The Liberal Left Liars Club

Read and ponder:

The unfolding spectacle of Speaker Pelosi attending a briefing, in which the CIA informed her of enhanced interrogation techniques, and then lying about it, is part of the grave danger to our democracy.  The Left is shrinking honesty into an empty, ignored, and mocked virtue.  Pelosi is not just lying about being at a vital briefing; she has decided that the best defense is a good offense:  accuse the CIA of misleading Congress and, particularly, her.  This is much worse than simply holding the wrong policy on issues. 

Mike Mansfield often held very wrong positions on issues, but he never lied to America or to his colleagues.  The Left, when it had men like Mike Mansfield, Eugene McCarthy, and Hubert Humphrey, valued honesty.   When the Left stood for something more important that the personal gain of power, wealth, or fame, Leftists were willing to tell the truth even when it hurt them politically.

Freedom of speech has most important when the speech is unwelcome.   People require no legal protection for saying what is popular. They require protection for saying what angers people.  But the Left cares nothing at all about freedom and it cares even less about truth.

Nancy Pelosi is lying and she is compounding that offense by lying about lying.  The man who might have led the Democrats, "Pretty Boy" John Edwards looked at reporters and the American people and flatly, boldly lied to us. Bill Clinton did almost exactly the same thing when he flatly and indignantly denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky.  The affair itself was sordid, childish, selfish, and sleazy, but the affair was a peccadillo.  The grand crime was lying. 

Recall what the Left said about his lying then?  Stuff like this:  "Lying is sometimes good," "It is healthy to lie," and "Well, virtually all of us lie."  John Edwards was the Vice Presidential Nominee for the Democrats in 2004 and one of the leading contenders for the nomination in 2008.  Bill Clinton was elected president twice.  Honored members of the Liars Club.

Does anyone believe that Barack Obama's Chief of Staff knew nothing about Blago's auctioning the Illinois Senate seat?  Rahm Emanuel and Obama initially said that neither had any conservations with the ex-Governor about whom to support to fill Obama's seat.  Did that make any sense?  Why would he have not talked with Blago? But as soon as the seat-selling scandal broke, Obama and his top aide denied any contact.  Then, it transpired, that Emanuel did, indeed, visit with Blago.  Later it turns out that Emanuel had multiple conservatives with Blago.  The president and his Chief of Staff, before even taking office, were lying.

The moral disease seems rampant in the Left.  Joe Biden, repeatedly, has said that a drunk driver killed his wife and child.  There was virtually no evidence of alcohol by the other driver in the crash and, in fact, there was evidence that the crash was caused by the wife, not the poor wretch condemned to be the straw man for one of Biden's favorite lies.

John Kerry claims to recall spending Christmas on a gunboat in Cambodia in 1968 under President Nixon:  perhaps in an alternative, Bizarro universe; even those men who served with Kerry on swift boats and who supported him said, well, no, we were never in Cambodia, and Richard Nixon, of course, was not president in December 1968.

Al Gore, well, where to begin?  He began to confront the tobacco companies forcefully after his sister died from lung cancer. (That same month, he got a $1,000 speaking fee from U.S. Tobacco; he voted against raising taxes on tobacco three times after that and even supported discounted tobacco; he campaigned in 1988, four years after his sister's death, bragging about his work in planting and cultivating tobacco.)  He authored the Earned Income Credit (although the bill became law in 1975, two years before he was entered Congress.)

This list goes on and it is depressingly familiar.  Leftist Democrats simply lie about everything that they think will help them politically and that they think they can get away with.  The Liars Party (also, to an amazing degree, the Lawyers Party) does not care about any of the policies which it professes to advocate.

Why, for example, would Gore be deeply involved in the tobacco industry if he thought it was bad?  Why would Edwards have a profoundly hurtful affair behind the back of his dying wife unless all his blathering about the rights of women was just vote-getting flattery?  Or why would Clinton and his wife defend him from all the women who accused him of acting like precisely the sort of man whom they argue the federal government should do more about?  If Pelosi cared about water boarding as "torture," then she should have sought all she could and done all she could in 2002 -- even she acknowledges she was either truly ignorant or too profoundly indifferent to research or to act.

Members of the Liars Club do not even merit the dubious honor of being called Leftist ideologues.  They are simply utterly selfish and profoundly amoral liars who view the moral conscience and fidelity to truth of conservatives as more dangerous to them than any notions of market theory, natural rights, or rule of law. 

The rhetoric of the Liars Club means nothing -- nothing at all.  Barney Frank, when he lied about the Republicans passing a bill to reform the banking industry before Frank became a committee chair in 2007 -- which Barney Frank voted against! -- did not care about the truth.  He cares about power.  In a democracy in which the mainstream media actively conceals the lies of the Left, then the Liars Club are vindicated:  dishonesty is the best policy.

The leadership of the Democrat party and the liberal Leftists who support them have become rotten to the core, and that's not hard to see at all (for anyone willing to look).  The part that really bothers me is when I think of the rank-and-file Democrat voters, those good, hard-working American citizens who live in the real world rather than Washington.  It's one thing to have disagreements on policy issues...that freedom is what makes America great.  No, the thing that bothers me is that those Democrat rank-and-file folks don't seem to care that their leadership is corrupt to the core.  Don't get me wrong, the GOP isn't saintly, either.  But, if you look at the two sides, the GOP generally cleans its own house and gets rid of the corrupt and questionable members.  The Democrat party doesn't - they don't vote them home, they don't demand resignations, and they don't even complain about the bad behavior; most of the time, the most corrupt members rise to the top of the leadership structure.  How can the rank-and-file tolerate this?

The most obvious answer is that they either don't know or don't care.  I can understand the ignorance...to a point.  In the 21st century, there are plenty of places to obtain real news outside the mainstream media, and even the MSM will, on occasion report on things like Jeremiah Wright or Nancy Pelosi's lies.  Those things should be enough to make anyone seeking the truth start looking a little harder, and it's not hard to find the truth once one begins to look for it.  To see the corruption and refuse to look into it is to exhibit tremendous intellectual laziness that doesn't excuse responsibility.

The other conclusion is that they don't care.  To me, that is the most disheartening scenario because that means a whole lot of good Americans apparently don't have a problem with corruption in their leadership.  If we've reached that point, I can't see much of a future for our formerly honest and ethical country.  When half of the people lose the will to demand accountability and integrity from their leaders, how can we move forward except into the abyss of unending corruption and selfish decline?

Democrat readers - any thoughts or illuminations?  I'd love to hear from you.

There's my two cents.

The GOP's Great Failure...And Opportunity

Two polls give us a startling glance into something that can be considered one of the GOP's greatest failures, as well as one of its greatest opportunities.

Ronald Reagan isn’t just a Republican thing anymore.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters say the Republican Party should return to the views and values of the iconic 40th president of the United States to be successful, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republican voters believe a return to the two-term president’s views and values are the road to success. Just eight percent (8%) disagree.

Among unaffiliated voters, 61% say the Republican Party should return to Reagan, while 23% think the party should move away from those values.

Even 29% of Democrats think Reagan is a good role model for the modern Republican Party...

Now, consider this:

Ten days into his presidency as the details of his historic economic rescue plan become clearer, Barack Obama still enjoys the confidence of a majority of voters that he knows how to handle the struggling U.S. economy.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters give Obama good or excellent marks – 29% say excellent – for his dealing with the economy so far. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 25% rate the President’s handling of the economy as poor.

So, what are we to make of these two polls? The first one indicates that Ronald Reagan is highly regarded, even by a significant minority of Democrats. Many people believe that getting back to Reagan is a good thing. The second poll, then, reveals that a majority of the country thinks that Obama's current economic proposals are the correct thing to bring us out of this recession.

Problem is, Obama's economic proposals are directly contrary to what Reagan did.

Reagan believed that government was the problem, not the solution. He believed that the way to solve problems was to get government out of the way and unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of the free market. Obama's policy proposals are just the opposite - they penalize success and the free market, providing only layer after layer of oppressive government regulation, government intervention, and government control. Obama is proposing precisely the same things that Carter implemented...the same things that Reagan was elected to correct.

This, then, is the GOP's greatest failure: America remembers and loves Ronald Reagan, but they don't know why. For so many people to have so completely forgotten the things that made Reagan's presidency so successful is an indicator of how badly the GOP failed to follow in his footsteps.

The opportunity, then, is just as great: America already loves him, and just need to be reminded of why. It's far easier to restore knowledge that has been forgotten than to create new knowledge. If the GOP can restore the message of Reagan and the policies that made him so successful and beloved, they have success waiting just around the corner.

There's my two cents.


Sources:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/majority_see_reagan_as_republicans_way_back_to_power
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/january_2009/majority_remain_confident_in_obama_s_economic_moves

Happy Birthday, Marines!

Today is the 233rd birthday of the U.S. Marine Corps. I like the tribute posted at Hot Air:

To all who have previously served in our military -- on this day, especially the Marines -- both members and families, and to those who serve now:

THANK YOU!!!

We owe you our freedom, and our way of life!

Poll: What Issues Are You Most Interested In?

So, as we get back to normal day-to-day politics, now is a great time to re-evaluate things. Specifically, what issues do you care most about? What interests you most? What do you want to read about?

I make no promises, but it's in everyone's best interest if I can post stuff you're all interested in. So, I've posted a poll with a few of the most obvious choices - let me know what you think, or drop me a comment to mention something that's not on the poll.

Now's your chance to speak up! :)

It's A Slow News Day

Just so you know, it's been a slow day in terms of news.  Much of what I've seen is incessant analysis of the election - what the GOP did wrong, how wonderful the world is now that Obama won, etc.  The bottom line is this: America got what it wanted, but we'll find out over the next two years or so if what it wanted was what it needed.

Remember all that talk from long ago about how there was a war going on inside the Republican party?  It was the big government, moderate types versus the conservatives.  McCain was the guy the big government types wanted to lead the party, and they insisted that the only way the GOP could hold onto the White House was by inviting Democrats and Independents in.  Conservatives, on the other hand, said that diluting the party's core principles was the wrong way to go about achieving victory, and that the conservative message needed to be explicitly refined and staked out as the position of the party.

The big government types won the GOP battle, but the GOP lost the election because Dems and Independents overwhelmingly supported Obama.  The big government types were wrong.

Conservatives have a good opportunity now to pull back the Republican party back to its base: core conservative principles.  They always win at the ballot box because this is a center-right country.  For example, look at the ballot initiatives in California:
- ban on gay marriage --- passed 53%-47% (similar measures also passed in Florida and Arizona by wider margins)
- require 50% of energy to come from renewable sources --- rejected with 65% of the vote
- rebates for alternative fuel vehicles --- rejected with 60% of the vote

And this is in California!  This is one of the most liberal states in the country where these conservative principles passed easily.  If this can happen in California, there is certainly no reason it can't happen across the the nation.

The root of this is that, while there were some moments where conservatism was showcased, it was never really on the ballot in a big way.  Sarah Palin was the only true conservative throughout the entire process, but as the VP she was not the main event, and thus somewhat limited in what she could do and say.  She followed McCain's agenda, not her own.  None of the GOP candidates were a complete conservative, certainly not McCain. 

The argument now needs to be made that conservatism is the way to go.  We need vocal, capable, dedicated elected leaders around which to build this new movement.  Sarah Palin could be a key figure, as could folks like Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Jim DeMint, and others.  One good thing about this election is that it really smoked out many so-called conservatives who bailed when the heat got turned up.  Now we know who they are, and where they stand.  They're welcome to come back and join us, but they cannot be given the leadership roles anymore.

So, this is the task now in front of us: to rebuild, this time around our core principles, with people who will not compromise and change positions once they arrive in Washington.

Let's keep an eye out for those leaders of the next Conservative Revolution, and follow them to our next victory.

There's my two cents.

Life Goes On

After pondering for a little while longer, I wanted to share a few other thoughts with you.  We will finally -- FINALLY -- get to hear some good news about America, and the idea of supporting our President will no longer be considered a heresy (though I would guess it'll soon be a heresy to do the opposite).  Those things will be definite changes.  I suspect we'll suddenly start hearing some better news about the economy, too, even though that is still in a fragile state and one of the biggest challenges that the new President will face.  I am pleased at how the Right is generally letting go of all of the (legitimate) gripes we have and at least making an attempt at coming together for the benefit of the nation.  That, too, is a refreshing change from the last two elections, where we saw the Democrat party shout, scream, sue, moan, and accuse their way into the new term.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how much change we'll really get in many ways.  For example, we're already seeing crackpot calls for Bush-Cheney to resign immediately.  What idiots.  I suspect Bush and Cheney will be rhetorical whipping boys for quite some time, as Obama will likely use them to roll back some of his campaign promises.  How long do you think it'll be until we hear something like this:

"I know I promised that tax cut, but gee whiz, when we got in here and saw what a mess Bush made of things, we really just can't make it happen."  Clinton did it.  I'd be shocked if Obama doesn't do it, too.

Not long, I'll wager.  I guess I just hope that the change we get is the right kind of change. 

I think the overriding thought in my mind today is: be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.  The American people wished for a giant caretaker, and they have gotten it.  This seems to have been an election where people so desperately wanted a change, any change, that they were willing to hop out of the frying pan even if it meant falling into the fire.  Just how badly we get burned remains to be seen.  I would love to be wrong about this, but only time will tell.

On the international scene: should it concern us that Hamas celebrated Obama's win by violating their truce with Israel and firing dozens of rockets at their sworn enemy?  It's ironic, then, that Obama received 77% of the Jewish vote.  Something to keep in mind, along with the celebration of all the countries that hate America and have sworn to see its destruction.  Also of concern is the fact that Russia has now announced they will deploy addtional missile systems to the EU border.  Obama's first international test is coming quickly, and it is in all of our best interest to hope and pray that he handles it well.

Here's a big lesson learned: conservatism wins every time it's tried.  Look at what got Obama into the White House.  Though his track record is one of radical Leftism, he successfully hid that track record in the rhetoric of the right-center.  He talked about tax cuts, returning responsibility to individuals, and protecting America (for the record, the methods he wants to use are completely bass-ackwards wrong, but that's another debate).  These things are all fundamentally conservative in nature, and that's why people are attracted to them.  With the media hiding his background and record, he was able to pull it off.  I hope the Republican party gets this through their collective thick skulls, or they will be forever doomed to a minority party.  Their never-ending compromise and failure to stand firm have killed them in the past two elections, and we are now stuck with the results of those failures.  While the messengers are flawed, the message is not.

Obama's rhetoric was great, but his record is downright scary.  We should know shortly how he plans to govern.  Will we get the Obama of rhetoric, with a more central-leaning, moderate tone, or will we get the Obama of record, with a far-Left, radical agenda?  The line he and his Congress will have to walk is the reality of the political pendulum - if one party pushes too far in one direction, there will inevitably be a return swing to the other side.  We on the Right will seek to hold him (and Congress) accountable to the principles we believe to be the American way, and get that pendulum moving back to our direction as soon as possible.

So where do we go from here?  I like this:

It's kind of like being diagnosed with testicular cancer.  You hope to live through the treatment, but you don't look forward to what you're about to lose.

It always helps to keep a sense of humor, doesn't it?  If nothing else, at least this way-too-long election process is FINALLY OVER!!!

Life goes on!

There's my two cents.

Diagnosing Obot-ism

I've often looked on in stunned wonderment at the other-worldly ability of Barack the Obamessiah's followers to ignore facts and reality.  Sure, the media is carrying his water, shielding him from negative press and offering a continuous stream of fluffy warm fuzzy pieces to prop up his many deficiencies.  But, even the media bias only goes so far, because some things have gotten out on a mass scale despite their best containment efforts.  Both the Rev. Wright hate-speech and the spread-the-wealth comment have gotten a lot of play, even in the mainstream media, but Obots have only gotten more rabid in their support of their candidate in such a way that it truly does approach religious zeal (thus the mocking 'Obamessiah' nickname), complete with tears and fainting.

So, what is driving these Obots in their fervor?

Before getting into this, I want to be very clear: when I say Obots, I'm not talking about all Obama supporters or all people who will vote for Obama.  There are plenty of people who support Obama because of his positions on the issues.  I get that, and respect all of you.  You're supposed to support your candidate because of what he or she will do if elected to office - that's how this whole representative republic system works.  I disagree with you, but that's okay.  That's the color that makes America great.  No, when I say 'Obots', I'm talking about the people who are blinders-on, couldn't-tell-you-his-positions, can't-debate-so-resort-to-insults, faint-and-weep people, like these idiots who clearly have no idea what Obama stands for.  They're followers rather than supporters.  There's a big difference.  If you understand that difference, you must be a supporter, and are still in possession of your mind; if you don't, well...keep drinking your Kool-Aid.

Anyway, what drives these Obots?  Just for kicks, I  wanted to share a couple theories on this.  Here's one I find particularly intriguing, from Right Truth:

An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches (pdf)  (thanks to Right Truth reader Junichi)

THE EVIDENCE IS HERE:  This document contains over 60 pages of evidence and analysis proving Barack Obama's use of a little-known and highly deceptive and manipulative form of "hack" hypnosis on millions of unaware Americans, and reveals what only a few psychologists and hypnosis/NLP experts know.

Barack Obama's speeches contain the hypnosis techniques of Dr. Milton Erickson, M.D. who developed a form of "conversational" hypnosis that could be hidden in seemingly normal speech and used on patients without their knowledge for therapy purposes.  Obama's speeches intentionally contain:

-  Trance Inductions 
-  Hypnotic Anchoring
-  Pacing and Leading 
-  Pacing, Distraction and Utilization
-  Critical Factor Bypass
-  Stacking Language Patterns
-  Pre-programed Response Adaptation
-  Linking Statements/ Causality Bridges
-  Secondary Hidden Meanings/Imbedded Suggestions
-  Emotion Transfer
-  Non-Dominant Hemisphere Programming


Obama's techniques are the height of deception and psychological manipulation, remaining hidden because one must understand the science behind the language patterns in order to spot them.   This document examines Obama's speeches word by word, hand gesture by hand gesture, tone, pauses, body language, and proves his use of covert hypnosis intended only for licensed therapists on consenting patients.  Obama's mesmerized, cult-like, grade-school-crush-like worship by millions is not because "Obama is the greatest leader of a generation" who simply hasn't accomplished anything, who magically "inspires" by giving speeches.  Obama is committing perhaps the biggest fraud and deception in American history.  

Obama is not just using subliminal messages, but textbook covert hypnosis and neuro-linguistic programming techniques on audiences that are intentionally designed to sideline rational judgment and implant subconscious commands to think he is wonderful and elect him President.  Obama is eloquent.  However, Obama's subconscious techniques are shown to elicit powerful emotion from his audience and then transfer those emotions onto him, to sideline rational judgment, and implant hypnotic commands that we are unaware of and can't even consciously question.  The polls are misleading because some of Obama's commands are designed to be triggered only in the voting booth on November 4th.  Obama is immune to logical arguments like Wright, Ayers, shifting every position, character, and inexperience, because hypnosis
affects us on an unconscious and emotional level.  To many people who see this unaccomplished man's unnatural and irrational rise to the highest office in the world as suspicious and frightening and to those who welcome it, this document uncovers, explains, and proves the deceptive tactics behind true "Obama Phenomenon" including why younger people are more easily affected.  

EXPOSING OBAMA'S DECEPTION MAY BE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY

The full article in pdf,  pages, is located here and I suggest you read it all.

I found the following of great interest:

Specific examples of Obama using 14 separate hypnotic pacing statements in his Denver 2008 Convention speech  Elementary pacing examples from Obama include, "now is the time", and "as I stand here before you."  These statements are undeniably true in the simplest terms and commonly used parts of his pacing techniques, because of course now is the time, and if he is there speaking, of course he is standing before us. 

These are things the hypnotist says that are verifiably true, and used to lower our critical factor defenses to allow implantation of subconscious messages. Looking at "pacing" statements alone, Obama's 2008 Democratic National Convention Speech in Denver48 uses them throughout.  Yet, nobody suspects these language patterns to be anything other than an innocent part of his powerful speech.
 
Three of Obama's favorite hypnotic paces are "that's why I stand here tonight", "now is the time", and "this moment."   Just these three pacing statements are used by Obama a total of fourteen (14) times throughout this single speech.  

Now, I've never been a big believer in hypnotism myself.  I suspect it's one of those things that can happen to someone who truly believes it can happen, but a skeptic is extremely unlikely to be hypnotized.  As such, I don't know how much truth can be found in this explanation, but I do think it's an interesting suggestion.  If anyone out there happens to have some real knowledge about this subject, please drop a comment to educate me!

I've also seen a number of places suggest that Obama is the Anti-Christ.  That's a pretty incendiary assertion, and perhaps insulting on the face of it, but it's not entirely without merit.  I've often thought myself that the zeal and flagrant disregard for truth and fact shown by the Obots seemed so outrageous that it could only be explained by some sort of spiritual blindness.  A thoughtful and intelligent person I know (I believe he considers himself an atheist, or at least a non-Christian) poses the following as a thought-provoker:

27 Characteristics of the Anti-Christ

1. He comes from among ten kings in the restored Roman Empire; his authority will have similarities to the ancient Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks [Daniel 7:24; Rev 13:2 / Daniel 7:7]

2. He will subdue three kings [Daniel 7:8, 24]

3. He is different from the other kings [Daniel 7:24]

4. He will rise from obscurity… a "little horn" [Daniel 7:8]

5. He will speak boastfully [Daniel 7:8; Rev 13:5]

6. He will blaspheme God, [Daniel 7:25; 11:36; Rev 13:5] slandering His Name, dwelling place, and departed Christians and Old Testament saints [Rev 13:6]

7. He will oppress the saints and be successful for 3 ½ years [Daniel 7:25; Rev 13:7]

8. He will try to change the calendar, perhaps to define a new era, related to himself [Daniel 7:25]

9. He will try to change the laws, perhaps to gain an advantage for his new kingdom and era [Dan 7:25]

10. He will not be succeeded by another earthly ruler, but by Christ [Daniel 7:26-27]

11. He will confirm a covenant with "many", i.e. the Jewish people [Daniel 9:27] This covenant will likely involve the establishment of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem [see Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15]

12. He will put an end to Jewish sacrifice and offerings after 3 ½ years and will set up an abomination to God in the Temple [Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15]

13. He will not answer to a higher earthly authority; "He will do as he pleases"[Daniel 11:36]

14. He will show no regard for the religion of his ancestors [Daniel 11:37]

15. He will not believe in any god at all [except for himself] [Daniel 11:37]

16. He will have "no regard for the desire of women": He will either be asexual or homosexual [Dan 11:37]

17. He will claim to be greater than any god [Daniel 11:37; 2 Thess 2:4]

18. He will claim to be God [2 Thessalonians 2:4]

19. He will only honor a "god" of the military. His whole focus and attention will be on his military. He will conquer lands and distribute them [Daniel 11:39-44]

20. His arrival on the world scene will be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders [2 Thess 2:9]

21. Either he, or his companion [The False Prophet], will claim to be Christ [Matt 24:21-28]

22. He will claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh, or that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave [2 John 7]. He will deny that Jesus is the Messiah [I John 2:22]

23. He will be worshipped by many people [Rev. 13:8]

24. He will hate a nation that initially will have some control over his kingdom, but he will destroy this nation [Rev 17:16-18]

25. He will appear to survive a fatal injury [Rev. 13:3; 17:8]

26. His name will be related to the number six hundred and sixty six—but not necessarily in an obvious fashion [Rev 13:17-18].

27. He will be empowered by the devil himself [Rev. 13:2]

I freely admit that I haven't studied this in depth.  And, of course, this is Biblical prophesy, so it is cryptic by definition.  I think one can make a pretty ironclad argument for at least some of these characteristics, a lesser argument for some others, and some of them are future things that we simply can't know until they happen.  I think that most people could reasonably match at least a few of these to just about any world leader.

Allow me to bloviate on what little I know of the subject from my untrained opinion.

First, we need to differentiate those characteristics we can verify from those we can't.  The first one is quite verifiable, at least in the case of Obama.  Translating "Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks" into modern day locations, I believe that would be Iraq, Iran, and the area around the Mediterranean sea.  If we're talking about the Roman Empire, that could also include parts of southern Europe.  Even if Obama was born in Kenya, that's quite a stretch, geographically speaking.  A Hawaiian birth would make it out of the question.

Some of the other characteristics that pretty obviously appear to rule out Obama:
6./21. --- he has actually said he believes in Jesus Christ; while I suppose you could argue that he's lying, he has publicly stated that belief more than once; while he has made statements that approach the supernatural (i.e. lower the oceans), he has certainly not explicitly claimed to be Christ
16. --- he's married and has kids; again, you could argue that's a false pretense, but the obvious evidence is to the contrary
19. --- one of the big fears about Obama is that he's going to gut the U.S. military
20. --- no news on miracles that I know of

As you probably know, I think Joel Rosenberg really knows what he's talking about.  He predicts (this is me condensing an enormous amount of information into a gross oversimplification for the sake of brevity) that the next major world war will be pit an Iranian-Russian-Arab coalition against Israel, with no noticeable participation by the U.S.  If I understand things correctly, it is only after that war that the Anti-Christ will come into the world.  As the world's only super-power right now, the U.S. would obviously play a major part in any such conflict, were it to happen right now.  Of course, if the American economy tanked, plunging us into another depression and thus out of a position of global leadership, that would fit in with Rosenberg's global predictions perfectly...but it would also rule out Obama as the Anti-Christ.

Obama certainly speaks boastfully, does as he pleases, and has already promised to change laws to benefit himself; it's not a stretch to suggest that he will try to define a new era in his own name, especially given his tendencies to create new presidential seals long before becoming President.  But that only makes him a narcissistic, arrogant, selfish (normal) politician, not the Anti-Christ.  I'm sure a trained theologian would have much greater insight on this than I do.  If any are out there reading, please feel free to drop a comment to inform us all!

I think that the most likely explanation for the Obot phenomenon is much more simple: hope.  Obama has masterfully conducted his entire political career in such a way that he has taken very few stands on any consequential issues.  He has voted present, if you will, whenever possible.  His fancy rhetoric has covered over his lack of substance to such a degree that what he says and what he has actually done are two completely different things.  He says whatever his audience wants to hear, even if it contradicts something he said the day before to a different audience.  He has risen so far so fast that no one has had time to pin him down on his record, either.  This is only possible in an atmosphere where the media refuse to perform objective reporting, but that is precisely where we find ourselves today.  Obama is a blank slate onto which his followers can project whatever it is that they want him to be.  He is, quite simply, a pretty-looking vessel for their individual hopes and dreams, and he sounds great while talking about an illusion of a common struggle and triumph, despite its utter lack of real substance.

He is what people want him to be, what they think he is.

That's why his Obots have ceased thinking.  They are convinced that he is exactly who they want.  He is everything they could hope for in a President.  They are enthralled by the idea of Barack Obama, not by Barack Obama himself.  It doesn't matter what he has done, only what he promises to do.  It doesn't matter whether he can actually do it or not, but how he makes them feel.

The ramifications of this are, of course, problematic.  The President doesn't get the luxury of voting present.  When he has to start making real decisions that affect the real lives of real people, those same Obots who truly believed with their heart and soul that Obama understood them and committed to protect them will get a rude awakening.  They will discover that he isn't actually what they had hoped for as he raises taxes on them, tanks the economy, and weakens America's defenses and terrorism policies, thus opening us up to more attacks.  He will inevitably betray them because no one can follow through on the specific hopes of tens of millions of individual people.  It just isn't possible.

All of this is purely a hypothetical exercise, of course, and you're free to take or leave my opinion as you see fit (or form your own and leave a comment).  The reality is that, for whatever the reason, there are a lot of Obots out there, and it is clear they are determined to push their Obamessiah into the White House without any rational thought on who he is, what he has done, or what he will do in the future.

And that is a very dangerous thing.

There's my two cents.

My Opinions On The Candidates

If you're a long-time reader of this blog, you probably have a very firm grasp on what I think of both John McCain and Barack Obama.  If you're new, you may not.  Regardless, I promised a few days ago to offer my opinion on the candidates, so here we go.


John McCain
John McCain grew up the spoiled and rebellious son of famous Navy Admirals.  He kind of floundered until he was shot down in Vietnam and endured five years of torture.  At one point (early on), he was told by his captors that he could be released, but since there were men who had been prisoner longer than he had been, McCain said no.  From that point on, his character seemed to solidify into something real, and he translated that into a life of political leadership that has spanned almost three decades.  He began office as a conservative, but has tracked gradually to the Left, especially in recent years.

John McCain has earned his 'maverick' reputation by sticking his finger in the eye of his own Republican party on numerous issues.  While he does have a lifetime conservative leaning, he has been a very mixed bag in recent years.  Especially on issues like illegal immigration, global warming, and campaign finance reform, his position has been exactly opposite the GOP base.  He says he has no problem reaching out across the aisle to get things done in the spirit of bipartisanship, but I would say that at times he leaps over the aisle, sits down, and has a picnic with them, too.  I was vehemently against John McCain through the primary process, and I still don't like the idea of President McCain, but he does have several redeeming qualities that help make him barely palatable for me.

I have every confidence that he will adequately prosecute the War on Terror in a way that gives us the best chance at protecting American lives and property, and without that security, life as we know it will change dramatically.  He has a history of reigning in the size of government (though there are departures here and there, like the recent bailout bill), which I think we can all agree needs to happen even more now.  He generally seems to view America as a great place, full of opportunity for those who would reach out and grasp it, and I like that.  He has pledged to appoint Supreme Court judges like Roberts and Alito, which I believe is critical to protecting the Constitution from liberal judicial activism from the bench.  He has a history of supporting pro-life and traditional values.

His best move in this campaign was the selection of Sarah Palin.  She has single-handedly energized the Republican base for several reasons.  She is a true conservative who took on corruption in her own party (and won), she has a history of cutting government, she has walked the pro-life talk, and she is a gun-toting, religious, hockey mom whose husband is a sportsman and union guy.  She has electrified the base, and is now drawing crowds of tens of thousands wherever she goes because she resonates real-ness to people.  One example - her campaign bus stopped at a Wal-Mart in Ohio the other day so she could buy diapers.  Contrast that with Obama, who demanded arugula while in Iowa, and the Kerry-Edwards debacle of eating at Wendy's in 2004, and it's a night-and-day difference in being able to relate with normal Americans.  Anyway, of the four people on the ticket this November, I believe Palin actually has the best executive experience since she was an actual Governor - all of the others were Senators, whose job consists of building consensus and playing nice.  She, on the other hand, has had to make decisions and live with them.  I'm not sure she's quite up to Presidential foreign policy quite yet, but under the steady guidance of McCain (who is), I believe she'll be the complete package in 2012.

The thing that excites me most about the McCain-Palin ticket is the hope of the future.  Not only would Palin be a historic choice as the first woman VP -- and make no mistake, the fact that the first female VP is a Republican would drive the feminist Left absolutely nuts -- but she would be uniquely positioned to become the first woman President in just a few years.  While I don't like McCain, I am encouraged that there will be a voice of true conservatism in the White House and bending McCain's ear on the issues where he departs from conservative philosophy.  How much success she would have persuading him is anyone's guess, but at least we know our position will be heard.

My summary of McCain: though I'll have to fight him on several big issues, he's good on most of the issues that really, really count, and he picked a damn good VP.


Barack Obama
In my opinion, Obama would be the absolute worst possible person to be President of the United States because his policies are disastrous on just about every front.  He is the most radical Leftist to get this close to the Presidency in decades, if not ever.

He would negotiate openly with terrorists and terrorist states, weakening America's position and leverage.  That is the position that Jimmy Carter took which led to the Iranian hostage crisis in the 1970s.  He would withdraw from Iraq regardless of the situation on the ground.  Unbelievably, he has attempted to take credit for the very surge he opposed back in 2007 that has all but wrapped up success in Iraq.  He would adopt the same tactics on terrorism that Bill Clinton used, treating it as a law enforcement problem rather than a military problem.  Thus, he would not take action until after the attack is over (i.e. after people have been killed and property has been destroyed).  The obvious thing to point out: we were attacked repeatedly during Clinton's administration, and only once during Bush's.

Economically speaking, Obama says he will cut taxes on 95% of Americans, but that's a lie.  Not only is the 95% figure literally not possible (40% or so don't pay any taxes at all!), but he is also proposing to repeal Bush's tax cuts (which affect everyone) and increase taxes on literally everything else.  He is also proposing massive new spending programs which won't be paid for without new taxes.  He is also promising to raise taxes on small businesses, which make up something like 70% of the American economy.  The net effect will be a huge increase in taxes on everyone in the country.  History and basic economics prove -- unequivocally, without doubt -- that an increase in taxation slows the economy and reduces growth.  That, in turn, will prevent jobs from being created, and prevent higher wages for the jobs which already exist.

The Left can't get its agenda pushed into law through voter support at the ballot box, so they have, over the years, resorted to creating law from the bench.  As such, Obama is promising to nominate judges like Ginsburg and Breyers to the Supreme Court and other federal courts.  They see the Constitution as a living, evolving document which should be interpreted on the basis of what society thinks today.  These are the kinds of judges who, for example, overrule millions of voters to strike down a marriage amendment that passed overwhelmingly (this has happened in states all across the country).  These are the kinds of judges who think it's okay for the government to take by force a private individual's land for the purposes of obtaining higher tax revenues.  These are the kinds of judges who found a 'right' to an abortion somewhere in the Constitution (though no one can find the actual words), and somehow missed the 2nd Amendment, which explicitly guarantees an individual the right to own guns.  These are all issues which affect your daily life, and judges dictate the legality of such issues.

Another giant problem is that he has consistently taken an indefensible position on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (here, here), voting against a bill that would have provided medical care for babies born during botched abortions.  His position is that the bill would have infringed upon Roe v. Wade, but the bill came back a second time with language specifically saying it would not infringe upon Roe v. Wade, and he still opposed it.  Add to that his support for taxpayer funded abortions on demand at all times during the pregnancy (even late-term), and you have someone who has zero respect for unborn life.

Obama's associations also raise some very serious questions.  He has chosen to associate with terrorists, racists, socialists, and felons, using them to further his own political career and financial status.  He has demonstrated a pattern of behavior of close association with the furthest Left fringes of society who hate America and all it stands for, which begs the obvious question: does his world view agree with theirs?  It's a question that needs to be answered before election day.

He is also naive and inexperienced.  He has no accomplishments to speak of, unless you consider the Global Poverty Act, which is essentially a tax on being an American citizen that would send almost $1 trillion straight out of the country, or implementing sex ed for kindergartners in Illinois.

I do not believe Barack Obama is inherently evil, nor do I think he wants to destroy America.  I believe that he genuinely thinks that an all-powerful federal government (led by him, of course) is the solution for all of society's ills, and that he truly sees economic parity as a moral obligation even if it means the government literally steals from the wealthy and gives to the poor.  His consistent position on taxation is that it is a patriotic duty, and that it's a fairness thing rather than something to..oh, I don't know...provide national security or anything else actually stated in the Constitution.  I also believe that Obama is dangerously naive and inexperienced, so obsessed with his own power and glory that he is willing to do anything and say anything to anyone to win this election.  He does not bother with things like laws, truth, or integrity, and his relationships are apparently only valuable to him until they become politically toxic, at which time he throws them under the bus.  How's that for character under pressure?  I don't believe he wants to destroy America, but I do believe he wants to re-make it into his vision of socialist utopia in which the State is God, and he runs the State.

Months ago I had written of the choice we face on November 4th: barf bag or mop?  Do you choose the barf bag and support John McCain, or do you risk the overflowing toilet that will be a Barack Obama presidency, thus requiring a mop?  In my opinion, McCain isn't a particularly great choice for President, but he is solid on the issues that matter the most.  On the other hand, Barack Obama is tremendously bad on every front imaginable.  While it may suck to have a lesser-of-two-evils choice, that is the reality of this election.  I think about it this way: would I rather elect a guy that I agree with 51% of the time, or a guy I agree with 1% of the time?  It's a no-brainer.

We don't live in a theoretical world, so it makes no sense to sit out the election on principle.  One of these two guys will become President, so the choice is not "A - McCain / B - Obama / C - Neither", it's "A - McCain / B - Obama".  Period.  And make no mistake: for a Right-leaner to sit out this election is to vote for Barack Obama.  With the rampant voter fraud being perpetrated by ACORN on behalf of Barack Obama, there is no question that McCain is already at a severe disadvantage.

Even if there were no fraudulent votes involved, we all have a stake in the direction of this country, and should therefore take the responsibility to get informed about the candidates and where they stand on the issues that matter most to us, and vote our conscience.

Congress
One final note.  Perhaps just as important as the Presidential race is the Congressional situation.  Right now, Democrats hold a slim majority in both houses of Congress, but they are licking their chops to increase that majority.  If they get a majority big enough to override a Presidential veto (60 in the Senate, 290 in the House), we will likely experience an unprecedented expansion of the federal government.  We can look to history to show us what happens when a veto-proof majority reigns, and it isn't pretty.

In the 1930s we saw FDR's New Deal, which was intended to provide jobs and economic recovery for during the Great Depression.  Some of the programs were eventually shut down, but many still exist today, including Social Security and Fannie Mae.  The government took aim at business and began a sweeping tide of reforms and regulations that gained federal control over many previously-private areas.  The end result was a much bigger government bureaucracy, and we all know how well that functioned.  For all the fanfare of the policies that were introduced in the New Deal, the country didn't recover from the Depression until we joined World War II, which forced a hyper-active phase in American manufacturing and production.  Unfortunately, government didn't get any smaller.

In the 1960s we saw Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, an effort to eradicate poverty and racial injustice.  Noble goals, to be sure, but the results were anything but positive.  Programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and federal funding of education were begun, thus providing services for those in need, but fundamentally alterning the mindset of Americans from one of individual responsibility to one of dependence on government.  While civil rights are most certainly a positive development, the so-called War on Poverty has accomplished exactly zilch (relatively comparing the number of poverty to the rest of the country) despite literally trillions of dollars being spent on it since the mid-60s, and we all know the state of our educational system.  Today, those massive and bloated entitlement programs are by far the biggest chunk of the federal budget now, and the end result is the bent toward socialism that we're dealing with right now because too many people think government is the answer.

If the radical Leftist Democrats now running the Congress get their wish for a supermajority, they will be able to push through (or prevent) any legislation they want.  You can expect to see massive new taxation and regulation (especially on things like global warming and energy production), the stifling of opposing viewpoints (they've already talked about reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine), and an unprecedented new intrusion onto your private life.  They will legislate restrictions on what can be said by whom and institute all manner of penalties and punishments for perceived transgressions.  In short, it may not matter much who our next President is if the Democrats control Congress so completely.  If Obama wins and the Democrats get a supermajority...God help us.

How do you know if your Congressperson and Senators are any good?  Check their records on the issues you care about most.  I have links on this page for the Senate and House websites, both of which link to records of votes cast.  You can also look here, at Rinohunters.  "RINO" stands for "Republican In Name Only" - basically, someone who campaigns like a Rep but votes like a Dem.  This website is designed to show how our elected leaders stand on issues like right to life, gun rights, the economy, illegal immigration, and the Reagan Coalition rating.  It blends all these together into a combined score, and you can drill down into the details to find out why they got the ratings they got (the website rates both Reps and Dems).  It's a terrific resource, so use it to help you identify the good ones from the bad ones!

So, there is my completely biased opinion on the candidates.  Take it for what it's worth.  At the end of the day it is my opinion, and you need to form your own.  But, I hope that my thoughts have given you some useful insights, or at least some things to think about.  Thanks for reading!

There's my two cents.

Rose-Colored Vision Of The Future

Here's why I'm excited about the Sarah Palin pick. McCain's track record and history indicate that he doesn't much care what his party thinks about things, and that he's very content to blaze his own trail politically. As such, his VP pick was a big signal of how important he thought the conservative movement was to the future of the Republican party. As I've mentioned before, there's been kind of a war in the Republican party over the past few years between big-government, moderate Reps and conservative Reps. Obviously, he picked a conservative in Palin, which immediately elevates the conservative element of the party back to prominence again, and that was music to my ears.

Now, just for fun, I want to paint a picture of my own rose-colored version of the future of American politics. I'm not necessarily predicting this, but I'd love to see some version of this scenario happen.

John McCain and Sarah Palin win easily in November on the strength of a sound platform of pro-growth policies that include lower taxes and less regulation, all-of-the-above energy production policies, and a provable track record of fighting the status quo of Washington political corruption. While the Democrats still hold a slim minority in Congress, they actually lose some ground, removing all chances of bullying McCain into their own agenda through veto-proof majorities.

McCain assigns Palin as his energy czar, and is responsible for developing the first real American energy policy in decades. She uses her expertise and experience from her time governing Alaska -- a state that provides 20% of the nation's oil resources -- to increase oil and natural gas production, begin development of clean and efficient nuclear power, and providing incentives for the private market to develop better forms of alternative energy like wind and solar power. Under her hand, America floods the world with new technology and resources that drop energy costs by 50% in three years, and, combined with McCain's across-the-board tax cuts, spark unprecedented growth for American business. McCain's stubborn America-first patriotism and refusal to flinch allows him to navigate several more attempts at major terrorist attacks and defuse a new Cold War with Russia before it really gets going.

In the spring of 2011, John McCain announces that he is not seeking a second term due to health reasons. Palin instantly becomes the front-runner for the 2012 Presidency, a history-shattering prospect that sets the world abuzz. The liberal Left goes into a hyper-panic as the thought of the first woman President not being from their ranks drives them to make wild accusations and crazy assertions that erode all but their most hardcore radical support. Palin selects Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal -- a man with Indian heritage -- as her running mate, driving the 'tolerant' Left even more hysterical. Based on her stellar performance during McCain's first term in office, and Jindal's equally impressive record of putting conservative principles into practice -- which had by then turned Louisiana from a bloated, dependent-ridden, corrupt state into a streamlined model of productivity and transparency -- they capture the biggest landslide in Presidential history, in part by attracting 70% of all women voters to their cause.

On the coattails of the conservative 'dream team', fresh young conservative faces bubble up through the ranks of state governments to capture sound Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and triggering a conservative revolution even bigger than the one in 1994.

Palin passes the baton to Jindal in 2020, who crushes his Democrat opponent on his unassailable record of accomplishment, bringing along the next generation of true American leadership (led by Mike Pence, Marsha Blackburn, Jim DeMint, and others), cementing American values and ensuring economic security for another generation.

Okay, vision over. I realize this is a fantasy, but...can't you see it (maybe) starting to happen? Just maybe?

Only time will tell, of course, but you heard it here first. ;)

There's my two cents.

Joe Biden: The Sidekick Effect

Where in the world is Joe "One Man Gaffe Machine" Biden? You don't hear much about him now, aside from his steady stream of gaffes. Here's a theory to explain why no one has talked about him since his announcement as Obama's VP.

He's the sidekick.

Americans understand the role of the sidekick. The sidekick is there solely to make the hero look good. The sidekick doesn't have any other practical function, other than perhaps to offer up a few throwaway comedic lines. He's the bumbling fool, the clutzy moron, the last one to get every joke. While the hero looks at himself and his situation with studious seriousness, the sidekick stumbles blithely along, just trying to keep up. As long as the sidekick retains a peculiar sort of charm, he'll remain largely invisible as the cheerful buffoonish tag-along.

Biden fills this role in Obama's campaign. His buffoonery is obvious and constant, but his golly-gee-whiz charm still manages to make people chuckle. Thus, it is understood that he's the sidekick. And, of course, if he's the sidekick, people expect the sort of antics that he's been delivering in spades over the past few weeks.

So, while Biden has offered up gaffe after gaffe after gaffe, no one really notices...or cares. After all, he's the sidekick, and that's what the sidekick is supposed to do.

There's my two cents.

Brush With Divinity

On my way to an off-site training session today, I took a route that was temporarily blocked at one point.  As I waited, I remembered that Barak the Obamessiah was actually in Kansas City today on a campaign stop.

Yes, yes, hold your envy, people...I was supremely privileged to witness the passing of his campaign motorcade!  As I watched the motorcade pass by, it seemed to me that the trees along the roadside leaned in closer, and turned just a bit more green.  The colorful flowers swayed in the gentle breeze, and became just a bit more vivid.  I could have sworn I heard the faint strains of an ethereal symphony.  After the Obamessiah's passing, the world resumed its natural state with an almost tangible sigh of satisfaction.  Oh, what a holy moment...

Okay, I have to quit before I start dry-heaving.

I did actually see the motorcade pass by.  I noticed that it consisted of at least half a dozen vehicles (not including the police escort, which was significant), including two huge tour buses, a couple of full-sized SUVs (Suburbans, I believe), as well as a couple of full-sized sedans.  I wonder if they bought carbon credits to offset all the planet-busting emissions from that motorcade?

In all honesty, I really did get a charge from one particular sight.  In a visual scenario amazingly similar to a Hollywood flick, one of the SUVs -- with all of its windows wide open -- was full of sunglasses-adorned Secret Service agents with very large guns.  SWEET!  I would gladly skip an entire weekend with the Obamessiah for ten minutes of chatting with one of those guys.

There's my two cents.

Random Observations And Thoughts

I have a big bunch of mish-mash links saved up, so this post will be a collection of random observations and thoughts. I apologize if it's a stupid post, but I didn't want to smash them all into a one-line-only link roundup. Here we go!

I found it very amusing this past week to discover that the national anthem of China is titled, 'March of the Volunteers'. Riiiiiiight...since when is anything in a communist country done on a volunteer basis?

The city of Los Angeles is planning to use $2 million of federal money to build a pavilion for a book fair...in Mexico! I seriously think that we need to cut off all federal funding to San Francisco, Los Angeles, and any of these other sanctuary cities if they continue to deliberately flaunt the law. Our illegal alien chickens are coming home to roost, I guess.

Of course, where immigration law is actually enforced, we can see dramatic positive effects: crime rates plummet.

And don't think illegals don't know how to milk the American justice system. One Mexican illegal found guilty of murder had the gall to insist to the judge that his rights hadn't been adequately protected (there were no Mexicans on the jury, and the law books were written in English, which he can't read), and demanded a new trial. Fortunately, the amazed judge threw the book at him, sending him to jail for a very, very long time.

Speaking of illegals gaming the American system, check out what a recent insurance magazine published as the benefits that illegal aliens get by law:

Insanity!

Also, we can expect a rising number of 'non-citizens' to vote in the next election. It's illegal and it's wrong, but it's the natural consequence of our government's failure to adequately enforce immigration law.

The verdict is in: Gitmo lawyers have now officially saved Saudi Arabia trillions of dollars by getting a lawsuit from 9/11 families dismissed. I don't know the details of this case, but there are a boatload of questions swirling around their motives and financing. It's too bad that the Left only cares about whistleblowers when they blog the whistle on the Bush administration...in this case, the whistleblower was fired and almost disbarred. The Left is so tolerant, you know...

A pastor in Minnesota is deliberately taking on an old IRS law that prevents political speech from the pulpit. One word: gutsy! For the record, I think he's right, so if you're a resident of Minnesota, you may want to check it out and see how you can support him.

Are we a democracy in decline? I think this would be a terrific question to ask of both McCain and Obama - it would give us a great insight into how they view America's place in the world, and how we can expect them to lead.

The American Fighter Aces Association's Francis S. Gabreski Award, the top fighter pilot award in America, has been won by a woman for the first time in American history. Captain Shannon Lippert, you can protect me any day!

The latest tactic by the homosexual lobby: sue Bible publishers. That's right, a man in Michigan is suing two publishers for causing him 'emotional distress and mental instability' because the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. Give me a break! This is a battle that will not go away, so watch out, all you Christians out there...!

Torture has been redefined by the Left. The short version: fear is not torture. Just because you're afraid of being harmed does not mean you've been tortured. No one has died (or even suffered permanent physical damage, as far as I know) from waterboarding at Gitmo. On the other hand, can we even count the number of people who have been permanently maimed and killed in the name of Allah?

It was 'warrantless wiretapping' that freed the hostages in Colombia. It's a good thing Congress finally passed the FISA law.

Banning illegal immigrants in Nebraska...a step in the right direction. Now, let's see if a single activist judge steps in and kills the whole thing, like what happened with the marriage amendment in Nebraska a couple years ago.

Alaskan Eskimos want drilling in ANWR. To them, it's an economic and self-determination issue having nothing to do with the environment. Some even call it genocide to prevent them from doing what they want on their own land. How's that for some perspective?

Okay, that's enough. Lots of interesting stuff in these links...

There's my two cents.

America's Place In History, And How That Can Change

The more I read Victor Davis Hanson's stuff, the more I respect him.  As a historian, he often puts things into a context that I hadn't previously thought about, or at least in a different way that really helps put things in perspective compared to history.  His latest article is no different (emphasis mine):

Russia invades Georgia. China jails dissidents. China and India pollute at levels previously unimaginable. Gulf monarchies make trillions from jacked-up oil prices. Islamic terrorists keep car bombing. Meanwhile, Europe offers moral lectures, while Japan and South Korea shrug and watch — all in a globalized world that tunes into the Olympics each night from Beijing.

"Citizens of the world" were supposed to share, in relative harmony, our new "Planet Earth," which was to have followed from an interconnected system of free trade, instantaneous electronic communications, civilized diplomacy, and shared consumer capitalism.

But was that ever quite true?

In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:

First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth.

Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Moammar Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, or the Taliban.

Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world — like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.

But there have been a number of indications recently that globalization may soon lose its American parent, who is tiring, both materially and psychologically.

The United States may be the most free, stable, and meritocratic nation in the world, but its resources and patience are not unlimited. Currently, it pays more than a half trillion dollars per year to import $115-a-barrel oil that is often pumped at a cost of about $5.

The Chinese, Japanese, and Europeans hold trillions of dollars in U.S. bonds — the result of massive trade deficits. The American dollar is at historic lows. We are piling up staggering national debt. Over 12 million live here illegally and freely transfer more than $50 billion annually to Mexico and Latin America.

Our military, after deposing Milosevic, the Taliban, and Saddam, is tired. And Americans are increasingly becoming more sensitive to the cheap criticism of global moralists.

But as the United States turns ever so slightly inward, the new globalized world will revert to a far poorer — and more dangerous — place.

Liberals like presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speak out against new free-trade agreements and want existing accords like NAFTA readjusted. More and more Americans are furious at the costs of illegal immigration — and are moving to stop it. The foreign remittances that help prop up Mexico and Latin America are threatened by any change in America's immigration attitude.

Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don't enjoy Miranda rights at Guantánamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia's democracy and bombing its cities.

Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans' carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants.

It has been chic to chant "No blood for oil" about Iraq's petroleum — petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China's sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur.

Due to climbing prices and high government taxes, gasoline consumption is declining in the West, but its use is rising in other places, where it is either untaxed or subsidized.

So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain — and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.

Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s — with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.

If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause.

If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won't listen to the United Nations, the European Union, or Michael Moore.

Brace yourself — we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.

This article does an excellent job of putting into historical context what the rise and power of America has done for the entire world.  I believe his analogy as the world's sheriff and nurturing mom are absolutely correct.  Have you ever stopped to wonder why, aside from Israel and England, most of our allies have such a weak military?  It's because they know that, as America's friend, they can count on America's protection.  And, though much of the world complains about (i.e. is jealous of) America's wealth, it is that same wealth which drives the economy of the entire world.  These two facets of America's power have been constant for decades, and the world is beginning to take them for granted.

I recently saw a terrific quote at Heavy-Handed Politics that applies here:

"When World War II ended, the United States had the only undamaged industrial power in the world. Our military might was at its peak, and we alone had the ultimate weapon, the nuclear weapon, with the unquestioned ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. If we had sought world domination then, who could have opposed us? But the United States followed a different course, one unique in all the history of mankind. We used our power and wealth to rebuild the war-ravished economies of the world, including those of the nations who had been our enemies. May I say, there is absolutely no substance to charges that the United States is guilty of imperialism or attempts to impose its will on other countries, by use of force."
-- Ronald Reagan --

This is what I mean by American exceptionalism: America has had the military might and the financial ability to take over much of the world for a very long time...but it hasn't.  Instead, that power and money has gone to liberate literally into freedom tens of millions of people around the globe over the past century, or to aid the poorest of the poor in time of natural disaster.  This attitude and mindset was built over the years by generations of traditional American values, founded upon the fundamental Judeo-Christian belief system, including grace, mercy, and justice.  It is what has set America apart in history as the most accomplished nation ever to exist.

If America's attitude and mindset change, the world will be affected in a big, big way.

Sadly, that change has been occuring, in the form of liberalization, for years.  Liberalism has creeped its way into our educational system, tainting the minds of children from a very young age.  It is emphasized in higher education by a blatantly liberal academia.  It flourished in the 60's-era of rebellion, driving forward what is now the group of people who occupy the corridors of elite power.  We are now at a tipping point, where America can choose whether it will return to the things which made it great -- traditional Judeo-Christian values, smaller government, peace through strength, individual responsibility -- or plunge over the edge, following the rest of the world into full-bore liberalism.  If that happens, America will contract, shrivel, and fail.  We will no longer lead, we will no longer protect, and we will no longer liberate.

And the world will suffer for it, because a vacuum of righteous power will quickly be filled by evil power.  Rush Limbaugh has a list of what he calls undeniable truths of life.  One of them is that 'ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force'.  What he means is that someone with power will call the shots; the question is simply whether that someone is a merciful and just power, or a tyrannical and merciless power.

Hanson is right.  If America ceases to exist as it has been -- the nurturing mom, the sheriff -- the world will rapidly become a place where the strong do what they want, and the weak suffer.

Let's not allow that to happen.

There's my two cents.