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 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.