I believe politicians are the number-one cause of gastro-intestinal disorder. I think this is true because I get gas whenever a politician outlines his or her vision for America, or when they speak to us about morality, or lectures us about patriotism. I think this is because if anyone should refrain addressing such weighty issues, it is a politician – mostly because beyond the fact they’ve convinced some number of back-home voters that they deserve to be an elected official, politicians aren’t qualified to lecture me about any of these things — especially about Patriotism.

When Barack Obama lectured about patriotism the other day, in advance of our annual Fourth of July celebrations, I wondered about his moral authority in doing so.  In the first place, I am not convinced that any politician has ever placed the good of the nation above self-interest. I imagine our attitude regarding Obama depends on what we are prepared to believe about his meteoric rise to national prominence. For example, we might wonder if self-interest or patriotism prompted him to run for the presidency a mere 143 working days after his election to the United States Senate; one pundit recently said, “I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.”

Let us for a moment consider what patriotism should mean to Americans. First, it should capture the best of our national spirit. It is pride in our nation’s many accomplishments even in spite of our shortcomings. It is pride in our culture, a desire to preserve our traditions, a particular adherence to our values, and it is how we identify with our fellow citizens. And let me add that contrary to the views of multiculturalists, “nationalism” is not a despicable concept. Our institutions should promote patriotism, not demean its character.

When we speak of patriotism, we should probably understand that it encompasses personal sentiment, institutional demonstrations, and aspects that I regard as authentic and verifiable. Patriotism can be intangible (crossing one’s heart during the National Anthem, wearing a flag pin), and measureable (service to country and community). It can be intellectual, and emotional. In most cases, I think our feelings of patriotism stem from one or more of these, depending upon who we are as individuals, and our experiences. And because the concept of patriotism is nebulous, Barack Obama is probably correct to suggest that we should exercise care before calling into question another citizen’s patriotism. A soldier who gives up his life for his country is an authentic patriot – there is no greater gift than that, but this does not suggest that another person, choosing not to serve in the military, is unpatriotic. It only demonstrates that personal patriotism is difficult to measure.

Mr. Obama suggested that our country should call upon every citizen to demonstrate patriotism through some form of national service. I do agree with this sentiment, but note that Obama has not seen fit to do that. I wonder if Obama proposes reinstitution of the military draft – now that he is past that point in his life. My point is that a true leader will not ask others to perform a task that he is not willing to take-on himself – the underlying value of having a commander in chief with some military background.

Nebulous or not, the patriotism of others – particularly that of politicians, is always in question. There is no reason for any American to accept at face value, any assertion made from a political podium. And while this nothing to do with Obama’s community service as a door-to-door voter registration volunteer, we might question the patriotism of those who conspire to undermine our political process. According to writer Thomas J. DiLorenzo, “Ever since Mayor Daley of Chicago ‘found’ tens of thousands of dead people to ‘vote’ for John F. Kennedy in the 1960 election, many Americans have suspected the Democratic Party’s urban political machines to be awash in voter fraud.” It is clearly difficult to question the patriotism of dead people who continue voting long after their demise.

In his 30 June 2008 sermon, Mr. Obama further asserted no political party has a monopoly on the concept of patriotism; on this point, we might discover common ground provided (1) we agree on how to define patriotism and (2) political parties actually design policies to strengthen, enrich, or unify the American people. Let us consider the patriotic ideals of some of our government’s most important leaders:

“You have to make your own decisions about what the President knows, [but] this war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday …” Senator Harry Reed, 19 April 2007.

“This war has been a grotesque mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer.” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, 25 September 2004.

“Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation.  That didn’t happen.  Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal.  And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians – they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities.” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, 28 May 2008.

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.” Senator John Kerry, 30 November 2006

“… there was no firefight; there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” Representative Jack Murtha, 17 May 2006

Anyone who regards the foregoing as patriotic expressions is free-basing on mushrooms. This, then, is the liberal agenda. I am not discussing the right of the people – all people – to express their point of view. I am discussing high-ranking political leaders who, after making the political decision to invade Iraq, provide comfort and encouragement to a determined enemy. It is a lesson Democratic Politicians never learned from the Vietnam Era, when after two Democratic Presidents sent troops into harms way, liberal politicians did everything in their power to undermine the morale and efficiency of those young warriors. This easily observable behavior caused me to question their patriotism then, and the statements above cause me to question their patriotism now.

We all know what patriotism should mean, but it is apparent that liberals have a concept far removed from American tradition; these ideological platforms do not emerge from fortune cookies. Human beings develop political policy consistent with their personal or collective philosophies. That said, I think it is fair and relevant to question to patriotism of those who conspire to divide our nation – and in doing so, pave the way for their personal advancement to the highest levels of our government. Politicians who pander to voters according to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, socio-economic status are dividers. Politicians who embrace “the world view” place foreign views over our own, nationally unique values; I cannot help but to wonder how a world-view encourages or reinforces patriotism among our people. Personally, I am offended when illegal aliens in California demonstrate under the banner of the Mexican flag. It is difficult to imagine a patriotic politician who encourages such activities in order to capture the Hispanic vote.

Obama’s harangue on patriotism did not offend me; I only prefer that he know something about it. I love my country – spots and all. I do not think it is necessary to redefine our National Anthem to encompass a “black perspective,” nor do I accept the view of liberals, which closely parallels the attitudes of the pre-World War II French. I do not agree with halfwits who claim support for troops, but treat them as victims. Flag burning may be an expression, but it is not a patriotic expression. Spitting on military recruiters may be a popular past time in Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein’s state of California, but it is not patriotism. That said – I wish everyone a happy and safe Fourth of July holiday.

My blog-friends at geeeeeZ recently enlightened me by posting the words of William J. H. Boetcker; since it prompted me to write this post, I want to acknowledge Z’s contribution to my thinking process, and add that her site is a worthwhile daily read.

We cannot help but note that the socialists in America tend to deliver frequent lectures about social compassion; and it is difficult for a thinking individual not to have compassion toward those less fortunate than ourselves. The fact is, when compared to most other nations, Americans are among the world’s most charitable people. This tells me most of us care about the suffering of others, and that we do something about it. In spite of this, people from around the world (along with our own homegrown socialists) tell us we need to do more – in the minds of some, there is never enough charity, never enough “social compassion.”

Interestingly, while socialist programs tout compassion, their product is very different from true kindness. It leads one to form one of two conclusions: either socialists do not understand human nature, or if they do, their motives are questionable. In my mind, compassion for others is not unlike responsible parenting, following the “tough love” approach. Some times, the word “no” is another way of expressing concern and love. The good parent will be intolerant of unacceptable behavior and reward and reinforce positive conduct. A good parent will hold his or her children accountable, and teach them that there are consequences (both good and bad) for the decisions they make. Reams of social statistics strengthen this concept on both sides of the coin; absentee or permissive parenting produces an unseemly result.

Progressive programs are always advertized as the right thing to do, and on the surface, a reasonable person might agree. After all, what’s a mere 2% increase in some tax to support a socialist idea that will make someone’s life easier? But there are two problems: first, there is a cumulative effect to government taxation, and the second is that more often than not, progressive programs fail to produce the advertised result. Sixty years of welfare and food stamp programs accomplished little more than successive generations of “needy” people (who just happened to become staunch Democrats). Government mandated desegregation of schools turned high performing all-black schools into underfunded ghetto failures. Compassionate “understanding” provides healthcare services to illegal immigrants, with a consequence of skyrocketing medical costs for Americans Worst of all, progressive education has done little more than produce the world’s dumbest children, who grow up to regard big government as an entitlement.

There is no socialist program in our country today that is able to pass the test of scrutiny. I used to worry about the prevalence of the “sky is falling” science children learn in public schools. It doesn’t concern me quite as much since I learned two things: (1) Ominous environmental warnings are so frequent that no one is paying attention any more, and (2) students only capture about 20% of what they’re taught anyway. But if one carries that “sky is falling” mindset forward into the adult years, we note only one significant change: socialist government cannot resist levying taxes against fallacious hypotheses – global warming, climate change phenomena, endangered species. The fact is, socialists are mislabeled as progressives . . . if anything, they are regressive.

Boetcker (1876-1962) made extraordinary sense – something we have not received from politicians since the Constitutional Convention. His “Ten Cannots” should be framed in every congressional office in every legislature to serve as a reminder that American citizens expect (and should demand) that their elected representatives be infused with as much common sense as they are with an ability to read the law. After you’ve read Boetcker’s good advice, think about all the ways government officials discourage thrift, count the times every single day when you hear a socialist dividing Americans according to wealth, race, or gender. We should not be amazed that these so-called do-gooders (nee socialists) never find the time to feel ashamed; that’s because they aren’t.

My thesis is that socialists are no more concerned about social compassion than they are about saving the earth (whatever that means). I contend that socialists employ the concept of “social compassion” as a political placebo, to convince Americans to forfeit their rights and dignity to government oversight. Consider Nancy Pelosi’s demand for a so-called “fairness doctrine;” it is no more than an underhanded attempt to stifle opinion and free speech, something already accomplished in several European countries and in Canada. Consider too the recent statement by socialist Diane Feinstein (D, CA) when it was announced that the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms: “I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window.” Feinstein despicably ignores the precedent established by the Second Amendment in 1791; she would prefer that only the government have guns.

True social compassion does not discriminate against future generations of minorities by enslaving them to government dependency, nor does a compassionate program postulate that people are entitled to someone else’s hard-earned money. Compassion does not obligate citizens to support their families while concurrently paying for programs that benefit illegal aliens. Honest concern for the welfare of children does not support issuing birth control pills to eleven-year-old girls in public school, or provide needles and condoms to high school students. If socialist politicians truly cared about the “pain” people are experiencing today with respect to gasoline prices, this country would have a cogent energy policy.  

Social compassion is in the nature of the American people. We think it is appropriate to reach out to truly needy people, to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. Rather than relying upon the conscience of the American public, however, socialist government seeks to assume this responsibility for us (and they are succeeding). Social compassion begins with a sense of obligation each of us has toward one another, and it extends out to the needy within our communities. Nonprofit charities and community chests are ideal because they help to care for people by name, not by number – but this is not what socialists want. They will decide for us what programs to support, and how much we’ll pay to support them. This is not freedom; it is government tyranny disguised as “compassion.”

I do think that socialism is good for one thing: fooling millions of Americans about the costs and benefits of “compassionate” programs. Do we suppose, even for a moment, that socialist run public schools are only accidentally producing the world’s dumbest people? There is no better way to control 300 million citizens than by creating generations of those who think government control is an entitlement program.

According to the Pew Research Center, only 18% of the American people say they are satisfied with the way things are going in this country, the lowest indicator since 1993.  Seventy-six percent of the American people are clearly dissatisfied, although there appears to be more “satisfied” Republicans than Democrats; its partisan politics of the first order. Well, until recently when Republicans have turned more sour and only 29% are satisfied with the state of the Nation.

Among registered voters, 61% believe that domestic issues deserve the president’s highest priority, with only 22% believing that foreign policy is of the utmost concern. However, when questioned about domestic issues vs. the war on terror, the margin is much closer: 46% believe domestic issues should be our priority, with 38% thinking the war on terror is more important.

So the battle of political philosophy marches on, as it always has. The data is amazing, however, when one considers Obama’s popularity among registered voters in such areas energy, the economy, health care, and social issues. In each of these categories, Obama enjoys a lead ranging from 14 to 20 points over McCain; I say amazing because Obama has absolutely no experience in any of these areas. It causes one to wonder if the voters are as informed about issues or the candidates as they ought to be. 

Today, John McCain addressed the energy crisis. He advocated domestic drilling, improvement of petroleum refining facilities, development of cleaner coal, and an expansion of nuclear power facilities. Later, Obama issued a press statement. He does not favor of domestic drilling, does not want to waste more money improving refinement plants, and will not approve an expansion of nuclear power. What he will do, however, is offer taxpayers another stimulus package to help them pay for gasoline, and he will impose a hefty windfall profits tax on the oil producers. Now I ask you, dear reader . . . which candidate seems to have the best handle on energy policy? How could Obama enjoy a 15-point lead over McCain on this issue?

Possibly, individual democrats polled by the Pew Research Center are so dedicated to their party, they would favor Obama no matter what the issue, and even if Obama was a convicted felon. On the other hand, I suppose Democrats earnestly think that Obama can grow into the job – a belief that no doubt really infuriates Hillary Clinton, and an indication that they haven’t learned anything from the Carter Administration.

The above information leads me to conclude that most voters simply do not understand where the business of America is accomplished. People look to the president, when they should be paying greater attention to members of congress. As we struggle with the energy crisis (neither party has adequately addressed this issue), domestic security, healthcare issues, education (and I have a simple solution for this one), and trade – one elected official has decided to pursue a different agenda: toy guns. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D, NJ) wants a law to regulate the manufacture of AirSoft  toys. For Lautenberg, the controversy is that juvenile gang-bangers who commit crimes often wield these toy weapons at their victims because they look real and police officers, who show up with guns drawn, are wont to shoot individuals who are carrying guns (toys or not). So, in the environment when people want more focus on domestic issues, at a time when Americans are paying excessive prices for gasoline, and Californians are marrying their pets . . . an elected democrat wants an investigation of the AirSoft industry.

I’ve long given up on politicians, believing there is no way to change their spots, and the government won’t let us shoot’em. No, I think we need to concentrate more on voters who, as evidenced above, haven’t a clue. And no, I would never suggest our education system is such a mess by liberal design.

There are many good people in this country – I estimate about half. I suspect too many people simply have confused priorities, such as loving a political candidate more than they do their country. We wonder how it is possible for so many Americans (now adults) to grow up to detest their country, its traditions, and its over-arching values; not everyone, of course, but too many. My frequent readers will note that I find the number of individuals and organizations that embrace socialism – the idea that government knows what is best for us, and would grant it control over individual liberty and economic freedom, aggravating. And about those of us who respect and admire our traditional values, who love our country more than we do any political opportunist, who refuse to embrace mindless socialism, we are in their view fascists or dinosaurs. Lately, progressives reveal that if we do not support their candidate, then we are also racists – never mind that such accusation, to silence debate or criticism, is anti-American.

Why are (too many) people today cheering revisionist historians? Why do we hear people today proclaiming the Jews got what they deserved during World War II? How is it possible for intelligent, well-educated persons to support or give the benefit of doubt to terrorists and religious extremists, and engage in pathetically distasteful demonstrations at the funerals of our fallen warriors? I suspect we all know the answer. In the first place, people who do these things aren’t very intelligent and under-educated. I think we produce such people from a combination of bad parenting and the most atrocious education system in the entire world. When you look at what has happened to the American education system (and those of us with teaching backgrounds know it all too well), it is hard not to suppose that people living in a backwater African cesspool are better served. 

What do people understand about American civics? According to the Center for Civics Education and the National Assessment of Educational Progress, student performance in Civics Education is wretched. NAEP tells us what students know about American civics at the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grade levels; for example:

Elementary level students (4^th Grade)

75 percent knew that only citizens may vote in the U.S.

47 percent identified the role of the Supreme Court

18 percent evaluated how certain actions can affect the community

Middle School students (8^th Grade)

80 percent identified a notice for jury duty

49 percent linked religious freedom to the Bill of Rights

15 percent interpreted a phrase from the Gettysburg Address

High School Seniors

72 percent could analyze a historical text on the importance of education

50 percent identified the President’s role in foreign policy

5 percent explained checks on presidential power.

Why don’t student’s (or adults) know more about civics, or as important, the concept of civic virtue? The answer is neither parents, or school systems are teaching these things. To begin with, schools cannot teach civics if not provided for in the State’s curriculum, and even then, schools will not waste their time teaching it if it isn’t tested. Years ago, those of us teaching social science wondered why we had so many poor students in history and geography classes; we did not realize then that there was no social studies curriculum until Middle School – precisely at that level of education where we begin losing children in the areas of literary skills, mathematics, and science. At high school, a majority of students read below grade level by at least two full grades – and many 9^th and 10^th grade students had a fifth-grade reading capability. How does one teach history, geography, or government when students cannot, or will not read? By the time students get to high school, “at risk” students have already become sacrificial lambs to the education gods – a fact supported by volumes of data and the direct testimony of hundreds of teachers all across the United States. Under these circumstances, what school system wants to take on yet another opportunity for failure?

Beyond these depressing facts, it is maddening to discover that our children are actually learning the opposite of civic virtue. For example, some children’s stories propagate the idea no one should offer a pledge of allegiance – to any one, or any thing. The issue isn’t whether we force our students to pledge allegiance (I do not support that any more than I do forced or arranged marriages); the question is, shouldn’t we raise our children to accept such an obligation voluntarily?

The “children’s story” presented is appalling to me because it denigrates who we are within the context of family, community, and nationhood. I believe that individually and collectively, we have a responsibility to others as much as we do to ourselves; often, our responsibility to others may exceed that of self. As parents, we must nurture, protect, and teach our children in such a manner as to provide them a clear path to fulfillment as adults. What father would not protect his family? What parent would not protect their child, even at personal risk to themselves?

Sadly, the answer is once again, “too many” – as evidenced by a ream of social statistics that suggests some where, some how, we’ve made the wrong turn. Civic virtue suggests a society in which we are all obligated to one another – and it is a concept unsustainable through stories such as these. It is clearly “anti-American” brainwashing, and it is serious because our refusal to join hands with loved ones and neighbors is as dangerous to a healthy society as the plague. I do admit the author was quite creative, but he is also the antithesis of what it means to be a freedom loving American. I must say that if this is what the future holds for future generations, then this land is no longer the land of my fathers – every one of whom placed himself in harms way for an ideal greater than himself.

Thus, we know the answer to the initial questions. Many citizens hate, or are indifferent towards America because no one is teaching them to cherish her. Worse, they are being systematically brainwashed to shun service to their country. We have taught them that community service is a punishment meted out by a lenient judge for shoplifting. This generation, the self-absorbed, socially dysfunctional, compliant herd of people who now vote, are the perfect citizen for a socialist state.

H/T: Big Girl Pants

A good friend recently asked, "What is going on in the American political scene today?"  I wish I were qualified to answer such a question with the precision of a professor with advanced degrees or the experience of decades in the U. S. Senate.  I am rather just an average "Joe" who writes with a moderate-conservative bias, who has unquestionably become sardonic about politicians and their role in our Republic, and who has certainly evolved into a skeptic vis-à-vis the average voter's ability to understand more than sound bites.

Part of my problem is that I understand how much our country has changed in my lifetime; I don't like it one bit.  We are not changing for the betterment of our citizenry. We are changing to benefit the political structure and all who play a role in it.  It is a steady, almost imperceptible march toward the socialist state, an environment predicted by George Orwell, where the government knows best and will not countenance descent.  We have produced a society populated by citizens more willing than ever before to accept ludicrous political proposals because they are chic and who think that government is the solution rather than our biggest problem.  We are living in a country where the people have no understanding whatsoever of the likely consequences of their political choices. If they did, they wouldn't make them.

One of my frequent visitors opines that it is the government's responsibility to save individuals from themselves.  I disagree, but we see this happening with exponential frequency every single day.  How is it possible for an educated society to accept the convoluted notion that the people of one state are somehow financially responsible for a foolish single mother living in another state, who can no longer afford her mortgage payment?  The answer, sadly, is that we do not have an educated society; rather, we have a citizenry who mindlessly accepts faulty premises expounded upon by politicians who know little more than how to manipulate the pathetically uninformed voter.  Accepting political rhetoric is not a tradition in this country, but that is where we are today; and I believe doing so places the United States in grave danger.

Let us consider for a moment the true reality of the present.  In our society today, students do not fail to learn, teachers fail to teach.  Teachers assaulted in their classrooms were simply asking for it.  Only a village can raise a child.  None of us is responsible for the decisions we make; we are merely the product of neglectful communities.  Crime is the result of the innate racism in all white Americans.  Our nation has never made us proud (unless a spouse achieves high office).  There is nothing in America worth dying for – but if there is then someone else should do it.  Separation of church and state only applies to the Judeo-Christian faith.

Not long ago, Barrack Obama promised that when he becomes president, he intends to control how much people eat, because they are too fat.  He wants to regulate the temperature in our homes in order to save energy.  After he uttered this promise of a police state, people stood to cheer.  Barack Obama has thus become the last great hope for America.  He, along with Hillary Clinton (now an avid Obama supporter) will demand National Health Care, even if only to accommodate 15% of our population – and of course, those of us who have health care will be paying for those who don't.  Socialists do not want to increase nuclear power or drill domestic oil, but they do want to tax gasoline at an onerous rate and belittle oil companies for making a profit.  Such ideas are an attempt to shift blame away from past inadequate political decisions. The average American, who understands little more than their cost for a gallon of gasoline, raves about the new messiah.  In this collective environment, I can only imagine that the millions of illegal aliens living in the United States are ecstatic – they will become the true beneficiaries of the new Socialist Republic of the United States – a nation where only the working class foots the bill to feed, cloth, educate, medicate, and house those who despise us.

Consider a recent poll conducted by the Rasmussen Group.  Eighty percent of those polled consider Barack Obama as inspiring; 78% say he's down to earth; 79% say he is honest; 78% claim he is patriotic; 68% say he gives them hope; 53% say he makes them feel proud.  Bear in mind, this is the same Barack Obama who has never served his country until recently as an elitist member of the United States Senate – an office devoid of even a smidgeon of sacrifice.  This candidate has no cogent domestic or foreign policy experience, but gives people hope; I have to ask, hope for what?

There is only one possible answer to the question, "What is going on in the American political scene today?"  It is this, in several parts.  (1) We are for the first time confronted with an ever-growing population of socialist half-wits, the product of an abysmal education system.  (2) Because they are uneducated, they have never learned the value of critical analysis of what any politician says, or how the press interprets political rhetoric.  (3) People today believe that the quick fix is the best solution, or conversely, if you ignore a problem long enough it will simply disappear.  (4) If extremists hate Americans, it is because we deserve it.  (5) Form is preferable to substance.

Mark Twain's famous quote about politicians now pertains to our average citizen.  "Suppose you were an idiot; and suppose you were a [citizen].  But I repeat myself."

That is how a commentator described the famous Obama acceptance speech, dismal I suppose for two reasons: he once again demonstrates his lack of sophistication in understanding Middle Eastern geography, history, and culture, and because (like most slippery politicians), he is attempting to pivot away from primary rhetoric toward the kind of opportunistic hype suitable for the general election. Witness his speech on 18 May, in which he proclaimed there is no reason to fear Iran, followed up today by asserting his intention to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons. Naturally, now that he is the defacto Democratic nominee for the White House, Obama delivered an “unshakable” commitment to Israel (obligatory if he expects to receive the support of the American-Jewish community).

Now of course, all the defenders and detractors unveil themselves and we poor hapless captives to Election 2008 will find ourselves subjected to so much nonsense, it is little wonder that the average American is unable to separate the wheat from the chafe. For example, one supporter suggested today that while it is true Obama has no executive experience, has limited legislative experience, has never managed a law firm, never served in the military, and has not set forth a cogent plan for America, the one thing he does have going for him is his message of change for America. Ordinarily, at this point, I would be standing on a chair cheering for Obama – but because I am not an average voter, I am forced to wonder, “What change is he talking about?” Without extensive leadership experience (or ability), how will Obama implement his (befuddled) political agenda?

What Obama does understand is that winning the election is paramount; until he does that, none of his opinions are worth more than air time on the nauseating 24/7 news outlets. Sadly for us, journalists continue to give Mr. Obama a pass; no one is challenging him on his obvious sophomoric understanding of domestic and international issues. For example, Mr. Obama wants to solve the so-called Middle East Crisis, but he doesn’t really quite explain his understanding of Middle Eastern social science. We cannot help but wonder if Obama speaks of the crisis lasting 1,400 years which is only solved when all Jews have been exterminated, the crisis that evolved from the end of the British Mandate in 1948, or the crisis presented today when Mahmoud Abbas repudiated Obama’s statement of hope and change for Palestine (a region that has never existed). (We should go back to calling it Canaan.)

Obama proffers a policy toward Iran that is disturbingly similar to that of Jimmy Carter; he will talk to them. This revelation causes me to think that Iran will immediately dispose of all its work (and the technology donated to them by our friends the Russians) toward the development of nuclear fissionable material. His vow to “finish the work in defeating al-Qaeda” is an accomplishment of the current administration, unless he hopes to resurrect them, or offer extremists free access to American universities where they can earn engineering degrees in explosives management.

Personally, I’m not certain the US has ever had a cogent agenda for the Middle East, but Obama isn’t running on the business-as-usual platform. There is nothing found on his website suggesting more than his awareness that there is a place called the Middle East. Like Carter, Obama’s continued talking about non-existent policy, or a hope for the future devoid of understanding does only one thing: it gives the Iranians (and other state sponsors of terror) hope that they might – just might prevail. I’m not sure change for Islamic nitwits is what the American people are hoping to achieve.

How will Obama solve the current energy crisis? He wants to talk to the major oil producers, a novel idea. Will he open up drilling inside the United States? No. Will he reverse the requirement for ethanol additives, which does nothing more than increase gasoline and food costs? No. Where is the change? How will Obama solve the unemployment problem? Actually, this isn’t really a problem – it has been about 5% since the early 1950s. Besides spending more money on failed programs, how will he improve the now defunct American education system? How does Mr. Obama intend to provide health insurance to 47 million (or 15%) of our uninsured citizens? Will he reject the notion that Americans must pay more for prescriptions in order to provide medications to fourth-world cesspools? No. Where is the change? 

I do not have a crystal ball and have no idea how this election will turn out. Our government could do many things for us – other than looking stupid every time a representative appears before television cameras and a set of microphones. For one thing, I would like the government to stay the hell out of my personal business. I would at least like government to stop making things worse. I would like the American people to rise up and unilaterally reject the kind of European style socialism that has destroyed our educational system, made dependents out of black people, and has opened our borders to hordes of free loading illegal aliens that I end up paying for. Alas, I do realize – I’m asking too much of our government. I’m asking too much of the American voter. Given the choice between purgatory and hell, I’ll take purgatory every time. An Obama election in November will give us the latter. Indeed, an Obama presidency will be lugubrious on a myriad of levels.

Apparently, Senator Tom Harkin thinks that John McCain is “too military” to serve as a successful president. According to Jane Norman (writing for the Des Moines Register):

“Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s family background as the son and grandson of admirals, has given him a worldview shaped by the military, ‘and he has a hard time thinking beyond that,’ Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) said Friday. ‘I think he's trapped in that,’ Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters.  ‘Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.’ Harkin said that ‘it's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up.’”

Of course, such a statement has enraged military veterans, especially those who come from generations of men who served their country in uniform. George Roper and others have addressed Harkin’s comments, as well they should. Harkin has apparently ignored the fact that until recently, most presidents served in the U. S. military, and many of them following a tradition handed down to them over many generations. On what basis should we conclude that Truman (who served as a captain of artillery) a better president than Eisenhower (an Army careerist)?

According to Harkin, a draftee (one compelled to serve his country) is a less dangerous man to have in the White House; the logic of this claim escapes me. And it is at the same time disappointing that Harkin is attempting to influence voters with an anti -military bias. I would like to think that Harkin’s service in the Navy (1962-1967) deserves our respect as much as we appreciate and honor the service of men like Colin Powell, David Petraeus, or John McCain.  But Harkin overlooks the fact that McCain has served in the House and Senate for the past 26 years – longer than he served on active duty in the Navy (discounting his 4 years as a midshipman).

Harkin’s smear is worse than sophomoric; it is insulting to those whose family has a proud military tradition. If Harkin wants to debate policy, then he should confine his remarks to prevalent issues, make his case, and let the people decide whom they agree with. I hope the citizens of Iowa will repudiate Harkin’s claim.

Beyond that, I believe Senator Harkin r