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.