Bush Derangement Forever

RealClearPolitics - WikiLeaks Shows Bush in Fantasy World

Since the Saudi leader thinks that "the Iraq war gave Iraq to Iran on a silver platter...", it shows Bush lives in a fantasy world? When exactly WAS Iraq delivered to Iran? In the future? Who is in a fantasy world? Cohen, Abdullah, myself, and the Man in the Moon can ALL have our opinions about the future -- until it gets here, all those opinions are precisely FANTASY.

Bush thinks the world is better off without Saddam -- and Cohen does not, ergo, Bush is "Peter Pan". I wonder if Cohen would feel the same way if he was an Iraqi today? I hear precious little pining away for the plastic shredders from that quarter at this point. Come to think of it, I wonder what the odds of "Cohen" surviving in ANY Muslim nation would be? Note though, it is BUSH who is "out of touch".

This is the world George Bush left us. It exists everywhere but in his book, where facts are either omitted or rearranged so that the war in Iraq seems the product of pure reason.

But wait, these Wikileaks date from 2004, and low and behold, Arabs are telling us to attack Iran! Does that mean that if we had Wikileaks from '01-'03 there would be no calls from the region to attack Saddam? Maybe so, but it seems unlikely given that as long as Slick Willie was in power there were PLENTY of calls for attacks of all sorts on Saddam, from leading Democrats and the MSM -- especially when some new "Presidential Emission" was being reported.

Bush left us a world with leaders that are very nearly all screwed up, disingenuous, venal, feckless, arrogant, two-faced, cowardly and borderline insane? Uh, no ... he found it that way AND he left it that way. So it has been and ever will be.

What is scary is that guys like Richard Cohen STILL don't seem to understand that, but they are CERTAIN that it is others whose view of the world is "fantasy".

Proper Leaking

The Fragile Community - NYTimes.com

It is interesting to see all the folks now concerned about the ability to maintain secrecy. Apparently, with BO in the WH, the threshold for what ought be kept secret is suddenly quite high. The Pentagon Papers, the Watergate Tapes, Clarence Thomas's movie rental list, the countries that were assisting the US in dealing with terrorist prisoners, the photos from Abu Ghraib, secret wiretapping of calls from US to known terrorist cell numbers in other countries, Jack Ryan's sealed divorce records (he was running against BO for Senate) ... the list is pretty much endless, apparently our "community" wasn't "fragile" then.

Seems pretty much like leaking ought to simply be gated on the political party of the president -- Republican, leak everything! National secrets, information that can instantly cause soldiers or others to lose their lives -- no limit as long as there is any chance of making life harder for whatever Republican cad managed to steal the WH.

Democrat President? Each and every leak ought to be reviewed for who is being injured -- "big business"? Hammer them. A republican or possibly even a less than perfectly liberal Democrat? (say Lieberman), go ahead and make their life difficult! If there is any chance however that a leak might damage America's stature and thus make life difficult for a Democrat president however, REMEMBER "our community is fragile".

I suppose there is some level of truth here -- when you have a president as incompetent as BO, there really isn't any room for added difficulty, so our community is indeed very fragile.

My opinion? BO sat in the pew at Jeremiah Wright's "God da*n America" Church for 20 years ... he probably gave the guy the information! We put the weasel in CHARGE of the hen house and now we are surprised to see chickens dying???

Exceptional Epistemic Closure

The "American Exceptionalism" Smear And Epistemic Closure | The New Republic

Beware of liberals bearing big words -- translation; "having a closed mind" (or at least a closed information flow). It is an area where they know of what they speak!

So, what is the problem? Well, the now infamous BO statement on "American Exceptionalism" (or the lack thereof) is supposedly "out of context". Tsk, Tsk. Naturally Dan Quayle misspelling "potato", Bush saying "misunderestimated" or "heck of a job Brownie", or even "British intelligence says ..." ... or "Bring Em On" ... or whatever has NEVER been "taken out of context" or repeated to death. Liberals, and the MSM certainly would NEVER do that!

We are supposed to be able to read the rest of the paragraph and decide that "anyone with an open mind" (as assured by Mr Chait) would see that BO really is "very nearly" arguing FOR American Exceptionalism -- he just started with a misdirection to his point for some odd reason. To NOT see that, and to continue to repeat his own words "out of context" is either "closed minded" or "dishonest". Take your pick.

So what IS this "clear Exceptionalism" to the illustrious BO? Lots of sacrifice in WWII? Largest economy? Lots of current military capability? "Core set of values in our constitution"? We have laws? We have democracy? ... "free speech"? ... oh wait, he SAYS that although "imperfect", they ARE "exceptional". Really? Nobody else has any of these things? What if China surpasses our economy and our military, will we be no longer be "exceptional" at that point??

UNALIENABLE individual liberty. Limited Government. THAT is what makes the US exceptional! Nobody else has those -- but they ARE NOT things that BO likes about America and would like to maintain.

Last I checked, BO was also a "progressive" which means that there isn't much of anything in our Constitution or body of law that he would not be perfectly happy to CHANGE!

Hugging Soldiers

Rees Lloyd -- Why no Salute by Obama at Medal of Honor Ceremony?

Naturally, the MSM has no problem with this -- to discuss it would be "petty". We can all remember what their standards for "petty" during the Bush administration were, can we not? Any example of ANYTHING relative to words being mixed, something seen as awkward, something that could somehow be taken as a slight or insult to any group -- all had to be covered in the worst possible light -- just take "Heck of a job Brownie" for example. Take a sentence uttered at one meeting out of context and make it somehow into a stinging rebuke of an Administration for a natural disaster at New Orleans where the local and state governments set 3rd world standards for competency.

"Rules for Radicals" would be proud. The military is one of the key institutions that needs to be subverted to destroy a nation, so that it can be rebuilt in a new corrupted form as was done by Hitler in Germany and Stalin in the USSR. The love of country and honor of military tradition has to be subverted to allegiance to a specific leader and rigid ideology.

Appears that Rees Lloyd has it completely understood.

Why? Is it naught but petty carping of poor President Obama? I think not. He is the “Commander-in-Chief” who has in his power the lives of those who serve in defense of the country, which he himself did not deign to do. It is pointing out that this man, this professional politician, repeatedly evidences contempt for America, for America’s traditions, and for Americans who respect those traditions.

We need to work hard so that a LARGE majority of Americans "Get's it" prior to 2012. The future of our nation depends on it.

Ten Books That Screwed Up The World

and 4 others that didn't help, by Benjamin Wiker

This is a book that I HIGHLY recommend as "cliff notes" on some very important thought errors that entered Western civilization (mostly quite recently) that anyone who thinks deeply needs to understand and learn how to deal with. The ten books are:

1. The Manifesto of the Communist Party (Marx/Engels) 
2. Utilitarianism (Mill) 
3. The Descent of Man (Darwin)
4. Beyond Good and Evil (Nietzsche)
5. The State and Revolution (Lenin) 
6. The Pivot of Civilization (Sanger)
7. Mein Kampf (Hitler) 
8. The Future of an Illusion (Freud) 
9. Coming of Age in Samoa (Mead)
10. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Kinsey)

and the 4 that didn't help:

1. The Prince (Machiavelli)
2. Discourse on Method ( Descartes)
3. Leviathan (Hobbes) 
4. Discourse on the the Origins and Foundations of Inequality Among Men (Rousseau) 

I'll dispense with anything like the "cliff notes on the cliff notes", but rather share what I see to be the clear overall message gained from all the books that Wiker ( and I ) see as "in error".

The core error is "there is no God". While we know that nobody is going to be able to prove in this life that there IS a God, the primary effect of throwing him out is to make man into god -- with somewhat variable, but uniformly disastrous results.

If man is god, we need "a new creation myth". For Hobbes it is "every man has a right to everything ...". Since there is no god, there is no morality beyond "if it feels good, do it", which leads to a state of perpetual war with everyone, or a life that is now famously "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".

While our education system loves telling the impressionable young minds that "The Bible is just a Myth", what they don't say is that the Hobbesian, Lockean, Darwinian, Meadan, Freudian, etc views of the past and future are DEFINITELY myths. We even know for certain who made up those particular myths. Are any of the more recently created myths "better"? More realistic? Helpful to life?

Now Rousseau and Mead of course have a different rather idyllic view of our "basic nature" as being non-competitive, free love hippy sorts -- sharing everyone and everything with complete ease until some guy got jealous and wanted to keep one of the best females all for his own -- after which civilization got created and things went downhill ever since.  Man is wonderful, civilization is evil.

The bottom line is that all these books either start from creating the myth from pure imagination, or build on a previous error to make determinations about the problems with our present and predict some joyous better future that will approach "heaven on earth" if their nostrums are followed. Two of the visions; Marx and Hitler, pretty much got implemented, but the resemblance was to the place with the brimstone rather than Heaven.

Lot's of Kinsey's vision has come true as well -- lots of abortion, AIDs, child molestation, sexually transmitted disease and generally broken lives. In many of the cases. Kinsey being the most extreme, there is somehow the idea that "natural is good" -- as if once the higher functions of the spirit and the search for God and the eternal has been put behind us, the way to nirvana is through sex driven by all the morality found in the brain stem. The basic philosophy of utilitarianism -- which is essentially socialism, is "philosophy for pigs" ... if the most people enjoy it, then it must be good. Get more folks to enjoy more of it and see if we can avoid pain. End of story.

Nietzsche dumped god, crapped all over utilitarianism, and pretty much decided on on the philosophy of "no pain, no gain" -- we need to get better, but better in the "natural way", so like Darwin and Sanger, he wanted solid competition for "the best race", leadership of"the best of the best" -- meaning greatest will to power in that best race, and wala -- we get Hitler. Maybe not exactly what the "natural selection crowd" thought of as the ultimate goal of evolution, but one never really knows where a random process that arose randomly will end up.

The bottom line would seem to be that Pogo had it right. "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Thus, we would be very very wise to accept the reality of an all powerful God sending a Savior to die for us, or at least make it as close to reality as our faith will allow. "Myth or Truth"?, there are no purely human created world views that have any hope at all of being anything but myth, that is a certainty. Is the Christian world view divine? It is at least plausible opposed to any of the above.

If it isn't there were a set of disciples that died as martyrs for what they knew to be a lie.  There is a GIANT gulf between that and a terrorist dying for what he wants to believe to be the truth -- he has no real evidence for or against his belief.  If Christ really didn't rise from the dead, St Peter  ... and all the other disciples  save John died horrible deaths for what they would have known was a lie.

Does that "prove Christianity"? Unfortunately, no -- God said "by faith", and he meant it.  However I think 100's of millions of dead due to the failed utopia ideas of man might at least give us a bit of pause as to what is BEST?

The book is actually pretty short, and it is PACKED with information -- his style is a bit "chippy" for my taste in a book of this sort, but some may find it entertaining. In any case, the book has merit -- go for it!

WikiLeaks: I See Change

Obama administration is weak in the face of WikiLeaks

Remember the courageous "whistle blowers" that fingered the countries where terrorists were being interrogated? Remember the heroic announcements of the "top secret" cell phone and other snooping for calls/messages to certain terrorist numbers? (a very light perusal of the "Christmas Tree Bomber" story seems to show it is still happening)

"Leaking" used to be a very courageous and supremely positive activity, worthy of lots of NY Times coverage and accolades on how those leaking top secret information were doing our nation a tremendous favor.

What happened? Why when Climate-Gate information was "obtained illegally", the NY Times wouldn't even cover the story at all? Pretty easy to understand -- it was damaging to the Climate Scam industry, an industry much like the racial shakedown industry deserves 100% MSM protection.

I personally think that it is important for there to be laws on protection of information, including national secrets, BUT, either there is a policy that says that outlets NEVER cover information obtained illegally, OR they cover it no matter whose ox is getting gored.

This selective umbrage is really ridiculous.

The European Canary is Dying

RealClearPolitics - Europe's Ominous Reckoning

Miners used to take a canary into the coal mine in hopes that if the canary croaked from poisonous gases, they would be able to escape before they followed suit.

We were long lambasted by the left in this country to "follow Europe", and much to our peril, we have followed significantly. Now, the European "canary" is choking and sputtering, while BO is working hard to lead us farther into the noxious mine of unsupportable entitlements plus massive taxes and regulation to restrict our ability to breath at all. WILL WE HEED THE OBVIOUS WARNING!!!

"... easy money, unsustainable social spending and big budget deficits." HELLOOOOO !!!!!

So now the reckoning. In Ireland, the burst housing bubble left a massive budget deficit and lifted unemployment to 14 percent. Most European economies suffer from the ill effects of some combination of easy money, unsustainable social spending and big budget deficits. Countries are interconnected, so there are spillover effects. European banks -- led by British, German, French and Belgian banks -- have $500 billion in loans and investments in Ireland, reports the Financial Times. Large losses could snowball into a broader banking crisis.

Europe's challenge is no longer just economic. It's also social and political. Cherished values and ideals are under assault. The euro, intended to nurture unity, has bred discord, as countries assign blame and argue over sharing costs. The social contract is being rewritten, with government benefits and protections being cut. In Ireland, the governing coalition seems doomed; one minority party has withdrawn its support.

Desperately Helping BO

What Obama Can Learn From Chris Christie - Newsweek

It is almost enough to make one feel sorry for the MSM. Their disdain for Christie, Reagan, and Republicans in general boils to the surface from time to time, and yet ... and yet, they see where their precious BO is failing, and they want to help him so much they will even try to give him "combat lessons".

I really like this one:

But in the weeks and months ahead, Republicans will undoubtedly indulge in a little hypocrisy—by calling for tax cuts estimated to add $700 billion to the deficit over 10 years, for example, then refusing to raise the debt ceiling. The president shouldn’t be afraid to isolate, ridicule, and conquer.

Isn't it just A LITTLE bit similar to be pushing for $3 TRILLION in debt while calling the Republicans pushing for the extra $700 Billion for "the rich" (>$250K income) "hypocrites"? Does ANYONE not recognize the cheer leading from the MSM on "the president shouldn't be afraid"??? The MSM is obviously MORE than anxious to engage in great gobs of what they hope is hidden hypocrisy relative to taking on Trillions in debt to hopefully buy some more votes, along with any abuse they can possibly heap on the Republicans for attempts to get the runaway train of government at least under a tiny bit of control!!

Our lack of "truth in labeling" for our MSM is one of the things that messes up our ability to govern ourselves. As unbelieveable as it seems, I'm convinced that broad swaths of people still don't see the bulk of our MSM as far more biased than Fox.

Thanks for the Good Life

The Good Life is Found in Jesus Christ - Ken Connor - Townhall Conservative

They also understood that the chief end of man was to worship God and enjoy Him forever. Contentment was to be found in Christ, not in their circumstances.

Excellent little column, the short answer to what once made America exceptional. We were a people that was humble in the right way -- before God; not before the State, nor the Monarch, nor other nations, nor non-Christian religion. People had the right to PURSUE happiness, but the vast majority of the nation understood that happiness was to be found only in Jesus Christ.

The state was just not going to force a state church between you and God. The idea that once people were free of the tyranny of a state church that a significant number would forget about God entirely, or choose what the founders would have clearly recognized as pagan religions would somehow achieve equivalent standing with Christianity and Judaism was beyond their imagination.

I wish it were beyond ours.

Why So Compartmentalized?

The Real Threat to America - NYTimes.com

Back during the Bush administration, the fish rotted from the head, and every piece if even imaginary invasion of privacy was a clear example of "the radical loss of freedom and rights due to fear mongering intended for Bush to hold power ... maybe forever". Isn't it interesting that "Hope and Grope", and "Bend Over: Here Comes Change" are nowhere to be found as the indignities of the TSA roll out. It is all completely fire-walled in TSA, not a hint of blame rolls up to the office of the President. Cool

Think a bit more deeply about what we are experiencing however and what is even included in this article:

What is not in doubt is an old rule: Give a bureaucrat a big stick and a big budget, allow said bureaucrat to trade in the limitless currency of human anxiety, and the masses will soon be intimidated by the Department of Fear.

I agree -- with the NY Times no less. Why do they believe that this "old rule" is isolated? Give a bureaucrat a big stick to deal with Corporate America ... and ??? Of course the NYT doesn't like Corporate America. How about give a bureaucrat a big stick to deal with health care in America ... and??? Guess what, just what the Tea Party says -- power is STILL going to corrupt!!!

Why exactly do folks on the left believe that what has happened at the TSA hasn't and isn't happening a the IRS, Czar dejour, and will happen in every case where we allow the government to bloat??

There is NO REASON AT ALL ... in fact, since more people travel than get sick, there is MORE scrutiny by the travelling public!! It is enough for the NYT to take an anti-government position (all be it carefully compartmentalized).

Visions, Conflict, American Decline

Hiding From Reality - NYTimes.com

I'm willing to suffer the pain of reading Bob Herbert to attempt to understand how the elite looks at America. The fact that I "agree" with his last paragraph shows the importance of shared premises:

"America will never get its act together until we recognize how much trouble we’re really in, and how much effort and shared sacrifice is needed to stop the decline. Only then will we be able to begin resuscitating the dream."

A favorite joke on shared premises problems is from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar (it's better in the book, but this is shorter):

"An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian.'"

My view of the problems with America today is that Bob and I don't agree on WHAT the trouble we are in is, who and what the shared sacrifice is, the definition of decline, nor the definition of the American Dream. Bob doesn't even know what my definition is (or care) -- even though I think I pretty much understand his.

His definition is massively higher taxes on earners, massively larger amounts of government spending, regulation and intrusion into the daily lives of more and more Americans. Bob saw the "peak" of America in maybe "1975" ... or maybe even '79, but since Reagan, we have "been in decline". He saw Democrats being elected in '06 and BO in '08 as "the right direction", and he is now depressed because he sees any reduction in the march toward larger government as "hiding from reality". He sees no other positive future reality other than "The United States of Sweden for 300 million people".

Bob and my realities don't match. My America was founded in 1776, not 1932 with FDR ... or maybe 1900 with TR. My America was exceptional -- it had no interest in being "like Sweden, Germany or France". There already is a Sweden, Germany and a France -- and even a Cuba and a Venezuela. There is no reason to build another. If you want one of those, you can just move there.

My America has been in decline since at least 1900 and in some ways since the Civil War. The measures that usurped states rights for secession were probably legitimate for the special case of a group of states withdrawing to protect the institution of slavery, but much like the draft only being instituted when required for national emergency, the rights of the states and the people should have been returned once the conflict was ended.

Arizona defending it's borders, states deciding against BOcare, or even states deciding to legalize drugs -- or prohibit alcohol, or a host of other "difficult things" are the kinds problems that liberty entails. We have mortgaged broad swaths of our liberty to the federal government for supposed security, convenience and order. Bob sees that as "progress" (thus the term "progressive"), and I see it as decline -- and thus my term "REgressive". I see the transfer and rapid increase of centralized government power as a LOSS of liberty, and therefore movement toward tyranny that the country was founded to LIMIT!

I could go on and on ... I see the massive unions of teachers and other public workers as the one of the key killers of our ability to innovate, compete and improve -- in education and in broad swaths of modern life. Bob sees any threat to the salaries and benefits of the public workers now 2x the standard private sector jobs as "decline". I see the cozy relationship between the government and public workers as corruption, heavily contributing to our decline -- Bob sees it as something we ought to increase.

**THE** major problem with left and right is just that. "A conflict of visions". We disagree on the premises -- what the current reality is, and what the objectives are. Bob thinks that "progressivism" is "settled social science", just like Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming -- AGW. Bob see's the government taking and controlling pretty much "half" of everything as "half full" -- with the objective being more toward full! I see it as "too full already", with the objective being "15-20% or so", **NOT ZERO** as Bob would tell you anyone who disagrees with him believes.

While my America has been declining a lot, it has had long moments of relative sunshine -- the '80's with Reagan, even the '90s with Clinton triangulating to the reality of a Republican congress and at least paying lip service to the idea that "the era of big government was over". Bush was way too progressive -- prescription drugs were bad, the level of deficit, even taking 9-11 into consideration was too high.  Post '96 however, with the Democrat takeover of congress and then BO, it has been nothing short of disaster.

Our task in America is very large because Bob and I can't agree on the most basics of basics -- what ARE the unique and special principles of America? Are we really the same as a host of other countries now in existence? What is the American dream? Is risk involved, or is it all about security? Again, this list could go on -- something like 20% of the country--  Bob, the elites, the hard left have one vision, and something like 60% of the country quietly believes roughly what I do, but the elites are rapidly shifting that by bringing in immagrants to vote with them,  buying votes in general, unionizing all the government workers, and running all the media.

In my mind, the CORE problem is that Bob and his 20% are the chattering classes, and they refuse to be honest with the 80% about what their goals really are. If they were, their power would dwindle to nearly nothing because it would be very clear that their values were NOT American values -- in the sense of 1776, liberty having priority over security, etc. They are slicker than that however -- they intend to keep chipping at those liberties in the name of progress and security until enough feel that they are too dependent on the government behemoth to risk having an alternate opinion.

And then my America will die and Bob will continue to complain of all the "damage" that is caused by the last vestiges that fail to succumb to his vision. The free speech of the liberals means your right to yell the old "7 dirty words" at the top of your lungs in any forum you desire. Freedom to espouse your ideas that are not in agreement with them? They believe you have no freedom of that sort whatsoever!

A Tale of Two States

California Suggests Suicide; Texas Asks: Can I Lend You a Knife? - Joel Kotkin - New Geographer - Forbes

The idea of the US was for our states to be very autonomous -- much more like the European Economic Union than like the current situation where the "Commerce Clause" has been stretched to cover nearly everything. No matter, difference still shows through, and TX and CA are nearly as good a study in what works and what doesn't as the old East and West Germany comparison used to be.

Don't expect liberals to take notice of easy to glean facts however -- if they couldn't understand the difference between East and West Germany, they are very unlikely to understand the difference between current TX and CA, but it certainly isn't because the evidence would even allow one to come to the wrong conclusions if there was any interest in looking.

Just read it. Short, sweet and very clear.

Buried Failure

Landmark terrorism trial ends in acquittal on all but 1 count - CNN.com

Remember when any sort of ruling that allowed any terrorists to get extra rights and potentially make the justice department and of course BUSH look bad was paraded from the front page and top story of every MSM outlet in the land? Well, those days are officially gone. You have to dig to the very bottom of CNN politics and even then, other than the "Landmark" designation -- the media doesn't want to be up front with how you ought to think about a "landmark case" in terror jurisprudence ending with acquittal on all but one count. This is a defendant that CONFESSED to getting the explosives that killed 224 people!!!

Couldn't he just slip on the soap in the shower "accidentally" or something? How "mass" does mass murder really need to be these days?

I'll give you a clue. If they can't spin it as some sort of "victory" for the hapless BO and his merry band of misfits, then they want you to try to figure it out yourself, and most likely in these times of short attention spans, you won't even find the article.

That is good, because if too many folks find this sort of thing, people will realize that BO makes Jimmuh look like a super competent great man, and even though we have some control on him now with a Republican Congress, there is truly no cure for malfeasance and incompetence at the BO level.

The White Vote

Hey, Michael Moore! Clinton, Gore and Kerry Lost the 'White Vote,' Too - Larry Elder - Townhall Conservative

Lots of talk about racism being a primary reason for people "turning against" BO. Larry is black, so he is allowed to talk about race in the current America. From the way it has been reported in the MSM, it is somewhat surprising that no Democrat running for President has won the "white vote" since '64 ... and Kerry lost it by more than BO.

Seems to me like Elder makes a pretty good case that there could be significant ideas causing people to make different voting decisions other than race.

Gee, I wonder what those might be? Maybe spending, entitlements, taxes, national security, jobs ...

Calling someone a racist is far easier than going into those however!

Obama Zombies, Jason Mattera

Read this little ditty on the cruise. Light stuff, the reason I bought it was the fact that it was written by a "20 something"-- somebody pretty pissed off because of the way his generation had become in his words "Obama Zombies".  He writes in the somewhat cute idiom of his generation:

"Evidence, logic, thinking--those are liberalism's gravest threats."

"Wouldn't it make more sense to invest your energy in, say, core values, not a man? Isn't that after all the American way?"

Very very true, and one of the cores of my beef with BO. We used to be a nation of ideas and laws, not of men. It is one of the big things that keeps us from being taken over by the "fearless leader type" -- we are supposed to have a strong sense of angst over the demagogue. What the heck happened to vast swaths of our country, and especially our youth in '08? Yes, yes, it looks like we have woken up the AM after and said "I'm never falling for hope and change again", but it is just plain scary to see a nation fall for the kind of clear Bozo that BO was right from the start.

"Diversity is, um, irrelevant. The best thing about multiculturalism is the food."

Profound! We are a country where all were supposed to be EQUAL -- that was one of our "exceptional things"!

JFK dreamed of putting a man on the moon. 

Ronald Reagan dreamed of a world without the Berlin Wall. 

Barack Obama and his minions dream of .... a world built with straw homes?

Honestly he goes into a Global Warming handbook that sounds pretty wacko, but his point is that the policies espoused by BO are "regressive" -- they seek to move us not forward, but backward.

The late, great economist Milton Friedman had this axion: Nobody spends somebody else' money as wisely or frugally as he spends his own. Only in Disney movies does redistribution of wealth work. 

Well, it CAN be moved ... the problem is that what one ends up with is less wealth for all.

Look, if government spending were a magic bullet, the Soviet Union would never have fallen; it would have been an economic juggernaut, a model for our success. Moreover, Cuba, Venezuela, and every other socialist tyranny around the world would be be economic nirvanas. 

Indeed.

Very easy read, not really deep enough to convince very many of his truth, but an entertaining work that may reach some of the young who sorely need it. Sometimes the message has to fit the right tone or it just isn't going to get across.