Skip to content


Watching and listening to the talking heads and politicians. Dana Perino of The Five said tonight, “All people want freedom”. It was a comment on the fact that Muslims must want freedom because it is a universal human desire. And this is where they are all wrong.

Freedom is a political concept. Muslims don’t give a damn about freedom because it is not part of Islam. We are acting like this war is based on a political philosophy. It is not. They are fighting as part of their faith. They don’t care about freedom or liberty or anything else. All they care about is their religion. They believe Allah wants them to kill and that the reward for killing infidels is heaven. They believe that deeply. It’s all they care about. It’s in their book. It’s what they study. It’s the only thing they study and the only thing they believe. We cannot defeat them without understanding they want to die, but they want us to die first.

The idea of diplomacy with such people is a denial of the realities on a scale unknown in the annals of history. We had better come to terms with this overarching fact, in order to defeat them, we have to defeat Islam itself which will never happen. The only alternative left is clear, killing them on an unparalleled level. They understand it, so why don’t we? Kill them and keep killing them forever. That they will understand.

This isn’t a fight over land, money, a political philosophy or power. This is a fight that has been going on for over a thousand years. It will not end with a negotiated peace. It will not end period. Get used to it and keep the nuclear option on the table. It may be the ultimate solution to this worldwide war with Islam.


Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


In yesterday’s post I called for the impeachment of Barack Obama. Twenty-four hours later the seriousness of his determination to undermine the security of this country adds an exclamation point to my demand.

That he ridicules his own people while on foreign soil is not only a disgrace, but tantamount to treason. In another of his tiny-tot tantrums he said about Republicans, “And I would add, these are the same folks who suggested they’re so tough that just ‘talk to Putin’ or staring down Isil [will work] … but they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion. At first they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of three-year-old orphans. That doesn’t seem so tough to me”.

Analyze the ludicrousness of that statement and it will be clear to the smallest minds on the left Barack Obama is delusional and therefore unfit to fulfill the duties of the office. No one on the right with any credibility has ever said we should “talk to Putin”. It is a complete fabrication pulled out of thin air, something Obama does regularly. In fact, the next part of the sentence is more delusional and false. Point to the Republican or again any credible person on the right who has advocated staring down ISIL. It is Obama himself who has talked to Putin and received his backside handed to him. It is Obama who is staring at ISIL while they infest the world. Those on the right have advocated pushing Putin back and killing ISIL completely.

The man is deranged, his words make that fact as plain as if he submitted to a psychological exam and was committed as a foregone conclusion before taking it. Under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, he can and should be removed. He is unstable, therefore unfit to continue as President.

Congress as a whole will be held responsible for allowing Obama to pursue his purposeful destruction of the United States. While Republicans sit back and do nothing out of fear impeachment will upset a portion of the electorate, this madman continues to ravage the Constitution and put the entire country in danger of terrorist attacks. If the President of the United States refuses to fulfill his single most important duty, protecting its citizens, the only legal remedy is removal from office, i.e. impeachment and conviction.

The majority of pundits and politicians will say, “There’s no chance, so why bother?” The response is, “You have to send a message to him and the Democrats, many of whom will have visions of defeat at the polls should they not join in.” A motion to impeach, if supported by all Republicans in the House is not only timely, but necessary if only as a shot across Obama’s bow.

Only a hermit with absolutely no connection to the outside world does not know what is going on all over the world. Islam is a scourge, very likely the Antichrist and Barack Obama is its prophet. Islam must be wiped off the face of the earth if the rest of us are to survive and it must begin with the removal of Barack Obama from office.


Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


Upon assuming the Presidency in the wake of Richard Nixon’s resignation, Gerald Ford famously announced to the country, “My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.” Mercifully for him, he passed away before the nation’s real nightmare began.

If there was ever a moment in American history when invoking the constitutional provision for impeachment of a sitting president was appropriate, it is now. The national nightmare that is Barack Obama’s presidency has reached the point of endangering the very safety of individual Americans in their own cities, towns and villages. For Obama to simultaneously invite people we know are coming to harm us while seeking ways to take away the right to bear arms is an egregious criminal undertaking since both efforts so obviously undermine the safety of American citizens by violating his first duty though he swore otherwise.

He has failed in every way to fulfill this simple oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The violation of that oath constitutes treason, the first crime mentioned in the Constitution for which impeachment is the remedy.

Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery , or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors (caps sic)”.

It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives to make the decision to impeach the President then subsequently bring impeachment charges. Upon impeachment in the House, the Senate has the responsibility to try the case with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. This can and should happen very quickly, it must for we are running out of time.

Every concerned citizen should call upon his or her Congressional representative to begin the process of impeaching Barack Obama, not only for Treason, but for the reason he is incapable of carrying out his duties since he has clearly lost control of his faculties by demonstrating before the entire world his disconnection from reality in his comments at a press conference in Turkey.  Obama said, “What I’m not interested in doing, is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning.”

Provision for removal from office for reasons of mental incapacity and incapability of conducting the business of the Presidency is made through the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in Section 4: “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

Obama’s treachery as exhibited in the Turkey press conference can only be seen as openly treasonous, a statement of his intention to purposely leave the United States of America open to internal terrorism by inviting into it Muslims who have sworn to commit such acts.

As Ted Cruz insisted, Barack Obama has no intention of protecting America. He is bent on destroying it. Congress needs to muster the courage necessary for bringing impeachment charges against Obama in spite of the fact the chances of a successful impeachment are slim. It will be an unconscionable abrogation of Congress’ responsibility if they do not. Perhaps impeaching Obama will shake some sense into his head, bring him back to reality. If Congress does not act to impeach, they should be considered complicit in helping Obama destroy what is left of America.

The time is coming. If the politicians do not bend to the will of the people regarding Obama’s impeachment and something dire happens in the interim, there will be blood in the streets, Muslim and American.

The people of the United States will not stand for much more of this and if it requires a civil war against the political class and all others who hate this country, it will happen and it may very well be led by the military. This should be a warning. Impeach Barack Obama now.


Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


If you’ve been paying attention, you are probably as appalled as so many others at the Black Lives Matter movement. Most egregious are the out and out threats being leveled at white people, including college students, many of whom are not only in sympathy, but participants in the various protests, marches etc. The latest illustration of how out-of-control the Black Lives Matter movement is happened to be at the prestigious Dartmouth College.

The website, posted a report by Alex Griswold on November 16, 2015 which described how a group of black protesters invaded the Dartmouth College library and disrupted students who were trying to study. The story would be just another about college kids being the idiots they usually are except for the fact the protestors singled out white students and began hurling epithets, physically intimidating and generally taunting them in what appeared to be an effort to encourage a confrontation. The blacks shouted “F___ you, you filthy white f___s!” And “F___ you, you racist s__ts.” A white woman was pinned against a wall by a black woman who called her a “filthy white bitch.” One of the black protesters demanded that every white person in the library say, black lives matter.

Something like this should not be surprising to Dartmouth. In February of 2014, The College Fix website reported that a group of students, presumably made up of minorities sent an eight page letter to Dartmouth’s administration “calling for reparations for what they claim is the school’s oppressive and racist atmosphere – and threatened ‘physical action’ if their demands are not met.”

It always ends with black people threatening physical action, but such threats become challenges and while white America is slow to defend itself, ultimately it will defend itself. Like ISIS, there comes a point when the victims will not take it anymore. When critical mass is reached on a social level, the gloves come off and the guns come out.

Black people should understand their position in the grand scheme of things, they are truly a minority, making up about 13% of the population. To start a race war with the other 87% of the population is not only foolish, it is stupid. How many times throughout history has a sleeping lion been pricked only to awaken and devour its tormenter?

The signs are all there. Americans are not only fed up with ISIS, they are sick and tired of Islam. More than that, a large number of Americans literally hate Barack Obama and by extension an administration that wholly condones the lawlessness displayed by black people in Ferguson, Missouri and elsewhere.

Black people generally cannot be under the impression white America will submit to their lawlessness and violence for very long after Obama is gone.   It will be as if the parents have come home from a vacation to find their house destroyed by their kids and friends. Someone is going to pay the price, and it won’t be law abiding white citizens. Black people will be squarely in the eye of white people who will not take it anymore. Then you will see either the beginning of a complete racial meltdown or a recognition that some kind of rapprochement is absolutely essential for the survival of black Americans.

If black people do not dissuade the lawless among them from testing the increasingly weakened ties binding the two races, they will most assuredly condemn themselves to a backlash unlike any since the early days of post Civil War America.

There are far more important issues facing all Americans than having to revisit the racial divide. If there are legitimate concerns, they can be discussed, but not at the price of capitulation resulting from threats of violence.

There may come a time when fomenting strife as a means of getting something for nothing out of white people will be seen as an assault in and of itself. It would be well for black people then to realize, Obama’s time is running out and a sizeable portion of the population can’t wait to get rid of him. Once he’s gone, those same people, long suffering under the yoke that is rampant liberalism and the first black president will be looking for their own revenge and they will have it.

If ever there was a time when blacks and whites needed to speak with one voice, not two, it is now. The consequences stemming from the activities of Black Lives Matter will be dire. They will be dictated not by hatred, but by self-preservation, it is human nature and once begun it will be impossible to stop. It is black people who should realize, if they believe in black lives matter, they should look to each other, not white people. Blacks kill blacks in over 90% of the cases. If their lives don’t matter to them, why in the world would they expect black lives to matter to anyone?


Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul wrote in Chapter 1, verses 26 – 27:

“Therefore God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”

Obviously, Paul was writing about lesbians and homosexuals in secular Roman society. But what if the “due penalty” he was referring to was actually HIV/AIDS?

HIV, otherwise known as AIDS may have existed as far back as the first century, science doesn’t know, but what if it did and St. Paul was the first to recognize the link between the disease and homosexuality? It is a leap of course, but if not AIDS, what disease could he have been referring to especially as he was speaking about men particularly when he wrote that homosexuals “received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity”?

Sexually transmitted diseases have been around since the dawn of man, but in most if not all the literature they are clearly gender neutral, that is, they affect both men and women. The exception to the rule is AIDS in spite of the fact heterosexuals are subject to the contagion if they knowingly or unknowingly engage in sexual activities with people already carrying the virus or if they share hypodermic needles etc.

The AIDS virus was discovered by Robert Gallo, M.D. in 1984 although a French researcher, Luc Mantagnier claimed he was the first. Gallo, according to some in the scientific field, is considered to be “is the most powerful and influential AIDS scientist, his views on the origin of HIV/AIDS have become gospel.”[1] He disputed research which originally indicated the AIDS virus was “related” to other viruses called, “slow viruses” or “lentiviruses found in sheep and goats” as was reported in the journal, Science in 1985. Gallo said the virus came from green monkeys in central Africa, but that theory was disputed by another group of scientists who claimed the virus “originated with a species of chimpanzees found in Africa.”

Scientists now agree the monkey/chimpanzee theories are tenuous at best seeing as the first cases of HIV/AIDS were identified as having originated in 1979 among Manhattan’s homosexual community and no substantial evidentiary link has ever been established to implicate Africa and its primate population.

According to Dr. Gallo, “No one knows if the viruses could have stemmed from a common viral ancestor hundreds or thousands of years ago, or if a virus moved between species only decades ago from human exposure to the virus of sheep or goats.”

Gallo is correct in saying no one knows where the virus originated, and he may be correct that it is somehow linked to similar viruses found in goats and sheep. If he is, there may be an argument that it was at least known, if not named in ancient times. It could very well be thousands of years old and therefore possibly the subject of St. Paul’s admonishment regarding homosexuality and the “penalty” for such “perversity”.

Assume the link between Paul’s observation and HIV/AIDS in Roman society is tenable, the question would be, how was there not an epidemic of the virus in contemporary society? Would it not have been reported by any of the first century historians such as Pliny the Elder, Claudius or Tacitus? The answer is most definitely, no.

While homosexuality may have been common in first century Roman and Greek cultures, it was never considered moral behavior by the Roman people. Men who engaged in homosexual activities were looked upon much as they have been throughout history, as perverts, more feminine than manly, something Romans hated as the image flew in the face of the one Romans loved more than any other, Roman power as personified by the Roman military. No Roman historian would ever write about homosexuality as normal since it would diminish the idea of Rome as the most powerful empire in world history. A cursory overview of Roman historians is all that is necessary to show they were mostly concerned with wars and Roman conquest.

If Paul had wanted to excoriate both males and females for engaging in homosexual conduct and receiving their just penalties by way of common sexually transmitted diseases he would not have reserved specific language for distinct genders. But he did and though it may be explained as a mere literary convention, it is curious nonetheless.

The fact that the Judeo/Christian moral code considers homosexuality unnatural and abhorrent may explain why whatever malady to which Paul was referring did not spread. As Christianity did, the prohibition against homosexuality must have as well, at least throughout the general society. Over time, though homosexuals obviously existed, the strict prohibition and the death penalty attached to violating it, logically must have reduced the practice. If it was AIDS, the disease which Paul referenced could have died out only to return 2,000 years later during a resurgence of homosexual activity as a function of a more liberal society attempting to make the case homosexuality and lesbianism were perfectly normal, just lifestyle choices.

Clearly, homosexuality is a part of human history and just as clearly it was not and will not be stamped out entirely, but that didn’t make it acceptable then as it should not now. Paul’s remonstrance in his letter to the Romans regarding the evils of homosexuality referenced a then unnamed disease ravaging its practitioners which he considered punishment by God. While we have no definitive description of the disease, since it apparently afflicted only men it may very well have been HIV/AIDS.

But Paul reserves his most vehement criticism for those who try convincing people homosexuality and lesbianism are normal behavior when he writes, “Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” He describes these people as “gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God…They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.” What could describe modern liberals and their homosexual partners more accurately? And who is to say HIV/AIDS is not just punishment for their sins today as it may have been over 2,000 years ago?




Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), Politics, The Nation, The World.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


On this Veteran’s Day it would be well for every American to take a few moments for reflection on just who these people are and what they represent. The best way to do this is to walk a mile in their shoes, and there’s the hitch. For those of us who have never served, it is an impossible task. We can all walk in a doctor’s shoes, every one of us, especially parents have at one time or another cared for someone who was hurt, injured or sick. We can walk in a teacher’s, lawyer’s, architect’s, businessman’s and a thousand other pairs of shoes, but if we haven’t served, we cannot walk in a warrior’s.

That in mind, it may be difficult to understand the depth of gratitude necessary to say, “Thank you” in an appropriately meaningful way. Let us at least reflect on what we’ve seen on television, heard on radio or experienced ourselves dealing with a veteran returning from deployment, one who has served and is now a civilian or one who has seen the face of bloody conflict, engaged it, fought it and suffered. Regardless the specific war, they kept us out of harm’s way and we owe them for it.

These men and women represent all that is good and decent in America. Juxtapose them with pampered college students who protest not only the existence of the United States, but by extension those who wore and wear the uniform to protect their right to do so. It is both frustrating and anger inducing to know the best of us routinely and willingly put their lives on the line for the worst.

Honor them as the greatest examples of America’s sons and daughters, the best of the best our country offers generation to generation. God bless our men and women in the military and all who served in the past, those who have gone before us and those who remain until called.


Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), The Nation.

Tagged with .


The biggest problem with John Kasich and Jeb Bush, so amply displayed in last night’s debate, is that they are entirely tone deaf, politically speaking. They are also blind to the political realities ca. 2015-2016 and obtuse to an alarming degree when it comes to fully grasping how deep rank and file sensibilities on illegal immigrants go. It is impossible to believe they aren’t hearing their party, so it must be they are either not listening or they are purposely ignoring their base, i.e. those who will make you the nominee or not. Underneath the deafness and blindness is the attitude Americans have come to despise, that is, “We know better than you what is good for you.” It’s an attitude out of Anyman’s liberal playbook thus not a winning position for a Republican in this cycle.

John Kasich managed to make himself look like an annoying child in search of attention. His constant interruptions were not only maddening to an exasperating degree, they were by and large pointless and in one case disastrous. Tangling with Ted Cruz on bank bailouts was the biggest mistake any of the candidates made during the debate. Kasich effectively destroyed his campaign and gave Cruz the opportunity to help him do it. If there is a subject for Republicans to avoid, it is bank bailouts no matter how it is defended, saving people’s retirement funds, life savings etc.; to the average individual it is a bailout by some other name.

Jeb Bush was Jeb Bush, a decent wonk on issues of government spending, job creation and taxes, but they were buried under his determined stance on amnesty by whatever label he gives it du jour. He is not the candidate his brother George was, but that’s not the most important facet affecting his failing campaign. The times are against him and there is nothing he or any other establishment Republican can do about it. If his campaign did not commit hara kiri last night, it took a few stabs at it making the demise of the enterprise a matter of time.

Clearly Donald Trump made the most out of the evening by staying clear of the arrows flying all over at others and not making himself the target of any. Testament to how shrewd he is, Donald Trump managed to escape being Donald Trump the focal point while being Donald Trump the articulator of rank and file sentiments.

Marco Rubio has the wit, intelligence (they are not the same), information, delivery and good looks to carry him forward. He will be very difficult to beat. But it was Ted Cruz who made another impression consistent with his past performances, all of them brilliant. No one on the stage is smarter, more dedicated or able than Cruz for one reason, his vision is entirely in line with the vast majority of the base and it has never been otherwise. He is perhaps the only Republican candidate who can make the case for on-the-job training being a moot point. He is that intelligent.

Carly Fiorina has the chops and the guts to be POTUS. She needs to drop the campaign talking points, do away with the script and have the self-confidence to mix it up impromptu. She is stiff and repetitive on stage and it shows to the point that at times she’s painful to watch. Her repetition is the single most negative aspect of her candidacy when in the public eye. That is not to say other candidates don’t share in the problem. Cruz and Rubio can tell their immigrant stories just so many times before they become negative aspects of their campaigns. If The Donald has taught his competitors anything, it is that authenticity is of immense importance.

Rand Paul acquitted himself well, but for many in the rank and file his view of military spending, whether sensible or not, is out of step. In years past, during the height of the Iraqi war, he may have been able to make his case for cutting back the United States’ military involvement overseas, but timing is everything and ISIS frightens the American people sufficiently they are more than happy to spend whatever it takes to bolster the military into regaining its overwhelming international power. Conservative principles are meaningless to voters who see the threat of worldwide Islam. He should have made the case for rebuilding the military using the argument that by cutting the massive waste everyone knows is part of Washington as usual, eliminating whole departments and agencies, radically reducing the power of the federal bureaucracy thus the money that goes into it, completely reforming the entitlement system, enough money and more will be saved to fully finance a military buildup. But he didn’t come close to saying that, he wouldn’t because he can’t. Rand Paul does not believe in a strong military. He believes in isolationism as a means of national defense. To him, if the United States isn’t openly attacked on its homeland, then it shouldn’t be involved militarily anyplace in the world.

Ben Carson had a decent night, but he was hard put to display the kind of grasp on issues Cruz and Rubio did. His low-key style is beginning to work against him as well. The Republican nominee will have fire in his belly. Carson’s is smoldering, in need of a bellows.

Winner: Tie going slightly to Cruz on substance and conviction and slightly to Rubio on presentation and his handle on foreign affairs.


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


Normally we never use anyone else’s material except to bolster an argument or illustrate a point.  When we do, we cite…always.  While the following poem by Lewis Carroll is in the public domain, we cite the location as and thank them for their contribution.

Carroll was famous for what was called, “nonsense poetry”, but the categorization belies the extreme subtlety of the poem’s message.  The Hunting Of The Snark is a poem about incompetence as a function of fantasy.  In other words, on the hunting trip no one knows what he’s doing, they have no idea why they are doing what they’re doing and when they do what they do, what is done has nothing whatsoever to do with what is necessary though the characters believe it is.

While this is rather heady stuff, it is profound relationship to what is the Obama administration, especially

The Hunting of the Snark

By Lewis Carroll

Fit the First

The Landing


“Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried,

As he landed his crew with care;

Supporting each man on the top of the tide

By a finger entwined in his hair.


“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:

That alone should encourage the crew.

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:

What I tell you three times is true.”


The crew was complete: it included a Boots—

A maker of Bonnets and Hoods—

A Barrister, brought to arrange their disputes—

And a Broker, to value their goods.


A Billiard-marker, whose skill was immense,

Might perhaps have won more than his share—

But a Banker, engaged at enormous expense,

Had the whole of their cash in his care.


There was also a Beaver, that paced on the deck,

Or would sit making lace in the bow:

And had often (the Bellman said) saved them from wreck,

Though none of the sailors knew how.


There was one who was famed for the number of things

He forgot when he entered the ship:

His umbrella, his watch, all his jewels and rings,

And the clothes he had bought for the trip.


He had forty-two boxes, all carefully packed,

With his name painted clearly on each:

But, since he omitted to mention the fact,

They were all left behind on the beach.


The loss of his clothes hardly mattered, because

He had seven coats on when he came,

With three pair of boots—but the worst of it was,

He had wholly forgotten his name.


He would answer to “Hi!” or to any loud cry,

Such as “Fry me!” or “Fritter my wig!”

To “What-you-may-call-um!” or “What-was-his-name!”

But especially “Thing-um-a-jig!”


While, for those who preferred a more forcible word,

He had different names from these:

His intimate friends called him “Candle-ends,”

And his enemies “Toasted-cheese.”


“His form in ungainly—his intellect small—”

(So the Bellman would often remark)

“But his courage is perfect! And that, after all,

Is the thing that one needs with a Snark.”


He would joke with hænas, returning their stare

With an impudent wag of the head:

And he once went a walk, paw-in-paw, with a bear,

“Just to keep up its spirits,” he said.


He came as a Baker: but owned, when too late—

And it drove the poor Bellman half-mad—

He could only bake Bride-cake—for which, I may state,

No materials were to be had.


The last of the crew needs especial remark,

Though he looked an incredible dunce:

He had just one idea—but, that one being “Snark,”

The good Bellman engaged him at once.


He came as a Butcher: but gravely declared,

When the ship had been sailing a week,

He could only kill Beavers. The Bellman looked scared,

And was almost too frightened to speak:


But at length he explained, in a tremulous tone,

There was only one Beaver on board;

And that was a tame one he had of his own,

Whose death would be deeply deplored.


The Beaver, who happened to hear the remark,

Protested, with tears in its eyes,

That not even the rapture of hunting the Snark

Could atone for that dismal surprise!


It strongly advised that the Butcher should be

Conveyed in a separate ship:

But the Bellman declared that would never agree

With the plans he had made for the trip:


Navigation was always a difficult art,

Though with only one ship and one bell:

And he feared he must really decline, for his part,

Undertaking another as well.


The Beaver’s best course was, no doubt, to procure

A second-hand dagger-proof coat—

So the Baker advised it—and next, to insure

Its life in some Office of note:


This the Banker suggested, and offered for hire

(On moderate terms), or for sale,

Two excellent Policies, one Against Fire,

And one Against Damage From Hail.


Yet still, ever after that sorrowful day,

Whenever the Butcher was by,

The Beaver kept looking the opposite way,

And appeared unaccountably shy.


Fit the Second

The Bellman’s Speech


The Bellman himself they all praised to the skies—

Such a carriage, such ease and such grace!

Such solemnity, too! One could see he was wise,

The moment one looked in his face!


He had bought a large map representing the sea,

Without the least vestige of land:

And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be

A map they could all understand.


“What’s the good of Mercator’s North Poles and Equators,

Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?”

So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply

“They are merely conventional signs!


“Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes!

But we’ve got our brave Captain to thank

(So the crew would protest) “that he’s bought us the best—

A perfect and absolute blank!”


This was charming, no doubt; but they shortly found out

That the Captain they trusted so well

Had only one notion for crossing the ocean,

And that was to tingle his bell.


He was thoughtful and grave—but the orders he gave

Were enough to bewilder a crew.

When he cried “Steer to starboard, but keep her head larboard!”

What on earth was the helmsman to do?


Then the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes:

A thing, as the Bellman remarked,

That frequently happens in tropical climes,

When a vessel is, so to speak, “snarked.”


But the principal failing occurred in the sailing,

And the Bellman, perplexed and distressed,

Said he had hoped, at least, when the wind blew due East,

That the ship would not travel due West!


But the danger was past—they had landed at last,

With their boxes, portmanteaus, and bags:

Yet at first sight the crew were not pleased with the view,

Which consisted to chasms and crags.


The Bellman perceived that their spirits were low,

And repeated in musical tone

Some jokes he had kept for a season of woe—

But the crew would do nothing but groan.


He served out some grog with a liberal hand,

And bade them sit down on the beach:

And they could not but own that their Captain looked grand,

As he stood and delivered his speech.


“Friends, Romans, and countrymen, lend me your ears!”

(They were all of them fond of quotations:

So they drank to his health, and they gave him three cheers,

While he served out additional rations).


“We have sailed many months, we have sailed many weeks,

(Four weeks to the month you may mark),

But never as yet (’tis your Captain who speaks)

Have we caught the least glimpse of a Snark!


“We have sailed many weeks, we have sailed many days,

(Seven days to the week I allow),

But a Snark, on the which we might lovingly gaze,

We have never beheld till now!


“Come, listen, my men, while I tell you again

The five unmistakable marks

By which you may know, wheresoever you go,

The warranted genuine Snarks.


“Let us take them in order. The first is the taste,

Which is meagre and hollow, but crisp:

Like a coat that is rather too tight in the waist,

With a flavour of Will-o’-the-wisp.


“Its habit of getting up late you’ll agree

That it carries too far, when I say

That it frequently breakfasts at five-o’clock tea,

And dines on the following day.


“The third is its slowness in taking a jest.

Should you happen to venture on one,

It will sigh like a thing that is deeply distressed:

And it always looks grave at a pun.


“The fourth is its fondness for bathing-machines,

Which it constantly carries about,

And believes that they add to the beauty of scenes—

A sentiment open to doubt.


“The fifth is ambition. It next will be right

To describe each particular batch:

Distinguishing those that have feathers, and bite,

From those that have whiskers, and scratch.


“For, although common Snarks do no manner of harm,

Yet, I feel it my duty to say,

Some are Boojums—” The Bellman broke off in alarm,

For the Baker had fainted away.


Fit the Third

The Baker’s Tale


They roused him with muffins—they roused him with ice—

They roused him with mustard and cress—

They roused him with jam and judicious advice—

They set him conundrums to guess.


When at length he sat up and was able to speak,

His sad story he offered to tell;

And the Bellman cried “Silence! Not even a shriek!”

And excitedly tingled his bell.


There was silence supreme! Not a shriek, not a scream,

Scarcely even a howl or a groan,

As the man they called “Ho!” told his story of woe

In an antediluvian tone.


“My father and mother were honest, though poor—”

“Skip all that!” cried the Bellman in haste.

“If it once becomes dark, there’s no chance of a Snark—

We have hardly a minute to waste!”


“I skip forty years,” said the Baker, in tears,

“And proceed without further remark

To the day when you took me aboard of your ship

To help you in hunting the Snark.


“A dear uncle of mine (after whom I was named)

Remarked, when I bade him farewell—”

“Oh, skip your dear uncle!” the Bellman exclaimed,

As he angrily tingled his bell.


“He remarked to me then,” said that mildest of men,

“‘If your Snark be a Snark, that is right:

Fetch it home by all means—you may serve it with greens,

And it’s handy for striking a light.


“‘You may seek it with thimbles—and seek it with care;

You may hunt it with forks and hope;

You may threaten its life with a railway-share;

You may charm it with smiles and soap—'”


(“That’s exactly the method,” the Bellman bold

In a hasty parenthesis cried,

“That’s exactly the way I have always been told

That the capture of Snarks should be tried!”)


“‘But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day,

If your Snark be a Boojum! For then

You will softly and suddenly vanish away,

And never be met with again!’


“It is this, it is this that oppresses my soul,

When I think of my uncle’s last words:

And my heart is like nothing so much as a bowl

Brimming over with quivering curds!


“It is this, it is this—” “We have had that before!”

The Bellman indignantly said.

And the Baker replied “Let me say it once more.

It is this, it is this that I dread!


“I engage with the Snark—every night after dark—

In a dreamy delirious fight:

I serve it with greens in those shadowy scenes,

And I use it for striking a light:


“But if ever I meet with a Boojum, that day,

In a moment (of this I am sure),

I shall softly and suddenly vanish away—

And the notion I cannot endure!”


Fit the Fourth

The Hunting


The Bellman looked uffish, and wrinkled his brow.

“If only you’d spoken before!

It’s excessively awkward to mention it now,

With the Snark, so to speak, at the door!


“We should all of us grieve, as you well may believe,

If you never were met with again—

But surely, my man, when the voyage began,

You might have suggested it then?


“It’s excessively awkward to mention it now—

As I think I’ve already remarked.”

And the man they called “Hi!” replied, with a sigh,

“I informed you the day we embarked.


“You may charge me with murder—or want of sense—

(We are all of us weak at times):

But the slightest approach to a false pretence

Was never among my crimes!


“I said it in Hebrew—I said it in Dutch—

I said it in German and Greek:

But I wholly forgot (and it vexes me much)

That English is what you speak!”


“‘Tis a pitiful tale,” said the Bellman, whose face

Had grown longer at every word:

“But, now that you’ve stated the whole of your case,

More debate would be simply absurd.


“The rest of my speech” (he explained to his men)

“You shall hear when I’ve leisure to speak it.

But the Snark is at hand, let me tell you again!

‘Tis your glorious duty to seek it!


“To seek it with thimbles, to seek it with care;

To pursue it with forks and hope;

To threaten its life with a railway-share;

To charm it with smiles and soap!


“For the Snark’s a peculiar creature, that won’t

Be caught in a commonplace way.

Do all that you know, and try all that you don’t:

Not a chance must be wasted to-day!


“For England expects—I forbear to proceed:

‘Tis a maxim tremendous, but trite:

And you’d best be unpacking the things that you need

To rig yourselves out for the fight.”


Then the Banker endorsed a blank check (which he crossed),

And changed his loose silver for notes.

The Baker with care combed his whiskers and hair,

And shook the dust out of his coats.


The Boots and the Broker were sharpening a spade—

Each working the grindstone in turn:

But the Beaver went on making lace, and displayed

No interest in the concern:


Though the Barrister tried to appeal to its pride,

And vainly proceeded to cite

A number of cases, in which making laces

Had been proved an infringement of right.


The maker of Bonnets ferociously planned

A novel arrangement of bows:

While the Billiard-marker with quivering hand

Was chalking the tip of his nose.


But the Butcher turned nervous, and dressed himself fine,

With yellow kid gloves and a ruff—

Said he felt it exactly like going to dine,

Which the Bellman declared was all “stuff.”


“Introduce me, now there’s a good fellow,” he said,

“If we happen to meet it together!”

And the Bellman, sagaciously nodding his head,

Said “That must depend on the weather.”


The Beaver went simply galumphing about,

At seeing the Butcher so shy:

And even the Baker, though stupid and stout,

Made an effort to wink with one eye.


“Be a man!” said the Bellman in wrath, as he heard

The Butcher beginning to sob.

“Should we meet with a Jubjub, that desperate bird,

We shall need all our strength for the job!”


Fit the Fifth

The Beaver’s Lesson


They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;

They pursued it with forks and hope;

They threatened its life with a railway-share;

They charmed it with smiles and soap.


Then the Butcher contrived an ingenious plan

For making a separate sally;

And had fixed on a spot unfrequented by man,

A dismal and desolate valley.


But the very same plan to the Beaver occurred:

It had chosen the very same place:

Yet neither betrayed, by a sign or a word,

The disgust that appeared in his face.


Each thought he was thinking of nothing but “Snark”

And the glorious work of the day;

And each tried to pretend that he did not remark

That the other was going that way.


But the valley grew narrow and narrower still,

And the evening got darker and colder,

Till (merely from nervousness, not from good will)

They marched along shoulder to shoulder.


Then a scream, shrill and high, rent the shuddering sky,

And they knew that some danger was near:

The Beaver turned pale to the tip of its tail,

And even the Butcher felt queer.


He thought of his childhood, left far far behind—

That blissful and innocent state—

The sound so exactly recalled to his mind

A pencil that squeaks on a slate!


“‘Tis the voice of the Jubjub!” he suddenly cried.

(This man, that they used to call “Dunce.”)

“As the Bellman would tell you,” he added with pride,

“I have uttered that sentiment once.


“‘Tis the note of the Jubjub! Keep count, I entreat;

You will find I have told it you twice.

Tis the song of the Jubjub! The proof is complete,

If only I’ve stated it thrice.”


The Beaver had counted with scrupulous care,

Attending to every word:

But it fairly lost heart, and outgrabe in despair,

When the third repetition occurred.


It felt that, in spite of all possible pains,

It had somehow contrived to lose count,

And the only thing now was to rack its poor brains

By reckoning up the amount.


“Two added to one—if that could but be done,”

It said, “with one’s fingers and thumbs!”

Recollecting with tears how, in earlier years,

It had taken no pains with its sums.


“The thing can be done,” said the Butcher, “I think.

The thing must be done, I am sure.

The thing shall be done! Bring me paper and ink,

The best there is time to procure.”


The Beaver brought paper, portfolio, pens,

And ink in unfailing supplies:

While strange creepy creatures came out of their dens,

And watched them with wondering eyes.


So engrossed was the Butcher, he heeded them not,

As he wrote with a pen in each hand,

And explained all the while in a popular style

Which the Beaver could well understand.


“Taking Three as the subject to reason about—

A convenient number to state—

We add Seven, and Ten, and then multiply out

By One Thousand diminished by Eight.


“The result we proceed to divide, as you see,

By Nine Hundred and Ninety and Two:

Then subtract Seventeen, and the answer must be

Exactly and perfectly true.


“The method employed I would gladly explain,

While I have it so clear in my head,

If I had but the time and you had but the brain—

But much yet remains to be said.


“In one moment I’ve seen what has hitherto been

Enveloped in absolute mystery,

And without extra charge I will give you at large

A Lesson in Natural History.”


In his genial way he proceeded to say

(Forgetting all laws of propriety,

And that giving instruction, without introduction,

Would have caused quite a thrill in Society),


“As to temper the Jubjub’s a desperate bird,

Since it lives in perpetual passion:

Its taste in costume is entirely absurd—

It is ages ahead of the fashion:


“But it knows any friend it has met once before:

It never will look at a bribe:

And in charity-meetings it stands at the door,

And collects—though it does not subscribe.


“Its flavour when cooked is more exquisite far

Than mutton, or oysters, or eggs:

(Some think it keeps best in an ivory jar,

And some, in mahogany kegs:)


“You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue:

You condense it with locusts and tape:

Still keeping one principal object in view—

To preserve its symmetrical shape.”


The Butcher would gladly have talked till next day,

But he felt that the Lesson must end,

And he wept with delight in attempting to say

He considered the Beaver his friend.


While the Beaver confessed, with affectionate looks

More eloquent even than tears,

It had learned in ten minutes far more than all books

Would have taught it in seventy years.


They returned hand-in-hand, and the Bellman, unmanned

(For a moment) with noble emotion,

Said “This amply repays all the wearisome days

We have spent on the billowy ocean!”


Such friends, as the Beaver and Butcher became,

Have seldom if ever been known;

In winter or summer, ’twas always the same—

You could never meet either alone.


And when quarrels arose—as one frequently finds

Quarrels will, spite of every endeavour—

The song of the Jubjub recurred to their minds,

And cemented their friendship for ever!


Fit the Sixth

The Barrister’s Dream


They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;

They pursued it with forks and hope;

They threatened its life with a railway-share;

They charmed it with smiles and soap.


But the Barrister, weary of proving in vain

That the Beaver’s lace-making was wrong,

Fell asleep, and in dreams saw the creature quite plain

That his fancy had dwelt on so long.


He dreamed that he stood in a shadowy Court,

Where the Snark, with a glass in its eye,

Dressed in gown, bands, and wig, was defending a pig

On the charge of deserting its sty.


The Witnesses proved, without error or flaw,

That the sty was deserted when found:

And the Judge kept explaining the state of the law

In a soft under-current of sound.


The indictment had never been clearly expressed,

And it seemed that the Snark had begun,

And had spoken three hours, before any one guessed

What the pig was supposed to have done.


The Jury had each formed a different view

(Long before the indictment was read),

And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew

One word that the others had said.


“You must know—” said the Judge: but the Snark exclaimed “Fudge!”

That statute is obsolete quite!

Let me tell you, my friends, the whole question depends

On an ancient manorial right.


“In the matter of Treason the pig would appear

To have aided, but scarcely abetted:

While the charge of Insolvency fails, it is clear,

If you grant the plea ‘never indebted.’


“The fact of Desertion I will not dispute;

But its guilt, as I trust, is removed

(So far as relates to the costs of this suit)

By the Alibi which has been proved.


“My poor client’s fate now depends on your votes.”

Here the speaker sat down in his place,

And directed the Judge to refer to his notes

And briefly to sum up the case.


But the Judge said he never had summed up before;

So the Snark undertook it instead,

And summed it so well that it came to far more

Than the Witnesses ever had said!


When the verdict was called for, the Jury declined,

As the word was so puzzling to spell;

But they ventured to hope that the Snark wouldn’t mind

Undertaking that duty as well.


So the Snark found the verdict, although, as it owned,

It was spent with the toils of the day:

When it said the word “GUILTY!” the Jury all groaned,

And some of them fainted away.


Then the Snark pronounced sentence, the Judge being quite

Too nervous to utter a word:

When it rose to its feet, there was silence like night,

And the fall of a pin might be heard.


“Transportation for life” was the sentence it gave,

“And then to be fined forty pound.”

The Jury all cheered, though the Judge said he feared

That the phrase was not legally sound.


But their wild exultation was suddenly checked

When the jailer informed them, with tears,

Such a sentence would have not the slightest effect,

As the pig had been dead for some years.


The Judge left the Court, looking deeply disgusted:

But the Snark, though a little aghast,

As the lawyer to whom the defence was intrusted,

Went bellowing on to the last.


Thus the Barrister dreamed, while the bellowing seemed

To grow every moment more clear:

Till he woke to the knell of a furious bell,

Which the Bellman rang close at his ear.


Fit the Seventh

The Banker’s Fate


They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;

They pursued it with forks and hope;

They threatened its life with a railway-share;

They charmed it with smiles and soap.


And the Banker, inspired with a courage so new

It was matter for general remark,

Rushed madly ahead and was lost to their view

In his zeal to discover the Snark


But while he was seeking with thimbles and care,

A Bandersnatch swiftly drew nigh

And grabbed at the Banker, who shrieked in despair,

For he knew it was useless to fly.


He offered large discount—he offered a cheque

(Drawn “to bearer”) for seven-pounds-ten:

But the Bandersnatch merely extended its neck

And grabbed at the Banker again.


Without rest or pause—while those frumious jaws

Went savagely snapping around—

He skipped and he hopped, and he floundered and flopped,

Till fainting he fell to the ground.


The Bandersnatch fled as the others appeared

Led on by that fear-stricken yell:

And the Bellman remarked “It is just as I feared!”

And solemnly tolled on his bell.


He was black in the face, and they scarcely could trace

The least likeness to what he had been:

While so great was his fright that his waistcoat turned white—

A wonderful thing to be seen!


To the horror of all who were present that day,

He uprose in full evening dress,

And with senseless grimaces endeavoured to say

What his tongue could no longer express.


Down he sank in a chair—ran his hands through his hair—

And chanted in mimsiest tones

Words whose utter inanity proved his insanity,

While he rattled a couple of bones.


“Leave him here to his fate—it is getting so late!”

The Bellman exclaimed in a fright.

“We have lost half the day. Any further delay,

And we sha’n’t catch a Snark before night!”


Fit the Eighth

The Vanishing


They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;

They pursued it with forks and hope;

They threatened its life with a railway-share;

They charmed it with smiles and soap.


They shuddered to think that the chase might fail,

And the Beaver, excited at last,

Went bounding along on the tip of its tail,

For the daylight was nearly past.


“There is Thingumbob shouting!” the Bellman said,

“He is shouting like mad, only hark!

He is waving his hands, he is wagging his head,

He has certainly found a Snark!”


They gazed in delight, while the Butcher exclaimed

“He was always a desperate wag!”

They beheld him—their Baker—their hero unnamed—

On the top of a neighbouring crag,


Erect and sublime, for one moment of time,

In the next, that wild figure they saw

(As if stung by a spasm) plunge into a chasm,

While they waited and listened in awe.


“It’s a Snark!” was the sound that first came to their ears,

And seemed almost too good to be true.

Then followed a torrent of laughter and cheers:

Then the ominous words “It’s a Boo—”


Then, silence. Some fancied they heard in the air

A weary and wandering sigh

That sounded like “-jum!” but the others declare

It was only a breeze that went by.


They hunted till darkness came on, but they found

Not a button, or feather, or mark,

By which they could tell that they stood on the ground

Where the Baker had met with the Snark.


In the midst of the word he was trying to say,

In the midst of his laughter and glee,

He had softly and suddenly vanished away—

For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.



Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


Call it serendipity on a massive scale, if not then it is the greatest media coup in modern American history. Whether by luck of the draw or plan of action, Neil Cavuto and the Fox Business News (FBN) cable channel are poised to show the rest of the world how it’s supposed to be done when they host the fourth Republican primary debate tomorrow night in Milwaukee.

A fief of the Murdoch kingdom granted to Baron Roger Ailes, Fox Business News channel (“If you don’t get it…pause for chorus…Demand it!”) fields some of the finest minds in the news business including Lisa “Kennedy” Montgomery who has a talent for straddling the cusp between media hip and intellectual substance. Most if not all of the talent are decidedly right thinking and believers in capitalism. Stuart Varney, Lou Dobbs, newly acquired Maria Bartiromo and Trish Regan, fixtures David Asman, Melissa Francis, Liz Claman and Charles Payne et. al. bring vibrancy to what is intrinsically boring and tedious for its abstractness. They make a case for business and economics, that tiny niche of enterprise understood and practiced by so few, but without which the rest of society would be floundering in the stone age.

Cavuto’s child by adoption, FBN has struggled for traction. Dad however, is nothing if not a cultivating parent and shrewd manager, an expert at making the arcane understandable, the walking dead alive. The daily schedule begins with the typical FOX formula of beautiful babes who know what they’re talking about followed by another babe, Maria Bartiroma who also knows what she’s talking about. Then, as if to bring the male of the species down off his babe high the audience is treated to Thorazine with a British accent and more patriotism than most homegrown Americans. Stuart Varney puts the world of business in perspective from a strictly capitalist/American patriot point of view. Then Lord Cavuto himself takes over. The rest of the schedule is manned and womaned by equally impressive people such that by the end of the day if you don’t have an idea of what went on in the world of economics and business and the implications going forward you should be watching cartoons.

To that level of talent add a keen contemporary awareness and the ability to capitalize on the errors of their competitors as well as learning through the mistakes of their colleagues at FOX News Channel (FNC). Regardless of how FNC circled the wagons around their starlet Megyn Kelly, she was primarily at fault for setting a circus tone in the first debate. Looking like a nervous Miss whatever contestant in the talent phase of the competition, she launched her gotcha questions at Donald Trump, then faded as he shot back, something Ms. Kelly and the other panel members did not expect although they should have knowing Trump. Kelly opened the door and for the rest of the debate the record breaking audience was force fed a clown car of candidates launching salvo after salvo at each other instead of discussing their respective visions for the future of the country.

The following CNN debate was even worse. But it wasn’t until the CNBC debate that the system failed completely. In the history of televised debates, none were as bad. CNBC is still reeling under the backlash, not just from viewers and the general public, but from the mainstream media itself. The thin veil of liberal media bias, that which everyone knows is there though always denied, was torn back to reveal a black hole. Republicans, once sucked in, never come out. That is the purpose of mainstream media debates, the only purpose nakedly exposed during CNBC’s rocky horror picture show.

The repercussions from the CNBC debacle were immediate, profound and not unnoticed by Cavuto and other FBN bigwigs. In response, FBN as well as its sister operation FNC have telegraphed the intention of providing the November 10, 2015 Republican primary debate audience with substance, no gotcha questions, no personal assaults, substance only as concerns economic, business and finance affairs. Cavuto in charge, the plan is to key in on those issues of economic importance to the country as well as the individual. Presumably it will include candidates’ plans on the national debt, out-of-control spending, entitlement reform, economic growth, reducing regulations and taxes, empowering entrepreneurs, international trade, American energy production, the Keystone pipeline, China, wages and Obamacare, not the stuff of high ratings. The red meat of illegal immigration, terrorism, Islam, the Middle East, national defense, racial upheaval, lawlessness, oppressive government, liberty and freedom will have to be weaved into the discussion somehow or viewers will swap channels faster than liberals swap spouses.

Truth be told, all the above are inextricably linked. We cannot talk about the Middle East without talking about energy independence. We cannot talk about energy independence without talking about the Keystone pipeline or wide open fracking. We can’t talk about those without talking about radical environmentalists in opposition which will encourage discussion on other types of liberal economic terrorism. And we cannot talk about terrorism without talking about Islam, illegals immigration and…you get the picture. None of the subjects can be discussed without them being under the umbrella of liberty and freedom which can easily careen off to the right to bear arms. Regardless the intended focus, political debates are not as quilts, they are the warp and weft of intricate blankets.

The number of Republican candidates and the time allotted to each doesn’t help matters. Whatever Cavuto’s plan for controlling the flow, one hopes he doesn’t see his role as controlling the candidates, they are not so much cattle to be herded and corralled and as seen, they are more than willing to stampede if agitated. The difficulty for Cavuto and company will be to keep each candidate on point. It is a difficult, almost impossible task. The candidates themselves must cooperate, most likely they won’t given the need and nature of breaking out through snippets of soundbites. Nevertheless, if they allow the debate to degenerate into catcalling, they put the entire Republican effort at risk. If this debate devolves into a carbon copy of the previous three, the Republican brand may be irreparably sullied.

Cavuto can be prickly, annoying, snarky and overbearing, not the qualities of a great moderator. Maria Bartiromo may be the tempering agent. Not soft, but also not harsh she has shown an adeptness through pinpoint questioning to direct the discussion. The third panelist, The Wall Street Journal’s Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker is a question mark. It is assumed he will be on point and flameless unless he wants to make a name for himself which is always tempting when in the eyes of millions.

Tomorrow night will either make history in the sense that the FBN debate will set the standard going forward or go down in flames as another gladiatorial free for all in the tradition of circuses for the masses. If done properly, the American people will come away with imperfect, but better than expected measures of information with which to better make their decisions on who should be the next president. If done poorly, future debates will be rendered useless and unnecessary.



Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


Most presidents are concerned with how history will treat them. Of course it is dependent on not only what he’s done or hasn’t, it is always a function of who is writing the history. The old adage that had Germany won World War II, Hitler would have been lionized is probably true given there would be no free press much less academic freedom, though there is little of that today in any case. If future historians reviewing Obama’s presidency are ethical in the least, they will write stories of a presidency without any success whatsoever, a total failure for not only the United States, but the world.

The confidence of the above contention is based on a simple reality. Obama’s history will be in the largest measure written by those who lived contemporaneously with his administration, i.e. millennials. They will be considered the experts, eyewitnesses to the failure as it unfolded and the effects that failure had on them directly. On the other hand, they will also be chroniclers of the next administration. If it is Republican and a success, they will assuredly compare and contrast the two political philosophies, liberalism and conservatism as well as their associated economic systems, socialism and capitalism respectively thus insuring the role of conservatism and capitalism as the foundational systems for the United States of America.

If another liberal, in this case, Hillary Clinton is elected, historians won’t necessarily treat Obama any better, but the chance to prove conservatism and capitalism’s superiority over liberalism and socialism will be lost, perhaps forever. Three generations will have been brought up on cradle to grave socialism, it will be the only system they will know and understand. To future generations, differences in political and economic systems will be forms of socialism, nuanced and carefully controlled by the elite so as to keep the masses in line. The fall from capitalism to communism will not be measured in historical degrees, it will not be measured at all. Capitalism will be forgotten or at best discounted out of hand as a pernicious evil, like Nazism, never to be revisited.

This dire prediction comes with a warning label which states, it won’t necessarily come to pass much less become the permanent state of affairs even if Clinton wins the presidency. Reality has a way of impacting those forced to deal with it. When there are no more rich to steal from, when businesses find they cannot do business, when government runs out of “other peoples’ money”, when lines appear for the necessities of life only to find there are none, when currency is worthless, the masses will invariably become restive. This we know, history tells us of it happening. In every country across the globe and throughout the ages, the Soviet Union, Cuba, Argentina, Venezuela and others, where socialism and Communism are the forms of government, the system inevitably fails. The difference between those countries and the United States is their histories.

When socialist and Communist countries look back, their histories are filled with bleakness. For them, the evils of socialism and Communism look good in comparison to what they lived under previously. The United States’ history is one of stupendous success however. Future Americans will want to know what went wrong under liberalism and forced socialism, they will have a complete history to show them unless the state resembles that of Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” and has found a way of putting the technological genie back in its bottle. A very doubtful proposition.

Obama’s presidency will ironically bring about the fundamental change he so desperately wanted to force on America, but it will be diametrically opposed to the one he intended. The reason isn’t so much he tried and failed, it is he tried, failed and refused to acknowledge the defeat. Much like Hitler at the end, Obama continues to fight a war he has already lost, his last gasps inflicting as much damage as he can on the way out. He has succeeded in pricking the sleeping tiger such that the possibility of a third term successor like Hillary Clinton is in serious doubt while the probability of overturning everything he did as president is extremely high.

Historians will see the parallel even more clearly as they compare and contrast his tenure to other presidents, especially Jimmy Carter who, until Obama, has been universally considered the worst American president in history. Who are the historians criticizing Carter so energetically over the years? Baby-boomers, those who lived through the misery of his mismanagement. The same will apply to Obama.

It will be those millennials who, as they grow into maturity, will reflect on how miserable they were when they found the promise of America had been frittered away by an incompetent, malfeasant racist who gave away their dream by spending trillions on their credit card and handing it over to illegal immigrants, gays and lesbians, transgenders, atheists, people whose minds were right according to Obama and his federal government, everyone and anyone except those whose plan was to do what their parents and grandparents taught them would bring success, work hard and play by the rules.

Historians can be hard on their subjects, especially when there is no contradictory information based on fact to be kind. They will justifiably carve Obama into pieces on personal and political levels in payment for the theft of their futures. Step aside Jimmy, Obama has come to your rescue.


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .