The Political Battlefield of 2012

"The people of long ago are not remembered, nor will there be any remembrance of people yet to come by those who come after them." — Ecclesiastes 1:11

One of the decisive and pivotal battles of World War II was the Battle or Al Alamein, 150 miles west of Cairo, Egypt. By the summer of 1942, the Allies were in trouble throughout Europe. The attack on Russia — Operation Barbarossa — had pushed the Russians back; U-boats were having a major effect on Britain in the Battle of the Atlantic and western Europe seemed to be fully in the control of the Germans.

Hence the war in the desert of North Africa was pivotal. If the Afrika Korps got to the Suez Canal, the ability of the Allies to supply themselves would be severely dented. The only alternate supply route would be via South Africa — which was not only longer but a lot more dangerous due to the vagaries of the weather. The psychological blow of losing the Suez and losing in North Africa would have been incalculable — especially as this would have given Germany near enough free access to the oil in the Middle East.

In August 1942, Winston Churchill was desperate for a victory as he believed that morale was being sapped in Britain. Churchill, despite his status, faced the prospect of a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons if there was no forthcoming victory anywhere. Churchill grasped the bull by the horns and he dismissed Auchinleck and replaced him with Bernard Montgomery. The men in the Allied forces respected ‘Monty’. He was described as "as quick as a ferret and about as likeable." Montgomery put a great deal of emphasis on organization and morale. He spoke to his troops and attempted to restore confidence in them. But above all else, he knew that he needed to hold El Alamein anyway possible.

Rommel planned to hit the Allies in the south. Montgomery guessed that this would be the move of Rommel as Rommel had done it before. However, he was also helped by the people who worked at Bletchley Park who had obtained Rommel’s battle plan and had deciphered it. Therefore ‘Monty’ knew not only Rommel’s plan but also the route of his supply lines. By August 1942, only 33% of what Rommel needed was getting through to him. Rommel was also acutely aware that while he was being starved of supplies, the Allies were getting vast amounts through as they still controlled the Suez and were predominant in the Mediterranean. To resolve what could only become a more difficult situation, Rommel decided to attack quickly even if he was not well-equipped.

To throw Rommel off the scent, Montgomery launched ‘Operation Bertram’. This plan was to convince Rommel that the full-might of the Eighth Army would be used in the south. Dummy tanks were erected in the region. A dummy pipeline was also built - slowly, so as to convince Rommel that the Allies were in no hurry to attack the Afrika Korps. ‘Monty’s army in the north also had to ‘disappear’. Tanks were covered so as to appear as non-threatening lorries. Bertram worked as Rommel became convinced that the attack would be in the south. In essence Monty was following the tenants of Sun Tzu that “all war is based on deception.”

I offer this introduction to frame my following comments on what happened over the weekend in an interview with Michelle Bachmann by ABC’s George Stephanopolous. Bachmann was challenged by Stephanopolous that our founding fathers made no effort to abolish slavery when they drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Bachmann, with only milliseconds to form her answer to a very complex issue, responded that John Quincy Adams was a fierce abolitionist against the institution of slavery. Of course Stephanopolous, being the “brilliant expert” on the history of the Constitution was quick retort that John Quincy Adams, the son of John Adams, was only 9-years old at the time of the signing of the Deceleration of Independence, in 1776, and 20-years old during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. This gaff by Bachmann soon became headline news and Stephanopolous looked smug and pleased in his ability to do the bidding of his Democrat Party masters.

Jeffrey Lord writes in The American Spectator that Stephanopolous was foolish for lecturing Bachmann:

“George Stephanopoulos made the mistake of going after Michele Bachmann on history -- and promptly proceeded to get his history foolishly wrong. Said George:

“For example earlier this year you said that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence worked tirelessly to end slavery. Now with respect Congresswoman, that's just not true.”

“Actually, George, it is true.”

“And before we get to Levin's views, allow me.”

“In 1785, James Madison (as noted by his biographer, Ralph Ketcham in James Madison) took to the floor of the Virginia Assembly, where he was a delegate, and”

“Spoke favoring a bill Jefferson had proposed for the gradual abolition of slavery (it was rejected), and helped defeat a bill designed to outlaw the manumission of individual slaves. Of this effort a French observer wrote that Madison, "a young man (who).astonishes by his eloquence, his wisdom, and his genius, has had the humanity and courage (for such a proposition requires no small share of courage) to propose a general emancipation of the slaves."

“Madison was not alone in taking action on the subject. There was another Founding Father, along with Madison a co-author of The Federalist Papers. That would be Alexander Hamilton.”

“In Alexander Hamilton: A Life, biographer Willard Sterne Randall notes that this Founding Father helped "to found…the Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves in New York." Randall on goes to say that:”

“…never forgetting the slave markets of his St. Croix childhood, Hamilton became a prime mover in the early abolitionist group. He pressured the (New York) state legislature and helped to raise money to buy and free slaves. The society's founders…elected Hamilton chairman to draw up recommendations for "a line of conduct" for any "members who still possessed slaves." He also established a registry for manumitted slaves, listing their names and ages, "to detect attempts to deprive such manumitted persons of their liberty."

There's more with Hamilton, who also demanded (writing and signing a 1786 petition on the subject) the legislature ban the importation of slaves, calling slavery "a commerce so repugnant to humanity."

There is a difference between opposing something and being unable to change the practice in the day -- and doing nothing. But it is just flatly false to say, as Stephanopoulos says, that the Founding Fathers did not work to end slavery. The historical record, if one looks, is crystal clear. Madison did. Hamilton did. Jefferson did. They did not succeed, they were personally flawed, some owning slaves themselves. (Wasn't it George who wrote a book on a flawed president he knew called All Too Human?) But these Founding Fathers started the United States of America down the right historical path, personally "working" to end slavery.”

Lord concludes his article by saying:

“There was a reason for the Three-Fifths Compromise in the Constitution. That reason: there were delegates to the Constitutional Convention (and they would be called Founding Fathers ) who supported abolition -- as well as those who opposed it. Hence -- the compromise. Which was not about declaring a black man three-fifths of a person as, for example, Al Gore and many liberals erroneously say. (Where was George then?) It was about reducing the power of slavery as an institution in the new United States Congress. If, as slave owners insisted, slaves were property -- then the obvious: they should not be counted as whole persons, which would increase the proportional power of the slave states in the House of Representatives, where representation was based on population size. The slave owners wanted it both ways -- to treat slaves as property but count them as persons, effectively increasing the slave owning power in Congress. The abolitionist delegates said no -- hence the compromise.

So Levin is quite correct here -- adding another Founding Father to this list: George Mason of Virginia.

Mark Levin caught you out, George, and his details are here.

But Michele Bachmann was right. There were Founding Fathers who worked to end slavery.

Is challenging Michele Bachmann on fundamental history and getting it wrong embarrassing for somebody in the liberal media who criticizes others on the subject? Yes. Will George be concerned enough to retract and correct the record?

Uh-huh. Sure.

Which is short hand for just why millions of Americans roll their eyes at liberals. And watch Fox.

And listen to Levin.”

You can read Mark Levin’s response to Stephanopolous by clicking here. I guarantee that Levin, an attorney and constitutional scholar, knows a hell of a lot more about or founding fathers and the Constitution than a two-bit liberal hack like George Stephanopolous. As Mark Levin concludes his Facebook post:

“There is much more, but point is that Bachmann is right and Stephanopolous is foolish. These flaky journalists really should get their facts and history right before playing the gotcha game, or it might come back to bite them thanks to a fact-checker like me.”

Another writer for American Spectator, Aaron Goldstein, writes a similar article on the Michelle Bachmann- George Stephanopoulos dust up:

“Jeff Lord is right (as is Mark Levin) to take George Stephanopoulos to task for saying the Founding Fathers played no role in the abolition movement.

However, what Jeff omits is that during the Stephanopoulos interview, Michele Bachmann identified John Quincy Adams as a Founding Father. The Declaration of Independence was adopted a week shy of his ninth birthday. Now Bachmann is correct in saying that John Quincy Adams was actively involved during the Revolutionary War Era. In fact, he was given his first diplomatic posting in Europe at the tender age of ten. It would have been more accurate for Bachmann to describe John Quincy Adams as a Son of the American Revolution.

Unfortunately, this episode will contribute (unfairly) to the perception that Bachmann doesn't have a firm grasp of early American history. Last March, while speaking in New Hampshire, Bachmann declared the first shots of the American Revolution were fired in the Granite State rather than in Massachusetts.

Yes, I am mindful of the fact that President Obama declared he had visited 57 states "with one left to go. "And yes, I am also mindful that President Obama could tell the good folks of Beaverton, Oregon that he enjoyed his visit to the planet Zorkon and the liberal media wouldn't bat an eyelash. But as I have argued previously, it isn't going to do Bachmann much good in complaining about it. The deck is stacked against any Republican who faces off against President Obama. Bachmann surely knew that when she first contemplated making a White House bid. Thus she must take special care in avoiding these kinds of mistakes. Of course, I realize that this is an all but impossible task. Every candidate on the campaign trail makes mistakes but not all mistakes are treated equally. Unfortunately for Bachmann, her mistakes are going to get greater scrutiny than Obama. But life is not fair. This leaves Bachmann with two choices - get over it or get out.”

It is Goldstein’s last sentence that bothers me and brings me back to the Battle of Al Alamein.

We are in a battle to take our nation back from the progressive statist plunders of the left. Our front line troops in this battle are those with the courage to risk the reputations and political capital to run for office, especially the presidency of the United States. It is troopers like Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin who are out in front taking the fight to the progressive left.

We may like some of these candidates more than others and argue over their individual tactics, but we need to realize that without the support of the conservative media the left will win the battle and we, the American people, will lose the war to the tyranny of the left.

Conservative pundits like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Pat Buchanan and Karl Rove need to focus on the failed policies and gaffs of the left, not on the miss-statements of our fighters made in the heat of the battle. These statements will occur from time to time due to the devotion and passion our fighters have to win the country back. It is their plans and ability to take the fight to the enemy we should be concerned with. This is why Churchill replaced Claude Auchinleck with Bernard Montgomery. It was “Monty” who was willing to risk all to take the fight to Rommel.

Montgomery did not rush headlong into the teeth of Rommel’s panzers. To defeat the Desert Fox and turn the tide of the war he used technology (300 Sherman tanks), intelligence (the code breakers of Bletchley Park) and the deception of Sun Tzu.

Our conservative brothers and sisters must do the same. We need to use the technology of the Internet, the intelligence and dumpster-diving that the left uses and the deception of picking the sites where they will give their interviews.

Like the Allies in WWII our immediate battlefield is not the national stage. Just as in WWII the first European battlefield was not the invasion of Normandy. We worked our way up through North Africa, Sicily and Italy while planning, building up and training for the invasion of the France. Our Republican troops need to do the same by focusing on Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. While they are doing this they can be planning, building up (collecting the money and volunteers for the big show) and training for November 2012.

At his stage of the war our fighters do not need the national exposure they expect to get from the main stream media. The MSM is nothing but a fifth column for the progressive left. They have their spies and saboteurs everywhere, just look what they have done to Sarah Palin in the past there years. This is not the time to throw inexperienced fighters into battles where the enemy strength is greater than theirs. Or put in another way — they need to pick and choose the media outlets where they will give interviews — fights they can win. Consultants and campaign managers putting their candidate in front of a hostile, left-wing interviewers, like the McCain people did to Sarah Palin by matching her with Katie Curic and Charles Gibson before she was ready, is tantamount to the British and Canadian Dieppe Raid.

Consider what Andrea Tantaros wrote in her opinion piece for Fox News:

“There is a saying that a fool learns from his own mistakes, but a wise man learns from the mistakes of others. When it comes to Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, there is no truer statement.

For the record, Palin is no fool. She has turned a mismanaged 2008 campaign into political gold and brought her brand to stardom with a meteoric, well-choreographed rise. But she had to blaze a trail, one that is largely being utilized by Michele Bachmann.

Palin was the first female Republican candidate to be nominated to the GOP presidential ticket, and with that came much scrutiny. Palin, along with every political observer, quickly learned that she would be held to a different standard by the mainstream media, not just because she was a woman, but also because she was a conservative one.

With Palin, the left-leaning press asked “gotcha” questions, unlikely to be asked of a man. The then-Alaska governor was asked everything from obscure foreign policy questions to simple, almost insulting ones like “what papers do you read?” And they were all crafted, by design to confuse her.

She was lambasted for her hairstyle (beehive), sexualized for her figure (when she posed for Runner’s World magazine), ridiculed for her diction and down home style (Newsweek: “She’s one of the folks – and that’s the problem”).

Her marriage was dissected with reporters asking if Todd was too involved in her career, despite other marriages in politics like the Clintons union being viewed as acceptable.

While Democrats could ask the media to lay off their kids, the press viciously analyzed and editorialized hers. Whether she was being judged for her choices (to run for president and not stay home to raise her handicapped infant, Trigg instead) or being even accused of lying about the paternity of her son Trigg, Palin was steadily paving the way for Bachmann, or any female Republican candidate poised to hit the presidential trail.”

So, now is the time to prepare for the first battleground in Iowa and use intelligence, technology and deception so our fighters can get their message out to the people. And to our conservative pundits and commentators please remember he mottos of the U.S. Rangers — No man left behind.

To Pledge Or Not To Pledge

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.” — John Adams

In another example of political correctness or just plain rebellion against the values of our founding fathers the city council of Eugene Oregon, after much contentious debate, has decided to say the Pledge of Allegiance prior of the start of a council meeting four time a year rather than before every meeting.

Fox News reports that a compromise on Pledge of Allegiance in Oregon Town has some seeing red:

“An Oregon town's City Council voted down a proposal to say the Pledge of Allegiance before every council meeting, but later passed a compromise that seemed to make no one happy.

The approved measure allows the pledge to be recited at just four Eugene City Council meetings a year, those closest to the Fourth of July, Veterans Day, Memorial Day and Flag Day.

It was supposed to be simple, but Councilman Mike Clark soon found out when you’re dealing with God and country, nothing in Eugene is easy.

Clark says all he wanted to do was unite the council and show his more conservative constituents that in this city where diversity is celebrated, their more traditional values also are important.

“It’s a little ironic to see those who have championed the idea of tolerance be less tolerant on this question,” Clark Said. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the Pledge of Allegiance divisive. “If there’s one thing the flag stands for,” Piercy says, “it’s that people don’t have to be compelled to say the Pledge of Allegiance or anything else.”

Under Clark’s proposal, saying the pledge would be voluntary not only for the public at the meetings, but the council members themselves.

Councilman George Brown voted against the compromise, saying the Pledge of Allegiance had no place at City Hall. “People can say it in their front yard or backyard,” Brown says. “It really doesn’t help move the city business forward. It does not unite us.”

Another pledge opponent, Councilwoman Betty Taylor compared saying the Pledge of Allegiance to reading from "The Communist Manifesto."

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, in 1892. It quickly became part of the American fabric. School children said it each day with their hand placed over their hearts. The original pledge did not have the words "under God."

At the request of the Knights of Columbus and other groups, Congress added one nation "under God" in 1954.

A California atheist challenged the pledge, arguing it amounted to the U.S. government establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately ruled 2-1 the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause.

More recently, NBC found itself in a pledge controversy during this year’s U.S. Open golf coverage. The network produced a montage with kids saying the Pledge of Allegiance while showing pictures of golf highlights.

But when viewers noticed the words "under God" were edited out, many complained. Three hours later, NBC made an on-air apology saying it had "forgotten" to put the whole pledge in.

Jordan Sekulow, director of policy and international operations for the American Center for Law and Justice, sees the Eugene case as political correctness trumping American values.

“It vindicates all of us who say our Judeo-Christian heritage is under attack,” Sekulow says, “sometimes it’s in the courts, sometimes it’s elected officials and sometimes it’s the media.”

In Eugene, the opposition was less about religion than anti-establishment.

Resident Anita Sullivan summed up a common viewpoint: “So you say I pledge allegiance and right there I don’t care for that language,” Sullivan says. “It sort of means loyalty to your country; well, I feel loyalty to the entire world.”

Even after the compromise proposal passed and the council began its regular meeting Monday night, the pledge was still too hot to handle.

A motion to say the Pledge of Allegiance was shot down even though it would be the closest meeting to July Fourth. Those voting against the measure said it was just too soon. They’ll wait until the next meeting.”

The comment that ticked me off the most was from Anita Sullivan when she said, “It sort of means loyalty to your country; well, I feel loyalty to the entire world.” Loyalty to the world, how arrogant and ignorant. Why not loyalty to Mars and Venus while she is at it? It was not men and women from the “world” that died for her freedom!

I always suspected of Oregon as being a states where most of the population was a little bit of their rocker. Perhaps it is because they get so little sunshine. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Portland, Oregon receives a mere 48% of available sunshine each year. This no doubt causes depression and a cloudiness of thought in the residents.

My wife plays bingo every Tuesday night at the local church with a group of seniors and before the beginning of the bingo they enthusiastically recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Who knows what political party or religion these seniors belong to? They do, however, know and believe in the nation that has provided them with the freedom they have lived under for so many years.

It seems that there is a move in the nation, especially along the coasts, to disregard all this nation has stood for and the freedom and prosperity it has allowed these selfish, self-centered elites to live under.

A city council meeting is not a bingo game or a sporting event. It is a meeting of elected officials who have sworn to protect and defend this nation. Why is such a simple pledge to the United States, a pledge that every new naturalized citizen takes, be so abhorrent to these conceited and elite elected officials sworn to represent the voters of their community?

The Smartest President is Incompetent

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." — Frederic Bastiat

The number of Obama supporters seems inversely related to his time in office. Many wonder what happened to "The One We Are Waiting For" — the anointed one, the Messiah.

Obama assumed office in difficult economic times. After a couple of years of excuses — which included "the problems were worse than we knew" and the generic, all-purpose "it's Bush's fault" — Obama now owns the original problems and new ones of his own doing. An incomplete report card on his "accomplishments" would include the following:

• The economy worsened
• Discretionary military efforts ("kinetic" if you prefer) increased
• An unpopular, flawed health care plan was forced on the public
• Inflation increased, especially in critical goods like food and gasoline
• Job prospects decreased
• The stimulus failed miserably
• "Transparency in government" became a laugh-line for late night TV
• Corruption in government accelerated to Chicago-style warp speed
• Housing worsened and shows no sign of bottoming soon
• Government debt and spending spun out of control
• Wall Street was bailed out and continues to enrich themselves
• Main Street was ignored and becomes poorer as bankruptcies and foreclosures mount
• Race relations appear to have worsened
• We are engaged in a war in Libya

There are a plethora of other problems that could be attributed to Obama. In short, it is difficult to ascertain what, if anything, has improved other than the demise of Osama bin Laden.

Two hypotheses are often cited to explain why things have gotten so much worse:

1. Obama is incompetent.
2. Obama knows what he is doing and is deliberately destroying the country.

These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. Evidence is consistent with either or a combination of both. The remainder of this article deals only with the first. Readers should not assume that the second is unimportant, inoperable, or impossible.

Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote about "seductive beliefs" in a two-part article (second part here). He touched on some of the incorrect beliefs guiding President Obama. In short, Obama is an ideologue, narrowly (and poorly) educated. As a result, he is ignorant in the ways of the world. He is a two-bit community organizer with the smile and posture of a snake oil salesman.

Sowell's analysis provides perspective on Obama's behavior. Obama has virtually no understanding of basic economics. Exploitation ideology is the basis for his world — and economic view. This ideology sees the world as a zero-sum game. In essence a fixed pie is divided. If one person gets more, others necessarily get less.

A country becomes successful by taking advantage of other countries. This naive view, based on the long-discredited concept of mercantilism, sees success as exploitation. Freedom, markets, institutions, incentives, and voluntary trade have no place in Obama's world. Success or failure is determined by one variable — whether you are the exploiter or the exploited, or as Frederic Bastiat calls it “plunder.”

“You say: “There are persons who have no money,” and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.”

Exploitation theory does not comport with economic theory, history, or reality. As Sowell points out:

“It is hard to reconcile "exploitation" theories with the facts. While there have been conquered peoples made poorer by their conquerors, especially by Spanish conquerors in the Western Hemisphere, in general most poor countries were poor for reasons that existed before the conquerors arrived. Some Third World countries are poorer today than they were when they were ruled by Western countries, generations ago.”

Obama's ideology blinds him to relevant variables. Incentives, institutional frameworks, profit and loss, individual initiative, saving and investment, hard work, etc. have no role in his simplistic world. He is a political creation with no experience in relevant matters. He does not understand markets, business, meeting a payroll, or managing an organization. This vacuum in knowledge produces failed economic results because policies do not consider the relevant variables for economic success.

In Obama's world, success and failure are moral rather than economic outcomes. Success is a marker for evil. Failure is due to someone else's success rather than personal shortcomings. Failure represents passivity, the choice to not exploit others. Proper moral behavior produces failure.

For Obama, economics itself is inconsistent with morality. Hence economics itself must be evil. This view of the world is both simple and ignorant. No, it is beyond that. It is a sign of stupidity! Recognition of this stupidity is the key to understanding Obama's behavior and policies.

The key to understanding much of Obama's behavior is the notion that economics itself is necessarily evil and must be constrained or even remedied.

Successful allies (think Israel and Great Britain among others) are morally inferior to unsuccessful, backward nations who only are so as a result of exploitation. Third-world nations require restitution for the evils imposed by successful nations. That some of these are enemies of the US makes them even more deserving. The US, heretofore the greatest success, therefore represents the greatest evil. Obama's world-apology tours and treatment of allies can be understood in light of such convoluted beliefs. This is plunder on a global scale.

Moral judgments also drive domestic policy. Individual success is simply a microcosm of national success. It too is achieved by exploiting others. That explains Obama's "Joe the Plumber" moment. If the pie is fixed in size, the rich make others poor. That is the fallacy underlying Obama's belief that people are entitled to only so much income or wealth.

In his mind, he has a right, probably a moral obligation, to confiscate and redistribute wealth. The rich and successful must be punished at some level of success. Their success causes the poor their pain. As Sowell states:

“Whether as a radical student, a community organizer or a far left politician, Barack Obama's ideology has been based on a vision of the Haves versus the Have Nots. However complex the ramifications of this ideology, and however clever the means by which Obama has camouflaged it, that is what it has amounted to.”

Talent, hard work, ingenuity, risk-taking, etc. are not relevant in Obama's third-grade level of economic understanding. As expressed by Tom Sowell, "[w]hether at home or abroad, Obama's ideology is an ideology of envy, resentment and payback."

Obama is doing what he believes right and just. Sophomoric understanding, however, does not explain why the inequities of the world are assumed to be Obama's responsibility. How does one go from President of the US to a modern-day Don Quixote for the entire world?

Some psychologists and psychiatrists have answered this question in terms of Obama's ego and pathological narcissism. The psychological conditions that motivate a person are less clear than the ensuing actions. They also can be much more frightening. To understand a person, it is sometimes necessary to speculate on such motivations.

Obama's narcissistic disorder apparently enables him to see himself as the President of The World, the Great Rectifier and the One We Have Been Waiting For. Some supporters speak of Obama in messianic terms, as he himself has arrogantly done. This behavior pattern could be indicative of severe delusion, even megalomania.

The original Don Quixote's tilting at windmills was charming and harmless. This knight of old was noble and honorable. He possessed character and integrity. While a bit crazed, his motives were pure. It was difficult not to admire him.

None of that holds true for President Quixote. The only thing these two delusional people have in common is a fascination with windmills. The old knight imagined them as dragons to be slain, the modern one as solutions to the world's problems. Which belief is more rational is left to the reader to decide.

Obama's faults are neither charming nor harmless. He is in a position of extreme power, capable of doing massive damage. His quixotic behavior squanders this nation's resources and destroys its economy. Obama, like his predecessor of old, intends to solve all the injustices of the world. His Quest is to compensate for the sins of the successful.

The downtrodden are his protectorate, just as they were the delusional knight of old. The modern Quixote, however, exploits them for political gain rather than true concern. The successful, fewer in number, are targets unless they can assist him in his goals.

Obama's Superior Intellect

How dangerous this delusional man might be is moot. What seems no longer at issue is Obama's "superior intelligence." Obama's belief system is dominated by the dismissed exploitation theories of Karl Marx and the 60's-style radicals he grew up around. The Reverend Wright preached to him for twenty years about exploitation in terms of Black Liberation Theology. An unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers, was a close friend and arguably author of one of Obama's autobiographies. His personally selected "Czars" are the sorriest collection of Presidential advisors ever, at least in terms of reflecting American values and beliefs.

Many went on the same intellectual voyage that Obama did. Most of us outgrew this nonsense, usually by our mid-twenties. Obama never did. He is still a child, intellectually undeveloped and locked into the ideas from the 60's — both the 1960s and the Marxist 1860s. In that sense he is an intellectual dwarf, frozen in the equivalent of a state of intellectual puberty. His "knowledge" is based on nothing but the discredited ideologies of Socialism.

The claim that Obama is the smartest man to ever hold presidential office is absurd and a reflection on the state of our media who insist on propping up this man-child. Obama's obsession with keeping his college records and personal past secret is prima facie evidence that the claim is untrue. His knowledge base and dismal performance on the world stage is even more damning.

Instead of having a superior intellect, we likely have the most ignorant, ideological, brainwashed dupe this country has ever elected to high office. The man's intellectual development never progressed beyond the stage of all-night freshman bull sessions where all the world's problems were solved (with help from adequate amounts of beer of course).

This intellectual pygmy must be removed from office by whatever possible peaceful means. Impeachment is in order, but will not happen. Thus the 2012 election is critical.

The Democratic Party knows what happened in 2010. They also know that they have an albatross at the top of their ticket. It is likely they will turn on this poseur before the election. If so, this act will be their most significant public service in years.

Obama may not be reelected, but that may not be enough. A country filled with enough fools to elect this modern-day version of a snake oil salesman, this American Idol wannabe, this empty suit, is clearly dumb enough to replace him in kind. H. L. Mencken had it correct: "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses."

The Democratic Party is and should be worried about 2012. No Democrat, save the hapless Jimmy Carter, can be happy about their current situation. Carter is the exception because his lock on "worst President ever" is about to be broken by the current occupant.

Goodbye Los Angeles, Goodbye California, Goodbye the United States

“But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. — Frederic Bastiat, The Law

Centuries before William James coined the phrase, men have sought a "moral equivalent of war," some human endeavor to satisfy the jingoistic lust of man, without the carnage of war.

For some, the modern Olympic Games have served the purpose, with the Cold War rivalry for medals between the United States and the Soviet Union, and, lately, between America and China.

But the Olympic Games, most of which involve individual athletes competing against each other, have never aroused the passions of soccer, where teams serve as surrogates for the tribe or nation.

Perhaps the most intense rivalry today is between Real Madrid and F.C. Barcelona, teams representing Spain's largest cities, with the former a stand-in for nationalism and centralism and "Barca" a surrogate for Catalan separatism. During the Civil War, when Catalonia was a bastion of loyalist resistance, the head of F.C. Barcelona was executed by troops loyal to Gen. Franco.

Early this month, Etgar Keret of The New York Times attended a match between Beitar Jerusalem, which is associated with right-wing Israeli politics, and Bnei Sakhnin, the only Arab-Jewish team in Israel's first division.

Keret volunteered to a loud, visibly anxious Arab he met, "It's only a game," and got this blistering reply: "For you, maybe, because you're a Jew. But for us, soccer is the only place we're equal in this stinking country."

Throughout the game, Israeli and Arab fans shouted ethnic slurs and curses in the other's language to be sure they were understood. As Keret writes, "The bad blood between the two teams has caused many of their matches to end in rock-throwing brawls."

"Soccer is often more deeply felt than religion," says Franklin Foer, author of "How Soccer Explains the World." "I don't see tribalism ever really disappearing. People are almost hardwired to identify as groups. And group identity always runs the risk of being chauvinistic."

This brings us to Saturday’s match in the fabled Rose Bowl, with 93,000 in attendance, between the United States and Mexico.

According to Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times when the U.S. team took the field it was "smothered in boos. Its goalkeeper was bathed in a chanted obscenity. Even its national anthem was filled with the blowing of air horns and bouncing of beach balls."

How did U.S. coach Bob Bradley respond to the reception his team received in America's largest county? "Obviously the support that Mexico has on a

"A home game" for Mexico — in Pasadena?

"It's part of something we had to deal with," said the coach.

"I have never heard more consistent loud cheering for one team here," wrote Plaschke, "from the air horns to the 'Ole' chant with each Mexico pass, all set to the soundtrack of low throbbing that began in the parking lot six hours before the game and continued long into the night."

After the 4-2 win by Mexico, for the first time, the trophy award ceremony was held in the Rose Bowl. When the losing U.S. team was introduced, the stadium rocked again with boos.

"We're not booing the country. We're booing the team," one rooter for Mexico told Plaschke. "There's a big difference."

But why would scores of thousands boo a defeated team after a game?

Why would spectators raise a ruckus during a national anthem, except to manifest contempt for the country whose anthem it was?

U.S. goalkeeper Tim Howard credited several Mexican players with the win, but he was disgusted at how the officials conducted the ceremony awarding the Gold Cup title to Mexico.

They "should be ashamed of themselves," said Howard. "It was a disgrace that the entire post-match ceremony was in Spanish. You can bet your (expletive) that if we were in Mexico City, it wouldn't be all in English."

Indeed, were U.S. fans in a Mexican town to boo, jeer and chant obscenities at a Mexican team before, during and after a match, and blow horns during the Mexican national anthem, they would be lucky to get out of the stadium alive.

What does this event, in which Plaschke estimates 80,000 fans in the Rose Bowl could not control their contempt for the U.S. team and for the U.S. national anthem, tell us?

We have within our country 12-20 million illegal aliens, with Mexico the primary source, and millions of others who may be U.S. citizens but are not truly Americans. As one fan told Plaschke, "I was born in Mexico, and that is where my heart will always be." Plaschke writes:

“Most of these hostile visitors didn't live in another country. Most, in fact, were not visitors at all, many of them being U.S. residents whose lives are here but whose sporting souls remain elsewhere.

Welcome to another unveiling of that social portrait known as a U.S.-Mexico soccer match, streaked as always in deep colors of red, white, blue, green ... and gray.

"I love this country, it has given me everything that I have, and I'm proud to be part of it," said Victor Sanchez, a 37-year-old Monrovia resident wearing a Mexico jersey. "But yet, I didn't have a choice to come here, I was born in Mexico, and that is where my heart will always be."

On a street outside the Rose Bowl before the Gold Cup final, Sanchez was hanging out near a motor home that was hosting 17 folks -- 15 of whom were Mexico fans. Inside, that ratio held, there seemingly being about 80,000 Mexico fans among the announced crowd of 93,420.

This was Staples Center filled with Boston Celtics fans. This was Chavez Ravine filled with Giants jerseys. This was as weird as it was wild and, for a U.S. team that lost, 4-2, it had to be wearisome.”

Perhaps he should go back there, and let someone take his place who wants to become an American.

By 2050, according to Census figures, thanks to illegals crossing over and legalized mass immigration, the number of Hispanics in the U.S.A. will rise from today's 50 million to 135 million.

Say goodbye to Los Angeles. Say goodbye to California.

Bush Gone, Blame It On Palin

“It is the duty of parents to maintain their children decent, to protect them according to the dictates of prudence; and to educate them according to the suggestions of a judicious and zealous regard for their usefulness, their respectability and happiness.” — James Wilson

As it turns out, what Billy Sunday failed to accomplish, some unruly teenagers — with some assistance from the Democratic Party — are close to finishing. That toddlin’ town, Chicago — the home of deep-dish pizza, Al Capone and a sizable number of adolescents in dire need of an extended stay at a juvenile detention center — is facing a new crime wave.

The reports have come fast and furious. Mobs of teenagers have knocked over drug stores. Mobs of teenagers have assaulted passersby. Mobs of teenagers have pillaged retail establishments and plundered the Magnificent Mile as if they were Alaric and his horde of Visigoths and the Windy City was Rome. All this adolescent rage makes me wonder about the efficacy of Bill Clinton’s “midnight basketball.”

According to the Chicago Sun-Times Rahm Emanuel’s Windy City is in the midst of a crime wave. Here are a few examples:

Man wounded while sitting in car in Austin neighborhood; A man was wounded late Monday while sitting in a car in the Austin neighborhood on the West Side. At 9:31 p.m., a 22-year-old man was sitting in a car in the 200 block of North Lockwood Avenue when a person approached on foot and…

Man, 19, fatally shot in Roseland; A man fatally shot early Tuesday in the Far South Side Roseland neighborhood, police said. The man, 19, was shot about 2:40 a.m. while standing with another male on the sidewalk near 107th Street and Michigan Avenue, police News Affairs Officer Hector Alfaro said. He …

Englewood man killed, over 20 people hurt in weekend shootings; A 55-year-old Englewood man was killed and more than 20 people were injured in shootings throughout the city late Friday into Sunday. Kent Richardson died after being shot in the face and under the arm in the 6200 block of South Laflin around 10:40 p.m. …

5 police injured, 13 in custody after Little Village alley fight; Five Chicago Police officers were injured early Sunday during a brawl while responding to a complaint of loud music on the Southwest Side, police said. Thirteen people, including two women, were taken into custody after the fight in the 2800 block of West 25th, police …

1 dead, 14 wounded in shootings overnight; A 55-year-old man was killed and at least 14 others were wounded in shootings throughout the city between late Saturday and Sunday morning, including five men wounded in separate shootings during a violent 20-minute period on the South Side. The shooting started at 10:30 p.m. …

7-year-old girl shot in leg, man wounded on South Side; A 7-year-old girl was shot in the leg when gunshots rang out Saturday following an argument in the Back of the Yards neighborhood. Police are questioning a “person of interest” in the shooting, which took place in the 5700 block of South Hoyne Avenue and …

9 hurt, 1 critically, in overnight shootings; At least nine people were injured, one critically, in various shootings across the city late Friday and early Saturday. No one is in custody for any of the shootings. A 21-year-old man is in critical condition after being shot in the stomach just after midnight …

I could go on and on, but by now you no doubt have a picture of what is happening in the town Obama and Oprah think is so great. No wonder the International Olympic Committee ignored their pleas for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games.

Fret not, Chicago-land citizens. Your top cop, Police Supervisor Garry McCarthy, is on the case. McCarthy, who previously served as Police Chief in that Paris-on-the-Passaic, Newark, N.J., has identified the criminal mastermind behind the growing crime wave enveloping Chicago: Governor Sarah Palin.

Actually, according to McCarthy, Palin is the commander of a conspiracy comprised of:

• Palin: “(Palin) was caribou-hunting and talking about the right to bear arms. Why wasn’t she at the crime scene with me?”
• Firearm makers: “Who’s paying the price for gun manufacturers being rich and living in gated communities?”
• And government-sponsored racism: “— the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers — that are killing black and brown children.” (Hey, I thought ATF was behind that one)

Among those who didn’t make McCarthy’s list of suspects would be the actual perpetrators. Granted, in the legendary, Democratic machine-controlled political sewer that is Chicago, blaming crime on criminals is about as functional as blaming the Cubs’ World Series drought on the lights at Wrigley Field. McCarthy could blame the parents; but parents who unleash little monsters like those tearing through Chicago are as likely to accept responsibility for their progenies’ misbehavior as they are to vote for a conservative (who would likely remind them of their dereliction of parental duty). And it is possible that their good-for-nothing 15-year-old brats really did find new watches and Air Jordans™ on the side of the road. “Honest, Mom!”

According to Investor’s Business Daily in its editorial; Top Chicago Cop Targets Palin:

“Chicago's new police superintendent blames Alaska's ex-governor for inner-city gun violence and crime, and says gun-rights advocates are racist. Disarming victims doesn't prevent crime, sir.

Speaking to the choir, literally, about gun control, Garry McCarthy, former police chief of Newark, N.J., told an audience at St. Sabina Church in the Windy City about leaving a homicide scene in Newark, returning home and flipping on the TV to find an episode of "Sarah Palin's Alaska."

"She was caribou hunting and talking about the right to bear arms," McCarthy said. "Why wasn't she at the crime scene with me?"

We know. We don't see the connection between hunting and gang violence either, but gun-control advocates do.

Sarah Palin was not at that crime scene because she had nothing to do with the crime. As a defender of the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, she is like the vast majority of law-abiding gun-owning Americans who never fire or even point their gun in anger, unless someone's trying to break into their house.

McCarthy rambled on. He equated private gun ownership with what he called "government-sponsored racism" and the right to bear arms with slavery, segregation and Jim Crow laws. "Federal laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers across the country, that are killing our black and brown children," he said.”

I call this sort of Keystone Kops method of avoiding the real culprits in urban societal breakdown “the politics of ease.” It’s easier for a liberal like McCarthy to blame a crime wave on the former Governor of Alaska than it is to force criminals, their accomplices and their enablers to look in the mirror. More important to liberals like McCarthy, it’s easier for the Democrats to gain votes by offering the chance to blame Palin, gun manufacturers and mythological institutional racism than to suddenly develop the introspection which is as common in a place like Chicago (or Newark) as honest politicians and well-behaved teenagers.

Fortunately for the liberal establishment, decades of near-total Democratic domination of Windy City politics has — much like Newark — left Chicagoans either unwilling or unable to discern the true nature of their city’s burdens. However, unlike cesspools like Newark, Chicago boasts some significantly redeeming characteristics, not least of which is the presence of living proof that McCarthy’s charge of racism is void on its face. Surely, McCarthy and his liberal allies don’t expect us to believe that Sarah Palin, firearms manufacturers and fictional bigotry can create chaos-from-afar in the same place that boasts the residency of the most powerful individual in the free world. I find it highly unlikely that Oprah Winfrey would allow it.

Barring intervention from Oprah or some other powerful product of Illinois who may choose to assist Chicago in escaping the grip of increasingly violent crime, the Windy City faces a grim future. If the liberal who has been ill-advisedly placed in charge of local law enforcement is more interested in explaining away antisocial behavior with anti-bill of rights demagoguery, tangential blame-shifting and pointing fingers at a woman who lives more than 3,000 miles away, then Chicago is headed down the highway to either hell or Newark.

McCarthy is a student of neither history nor facts. It was laws that banned gun ownership in major urban centers such as Chicago and the District of Columbia that placed black, brown and, for that matter, white children in danger by forcibly disarming them in the face of an onslaught by thugs. That is, until Supreme Court decisions in Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old African-American Army veteran who lives in a high-crime area of Chicago, thought the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution he fought to protect gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he once protected his country. It is obvious Superintendent McCarthy won’t do the job. But then, of course, he always has Sarah Palin to blame.

Hillary, Lady Gaga and the LBTG

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” — Thomas Jefferson

With all of our problems in the world what is our State Department doing? Hillary Clinton and her State Department are sponsoring Gay pride parades in Rome, right under the Pope’s nose. Take note you left-wing Catholics who love Obama so much.

CNSNews.com reports Hillary’s State Dept. ‘Instrumental in Sealing Deal’ For Lady Gaga’s Gay Pride Gig in Rome:

“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that the State Department played an instrumental role in “sealing the deal” for pop-rock star Lady Gaga to perform at a gay pride rally in Rome, Italy.

Clinton specifically pointed to a letter that David Thorne, the U.S. ambassador to Italy, sent to Lady Gaga urging her to participate in the event.

“And then there is the work that our embassy team in Rome has been doing,” Clinton said. “Two weeks ago they played an instrumental role in bringing Lady Gaga to Italy for a Euro Pride concert.

“Now as many of you know Lady Gaga is Italian American and a strong supporter of LGBT rights,” said Clinton. “And the organizers of the Euro Pride event desperately wanted her to perform and a letter to her from Ambassador Thorne was instrumental in sealing the deal.”

Mrs. Clinton made the remarks at the State Department at a celebration of LGBT Pride Month co-hosted by the department and Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), a group that, according to its website, “represents lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) personnel and their families in the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Foreign Commercial Service, Foreign Agricultural Service, and other foreign affairs agencies and offices in the U.S. Government.”

On June 11, Lady Gaga performed at a rally at the ancient Circus Maximus in Rome, Italy. The rally followed a gay pride march through the city of Rome.

Gaga sparked controversy earlier this year when she released a video of her song “Judas” on Easter Sunday. The video depicted Gaga as a Mary Magdalene figure--in a motorcycle gang—who becomes enamored with Judas. “The video opens with a motorcycle gang cruising down a freeway, as Gaga clutches onto a Jesus-like figure who wears a golden crown of thorns,” said a Billboard.com description of the video.

Oh, I'm in love with Judas, Judas,” says the song. “In the most Biblical sense I am beyond repentance. Fame hooker, prostitute wench, vomits her mind.”

This is almost too much for me to comment on. Here we have our Secretary of State promoting a homosexual life style in a foreign country. Perhaps she should take her Gay pride crap to Malaysia or Saudi Arabia where the population is predominantly Muslim and she can take Lady Gaga with her. I’m sure the imams and mullahs would just love to see the LBTG gang marching down their streets ala San Francisco.

If a bunch of Italian gays and lesbians want to parade down the Via del Fori Imperiali from the Vittorio Emanuele II Monument to the Coliseum in their outlandish costumes it’s the business of the Italians, not our State Department.

Rome and the Vatican is the seat of the Roman Catholic Church, a church that views homosexuality as an affront to God. What business is it of our State Department to sponsor a blasphemous, vulgar pop star to insult millions of Christians and Catholics around the world? Just because Hillary Clinton has no moral compass does not mean that millions of Americans believe as she does. This is just another example of how a very small special interest group is driving the agenda of the progressive left.

Pavlov and His Dogs

“It is not accidental that all phenomena of human life are dominated by the search for daily bread - the oldest link connecting all living things, man included, with the surrounding nature.” — Ivan Pavlov

In the early twentieth century, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, a Russian scientist, became renowned for his landmark research of the digestive system in mammals.

While Ivan Pavlov worked to unveil the secrets of the digestive system, he also studied what signals triggered related phenomena, such as the secretion of saliva. Pavlov became interested in studying reflexes when he saw that the dogs drooled without the proper stimulus... For example, he struck a bell when the dogs were fed. If the bell was sounded in close association with their meal, the dogs learnt to associate the sound of the bell with food. After a while, at the mere sound of the bell, they responded by drooling.

I have two German shepherds that are very smart. They know where the treats are. We keep our dog treats in two places. The milk bones are in a large cookie jar and the other bags of treats are in the pantry. All we need do is jiggle the lid of the cookie jar or place our hand on the pantry door where the treats are stored and both dogs are at your feet in the sit position. That is what Pavlov was talking about.

Pavlov’s theory (which really isn’t a theory anymore) can also be applied to the relationship between the mainstream media and the voters.

"Pavlov's dogs" has become a metaphor for the concept of conditioned reflexes, or the situation where animals (and humans) learn to connect a stimulus to a reflex. Pavlov's dogs drooled at the sound of a bell. Humans also experience conditioned reflexes. Let's say your female boss frequently comes by your desk and berates you. After a few weeks, just the clacking sound of a woman's high heels in the hall outside your office is enough to induce a rapid heart rate. It's an involuntary reaction.

I believe that the principle of conditioned reflexes can explain many of the tactics of the political left. The elite of both political parties, along with the mainstream media, are convinced that the repeated application of certain words, phrases, and symbols (stimuli) will elicit an involuntary response (reflex) in the electorate, who will thus automatically vote in a predetermined approved manner. To the left, we are all Pavlov's Voters.

For example, last week saw the rollout of the presidential campaign of a heretofore obscure former Governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman. I listened to analysis of his speech by the mainstream media. Without fail, every one of them highlighted the fact that Governor Huntsman had launched his campaign in the exact same spot where Ronald Reagan stood in 1980 to kick off his bid for the White House.

Obviously the left considers this bit of stagecraft of the utmost importance. But why? As far as I know, Governor Huntsman was not a particular Reagan enthusiast before last week. And his speech was the polar opposite of Reagan's speech at that site in 1980, as Rush Limbaugh highlighted on his show. Then it struck me.

The left believes that the mere mention of Reagan's name (the stimulus) will elicit a conditioned response in conservative voters. It goes like this:

Political stimulus: Politician says "Reagan" several times while speaking in the same place Reagan spoke.

Political conditioned reflex: Conservatives vote for said politician.

Ding, ding, ding!  This is how the left views the great unwashed electorate in America.  We're mere Pavlovian mammals, bereft of reason and higher brain function, helplessly responding to the political stimuli placed before us.  For Democrats, staying in power is a cinch -- merely say the right words or show the right images, and voters will automatically respond.

I can't blame the left for using Pavlovian political tactics.  Let's face it: playing to voters' conditioned reflexes has worked well for decades.  In fact, as soon as a Democrat politician's poll numbers dip, he can be counted on to ring one of the following bells:

My opponent is in favor of dirty air and water.

My opponent wants to take away a woman's right to choose.

My opponent wants to cut Social Security.

It always worked so well. But since the rise of the Tea Party, a large swathe of the electorate is rejecting the inevitability of the political stimulus/conditioned reflex. Liberals keep ringing the same old bells, but conservatives just aren't responding the proper way. Here are two recent scenarios illustrating the failure of Pavlovian politics.

Ding, ding, ding!

Political stimulus: Nancy Pelosi led the Congressional Black Caucus through thousands of Tea Party protesters to the Capitol to pass the hated health care bill.

Predicted conditioned reflex: Angry white protesters would hurl racial epithets at black Congress members, all conveniently captured on video to be played over and over on the nightly news.

Actual response: Angry protesters merely yelled, "Kill the Bill!" (Although one well-hydrated protester accidentally sprayed a congressman with saliva.)

Ding, ding, ding!

Political stimulus: Public employee unions told voters in Wisconsin that should Governor Walker's anti-collective bargaining legislation stand, teachers, firefighters, and policemen will lose their jobs.

Predicted conditioned reflex: Voters, scared to death of fire, crime, and dumb kids, would overwhelmingly vote out an incumbent conservative judge and the legislation would be declared unconstitutional in the State Supreme Court.

Actual response: The conservative judge was easily reelected to the court, and the legislation was upheld.

It's amazing to watch the left as predictable Pavlovian voters become desensitized to their stimuli. As their usual political tactics remain ineffective in moving the polls, their rhetoric and demagoguery is becoming shrill and apocalyptic. Listen to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the new chairman of the Democrat National Committee:

“The Republicans have a plan to end Medicare as we know it. What they would do is they would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them, 'You know what? You're on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the health-care insurance market. We're going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions."

Just in case Ms. Schultz' point was too subtle for Pavlov's Voters, a liberal group created an ad that shows a Congressman Paul Ryan lookalike literally throwing Granny, wheelchair and all, over a cliff. Talk about over-the-top desperation! It's as if Pavlov, expecting his dogs to drool and not finding one reflexive drop, reacts by continually ringing the bell at an ear-splitting decibel level.

The good news in the Democrats' ever-increasing rhetoric is that they are possibly inadvertently desensitizing their own voters. According to Pavlov's research:

“An important principle in conditioned learning is that an established conditioned response (salivating in the case of the dogs) decreases in intensity if the conditioned stimulus (bell) is repeatedly presented without the unconditioned stimulus (food). This process is called extinction.”

So keep it up, Democrat politicians! Keep ringing those bells, media! According to science, Pavlov's Voters just may be facing extinction.

Will Looters Target You

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." — Patrick Henry.

With increasing unemployment and a slumping economy more and more home invasions and robberies are taking place across the nation. most of these home robberies are by stealth, but the number of violent home invasions is increasing.

Security Concepts an ADT sponsored alarm company reports:

“Home invasion is one of the most terrifying and horrific crimes that a family or individual can experience. It can often leave people traumatized for long periods after the crime occurs and can also result in a complete loss of personal sense of security. Many are left devastated by home invasions and are unable to feel safe in their own homes afterwards. It would appear that one of the main targets for this terrible and dangerous crime is people who are elderly or physically disabled. Criminals who commit home invasions often target the weak and unprepared. They often use a weapon such as a knife or other cutting instruments to intimidate or even assault their victims.

Home Invasion statistics report that the crime is on the rise. People typically think of a home invasion as a robbery or a burglary. While in most cases this is the intended crime to be committed, in several cases home invasions occurs with the intent to commit a rape, an assault or even a murder. Money and expensive belongings may be the motivation behind most break-ins, but sometimes it is a secondary intention of criminals. Because the reasons, methods and intentions of home invasions are so varied it can be difficult to define reliable statistics on the crime. According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, 38% of assaults and 60% of rapes occur in the home during an invasion.

There are some startling statistics and facts about home invasion in the United States. It is estimated that in the U.S. at least one property related crime occurs every three seconds. In the United States there were over 3,600,000 each year between 1994 and 2005. Statistics Canada reported over 289,200 per year in the last five years. Statistically there are over 8000 reported home invasions each and every day across North America. These are just the facts for the crimes which are actually defined as home invasions. There are many burglaries and thefts which occur under different circumstances which do not fall directly into that category of a home invasion for one reason or another.

Typically, criminals convicted of home invasions or property related offences indicate that they see residential homes as viable alternatives to robbing a bank or a convenience store. The reason for this is because of more and more businesses using high tech security systems on their business properties. It is becoming harder and harder for criminals to pull off robberies of business properties, leading them to target private residences instead.9 out of 10 convicted criminals who have committed home invasions have said that they would not attempt to break into a home with a home security system installed. Violent crime is on the rise in North America, and it is estimated that 1 out of every 5 homes are just as likely to experience a robbery as they are to have a fire or carbon monoxide poisoning. Having a home security system installed makes your home three times less likely to be targeted by burglars.”

My purpose here is not to sell home alarm systems although I have one installed in my house. The neighborhood I live in has a Neighborhood Watch and several years ago at one of our meetings with our liaison deputy with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department we were given some tips to protect our homes from criminals. So with the security of our property and lives in mind I have compiled a list of security tips from the Riverside County Sheriff and other security sites I perused.

According to the sheriff most criminals will “case” your neighborhood during daylight hours and then return at night to do their mischief this why a neighborhood watch is important. You and you neighbors should note any unfamiliar persons walking or driving slowly through your neighborhood and make a mental note of them. If you see them more than once a call to the police is in order.

Lights are another good security measure. You should light both your front and rear yard with bright lights. If you use those motion sensitive lights make sure the bulbs are not burned out and the sensors are working properly. Criminals like to work in the dark.

Make sure your neighbors look like better targets than you do. Criminals are creatures of opportunity and will, in general, pick the targets that offer the most potential reward in exchange for the least potential risk. I know this sound selfish but the meaning here is not to make your home the showcase of the block, just blend in with your neighbors.

Also, look at your house as if you were a thief. Do you have a big-screen TV, a gun case or other valuables in plain view through your windows? If so, move the items so they aren’t easily visible.

If you have an alarm system, make sure you have signs advertising the fact and use your alarm. It won’t stop a truly determined home invader, but it will give you a few seconds’ advanced warning. If you don’t have an alarm, consider getting one or at least getting alarm stickers.

While you’re looking at your house through the eyes of a thief, do you see any places where he could hide — either because of bushes or because of shadows? One of the most basic things you should do is to add lighting with motion sensors on the approaches to your house. Also, consider clearing out the bushes that provide concealment or replacing them with roses or other thorny bushes.

The next thing is to look at your doors. Do they look secure? Is the bolt lock a high-end one or the $12 special from Home Depot that lock-pickers use for practice when they first start picking locks?

How about your windows? Fragile antique windows may look great architecturally, but they are also very inviting to someone who wants to break in. If replacing old windows isn’t an option, install some inexpensive alarms, back up old locks with a piece of wood or PVC cut to size to prevent someone from opening the window from the outside and apply security film.

Perhaps most important, look at your house and the other houses in your area and see which you would try to rob first. Which would be last on your list? Is your house closer to the top of the list or the bottom of the list? You may be able to get away with having valuables visible through your windows if you have Rottweilers, German shepherds, pit bulls or other guard-type dogs in the house or in the front yard. I know that when a person approached our house my two German shepherds let us and him know. Also, if during the daylight hours a solicitor or deliver person comes to the door the shepherds are very visible and if the person has malevolent intents he will soon know the dogs are there.

If you find yourself in an urban-survival situation, you not only want to look like a bad target from the outside, you probably want to make sure you don’t look like a target to people who are inside your house.

You can accomplish this by separating and hiding as much of your survival provisions as possible so that, if need be, you can actually let people into your house to show them you don’t have much food or supplies worth stealing. This obviously isn’t an ideal scenario, but it is a realistic one when you’re dealing with hungry friends.

Historically, almost no urban-survival situation has been a “Mad Max”-type scenario. Instead, they are long-term, extremely fluid scenarios in which people are dying of starvation and struggling to get by in close proximity to healthy people who have jobs and food.

When most people think of survival, they think of a dramatic, instant, across-the-board breakdown in civilization in which people are eating one another within three to four days. Again, history proves this just doesn’t happen. One of the biggest reasons is because the majority of people will simply act like zombies and do nothing, unless they’re told to do something by an authority figure. They don’t know how to make decisions, they don’t know how to take initiative, and they sure as heck don’t know how to spend their time and resources in a way that improves their chances of surviving.

There’s no doubt that a complete breakdown is possible, but this melting pot of people in completely different phases of desperation living near each other is probable and requires a completely different approach.

In these in-between scenarios, you can reduce your risk of becoming a target by simply hiding the fact that you have supplies to steal.

This will be much harder to do with generators, solar panels, deep-cycle battery arrays and other large items, but the principle of hiding everything you can holds true.

Survival In The Country

If you have chickens, you might need to have a plan to move them inside your house if things get unstable. Again, your options are to hide them, increase deterrents or have a 24/7 watch.

If you need to protect a garden, there are a few options; but none of them are really easy. One would be adding a skylight to your garage or attic and switching over to a hydroponic or aeroponic garden.

Another would be surrounding your garden with weeds to disguise it.

A third strategy is to make sure you don’t plant things that will scream: “Food!” As an example, carrots blend in with green weeds because the orange is underground, but tomatoes stick out because the red is aboveground and visible from a considerable distance.

Keep in mind that it’s very difficult to grow enough food to provide all of the calories you need if you’re gardening part-time.

Considering the number of calories you’ll need and the amount of time it takes to maintain and protect the garden, combined with the potential shortage of water, fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, it’s a 50/50 bet at best whether you will get enough food to survive or just end up wasting a lot of time trying. Add in vitamin, mineral and fiber requirements and you start to see how big of a challenge this really is.

If you already live off your own garden, this doesn’t apply. But if you don’t have a garden or if you are just a hobby gardener and expect to be able to flip a switch and start growing everything you need to survive while adjusting to civilization breaking down and doing something to earn money at the same time, you might want to rethink your plan.

A better approach may be to switch to medicinal herbs or native edible plants that are low-maintenance. Plant native vegetables that grow easily and have low water requirements. A bonus is that they blend in and don’t look like food to passers-by.

This brings up an important point. Even if you have chickens, a garden and a rural location, you still need to have a good supply of food in the event of a breakdown in civil order.

Even without having to defend against looters and thieves, chickens get sick and predators get hungry. Bugs come, hail happens and, sometimes, gardens just don’t grow the way you expect them to or that they have in seasons past.

U.S. Houses Aren’t Made To Withstand A Determined Attack

Determined, focused attackers aren’t going to mess around with your doors and windows. If they want you badly enough, they’ll launch Molotov cocktails with a water balloon launcher over your neighbors’ house and smoke you out.

If they want your stuff, all they have to do is drive a truck through one of your exterior walls and use smoke, gas grenades or a mix of household chlorine and ammonia to take care of you.

If a fight comes to your front door in a survival situation and you have to defend yourself against a lethal-force attack, you’re setting yourself up to likely spend time in jail or looking out for people who want revenge.

I’m not suggesting you let people steal from you. I’m saying you should try to do whatever you can to keep from being a target thieves think is worth hitting.

What about weapons? Guns are a good means of personal defense, especially a good pump shotgun. It’s hard to miss with a shotgun at close range. The problem with guns is threefold. One, where they are kept, two, are they loaded and three, does your state have a “Castle” law?

If it takes more than a few seconds to reach your gun you probably won’t need it — you will be dead. If the gun, for safety sake, is not loaded you will not need it as you will also be dead. And if you have a loaded gun near and use it and your state does not have a castle law you may end up in prison.

So in summary, unless you are a survivalist, your best means of protections against home invasion are: 1) a neighborhood watch with committed and involved neighbors, 2) plenty of lights, 3) well trained dogs, 4) good locks and secure windows, 5) don’t advertise your prosperity, and 6) an alarm system.