Obama cried to the world as he read the wailing words only his teleprompter could produce: “The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth.” This is an interesting declaration coming from Obama considering that he campaigned on America being a broken, unfair, and backward country, and has since toured the world apologizing for America being the “greatest nation on Earth,” and its exceptionalism.

He cried to the American people, beseeching them to bombard Congress with phone calls to allow him to raise taxes on the millionaires and billionaires making $250,000 per year, and to add additional trillions to the nation’s debt to stave off the potential financial default of America. Raising taxes on billionaires making $250,000 per year is mutually exclusive to causing the country to default: too much borrowing will cause the country to default. The raising of taxes on Americans during a recession that has been extended by Obama’s very policies is purely political theater, and is nothing more than a campaign move for the 2012 election.

Taken from the aggregate of Obama’s whining and sniveling statements, the most ridiculously profound deceptive lie among the multitude of lies was this statement regarding government spending on citizens:

That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It is a dangerous game we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now….We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.

There are two interesting points to be taken from this:

Interesting Point 1: “A game we’ve never played before.” Perhaps Obama has forgotten that he and every single Democrat in the Senate voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 under President Bush. Obama made it very clear why he voted against raising the debt ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.…Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Was it because Bush is white and Obama is black? Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, on record from the House floor, has said that the color of Obama’s skin is the reason that the white populace are against raising the debt ceiling. Or could it be that in 2006 Obama did not quite understand the complexity of the debt ceiling, and does not understand the complexity now, along with his entire administration?

The ensuing two years, 2007 and 2008, Obama was too busy campaigning to vote on raising the debt ceiling again, and chalked up one of his infamous no-votes.

In one of the most repugnant demonstrations of demagoguing, Obama stated during a whimpering session interview regarding the outlook of Social Security checks, “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.” This is another complete fabrication by Obama. History has proven that if Obama does not get is way, those checks may very well not go out. But it will not be because of empty government coffers, it will be because of Obama using the livelihood for retired seniors for his political expediency for the 2012 election.

As ingrained as welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have become into the fabric of American culture, Social Security and welfare did not exist before FDR at the federal level, and Medicare and Medicaid did not exist prior to LBJ creating them. From 1620 to 1935, 315 years prior to FDR burdening this country with entitlement programs, the “game we’ve never played before” did not exist at the federal level because the country was not designed to operate in that manner. Welfare and entitlements were as they should have been: a local and state issue. These are political playthings created by progressives for the purpose of buying and retaining votes.

Would Obama attempt to use Social Security checks as a nefarious stratagem? He has succumbed to the temptation of doing things on his own, as any dictator would. He forced General Motors and Chrysler into bankruptcy. He then proceeded to violate over 200 years of contract and bankruptcy law by defrauding GM and Chrysler bondholders, defying bankruptcy laws that have ruled bondholders are first to be paid in a bankruptcy. Obama then proceeded to hand his pilfered loot to the United Auto Workers Union by rewarding their continued support with the ownership of 40% of General Motors and 55% of Chrysler. This left the bondholders $27 billion with 5 cents on the dollar for their investment. Barack Obama would very well attempt to sabotage the livelihood of American senior citizens, as his past has demonstrated, and it would never register on his moral compass.

Interesting Point 2: The lie about the correlation of raising the debt ceiling and Social Security checks.1) Social Security is sitting on $2.5 trillion in trust fund bonds, which by law must be cashed if Social Security runs a deficit. 2) According to the Social Security Board of Trustees, Social Security in 2011 will have an income of $781 billion and expenditure of $712 billion, resulting in a surplus of $68 billion. 3) The nation’s debt payment is less than 10% of the federal government’s monthly revenues. 4) Not paying the debt is a clear violation of section 4 of the 14th Amendment–an impeachable offence.

What are the reasons for Obama’s caterwauling, crying out to the world, and empty threats? He simply lacks the character to shoulder the responsibility. He wants Congress to be responsible for raising the debt ceiling; he wants Republicans to be responsible for the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling; he wants Republicans to be responsible for cutting spending; and he wants only the responsibility for raising taxes on the millionaires and billionaires making $250,000 per year. He has rejected the plan presented by House Speaker John Boehner, even throwing a tantrum and walking out of the negotiations. A point to be noted: not only was Obama elected without the remotest of executive experience, or any practical experience for that matter, there is no record he has ever negotiated anything before, and he has acted accordingly.

The one thing Obama did not mention in his speech was the word “veto.” If the Republicans present him with a re-worked plan, and he vetoes it, then all the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling fall upon him. But since the speech, Obama has said he would veto the revised Republican two-step plan, this without knowing what the revised plan is as it is still being revised. In all this talk of plans, negotiating, and compromise, there is one interesting fact to note: Barack Obama does not have a plan. It’s hard to reach a compromise between two opposing plans when one plan does not exist. The closest Obama has come to a plan is to raise taxes, give him a blank check, and trust him on cutting spending.

The elephant in the room is the consequences of a downgrade of the United States credit rating. This is the most ominous threat to the American economy in the immediate future. This could very well happen because the best plan so far is Boehner’s revised reduction plan that gives Obama an immediate $1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling with only a reduction of $900 billion spread over 10 years. If a downgrade happens, even if Obama does not veto the Republican plan–assuming it passes both houses of Congress–the political strategy becomes who is to blame for the downgrade and its consequences.

Barack Obama is on track to add more to the national debt than all 43 preceding presidents combined, he borrows $4 billion per day, he has given us a debt so ominous that if you stacked $1 dollar bills on top of one another, they would go to the moon and back–twice. And now he insists on the capability to borrow more without reducing spending. His political ineptness with real-world issues outside full-time campaigning has positioned him as he should be viewed: If America’s credit worthiness is downgraded, it would be apropos. It would only reflect the fact that this country downgraded itself when Barack Obama was elected as President of these United States. This country would have a second-tier credit rating to match a second-tier Executive Branch.

I was watching the television, fingers crossed, hoping and praying for an Obama victory. The video made its way to conservative news stations and was presented with duplicity. I knew it was just a matter of time before some cracker would try and make something of it. There they were, a couple of New Black Panther crusaders, Jerry Jackson and King Samir Shabazz, protecting their polling place from the atrocities one might witness during the 1940′s against blacks wishing to cast a vote. They were dashing looking, in freshly laundered and military crisp black uniforms–sort of a black-ops look, with cute matching berets and armed with a dainty little blackjack. Even though the New Black Panthers are a non-racist and peaceful organization, and it would take severe cajoling to cause them to become agitated, such as the suspicious and incredulous audacity that white people would show up at a black polling area uninvited, it was quite obvious by the body language of the New Black Panthers in the video that it was an intimidating experience for them to be approached by the white interlopers. Some said they were poll watchers, others said they were there to vote. Either way, the crackers should not have been there. It was obvious they had McCain and Palin written all over their faces, and there is no question that they would have voted the McCain/Palin ticket at a black polling area.

Without the use of guns, knives, or any other lethal method of killing, the New Black Panthers used a Gandhi-like approach of negotiating with the interlopers; they used the term “cracker” and various other non-violent and peaceful “threats,” along with the perfectly justifiable twirling of their blackjacks that would be the envy of any marching band batonist. The whites fled the scene. If some “cracker” turned tail and ran, they probably had a reason to flee the scene. As Eric Holder has stated, “We are a nation of cowards,” and that is what was witnessed, white people being cowards and running.

Then along come George Bush and his Department of Justice filing charges against the two New Black Panthers for violating the civil rights of the white people. Of course, the New Black Panthers no-showed their court date; what’s the point, the deck was stacked: white President, white Attorney General, white judge. So the DOJ under Bush received a verdict of guilty by default from the court. That is the end of that, they are going to jail for voter intimidation and civil rights violations. But, glory be to God, Obama was elected President and Eric Holder was appointed Attorney General. The rest of the story reads like one of those heartwarming stories from the New Testament, where the dead white guy is brought back to life. Eric Holder and his DOJ asked that the conviction be tossed out the window because, well quite frankly, you just can’t have a federal government, especially with a black President, throwing blacks in jail for violating the civil rights of whites.

Now along comes the United States Commission on Civil Rights with their witch-hunt spewing conspiracy rhetoric: “There was a culture of hostility within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to the race-neutral application of the nation’s voting laws.” The Commission wants to use as “evidence” multiple testimonies from within the DOJ affirming that the DOJ systematically will not prosecute a black on white civil rights violation, the DOJ’s complete unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation, and play hide and seek with evidence requested by the Commission. The rabid conservative leaning Commission would have you believe that there is an unadulterated environment of hostility against whites who complain about their civil rights and discrimination committed by blacks at the DOJ just because there are thousands of pieces of alleged “evidence” to support this claim.

Just as the New Black Panthers’ case was dismissed by a divine miracle protecting all that is righteous and Eric Holder’s people, the DOJ has finally been cleared by the most credible and agenda-free investigative commission possible, the United States’ very own Department of Justice. During the DOJ’s bleakest hours, during the darkest hours of its self-investigation, during the mysterious hours of being overwhelmed with literally thousands of internal e-mails of the Department of Justice, notes, papers, almost 50 interviews, and various other “allegedly incriminating evidence” of blatant racism within the DOJ, the evidence was analyzed, cogitated, and deliberated. The DOJ’s own unbiased investigation was able to conquer the evidence at hand and profess that no professional misconduct or poor judgment was used by the DOJ, and that based on “a good faith assessment of the law” the case against the New Black Panthers was dismissed, but was “not influenced by the race of the defendants.”

It’s official. Eric Holder and the Department of Justice have not demonstrated prejudice and racism against white people.

But, the question must be asked: Is there ever a legitimate reason to skirt the rule of law by the Attorney General, and use a personal vendetta for the law’s application? Absolutely, and Eric Holder made that very case when Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) badgered him about the issue: “There’s clearly overwhelming evidence that your Department of Justice refuses to protect the rights of anybody other than African-Americans to vote,” harangued the Republican provocateur.

Eric Holder rebutted the pronounced prejudice of this elected race-baiter with a heartbreaking and gut-wrenching answer intertwined with metaphysical reasoning that intimidation of white voters at the polling booth by black crusaders with a blackjack cannot be a crime: “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people.”

With all aspects considered, what is wrong with the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ using racial factors when determining whether to enforce voting rights laws? Is it wrong for Holder to protect “his people” from themselves and federal law?

Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) (formally Arthur Davenport, but was renamed when his mother, Frances Brown, decided she was an African Queen, and renamed herself Queen Mother Falaka Fattah), said the Black Panthers–”should not have been there.” But he did assign blame where blame is due by stating that the Republicans were making too much out of a fleeting incident involving a couple of people. “The most unethical thing a person can do is make allegations based on absolutely nothing.” Apparently, Fattah was not hoodwinked by the testimony of DOJ lawyers, thousands of emails, and 50 interviews that manifested rampant racism within the DOJ. Fattah could see beyond the evidential hyperbole.

Fattah is a smart man; he would obviously dismiss the actions of John Wilkes Booth as he just “should not have been at that theater,” and he was less than a “couple of people,” so what is the big deal? Rest assured, following the lead of the DOJ and Eric Holder, it is obvious that Fattah would have been satisfied if James Earl Ray had been acquitted by a jury of his family. That is, of course, unless Fattah has a double standard, which I would find completely implausible.

What would Martin Luther King think about America today under the rule of a black President and a black Attorney General? How proud he would be. What would he think about the progress made where the law of the land commands that no one be judged by the color of his skin? How proud he would be. What would he think about this historical black Attorney General appointed by a black President who insists on judging people by the color of their skin rather than their character? How proud he would be. After all, in his I Have a Dream speech, “King said, I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they are judged by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character, but only if we have a black President and a black Attorney General.

The majority of Americans view the United States federal government as incarnate, a being, a corporeal entity; generally the bearded caricature of Uncle Sam suffices for most as representative of the federal government. But good ol’ Uncle Sam is generally only employed to invoke patriotism among the masses for some gain at the federal level, or the very rare occasion that the federal government actually accomplishes something for the greater good of the country rather than for political expediency.

Warren Buffett, who supported Obama for president, has disagreed with his policies, agreed with his policies, has penned an article for the New York Times thanking Uncle Sam (Obama), for saving the world, or rather the projects that Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway was able to profit from either by conventional investing or shorting, and with penned lines such as, “Only one counterforce was available, and that was you, Uncle Sam. When the crisis struck, I felt you would understand the role you had to play.” Buffett, like all investors, sees only what is good for his profits, and the opportunities presented to him by any administration.

The federal government is a bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that has reached immeasurable magnitude. All forms of governmental bodies are bureaucracies: local city governments, school boards, committees, states, and etc. Bureaucracy and commonsense work in unison just as the north-seeking poles of two magnets work together. The smaller the bureaucracy, the less it resists commonsense, and the opposing forces are small enough to give hope that the two could be reconciled. But the federal government and commonsense resist each other with such a force that it is mathematically too powerful to quantify. The larger the government, the larger the bureaucracy, and the larger the bureaucracy, the greater the probably that accomplishing anything of tangible value will diminish exponentially. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but, by Jove, they are a rarity.

Lacking functional skills, apply for a government job; devoid of ambition, apply for a government job; just want a paycheck without accountability, apply for a government job; afflicted with all of the above, run for office.

I do not advocate the extremist positions of libertarianism that call for the practical elimination of the federal government. Government is necessary for maintaining this republic, but the United States federal government could be downsized by 50% or more, and the country would be much better for it. It is the excess girth of the federal government that is the largest problem this country faces.

To understand the dysfunctions of bureaucracies, I present a recent compilation of headline stories of the ineptness, obtuseness, and general lack of commonsense of governmental agencies of all sizes within these United States of America. It is historically clear that the real enemy of all nations, and their eventual downfall, is garden-variety stupidity.

The evidence:

School Makes Boy Take American Flag Off Bike

The Golden State, California, is the most anti-American state in the union.

Cody Alicea decided to fly the American flag, Old Glory, the flag used during the revolutionary war of our independence. That flag mounted on his bicycle as he rode it to school during veteran’s week was his way of honoring our country’s soldiers past and present. But, the Denair Unified School District took offense to the flag and young Cody’s offensive display of patriotism. Following complaints from Hispanic students, the school ordered Cody to remove the flag as it was too offensive to be allowed on school property. The school stated that when Hispanics brought Mexican flags to school it created racial tensions during Cinco de Mayo. Denair Superintendent, Edward Parraz, stated: “Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they’ll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don’t really want. We want them to appreciate the cultures.”

You know, it would be a disgrace, you know, if there was not an outrage about flying Mexican flags at an American school, you know. California, the state that is in debt to the point of no return, has just elected a Governor, Jerry Brown, who can be assured to double the debt, unemployment, taxes, and continue to drive wealth out of the state. California has an illegal alien population that has caused 15% of the public schools to consist of either illegals or the children of illegals, a statistic that is costing the state an additional 7.7 billion dollars a year. It is this valueless, iniquitous, and dysfunctional state that has rejected the American flag.

Not only are public schools robbing children of proper education for the cost, they are now in the business of robbing the children of their patriotism, and teaching that Old Glory is an offensive symbol even on American soil.

Was George Washington fearful of offending the British or the Hessians by charging into battle waving Old Glory?

Armed Cops Raiding Barber Shops over Criminal Barbering

It is as if a huge weight has been lifted.. Now the citizens of Orange Country can sleep at night knowing that cutting hair without a license, illegal barbering, has become public enemy number one for Orange County law enforcement, and that justice has prevailed against the wayward snippers.

Fourteen armed Orange County deputies, narcotic agents, and well-trained agents from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation conducted armed raids, for the public’s safety and in the name of bad haircuts, of course, and raided Skillz barbershop. On a lazy Saturday afternoon, barbers were caught in the criminal act of styling hair without a license. The offenders were handcuffed and hauled off to the pokey in front of bewildered half-sheared customers. Nine barbershops were caught in this unprecedented dragnet, producing 37 arrests, the bulk of the charges levied were for barbering without a license. Captain Dave Ogden, of Orange County Sheriff’s Office, was left with no choice but to arrest and incarcerate: “It was a misdemeanor crime being committed in our presence. We decided to make arrests,” Ogden professed. It is unclear if Odgen harbored a personal vendetta against the felonious barbers, as he suspiciously hid his suspected mutilated coiffure under a chapeau.

Remember to check your stylist’s license against his or her photo identification, and if it matches, and the license is not expired, hug your stylist, and relax knowing your cut will not be interrupted by the incarceration of your stylist mid-snip.

Michigan Woman Faces Civil Rights Complaint for Seeking a Christian Roommate

A Michigan woman has crossed the line of decency by looking for a Christian roommate in an advertisement posted at a Christian church.

A Samaritan of bountiful civic duty saw the ad and promptly reported it to the fair housing authority, which led to formal charges being brought against the Christian advertiser, and her illegal quest for a Christian roommate. She perhaps had violated some pagan’s civil rights. The complaint filed at the Fair Housing Center accused the Christian of having “expressed an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths.” Executive Director Nancy Haynes said, “It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement. There are no exemptions to that.” Haynes also elaborated that the unnamed woman could face hundreds of dollars in fines, and of course the obligatory indoctrination of being sent to “fair housing training” so it does not happen again.

Remember, in the world of the Left, it is a crime to have a preference about with whom you choose to live. If you choose to date or marry a certain race, you could be found guilty of preferring one race over another, and if you prefer one gender over another for dating purposes, or marriage, be prepared to be fined, jailed, and indoctrinated.

Haynes, apparently suffering from chronic imbecilicitis compounded by the deprivation of commonsense, said the state will pursue the matter.

New Castle Councilman Calls Cops on Boys’ Cupcake Sale

New Castle, New York will not tolerate any breach of the law, even if it mirrors a Norman Rockwell painting. Two 13 year old scofflaws, Andrew DeMarchis and Kevin Graff, did what kids have done since, well, forever, and set up a little stand to sell cupcakes, brownies, and cookies at Gedney Park. And along came–remember what we discussed earlier–New Castle Councilman Michael Wolfensohn, bureaucrat, completely depleted of commonsense. Once Wolfensohn realized the den of inequity in the guise of a cookie stand, he promptly called the police, probably 911. Law enforcement promptly arrived.

When asked by someone with a lick of sense why he couldn’t have simply told the boys that they needed a license instead of calling the police, Wolfensohn lamented, “In hindsight, maybe I should have done that, but I wasn’t sure if I was allowed to do that.” But Wolfensohn did raise a perplexing and valid point: “The police are trained to deal with these sorts of issues.”

It is reassuring that my local police academy focuses training new recruits on how to handle armed suspects, weapons handling, self defense, and other rather important skills to protect citizens against criminals rather than being trained on raiding junior high cookie stands.

Of course, the boys could opt for the $1 million dollar insurance, and pay $350 per hour to operate in the park, per the Parks Department.

Obama Statement on Israeli Construction Freeze Startles Prime Minister’s Office

President Obama, the smartest human alive, publicly praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for freezing new settlements in the West Bank. This statement, of course, sent shock waves through the country of Israel, especially Netanyahu and Israel’s government. The problem is that no one in the Israeli government, including Netanyahu, had ever made such a statement to Obama or anyone else. Obama again is subscribing to the if I say it, then it will be happen credo of his administration that has produced zero beneficial and tangible results two years into his presidency.

Mark Regev, Netanyahu’s spokesman, said, “nothing has changed in between the time the cabinet met and the U.S. president’s remarks.” What he did was call Obama a prevaricating buffoon in a very diplomatic sort of way.

Netanyahu is considering some type of freeze, but it is still only in the outlined stages.

Netanyahu personally joined the dog-pile on Obama’s lack of diplomacy and ability to tell the truth, while reassuring his cabinet that he is running Israel, and not Obama: “If and when it is complete, I will bring this proposal to the appropriate government forum, which in this case is the cabinet. In any case, I insist that any proposal meet the state of Israel’s security needs, both in the immediate term and vis-à-vis the threats that we will face in the coming decade.”

HHS Falls Short of Pre-existing Coverage Prediction by 97.8%

Remember when Obama and the Democrats said we had to overhaul this country’s healthcare system immediately? He wanted to socialize our healthcare system so badly that he and the Democrats circumvented this country’s legislative system, passed the bill without a vote from the Senate, and Obama merrily signed it into law. While trying to sell it to a very unreceptive public, Obama tried to coerce its acceptance by alluding that if passed, a burden would be lifted off this country’s economy and conscience: “The cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough.” And all those disenfranchised sick people who are not covered by health insurance will surely stampede to the government troughs and slake their thirst for government subsidized health care coverage, and of course save the economy at the same time. Well almost one year later and the numbers are in. The economy is worse, more people are uncovered, and over the horizon it looks just as bleak:

255 million: The number of Americans with existing health insurance coverage.

20 million: The number of Americans without any health coverage at all due to economic circumstances.

375,000: The number of Americans with pre-existing conditions HHS said would apply for coverage in the first year of ObamaCare, one of the main political arguments for its implementation.

8,011: The number that actually did.

Eight-thousand people. That’s it. Eight-thousand people. One person in North Dakota. Four people from West Virgina. Fifteen in Minnesota. Sixty-three people in Indiana. And 393 in Texas. What was not released was whether or not they were American citizens.

In a statistic that encapsulates the entire Obama administration and the Democratic led Congress, their success rate was a measly 2.2% after the upheaval of the entire healthcare system, lying to the American public about being able to keep their current plan, circumventing the legislative process, and destroying the insurance coverage of those already insured, and creating a plethora of mandates that are already stalling or destroying businesses, all for a 2.2% success rate. But so far, Obama has issued 111 waivers to corporations exempting them from ObamaCare.

Homeland Security and the Transportation and Safety Administration Demonstrate the Idiocy of the Federal Government

For the sake of brevity, I will only use a truncated list of the idiotic policies of Homeland Security and its rules governing the TSA and aircraft safety for the past couple of weeks that has left the probability of an incident happening to lottery style protection.

Pilots must go through either sexual assault–government sanctioned groping–or completely unknown health risk by passing through a body scanning machine that will expose their naked bodies. If they have a pair of nail clippers or too many ounces of Prell shampoo, it will be confiscated. But, once they are on board their aircraft, they will have at their disposal an axe, fire extinguishers, flares, and absolute control of a 900,000 pound missile capable of traveling at mach .92, over 600 miles per hour, but severely handicapped without their overabundance of Prell or trusty nail clippers. The pilot could also be one of the 85,000 to 90,000 pilots and crew who are certified to carry firearms on their flights, but no nail clippers.

Janet Napolitano is one of the few people in America that can make Michael Brown look like the Albert Einstein of national security. She said that abandoning the scanners would be “irresponsible” and that passengers who don’t like it can “travel by some other means.” She also stated that the scanners would have caught the “underwear bomber.” She lies. What she does not address is that with our random selection of which passengers will pass through the body scanners or enhanced pat-downs, it is highly probable that the “underwear bomber” wouldn’t even have been groped or scanned, plus it is only conjecture that the scanner would have noticed the underwear bomb. His flight originated in another country, which leaves Homeland Security, TSA, and the scanners and gropers impotent to incoming international flights.

A military convoy of 330 soldiers was coming back from Afghanistan. They had been through two full screenings already, but were pulled off the plane in Indiana, where hilarity ensued. They were carrying their weapons from Afghanistan, M4 carbines, pistols, and M240 machine guns, but they actually had their nail clippers confiscated by the TSA while holding their weapons. And on and on and on.

This is not about airline security; it is theater, hype, and creating the illusion that flying is safe with the seal of the United States government.

So there it is, government and bureaucracy v. commonsense. As can be seen, not one of the government employees or elected officials are remotely qualified for their jobs: Barack Obama and his cabinet, the school superintendent, the city councilman, Janet Napolitano, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and every single Democrat in Congress. This is your government at work. This was just a snap shot of a couple of incidents during the past couple of weeks, so sit back and enjoy watching as new episodes unfold this week, and the next, and the next…. The question is, what are you going to do about it?

We all believe we have it. We profess our virtues because of it. We talk about it. We want others to believe we have it. We are comfortable displaying it if the threat of employing it is marginal. It is not for the morally languid, as the greater its strength, the greater the assumed responsibility.

Character: the synergistic power of a man’s morals, honor, ethics, honesty, courage, integrity, and loyalty.

We are subtly coerced into believing it exists in people by their fabricated disclosures of its existence during superficial conversations. But, a man’s character cannot be affirmed by his tongue; it can only be affirmed by virtue of his ability to weather formidable challenges or the seduction of temptation. It is at this juncture where character intersects with adversity and temptation, that the conviction, depth, and strength of character will either manifest or recoil back into the recesses of non-existence. To truly know a man’s character, its existence must be witnessed during and after tribulation or temptation.

A man’s character can be gauged by his prolonged application of morals, honor, ethics, honesty, courage, and integrity; regardless the challenge, the consistency of his reaction will always be a constant if guided by fundamentally sound character.

At varying occasions during the course of life, a man should have witnessed, held in reverence, and been left with a permanent effect by virtue of the commanding strength of character of someone facing tribulation of insurmountable odds, or the strength to dismiss seemingly irresistible temptation. Few things in life are more humbling than witnessing this authentication of character, and doubting one’s own capability of duplicating the strength of character needed for confronting equal circumstances.

We have all witnessed, much too often, the destructive wake left by someone with a destitute character. The agonizing effect is compounded when the wake of destruction, and its repercussions, entangle those swindled by the proselytizer of character, and are then carried en masse into the abyss of beguiled.

Those who bemoan their abated status and circumstances in life can determine the cause and effect of their undesirable condition by examining the constitution of their character. A man’s station in life, his fate, is generally determined by the quality of his character. Displays of character are generally a private matter, as the manifestation of character, without witnesses, is the signature of fortitude of character, and it is this private honing of character that creates the unmistakable omnipotent presence of character felt by those in proximity.

What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader? The answer to this question was deliberated as far back as Plato’s Republic. Martin Chemers describes leadership in the following manner: “Leadership is the process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.”

The possession of strong character does not necessarily make a great leader, but it is paramount that a great leader possess depth of character.

America’s presidents are affirmatively referred to as leaders of the free world, the most powerful leaders in the world. Is this a truth with an absolute foundation? Though the United States is the most powerful country in the world, does that make the president the de facto leader of the free world? Is Barack Obama the leader of the most powerful country in the world? Is he the leader of the free world? The answer is a resounding no. He is the president of the United States, but he is not the leader. To be a leader, one needs followers, not a splintered, mathematical minority of followers, but a sound majority. Is there a common goal or agenda towards which he is leading a unified nation? Again, a resounding no. Obama’s leadership qualities have been quite the opposite. He has divided and splintered this country, and continues still either from contempt or ineptness. Obama’s genuine agenda, as it becomes discoverable by his actions, was cloaked by strategic prevarications during his campaign. Obama has become the most divisive president this country has elected; any other president would be considered produced by this country, but Obama, with his still murky origins, must be relegated to elected rather than produced.

In an interview with the Hispanic station Univision, Barack Obama referred to over half of this nation as enemies; based on the overwhelming majority win by conservatives on November 2nd, he has professed publicly that conservatives and those who share the characteristics of the Founding Fathers are the enemies of him and Hispanics: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.’” So stated the enemy of American values.

Leaders in possession of transcendent character will take responsibility for their failures, and will disperse their achievements among instrumental subordinates. Barack Obama’s incessant blaming of his leadership impotence and failed policies on his predecessor, George Bush, almost two years into his administration, is emblematic of imaginary character, or character of disrepute–and categorically compromised leadership competence.

Raymond Cattell established eight traits that comprise effective leaders with his Leadership Potential Equation in 1954. The study of successful military leaders’ traits was the bedrock of the equation. The analytical rational for using this study is twofold: it is still in use today, and it antedates, by ten years, the systematic start of the erosion of America’s values and morality. It is a measure of what constitutes character and leadership. Cattell’s eight traits are as follows:

• Emotional stability. Good leaders must be able to tolerate frustration and stress. Overall, they must be well-adjusted and have the psychological maturity to deal with anything they are required to face.
• Dominance. Leaders are often times competitive and decisive and usually enjoy overcoming obstacles. Overall, they are assertive in their thinking style as well as their attitude in dealing with others.
• Enthusiasm. Leaders are usually seen as active, expressive, and energetic. They are often very optimistic and open to change. Overall, they are generally quick and alert and tend to be uninhibited.
• Conscientiousness. Leaders are often dominated by a sense of duty and tend to be very exacting in character. They usually have a very high standard of excellence and an inward desire to do one’s best. They also have a need for order and tend to be very self-disciplined.
• Social boldness. Leaders tend to be spontaneous risk-takers. They are usually socially aggressive and generally thick-skinned. Overall, they are responsive to others and tend to be high in emotional stamina.
• Tough-mindedness. Good leaders are practical, logical, and to-the-point. They tend to be low in sentimental attachments and comfortable with criticism. They are usually insensitive to hardship and overall, are very poised.
• Self-assurance. Self-confidence and resiliency are common traits among leaders. They tend to be free of guilt and have little or no need for approval. They are generally secure and free from guilt and are usually unaffected by prior mistakes or failures.
• Compulsiveness. Leaders were found to be controlled and very precise in their social interactions. Overall, they were very protective of their integrity and reputation and consequently tended to be socially aware and careful, abundant in foresight, and very careful when making decisions or determining specific actions.

A simple perfunctory analysis of Barack Obama’s actions as President, his voting record as an Illinois and U.S. senator, his sanctimonious lambasting of America’s Constitution–this country’s soul, fundamental values, beliefs, history–and his leadership qualifications that are barren of the slightest implication of the eight leadership traits listed, illuminates a severely corrupt character. Aggregate these transgressions of character with Obama’s inexhaustible ego, which is reinforced by an intelligence of legend, but when forthrightly examined, is apocryphal at best, and devoid of substantiation at worse, and the aftermath of a virtuoso of failure is who this country elected in 2008, and the unrepresented post-haste correction is what this country experienced November 2.

It would be fallacious to classify Barack Obama as the leader of the United States, and preposterous to characterize him as the leader of the free world. He is the elected president of the United States burdened by a handicapped character that has always precluded him from being an effective, much less great, leader. But he does lead. His pursuers consist of various colonies of radical dissenters of ethicalness whose ideology he shares, an ideology that has been aborted by axiological fundamentals since recorded history. Although he has failed as a leader, he still maintains consistently 90% approval in the black community, and based on the unwavering support regardless of his actions, can continue to lean on that crutch through eternity.

Who is not following Barack Obama the leader? He is not followed by his enemies, who consist of conservatives, patriots, and loyalists, who are the bedrock of this country’s foundation and revere the founding principles of this country, and on display November 2nd, they are the overwhelming majority of this country. They are who Barack Obama has proclaimed as enemies, and he does not possess the character to lead them.

In summary, Barack Obama is not leader of the United States of America. He has yet to display the morals, honor, ethics, honesty, courage, integrity, and loyalty needed to lead the majority of Americans towards a unified common goal, and with his devoid character, he most certainly is not my leader.

Barack Obama was the architect and producer of this health care summit/theater/reality show. This was definitive Barack Obama theater, but arrogance exposed two major flaws in the production, which in turn exposed Obama’s noxious deficiencies as he took center stage without teleprompters and with script.

Revelations about Obama from the health care theater:

After producing a substantial record of accomplishing nothing of substance or rectitude in his first year, Obama demonstrated his penchant for public discussion of issues rather than actually making a genuine effort to fix them. His entire professional track record has revolved around discussing rather than doing; he continues unabated. Obama was elected as president of these United States, a leader, not as the meretricious philosopher laureate of America.

Obama grossly overestimated his performance at the Republican retreat in Baltimore in January when he challenged Republicans to an open debate. To his credit, he did have a solid performance. The cameras were focused on him the majority of the time, which was unfair to the Republicans, but should not take away from his performance. But when a grandiose ego trumps diminutive commonsense, as was proven at this health care theater, Obama is not a master, but rather a slave, to unrehearsed debate about policy or topics of substance. Conventional wisdom dictates that Obama should never be more than a few feet from his teleprompters, unscripted, and should never bandy rhetoric with an opponent that is prepared, able, and argues from the vantage of reality.

Obama’s character flaws manifest when he is challenged intellectually and on substantive issues, sans script and teleprompters. He is not mesmerizing or dominant, but will display the temperament of frustrated l’enfant, with an arrogant and combative demeanor. When confronted on the facts while moderating the show, Obama addressed his challengers with condescension and insolence, all the while allowing the Democrats more than double the minutes of the Republicans by not counting his own pretentious monopolizing of the minutes. For a man who has ascended to president of these United States, it is astounding that he has never developed tolerance for differing opinions.

Obama demonstrates an overwhelming fetish for displaying his exhaustive constitutional illiteracy. There are three separate branches of our government. Obama, having a law degree from Harvard, has probably never been exposed to the influences of the Founding Fathers of this country, as case law trumps constitutional law within those hallowed confines. To thoroughly understand the Constitution, knowing what influenced the Founding Fathers is compulsory. The spirit of our Constitution lies in the separation of powers, which can be directly attributed to French philosopher Montesquieu and his book The Spirit of the Laws. Trias politica, the separation of powers, is the foundation of keeping the federal government’s powers in check. It is impossible to reconcile Obama having a health care legislation writing party in the White House with various union representatives, presenting his own health care legislation, then conducting this circus with legislators, without being in direct violation of the Constitution.

Obama’s penchant for prevarication is becoming legendary. The spectacle lasted 7 1/2 hours. Obama stated regarding the meeting, “We’ll go section by section. America can’t solve our economic problems unless we tackle some of these structural problems.” The math: 2700 pages, at least one hour of complete and honest argument per labyrinthine page equals 112 days of debate. For a bill that equals 1/3 of the entire United States economy, an average of 10 seconds per page was invested. At 2700 pages, this bill is not about health care, Obama knows it, the Democrats know it, the Republicans know it, and the majority of the American people know it.

This meeting was never about bipartisanship. The summit was held on Thursday, but on the preceding Monday, Obama posted on the White House website his own version of health care legislation. The summit was pure political theater. Harry Reid, before the meeting, was already planning on reconciliation the following week. Obama has made it clear that reconciliation will be used if the bill cannot reach cloture. Which, oddly enough, is another lie. His fabrications: On 11/02/2004: “My understanding of the Senate is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen. Do we have the will to move an American agenda forward and not a democratic or republican agenda forward?” On 29/25/2007: “We are going to have to ask a 60% majority in the Senate to actually get a health care bill to my desk.” This week regarding the bill: “…deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children’s Health Insurance Program.” Up-or-down equals reconciliation.

Rep. Paul Ryan spent six minutes debunking the chicanery of subsidizing 30 million Americans with government run health care, while miraculously lowering the deficit by increasing spending with money the government does not have. Obama’s health care bill is a mathematical achievement that would have Isaac Newton scratching his head and rethinking his life’s work. Ryan dazzled attendees with sophisticated mathematics: If you have $100 and you spend $150, how much do you have left? This was actually his methodology. Obama and the Democrats’ reaction to Ryan was the unintelligible retort of one who had not read nor comprehended the bill, and would be hard pressed to pass a primary school math quiz.

In their usual liberal fashion, the Democrats lamented about various anecdotal stories of the inhumane suffering of people who died or were horribly mistreated because the government was not providing them with health care. The morbid ruse about these stories is that, in the past, most of the heart wrenching tales the Democrats have paraded about have been either fabricated or immensely aggrandized to the point of emaciation. The Left will continue to subject one and all to their anecdotathon–a phrase coined by Missourah.

Not one to be surpassed with pointless rhetoric, Obama resorted to his own personal anecdote about insurance:

When I was young, just got out of college, I had to buy auto insurance. I had a beat-up old car. And I won’t name the name of the insurance company, but there was a company — let’s call it Acme Insurance in Illinois. And I was paying my premiums every month. After about six months, I got rear-ended and I called up Acme and said, I’d like to see if I can get my car repaired, and they laughed at me over the phone because really this was set up not to actually provide insurance; what it was set up was to meet the legal requirements. But it really wasn’t serious insurance.

Now, it’s one thing if you’ve got an old beat-up car that you can’t get fixed. It’s another thing if your kid is sick, or you’ve got breast cancer.

First, anyone who owns a car has the option of either purchasing full coverage insurance including collision, or the state mandated liability minimum insurance. Obama was covered by the latter. Second, according to Obama’s analogy, to “treat a sick kid or breast cancer,” either dental insurance or the insurance on a boat should suffice. Third, Obama, in his attempt to annex one-third of the U.S. economy through the insurance sector, knows less about insurance than a bourgeois automobile owner. This anecdote proves that Obama did not understand how insurance worked as a college graduate, and does not understand how insurance works as president.

Should the Republicans have even attended the summit? It was a disappointment that they did not challenge Obama’s authority to be directly involved in legislation, or challenge the myriad unconstitutional provisions within the health care bill. The Republicans should have insisted on preconditions before attending. They should have insisted that the bill be legal before debate. But in retrospect, they did expose the deceitful math, the unpreparedness, and the ignorance of the Democrats and Obama regarding the substance of the bill. The bill presented by Obama, much like Obama himself, was all style and no substance as the Congressional Budget Office was not able analyze Obama’s bill because it was sufficiently lacking in details.

The summations of reality:

Barack Obama: During the presidential campaign, and immediately after winning the election, Barack Obama was declared urbane… super cool… IQ off the charts… probably the smartest guy ever to become president… the cerebral president… too intelligent for the job, and boundless tantamount protestations of the like.

One year later, the evidence and aftermath have painted a different picture of a man whose intelligence and general competence were prejudicially manufactured by the media and the demagogues of the Left. The only existing evidence supporting Obama’s formidable intelligence and heightened IQ were, and are still, sequestered from public perusal, as his actual accomplishments present a garden variety philistine intellect. His academic record, for all practical purposes, does not exist. Not one of the myopic windbags who championed his intelligence has ever been afforded the luxury of admiring his Punahou School records, his SAT scores, his Occidental College records, his Columbia College records, his Harvard College records, and his nonexistent Harvard Law Review articles as the editor.

Obama’s record of a man possessing such an impressive IQ and academic foundation seems to run counter to his manufactured super-human perspicacity. Obama has demonstrated this past year an astonishing ignorance of constitutional law, American history, world history, basic fundamental economics, and a primary school grasp of the structure of the federal government, including each branch’s role.

Obama’s brief tenure has been plagued by a battle between his alleged super-intelligence and his doubtless super-arrogance, with the latter generally prevailing at the end of each round.

This past year, we have learned that Obama’s penchant for lying is not wielded for political expediency, as are plenty of political prevarications, but rather appears founded in a pathological affliction. Only 65% of Americans did not believe the substance of Obama’s State of the Union Address, which is low considering that almost the entirety of the speech, when weighed against substantiated facts, was one misrepresentation of the truth after another. Only 6% of Americans believe his $800 billion debacle of a stimulus package has created any jobs. To put this number in bleak perspective, 8% of Americans believe Elvis is still alive, and 83% believe Tupac Shakur is still alive.

Obama told a group of Republicans that he was not an ideologue. But this past year, the evidence has convicted Obama as the embodiment of Leftist ideology. A cursory perusal of his appointments and cabinet members’ pasts and recent affiliations with Leftist organizations, Communist organizations, and Fascist organizations, would substantiate his ideology beyond any reasonable doubt, regardless of his disputes.

Currently, only 22% of voters strongly approve of Barack Obama’s performance as president, while 41% strongly disapprove. This gives Obama a presidential approval index of -19.

So what have we learned this past year about Barack Obama? When Barack Obama ran for president, he possessed no leadership experience. When a man in his late 40′s is void of leadership roles, he is not a leader. A natural leader leads. Whatever the situation or circumstances, a leader always emerges as a leader. And to lead, you need followers, and Obama has divided this nation asunder. Continuing to divide and lead a minority of Left-Wing ideologues down a path of destruction does not a leader make. Obama was not qualified when he was a candidate, and has proven that he is not qualified one year later.

If Obama could be summarized in one act, it would be his speech earlier at the National Prayer Breakfast. He stood erect, jaw jutted out in arrogance, shrouded by teleprompters, reading words someone else wrote, and pronouncing the word “corpsman” by accentuating the “p.” This speech was embarrassing, pathetic, pregnant with fabrications, ignorant, and disrespectful, and summed up the first year of Barack Obama.

Sarah Palin: I like Sarah Palin. She, out of Obama, McCain, and Biden, was the most qualified to be president. Yet, she is not qualified to be president at this juncture, and being a celebrity is not advancing her qualifications for the job, but it is advancing conservatism. Palin does possess one trait that eludes the other three, and this trait is essential as a leader: common sense. She has values, and those values resonate with the majority of Americans. She possesses and projects a morality that eludes the majority of politicians in this country, and frustrates the Left into spasms of exasperation. Palin seems to possess the fundamental knowledge of the principles upon which this country was founded, which would make her a far better leader than our current president. I believe Sarah Palin is a very smart woman, but when pressed for specifics about the Constitution, she uses talking points that rarely penetrate into a deeper understanding. Her lack of previous intellectual curiosity regarding U.S. history and the Constitution has cost her a foundational knowledge. That can be corrected. A reading of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, studying legitimate American history from 1766-1790, reading the Federalist Papers, and reading the debates and personal writings of the Founders regarding the Constitution, would give Sarah Palin a much better understanding of the Constitution than most Ivy League Constitution Law graduates. But, with that said, she still has a better understanding of the meaning and intentions of the Constitution in the aggregate than the majority of the congress, Barack Obama, and four unnamed Supreme Court Justices whose initials start with Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer.

What have we learned this year about Sarah Palin? Sarah Palin is currently in her most suitable and accommodating role to advance the values of true conservatism. She continues to cause the loathsome and reprehensible essence of contemporary liberals to expose itself through their reactions to her. As Palin has gained her footing on the national stage, increased her knowledge base of national issues, and mastered a compelling authority to communicate her message, with each incremental step she has advanced, the Left has incrementally increased their thrashing about in the throes of their confounded agony. It would be a great loss to the conservative movement if Palin were to run for office in the near future, and abandon the power she wields in her current endeavor. Sarah Palin has settled into a position of much greater power and influence than if she held public office. Sarah Palin is good for conservatives, and good for this country.

Joe Biden: What can be said about Joe Biden one year later? Joe Biden possesses the same picayune spirit and values that were responsible for his getting caught plagiarizing a paper in law school, and graduating at the bottom of his class. His intellectual and moral evolution since becoming a senator and subsequently vice-president has been somewhat of a disappointment, as he is still the same little dimwit he was in law school.

What have we learned this year about Joe Biden? The same thing Joe has learned: nothing.

John McCain: John McCain, politics aside, is a true American hero, a man who possesses a type of courage that only a handful of Americans can claim, and as much as a lifetime of politics will corrode and decay a person’s honor and integrity, McCain has been able to keep most of his intact. John McCain, on his best day, is a run of the mill progressive, which conflicts with some of his conservative values. Most of what ails this country today can be directly tied to policies that John McCain supports. McCain, throughout his political career, and especially in the past ten years or so, has been an erratically moving contradiction, which does not characterize a maverick as much as it characterizes an indefinable entity, and what this country does not need as president is an indefinable entity.

John McCain and Joe Biden do share one thing in common: they both were sponsors of bills that had portions ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, Biden’s Violence Against Women Act and McCain’s McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act.

What have we learned this year about John McCain? Nothing. McCain is what he was ten years ago: an inconsistent and indefinable entity.

In conclusion, one year later, the only person of the four to advance to a level of genuine and functional relevance is Sarah Palin. McCain and Biden are still McCain and Biden. Barack Obama has proven that when a president is elected whose only demonstrable skill is reading from a teleprompter, then after one year, his only discernible skill is still only reading from a teleprompter.

Obama’s nomination, just 12 days into his presidency, was an act of illegitimacy accompanied by the consummate impossibility of justification. What legitimate justification can be argued for Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize? What exploit of consequence and unique accomplishment that quantitatively benefited mankind did Obama realize? The indignant and ludicrous maneuver of bestowing the Nobel Peace Prize on Barack Obama for attempting nothing and accomplishing less, while the other 205 nominees, including these leading candidates presented by The Weekley Standard: Sima Samar, Ingrid Betancourt, Dr. Denis Mukwege, Hu Jia, Wei Jingsheng, and Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition, who were deservedly sitting at the front of the line, has delivered the Nobel Peace Prize into the abyss of obsolescence.

Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize supplements the continuing validation by liberal progressives of the intellectual and moral debasement of another once, long ago, staid institution.

The Nobel Institute and the horde of Norwegian professors who bestowed this once legitimate award on Obama are a league of liberal progressive socialist politicians masquerading as a society of erudite benevolents. This Nobel Institute, this milquetoast nest of socialists, has a recent history of bestowing awards upon celebrities in possession of a political platform that aligns with their philosophy of Socialism — sans accomplishments, of course. Anyone possessing attributes antithetical to American canonical values, coupled with the above qualifications, should enjoy a serious expectation of winning; add to the mix of previous ingredients an American, especially a sitting president with a jejune and timorous disposition, and a more likely candidate without peers does not exist. To ensure an unassailable victory, the candidate should have a history of indicting Bush and American exceptionalism for the infirmaries of the world– a skill Obama has mastered without peer. The Nobel Institute was surely salivating at the Trotskyite manna that fell into their collective laps, with another opportunity to award another Bush antagonist.

What the Nobel Institute actually accomplished was accentuating the manifestation of the nothingness of Barack Obama, which quite comically, has reached caricature proportions.

Obama obviously, let’s hope, did not nominate himself, but he is culpable in the iniquitous transaction nonetheless. Example: if one is actually bested in a tournament of intellectual competition, yet called forth as champion to accept his award, knowing with absolute certainty he is undeserved of the award obviously granted through an administrative error, with a wink and a nod to the incredulous and deserving defeated, thanking all involved, dismounts the podium clutching his misbegotten prize and ego, at that point, he is guilty of cheating. Barack Obama, a person of non-existent accomplishments benefiting anyone outside his reprobate vortex of political accomplices, is clutching his misbegotten prize and ego while wantonly cheating the candidates who have risked their lives over the course of years for the betterment of mankind.

The abstruse reason for awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize was “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples and his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.” This is quite an astonishing laundry list of things on the to-do list. Unfortunately, the committee seems to share the same undisciplined criteria for vetting as Obama, which could be the result of a severe case of Fascist Myopia. Reach out to the Muslim world, indeed. If Obama really desires to impress with his “great uniter” skills, perhaps he could convince the Muslim world to reach out to the non-Muslim world, and if the stars align, maybe, just maybe, he could convince the Muslim world that when something is published or spoken unflatteringly about Islam, they could react without rioting, killing, and causing general mayhem. But again, this would actually require action and a result.

Let us examine Obama’s trend analysis in his areas of qualifications. He has attempted nothing, and accomplished nothing. Other than that, his administration, at nine months, possesses the worst foreign policy initiatives since Carter. Let us examine Obama’s foreign policy potential. Assuming the committee meant “international cooperation between peoples,” what does Obama’s trend in this area predict? Obama was not able to bridge the gap between his scurrilous church and its racist preacher, Jeremiah Wright, with genteel society. Since taking office, Obama has engineered the biggest division in this country’s history since the Civil War. There is an ideological chasm rending this country apart, perpetrated by the most divisive president this country has had the privilege of enduring. And the Nobel Institute actually believes these failures will produce results in the world arena, and are the blueprint for world peace? Historical note: wholesale appeasement from the position of a nebish, armed with an unsophisticated intellect, does not diplomacy make.

Obama’s notion that should the U.S. initiate disarming itself of nuclear weapons, the evilness of the world will follow suite and dissipate, is preposterous– this vacuous rhetoric is spoken while cowering in the corner, barking acerbic rhetoric at Iran and North Korea as they laugh and fast-track their nuclear weapons programs. This approach could be supposed by progressives as technically curbing nuclear proliferation and reaching out to the Muslim world simultaneously. If the United States loses their nuclear weapons, and North Korea and Iran acquire theirs to fill the void, and perhaps Venezuela could be aided in acquiring its own program, it becomes a zero sum game in proliferation.

The effete sheep-like disposition of the pacifist Left leads them to believe that they can bleat in cacophonous harmony, and either keep the war-mongering wolves of the world at bay, or through their incessant bleating, cause them to drop their weapons, join hands, break out the ukulele, and sing kumbaya. This myth can be dispelled with just a cursory glance at history. Using the totality of recorded history as a guide, there exists, in this world, one way, and one way only, to achieve peace, and Reagan summed it up in one sentence: Peace through Power.

No country is a bystander during a world war. It will either eat or be eaten, own or be owned. Norway thought they could enjoy neutrality from the peanut gallery during both World Wars, but lost their merchant fleet in World War One because they could not defend it, and were occupied by Germany in World War Two because they could not defend themselves. This ideology is what they are promoting by awarding the Peace Prize to Carter and Obama. This is the path Obama wants to lead America down: he wants America to join the choir and sing in three-part harmony with the sheep of the world.

How about a Nobel Peace Prize for the past three Republican presidents? Reagan ended the Cold War without firing a shot and brought down the Berlin Wall, bestowing freedom to millions; George Bush, Sr. freed Kuwait from Iraq; and George W. Bush brought freedom to millions of Iraqis. How about a prize for them? Their methods may not have been perfect, and caused unwanted lateral ramifications, but they actually did something and peoples of the world benefited. But, quite frankly, these three men do not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, and America does not deserve a president who qualifies for the Nobel Peace Prize. Acquiring freedom, as witnessed by the Revolutionary War, is an ugly business, and keeping it is even uglier. I will take freedom over the Nobel Peace Prize. And if the cost of America’s freedom is unpopularity, so be it. Leave the business of pursuing world peace to the altruist, and leave the business of keeping their paths open to the powerful, which if necessary, will use their powers to ensure the altruists’ pursuit of peace is unencumbered.

Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for attempting nothing. The lesson gathered from this is as follows: accomplish nothing in your private professional life, get elected to the state Senate; accomplish nothing in the state Senate, get elected to the U.S. Senate; accomplish nothing in the U.S. Senate, get elected president; and accomplish nothing as president, win the Nobel Peace Prize. This certainly is a teachable moment: Just do nothing and wait to be whisked off to fortune and fame.

“Stupidly” is the term Obama used to refer to the Cambridge police department after they arrested Henry Louis Gates, Jr. for disorderly conduct. Obama’s exact statement was, “the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.” The information available to Obama as he made his statement was that the arresting officer was white, and Gates, an Obama friend, was black. Obama uttered a stupidly prejudiced and racist statement, a statement alarmingly consistent with the anti-white writings in his books, his associations, and his wife’s senior thesis at Princeton. There is an obvious pattern of stupidity on display: Obama has proven during his first six months that he is a stupidly economic illiterate, a stupidly constitutional illiterate, and continues to be a stupidly historical illiterate.

During the past two months, Obama has demonstrated that, even after professing to be a student of history, he is as equally illiterate in history as he is in economics and constitutional law, the three primary elements comprising the foundation of a successful leader of a Republican form of government. He has made three separate statements regarding history that are as fantastical as the Wizard of Oz. His statements are consistent with contemporary Leftists’ revision of history to read as they wish it had been, rather than what it was, to substantiate their ideology. In Obama’s three statements, he jejunely declared, at least to the mildly educated, that he is stupidly illiterate in the history of Islam, the history of the United States, and the history of the world regarding conquerors and conquered, and apparently refuses to accept authentic history, fabricating a revised version of history that illuminates his fantasy of the past.

Obama’s statement about the history of Islam during his Cairo speech:

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

Let’s, for argument’s sake, overlook the facts that algebra was invented by the Babylonians over 4000 years ago, the compass by the Chinese, printing by the Chinese, astronomy by Copernicus, the mastery of pens by medieval monks, and the “majestic arches and soaring spires” of the Roman empires, which pre-date the birth of Islam by a thousand years.

What cannot be overlooked is the fact that it was the Arab medieval Muslims who were an integral part of ushering Europe from the Dark Ages into the Age of Reason and thus the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. Authentic history dictates that it was not the Islam with which Obama harbors an unnatural infatuation that should be credited with these achievements. The Muslim world, after intimate contact with Greece and its culture, adopted their practices of mathematics, astronomy, and physics. They served Islam as devout Muslims while serving erudition as did the Greeks; this marriage led to a rapidly advancing and evolving Muslim culture. These Muslims were the disciples of Aristotle’s ideas, they were Arabs qua Aristotelians. Obama was correct to credit Islam for some of the achievements in his speech, but the Islam he praised is antithetical to the Islam that possessed an advanced civilization a thousand years ago.

As rapidly as Islamic culture advanced, so too it declined. The Islamic orthodoxy repudiated Aristotelian thought and the advancements it beget in the sciences, mathematics, and architecture, and were able, through persecution of the learned, to eradicate reason and intelligence from Islamic culture. After the intentional and systematic elimination of math and science from their culture, the Muslim world hastily retreated into a primitive state and advancement ceased. Decline ensued. It was the Arabs qua Islamists who were responsible for the devolution of the Arab world, the very culture upon which Obama continues to bestow unfettered adulation. This intelligent student of history, Barack Obama, believes that the Arabs qua Islamists, the responsible party for eradicating advanced thought, science, math, astronomy, physics, etc, from their culture, is owed a debt by this world’s advanced, cultured, and sophisticated civilizations. Indeed.

Obama’s statement about how the cold war ended:

“The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.”

The Cold War ended as it did because of Ronald Reagan. Period! The USSR would probably have come to an end at some point regardless of Ronald Reagan, but in what fashion it dissipated, and what the current state of Russia would be, can only be left to conjecture and theory, at best.

Reagan did not single-handedly end the Cold War; as with all great achievements, there are ancillary components involved. Pressure from other countries, especially British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was integral, and Gorbachev’s willingness to conform under Reagan’s pressure was imperative. But eliminate Reagan from the equation and replace him with someone of the caliber of our last three Democrat presidents, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, and the USSR’s inclination to subdue would have been greatly comprised; the Cold War would not have ended when and how it did.

It was Reagan’s incessant military and economic pressure on the USSR, with which the USSR could not compete, that was instrumental in subduing a country submerged in stagnation and hovering at the cusp of exhaustion. It was the unprecedented military buildup of the USA, our medium-range missiles strategically placed throughout Europe, dogged pressure from Thatcher, Reagan’s Star Wars missile defense system– which the Russians held in awe–that pushed the USSR to the breaking point. This was the prototypical and time-honored battle between good and evil, and good won.

Obama’s statement about the history of conquerors and conquered:

“The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground.”

Obama could not have made a more adolescent and naive statement had he the assistance of a 5 year old.

The future always has, and always will, belong to the nation that can either defend itself or have such military might that an attack upon it would be preposterous. The future will always belong to the country “who can gather armies on a field of battle and bury missiles in the ground.” As far back in recorded history as one can examine, there have been winners and losers in the quest for dominance and sovereignty, insomuch as nations go. This will not change. A powerful military, as has been the case as long as recorded history, will always be essential for conserving a nation’s sovereignty and protecting its resources.

Obama should take a lesson from fellow Democrat Harry Truman regarding his thoughts on appeasement and the prospects of disarming the United States: “No people in history have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies.”

Consider the man-made global warming prattle. Even though the mean temperature has been dropping for the past ten years, and there is categorically nil credible evidence to substantiate man’s effect, global warming has become a doomsday scenario, forecasted by Sen. John Kerry:

“We are here today to discuss a grave and growing threat to global stability, human security, and America’s national security. As you will hear from all of today’s witnesses, the threat of catastrophic climate change is not an academic concern for the future…international conflicts over resources, due to migrants, and/or as a means of distraction are not only likely, but likely to exacerbate the underlying climate change problem…climate change is a threat to our national security.”

Envision that scenario coupled with a cataclysmic worldwide shortage of water. Who wins in that situation? The country with sustainable resources? The country with military might and the “most bombs in the ground and armies gathered on a field?” The country with the sustainable resources wins– but only if they can protect them; if not, then the country with the “most bombs in the ground and armies gathered on a field” will annex the resources by force. That is the history of the world in its entirety, past, present, and future, and neither Barack Obama nor his impulsively callow sycophants in Congress will change that.

“The past is prologue,” Joe Biden so eloquently stated during his debate with Sarah Palin, without citing the source of the phrase. The phrase, incidentally, is from Shakespeare’s The Tempest: Whereof what’s past is prologue; what to come, In yours and my discharge. What could one hope an intelligent non-ideologue learned from nations that suffered from being conquered by a stronger military? What was learned from the elimination of advanced knowledge and understanding? What was learned from the unmatchable military power of the United States? What the genuine intelligentsia has learned from history, authentic history, is the knowledge of how to maintain all aspects of sustainability, and avoiding repeating the mistakes of the past. Tread lightly, Barack Obama, as the past is prologue.