I've been hearing about "the will of the American people" so much lately it's starting to sound like a slogan. Of course, this "will" is a crucial underlying principal of our government. We elect our leaders to make decisions based on this will, but that is not their only consideration to that end. If that was so, we ultimately would not need elected officials, as everybody could vote on every issue, and pure majority rule would guide this country along its path. And I believe that path would lead to disaster.

We've all heard the phrase "death by committee." That describes a situation where everyone puts in their two cents, and rather than resulting in a carefully thought out plan to advance a particular project, it usually ends in... disaster. While each individual in the group probably has sound reasons for their particular viewpoint on the project, trying to incorporate these disparate views ends up stalling the project, or results in a final product that falls far short of the intended goal.

Apply this principal to the stewardship of a company, for example, and the company will likely founder. That's why a company has a president, CEO, or other leader who ultimately steps up and, after review of these conflicting viewpoints, and with knowledge of the ultimate goals of the company, makes a final decision that everyone may not be happy with, but ultimately will benefit the company and result in a more desirable outcome.

Apply this principal to the governing of a nation, and the result will likely be policies that satisfy many in the short term, but in the long term bring the nation to near ruin. That is why our forefathers here in the United States, with great foresight, devised a system of government that allows for the hearing of these viewpoints and the redressing of grievances, but ultimately has in place leaders who can evaluate the viewpoints and make decisions based on a combination of the will of the people and what they themselves believe is the proper course of action.

One of the most polarizing figures in this system of government is, and always has been, the President of the United States, by virtue of being vested with the title Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Wise as our forefathers were, they had fought many battles to win freedom and independence for our nation, and they were blessed with the knowledge and experience that warfare cannot be practiced by committee. There is no room in the theatre of war for a majority rules approach. Of course, that does mean that the commander should not listen to the will of the people from which he derives this power. But that also does not mean he should change his strategies to the whims of this group, once the warfare has commenced.

So, when I hear the current majority in Congress keep repeating the phrase "the will of the American people," it makes me wonder whether they understand what is truly at stake. I am reminded of the story I have heard about the Vietnam War, where an American stated that the North Vietnamese were not following the codes of conduct of the Geneva Convention, and the North Vietnamese soldier replied "what are you talking about? This is war." The enemy is in it to win. Our commander-in-chief is in it to win. But many American people, understandably war weary and wishing for an end, are not.They would gladly vote for the short-term gain of bringing our soldiers home, while neglecting the larger strategy of actually attempting to win the war.

Thankfully, we have a commander who understands that the war must be won, not merely ended because we no longer wish to fight. That's why the President has been given the ultimate decision as commander-in-chief. Because when we decide we wish to end a war, he knows that the enemy may not make the same decision.

Occasionally I read liberal media sources like the Daily Kos and The New York Times, as I believe it is important to hear all sides of an issue, even if it is from a source I don't agree with. Reading Kos this morning, I came across the "Foxhunt" strategy, where a group of progressives are organizing to hurt Fox News by going after their advertisers. This is in reaction to Bill O'Reilly calling The Daily Kos "haters" and "hatemongerers."

"Remember, we didn't start this battle. Bill O'Reilly, going after JetBlue, did. But they aren't the only people who can play this game anymore."

In any case, the Kos bloggers obviously did not like being called "haters," so their reaction is to try to hit Fox News in the pocketbook. Here is what I find interesting about this:

1. The Daily Kos cannot deny being a source for hateful postings. Anybody who reads this blog is confronted with smear tactics on a regular basis, many of them profanity-laden.

2. The Daily Kos claims that Fox News is not "fair and balanced" and only presents a conservative viewpoint, which anybody who has actually watched Fox News can easily dispute. I have seen O'Reilly and others actively play "devil's advocate" and take stands they obviously do not agree with to try to present both sides of an issue. In addition, O'Reilly is a commentator, not a news reporter, so he is free to interject opinion into his show. This is a distinction that seems to be beyond the intelligence of the progressives who wish to smear him. The inability to discern commentary from news reporting seems to be at the heart of the liberal argument against Fox News, as liberals just can't seem to tell the difference.

3. The Daily Kos holds Fox News to a different standard than they do to the rest of the main stream media. The "Foxhunters" on The Daily Kos claim that one of the reasons for attacking Fox News is that Fox News doesn't admit that it has a conservative bias, so it must be silenced. They even make a distinction that it's okay for Rush Limbaugh to speak from a conservative viewpoint because he admits to being a conservative, while Fox News does not. This, of course, is an entirely ridiculous double-standard. By that reasoning, most MSM outlets should also be taken to task for not admitting their liberal bias. It's no secret that most of the main stream media slants to the left but do not admit that they do.

It is my opinion that many of the editors of the Daily Kos can thus be called hypocrites. In between their postings speaking out for free speech and equality, they post diatribes that contain hateful name-calling and profane speech, and will work to try to censor any source that does not agree with them. They cherry pick quotes and video sources and place them out of context, and then claim that Fox News shows only one side.

For example, today the Daily Kos home page featured a video with clips from Fox News that is a brazen piece of propaganda. The video claims that Fox News is distorting the truth on global warning, and contains only clips showing people claiming global warming to be a myth. Of course, Fox News has had people commenting on all sides of this issue, including those who would agree with the liberal-progressive stance on the issue. But you would never know it from this video, because we are shown only those who disagree with that stance.

What's even worse is that the Daily Kos and other liberal-progressives would actually prefer only one side of the issue be discussed - the side they agree with. For Fox News to show both sides of the global warming issue bothers them to no end. If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is.