Obama seems to be more concerned with fighting a war with Fox News, than pursuing the war on terror. While our generals are asking for an increase in forces in Afghanistan, Obama dithers. A century and a half ago the British Army in India marched into Afghanistan. Realizing they did not have sufficient forces, they tried to withdraw their troops. Over the next few weeks, as they made their way back south through the Khyber pass, the army of nearly 16,000 military and support personnel was annihilated. Only one medical officer survived to tell the story. Shortly thereafter, an Afghan poet celebrated his event by calling his country ‘the graveyard of empires.’ If the Obama administration can’t get serious in Afghanistan, we should bring the troops home and declare defeat. Of course this would allow our enemies to recoup and attack our country once again. This would be a catastrophe with a nuclear Pakistan next door and Islamic Jihadis threatening that government daily.
Instead our president has declared war on the only network independent of the government. With a strategy similar to what Hugo Chavez is doing with any opposition in the Venezuelan media, the White House is refusing to allow any member of the administration to be interviewed on Fox. Obama is willing to sit down with Chavez, but won’t sit down with Glenn Beck, nor allow his lackeys to do so.
White House Communications director Anita Dunn told CNN Sunday, concerning Fox News, “we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” I wonder if Ms. Dunn is behaving the way a White House Communications Director should behave, especially to the most popular news outlet in the United States. If Obama is able to stop Fox, or succeed in intimidating them into compliance like the rest of the mainstream media, I worry for our republic.
When asked what kind of government he was trying to create, Benjamin Franklin responded, “a republic, if you can keep it.” I am beginning to worry, whether we can keep that republic.
The proclamation announcing the Nobel Peace Prize for President Obama states that he “created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.”
The Nobel committee has fallen into the same trap that many American commentators have: rather than actually evaluating outcomes and successes, they are rewarding those who express good intentions. From the proclamation, the Nobel Committee actually acknowledges this, disregarding whether or not any of Obama’s “good intentions” will eventually result in policy success. After going through the checklist of “accomplishments,” there is little or no evidence that any of these things have resulted, nor will they result, in making peace. Multilateralism and dialogue about disarmament and the climate are meaningless.
It appears that the only thing Obama has done, which the committee views as an accomplishment, is to weaken the United States’ standing in the world. While the Nobel Committee may view this as an accomplishment, a weaker United States is certainly not consistent with a more peaceful world. America’s strength on display has in fact led to greater peace in the world over the last 70 years, while presidencies such as Jimmy Carter’s, which sought to diminish America’s standing, actually led to greater world conflict.
Good intentions alone, of course, do not necessarily lead to peace. And a naïve belief that good intentions will result in peace is dangerous. Every attempt at appeasement has been laden with good intentions, whether it is Chamberlain’s cowering to Hitler, or Carter’s weakness in light of increasing Soviet expansion. Weakness in the face of great danger does not establish peace.
The Nobel Committee has made a mockery of itself by honoring the hope for peace, rather than an actual accomplishment of it.
The next great reckoning for the media is their response to Obama’s imminent failure. They will have to choose between their ideology, to support Obama, or fecklessly go with the good story.
The answer is obvious given a media which can sell out its integrity so easily. Headline: Barack thrown under bus by mainstream media. Film at eleven.
Last Sunday on "Meet the Press," US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice was questioned on the wisdom of President Obama’s failed effort to secure the 2016 Olympics for the city of Chicago. Ambassador Rice replied that “It's never a mistake for the President of the United States to be willing to fight and compete on behalf of our country. And that's what he did, and he would do it again in a nanosecond.”
The ironies of this statement are many; here are just two.
First, the fact that our United Nations ambassador confuses campaigning for the Olympic Games as “fighting” and “competing” for our country is, of course, nonsense. Convincing the IOC to accept a bid to host is not much different than competing in a beauty pageant. Confusing such a campaign with advocating for American interests is indeed baffling.
Second, and far more important, is that Ambassador Rice fails to see that President Obama’s track record as President is anything but fighting for America, it’s interests, or the interests of its allies. The examples are many, but a few of the lowlights will suffice.
Obama announced in September that he would not continue the planned development and deployment of the missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic (two former Soviet satellite nations who have, in recent years, become staunch allies of the United States). Obama’s motivation for this decision was an attempt to gain favor with Vladimir Putin of Russia. Of course, Prime Minister Putin was ecstatic about this decision.
President Obama has recently pushed back his scheduled meeting with the Dalai Lama in an attempt to gain favor from the Chinese government, waiting instead until after his visit to China later this year. These overtures to Russia and China have already proven useless. China has announced that it opposes any new sanctions against Iran, in spite of the discovery of new nuclear capabilities. President Chavez of Venezuela has bragged recently of new technology-sharing with Russia concerning nuclear and missile know-how. Any expectation of support against Iran and against preventing proliferation of weapons in our own hemisphere is, of course, naïve.
In Afghanistan, in spite of his campaign rhetoric ensuring that this was the “good” war and assurances that he would take the necessary steps to ensure success, the President’s inability to take the decisive steps that the military commanders on the ground have requested has shown a timid inability to command.
In every major foreign policy speech delivered at home or abroad, rather than defend America’s interests and her noble past accomplishments, President Obama has instead used each occasion to criticize our history, while diminishing our standing in the world.
The failure to fight for America is not, of course, limited to foreign policy mistakes. Obama’s domestic policies, including but not limited to: his support of a cap and trade plan; the government takeover of major banking and automotive corporations; and his unwillingness to prevent the expiration of tax cuts which would ensure a pro growth environment for small businesses, will all do great harm to American economic interests.
To date, President Obama has failed to exhibit any knowledge of how to fight for America’s interests. He and his Administration’s confusion that campaigning for the hosting of the Olympics equals fighting for America would be comical if not so tragic.
Obama's dangerously deluded foreign policyBy Mark Hillman
Say what you will about Bill Clinton's foreign policy shortcomings, but for the most part he had the good sense not to squander Ronald Reagan's legacy of peace through strength. By contrast, Barack Obama's foreign policy seems to be predicated on a boundless faith in his own persuasive powers and the naïve notion that our international antagonists are merely misunderstood. Not since Jimmy Carter has American foreign policy been so obsequious or short-sighted. Rather than isolate Argentine menace Hugo Chavez, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have managed the remarkable feat of backing Chavez's acolyte in Honduras, ousted president Manuel Zelaya, while still eliciting ridicule from Latin America's most notorious thug. Zelaya, who sought to defy Honduras' constitutional prohibition against a president seeking multiple terms, was duly prosecuted by his country's attorney general, removed from office by its supreme court, lawfully replaced by a president from his own political party, and finally deported when his supporters threatened national insurrection. Obama and Secretary Clinton — standing alongside Chavez, Cuba's Castro brothers, and the Organization of American States — want to restore Zelaya to power and chastise the Honduran government for adhering to the rule of law. Apparently Obama longs for the bad ol' days when the Castro boys and their Soviet Russian patrons established communist dictatorships in Central America. Or perhaps he believes that Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin is just a harmless fuzzball, rather than an erstwhile KGB officer who laments the fall of the Iron Curtain. That would explain why last year, as a candidate, Obama's initial reaction to the Russian invasion of neighboring Georgia was to urge both sides to "show restraint." Worse still as president Obama courts Russia's cooperation by abruptly canceling plans to deploy anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. He didn't revoke these promises in exchange for Russian cooperation. He simply did it and hoped that Russia would cooperate — just as his climate change policy is to disembowel America's economy and hope China, India and others do the same to theirs. The Poles and Czechs endured decades of Russian Soviet oppression. We should help empower them to defend themselves. Instead Obama's policy is a slap in the face — no matter how his administration spins it. To the Russians and the Iranians, against whose developing ballistic missile program the defenses offered protection, Obama's pusillanimous maneuver further demonstrates weakness. Russian president Dmitri Medvedev applauded Obama's decision, just as a shrewd negotiator insincerely compliments the strength of an adversary he recognizes to be weak. The Kiev Post explained, "Russian diplomacy is largely a zero-sum game and relies on projecting hard power to force gains." That is, Russia plays hardball and plays for keeps. In his speech to the U.N., Obama tossed about platitudes: "the yearning for peace is universal" and "the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings." But "yearning for peace" is not universal — certainly not among governing authorities in places like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea who routinely trample "the hope of human beings" in their own country and in others. "Two great threats facing the survival of the modern liberal West," cautions Lee Harris in The Suicide of Reason, are "exaggerated confidence in the power of reason" and "profound underestimation of the forces of fanaticism." Because most western nations haven't faced a direct threat to their placid existence in more than a generation, we too readily forget that the majority of the world's inhabitants live their entire lives governed not by reason and rule of law but by the law of the jungle and the iron fist of an oppressive government. Reagan understood that regimes that threaten, attack and oppress peaceful neighbors are indeed "evil" and that they can be deterred only by strength and determination. Much of the world criticized him when he stood up to "the evil empire," when he walked away from arms deals that would have weakened us and strengthened our adversaries, and most notably when he exhorted Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall." Today we know that Reagan's critics cowered because they lacked his vision. History is replete with leaders like Obama whose sincere desire for peace blinded them to devious designs of others. Seeking peace is laudable, but lasting peace is rarely attained by those who appear desperate for it.
Mark Hillman is a Centennial Institute fellow and Colorado's Republican national committeeman. He formerly served as Colorado senate majority leader and state treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com.
(Nantucket) As if the recession wasn’t enough, the summer’s unprecedented bad weather has added to the economic woes of this resort island. Also experiencing very heavy weather these days is the Democratic Party and it looks like getting worse for them before it gets better. The roots of Democratic disarray lie in one very great success and one huge strategic mistake. Oddly the same man bears a principal responsibility for both. Inside the Beltway there is wide consensus that Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a really smart guy and that more than any one person he is the principal architect of Democratic Party strategy. While still an Illinois Congressman he gained great acclaim as the Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Emanuel shrewdly grasped that if Democrats were to capture control of Congress they couldn’t run liberals everywhere. Accordingly he recruited an excellent cadre of moderately conservative candidates to run in Republican leaning districts and got George Soros and others to insure that they were very well funded. The result-aided greatly by an unpopular war and a stumbling economy- was that in 2006 and 2008 dozens of “safe” Republican seats fell to the Democrats who gained control of Congress for the first time in twelve years. Of this group of newly minted Democratic congressmen- currently numbering 52- many (22) but not most were from the South. California and Pennsylvania had the largest representation. Collectively they are known as the now famous “Blue Dogs”. Once elected it was assumed that the presumptively grateful Blue Dogs could easily be transformed into Lap Dogs for Nancy Pelosi. On routine votes this proved true but on high visibility votes- issues their home folks really cared about-complications arose. The first big test was the “Stimulus” vote. Not too subtly threatened by party “whips” most (40) Blue Dogs toed the line and the bill passed comfortably. However as the ineffectiveness of the Stimulus became more evident those 40 had a lot of trouble back home explaining their vote for a 1300 page pork laden bill they hadn’t even read. The second big test was the infamous “Cap and Trade(Tax)” bill where most Blue Dogs were among the 44 Democrats who defied the party’s left-wing leadership and voted No. Though the bill passed by a razor thin 7 vote margin it was such a mess- riddled with exceptions, exemptions, payoffs, and obfuscations- that the Senate refused to even take it up, thus leaving over 200 Democrats to answer for an unpopular vote that the “Global Warming” ideologues Pelosi and Obama never should have demanded. All of this set the stage for a full scale Blue Dog revolt in response to the Pelosi/ Obama insistence on passing health care “reform” before the August recess. Having had their arms twisted on the Stimulus, then broken on the tax raising/economy killing Cap and Trade votes, the Blue dogs –most of them elected by very narrow margins- saw their approval numbers back home falling even faster than Obama’s. Thus faced with the prospect of electoral extinction, the Blue Dogs en masse effectively “crossed the aisle” to join Republicans and bring health care reform (a.k.a. Government seizure of one sixth of the U.S. economy) to a screeching halt. So, in a supreme irony this historic break-up of the Democratic House majority was triggered by the very same individuals who made that majority possible. All this happened because Emanuel made a huge strategic mistake in acting on his famous aphorism that “a crisis is too good a thing to waste”. Believing that they could hype and exploit fears about the economic crisis (“Another Great Depression!) and the soaring early popularity of Obama in a way that would allow swiftly ramming through the most radical and expensive legislative agenda in history without people or even Congressmen understanding that they had given birth to a Socialist America, Emanuel and his fellow Democrats audaciously gambled that a strategy of stealth, speed, and deception could in less than a year deliver our country into that “Brave New World” that generations of liberals have yearned for. Their great gamble has been lost. The American people have won. Perilous days yet remain ahead, but now a new kind of “Hope and Change” comes into view. Let Freedom Ring!
William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post.
The socialists want to take over our country. Shall we allow them? It's not an idle question. I see signs that the United States is close to be taken over from within by Barack Hussein Obama, a development similar to those in Germany at the beginning of the 1930s.
I grew up under the Nazis, and what I saw then there I see now here. There is nothing theoretical when I speak about what happens when a nation throws God out of government and society and when Christians become religious bystanders. I am not part of those who want some people to look bad by calling them Nazis, as Nancy Pelosi and so many people do nowadays. My writing is based on my own experience and that of my family. We were there.
The White House launched what could be called a "snitch" program by asking Americans to forward to a White House e-mail address anything regarding health care reform that they consider "fishy." This should help the government, explains the White House director of new media, Macon Phillips, to uncover the truth about the president's position and find the "disinformation" about health care "reform." The "snitch" program is opening the door to Gestapo methods.
When I was a child, Gestapo agents took positions in front of our church and wrote down the names of those who entered. It was intimidation, and everybody knew what it meant to be of different opinion than the Nazi government. My parents entered the church nevertheless, along with us four children. My father, a civil servant, in spite of being sacked when the Nazis came to power, did not compromise. For my parents, the greatest preoccupation in those years was the integrity of us children whom they didn't want to be infected by Nazi philosophy. The Gestapo had their informants everywhere, and they liked to discover through innocent children what their parents were up to. It was forbidden by law to listen to foreign radios and could lead to death penalty if found out. My father used to listen at 10 p.m. to the Swiss station Beromünster so we children wouldn't notice.
Are we headed for a Nazi-style totalitarian abyss? Find out in "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America"
According to media reports, the end-of-life-counseling, part of the health care "reform" in the bill before Congress, contains the philosophy that not all people have the same value for society and that, therefore, treatment for old people should be different than that for young people. In various television shows, the issue of the possibility of euthanasia is being discussed. This is also a criminal Nazi concept at the heart of their ideology. The Jews were declared by "law" to be less valuable than the Arian German race and eventually killed. Important for the Nazis also was the contribution of a person to society. Handicapped and old people were of no use to them. Therefore, they were led to a cost-saving death.
Our home in Germany was close to the Bodelschwinghsche Institute in Bethel, a complex where disabled people were looked after. When a Nazi commission arrived to pick up these people to be killed, the head of this Christian institution, Pastor Friedrich von Bodelschwing, put up such a ferocious and noisy battle for their lives that the commission had to give up and depart. But the euthanasia program nevertheless went ahead and was followed by the Holocaust. Does the health care project lead to an early end for old people for cost-saving reasons? One cannot trust the Democratic Party, which has abortion in its political platform and therefore is most likely also open to euthanasia. I prefer the clean direction of the patriotic tea party movement, which has taken our corrupt government establishment to task.
Obama did not visit Israel, our only democratic ally for many decades in the Middle East, but he made a speech to the Islamic nations and spoke of a new beginning. I did not hear him talk about the ceaseless firing of Arab missiles into Israel, asking them to begin change with themselves and stop firing missiles. Instead, he set up a Gestapo-like apparatus in the American Jerusalem Consulate to monitor Jewish movements in the neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the West Bank. Obama guaranteed the Palestinian Authority Israeli land they want, including East Jerusalem. Via the Israeli ambassador in Washington, he and Secretary of State Clinton try to dictate to the Israeli government what they should do and not do. At the same time, however, a senior adviser to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, Rashideh al-Mughrabi, declares in an interview with WND, "I don't believe there are any civilians in Israel; all of Israel society is a military society and therefore a military target." He joins Obama, who promotes abortion, in the philosophy that lives of others do not matter.
There are many discussions about what could be the real purpose of Barack Hussein Obama. It is important to know what his aims are to understand what we are facing.
In my book "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie," I speak of the enemy within and the enemy outside. I have a list of enemies of God, a few names only as examples, just to make the reader understand the essentials. Obama represents the melting of the godless enemies within and outside the United States in what is the coup de grace for a corrupt society. With other words, Obama's trillion-dollar projects belie a purpose to cripple the American economy and integrate a weak United States into the communist/socialist United Nations world order. This includes fake reasons to make the American people come along. If these projects became law, I believe, the middle class would have such strong financial difficulties that people would be unable to resist him. Therefore, rather than bipartisan understanding. rejection is the need of the hour.
The priority for Hitler as for Obama was then and is now to control the lifelines of their respective nations, which includes the silencing of the opposition so that they cannot be removed from power. I described in an earlier article how Hitler reached absolute power. Obama is struggling to get there.
What links the enemies within and without is organized godlessness. The lies of the outside aggressors and of the inside helpers may have different purposes, but they are all anti-American. I had to face the fact that my personal lies and my personal immorality made me blind to the nature of the Nazis and their anti-God purpose. Hitler could use me and millions of others, making us morally co-responsible for his atrocities in which I had no part. Every American who loves this country has to face the same responsibility for his government. Christian bystanders were in Germany and are in America the most important helpers of totalitarian politicians. America needs a moral rebirth.
Here's what I mean: Abortionist Barack Obama and Fidel Castro are part of the enemies of God because of the unchanged evil inside of them, their disregard of human life. They are on the wrong side of the battle line. Their purpose and actions are an insult to God.
The political and ideological battle line, therefore, is not between Democrats and Republicans, or between capitalism and socialism. The Nazis (national Socialists) were not Fascists. Fascism is not totalitarian. It is an ordinary immoral dictatorship. In their ideology, the Nazis were always part of global Marxist Socialism. Marxism, with its hatred and envy, is in its roots godless and incompatible with Christian teachings and therefore with our Constitution. Germany went down because of godlessness, and America is sliding down for the same reason. Obama and Pelosi, to name only two, are closer to the Nazis than to our Founding Fathers and our Constitution.
The economy is not the heart of the matter. It is only a consequence. The real issue where fundamental change is asked for is the relationship of this nation and of every American citizen with God and His commandments. When I speak of God I mean God, our creator, not religion. This country has too many laws that stink. Society has to be cleansed. America must become literally a nation under God. Then America can change the world. We need a president and members of Congress who stand for truth and life and not for lies and death.
Hilmar von Campe is the author of "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America." Having grown up under the Nazis, he offers a unique perspective on the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. He warns that there are many similarities between the Nazi society and America of today. Von Campe lectured at Colorado Christian University as a guest of the Centennial Institute in April 2009. This article appeared on WorldNetDaily.com 8/18/09, reprinted here with the author's permission.
The secular progressive movement has been effective in limiting the spiritual component of issues from being more significant in popular discourse. In fact, spiritual aspects of issues have been ignored completely by the mainstream news and most political office holders. But the passion of the crowds and the grassroots nature of the opposition to President Obama’s health care overhaul is I believe derived from our nation's spiritual core as much as it is from intellectual evaluation.
The spiritual question we face as a nation is simple and comprehensive, it is: “Is there enough?”
Enough what? Many will ask and then attempt to throw the question away, unwilling to consider the deeper meaning. “Is there enough, of anything?” Is there enough food? Is there enough wealth? Are there enough votes? A portion of the population answers this basic question in the negative. There is not enough, of anything. Therefore we must take from one group that has and transfer it to those without. Democrats in general fall into that mindset and President Obama has organized his entire administration around the premise that redistribution of all things including power is not only possible but mandatory for survival.
Nowhere in the policy and discussion of this administration do you find reliance upon or confidence in the proposition that humans create their world and that the universe is abundant. Many in the world experience starvation, but food is limited by choices of those in power, more than by material limits. North Korea suffers shortages because of Kim, not because there are limited resources.
Some in this country suffer financial hardship. I include myself in that group. But it is my experience of lack, not the imperative of lack that is at work. I know I can create a new business and recover my life. I need not take anything from another in order to have some of it.
President Obama believes that health, not health care, is limited and so he proposes equalizing the amount of health mandates by taking from some and redistributing to others. President Obama is willing to sacrifice the health of some to change the experience of illness of a few. Wellness is abundant in the universe but free people sometimes experience lack and suffering. Reducing the wellness of some will never increase the wellness of others.
Across the country thousands are seeing the debate about health care and financial recovery and are reacting in a truly spiritual manner. They know something is wrong with the core belief of lack and redistribution. Americans want solutions that recognize creative genius and American excellence. Obama promises a future of failure and works from the basis that there is never enough of anything. So he takes what others have.
Kris Hager of Colorado and Florida is a Gold Star Dad, father of the late Staff Sergeant Joshua Hager, who gave his life in Iraq several years ago.
Entertainer Bill Maher commented this week that America is a stupid nation. Of course he is correct: any nation that pays well for this type of comedy is stupid. But this gives reasonable observers a real insight into the liberal mindset. An aphorism I often use is, "liberals are sure they are smarter than we, conservatives are sure they are more moral than we." The former is obviously not true and the latter is for a different discussion. But Maher illustrates the former in action.
Viewing the video does Maher's comments more justice than my paraphrase can. But when he was asked by Wolf Blitzer on CNN, whether Sarah Palin had a chance at becoming president he responded, "I wouldn’t put anything past this stupid country." Blitzer then continues saying that "people are already complaining..." At the word complaining, the left side of Maher's mouth raises slightly in consternation that people are complaining about an obvious truth. At least that is the way I read his body language.
Blitzer then gives Maher a chance to "clarify." Maher seems to be thinking of an answer, but says, "I don"t need to clarify, it is." The absolutely deadpan delivery of "I don't need to clarify" may be a practiced comedian's delivery; if so, he is good. But I suspect it is rather the insouciant reaction of an elite to the masses. Blitzer then asks why he believes we are a stupid county and Maher responds, "Because Sarah Plain could be president.... I mean please, do I have to expand on that anymore?" He finishes with "just because they [the American people] elected a bright guy doesn’t mean they [the American people] are bright."
Two thoughts come out of this: We elected Barack Obama because he was bright and, Maher does not understand the concept of circular reasoning, claiming something is true by repeating the "truth." This fallacy is closely associated with the false authority fallacy. Here, we accept an argument because a certain type of person says it is so. The cult of celebrity, evidenced by Michael Jackson's death, allows for us to believe that celebrities like Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Barbara Streisand are authorities. Conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham wrote an excellent book on the subject, Shut Up and Sing.
Electing a president because he is bright is an old liberal canard. An old Saturday Night Live skit has Jon Lovitz playing Michael Dukakis and the brilliant Dana Carvey playing G.H.W. Bush. Carvey is babbling on and the camera goes to Lovitz who looks pleadingly into the camera, "How can I be losing to this guy?" Jimmy Carter was a nuclear physicist, and Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. Did these presidents govern better because they were smart?
Make no mistake, liberalistas believe they have a secular, are opposed to a divine right, to rule because they are educated. The problem is it is a modern, as opposed to a classical education. Classical education was dedicated to finding man's highest purpose, what was the ultimate good. Not to put too fine a point on it, the ultimate good is freedom. This freedom is of a certain type. In Aristotle's words, freedom is doing something for its own sake. It is what man does in his leisure time, after we have secured our freedom in material senses: secured our borders and secured ourselves economically. Education, then, was the development of the arts, as opposed to the sciences of freedom, war and economics.
The modern idea of freedom comes after Thomas Hobbes's argument that, as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland, there is no there there. There is no highest good only the baddest bad, i.e., life without an overarching authority to keep us in line. Education then is dedicated to the preservation of life, the expansion of physical comfort and the avoidance of death.
Modern education then becomes, at least in comparative terms, anti-intellectual. Education is a means to power, to expand our power and control over the universe. Thus, modern education is merely a means to power, willing one's way to power. Once in power this educated class forces their conception of freedom upon us.
In a recent column for the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan commented, "We are living in a time in which educated people who are at the top of American life feel they have the right to make very public criticisms of . . . let's call it the private, pleasurable but health-related choices of others. They shame smokers and the overweight. Drinking will be next. Mr. Obama's own choice for surgeon general has come under criticism as too heavy. Only a generation ago such criticisms would have been considered rude and unacceptable. But they are part of the ugly, chafing price of having the government in something: Suddenly it can make big and very personal demands on you."
The deciding question to this logic is in fact simple: has any intelligent president actually made a better president because he is smart? Jimmy Carter, probably America's worst president if you combine his activities in and out of office, would seem to refute that. Is there even one incident in which Bill Clinton's degrees have made the political situation better?
The reverse should also be true. Have "stupid" presidents made things worse? Bush derangement syndrome in which one must hate for hate's sake needs no proof for true believers. FDR has been described as an intellectual lightweight by scholar Bruce Kuklick. Harry Truman did not go to college. JFK graduated from Harvard with Honors because his thesis, later turned into the book Why England Slept, was completed with the assistance of Kennedy's father's staff while Joseph P. Kennedy was Ambassador to the Court of St. James. Young John had a solid gentleman's C while an undergraduate. LBJ graduated from Southwest Teachers College in Texas. And we are back to Carter.
The result of this trip down memory lane actually indicates the opposite of the elite liberal contention: the most successful Democratic presidents have been of average education and intelligence. How 'bout them apples?
John Lennon’s 1971 lyrics to “Imagine” reflected the head Beatle's lofty idealism -- which was embraced by many, while others attacked the song's brazen, impudent, hardened, and bold promotion of socialism.
Imagine there's no Heaven , It's easy if you try No hell below us, Above us only sky Imagine all the people, Living for today
Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too Imagine all the people, Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer, But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us, And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people, Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer, But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us, And the world will live as one
Lyric highlights (or lowlights, depending on your perspective): IMAGINE THERE’S NO HEAVEN…IMAGINE THERE’S NO COUNTRIES…AND NO RELIGION TOO…IMAGINE NO POSSESSIONS…IMAGINE ALL THE PEOPLE, SHARING ALL THE WORLD…I HOPE SOMEDAY YOU’LL JOIN US, AND THE WORLD WILL LIVE AS ONE.
Weren’t statements like "imagine no possessions" characterized as un-American in 1971? How about no religion, no countries, and his vision for a one world society? John Lennon expressed his world vision to a rebellious and sympathetic post-Vietnam war America. Was his agenda idealistic, therefore, unrealistic? Was he promoting Communism or Socialism, therefore, a radical agenda? Most assuredly.
According to Wiktionary “What goes around comes around” is an English Proverb which means the status eventually returns to its original value after completing some sort of cycle. That can be a frightening thought, but, unfortunately, it is true. Fast forward 38 years…
Can you IMAGINE a police officer in Cambridge, Massachusetts arresting a hostile and unruly Harvard University professor late one night after which the President of the United States, shooting from the hip, hastily and irrationally jumps into the fray offering “I don’t have all the facts, but the police acted stupidly.” After several days of hectic damage control meetings and frantic back peddling by his minions our “beloved” President spoke again saying “I should have chosen my words more carefully.” No, Mr. President, you should have stayed out if it. But I am thrilled you have alienated every policeman and policewoman in America. And to cap off several days of irresponsible remarks our #1 hothead-in-chief offered “it might have been better if cooler heads had prevailed.”
Don’t you have anything else to do Mr. President? How about dealing with the unprecedented debt, reckless spending, massive unemployment and the economic crisis you and your cronies in Congress foisted upon an unwilling America? Or yet another “Obamnation” due to your ill-advised and disastrous cap & trade plan which is nothing more than a new tax on the working class? How about the health care program you are forcing down our collective throats despite our repeated protestations? And all you can do is resort to name calling for those who oppose your plans (“obstructionists”). That doesn’t sound like really mature leadership and the change we need, Mr. President.
To add fuel to the fire Massachusetts “beloved” African-American Governor Deval Patrick chimed in with this ill-advised remark, “A policeman coming to your front door is every black man’s worst nightmare.” What? Oh, did I mention Cambridge police sergeant James Crowley is white and the unruly Harvard professor is an African-American and the neighbor who called the police to report the apparent home break-in was also African-American? It should all be irrelevant.
While others may say President Obama is arrogant I cannot agree. He is more than arrogant...perhaps elitist. It has been said his arrogance is exceeded only by his lack of integrity. Shame on President Obama and Governor Patrick for their racially divisive and uninformed remarks.
EPILOGUE: My personal response to the very talented Mr. Lennon whose life was cut way too short and the perhaps well-meaning but certainly inexperienced Mr. Obama regarding your shared agenda for socialism in America… no, I cannot IMAGINE that!