Professional politicians face united American 'rabble'

 One accusation consistently directed at those who hold traditional American values and revere the lessons of history -- actual history, not history of the revisionist variety, which spews forth from the murky brains of Marxist professors -- is that we are "divisive." What they really mean when they extol the virtues of compromise and "reaching across the aisle" is that we should roll over and accede to every half-baked "progressive" social-engineering scheme that springs forth from their brilliant minds.

Not all that long ago, I had the high honor of being called "divisive" by the Kansas City Star ... even now I relish the moment I read it ...

I looked up "divisive" in a dictionary and found the following: di·vi·sive; forming or expressing division or distribution; creating dissension or discord.

Does anyone have a problem with that?

It should be recalled that President Bush stated in his first run for the presidency that he was "a uniter, not a divider." It was certainly a nice try, and he did compromise, unfortunately in my opinion, on "No Child Left Behind" and other pieces of legislation. Ultimately, he found that there was no way to stand on principle and please those with opposing worldviews simultaneously. Bob Woodward, in his book "The War Within," wrote that George W. Bush was "the nation's most divisive figure." When the book was released last year, I think that he was undoubtedly correct, but things "change."

What a difference a year makes! Is the country now united in lock step for the "change we can believe in"?

Hardly.

The country is in a "malaise" that would warm the cockles of Jimmy Carter's heart. In the midst of double-digit unemployment, record home foreclosures, record bank seizures and a record number of bankruptcy filings, our leadership is pursuing health insurance reform (formerly health care reform, if you hadn't noticed that little change), a cap and trade bill that will increase all taxes (yes, even those who earn less than $250,000 annually, remember that promise?) and up next, the proposed amnesty of millions of folks who have no intention of assimilating into our culture (but will gratefully vote Democrat, at least that's the plan).

Amazingly, the politicians have finally gotten the people's attention, and neither the people nor the politicians are pleased about it. The people are uniting ... against professional politicians. Just as a "rabble" of farmers and merchants united in 1776 against an oppressive monarchy.

As I write this, Scott Brown has won the Massachusetts special election for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the deceased Ted Kennedy. The Kennedy brothers, John and Ted, had owned the seat (both literally and figuratively --or was Joseph Sr. the owner?) since 1952. It would seem that Democrats have definitely not found their own tenets of "hope" and "change" to be uniting factors.

Obama worldview gives lovers of jihad encouragement

 The entire world pays attention to the words and deeds of U.S. presidents. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that jihadists around the world are encouraged and feeling their oats again.

Umar the Christmas bomber did everything but send a telegram to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressing his desire to martyr himself and murder 300 innocents. The Fort Hood shooter had "Soldier of Allah" beneath his name on his business card. These people got through the system due to the upside-down, politically correct worldviews of the Obama administration.

Throughout the campaign Barack Obama repeatedly crowed his intention to close the Guantanamo Bay facility; our top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder, is going to give those poor oppressed souls who have been known to behead Americans on video their days in court. In general, it was espoused that it was time to be "kinder and gentler" to such folks; after all, how much different could they be from the president's old buddy and mentor, Bill Ayers, who once attempted to blow up the U.S. Capitol? What lover of jihad would not be pleased?

Until we catch some people named Smith, Jones or Parnell from places like Iowa or Kansas with explosive shoes or underwear, do you think we might ought to focus on those with names like Khalid or Umar who spend summer vacation in scenic, opulent Yemen?

Profiling? Yes, please.

Also, I am one of those stodgy souls who happen to believe that one's worldview colors all issues.

Let me be clear: Human life is cheaper than ever -- unless you are trying to sell the takeover of the health care establishment of a once-free people -- and perhaps, just perhaps, if your personal worldview induces you to be the most radical, pro-abortion member of the U.S. Senate in history, maybe the thought of a few folks blowing up on airliner is not that disturbing ... until you think about it for three days or so.

If I sound particularly strident, so be it. After what I have seen in 2009, I am going to say and write exactly what I think until hell freezes over.

And, since I have swerved into both health care and abortion, consider this. The vaunted Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 had as its basis an unwritten "right to privacy" hidden somewhere in the constitution. The story of Justice Blackmun's inventive legal rationalizing is interesting and merits study by non-lawyers, but my question is simply this: If the "right to privacy" is so important as in the case of abortion, which is presumably a "health care" issue, why is it now permissible for Obama/Pelosi/Reid et al to completely invade every other area of an individual's health care, to the point of perhaps fining, jailing, and refusing treatment by government mandate? The thought of having the feds involved in doctor-patient relationship decision-making is absolutely captivating.

The long-awaited studio version of "Hell No!", my open musical message to the president and congress on health care "reform" is available for free download.

Click here to get it (mp3 format)

Ike scores when views applied to Afghan war, climate

    Over the years I have had a number of staunchly conservative friends who questioned my admiration…hero-worship, actually…of Dwight Eisenhower.  I have had occasion to mention him a couple of times since my first column in this space, but recently he has been in the forefront of my thoughts and study, and I discover that I have not been alone.  Surprisingly, Eisenhower’s wise words have value today not just in regard to Afghanistan war policy, but also in the debate on climate change. 

    Robert W. Ball, in a piece in American Thinker, brings up a much-overlooked portion of Eisenhower’s famous farewell address in 1960.  You know the speech…the one warning about the danger of the “military industrial complex”; it is oft quoted, especially by liberal anti-war types.   However, Ball’s article reminds us that in the same speech Ike also spoke about the dangers of a scientific community dependent upon public money for its existence:  “... the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. ... we must ... be alert to the ... danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”

    One does not have to go to Copenhagen to figure out that the Holy Church of Global Warming is about money, and you and I are going to provide the tithe.  Throw in the damning “climate gate” emails and altered data, and the pieces magically fit together.

     Score one for Ike.

    After leaving the presidency, Eisenhower was consulted and briefed regularly by both JFK and LBJ on the issue of Viet Nam.  Eisenhower advised against an Asian land war, but once involved he urged total commitment to “victory”-a term missing from President Obama’s recent statement of policy-adding the maxim that America “must win”.  We unfortunately now debate what constitutes “success” in such an endeavor, when all soldiers and military historians know the answer:  War is won when the enemy’s will to wage war is broken and he sues for peace. 

     Score two for Ike.

     Historians and people who lived in the 1950s often take note of the prosperity the United States enjoyed through that period.  Eisenhower was a rock against deficit spending, and perhaps his greatest accomplishment as president was standing against those who wanted to allocate more and more for weapons systems and civil defense.  Americans were terrified as the Soviet Union advanced technologically and initiated the space race.  Ike, the consummate military logistics genius, battled with his own military chiefs and resisted overspending.  It was during that battle that Ike remarked, “A bankrupt America is a defenseless America”, a deceptively simple and brilliant statement.

    Score three for the man who never won the Nobel Peace Prize.