge from the Marine Corps Dan attended UMass Boston. At UMass he studied political science, psychology, international relations and philosophy as an undergrad. Dan is a journeyman Ironworker out of Local 7 Boston. He is also a lieutenant on a metropolitan Boston fire department. He is also a hazardous materials technician. In the year 2000 Dan was awarded the Medal Of Valor by Governor Cellucci for saving the lives of three people in a fatal fire. This award was given in conjunction with the Firefighter of the Year Award.

The number one New York Times bestselling author Bernard Goldberg is back with more hard-hitting observations and no-nonsense advice for saving America from the lunatics on the Left and the sellouts on the Right.

In Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right, Goldberg speaks for the millions of Americans who are saying: Enough!

Enough of lunatics like Rosie O'Donnell who think "Radical Christianity"--whatever that means--is "as big a threat to America as Radical Islam." Enough of the hyperbolic liberal rhetoric comparing Bush to Hitler and Abu Ghraib to a Saddam Hussein torture chamber. Enough of the liberal media, in particular the New York Times, which Goldberg claims doesn't publish "all the news that's fit to print" so much as "all the news that fits our ideology." And please, enough of the military-hating crazies who run San Francisco! ("Just what this country needs," Goldberg writes, "a city with Rice-A-Roni and a foreign policy.")

But Goldberg doesn't stop with the crazies on the Left. Speaking for fed-up conservatives, he also goes after the wimps on the Right--the gutless wonders in Washington who sold out their principles for power.

He's had it with hypocritical Republicans who say they're for small government but then spend our hard-earned tax money like Imelda Marcos in a shoe store. He's also had it with the weak and timid Republicans who won't stand up and fight against racial preferences, too afraid that the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world will call them bigots. In plain English, he's had it with Republicans who are afraid to be conservative!

By: J Camerlin
Get your copy of Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve and decide for yourself.
I am an engineer who is looking at all sides of the party to establish which one is best to serve our country.

"We finally got the troops there. Americans have got to understand, it takes a while to mobilize additional troops and move them from the United States to Iraq. We got them there, and now we're beginning to move."-President George W. Bush, Speech at the Naval War College, June 28, 2007.

With these words President Bush reminded the nation that the new security plan for Iraq, the so-called "surge," was only now really getting underway. Unfortunately, when the discussion concerns Iraq, many Americans tune the President out, his words no longer carrying the weight they once did. But perhaps the words of the senior counterinsurgency adviser in Iraq could prove insightful, or even useful, for those longing for an understanding of what's really going on in and around Baghdad. I'm not talking about General David Petraeus, the man charged with executing the current strategy. No, the guy I'm referring to is David Kilcullen, a former Australian Army officer and one of the world's foremost theorists on counterinsurgency strategy.

In a posting last month on the Small Wars Journal Blog, Mr. Kilcullen laid out for readers what he called a "basic understanding" of what's transpiring on the ground right now, from the perspective of the top guy advising Petraeus on counterinsurgency operations:

"This post is not about whether current ops are ‘working,'-for us here on the ground, time will tell, though some observers elsewhere seem to have already made up their minds (on the basis of what evidence, I'm not really sure). But for professional counterinsurgency operators...the thing to understand at this point is the intention and concept behind current ops in Iraq: if you grasp this, you can tell for yourself how the operations are going, without relying on armchair pundits. So in the interests of self-education...here is a field perspective on current operations."

Addressing those who are already calling the "surge" a failure, Kilcullen says:

"Ten days ago, speaking with Austin Bay, I made the following comment: ‘I know some people in the media are already starting to sort of write off the ‘surge' and say ‘Hey, hang on: we've been going since January, we haven't seen a massive turnaround; it mustn't be working'. What we've been doing to date is putting forces into position. We haven't actually started what I would call the ‘surge' yet. All we've been doing is building up forces and trying to secure the population. And what I would say to people who say that it's already failed is ‘watch this space'. Because you're going to see, in fairly short order, some changes in the way we're operating that will make what's been happening over the past few months look like what it is-just a preliminary build up."

Shortly after that comment, on June 15th, U.S.-led forces began a series of offensive operations in Baghdad and the surrounding areas, the true beginning of the President's "surge." Kilcullen then describes in detail in the post how the new strategy will work:

"These operations are qualitatively different from what we have done before. Our concept is to knock over several insurgent safe havens simultaneously, in order to prevent terrorists relocating their infrastructure from one to another, and to create an operational synergy between what we're doing in Baghdad and what's happening outside. Unlike on previous occasions, we don't plan to leave these areas once they're secured. These ops will run over months, and the key activity is to stand up viable local security forces in partnership with Iraqi Army and Police, as well as political and economic programs, to permanently secure them. The really decisive activity will be police work, registration of the population and counterintelligence in these areas, to comb out the insurgent sleeper cells and political cells that have ‘gone quiet' as we moved in, but which will try to survive through the op and emerge later. This will take operational patience, and it will be intelligence-led, and Iraqi government-led. It will probably not make the news (the really important stuff rarely does) but it will be the truly decisive action."

Currently, the counterinsurgency efforts Kilcullen describes are taking place not just in Baghdad, but throughout Iraq. Ongoing operations across the country continue to net insurgents, terrorists, and weapons that are perpetuating the ongoing violence and the offensives are producing an environment conducive to winning the support of the population. As Kilcullen says, "The point of the operations is to lift the pall of fear from population groups that have been intimidated and exploited by terrorists to date, then win them over and work with them in partnership to clean out the cells that remain...."

And keeping with classical counterinsurgency theory, Kilcullen makes it clear that the Iraqi population is the true target of the "surge":

"Therefore-and this is the major change in our strategy this year-protecting and controlling the population is do-able, but destroying the enemy is not. We can drive him off from the population, then introduce local security forces, population control, and economic and political development, and thereby ‘hard-wire' the enemy out of the environment, preventing his return. But chasing enemy cells around the countryside is not only a waste of time, it is precisely the sort of action he wants to provoke us into. That's why AQ cells leaving an area are not the main game-they are a distraction. We played the enemy's game for too long: not any more. Now it is time for him to play our game."

While I'm all for forcing the enemy to react to us for a change, I fear that Mr. Kilcullen is placing too much stock in Iraqi security forces that have thus far shown little willingness to put national well-being ahead of tribal or sectarian loyalties. But then he has far more expertise in counterinsurgency operations than I do, and I for one am willing to defer to his knowledge, experience and on-the-ground sense of what's really happening in Iraq.

Kilcullen also gives readers a sense of what's expected of the Iraqi government, and a realistic outlook for what lies ahead:

"It will be a long, hard summer, with much pain and loss to come, and things could still go either way. But the population-centric approach is the beginning of a process that aims to put the overall campaign onto a sustainable long-term footing. The politics of the matter then can be decisive, provided the Iraqis use the time we have bought for them to reach the essential accommodation. The Embassy and MNF-I continue to work on these issues at the highest levels but fundamentally, this is something that only Iraqis can resolve: our role is to provide an environment in which it becomes possible."

While I don't think there's any doubt about the ability of American troops to give Iraqis some breathing space, there are serious doubts about the ability of al-Maliki's government to do what is necessary to capitalize on our investment of additional American lives. Will the Iraqis, after more than four years of brutal fighting, finally put aside their differences and work together for a greater Iraq? I don't know, and so far the signs have not been encouraging.

But that doesn't mean we should just throw our hands in the air and walk away from the mess that has been created. The consequences of such an action are too severe, and too frightening, for us and for the rest of the world. Instead, we should stop the pointless partisan bickering and listen to experts like David Kilcullen. We have some very intelligent people in place in Iraq, and they know their business. Now is the time to let them do what they do best.

By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com
Greg Reeson is a Senior Writer for The New Media Journal and a Featured Author for The Veterans' Voice. He also regularly contributes to GOPUSA and The Land of the Free.

Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.

Take a break, have some laughs, visit our Lawyer Jokes pages.

For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.

James Madison once remarked, "with respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." In writing that letter to James Robertson, he reiterated the sentiments he shared with the nation in Federalist 41 where he denounced objections by the anti-Federalists to the term "general Welfare" being included in the Constitution because of it's presumption of an unlimited and open ended scope as without "color".

The fear of federally elected politicians being able to curry favor with their constituents by bringing home the bacon in the sense of tax dollars was why under the Constitution our government was given only limited powers to tax and spend. The founders knew that what have become known as "earmarks" would not serve this nation well and would corrupt the intent of limited government.

Why did Madison and the vast majority of Federalists say that the "general Welfare" clause was limited to the set conditions that followed? So that leaders of our government couldn't buy votes!

Over the years since however we have basically amended the Constitution through court orders and legislation (neither of which are means by which such action can be achieved mind you) to say to heck with all that nonsense! And we see where it is now getting us. "General Welfare" has come to mean anything and everything some politico in Washington can dream up.

What do we have today? We have Republican Congressmen from Alaska like Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young that are kings of pork barrel spending and who year after year take money home to their state for pet projects such as the affectionately called "bridge to nowhere" among many, many others.

We have people like Rep. Sam Farr, Democrat, CA who pushed for $25 million to benefit spinach growers to be added to an "emergency" supplemental spending bill. Must be some spinach "emergency" we are not aware of!

Then there is House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, Democrat, Minnesota who continues to send taxpayer dollars each year to mega-farms and giving 50% of the money for unconstitutional subsidies to just 4% of America's farmers.

Perhaps we should ask Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota under what authority of Article I, Section 8 he sought fit to secure over two million dollars in federal loans for the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad because they weren't making enough money on their own to pay for improvements and expansions?

Oh, but let's not forget Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who, if the truth be known, has more than his share of buildings in the state of West Virginia named after him because of all the money he has brought back to help build them. Not to mention that he has secured money for such unconstitutional projects like the "the Wood Education and Resource Center". $2.7 million of our tax dollars went to that to teach you and I about wood.

Thank God for government! I do not know how I would have learned anything about wood without this great organization! Honestly, the average American probably knows more about wood than anyone at that ridiculous place though. And those that have taken this money are no doubt busy studying the contents of Mr. Byrd's head apparently; a perfect specimen of wood.

And while we're in West Virginia, let's not forget about Byrd's partner in crime, Representative Allan Mollohan, who funneled $250 million dollars to non-profits which he himself set up. Conflict of interest? Or what about John Murtha? Ah yes, good old John ... the man has more money going to his district, which includes Johnstown, PA for "defense" projects that it is amazing there aren't aircraft carriers sitting in Laurel Ridge State Park!

And all the while, the people who these Congressmen represent as well as those of countless others with their hands in the proverbial "cookie jar" cheer. "What great things they are doing for our region!" they cry as they fawn over the money. And they empower our elected officials to continue to push for these monies year after year. And year after year we spend more and more on these earmarks at huge cost to the tax payers.

But that's ok right? Because the evil "rich" pay those taxes. And we know they are not paying their "fair share" right? And then we wonder why we are paying so much more for the goods and services we buy as these costs are passed on to us.

Meanwhile? These politicians are laughing all the way to the bank. Because they know you will keep voting for them as long as they bring home the pork and train you to salivate on cue. Yes, they've got us right where they want us.

By: J.J. Jackson
J.J. Jackson is the owner and Editor at Large of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free and American Conservative Daily. He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts and Evil Conservative T-shirts.

Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.

Take a break, have some laughs, visit our Lawyer Jokes pages.

For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.