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.

De Tocqueville on the President

Alexis de Tocqueville was a brilliant French philosopher and writer of the 19th century. He was so enamored of the American Republican experiment that, in the 1830s, he visited the United States to investigate why this country’s Republican democracy was so successful, something at which both the British and French had failed miserably. De Tocqueville wrote of his investigations in a two-volume set entitled Democracy in America. It is considered a classic and, indeed, in is print to this very day.

This learned Frenchmen, in these two books, obviously wrote on many subjects, but I want to focus on one short quote. In talking about the American system of government, he penned these words about the office of the President:

“The President is…the executor of the laws, but he does not really cooperate in making them, since the refusal of his assent does not prevent their passage. He is not, therefore, a part of the sovereign power, but only its agent…the President is placed beside the legislature like an inferior and dependent power…[The office of the president is] temporary, limited, and subordinate…when he is at the head of government, he has but little power, little wealth, and little glory to share among his friends; and his influence in the state is too small for the success or the ruin of a faction to depend upon his elevation to power…The influence which the President exercises on public business is no doubt feeble and indirect.”

Heavens. Does that sound like the office of the POTUS today to you? But that is exactly what our Founding Fathers intended. This imperial, narcissistic, megalomania that has come to dominate the presidency is definitely not what the men who formed our government intended.

More on the powers of the President—as defined in the Constitution--in a future post. It won’t be a long one.

Jefferson, Christianity, and Freedom

See the video in the left hand column.

If You Can't Refute the Message...

...attack the messenger.

It's an age-old formula, has been used for thousands of years. When an opponent's arguments are too solid to effectively rebut, attack his character. Men seem to think that if they can find some impurity of motive or character in the messenger, this somehow frees them from accepting the content or logic of his conclusions. This is called an ad hominem argument. "So-and-so is wrong because he's a scoundrel." Well, "So-and-so" might indeed be a scoundrel, but that doesn't mean what he says is incorrect. Folks, we're obligated to obey any truth the devil might teach; his character is irrelevant when truth is concerned.

The Democrats are doing it now--attacking character. They are losing the health care debate on the merits of the case. It is now obvious that government run health care will be too expensive, or will cause rationing of services, or probably both. An overwhelming majority of Americans are satisfied with their health plan and don't want it changed. And they are letting Mr. Obama know about it in no uncertain terms.

So his supporters are dragging out the favorite Democratic mantra: "Racist!" Anybody who contests Obama's plan is charged with racism. Rush Limbaugh is a racist, Joe Wilson is a racist (Jimmy Carter said so), Glenn Beck is a racist, God is a racist...it doesn't matter, if you oppose The Messiah, you are a racist. According to Newsweek, even babies are racists. These liberals are really desperate.

But it's all they've got because they are getting overrun by arguments they cannot answer.

Fortunately, most people aren't buying it; a recent Rasmussen poll indicates only 12% of Americans believe that Obama's opponents are motivated by racial prejudice in this current debate.

But sling mud if you can't do anything else. Liberals are very good at it.

Whence This Love of Government?

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

First off let me say that I do not “hate” government. I fear it, and anyone who knows a farthing about history ought to have the same emotion, or at least a very healthy foreboding. Government has been, by far, the greatest killer of humanity in human history. And if we Americans think it cannot happen here, then we have forgotten our own history. Anyone who has not been thoroughly propagandized by Northern demagoguery knows that our government is not above turning its guns on its own people—and killing over 600,000 of them all for the sake of artificial lines drawn on a map. Well, that, and money.

Further I shall say that I believe that government has a legitimate purpose—the protection of property—and I do not mind paying taxes for that purpose. There are simply some evil, nefarious people in this world that will do much harm to others without the restraining threat and force of government. For there to be order in society, there must be restraint. If people will not do this themselves, then some outside force—government—must do it for them.

The problem, as our Founding Fathers so well knew, is—who restrains government? They control the military and it would take volumes to recount all the times in history government has used military force upon their own people. Including, again, in our own country.

But I wander here a bit. I fear government, but I admit its legitimate purpose. My wonder is why so many people seem to love government and think that it holds the answers to all of our problems. We have been trained in this country to look to government as the great crisis solver. Got a poverty problem? Government has the answer. Education malfunction? Why doesn’t government spend more money? A hurricane comes and wipes out New Orleans? Why didn’t George Bush stop that hurricane? Health care problem? Government should provide….Frankly, it’s not terribly surprising that we have been programmed this way since our education system is run by the government.

I do, however, understand that there are people with a vested interest in government and seeing it expand. Let me list a few of these “lovers” of government.

1. Politicians. This is obvious, of course. Government means power and control and often wealth. I’m sure there are many, many people who get into government service out of a legitimate desire to help their fellow man. But I do wish they would remember that it’s my money they are spending and that, more often than not, if they would just mind their own business, I could solve my own headaches. But there are many who get into public office because they want the power. Folks, power is a very, very intoxicating thing and our Founders warned that we should never trust any man with very much of it. When Barack Obama said, in the health care debate, “I will let you keep your doctor,” I shuddered. What right does that man have to tell me what doctor I can go to? That kind of arrogant abuse of power is why I fear government. When Mr. Obama told Joe the Plumber last year that there will be tax hikes on people making over $250,000, it would be to “share the wealth.” It is not Obama’s wealth to share, and the only way he can “share” it with anyone is by forcibly taking it from one person who has it and giving it to another who doesn't. And the only way Obama can do that is through government. That’s why he loves government and is trying to use it to remake this country.

2. Lawyers love government. Mainly because they write most of the laws—to their own benefit, I might add. It is the main reason why the most needed health care reform—tort reform—will never happen.

3. Those who would prefer not to work love government. And as long as government will provide for them, why should they bother to work? Folks, I don’t care if we are in a recession or not; there is plenty of work to be done out there. Take a look at your own house and tell me there isn’t work available. The problem is, you aren’t going to pay someone as much to do that work as government is going to pay them not to do it. As long as government subsidizes sponging off others, it will continue to happen.

4. Certain corporations love government. Mainly those who cannot compete equally in the open market, so they run crying to government to slap an anti-trust suit on their competitor to bring him down to their level. And as long as they are willing to support a politician’s next campaign, the anti-trust suit will go forward. Folks, don’t think big business hates government; not on your life. “Corporate welfare” is every bit as insidious, corrupt, wasteful, and fiscally destructive as individual welfare. Here’s how it works—the corporations provide the campaign money, and the poor provide the votes. It works as often as it doesn’t.

There are other entities in society that love government, but that’s sufficient, and you can think of some more on your own. Again, I am willing to pay for legitimate government services. But I work hard for my money, and it’s mine, and nobody else has a “right” to it. And I am greatly offended and angered when politicians take it from me and use it for purposes that are far from justifiable, just so they can posture and preen like a peacock, attempting to make us think they are doing something wonderful for us. Wise people can see through that. Unfortunately, the number of wise people in this country is diminishing in direct proportion to the growth of government. And when that happens, the loss of freedom cannot be far behind.

Some Health Care Plan Suggestions

(View video in left hand column)

Mr. Obama has been fond of saying that he is willing to listen to all ideas concerning “health care reform.” Some of his cronies tell us that there have been no suggestions from “the other side,” thus leaving Mr. Obama and the Democrats on their own concerning reforming this significant portion of the economy. Actually, there are a lot of different suggestions out there, they are just being ignored by Democrats and the lap dog media.

I didn’t hear Mr. Obama’s health care speech to Congress last night (I don’t have a television), but I did read some summaries of it afterwards. I noted a few things that have indeed been put forth which he did not mention. Of course, he may not believe in them, which is his right, but don’t be disingenuous and say no other ideas have come forth. Here are a few suggestions that we did not hear from Mr. Obama last night, and won’t hear from him because they basically involve letting the free market work to solve this problem.

1. Tort reform. The most important of all. Get the lawyers out of the medical industry and probably billions of dollars would be saved. When I lived in California, my landlord’s daughter was a doctor. She had to give up her practice because she could not afford the malpractice insurance. Doctors all over the country are ordering extra, expensive tests, that often are not needed, just to make sure they cover themselves against a malpractice lawsuit. Let the AMA regulate the medical profession. If a doctor is negligent, he needs to be punished. But he needs to be punished, not me, which is what happens when I have to pay higher medical bills because some sleazy lawyer wants to get rich. Tort reform is probably the most needed reform, but you will NEVER hear Mr. Obama mention that as a possibility. He gets too much money from lawyers.

2. Cross state insurance. I live in Tennessee. The only state in which I can purchase health insurance is…Tennessee. It is illegal to buy insurance from a seller in another state. Let’s abolish this. If I find a policy in Wyoming, which is less expensive, why shouldn’t I be able to buy it? And if I could buy it, do you know what would happen to insurance premiums in Tennessee? They would have to go down to meet the competition. Competition helps drive down costs, folks. Let’s see a little bit more of it in the insurance industry by allowing out-of-state purchasing of policies.

3. Doctors and hospitals could advertise their prices for services. Doctor A advertises that he will do a hip replacement for $5,000. Doctor B says he will do it for $4,500. Doctor C will perform the operation for $3,500. Guess where most folks will go to go their hip replacement? And guess what doctors A and B will have to do if they want to stay in business? How many of us really know how much we are being charged for doctor’s services? I go to the doctor, I pay the co-pay, and that’s it. Yeah, the insurance company sends me an invoice of what they paid, but what do I care? I didn’t pay for it. Maybe if doctors and hospitals had to compete—like every other business not named government—insurance premiums could decrease proportionally.

4. Tax credits for donations to hospitals. Mr. Obama wants to tax the “rich” to pay for his $900 billion health care plan. Sam Moneybags has $2 million of his money taken by government for health care. Where does the money go? Well, a significant portion of it will never be seen by the people it is supposedly designed to help; there are government overhead costs, red tape, bureaucrats that have to be paid, etc. An awful lot of Sam’s “contribution” will never reach the hands of those who need it. Why doesn’t the government simply tell Sam (and countless other “rich” people), “We will give you significant tax breaks for every dollar you donate to a hospital.” Charitable contributions to hospitals would skyrocket. The money would be going directly to where it is needed rather than through expensive, wasteful, inefficient bureaucratic processes. Hospitals (and doctors) would have a slush fund to fall back on for those patients who cannot afford to meet the expenses; administrators could use these funds at their discretion. Now, this won’t obviously cover all the needs, but it would certainly help, and it could up being a lot more money than the government would give, and it would certainly be used more efficiently. Let’s encourage people to be philanthropic; the American people are very good at that when given a chance.

5. Give the people the $900 billion Obama wants to spend on health care. If this money is going to be spent on health care, why isn’t it just given back to the people and let them buy their own? Why do we need government to spend our money for us? Can government spend my money more wisely than I? Take a look at your paycheck sometime, folks. Look at how much the government takes of your wages before you even get yours (and this doesn’t even include local taxes, school taxes, sales taxes, etc. etc. ad infinitum). If government gave Americans back just half of what it takes from their paychecks, most people could afford to buy their own health care and wouldn’t need government interference. Let the American people keep the $900 billion, Mr. Obama, and pay for their own health care. Now, yes, there would probably need to be a law requiring all people to purchase health insurance, as with car insurance. I don’t especially like that, people should be free to do as they wish with their money, but if they are going to be irresponsible and not buy the things they need to protect themselves and stay out of my back pocket, then we’ll need a law. I don’t believe I should be forced to pay for somebody else’s irresponsibility.

An ex-student of mine came into my office yesterday. She’s still going to college where I teach, she just dropped by for a visit. Like most college students, she’s struggling to make ends meet and cannot afford health insurance. She might need it because she does appear to have some health issues; the day before she came to see me she (apparently) had a seizure. It would be wise of her to have it checked. The sad thing is, last week was her birthday. Her mother bought her (and will pay the monthly charge)…an iPhone. Just what the kid needs. Why didn’t her mother buy her something more important—like some kind of health insurance policy? Now, a health insurance policy might not be as emotionally satisfying or as “fun” as an iPhone, but it will come in a whole lot more handy if that girl is really ill. Unfortunately, for too many Americans, that’s the mindset—luxury before necessity, especially if somebody else is going to pay for the necessity. I know that there are people who cannot afford the health costs or health coverage they need. But I also know that there are many, many people--millions--who, if they would only arrange their financial priorities as they ought, could afford a health insurance policy. But, again, why should they if they know someone else is going to pay for it?

The United States was built into a great nation by a certain type of people. A character in Louis L’Amour’s novel Tucker expressed the mentality that made this country great: “The thing that shows the man is his willingness to accept responsibility for himself and his actions. Only a tinhorn blames what he is on his folks or the times or something else besides himself. There have been good men and great men in all periods of history, and they did it themselves.”

What a novel concept. At least it is in the America of 2009, and it will continue to be so as long as people like Barak Obama are elected to high office.

Telling the Truth in Congress is a No-No

Last night, during Mr. Banana's health care speech to Congress and the American people, he said that his plan would not insure illegal aliens. A Republican Congressman from South Carolina, Joe Wilson, shouted out, "You lie!", for which he was roundly castigated and forced to repent in sackcloth and ashes.

Telling the truth in Congress in not allowed, Mr. Wilson, don't you know that?

But perhaps, to an extent, Mr. Obama was telling the truth--his bill does not insure illegal aliens. It doesn't have to because federal law already requires that anyone, legal or illegal, showing up at a hospital needing medical care cannot be denied. So why bother putting something in his plan that federal law already covers?

Besides, Mr. Obummer plans to give all the illegals American citizenship, so they will be inoculated in that way. So Obama wasn't lying, he was only being disingenuous.

I suppose that's ok. In Congress.

More on the Wonders of Evolution

See the video in the left side column.

Why We Will Lose in Afghanistan

See the video to the left for a discussion of this subject. Ignore the fact that I'm sticking my tongue out at you.

Can We Predict the Future?

View the video on this topic in the left side column.

The Presidency of George W. Bush

That the "mainstream" media in America hated George W. Bush would be denied only by those who have blinders on and are liberal in their political/social/economic philosophy. You never heard or read anything good about Bush from the CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Washington Post, New Your Times crowd. And those who refuse to think for themselves, that segment of society that is nothing more than a sponge for liberal media vomit, accepting without question the verdict of these sources, have only negative feelings towards our former president. The "right" certainly doesn't like Barack Obama; but I haven't yet seen the vituperative hatred and malice directed at Mr. Obama's person that the left constantly threw at George Bush. There is serious opposition to Obama's policies, and they are fair game. But there has been nothing like the odious malevolence with which the left pummeled Mr. Bush.

George Bush was certainly not the greatest president this country has ever had; far from it. I did not agree with many of his policies. For example, his support of the bailout last year was inexcusable. Of course, he was probably pressured to by a blind, ignorant Republican Party leadership; it was an election year and that means trying to look compassionate and buying votes. But the bailout led to stimulus bills which have led to an extension of the current recession. Further, Mr. Bush's "compassionate conservativism" was a joke. "Compassionate conservativism" is just another name for "social liberalism," and helped create massive federal budget debts. Congress didn't help--it rarely does--but Mr. Bush should have been much more forceful in trying to cut government spending, balance the budget, and start paying off our national debt. He did none of those things and should be censured for not doing so.

But he also did some very good things, for which liberals will never give him credit, of course, but still were positives for the freedom and security of the United States. A short listing:

1. He cut taxes. 99.9% of the time cutting taxes is a good thing; the only time it isn't is if essential services--police, fire, military in time of war, protection of property--are hurt by the tax cut. And let me be clear here--these services should be the first--and virtually only--expenditures of government. If tax cuts are so deep to effect our protection, such is wrong. Otherwise, give the people their money back. They earned it, it's theirs, it doesn't belong to anyone else and they should be allowed to keep it. Tax cuts should be accompanied by concommitant cuts in government spending, something Mr. Bush did not push. He bares the blame for that, but approbation for lowering taxes.

2. His Supreme Court nominees. John Roberts and Samuel Alito are worthy justices, though no one on the Supreme Court today will hold the government to its defined powers as laid out in the Constitution. Still, these were good appointments, far superior to the racist Sonya Sotomayor who was nominated by Obama and recently confirmed by the U. S. Senate.

3. His attempt to begin the privatization of Social Security. Easily the best idea that has come from Washington, D.C. since Ronald Reagan. People ought to have the right to decide whether they want to take part in the Social Security system or not. There is no freedom in this system. The government takes the money by force and redistributies it as it sees fit--hardly a textbook definition of "freedom." Mr. Bush put forth the privatization idea, but of course, was shouted down by a cacophony of selfishness from the left-wing AARP--which, incidentally, represents the richest group of people in this country--and the Democratic party. A shame. Mr. Bush should have fought, and fought hard, for this privatization program, and it does not accrue to his credit that he did not. Still, he floated the idea and should be given at least that much acknowledgment. You'll certainly never hear such an idea from Barack Obama.

4. The Iraqi war? Umm...I'm not sure yet here. People pass judgment, one way or the other, with no attempt to put the war in historical context. I frankly don't know if this will end up being a good war or not; it's not over yet. If the Iraqis are able to establish a stable system of government and become a becon of freedom in the Middle East, then it will have been worthwhile. If they descend back into the tyrannies that have dominated their geographical region for thousands of years, then it will have been (with one major exception, noted below) a waste of time. We do not know the outcome yet, and we may not for quite a while. Whether we should have gone over there in the first place can, of course, be debated. Our foreign policy is far from what it ought to be, but that's not Mr. Bush's fault; it's part of the system he inherited and there wasn't much he could do to change it. We would be wise to go back to George Washington's "no entangling alliances" policy--in other words, mind our own business unless our interests are seriously threatened. But we haven't done that for over 100 years.

Stopping Saddam Hussein was essential to the peace of the Middle East, and if the current Iraqi war has accomplished nothing else, getting that man out of power was a worthwhile accomplishment. Those who think we had Saddam "bottled up" simply haven't reviewed the history since the first Gulf War. In October 1994, he moved Iraqi army units back to the Kuwait border. When President Clinton dispatched navy and marine units to the Persian Gulf, Saddam had to back down, but two years later, he invaded the Kurdish safe haven in northern Iraq established by the United States and its allies after the Gulf War. Thousands of opposition members were either killed or driven into exile. Hussein consistently thumbed his nose at the vapid, useless United Nations. On several occasions in 1997 and 1998 he broke off cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors and forced Clinton to rely on Russian and other face-saving measures to avoid a serious confrontation. In September 1998, Hussein refused to allow U.N. spot arms checks; several months later, he halted arms monitoring altogether. In November 1999, Sadam ordered his government to cut off the oil Iraq was allowed to export in exchange for food; as a result, the price of crude oil rose significantly. This pressure forced the U.N. Security Council in mid-November to issue a resolution promising Sadam that sanctions would be suspended against Iraq if he resumed cooperation with weapons inspectors. Saddam rejected the proposal. He also rejected a U.N. offer to allow Iraq to buy more goods with its oil; instead, he demanded an immediate and unconditional lifting of all sanction against Iraq.

In other words, nothing worked to stop this man. The U.S./U.N. policy of sanctions and containment had failed to undermine Saddam's grip on power--a serious threat to peace in the region, as was quite clear from the previous two decades. The removal of Hussein was necessary and a laudable accomplishment.

Now, again, whether this will, long term, produce what we desire in Iraq remains to be seen. The liberals in America hated the Iraqi war--but mainly because they hated George Bush. We hear very little about that war since Barack Obama became president. It wasn't Iraq; it was Bush. And the battle cry "but Bush is causing us to be hated in the eyes of the world" is a farcical cry. George Bush was president of the United States, not President of the World, like Barack Obama wants to be. Our interests come first, and if the world doesn't like it, it can take a flying leap into the eternal abyss. Mr. Bush had American interests first; I'm not sure Mr. Obama does. In fact, has anybody heard that man say anything good about this country?

A word on the Afghan war. We aren't going to win that war, for reasons I shall explain in a future post. Mr. Obama needs to set an attainable goal, meet it, and get out. The immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, as some desire, is an incredibly foolish policy, for all that would tell our enemies is that we're spineles, and if they'll put up a little resistance, we'll turn and run. That is an open invitation for more aggressive behavior by the enemies of world peace and security. And, indeed, how could our friends ever trust us any more? "America is liable to turn tail and flee at the slightest opposition." We must not get that sort of reputation. We certainly need a serious overhaul of our foreign policy; but skulking home when we are in the middle of a war is the worst possible thing we can do.

So, to conclude. George Bush was an average president. He did some good, he made some mistakes. He should not be allowed to be judged by the left-wing media.
"When God gave Moses the commandment, 'Thou Shalt Not Steal,' I don't think he meant, 'Thou Shalt Not Steal Except When You Have a Majority Vote in Congress.'" -Dr. Walter Williams
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."--Thomas Jefferson
"The Christian Religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expression of the human mind."--Thomas Jefferson
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one..." James Madison, Father of the Constitution
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." -French economist Frederic Bastiast (1801-1850)
"I prefer a thief to a Congressman. A thief will take your money and be on his way, but a Congressman will stand there and bore you with the reasons why he took it." -Dr. Walter Williams

Does Iraq Still Exist?

Does anybody find it strange that, since George Bush is no longer president, we don't hear very much any more about the war in Iraq? We used to get a daily report of just how many Americans were being killed over there. Now, very little news coverage at all.

I wonder why that is....

The Sad State of Massachusetts

It gave us Samuel Adams, John Adams, Paul Revere, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, the Minutemen, Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill. It led the way to independence for the 13 American colonies. It produced some of the greatest literary minds in history--Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Cullen Bryant, Emily Dickinsion, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Oliver Wendell Holmes. It was a leader in the fight against slavery—Massachusetts threatened to secede from the Union over the annexation of Texas because it didn’t want another slave state in the country.

And in the 20th and 21st centuries, it has given us Barney Frank and Edward Kennedy.

The country’s leader in the movement to independence is now the country’s leader in the movement towards a moral degeneration that will surely lead to greater government control and ultimate tyranny.

Since his death, the media has virtually canonized Teddy Kennedy. President Obama called him the greatest Senator of our time. This is a man who was expelled from Harvard twice for cheating, got caught several times for reckless, drunken behavior, and has the very suspicious circumstance of Chappaquiddick on his resume’. I won’t bother relating the litany of this man’s moral decadence in this short post; the reader can find that for him/herself. As a politician, he was a liberal icon. Former Boston Globe columnist Don Feder wrote, “The man who thought work was lifting a glass of Chivas, never met a tax he didn’t want to raise, someone else’s money he didn’t want to spend, a new bureaucracy he didn’t want to create, a gun he didn’t want to confiscate, an illegal immigrant he didn’t want to embrace, or an unborn child whose existence he didn’t want to imperil – the last in the name of a woman’s right-to-choose.”

One thing Edward Kennedy did NOT believe in was freedom—the freedom of a person to protect himself against the thugs and criminals that Kennedy’s liberal philosophy turned loose upon society. The freedom of an unborn child to see the light of day because a woman is too selfish to accept the consequences of her actions. The freedom of hard-working people to keep the money they earned instead of being forced to give it to lazy, shiftless couch potatoes who’d rather parasite off society than contribute to its well being. The freedom of an employer and an employee to make a mutually agreeable contract, thus relegating millions of young people—including countless minorities whom Kennedy proclaimed he was so concerned about—to wander the streets without work. The freedom of Americans to be protected again an army of illegal, invasive ants who steal jobs and soak up tax dollars by the billions.

The only freedom Edward Kennedy believed in was his freedom to chase whatever wore a skirt.

And yet this paragon of moral debauchery and liberal oppression is glamorized and glorified by a fawning press and a hapless, vapid president.

One can say nice things about the dead without lying about them.

Massachusetts, with great men, led the country to independence. Massachusetts, with immoral scum, is leading this country to destruction.