I'm Sorry, I Can't Resist Posting This

Here is an email I received this morning from one of my students of this past semester. About the only thing I agree with him about is his conclusion in the second sentence of the first paragraph....but I do appreciate the thoughts. This is one of the nicest letters I've ever received. It's not every day I get called insane (I'm not being facetious about the "one of the nicest letters I've ever received." I appreciated this very much.)

"Professor Lewis,

I gotta be honest with you. When I first heard you lecture on the first class I thought you were a raving psycho. But on the second day you proved me wrong. The more I listened to you the more I found that we have a lot in common, especially the fire and the passion for history. I have never seen a teacher that teaches with so much fire in my life. ON the contrary I do believe that you can predict the future using historical knowledge. The more I went to class the more I was influenced. I was going to to pick you for all of my history class. (even considered teaching, although I have not the tolerance) Hell! I was even considering taking a bible class if you taught it and I'm not even a religious man. But I guess your calling is in the orient in Singapore. I am a musician, amateur screenwriter, and a history aficionado and you have brought great influence in all of those.

Also, there may of been a class where you called yourself crazy, some of the people in the class might agree. But I partially disagree. I believe that you have that spark of insanity that fuels the genius mind. Every genius of his/her calling has that spark of genius that fuels his/her passion. Passion is a fire that keeps us on our toes and keeps us wanting more, craving more, and also keeps us alive. Like above it fuels the genius. Geniuses thru the cords of history has had their run ins with their spark. Da Vinci had a spark, Van Gogh had the spark, Edgar Allen Poe had the spark, S. Hawkings has the spark, Einstein had the spark, Beethoven had the Spark, Jimi Hendrix had the spark, and finally Mark Lewis has the spark. Do not let the spark of insanity consume you; take control of it and use it to kindle your fire.

P.S. ...I hope you had a Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year!!!!!


(Name withheld in case some other student reads this and wants to kill the guy.)

Trends and History

There are some prognosticators who are opining that 2010 will be a catastrophic year worldwide, but especially for the United States. Perhaps. Predicting the future (unless one is God) is an inexact science, at least in regards to specific events. Yet, historical trends are virtually absolute. When we look back at history, we can detect certain qualities and characteristics that lead to success and certain qualities and characteristics that produce disaster (this, incidentally, is true both individually and collectively, i.e., for nations). With that thought in mind, I want to generically predict the future for the United States. I cannot, and will not, give specific dates. But I can tell you that all of history teaches these events will take place, and they probably aren’t very far off.

1. Economic catastrophe. The United States Congress is absolutely the most irresponsible body of political “leaders” in the world. They have no economic discipline whatsoever; a teenager with a credit card. A country simply cannot borrow its way out of debt or tax its way into prosperity—both of which are cardinal mantras of both political parties, but especially the Democratic. This is one of the offshoots of liberalism, which has been in the ascendancy in this country for at least the past 80 years. Liberalism has no self control economically, no self control morally, no self control intellectually, and no self control spiritually—all of which are absolutely essential for long term success. A day of reckoning is coming, though again, I don’t know specifically when.

2. The failure of democracy. Democracy is a terrible form of government, as most philosophers and political theorists down through history (including the Founding Fathers of this country) have told us. It has never been successful anywhere it has been instituted. In the United States, giving the vote to 300,000,000 people, most of whom have no clue what is necessary to run a thriving, prosperous country, is insanity to the nth degree. A country will always descend to the lowest common denominator among its people—or mediocrity at best because most people are mediocre; if everybody was Einstein then Einstein wouldn’t be Einstein—because democracy, by definition, simply cannot hardly exclude anyone; about the only people in this country we do not let vote are babies, and I suspect they could do just as well as those whom we do allow the privilege. (And, no, RC, I’m sorry, I do not vote. I think it is a complete and utter waste of time. What is one vote in the sea of 300,000,000? Yes, it is people like me who ought to vote because I know what’s going on and have the proper character and historical insight to understand what a country needs—pardon the boast. But for every one of me there are 5,000 who are as ignorant as stones, so why waste my time? And if you ask, “well, what if everybody thought the way you do?”, then I would vote and my candidate would win 1-0. My vote would mean something then.) The best form of government—and the one established by the Founders of America—is an aristocracy of merit with popular support. If you don’t know what that means, then you shouldn’t be voting, either.

And if you are one of those who think democracy is so great, try it next time you get on an airplane. Elect the pilot from among the passengers. Yeah. But as disastrous as “electing” a pilot would be, who can do more damage to a people—a pilot or a politician? Why in the world would we think electing our leaders will bring more success than electing an airplane pilot, or plumber, or horse trainer or anything else?

Actually, democracy is the very reason for point number one above—economic catastrophe.

3. If not America as world leader, then whom? I don’t know, but I suspect the Russians and Chinese will assume world dominance. Not the Muslims, they are too divided, and the radical element is too small. The Chinese have intelligence and drive and the Russians have a massive amount of natural resources. And both of them have sense enough to avoid democracy. If they don’t, then their ascendancy will be short-lived.

4. What will happen to the United States? At best, we will end up like Europe, with high unemployment, a stagnant economy, and a dependent people. At worst, we’ll end up like Rome, overrun by barbarians. I’ll let the reader predict where they are coming/will come into this country from.

Again, I will predict no dates. But given history, the above are sure to happen in the future. Frankly, I hope I don’t live to see it.

I do want to say a note about my health. I’ve had several write to me, expressing their best wishes and offer prayers on my behalf, and for this I am extremely grateful. My health issue is clinical, chemical depression, diagnosed by one psychiatrist as bipolar 2, though I’m not convinced of that from my reading—I never have any “highs,” though I can get an adrenalin kick when teaching. The same psychiatrist suggested that I might also be hooked on adrenalin—“adrenalin addiction,” which can, indeed, happen. But, regardless of my exact diagnosis, all I know is that, unless you have suffered from this sort of depression, it is absolutely impossible for you to understand it. This is not down-in-the-dump, “oh, shucks, I lost my job” depression; everybody goes through that. This is rolling in the floor torment, uncontrollable crying, the tortures of hell burning inside you. At times, it is so painful that I can literally hardly move. And it can be incapacitating. There is no escape except sleep, which isn’t always easy. The “fires” sometimes rage out of control, sometimes they are milder—but they are nearly always there, and recently they have been burning uncontrollably. As I write this—and the only reason I am able to—is that, at the moment, the fires are only simmering inside me. Hopefully, they won’t erupt in fury again, but I am not optimistic as I sit here.

Incidentally, Edgar Allen Poe, one of the greatest writers in history, was obviously plagued with serious depression—a main reason so much of his literature is so morbid. But he was brilliant, and, at times, depression can create that. Any extreme can be dazzling; I only wish it would influence my writing.

But then, perhaps my current mental state is why is post is so negative.

Thank you all for your concern. I will keep you informed.

Some Thoughts on the "Health Care" Debate

I’ve written posts earlier on this blog regarding the current “health care” debate, and some of this will be a repeat, but I think it is worth doing so. First of all, let me say that the term “health care” debate, as framed by the current national discussion, is a misnomer; it’s a “medical care” argument, not health care. If you want good health, eat right and get some exercise, and it won’t cost you very much. If you want medical care, go to a doctor. That’s what this is about.

But it’s also a shame that the Democrats in Congress and the major media have framed this question by implying that the government must have a massive input into it, and that no other options are readily available. There are plenty of other suggestions out there as to how to control rising medical care costs, but they are rarely heard, simply because liberalism dominates our government, media, and academia.

Well, I’m going to give you some of those other ideas as to how costs can be controlled. They aren’t original with me (except, perhaps, with one or two exceptions), but hopefully I can sum them up succinctly for my readers. So, here are some proposals to pursue before we let Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid take over one-sixth of the American economy (mom, it’s another reason I’m thinking of moving to Singapore).

1. Tort reform. Or, put another way, shoot all the lawyers. I knew a doctor in California who had to quit her practice because she couldn’t afford the malpractice insurance. If we’d put about 90% of the country’s lawyers six feet underground, we’d solve about 90% of the country’s problems. Let the AMA handle malpractice issues.

2. Health savings accounts. Give significant tax breaks for people to save money to cover minor medical costs. This won’t cover catastrophic illnesses, of course, but it could cut down on insurance costs if we pay for regular doctor’s office visits out of pocket instead of having a third-party (insurance company or government) do so. Also, how about a tax deduction for joining a health club? How about a significant tax deduction for people to donate charitably to hospitals to help cover the costs for the poor who can’t cover the expenses themselves? This is a very generous country, and we have a lot of millionaires. Encourage them, through incentives, to donate some of their wealth to medical care facilities (research as well).

3. Let insurance companies sell their policies across state lines. As it stands now, since I live in Tennessee, I can only buy health insurance in this state. And it’s the same in every state. Throw those laws out. Let’s suppose I could find a cheaper insurance policy in Wyoming. What do you think the insurance companies in Tennessee would do? Yeah, lower their premiums to meet the competition; either that, or go out of business. A little competition here could lower insurance costs significantly.

And while we’re at it, 4. Let doctors compete, too. Now what I’m going to start out saying here is going to sound ridiculous, but understand I’m being partly facetious and let me finish my point before you laugh too loudly. My appendix is hurting and I need an appendectomy. Rather than go to a doctor, I tell my best friend, “Hey, Joe, I need my appendix taken out. I’ll give you $100 to do it.” And Joe says “Sure. Give me a knife. Wheeeee….” So I let him do it. True, I probably wouldn’t survive, but what business is it of government to tell me I have to go to a regular doctor if I don’t want to? If I want to take the risk, it’s my riskk!
It’s called “freedom,” folks. If I want to eat junk, get fat, die young, who is Barack Obama to tell me I can’t do it?

Now, ok, let me finish. I’m being somewhat—but not totally—facetious here. Why must every “medical practitioner” have a medical degree? How many of us have never given anyone medical advice before? This past Monday evening, when I was feeling so horrible with depression (see “A Personal Note” below), I was talking to my mother and she suggested that, along with the sleeping pill the doctor gave me, I drink a glass of warm milk before I go to bed "to help you sleep” (sorry, mom, I didn’t do it. Didn’t want to get up three times in the middle of the night….). We all do that, occasionally, and some get better at it than others. In the 19th century American West, if you got shot by an Indian, chances are it was your buddy, not a doctor, who was going to take the bullet out (it was painful and he would have put a bullet between your teeth to keep you from cracking them with pain—hence, “bite the bullet”). But, your friend would remove the bullet (no, you didn’t always survive), pour some whiskey on the wound to cleanse it, stick a snotty hanky into the hole to cut down the bleeding, wrap it up with part of your shirt, and off you’d go. And I’m not being facetious about that. Home remedies were the rule then, not the exception.

Now, I wouldn’t suggest, in this day and age, that such would always be the best alternative. But why don’t we let people get a modicum of medical knowledge and let them help those who perhaps can’t always afford a professional? I don’t want to be a doctor, but I’d love to study some medicine, get some knowledge, and help people in smaller matters so they wouldn’t have to bother a licensed M.D., and thus leave the latter free to handle more serious cases (most of the time all the doctor is going to do is give you a pill anyway. Many people could learn enough to know what remedies could help with certain ailments. Pharmacists do it all the time.). I’m just simply suggesting here that, just as there are “degrees” of medical problems, why can we not have “degrees” of operatives to help diagnose and treat them? I don’t need to go to a doctor to tell me to drink a glass of warm milk before I go to bed to help me sleep; my mother can do that. Just think about it!

5. Let people work with doctors and hospitals on payment schemes. I had gall bladder surgery in 1996. My wife and I had no health insurance and the total cost was about $14,000. We paid what we could up front (about $900), and I made arrangements with the hospital to pay them $50 a month, which I am doing to this very day. Every month I send a $50 check to a hospital in Shreveport, Louisiana, to cover that hospital expense. And I suspect, given the number of people who don’t pay anything, they are happy to get it. I have no idea how much I owe them; still a few thousand dollars, I believe. But I haven’t heard from them in years. And I’m going to keep sending that $50 as long as I’m alive or until I get it paid off. Doctors and hospitals will work with patients on matters like this (and if yours won't, go to a doctor who will, and the first one will, too, before long). And don’t tell me people can’t afford 25 or 50 bucks a month. If they can afford a cell phone, Internet connection, cable TV, booze, cigarettes, and eating out 10 times a month, they can afford a little money to pay for their own medical care.

But why should they if Barack Obama is going to force somebody else to pay for it? And to get back to a point I made earlier, if I want to eat junk, get fat, and die young, what business is it of the government? Well, the business is, of course, that the government has stuck its nose into the situation so that other people will have to pay for my sorry health when I get sick. Let me have to cover the cost out of my own pocket and maybe I’ll be a little more responsible in taking care of myself.

I wouldn’t suggest that the above solutions would handle all of the medical care expense problems this country has. But I would like to see what the free market and individual responsibility can do before we turn the best medical care system in the world over to unqualified, nameless, faceless bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. who make “one size fits all” decisions for everybody in the country.

Soon-To-Be-Article on the Islamic "Jihad"

As an historian, I have long been grieved at the lack of understanding the "West" has of Islam. I am not a Muslim, and thus not a follower of that religion (I am a Christian, yet, like all believers, far from perfect). But I do believe that Western scholars have not been totally fair to Islam, and I'd like to make a contribution in hopes of a partial correction of this misunderstanding.

At the moment, I am in the middle of final examinations and planning a move--and I am still feeling horrendous most of the time--so extensive blog posts are going to be difficult. I mentioned to my students in my first class today that I intended, shortly, to post an article which I think would be worth their while to read. For any of you students who are reading this, please check back because it may be several days before I can make that post. I am convinced that, if I can explain the material as I wish, some clarification can be produced.

So, to all my readers, I do intend, in as near a future date as I can manage, a post on the Islamic concept of "jihad," and how it is interpreted among various Islamic groups today--and make no mistake, there is no agreement among Muslims regarding the full meaning of this term. "Holy war," which is how Westerners have defined the term, is very insufficient, and I trust I will be able to effectively elucidate that point in my upcoming article. Stay tuned.


Apparently the only person who can beat Tiger Woods with a golf club is his wife.

What's the difference between a car and a golf ball? Tiger can drive a golf ball 300 yards.

Perhaps Tiger should be using a driver?

Tiger Woods is so rich that he owns lots of expensive cars. Now he has a hole in one.

Tiger crashed into a fire hydrant and a tree. He couldn't decide between an iron and a wood.

Tiger has a new name--Cheetah.

My All-Time Favorite Quote

This is from a book entitled Out of Chaos, page 109, written in the 1970s by Professor Louis Halle. The book jacket says it is the "crowning achievement of his career," and it was a monthly selection of a major science book club.

"Much of the scientific explanation offered for the origin and development of life appears to entail a haphazard succession of coincidences, representing chaos, that gradually assumes an ever more compelling direction. It is as if a lot of variously shaped stones tumbling down a mountainside, converging in channels as they fall, should come to rest at the bottom, one on top of another, in the shape of the Parthenon. Science must attempt to explain this by the operation of natural laws alone."

You gotta love these evolutionists. Everybody knows that the Parthenon was built by a Greek named Coincidence, borrowing from his buddies Haphazard Succession and Chaos. And that mountains just spontaneously appeared with rocks on the top and channels running down their sides. And no doubt all those rocks just started jumping off the top of the mountain on their own. And all of this is...scientific.

Do I really have to educated to believe that?


Why is everybody so surprised that "scientists" have been lying, fudging data, covering up information, etc. in regards to the so-called man-made global warming? (Well, people who only watch the "mainstream media" may not even know about it.)

There should be no shock that this cover-up is going on. "Scientists" have been lying and distorting information about the theory of evolution for 150 years now. Keep in mind I've worked in academia for a number of years now; I know how they think. Peer-acceptance is a whole lot more important to these people than truth will ever be. And if saying the moon is a piece of blue cheese is what it takes to get accepted into the inner circle of the academic elite, then there aren't going to be many "moon is a piece of blue cheese" deniers out there. And especially if the government will give you money to continue your research into what kind of blue cheese the moon consists of.

The man-made global warming "theory" has been a hoax all along. That should have been obvious from the fact that the left-wing has been so admant in its support. As I've said before on this blog, the environmental movement is where the Marxists went after the fall of the Soviet Union--anti-capitalist, anti-free market, anti-industry, pro-big government socialism. All the Reds did was change colors--to Green.

Tiger Woods

When I was growing up, Jack Nicklaus was the king of golf. I wonder why none of the stuff that's happening to Tiger Woods now ever happened to Jack Nicklaus...

We would have been utterly shocked at even a rumor that Jack Nicklaus was having an affair.

Is anybody really surprised about Tiger Woods? Sad, but I really can't say I'm surprised.

Don't You Love the Europeans?

Gratitude is not one of mankind's most common virtues. To illustrate, consider the following facts:

The United States has in The American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne, France, a total of 2,289 of our military dead.

In the The American Cemetery at Ardennes, Belgium, a total of 5.329 of our dead.

The American Cemetery at Brittany, France, a total of 4,410 of our military dead. Please excuse us for taking up space in your land, France.

Brookwood, England, American Cemetery. A total of 468 of our dead.

Cambridge, England. 3,812 of our military dead.

Epinal, France, American Cemetery. A total of 5,525 of our military dead.

Flanders Field, Belgium. A total of 368 of our military dead.

Florence, Italy. A total of 4,402 of our military dead.

Henri-Chapelle, Belgium. A total of 7,992 of our military dead.

Lorraine, France. A total of 10,489 of our military dead.

Luxembourg, Luxembourg. A total of 5,076 of our military dead.

Meuse-Argonne, France. A total of 14,246 of our military dead.

American Cemetery, Netherlands. A total of 8,301 of our military dead.

Normandy, France. A total of 9,387 of our military dead.

Oise-Aisne, France. A total of 6,012 of our military dead.

Rhone, France. A total of 861 of our military dead.

Sicily, off Italy. A total of 7,861 of our military dead.

Somme, France. A total of 1,844 of our military dead.

St. Mihiel, France. A total of 4,153 of our military dead.

Suresnes, France. A total of 1,541 of our military dead.

That's over 100,000 we have buried in Europe to save their hides. How many French, Dutch, Italians, Belgians, and Brits are buried on our soil, defending us against our enemies?

There are a lot of people in France and elsewhere who appreciate what America has done for them. But it would be nice if the talking mouths of those countries showed a little respect.

And, of course, we have a President who runs around the world apologizing for his country. He's the sorriest apology for a President this nation has ever had.

Maybe the Last Guy Wasn't So Bad After All

Here is the opening to the article "Obama's Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage," in today's "Spiegel Online International" (German publication):

"When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it's not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming."

Let's indeed "hope" for "change" in Mr. Obama's foreign policy of appeasement and niceness to thugs. A return to the firmness of a man who was wise enough to know there is evil in the world, and a lot of it is at the head of governments, would certainly be a change, for the better, from what we've seen this year.

Mr. Obama, you are President of the United States, not the world. Start acting like it and stand up for the people you represent.

Here's the link to the Spiegel article, if you'd like to read the whole thing.

Dear Grim Reaper

Dear Grim Reaper,

So far this year you have taken away my favorite dancer, Michael Jackson, my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite singer, Stephen Gately, and my favorite actress, Farah Fawcett.

Just so you'll know, my favorite politicians are Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, John Edwards, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and Barney Frank!!

Let's Just Hope They Are Ignorant

Or maybe not. You'd hate to believe these people actually mean what they say. But if they are this stupid, what are they doing in power?

My point: Recently, Anita Dunn, President Obama's communications director, in a commencement address for St. Andrews Episcopal High School at Washington National Cathedral, said Mao Tsetung was one of her heroes.

Does this woman really not know that Mao Tsetung is the greatest mass murderer in history? Estimates are that, from 1949 to his death in 1976, Mao was responsible for approximately 60 million deaths. This is about 10 million more than the Soviet thug, Joseph Stalin, and 40 million more than Adolf Hitler. I'm not excusing Hitler by any means, but, as one historian wrote, when it came to killing people, he was an "inept bungler" when compared with Stalin and Mao.

And Mao Tsetung is a hero to Obama's communiations director.

You just wonder what kind of insanity struck the American people when they put Barack Obama and his horde of miscreants into power. Ignorance is no excuse!

No Deal in Copenhagen. What A Bummer

We've been told for months that the upcoming "climate change" conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, was supposed to save the world, giving us some kind of new global warming treaty that will bring human-caused carbon emissions under control so that government can plan the weather 100 years from now. The treaty ain't gonna happen in Copenhagen, folks. "President Barack Obama and other world leaders (sic sic sic sic sic...leaders??) agreed today that next month's much-anticipated climate change summit will be merely a way station, not the once hoped-for end point, in the search for a worldwide global warming treaty" (Denver Post online, 11/16).


Do you want me to translate that for you? What it means is the ChiComs told Obama to quit spending money like a drunken sailor in a cat house and that he'd better get the U.S. deficit under control before he starts moralizing to them on how to run their industry. The Chinese own a substantial portion of our $11 trillion debt, and they've got us over a barrel. All they have to do is dump those bonds on the world market, getting what they can for them, and thus destroying the U.S. dollar and economy. It wouldn't help China, either, but it would hurt us whole lot more.

China can blackmail us just about any way they want to. And they don't want a "climate change" treaty that is going to stifle their growing, increasingly capitalistic economy. So, bottom line: "Mr. Obama, shut up about a 'global warming' treaty." The Chinese are smart enough to realize that man-made global warming is a green-spawned hoax anyway. The environmental movement is where all the reds went when the Soviet Union collapsed. It's amazing that the Chinese are moving away from socialism every bit as rapidly as Obama and the Democrats are trying to lead America into it.

GM Reports $1.2 Billion Third Quarter Loss

And that's with the "Cash for Clunkers" program.

Who wants to buy a car from the same people--government--who provide public housing and public eduation?

And GM now says they are going to start paying back the money they borrowed earlier this year from taxpayers. How? With more taxpayer money?

If Americans don't want their cars, then let GM go bankrupt. If we don't want to buy them, why should we pay for them with our tax dollars?

I Don't Understand This One, Either...Well, Yes, I Do

The Pelosi health care bill came to almost 2,000 pages. Weren't we told that "health care" legislation was designed to provide medical insurance for the 40 some-odd million Americans who don't have any and can't afford it?

Why do we need a 2,000 page bill to do that? I think I could write it one sentence:

"Resolved: those Americans who have an income less than X may apply
at their local welfare office for assistance in purchasing health insurance.

Comrade Barack Obama"

Wouldn't that cover the problem of "millions" who can't afford coverage and leave the 80% of Americans alone who are happy with their insurance and the treatment they get?

I think I can answer this question. It's not about "health coverage for the poor," folks. It's about the federal government taking over one-sixth of the American economy, and leftist, secular intellectuals becoming involved more and more in your life. Mainly because you're too stupid to take care of yourself in the first place. You see, these intellectuals are "smarter" than you are, and thus they know better than you what's good for you.

I'm not making that up. It comes right out of the utopian visionaries of the 19th century. When I have time on this blog, I will go into the background history of why the left is what it is and why they insist on intruding into your life as much as possible through government action. It's a philosophy with historical roots, not an opinion of half-wit professor.

Nobody, but NOBODY, Can Explain This One To Me

A few days ago, I posted an article on this blog entitled "Can Anyone Explain This To Me?" If you have not done so, it might be appropriate to read that post before this one. But basically, the gist of the earlier essay was as follows: If I put a gun to John Doe's head and take his money, that is stealing, it is immoral, and I would be subject to prosecution. Or if I went up to Sam Smith and told Sam to put a gun to John's head and take his money and we would split it, I would still be guilty of theft and criminal activity even though I did not directly rob John myself. No one would disagree with these points. However, I then drew the parallel that if I vote for Bob O'brien and he puts a gun to John's head (the IRS), and he gives me John's money, then somehow, some way, this is morally acceptable just because it has been done through the majority electoral process.(?) I can, in effect, vote to take something from somebody else which is not rightfully mine. At least, that is what we do in this country. I ask for someone to explain to me why it is morally wrong for me to put a gun to John's head and take his money, but it is not morally wrong for me to vote for Bob so that he can put a gun to John's head and give me the money. I still end up with something I haven't earned and is not rightfully mine. Again, read the earlier post for the full discussion.

But, folks, that's not totally, or fully, what is happening in this country today. Here's the sum of what is really going on.

I go up to John Doe, put a gun to his head, and say, "Give me your money, and your children's money, your grandchildren's money, and your great-grandchildren's money." THAT is what is occurring. We are voting for politicians, asking them for government "entitlements" that we cannot, or will not, pay for today, thus putting this burden and cost off on people who haven't even been born yet.

I do not have the words in my vocabulary to express how hideous, disgusting, irresponsible, and horrendous I believe this to be. It is utterly inexcusable behavior for any decent, honorable human being. But it is exactly what the people of America have elected the United States Congress to do, and those people in Congress haven't got the statesmenship or moral fortitude to stop it. Indeed, they thrive on it, and they are the "leaders" of this country. 2700 years ago the wise man said, "Oh, my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err" (Isaiah 3:12). History repeating itself.

Now, you Democrats and liberals aren't going to like this, but this repulsive robbery is largely your fault. It was Democrats and liberals that started and ran the New Deal and Great Society, thus putting into place and operation the welfare state that is rapidly destroying this country financially. And now, Democrat, liberal Barack Obama comes along with his near-trillion dollar "stimulus" plans and health care schemes to add a further financial burden upon--or, more accurately, to steal from--current hard working Americans and generations yet unborn.

Good luck trying to justify that one to anybody who has an scintilla of moral conscience. And you Democrats and liberals can sit there and stew at this article all you want to, you can screech to high heaven, you can walk the streets and call me a fool, or worse--but the New Deal, the Great Society, the welfare state were YOUR ideas--and they are bankrupting this country and unforgivably robbing from and fleecing our children and grandchildren.

But, perhaps the major crime you are guilty of is refusing to learn from history. As in:

"When the people discover they can vote themselves money from the Treasury, that will herald the doom of the Republic."--Benjamin Franklin

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship."--Historian Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler, who wrote that over 200 years ago (all emphasis is mine).

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."--John Adams

We, in the United States of America, think we are immune from the laws of history. I only hope I'm dead before we find out differently.

CEBs, or Current Events Briefs

Newt Gingrich on Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize: “As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials."

* * * * *

The Post Turtle: While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, whose hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually, the topic got around to Obama and his being our president.

The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Obama is a Post Turtle". Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, “When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'.”

The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain. “You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, and he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just wonder what kind of idiot put him up there to begin with.”

* * * * *

This is incredible. Well, not really, to anybody that truly understands liberalism and today's Democratic Party. But even the DNN (Democratic News Network, also known as CNN), was utterly astounded at this one. Watch the following video. It’s only 2 minutes long.


What's the Matter With These Students, Anyway?

Given our egalitarian age, I thought I had a brilliant idea for a new grading system for my classes, and I explained it to all of them today. "At the end of the semester," I told them, "after I've figured out the final grades, I'm going to equalize things. I'm going to take away points from those students who made in the 90s, and give them to those students who have an average in the 50s. That way everybody will have a grade in the 70s and we'll have equality. Isn't that a grand idea?"

They didn't seem to think it was fair at all.

"But," I said, "don't you want to spread the points?"

Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.

"But, class, surely those people who made in the 90s had to have cheated to get there. And those who made in the 50s, well, they were down there through no fault of their own."

They weren't buying it.

"But, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'"

I couldn't convince them. So I just had to drop the idea. Nobody seemed to like it.

Well, those students who are making in the 50s thought it was a capital suggestion. In fact, they were ready...to elect me President.

Can Anybody Explain This To Me?

I go up to John Doe, because I know he is rich, and put a gun to his head. "Give me your money," I demand. John, valuing his head more than his current stash, hands over what he has and I run off. Now, what I did was wrong, wasn't it. It's stealing. It's immoral, it's illegal, I have taken something that I have not earned, that is not mine, and I would be subject to prosecution. There are few who would disagree with that.

I go over to Sam Smith and I say, "Sam, John Doe is rich. Go put a gun to his head and take his money and we'll split it." So Sam does, and he and I enjoy John's earnings. I'm still wrong, aren't I. I've again done something immoral and illegal. Even though I did not directly rob John, I remain culpable for I was an accomplice, yea, the instigator of the crime. Both Sam and I would be subject to prosecution. Again, few would object to this line of reasoning.

However, I vote for Bob O'Brien. He puts a gun to John's head (it's called the IRS). John hands over his money to Bob, and Bob gives it to me. But that's ok, isn't it. Not a thing wrong with what Bob and I did, is there....

Can anybody explain to me why what Bob and I did is acceptable, moral, honorable behavior but what Sam and I did wasn't? I still end up with something that isn't mine, John's money, something I haven't earned. Yet, voting to transfer the wealth is admissible conduct.


Folks, all thieves do is redistribute income from those who have earned it to those who have not (themselves). That's what makes stealing wrong. Whether we do it directly or indirectly.

Oh, wait a minute. I've got the answer. The Eighth Commandment says, "Thou shalt not steal, unless a majority in Congress vote you can." What a dummy I am.

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propogation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

"If the Almighty had ever made a set of men that should do all of the eating and none of the work, he would have made them with mouths only and no hands." Abraham Lincoln

Yesterday's Elections--A Rejection of Obama?

The three races that were the most watched yesterday were the two gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, and the Congressional race in the 23rd District of New York. The Republicans won the first two, the Democrats the last. Political pundits everywhere are trying to decide what it all means. I have the answer, of course. :)

Was this a rejection of President Obama? No, not of him personally, but there is increasing concern over his policies. Obama has proven to be far, far more liberal than most people expected he would be, and the majority of Americans aren't ready to go there yet. They are beginning to realize what this man stands for and believes, and the elections in Virginia and New Jersey should inform him of that. For the Democrats to lose New Jersey, a consistently solid, northeastern blue state, was somewhat astounding. To spin this as a rejection of Corzine is self-serving; this loss, plus the huge Republican win in Virginia, indicates, among other things, disgruntlement with Obama's policies. He has been in power for about 10 months now--and nothing is significantly better. He has accomplished zero, zilch, nada, except to expand the power of the government, something most Americans don't want, at least not to the extent he is doing it. And things are not going to get better, because he and the Democrats have no clue how to build an economy. They are going about it in exactly the wrong way, so it surprises no one with a modicum of economic knowledge that the unemployment rate has gone up and the economy is stagnant (not improving, as Obama and his media lap dogs try to tell us). Virginia and New Jersey are clear indications that the swing independent voters, who put Obama into the Oval Office, are not happy, and have swung back to the Republicans. For the moment. A democratic electorate is always fickle.

In another way, it isn't surprising that the Democrats lost these two governorships. A significant portion of Obama's support last year came from starry-eyed, utopian young people who, quite frankly, don't have the education to be intelligent voters (remember, I teach in a college). They haven't the foggiest idea what makes a country successful (they do, however, if they attend and listen to my classes). Such voters are easily swayed by a smooth, silver-tongued orator (remember the Hitler Youth). But they don't generally vote in off-year elections. So without that support, the Democrats were without a huge portion of their base from last year. How long Obama can continue to mesmerize these youth is unknown; they certainly weren't mesmerized enough to get out and vote yesterday. He and the Democrats will be in trouble without their help.

However, the Congressional race in the 23rd District of New York indicates that perhaps a swing too far to the right is unacceptable, too. Of course, this is just one district, just as there were only two governors races. So nothing absolute should be insisted upon in trying to analyze this. The Republicans are in a bit of a mess; its leadership sways between center-right to center-left, but its grass roots base is solidly conservative. And so they lost control of a Congressional seat that had been safely Republican for a long time. That isn't good. They need to get their act together or they'll go into the mid-term elections next year floundering without direction or purpose.

Obama is vulnerable. Nothing he is doing is succeeding--domestically or internationally, at least not yet. And chances are, given the principles which he believes, he will not succeed. Unless, of course, one wants a weakened America and a greater government role in the economy and our individual lives. On that basis, he is pursuing the correct path. But most Americans don't want that. Mr. Obama better pull back closer to the center. He's been told that for months now with the tax "tea parties," the town hall meetings, and now the elections in New Jersey and Virginia of Republican governors. Whether he heeds the warning or not, only time will tell. It was not he, yesterday, who was rejected; but his policies are far from popular with a huge segment--a voting segment--of the American public.

Why Am I Not Surprised By This?

1987. Lt. Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration. Colonel North was being questioned by a senator.

"Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?" the senator asked.

North replied, "Yes, I did, sir."

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"

"No, sir."

"No? And why not?" the senator asked.

"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."

"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.

"By a terrorist, sir," Colonel North answered.

"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"

"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir," North replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. "Why are you so afraid of this man?"

"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of," the colonel answered.

"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.

"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."

The senator disagreed with this approach, and the conversation headed in other directions.

By the way, that senator was Al Gore. I guess that's why I'm not surprised.

Fear of the Muslims?

I know a lot of my blog readers will probably disagree with me on this point, but I'm not as afraid of the Muslims as a lot of "conservatives" are. In fact, it is one area in which I basically agree with President Obama--we need a better relationship with those people, not continually cursing them.

The reason I have this perspective is that I don't believe all Muslims are like Osama bin Laden. In fact, I know they aren't. The vast majority of Muslims are a decent, respectful, peaceful people who don't blow up others with suicide bombs. There is that element, of course, and it is very radical. But they are fighting for what they believe in, which is their own civilization, and they don't want ours crammed down their throats. If you were a devout Muslim, looking at the United States, what would you think? You see Hollywood, drugs, alcohol, illicit sex, abortion, feminism, homosexuality, debauchery--everything that is contrary to your religion. And to them, that's democracy (and they are largely correct). You better believe they are going to fight it. Devout Christians in America are fighting against those things as well, and if the left literally went to war against Christianity to enforce its views, devout believers would fight for their convictions, too.

And regarding the Palestinians and their "suicide bombers"--if somebody came in and stole what had been your homeland for 2,000, bulldozing your houses, and oppressing your people, what would you do? You'd fight back any way you could, just like the American Indian did when the white man went in and stole his land. I'm sorry, folks, I'm not pro-Israel. At the moment, I won't go into the theological reasons why (which is the basic reason I'm not), but I can understand perfectly well why the Palestinians are doing what they are doing. They are fighting for their homeland, and frankly, have been a whole lot more reasonable than the Israelis. Yassir Arafat was willing to give up almost 80% of what was formerly Palestine, his people's homeland, to Israel, if the Palestinians could just have part of the land to live on. But the Israelis want it all. Who's been the reasonable party here?

Again, I certainly don't agree with blowing innocent people up, but it isn't like the United States hasn't killed a few non-combatants in the Middle East, too. And how many Palestinians have the Israelis killed? Most of the Muslims are fighting the only way they know how and with the only tools they have, because they own no aircraft carriers, tanks, missiles, etc. A guerilla warfare, to save their civilization, is all they've got. And to repeat, the vast, vast majority of Muslim people are not terrorists. We only hear about the bad ones on the news. And a large part of that is because the Jewish lobby is one of the strongest, probably the strongest, in this country.

I don't think Mr. Obama should cradle dictators like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. You can't be nice to people like that; all they understand is strength. But a better dialogue with moderate, decent Muslims wouldn't be a bad idea. And if we Christians don't like the fact that Muslims want to convert people to Islam, then why don't we do a better job of what we are supposed to be doing, viz, "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).

ADDENDUM: Last night, after I had already posted this article, somebody sent me an email of a speech made by a European (Danish) politician. (I'm almost certain that the person who sent me the email had not read my article). This politician was decrying the Islamization of Europe, how Muslims are moving in all over the continent, living in little enclaves, not assimilating, beating people up, will be the majority before long, yada yada yada. Oh, my, something must be done about all these Muslims moving into Europe!

Well, who's fault is it that the Islamic peoples are entering, and remaining in, European countries? Go look in the mirror, Europe.

I've lost all respect for western Europe (eastern Europe is somewhat different, having lived for 70 years under Soviet tyranny). The people in western Europe have given up freedom for governmental dependence. Folks, freedom takes courage, freedom takes strength, it takes sacrifice and self-discipline. It means taking risks, taking responsibility, and accepting the consequences for your actions. It's the hard way, but it's the most rewarding.

Western Europeans have decided to opt for the easy way, dependence, to let somebody else (government) take care of them. People that do that lose all their character, internal strength, and sense of duty and responsibility. And probably self-respect, too. But they don't need any of those things, because they are letting their governments provide them cradle-to-grave security. Thus, they elect politicians who have no intestinal fortitude, either; they cannot defend their own countries because they, too, think in a "dependent" mode. These EU bureaucrats haven't a clue how to stop the Muslim invasion, and they wouldn't have the guts to do it if they did. When people become dependent, they no longer know how to take care of themselves, or defend themselves, or protect their own homeland. They are too...dependent.

I have absolutely no use nor respect for able-bodied people who won't take care of themselves, who sponge off others, and think it is their right to do so. Wealth is to be earned, not redistributed. Government is happy if people want to be dependent, though, because that gives the politicians and bureaucrats more power. The United States has been heading this way for over a generation now; more and more of our own people are sucking off the government teat, and they want it that way, and they don't care that it's somebody else's money, money that they didn't earn, that they are spending. And the teat-suckers think they have a right to it. Why? Well, Barack Obama and just about every other politician in Washington (on both sides of the aisle) tell them that they do. Obama and the Democrats especially are doing everything they can to create as many dependent people as possible, to turn this country into another western European-type socialistic graveyard. Our politicians are too busy buying votes with other people's money that they can't defend our borders, either. There are still many in America who are fighting it, more so now that it's become clear what Barack Obama truly is and what he wants to do (something that a lot of us knew a year and a half ago). But it's a losing battle. Too many people prefer security to freedom, dependence to individual responsibility, theft to work, and there are too many vapid politicians who are more than ready and willing to give it to them. We haven't caught up with western Europe yet, but we are getting there. And if we keep electing people like Barack Obama, we'll be there in no time.

So you Europeans stew in your own Islamic juice. It's your own fault for giving up the strength of character to take care of yourselves in exchange for having someone else coddle and burp you. But, unfortunately, too many in America are trotting along right behind you, eager for the same thing. And we'll suffer the same consequences. Well, we already are, it's just that our invasion is from the south.

Reckon what would happen if those Muslims tried to do in China what they are doing in Europe.

There Will NOT Be A One World Government!!!

I'm having a lot of people send me stuff about the loss of American sovereignty, what Copenhagen will do, that if Obama signs the treaty a one world government is just a step away....

Balderdash and poppycock. Folks, there will be no One World Government. Chill. It will not happen.

Yes, I have seen Lord Monckton's speech at Monmouth College (I've watched it twice). Yes, I have no doubt that Barack Obama would sell American sovereignty down the river at the drop of a hat; I mean, the man is nothing more than a Third World African dictator whom the American media was able to swindle the people into electing President of this country. So yes, by and large, Barack Obama hates this country (or at least what it has stood for for 200 years) and would love to transfer its wealth to much of the rest of the world. And yes, the United Nations bureaucrats slobber and drool at the thought of running the whole world and telling every country what to do.

But it ain't gonna happen. A one world government is a dream leftist utopians have had for a long time but one that will never see reality. Why?

Number one, do you really think the Chinese or the Russians are going to surrender their sovereignty to the United Nations or some other bureaucratic entity? They would NEVER do that--unless they controlled it. And if the Chinese controlled it, the Russians would never be a part of it. And visa versa. Then, what about the Muslims? There is absolutely, positively no way those people are going to submit to an atheistic, secular government trying to control their lives, denying Allah, and telling them what they can do. How many hundreds of millions of Muslims are there in the world? Try to set up a one world system and there will be hundreds of millions of Osama bin Ladens, one crawling out from under every rock. Afghanistan on a global scale, and I know who wouldn't win that one.

Further, how is this "one world government" going to enforce its decrees? "Power comes out of the barrel of a gun," Mao said. This imagined one world government will only be as strong as the military it can call forth. Will the United States military be willing to support that government? Not on your life, at least not while any of the people reading this are alive. Our men and women join our armed forces because they love and want to defend the United States, and they aren't about to die to protect the very thing their fathers fought against. The Chinese aren't going to fight for anything that isn't in their interest, nor are the Russians....nor are the Muslims. It isn't going to happen.

The key is this: our world is simply too heterogeneous for its people to ever agree on one head. Every country, kindred, and tribe have their own interests, needs, desires, goals, beliefs, traditions, cultures, languages, and purposes, and those will never be the same for all of mankind. The only possible way a one world government could exist is through sheer brute force--compelling people into a system they don't want to be in. And I ask again, what military force in this world would--or could--do that? Not even ours, and we'd never consider it. Oh, Barack Obama might, he'd love to be Emperor of the World. But I can tell Mr. Obama something that he probably already knows--the United States military hates his guts and they aren't going to follow him down the yellow brick road to a mythical Oz where he sits on the throne terrorizing everybody. And robbing the American people of the freedoms they've enjoyed for centuries.

There is only one way Barack Obama could ever get this country to surrender to a one world system--he would have to abolish the National Rifle Association and kill countless millions of Americans who would unequivocally die before they gave up their right to be free. Good luck, Barack. I have a feeling you'd be one of the first to get buried.

Now, the European people might go along with a one world system. They've been spineless and gutless--and useless--since the end of World War II and have basically laid down and surrendered their freedoms to their governments in exchange for cradle-to-grave security. They want security, not freedom. Freedom means risks; security means dependence. The Euros have opted for the latter. I'll bet their fathers and grandfathers, who fought and died in two horrendous world wars, would be ashamed of the way their sons have given up their liberties to government bureaucrats. But there's no need to worry about Europe; that bunch of snivelers are afraid of their own shadows.

So get off the "one world government" kick. There are enough dragons to slay without inventing mythical ones.

Obama's Czars

Somebody just sent me a list of Obama's "czars" and a summary of their beliefs (thanks, Jeannette). Not surprisingly, it is a hodge-podge of the most radical, left-wing kooks in the United States. You can read about them at the following link:


Didn't Russia overthrow their czar because he became too tyrannical?

Has anybody in this country read a WORD of history? I guess I better stop.

Why Liberalism Fails, Part Two

The second part of the Will Durant quote about the ancient Persian empire, which I am using as a basis to explain the basic failure of liberalism, reads as follows:

"Nor is it natural that nations diverse in language, religion, morals and traditions should long remain united; there is nothing organic in such a union, and compulsion must repeatedly be applied to maintain the artificial bond. In its two hundred years of empire Persia did nothing to lessen this heterogeneity, these centrifugal forces; she was content to rule a mob of nations, and never thought of making them into a state." (Our Oriental Heritage, 382)

Can you say “multiculturalism”?

Heterogeneous societies are not necessarily doomed to disintegration. America has been a melting pot almost from the beginning of its history. But what has made the “melting pot” successful in this country is that the people who came here wanted to be Americans. They immigrated here with the full intent of learning the language, customs, ideals, and cultural mores of the United States. Yes, for awhile, for perhaps a generation or two, the “old country’s” ways would still be with them. But they always became Americans, they taught their children to be Americans, and they thought of themselves as American. This current identity politics—African-American, Hispanic-American, Chinese-American, etc.—is less than half a century old.

And I find it interesting that this collective identifying of groups—African-American, etc.—nearly always applies only to non-whites. How often do you hear someone called a “British-American,” or a “Welsh-American,” or a “German-American”?

As Durant points out, fracturing a peoples like this is not good. There must be something that binds them together, creates an organic whole, makes them one people. Some kind of homogeneity is necessary to prevent centrifugal forces from spinning a nation apart. Our Founders recognized the benefits of homogeneity. Alexander Hamilton wrote, “To render the people of this country as homogeneous as possible must tend as much as any other circumstance to the permanence of their union and posterity.” Thomas Jefferson agreed: “It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together.” It is very difficult for people to “transact together” if they don’t speak the same language. And the more diverse they become in language, religion, culture, etc., the more difficult it will be for them to mix together in unity. As we see in history, people of the same racial stock often strain to live together peaceably, and frequently don’t. European history is full of white Irishmen fighting white Englishmen fighting white Frenchmen fighting white Germans fighting white Italians fighting white Poles…and it is the same everywhere. Africa to this day is full of tribal dissension and warfare, yet they are all Negroid. The American Indian fought tribally as a way of life. The slightest difference in a peoples can render division; when differences are magnified, troubles become even more probable.

Liberalism again leads the way in this negative sort of “diversity.” By arguing that all cultures are equal, that none is superior to another—or rather, by doing its dead level best to portray white America as the greedy, thieving, racist oppressor of the rest of humanity—then there is no motivation for any non-American immigrating to this country to surrender his values or mores for the good of the greater whole. Ours is no better than his, yea, he is frequently taught ours is worse. With the emphasis that is placed on groups—blacks, women, Hispanics, homosexuals, etc.—rather than the whole, the liberal is splintering and dividing this country in a way that is driving peoples apart rather than bringing them together. As long as we can remember we are all Americans, then we might have enough glue to remain a united whole. But if we keep having to “press one for English,” we are creating and encouraging a diversity that will rend us asunder. Remember Persia.

The demand here is not that everybody agree with white people. Nor is it to say that American culture is superior to others (though I don’t know very many liberals who would want to sleep in a teepee in North Dakota in the middle of the winter). But if people aren’t willing to assimilate, to become part of the integrated whole—and if they are not educated to do so—then fragmentation and separation are not far off. Persia did not learn this lesson, if she even tried. The same happened to the Roman empire. Rome ruled a motley of peoples, never attempting to make Romans out of them. Thus, when the barbarians attacked, these non-Romans weren’t going to die for Rome; why should they? As long as they were compelled to remain within the empire, or saw some benefit for doing so, they accepted being a part of it. But when the compulsion or the benefits disappeared, they saw no reason to continue being loyal to a system that was not theirs. And they didn’t. Heterogeneity—diversity—did much to destroy the Roman empire.

It is absolutely no coincidence that the longest running continuous states/empires in history—Egypt, China, Japan—were the most homogeneous. They just didn’t let anybody else in. And at the American Constitutional Convention in 1787, Gouveneur Morris spoke of the same thing; he warned of being “polite at the expense of prudence.” “Every society,” he said, “from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.” Every club understands that it is only a “club” as long as its members are united on certain objectives, rules, and procedures that make that club what it is. If those objectives, rules, and procedures be ignored, then how can it any longer be the club it was intended to be? It will, for all practical purposes, cease to exist.

I would never degrade anyone’s culture, as a culture. Nor would I deny anyone the right, the blessing, of respecting and honoring their heritage and ancestors. But when honoring that heritage or culture supersedes assimilating into the country where you intend to live, then you don’t belong in your new home. There are many, many men who gave their lives to protect the values, traditions, and beliefs that modern American liberals are doing their utmost to destroy. What an irony. Men died to give Barack Obama the right to go around the world and tear down the very thing those men died for. To conserve those common values and traditions that built a nation is what will keep a people together; to undermine them will lead to destruction. Liberalism fails because it destroys the foundations upon which a society is built—and replaces it with nothing unified and whole.

How long will it be before the people of this country go to war with each other—because they will have no reason not to.

Breaking News!!! Breaking News!!!

This just in!!! Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game!!!


(There are two videos of this post in the column to the left. I had to divide this into two parts because of the length YouTube allows for videos.)

Slavery has been in the news lately thanks to what Rush Limbaugh did not say about it. As noted in my post yesterday, the attacks on Limbaugh have been utterly shameless, and it is impossible to respect any person that would stoop to such scandalous depths as to smear anyone with such an accusation. But, for the record, and since I don’t have a radio program and have no intention of running for office, I want to give a brief overview of slavery—the truth about it, something you will never hear from the mainstream media or anyone on the left.

Slavery is—was—an economic system, just like capitalism, socialism, or mercantilism. Since every society in human history prior to the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century was agricultural, slavery was very common, all over the world, as a cheap—free—form of labor. Quite often, captives of war were sold into slavery. It was never terribly efficient, simply because the slave had no incentive to work other than to avoid punishment, which, quite often, was incentive enough. In some places, like in the American South, slaves could be rewarded for good labor/behavior with a new suit of clothes, a weekend pass, that sort of thing. But still, a slave never enjoyed the fruits of his own labors, thus the motivations were all outward.

As noted, slavery existed everywhere. Folks, it is no surprise that slavery existed in North America and in the United States; indeed, it would have been surprising had it not. Initially, slavery existed in all of the 13 original American colonies/states. It died out in the North simply because it didn’t pay, not because of some superior moral virtue of the people of that region. In fact, slavery is not condemned by any of the world’s major religions—Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. They all regulate it, but none condemn it because they all arose in a cultural environment where slavery was simply accepted. About one in three people in the Roman empire were slaves. Jesus never said a word about it, at least not as recorded in the Bible, but He and his apostles did counsel proper treatment of all men, and the apostle Paul had some direct things to say about slavery in his letters to Ephesus and Colossae. What is interesting here is that slavery, again, was simply accepted as a cultural norm. When Onesimus, a slave of Paul’s Christian friend Philemon, ran away (nobody ever liked being in slavery), the apostle sent him back with a letter counseling Philemon to accept the slave back without punishment. Paul did not tell his slave-owning friend that he was a wicked sinner and that he needed to free all his slaves immediately. Indeed, Paul told the slave owner to forgive the slave for running away. Not exactly modern American leftist democratic philosophy.

Slavery still exists today is some more remote parts of the world, but it is a sex slavery, not agricultural. The institution died for two reasons. First, the principles of Western civilization that “all men are created equal.” It is noteworthy, not that the West had slavery, but that it was the first major civilization to turn against it. And when it did so, it was against the strong wishes of Africans, Muslims, and others who were getting quite wealthy, thank you, selling slaves to western plantations. The second reason slavery ended was the Industrial Revolution. When people started working for wages, they did not want competition from free labor. Again, slavery worked fairly well in an agricultural society, when nearly everyone made their living off the land. But when a larger and larger number of people began working for wages, they demanded the end of slavery. Yet, even so, when Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 (which, incidentally, did not free one single slave), there were riots in the North against it, as northern workers feared that the freedmen would gravitate to that region and take jobs for cheaper wages than whites would work. Besides, northerners didn’t like “darkies” any more than Southerners did; Alexis de Tocqueville said the North was more bigoted than the South. Three Northern states, prior to the Civil War, wrote it into their state constitutions that they would not even let blacks into their state. The myth of Northern love for blacks is just that—a myth perpetuated by Northern historians to justify the Civil War and continue to bring shame and reproach upon the Southern states. Folks, these two regions of the country have never gotten along, even in the earliest colonial times. The New England colonies were settled largely by English Puritans. The Southern colonies were settled largely by English aristocrats. Those two groups fought a civil war in England in the 1640s and they fought another one in America in the 1860s. The roots of the conflict were that deep. And they still exist.

A few words about the American “Civil War.” Actually, that is a misnomer. A “civil war” is a conflict between two factions who are fighting for control of the same government. That isn’t what happened in the United States. The South wasn’t trying to take over the federal government, they were trying to leave it. It was perfectly acceptable to the Southern Confederacy that the Northern states have their own government based in Washington, D.C. All the South wanted was to be left alone. They no longer consented to the government of the Union, so they left—which, incidentally, they had every right to do. If the American colonies could secede from the British empire, and if Texas could secede from Mexico, then why couldn’t the South secede from the United States? If government is by the “consent of the governed,” and the governed no longer consent to it, then why can they not establish a government that that do consent to? So, it wasn’t a “civil war” at all. It was a War for Southern Independence, but of course, you’ll never hear a Northern historian call it that. Only a few of us Southerners who really understand why the South left the Union in the first place.

And that war was not started over slavery. While slavery did play a role in why seven of the eleven Southern states seceded (but not the other four), the war was not over slavery. It was, like most wars, fought over money. Abraham Lincoln made it very clear, on the very day that he became President, that he had absolutely no intention of interfering with the institution of slavery in the states where it existed. “I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,” he said. He also made it very clear, when he called for troops to attack the South, that the war was not for the purpose of ending slavery; it was to keep the Union together. Why? What is so sacred about artificial lines drawn on a map? The main reason the North couldn’t let the South go was that the Southern states were paying the largest part of the federal revenue—over 80% at times, and the majority of that money was being spent in the Northern states. The South had one-third of the population of the United States, but was paying 80% of the taxes. They didn’t consider that terribly fair, or constitutional, and they had a point in both cases. So Lincoln couldn’t let them leave. When someone asked him why he didn’t just let the South go, he responded, “Where, then, shall we get our revenue?” Lincoln did not change the purpose of the war—or, better, add the second purpose of ending slavery—until almost a year and a half after the hostilities began. The war was lasting much longer than he had anticipated and a whole lot more men were dying than he ever expected. So, why not go ahead and use the opportunity and end slavery as well. Interestingly, across the ocean, up until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, the South held the high moral ground in the conflict. Britain and France could not understand why Lincoln would go to war to destroy the South’s democratic decision to form their own government. All the Southern states wanted was to be free from a government they didn’t want to be in. Isn’t that what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did? But when Lincoln added ending slavery as an intent of the war, he gained the upper hand. It was a brilliant move on his part. Yet condemned by some of his own people. Lysander Spooner, who was a rabid New England abolitionist, vociferously condemned Lincoln for the war. What good does it do, Spooner asked, to free four million people only to enslave another nine million? And, folks, if people are forced into a government they do not want to be in…that is not freedom.

Thus, the war did not start out to end slavery. It started over money. Indeed, when the Southern states seceded from the Union, the mayor of New York City wanted the city to secede with them because New York was the major shipping point for Southern cotton. Folks, New York City became the largest city and most important shipping port in America by shipping slave-grown Southern cotton overseas. You think those Yankees cared where that cotton came from when it was making them rich? The Morgans, Tiffanys, Lehmans and many others got wealthy off Southern cotton. They had no qualms about it.

It’s not terribly surprising that slavery has been demogogued in modern America for political purposes. One would expect that from the political left and Northern states. Yes, we are all happy that slavery has ended. It is a blight on our history, though again, an understandable one to anyone who takes the time to study and comprehend the historical record.

The worst thing about American slavery is that it brought the ancestors of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to this country.

The Morals of Liberalism

Before I continue with the series I started yesterday on why liberalism fails, I want to say a word about the morals of liberalism.

There are none.

Look at the current controversy over Rush Limbaugh. People have absolutely made up things that Limbaugh supposedly said, i.e., that slavery "had it merits" and that he praised the murderer of Martin Luther King, jr. These are outright lies, designed to do nothing but destroy Limbaugh. And, of course, they are being repeated, as fact, by the major media outlets without any attempt to determine their accuracy. Liberals do not care one iota about the truth; their morality is totally subjective. In other words, blatantly lying about someone and attempting to destroy their character is perfectly acceptable behavior in the modern liberal philosophy if it achieves the ends they want achieved. In this case, to shut Limbaugh up from his relentless attacks on Barack Obama (they also don't want him to buy the St. Louis Rams football team, but that's basically a sidelight). There has probably been no one in this country that has more effectively disseminated information about Obama and his horrid policies than Rush Limbaugh. And the liberals absolutely hate his guts for it. He has exposed Obama for what he really is and many, many people are now seeing it, thanks to Limbaugh. So, to liberals, he's the new George Bush. Or Sarah Palin. And they are doing everything they can to discredit and ruin him. Even if it means telling vicious, slanderous lies about the man.

Liberals have no moral standards, except that which furthers whatever cause they want furthered. Whether you like Rush Limbaugh or hate him, there is absolutely no excuse for this kind of behavior by any decent human being.

For my part, I say....hold the trigger down, Rush. Not that I have to tell you that.

Why Liberalism Fails, Part One

(This post has been divided into two videos. I will get them in the left column as soon as YouTube allows. In the meantime, you can watch the first video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQBduPAn4t8 and the second video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUHb9HpRitM. Watch them. You can see my handsome face that way.)

Liberalism fails for a lot of reasons and I can’t go into all of them. But I can establish the most important. I would like to begin this two-part post by sharing with you a passage from historian Will Durant, in his book, Our Oriental Heritage, p. 381, regarding the fall of the Persian empire in the 4th century B.C.:

“It is in the nature of an empire to disintegrate soon, for the energy that created it disappears from those who inherit it, at the very time that its subject peoples are gathering strength to fight for their lost liberty. Nor is it natural that nations diverse in language, religion, morals and traditions should long remain united; there is nothing organic in such a union, and compulsion must repeatedly be applied to maintain the artificial bond. In its two hundred years of empire Persia did nothing to lessen this heterogeneity, these centrifugal forces; she was content to rule a mob of nations, and never thought of making them into a state.”

Folks, success does not happen by accident. There are reasons why people succeed—collectively and individually. The principles are the same. Those nations—and individuals—who have certain qualities and characteristics will, nearly always, be rewarded positively for their efforts; those who lack those qualities will almost always fail. History teaches this repeatedly and it is no surprise to wise, knowledgeable historians when a nation, or an individual, rises, and then collapses. They will have walked time-proven paths.

I want to analyze the Durant quote above in two parts, the first being the initial sentence: “It is in the nature of an empire to disintegrate soon, for the energy that created it disappears from those who inherit it, at the very time that its subject peoples are gathering strength to fight for their lost liberty.” Empires—and individuals--“rise” because of a strength of character and determination that is lacking in other peoples. As we study the past, we can see that people who are industrious, frugal, self-disciplined, sacrificial, and virtuous will nearly always succeed; people who are lazy. shiftless, self-absorbed, pleasure-loving, and wasteful will fail. What happened in Persia has happened countless times in history—a strong people, determined, disciplined, and industrious built a great empire. They weren’t perfect, no people are. They committed gross crimes and abuses, but still, they never would have gotten where they were if they hadn’t had some decisive attributes that drove them above and beyond their peers. You’ve heard of the Persians; you probably haven’t heard of the Girgashites. Why did Persia prosper and grow mighty while the Girgashites were consigned to the dustbin of anonymity? Persia had something that the Girgashites didn’t. And while resources help, there have been a lot of peoples who have been blessed with excessively wealthy geography but have failed miserably to do anything with it. Greatness lies in character, not in dirt.

And yet, Persia collapsed. Why? “The energy that created it disappears from those who inherit it.” A man—or a nation—works hard. He sacrifices, he builds, he sweats, he saves, he practices those virtues that produce a successful business. And succeed he does. He gets wealthy, having been rewarded for his efforts. But unless he continues practicing the same attributes that led him to glory, he will see his empire crumble. Too often, an individual—and especially a nation—gets rich from the hard labor of those who have gone before. But hey, when you get rich, you want to enjoy it, right? So what do you do? You get a little lazy, indulgent, careless, selfish—and somebody with a hungrier mouth, practicing the virtues you once practiced, come and steals what you built. How many once-successful businesses have folded because those who inherited it did not continue to execute with the same diligence their forerunners had? The fat, lazy, undisciplined, and indulgent will always be defeated by those who are leaner, hungrier, and work harder.

America grew strong because her people were strong. We became the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth because our forefathers worked hard, were frugal, strong, industrious, virtuous men who sacrificed so that they and their families might prosper. Yes, they made mistakes, of course, and they didn’t always practice perfect Christian morality; not in the least. But they weren’t lazy and shiftless, either. If they had been, the United States would be a third-rate banana republic right now. Cast thy gaze southward...

So let me reiterate. As we look back in history, we find incontrovertible evidence that success is at the end of a long, hard road called industry, frugality, self-discipline, sacrifice, virtue. And failure comes to those who get lazy, covetous, indulgent, and wasteful. It happens almost without exception. And if we want the United States to continue to succeed—or to “re-succeed”—we must go back and once again study history, apply those qualities that lead to triumph, and shun those traits that produce disaster.

Liberalism fails on this very point. There is nothing sacred to the liberal. Everything is to be challenged, everything that does not meet the test of his “reason” or “logic” must be rejected. No tradition, no virtue, no quality is above suspicion; it is to be accepted or denied wholly or in part due as his on personal judgment dictates. “Change” is his watchword, and that too often means “change” from that which has proven to be enduring, good, and successful.

Again, study history and see what works. If we go back to what works, we will see “progress.” But the liberal must revise history. Notice what they have done with our own. According to the liberal “scholar,” the Founding Fathers were not great men who built a solid foundation for a successful country. They were “terrorists,” “elitists,” “racists,” “slave owners,” who oppressed other people and exploited resources for their own selfish aggrandizement. The liberal must tear down in order to build up what he wants. Condemnation of the men who established this country is absolutely necessary to establish the revolutionary society that the modern leftist wants to build. Why are we flabbergasted that liberals despise our Founders and the Constitution? I’m not surprised at all. It is perfectly in harmony with their philosophy.

One of the most important institutions in all of history is the family; if one studies the longest sustaining empires the world has ever known, he will always find, at the bottom, a strong family foundation. Persia had it. Rome had it. China had (and has) it. Japan had it. Egypt had it. They endured because no empire, no building can long survive without a strong foundation. But look what liberalism—feminism—has done to the American family. The family is not sacred to these people; they don’t even know what a family is if they think that homosexuals can get married. But the point I’m making is, the liberal does not look back and see what has been successful and build upon it. The liberal doesn’t care about the past; its lessons are to be drawn upon only if they meet certain ends that the liberals has in mind—usually self-centered. So family, religion, culture, tradition are there for the acceptance or—mostly—rejection as whim determines. Change, not preservation, is the watchword. And while some change, from time to time, is necessary, it must always, and only, be constructed on the virtues and principles that history teaches direct us to success.

Let me ask you something. When was the last time you heard a liberal praise hard work? Get off your lazy backside and get out and get a job? Have you ever heard Barack Obama talk about self-discipline, self-sacrifice, frugality, and virtue? When do you ever hear a liberal praise the family or the church, or express consternation and grave concern over the breakdown of the American family and the loss of the morality that fashions a self-controlled life? You never hear a liberal talk of these things for the very reason that they do not believe in them. The liberal rejects the lessons of the past because he thinks he’s smart enough to lead his life, and rule others, without them. And so, liberalism attempts social engineering—a restructuring of society on the basis of modern human reason, with no attempt to imbibe the lessons the ancients have been trying to teach us for centuries.

Folks, it is not the least bit surprising, to an historian, that the more liberal this country has become, the more we see the moral foundations collapsing, the family being destroyed, our economic system in tatters, our leaders corrupt, wasteful, irresponsible curs. Men who think they can create without standing upon the wise shoulders of those who have gone before are the most arrogant—and stupid—people in existence. We live in a pleasure-oriented society today, resting on the laurels and hard work of those who have gone before us. And there is nobody more self-indulgent than a liberal. That’s where his political power comes from. Indeed, it is in the interest of the liberal, and government, that people not be self-disciplined, moral, and industrious, because if they were, what would they need government and liberals for?

And yet, for all the world, the liberal has the unmitigated gall to call himself “progressive.” There is nothing “progressive” about dragging people into a dung heap.

If this country—if any individual—wants true progress, they’ll look back. To history. See what happened in days of yore. Learn those qualities that lead to growth and achievement and mimic them. And reject with disdain those human attributes of folly and vice that can only lead to poverty and despair. Liberalism will fail every time because of its failure to do this.

I shall examine the second portion of Will Durant’s quote in part two of this series.

"Barack Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize"

As many of you know, I suffer from bi-polar 2 clinical depression. I've had it for several years and I've tried about everything and I can't conquer it, so I just live with it the best I can. Given this depression problem, I don't laugh a whole lot because I don't feel much like it.

But when I read the above headline--"Barack Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize"--I'll admit, I got a good chuckle out of it. Thanks, Prez. Oh, and you, too, you bliterthing idiots in Norway.

My second reaction, as I'm sure it was for millions of people, was, "He got the Peace Prize?? For WHAT?"

The man has done nothing for the peace of the world; all he's done is read speeches written by somebody else. In fact, if anything, he's made the world more deadly by buddying up with dictatorial hooligans like Hugo Chavez, winning the praise of Fidel Castro, Vladimir Putin, and Muammar Khadafy, thereby giving these extremely perfidious men credibility in the eyes of too many people. Obama has weakened Eastern Europe and strengthened a rapidly more belligerent Russia by not placing deterrent missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, and he has this insane idea that all the totalitarian governments of the world will give up their nuclear weapons if we will. And he apparently believes he can talk with a modicum of intelligence and diplomacy with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who understands nothing but strength and power. Since when has naivety been worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize?

Folks, Neville Chamberlain certainly did not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize (and he didn't win one) when he appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich in September, 1938. But he sure earned the accolades of the "intelligentsia" of the world. For a year. Unbelievably, there are actually people who still believe that Chamberlain should have been given the award.

If anybody deserves a peace prize, it would be George Bush. He removed from power one of the most dangerous men in the world, which has given the Iraqi people an opportunity to choose their own government. The thugs of the world knew that, if they attacked the United States, they would pay for it. Bush kept Osama bin Laden on the run for eight years, didn't coddle dictators, and didn't kiss the UN's feet. That merits a peace prize far more than anything Obama has done, which is nothing.

But George Bush knew that he was President of the United States. Barack Obama thinks he is President of the World and shmoozes up to other world "leaders" by condemning his own country and praising those who threaten the very peace Obama is recognized for.

Hitler once said--and it's one reason he was able to rise to power--"There are no end of stupid people in the world." And, the tragic and scary thing is, too many of them are in positions of power and influence.

The Powers of the President

When I refer to the "powers" of the President, I refer only to those delegated to him in the Constitution of the United States. Any other "power" he takes is a usurpation, is unconstitutional, and is therefore illegal and would, if the document were faithfully followed, render him liable to impeachment (or being shot, the latter being usually more preferable).

These duly constituted powers of the chief executive are recorded in Article 3 of the Constitution. It consists of four paragraphs; the normal reader could read them in probably less than two minutes. I will briefly list those powers:

1. He is Commander in Chief of the armed forces and militia, when called into the actual service of the United States. This portion in italics is a direct quote from the Constitution. In other words, no war, no power. Of course, sometimes presidents start wars just so they can use this power to get lots of people killed, but that wasn't the intent of the founders of this country.

2. The President may require the opinion of his Cabinet members on matters that pertain to their departments. But, then again, he may not require it; it's his choice. If he wants to mind his own business, well and good. What a novel concept.

3. He can grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the country, except impeachment. He can't pardon himself, albeit he ought to need to every month.

4. He has the power--only with the "advice and consent of the Senate"--to do the following:
--make treaties;
--appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, judges of the Supreme Court, and "all other officers of the United States," if said appointments are not already established by law;
--and Congress has the right to give him authority to appoint "inferior officers." Keep him busy and out of trouble.

5. He has the power to fill all vacancies in the Senate that happen during the recess of the Senate (he couldn't have appinted a successor to Edward Kennedy, for example, because the Senate was in session at the time of the Chappaquiddick Phantom's death); whatever appointment the president makes here, however, expires at the end of the next session.

6. He can, "from time to time" give a "State of the Union" address to Congress, but the Constitution does not define when "from time to time" is. The less often, the better for the country, but he does it once a year now.

7. He can recommend to Congress certain measures (i.e., a budget or a bill) for their consideration, something which they can wholly ignore if they wish, and he is powerless to do anything about that.

8. On extraordinary occasions (perhaps when he is lonely, and if you were married to Hillary Clinton, you'd probably want to be alone a lot, too), he may call together both houses of Congress (or either of them), and then dismiss them if they can't agree on when they ought to go home. The sooner, the better. For the country.

9. He is to receive ambassadors and other useless foreign officials.

10. And "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," whatever that means, and "shall commission all the officers of the United States," something that has already been said.

11. Further, he may run off to Denmark and attempt to obtain, for his hometown, a location for the Olympic games.

12. He may, from time to time, with nobody's advice and consent except the pea-brains with whom he surrounds himself, fire CEOs of major corporations and take over the automobile industry, the banking industry, education, and whatever else takes his fancy.

13. He may bully Congress into passing laws, such as reforming a health care system, of which 80% of the American people have said they are satisfied.

14. He can run around the world condemning his own country and climbing into bed with every dictatorial thug who hates the United States and would like nothing more than to have a president (for life) who runs around the world condemning his own country and climbing into bed with them.

15. And on these trips, he can take his wife with him to waste as much of the taxpayers money as she possibly can in three or four days.

Well, that's enough. It's all right there, folks, Article 3 of the Constitution. At least the first 10 points are. All the rest make this country a tyranny.

Some Good News for a Change

As I write this (Thursday, 4:45 EDT), Sarah Palin's book (which isn't even out yet), is the number 1 best seller at Amazon.com. Glenn Beck's new book is number 2, and Ron Paul's End the Fed is number 10. This could change, of course (the list is updated every hour). But it's nice to see these books selling so well. Palin's book is also number 1 at Barnes and Noble.

And I haven't bought any of them yet.

THIS is the "hope and change" we need, folks.

U.N., U.N., Go Away, Never Come Another Day

Yesterday the weatherman predicted sunshine for today here in eastern Tennessee. This morning, that “sunshine” fell in such as way that it required an umbrella to enjoy it, though, to be fair, it has cleared off this afternoon, to the relief of the prognosticators.

Weathermen have a difficult time accurately predicting the weather from day to day. But the United Nations can tell us what the weather is going to be like 100 years from now.

And, of course, only governments can fix it.

A Little Boy Playing a Man's Game

(Watch the video of this post in the left side column.)

The following quote is from an article entitled "Chickens Roosting" by Victor Davis Hanson, in the September 25, 2009, online edition of National Review, regarding the way the world views Barack Obama:

"Some look at our president and see a messiah; these two [Russia and China] see a rookie in charge of a now-bankrupt country with $2-trillion-a-year deficits that is unsure what to do in two wars and in dire need of both imported oil and trillions in cash."

Most of the world's tinpot dictators and bureaucrats are from half-developed, directionless, Third World countries who leech off, then curse, the West because they have neither the intellect or desire to lift their own people our of the dregs of an insipid, perennial poverty that they (the leaders) largely created and perpetuate. These martinets dominate the vapid United Nations, but are rank amateurs in foreign affairs, and they understand nothing of how the world actually works. They think there is really a utopia to be had out there and all we need is the right kind of messiah to lead us to it. And to give further evidence of their extraordinary incompetence and buffoonery, they appear to believe that Barack Obama is that messiah.

And from all indications, Obama believes it, too.

The Russians and the Chinese have been around a long time. They know better.

This is actually frightening, folks. Barack Obama, before he became President of the most powerful country on earth, had never accomplished anything in his life, except spending less than 150 days attending sessions of the United States Senate, where, incidentally, he contributed nothing. His personal resume' provides no evidence whatsoever that he has the qualifications, experience, or intelligence to deal with the serious domestic problems this country faces, and certainly nothing in his life giving a farthing of testimony that he possesses the statesmanship and cunning to stay on the same field with the many masters of diplomacy and international intrigue who today threaten the free world. If ever an example of collective national madness and stupidity is needed, look no further than when this country elected Barack Obama to the chief executive office.

Cave Man Obama

(Watch the video of this post. Left side column. It's a good one...)

He’s done it again. Gone and made a major world speech where he attacks, belittles, and condemns his own country. Barack Obama has made an art form out of apologizing for the United States and caving in to the world’s thugs. He denounces American power and hands it over to the people who hate us the most.

No wonder the U.N. loves this guy so much.

He cannot get enough of engaging dictators like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez. Fidel Castro (publicly) worships him. Muammar Khadafy (or however he spells his name) wants him to be President for life. This is good for the United States?

Last week, Obama gutted our strategic defenses in Europe to placate an ex-KGB agent; this missile defense debacle was rightly perceived as a betrayal by the Poles and Czechs. He has agreed to enter into talks with Iran, the incredible premise of which is to eliminate American nuclear weapons. All the while Iran continues to develop theirs. Is Barack Obama really na├»ve enough to think Iran will give up their nuclear weapons project if we dismantle all of ours? And I’m sure the Russians and Chinese would be more than happy to get rid of their nuclear weapons as well (pardon my sarcasm). This is straight out of the Jimmy Carter School of Diplomatic Disasters.

Just to list Obama’s foreign policy actions:
--he has appeased Iran;
--he has bullied Israel;
--he has surrendered to Moscow;
--he sided with Marxists against the legitimate government in Honduras;
--he has called for, in effect, a unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United States, a utopian vision of a nuclear free world that is no doubt being laughed at where it isn’t being drooled upon;
--he has crawled in bed with the global warming horde who want to destroy industrialism and the free enterprise system that has brought untold material benefits to the United States and every other country of the world, or at least those with enough sense to adopt capitalism as their economic system;
--and everywhere he goes he belittles and condemns his own country, to the delight of that huge, anti-human rights community in the world who despise us, have always despised us, and always will despise us. This is an absolute insult to all the Americans of previous generation who fought and died to make the world a better place to live, and to give rotten curs like Barack Obama the freedom to become President of the greatest country on earth. And he stabs all of those great Americans in the back every time he apologizes for what the United States has done around the world. He has caved in to our worst enemies.

This nation is far from perfect and has made plenty of mistakes, but we don’t need our President going around telling that to the world! Let them figure it out for themselves. They haven't been slow to do so without our President's help.

But then watch who they come running to for help whenever they get their tails in a crack.

One of the great lessons of history, which liberals refuse to learn, is that restraint and appeasement is interpreted by thugs, not as an evidence of humanity and good will, but of weakness, guilt, and pusillanimity. That was the lesson of the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s, the Korean War, Vietnam, the Iranian hostage crisis, and countless other attempts to get along with people who don’t want to be gotten along with, except on their terms. Which means a surrender to them and their tyrannical, dictatorial ways. Barack Obama has spit in the face of nearly all of our friends and surrendered to nearly all of our enemies. Heaven help us, and the world, if we don’t get this man out of office in 2012.

But by then, it may be too late.