One of the great "holes" in American revisionist history is the lack of recognition for the Know Nothing Party, and its significance before the Civil War.

Despite its comedic-sounding name, the party had a profound, lasting effect on American politics with its true agenda-- anti-immigration. 

Basically, the Know Nothings were similar to the Freemasons; a near-secret 'society' that thwarted political opponents' efforts to learn of its actual leaders, or any designs of the movement.

Thus, whenever queried, "supposed" members would respond..."I know nothing," although there was never a political organization bearing that actual moniker.

The Know Nothings actually bore the patriotic name, the "American Party." Its efforts concentrated on electing only native-born Americans to office, and the party "platform" was a 25-year residence qualification for citizenship.

The American (Know-Nothing) Party would be a liberal's worst nightmare. They were hell-bent to prevent immigrants from being elected to political office, and sought to deny them jobs, arguing that the nation's business owners were far better off  to employ "true" Americans.

Millliard Fillmore (a Whig) after serving in the Whitehouse from 1851 to 1853, later "defected" to the American Party in 1856-- their high point--when the party ran him as their candidate for President. While Fillmore finished last, he received almost 1,000,000 votes out of the approximately four million votes cast in the election.

But resulting from the party's neutral stance on slavery, the Know-Nothings had declined precipitously by 1860, when members joined the Republican Party, and most importantly, comprised a large, critical voting bloc that elected Abraham Lincoln.

And today, we are witnessing a defacto revival of the party - it can be found in our nations' public schools-- a "duh generation" of students who literally know nothing.

In a country that supposedly leads the world, America's educational system more resembles that of a third world nation, where students cannot read with comprehension, write with coherency, nor perform simple arithmetic calculations.

Perhaps the fault lies with Texas Instruments; after all, it was they who invented the handheld calculator.

The push for classroom calculators was the origin of America's "educational malignancy." Once teachers decided to permit them in class, it was the doorway for the demise of not only arithmetic, but phonics, spelling, reading skills, and in the present day- allowing the distraction of cellphones.

Remember the dedication of the "old time" teachers? They would drill-baby-drill each individual student, with endless sessions of flash cards, writing exercises, and phonics, teaching dipthongs, consonants, vowels, hominyms, synonyms, etc.-- hard work indeed.

But it was satisfying, knowing that these teachers were giving each of their students a future. 

But in the early 70's-- like the decline in morals brought on by "the pill"-- America experienced a similar decline in "teaching morals," as classroom instructors betrayed their students' futures, and took the easy way out-- no more flashcards; no more phonics; no more endless writing exercises on "how to make your loops," or even hold your pencil properly.

Instead, it was calculators for math answers, "word association" instead of phonics, and forgoing rote memorization in favor of  "discussion," which promoted a "deeper understanding" of subjects.

While it would be unfair to paint them all with the same brush, many teachers now are of the mind..."put in your time, collect your paycheck, and hold on for the "promised land"--that fat teacher's union pension.

Meanwhile, our pubilc schools continue to turn out generations of unprepared students, who -- after placing their faith in their instructors to teach them what is "true"-- once graduated, they face a future that is at best, uncertain.

What if our military trained their recruits like today's teachers? How long would soldiers last on the battlefield if they had not been drilled endlessly with marksmanship, discipline, and self defense?

But today's teachers are sending out legions of know-nothing students, who are destined to fail on life's battlefields, that entail fierce competition in order to have the ability to support oneself with gainful employment.

To put it bluntly, many of  of America's students-- having been "systematically" dumbed down -- are unprepared, unqualified, and destined for a life of mediocrity; or worse, the unemployment line, and perhaps, incarceration.

But things are unlikely to change anytime soon; the leftists comprising the NEA (National Education Assoc.) have their own agenda.

They'll continue to teach the "conventional way"...just dumb down the children, and they'll grow up to be know nothings, unable to question what's really going on around them, particularly in the place where it matters most to our nation's future--- being part of an intelligent electorate .

Hence, the results of our leftist classrooms have been predictable:

Many high school students now "favor" socialism, lacking the critical knowledge of it's threat to what actually enables them to come to school with their designer jeans, and their flashy I-pods and camera-phones-- free market capitalism

To the delight of the left, the NEA professes not science, but global warming; they teach not history, but revisionist thinking, as they instill not love of country, but to be vocally critical of our nation's storied past. 

American history is the engine of patriotism; but why bother teaching it when self esteem-- what kids are taught instead--will enable them to "progress" into uneducated, hard-core liberals, and continue dividing the U.S. along partisan age lines: those that went to school when you actually received an education, and those now at school who receive indoctrination. 

And worse, what's taking place is a chance for our foreign competitors to continue to make up economic "ground," as we decline in our abilities in math, science, research, innovation, invention-creation, and slowly descend into a third-world-like standard of living. 

How many foreigners skilled in chemistry, engineering, physics, math, etc., must we import to perform our nation's vital functions-- R&D, teaching in universities, and those scientific pursuits required in the  private sector-- before we reach the point of "no return"?

The Roman empire began its rapid decline when citizens refused to fight in the military, and instead, foreign mercenaries were hired. 

And is this any different than what's now taking place, as we hire more and more "mercenary" foreign professionals, to maintain our standard of living within our own American empire?

Invariably, one of two things will happen: either the entire system experiences total bottom-up reform, or we continue to import more and more foreigners to fill vital professional positions, jeopardizing our status and living standard as the world's leading nation.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

All right class! Sit up...pay attention; we're about to pose a thought-provoking historical question:

What if President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) had lived 6 more months? Would he have dropped the BOMB? And would we have witnessed the end of World War 2 by August, 1945? 

And could the war have evolved into a worse conflagration? Raise your hand if you know.

After Roosevelt's disastrous giveaway at Yalta in early 1945 to Josef Stalin, the Red Army had a "green light opportunity." With eastern Europe in hand, Stalin directed them to head south, and by August 1945 the Red Army was massing on the border of Iran.

So what would Roosevelt have done? In all probability-- nothing.

Stalin would have then proceeded straight to Tehran, and installed a new Tudeh (Communist) regime in no time.

But most fortunately, it was Harry Truman at the helm, who would literally terrify Stalin out of Iran-- purely on a bluff. 

Truman-- immediately upon being sworn-in-- recognized Stalin's true intention: Communist expansion, not only into eastern Europe, but also into the oil-rich Mideast.

But Stalin believed that America was ready to follow the lead of the late, liberal, trusting FDR, calculating that Truman would not at all want to risk extending the war onto a new front (Mideast). Stalin would be proven wrong-- very wrong!

Truman immediately had made up his mind; he would send Ambassador Walter Bedell Smith to personally meet with Stalin in the Kremlin, to deliver the most "strongly worded" message in presidential history.

But for the sake of historical context, a little backround on the country formerly known as "Persia." 

In 1908, British colonials discovered oil in Persia, and formed the Anglo-Persian Oil Company-- later evolving into British Petroleum.

After World War I, Persia's ruler, Ahmad Shah, proved to be grossly incompetent, and in 1921, the pro- British "Reza Khan Merpanji" (1877-1944) was put on the throne, who then changed his name to "Pahlavi" (in deference to an ancient Persian language translation).

But the "Reza Khan move" eventually backfired on the British.

Ol' Reezy turned out to be a political weathervane, and in betrayal, he decided to entreat Adolf Hitler in Germany, even going so far as to decree that Persia would henceforth be known as "Iran," meaning..."Land of Aryans".

Hitler felt genuinely complimented that the country had re-named itself as home of the "Master Race", and recognizing Iran's strategic importance, a German-Persian alliance was formed in 1939 after the start of the war.

The Allies, greatly alarmed, invaded Tehran in August 1941 and deposed the pro-Nazi Reza Khan, installing his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1917-1980) as the next leader.

The Russians stayed in Iran until Autumn, l942 when they were forced to withdraw and reinforce their army against Hitler's invasion into Stalingrad. 

To this day, historians question Hitler's stubborn refusal to allow his huge Stalingrad force to surrender. But if one examines the world map in mid-1942, it reveals expansionist Nazi armies; one moving east toward the Suez under Rommel, and a huge, 600,000 man force moving south on Stalingrad under von Paulus.

If Hitler had struck at Stalingrad only 3 months earlier, he would have taken the city, moved south to hook up with the Iranians, and could have met Rommel closing in from the west--possibly winning the war as early as mid 1943.

Stalin (like Hitler) understood Iran's strategic importance, so upon meeting with FDR and Churchill at the Tehran Conference at the end of 1943, Stalin conned the trusting Roosevelt, and agreed..."In exchange for continued U.S. aid, I will make no post-war move on Iran." 

This was one of many of Stalin's big lies, which set the stage for Roosevelt's disastrous giveaway at Yalta.

Four months after Roosevelt's death, Stalin dispatched a Red Army column to march from Soviet Azerbaijan across the border to Iran, with orders to seize the capital, Tehran. 

Now enter the firebrand, no-nonsense persona of Harry Truman, who--via his ambassador-- then delivered his fateful "ultimatum" to Stalin, which in so many words had said:

"Dear Mr. Stalin; we think you're just a bit out of bounds, and have violated your agreement at Tehran. Thus, if you recall the 2 big bombs we recently dropped on Japan, if your army doesn't withdraw from the Iranian border within 48 hours, I will immediately dispatch ANOTHER atomic bomb mission from our bases in Libya, and drop the next one right on their fur-capped Soviet heads!" 

Stalin complied--and rather quickly.

But liberal, revisionist historians have downplayed Truman; so you hear little of the heroic stand he took against Stalin at the end of hostilities in 1945, when the U.S. actually had no THIRD atomic bomb.

But what if Truman had not bluffed Stalin? The entire Mideast map of post-World War II might have gone all Communist, and to this very day, the Russians might be the ones we would be paying for imported oil, instead of OPEC.

Indeed, history has completely ignored Truman's sheer cunning;

The U.S. was at least 6 months away from assembling a third atomic bomb. But the media despised the blunt-talking, monotone-voiced Missourian, being the reason why it took so long for Truman to take his rightful place in history as perhaps the boldest and most intuitive president of the 20th century.

And on the flip side of fate, what if FDR dies a month EARLIER, say around March 12, 1945?

It's not the least bit of a stretch that a highly-aggressive George Patton would have told a newly sworn-in Harry Truman..."Mr. President, l can chase these Russkies all the way back to the Ukraine-- just gimme the green light!"

By March '45, given the arrival of the newly-upgraded, General Pershing tanks, replete with a high-velocity 90 mm. main gun, and the legions of B-24 & B-17 bombers-- plus heavily-armed P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt fighters (6 or 8 .50-caliber Browning machine guns)-- the United States was indeed the most powerful war machine the world had ever seen.

And despite the numerical superiority of the Soviet armies on the ground, the Americans could have thrown 10 times as much steel as the backwardly-armed Russians (particularly the Red Air Force), and General Patton, and 8th Air Force General Curtiss LeMay, could have blasted the Soviets all the way back to the Ural Mountains-- and beyond.

And  the Cold War? it would have been nothing but a figment in Winston Churchill's imagination.

But what would FDR have done if he had lived 6 more months? Let's pontificate:

In his trusting liberal heart, FDR may have told his generals..."Oh, let Mr. Stalin go; he can have Iran, it's only fair; the Russians did most of the anti-Nazi fighting; they're our allies; no sense in arguing; bring our boys home; we have no interest in those deserts; we've got plenty of oil back here at home"... etc.

And in a perverse way of reasoning, if not for Roosevelt's April,1945 cerebro-vascular accident (stroke), what then? In retrospect, it may have been one of the most fortunate "accidents" in modern world history.

Beginning with FDR (and his Yalta fiasco) liberal presidents have always trusted our enemies, and have had a compulsion to be "fair" to them. But  fortunately (for America) a conservative president came along every time to sweep up the mess.

In the post-war era, it was the liberal Texan, Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), who decided to escalate a regional overseas conflict into a full blown war (Vietnam), for reasons that are only known to him.

But Johnson not only blundered America into an unnecessary conflict, the LBJ presidency was also germane in debasing our currency.

In the late 60's, Vietnam war costs were spiraling out of control. The Pentagon's war budget was exploding; inflation was bubbling up. The dollar was sinking.

So Mr. Johnson 'cleverly' decided to set a economic precedent that has flourished to this very day-- unleash a new federal reserve strategy-- run the printing presses.

In all its previous wars, the U.S. had enacted either tax hikes, or selling what the old timers refer to as "war bonds". But LBJ had the fed crank out approximately 80 billion in unbacked paper currency, to keep his Great Society ship of state afloat.

So by March of 1971, the wolf was at the Whitehouse door, and with inflation spiraling out of control, Nixon was forced to abandon the gold standard, and the irreparable damage to the U.S. dollar had been done-- never again would it be pegged to the price of gold-- it would float up or down in relation to the other currencies of the world.

Then in 1977, liberal democrat Jimmy Carter (Mr. Human Rights), immediately began his naive destruction of our foreign intelligence agencies, approving the firing of 400 of our best CIA agents(many of them in the Mideast)-- an ongoing disaster that has affected America calamitously to the present day.

Carter intuitively MISUNDERSTOOD the depths of hatred that the radical Islamist movement would have toward America.

Once the surprise revelation became known that the Shah of Iran was in trouble, Carter actually sided WITH Ayatollah Khomeini, because he, like himself, was a "religious man", and would "never violate the human rights of the Iranian people" as the Shah had done with his secret police force (SAVAK).

Carter foolishly failed to realize that Khomeini could actually be more "unfair" than the Shah; and would employ Iran's oil revenues AGAINST the United States.

Carter let the Shah fall in ignominy. And just as history blames Roosevelt for the Cold War, Carter could be considered the defacto founder of radical Islam.

And what about the liberal Bill Clinton, and his baseless trusting of our "ally," the Chinese?

In February of 1996, President Clinton authorized the export of critical booster-rocket and satellite technology to China, undercutting the Justice Department's investigation that it would greatly harm U.S. national security.

A New York Times reporter uncovered the actual plot:

In an admission by Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung, it was revealed a quid-pro-quo had occurred-- Clinton had received nearly $100,000 in Chinese "contributions" for his re-election campaign of 1996.

Currently, China is practicing how to shoot down orbiting satellites; and to our peril, the media has deliberately ignored Clinton's responsibility, having saved China approximately 15-20 years of difficult research-- all for campaign contributions. 

And now that the Chinese are flush with cash (most of it ours) they are going all-out to develop a threat the U.S. hasn't witnessed since Stalin acquired our hydrogen bomb secrets in 1949: the DF- 21 missile, a  'kill weapon' to target & destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

The DF-21 rises above the atmosphere at Mach-10, then plunges rapidly with "smart bomb" guidance capability to strike a large moving target at sea-- thereby rendering the U.S. naval carrier umbrella almost useless.

Imagine all American carriers-- going the way of the World War II battleships-- becoming obsolete almost overnight; all through the courtesy of Mr. William Jefferson Clinton.

Clinton's reckless actions with China may now have now greased the skids for a possible future war, but you'll never hear about it in the pro-liberal media, who-- ever since the days of FDR-- have covered up the sinful mistakes of democrats, and the reason why the U.S. military is as necessary now as it was in 1941, or at any other time in America's storied history.

But despite all the negative slant of the media, the United States has been an honorable country, and has never kept territory, or plundered any land we've conquered.

The tension is palpable.

You can feel the suspense...the foreboding. Were fast-approaching the 11th hour-- (play "Dragnet" music) DAHN, ta- dun- dunt...dahn- ta-dundun- DIR-R-R-R (music fades).

So what's all the drama about? Of course; it's those dreaded, fast-rising sea levels, ominously licking away at land masses everywhere.

Time is running out!

Does anyone remember the fallout shelter-building mania that swept America a generation (or two) ago? There was utter paranoia that the Russians would, at any time, launch simultaneous thermonuclear attacks, and concerned schoolchildren were taught, "if you see a blinding flash, duck 'n cover" (your head).

Recently, a report issued from a UN climate change conference in Copenhagen stated a similar grim warning: Given the rapid melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, we should prepare for the worst-- a possible 20 foot rise in sea levels during the 21st century, triggered by global warming.

So now, we have "major risk" that many coastal areas will be inundated by the end of the century, because polar ice sheets have been (quote)... "melting much faster than previously estimated"...and..."low-lying areas in Bangladesh, the Maldives, Florida, plus certain areas in Europe, all face catastrophic flooding by the year 2100."

This of course begs the obvious question: in all recorded history, has there ever existed a NON-catastrophic flood? After all, a flood is a flood; and no one-- save Noah-- is usually prepared.

The UN conference report also stated that Britain, in particular, remains "imperiled". (Quote)..."Large areas of the Thames Estuary are likely to disappear by 2100; and cities including London, Hull and Portsmouth will need new flood defenses."

New flood defenses?

Well allright then; no problem. It's actually just what the worldwide economy needs-- a monumental, shovel-ready, stimulus package. Dig, baby dig!

So why not take a cue from the Dutch, and initiate a massive, comprehensive, dike construction project?

Yup; we'll show those darn, stubborn rising seas a thing or two.

Imagine...a worldwide dike-building project: the economic stimulus...the jobs created; and above all-- we'd now feel SAFE.

People would again be able to sleep at night, and no longer would children come home from school and preach environmentalism to Ma 'n Pa. We'd could laugh in the face of "climate change" resulting from our use of those horrendous, nasty-nasty fossil fuels-- no more controversy! 

It seems like the Chinese had the right idea from the git-go: Got a problem with invaders? Well, just build a great wall to stymie the rascals. But instead of inland, everyone would be building their own version of the Great Wall adjacent to their coastlines.  

Makes sense doesn't it? Turning a negative into a positive, and thwarting invasion from the seas. The unemployed now have jobs, and the world economy takes off. 

Of course, it would block coastal views, but what's aesthetics compared to saving lives? If your worried about it, just make like a submariner and get a periscope.

It can't miss!  It would spark a revival in the construction-building trades, creating yet more union employment for the jobless masses, and give them a well-deserved chance at a middle class lifestyle.

Indeed, for almost a generation now, the global warmongers have been forecasting the coming of the great coastal boogie man--worldwide rising sea levels.

But now, with the advent of the dyke (er, dike) era, we can return to our good ol' wasteful American selves, and continue to use up 25% of the world's resources, while letting those sea levels rise merrily away-- the fish will love it!

Basically, the crux of the global warming argument has been obfuscated.

An environmental threat has transformed into a "heated" political debate: we must literally "pay" (cap 'n trade) if we dare emit too much "greenhouse gas", which warms the earth, melts the glaciers, and ultimately raises sea levels -- all that calamity-stuff  jazz.

But now, with the onset of the modern dike-building era, we can just greenhouse gas-away to our hearts' content!

Ergo...problem solved, except for the environmentalists, who would be forced into seeking  a new line of work. After all, as the old saying goes...what goes 'round, comes around (etc.)

So let the oceans rise; who cares? They won't have a chance. Man conquers nature, a first in world history!

And no need for shared sacrifice, economic turmoil, or lifestyle disruption brought on by noisy windmills, ugly electric cars, or energy conservation-- thereby negating the Congressional "enviro-crats," who've been trying to jam climate change legislation down our throats, and tax us to oblivion.

Furthermore, America would retain its role as the economic engine of the world. It would be our chance to play locomotive, and chug-chug the world out of recession, as coastal countries all adopt dike-building programs of their own.

So now, with the world's economic and environmental problems in remission (and everyone busy at work again) we all could go on living happily ever after-- or at least until the next big problem comes along.

So let the earth continue to warm, and let those dreaded winter blizzards fade away. The plants and trees will proliferate, our heating bills plummet, the sea levels rise, and the marine mammals (and all those billions of schools of fish) no longer face ocean overcrowding.

And besides all the newly-carefree plant and marine life, the land animals also experience welcome lifestyle changes as never before:

No more sleepy wintertime bears; no more skinny hibernating squirrels; and birds of a feather no longer need migrate south together; all due to the resourcefulness of the Dutch, who as it turns out-- all along-- have been hundreds of years ahead of the rest of the world.

Why didn’t we think of this before?

In today's entertainment section, let's recall one of the classic TV series, "Hogan's Heroes", which starred Bob Crane.

Like M.A.S.H, it was one of those timeless, all time favorites, complete with a cult following, and a cast that worked "just right" performing together on the small screen.

Undoubtedly the favorite bit player of Hogan's Heroes was sergeant Hans Schultz, played by Austrian actor John Banner. Throughout the series' entire 168 episodes (1965-1971), the hapless Sergeant Schultz would repeat a favorite audience laugh line, the immortal, "I know NOTHING."  

And in the cinema section, let's review one of the all time great movie scenes, the second to last in "Godfather I", where Michael Corleone tricks his hated brother-in-law, Carlo, into revealing, "who gave the order" to assassinate his beloved brother, Santino.

In the classic scene, we quote Michael as he confronts Carlo face-to-face..."Only don't tell me that you're innocent...because it insults my intelligence and it makes me very angry!"

Within minutes, after spilling the beans, Carlo meets his fate, and is executed by Clemenza.

And in today's political section, the headlines read... "Pelosi Says "CIA Lied to me...they are guilty of misleading the Congress of the United States"..."I was never told about the fact that waterboarding had been used on a terrorist suspect."

Interesting...Madam Speaker has embarked upon the Sergeant Schlulz defense-- in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary--she steadfastedly claims..."I know nothing."

So now, in a "Carlo-like" gross personal miscalculation, she has made BOTH the CIA and mainstream media... "very angry, and has insulted their intelligence."

Atta-girl, Nance! You've just put yourself onto the fast track to the political gallows.

Throughout her press conference, Pelosi gave a performance worthy of Mr. Porky Pig (a-yeeb-a-deeba), stammering through vague answers which all but revealed that --despite her non-pareil political acumen-- one cannot fool their own subconscious mind, and the truth within her could be veiled no longer.

Bye bye speakership-- hello retirement into private citizenship.

But fancy Nancy probably need not worry about inflation; she has a net worth estimated to be 35 million dollars (much of it in Microsoft stock), plus the vineyards she and he husband own in Napa Valley.

It's been a storied two year stint for our besieged House Speaker, dominating the pulpit as no modern Speaker has ever done before. If Machiavelli himself had been a Republican opposing her, the smart money would have been on Pelosi.

In her acceptance speech to Congress in January of 2007, she HUMBLY stated..."I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership; not partisanship."

But dare she refuse to step down..."Pelosi-gate" here we come.

Indeed, fate has a funny way of getting even; its called "hubris," a word of Greek origin which as defined by Miriam Webster: Exaggerated pride or self-confidence.

Pelosi is the original charter member of the Capitol Hill "4-H club." There has been no one serving in Congress with such hubris; such hypocrisy; such haughtiness...or hostility. 

Hostility? As far as Republicans have been concerned, she's wielded the speaker's gavel like a billy club at a bouncer's banquet, and has never yet missed an occasion to sabotage GOP policies ever since taking that gavel in early 2007. Partisan debate has been non-existent.

Haughtiness? In August of 2008, Pelosi adjourned the House, turned off the lights, and killed the microphones, thwarting  Republican attempts  to schedule an offshore drilling vote, thereby saving the day for her cherished constituency-- California environmentalists.

Hypocrisy? Pelosi holds a large stock position in T.Boone Pickens' alternative energy company; yet another reason why she has blocked every offshore drilling measure with political impunity-- plus owning several California restaurants where she employs a staff of mostly illegal aliens.

From the outset of her speaker's career, Pelosi has been a virtual political fox on steroids; examples abound: 

Yes indeed, fancy Nancy suffers not for lack of political savvy.

Sep 30th, 2008-- the first scheduled vote on the 700 billion TARP bailout: Pelosi and the democrats had been licking their chops at the prospect of getting their hands on this unplanned mega-bonanza, and after long, backroom negotiations, the measure had just enough bi-partisan votes to pass. 

But after getting late word that the TARP bailout was exceedingly unpopular in many blue-dog democratic home districts, Pelosi quickly stepped to the podium and made an extemporaneous, divisive, bitterly partisan speech that --as she had calculated correctly -- would turn the 10 Republican existing "yes" votes into NO-- purposely sabotaging the vote.

Yet despite all her cleverness, the haughtiness, the arrogance, and most of all, her support by the mainstream media, Ms. Pelosi ultimately could not escape her overriding hubris, committing the only “no-no” that could have derailed her-- insulting the intelligence of the press, and making them angry-- very angry! 

During the entire 111th Congress, the Pelosi House dictatorship has led directly to the railroading of the 800 billion stimulus bill, the 3.4 trillion budget, plus a plethora of other democratic sponsored measures.

But in the parlance of the most Reverend  Jeremiah Wright...Pelosi's chickens "have come home to roost."

Congresspeople of all stripes have long been wise to the 'Socratian method' of questioning. Whenever a probing media inquiry comes too close, they simply change the subject, or spout off a standard platitude they may have repeated a million times before. 

Finding an honest congressman these days? You'd have a better chance of discovering the Holy Grail.

Indeed, truth is all but gone on Capitol Hill. There is absolutely no reliaible information coming out of D.C. from any direction.

Spin, baby spin; no matter how hard any may try, they'll never get any semblance of truth from Washington's Congressional con men (er, con persons)...except in the unlikely event they were to commit a "gaffe."

In the warped politics of today, a gaffe is when you unintentionally let down your guard, revealing one's ACTUAL position. It's indeed a sad fact when a congress member cannot reveal the truth, lest it may damage their chances for re-election.

Ironically, the few ethical people who do serve in Congress are punished when they reach Washington. They get no committees, and are locked out of the spoils, like being blackballed by your own fraternity. So around re-election time-- with nothing to tout-- precious few last beyond their first term.

It's a fine way to elect a government isn't it?

Congressional con artists can often serve for life using this fail safe formula: Promise everything...deliver nothing, blaming those "failed policies" of your political opponent as the reason for things not accomplished.

But extricating truth out of someone like Pelosi would require much more than just basic water-boarding.  The media can probe; congressional Republicans can probe, but they'll get nothing other than the clever, evasive doublespeak from "nanny" Pelosi--mother of all liars on Capitol Hill. 

And while were on the topic of truth, let us introduce the new chairman of the Congressional Committee on Dishonesty..."Benedict" Arlen Specter, the "enigmatic" (i.e. lying) chameleon from Pennsylvania, who's taken his Senate re-election campaign lower than a lizard in Death Valley. 

Evil genius Specter-- having slithered under his rock-- will lay low for now and concentrate on re-election, arriving upon a most novel way-- web deceit: misrepresentation on the internet; perpetrating one of the most blatant disguises of the truth in congressional campaign history.

Several years ago, Specter successfully beat a bout with bone marrow cancer, so evidently a light bulb went off in honest Arlen's head, when he decided to solicit funds under the pretext of finding cures for pancreatic cancer, and other forms of the deadly affliction.

But in reality, all donations through his "phishy" website,"Specter for the Cure", actually are funneled directly into the senator's campaign account for re-election.

Specter's political skullduggery would be meritorious of a "silver star on the forehead" from Niccolo Machiavelli himself. The web site's home page speaks only of Senator Specter's earnest, forthright desire "to build a bridge over the valley of death" by reforming  government's medical research, cutting red tape, thus..."untangling the hope for accelerated cures."

Even sneakier is the website's hidden revelation for these so-called cancer donations, surreptitiously listed way down at the bottom of the second page, and in print that would require an electron microscope to see with the human eye. 

Has there ever been a lower low? Can there be anyone more cold blooded on Capitol Hill than the slithering snake in the grass in the persona of  Arlen Specter?

And the biggest irony of all, you can bet even money (or better) that next November, the headlines wil read: "Survivor Specter Lands Another Senate Term!"

But with honesty now gone within the ranks of our lawmakers, can our nation itself survive much longer before we reach critical mass, and completely descend into chaos? This is what happens when generation after generation of congressional liars work to undermine the basic character of our Republic, and flaunt the trust of the people. 

Our Founding Fathers tried to peer into the future, making fair representation in Congress as the cornerstone of our democracy. But they never could have imagined the point we've arrived at today, where ethics in Congress is about as prevalent as a budget surplus, and the members themselves only need answer to their fellow members-- basically amounting to liars overseeing their fellow kindred sprits.

The only set principle these people maintain is to have NO principles. Even Socrates himself would be tied in knots attempting to extract any veracity out of this cadre of scoundrels.

Our Congress has betrayed us, our media has failed us, and our government is undermining us.

After the signing of the Armistice ending the First World War, crowds feverishly welcomed decorated American troops in Paris. The "Doughboys" became playboys, as they were literally stunned by the lights of the "magic city,"and the lovely sight of French women.

It would change them forever:

When America was a colonial nation, 96% of the population lived on farms. And they were prosperous...very prosperous. Colonial farmers not only raised cash crops and processed sugar molasses to sell as rum, but raised hogs as well. 

And pork, "being a good source of protein", the early colonial diet was tantamount in America's astonishing victory in the Revolutionary war: 

Yes boys and girls, meat protein makes one grow up healthy and strong, as evidenced back in the 1770's, when Americans were forced to quarter the hated Redcoats, and it became immediately evident: the "average" American male was fully 2 1/2 to 3 inches TALLER than his British counterpart.

And in the last significant event of the War of 1812, General Andrew Jackson—the six-foot 1 inch hero of the battle of New Orleans-- inherently knew he would defeat the British, no matter the odds.

Jackson, as a boy of thirteen, had received a saber slash across the head for refusing to shine the boots of a British officer. But the battle of New Orleans -perhaps America's greatest one-sided victory ever-- would became "Old Hickory's" adult revenge.

And who knows? Could it have been Jackson's towering height (for that time) that had given him that sterling aura of confidence? Undoubtedly! The intrepid General convinced both himself and his command of 4000 troops they could win, despite being greatly outnumbered by the British force of 10,000.

But in 1861 at the start  of the Civil War, that same "we can win" atitude proved tragic for America; and was reflected in the casualty count: 618,000 Americans died-- the most costly U.S. war ever.

From the first battle at Bull Run to the Battle of Gettysburg, both North and South never had any doubt that they could outfight each other, evidenced in the huge number of casualties, and the hard-fought nearly even battles.

In 1917, American soldiers worried that by the time they were trained and completed the voyage to Europe, there wouldn't be any Germans left to fight!  It was the "we can beat these guys" American bravado that turned the bloody trench war stalemate of 1917, into a 1918 Allied victory.

In World War 2 it was again that farm-bred rugged individualism that separated the Americans from all the other warring nations. U.S. troops (unlike their Axis counterparts) were trained to take the initiative on their own. 

But German and Japanese troops were trained to NEVER make individual decisions, and remain static in their positions, and obey officers only; and it played a large part in the eventual outcome of the war.

Battlefield promotions were unheard of among Axis troops, but not so with the Americans.

Recall the stark realism depicted in the war movie "Saving Private Ryan". Upon landing on Omaha beach, six out of seven American officers fell victim to the horrendous machine gun and mortar fire of the well-entrenched Germans.

Then American sergeants and corporals were quick to take over, creating an ad-hoc "on-site" strategy that --despite overwhelming odds-- eventually enabled the GI's to breach Omaha's cliffs, and saved the D-Day victory for the Allies.  

Americans are by nature winners; we are competitors; it's our mindset. Americans despise losing, and go to any length to win; a nation who's culture was founded on the belief that any odds can be overcome, using bravado and American ingenuity.

Even in America's so-called "loss" of the Vietnam war, our troops never lost a single individual battle; it was politics--not a military defeat-- that caused the only setback in U.S. military history.

And how about the two Iraq wars ? It was the overwhelming confidence of the American troops that took them-- respectively-- only four days in the first war, and then 3 months in the second, to achieve "mission accomplished."

From the very outset, America has been a land where people have been of a positive mindset. Whether it was a war, or the Civil Rights movement-- or even down to a struggling small businessman-- we've always thought..."I can win" .."we shall overcome"…"we can do it"...until now.

Barack Obama, seemingly in denial of his "yes we can" campaign, now tells America ..”no we can't," a virtual character assassination upon America 's winning attitude, and that we should become a nation espousing defeatism.

In Obama's first 100 days Americans have heard nothing but negatives; nothing but, "we can nots." It's the Obama betrayal of our proud heritage..."we can't go on with living the same way as we've done in the past!"

Obama tells us we can't use energy like before. Obama tells us that our economy (a success for 250 years) can't go on with its "boom and bust" cycles-- that our free markets have failed.

And then Obama tours Europe on bended-knee, apologizing for American supremacy, as if we would have been better off to lose all our previous wars.

And recently in his speech to the Fifth Summit of the Americas, Obama opined (quote)..."that while it was important to learn from history, we can’t be trapped by it."

Trapped by history?

Obama --America's first anti-president -- urges us to forget the prosperous past, waylaying Americans toward the great "we can't" economic myth:  we can't achieve wealth…throw aside initiative; strive for more handouts; let mother government provide all necessities. 

So now, rather than looking for work, Americans should look forward to their next appointment with their case worker, in eager pursuit of expanding their "entitlements;" more welfare & food stamps; more section-8 housing; more WIC; more SSI; more unemployment benefits; free health care- the very essence of a "we cannot" society!

Instead of reaching for the stars, Obama is encouraging that we strive for the subway-- take the low road to government dependence -- the Obama doctrine of socialism.

Yes Mr. Obama—let’s all just forget the past, and put aside our pride--why risk taking the initiative, when Big government is there to provide us our needs.

When America elected John F Kennedy in 1960,  the country literally overnight was dazzled by Kennedy's charismatic, infectious "we can attitude". It was JFK who urged us to reach for the moon; and achieve what was once thought impossible.

And now, instead of a strong inspirational leader like John F. Kennedy, we are faced with the chosen one, Barack Obama, who stokes class-warfare, rewards unachievers, and urges Americans to belie their past history of rugged individualism, and strive for mediocrity.

And one only need to look at the Venezuelas (or Cubas) of today to see where America may be headed after the coming (and going) of Barack Obama, whose 'big government for everything' may result in an Obama-inspired socialist revolution of our own foolish making.

Flashback: August 28, 2008-- Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the DNC in Denver:

(Quote)  "As commander-in-chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation...I will  finish the fight against Al Qaida, and we will capture or kill Osama bin Laden!"

Gee, whatever happened to that?

Although hunting down bin Laden is a grave matter of national security, it somehow has slid down to the bottom of Obama's "things to do" list, right behind official dog Bo's next series of vaccination shots.

But instead of going after Osama bin Laden, Mad Dog Obama is going after everyone else; the great Obama crackdown on:

-people earning over $200K

-small businesses

-employers hiring illegal aliens

-multinational corporations doing business overseas

-CIA lawyers from the Bush administration

-Fox news

-conservative talk radio

-credit card companies

-banks and auto companies

-American tax evaders with overseas accounts

-big companies that "improperly" dominate markets

-the secured creditors of Chrysler

-polluters

-public displayers of Christianity

-gun owners

-coal companies

-big oil companies

-Wall Street execs who earn "too much"

Even students are not exempt from the Obama purge. In a move to placate the D.C. teacher's union, Mr. Obama even went after the poor kids attending D.C. private schools, and removed their tuition vouchers.

The question is...what does all this have to do with being president?  Eh, what the heck; who needs the Constitution? It's Obama's fascist idea of a mandate...purge, baby, purge!

One gets the feeling that Stalin himself has now taken over in the Oval Office.

It was rather obvious that when Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff (i.e. political attack dog) that it would not be business as usual at 1600 Pennsylvania like in previous administrations.

Emanuel is the intimidator-- the Tony Soprano of the Whitehouse.

If you want to silence anyone who disagrees with you, all Obama need do is "push a button" and attack dog "Rahmbo" gets the task accomplished-- like the Corleone Family-- evidenced by the fact that no one yet has had the courage to stand up to the withering political fire of the Obama administration.

Obama flaunts the Constitution as if were non-existent, and treats the Bill of Rights as if it were a 'Declaration of Iniquities', going all out to destroy the First Amendment (free speech).

POINT: Congress has drawn up hate crime legislation, under the principle that "divisive", "offensive" or "hateful" speech against any "protected group" is irresponsible, and therefore, not protected by the First Amendment.

POINT: Localism; in lieu of resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC is pushing for "balanced" commentary on all talk radio broadcasts, which will eventually eliminate the conservative format from hundreds of smaller, less profitable, radio stations. 

POINT: Writers who are not "pro-Barack Obama", are suffering character assassination on the internet, unrelentingly assaulted by so-called "liberal bloggers" who are actually employed by Obama-sponsored leftist groups.

And looming on the horizon may be the next big shoe to drop upon our Constitutional rights --actual government control of the internet.

A new bill (S.778 ) sponsored by Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), called The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, would..."grant the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data." 

This new effort, the most recent attempt by the Obama administration to crack down on free speech, is much more ominous than it sounds.

Basically, it would empower Obama-- who's perfidy knows no limits-- with an internet dictatorship.

And with Obama in control of American cyberspace, our internet will be no different than North Korea's: a total dictatorial fascist regime, opening the floodgates of privacy to total surveillance, total control, total censorship-- and give Obama total power.

If this bill is passed, America may become little removed from Nazi Germany as it was in the mid 1930's.

Just like Orwell's vision of "1984", Obama's Thought Police will purge the net of any remaining political truth, and we'd be left to depend on the mainstream media, spewing government press releases as if they were legitimate, unbiased journalists.

So then we'll all be controllable, docile, and subject to the whims of the Obama propaganda machine-- the reason why our leftist Congress seeks to shut down the internet in the event of an "emergency," which of course, remains undefined.

And for all those who think "this could never happen" (or isn't possible), ask the Chinese, or Cubans, (or now, the Australians), just how easy it is to censor and monitor 100% of web traffic.

This new threat of government domestic cyber-terrorism against its own citizens, will only continue to tighten the noose of fascism around our necks, as our cherished anti-president continually chips away at our American rights of free enterprise, free speech, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to bear arms.

And once the net becomes government controlled (or subject to government-mandated restrictions), what next? Is this any different from feudalism, where the serfs live on a tightly-controlled plantation, and subjugate their lives to a government of Lords, who permit little other than everyday survival, and to serve the congressional aristocracy under the reign of king Obama?

Judging from his first 100 days, it seems that Obama intends less on functioning as a chief executive, and more like a Gestapo chief, as he continually crashes through the doors of his Constitutional authority, intimidating one enterprise after another, because he feels that no one has the right to anything--everything belongs to the government -- and Comrade Obama is out to get it.

Ever heard this saying..."don't try and reinvent the wheel? Someone needs to recite it to Barack Obama, perhaps the most uncompromising man in the Whitehouse since, well, possibly ever.

And like the wheel, there were a few other standout, history-changing inventions that are with us to this present day.

In the 9th century, the Chinese are said to have invented gunpowder.

In the 13th century we had the invention of the gun.

Nothing has come along since. 

The dating of gunpowder is as early as 850 A.D. This invention seems to have been discovered in China by accident-- it was a group of Chinese alchemists seeking the 'elixer of immortality.'

By the late 12th century, China had put 2 & 2 together and "leapfrogged" from the primitive catapult to the true gun, complete with a metal barrel, gunpowder as the propellant, and a projectile.

And ever since, things have never been the same.

Then in 1859, Drake discovered oil; and in 1886, Daimler patented his internal combustion engine, followed by the automobile.

And once again, nothing has come along since (unless of course, you insist on counting the George Jetson "airmobile").

In spring of 1859, the Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company had contracted "Colonel" Edwin L. Drake to drill near a large oil seep in Titusville, Pennsylvania.  And by that August, Drake's oil strike represented yet another key moment in history.

Last January, during his address to the joint session of Congress, Barack Obama erroneously had said that America had invented the automobile industry. But in fact, the first market-viable car was developed by Germany’s Karl Benz, who patented his design in 1887.

Benz—a mechaincial engineer--designed a 3 wheeled vehicle, complete with transmission and a gas engine that had been developed by another German engineering genius, Gottlieb Daimler, who in 1885, invented what is often recognized as the modern gasoline engine, with a vertical cylinder, and gasoline injected through a carburetor.

Today, nothing has made life easier, or added more wealth to civilization than oil and the internal combustion engine; but once again, try convincing Obama, who obstinately clings to his notion of a "green" revolution, and--like it not-- intends to force all of us into driving those anti-luxurious, geeky, green cars of the future. 

But to his great credit, Mr. Obama (unlike predecessor George W. Bush) has been quick to realize the folly of developing hydrogen fuel cell cars for the mass market, which so far, no manufacturer has even come close to accomplishing.

Cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells--once hailed by Bush as a pollution-free solution for reducing dependence on foreign oil-- are in a word, impractical; and in addition, very expensive, unreliable, and pose hazardous refueling problems.

Hence, the Obama administration wisely has decided to eliminate government funding of all future fuel cell vehicle development.

Remember Apollo 13, the dramatic,1970 near-disaster of America's space program? It was all caused by a fuel cell blowout, testimony to the basic flaws that are inherent in hydrogen-powered technology.

But Houston we now have a problem -- a huge problem-- Mr. Obama want us all to shun the 300 million internal combustion engines we have sitting in our driveways and garages, because they emit "dangerous" CO2 pollutants.

Of course, Mr. Obama is a lawyer by trade, with about as much science backround as your average tree; but even trees know that carbon dioxide is harmless--  a necessity of all plant life.

And now that the government --save for Ford-- has all but completely expropriated the auto industry, Obama will continue his end run around science and common sense, and decree that the only acceptable cars are electric in order to "save" the environment.

But developing clean, pollution free electric cars is a zero sum game --the scientific equivalent of chasing one's tail.

Obama makes it all sound so easy on the surface: Build electric cars, plug 'em in, and go! If only it were that simple.

It's the same chicken vs. egg conundrum: does it pay to create a market that's virtually non- existent for alternative energy vehicles, or do you wait for the demand, and THEN take on the engineering costs to develop them? 

EXAMPLE: The Chevy Volt, when plugged into a 240-volt outlet, uses about 3.3 kilowatts of power, the same amount as a dishwasher or air conditioner.

But in his infinite wisdom, Obama has omitted more than a few questions that just might be on the relevant side of things:

Let's say, ten years from now, everyone comes home and plugs in all their Chevy Volts between 5 or 6 o'clock on a hot, muggy summer afternoon at peak demand. Result? Brownouts, blackouts, and a possible blowout in our already overburdened national electric grid.

What happens on road trips when drivers need to recharge the giant battery pack? What if you live in an apartment without a garage, and have no electrical outlet?

So not only are there questions about the availability of a plug, how about what comes out of it? Of course, it's electricity, and 60 % of the nation's supply is produced by coal--something Obama is also out to eliminate in favor of wind and solar generation. 

So let's pause here and take quick inventory:

Obama wants us to give up our perfectly good, reliable, trouble free, gasoline cars because they emit CO2 which "harms" the environment.

Next, he wants us to drive plug in electric cars, because they are clean, but require electricity that comes from coal-- a heavy pollutant...ergo, the zero sum game! The gasoline pollution eliminated would be offset by the additional coal burned at the power plants.

Once again, it's probably that lawyer thing.

Obama conveniently ignores a key challenge: how to upgrade the nation's aging power grid for all the additional power needed to recharge those neat-o, super clean, electric cars that he will force Detroit to build over the next ten years.

And Americans will shun them in droves, because they know it’s basically, nothing more than re-inventing the wheel. 

Remember back in the 70's, when President Ford attempted to force America to "get in step with the rest of the world" and adopt the metric system? But everyone thought, "what’s wrong with the measuring system we have now?"

Perhaps Mr. Obama should take a little history lesson, and ask HIMSELF, what's wrong with the cars we have now?

The answer of course is nothing.

Nothing beats the reliability, power, convenience, roominess, and ease of operation of a gasoline powered vehicle. They've been with us for over a century, and if there had been an inherent problem, good ole American ingenuity would have come along and solved it by now.

But necessity being the mother of invention-- since there have been no problems, is there a need for a solution?

And gasoline engine cars are completely recyclable--almost down to the honk in the horn.  But there is a litany of things to be encountered driving one of the "green cars of the future."

First is esthetics: there are structural reasons for why all electric cars look so ugly; a huge compartment is needed to hold the giant array of batteries clustered together required to propel these hideous things. And then, just like all batteries-- from that little 9-volt in your garage door opener, all the way up to the giant, 4'x 5' battery pack in your electric car-- they go dead…morto…kaput.

Imagine, all the mega numbers of worn-out discarded battery-packs, now useless...then what? Obama is against nuclear because of the waste storage problem. So where then, would we store all these wasted millions of batteries? They can't be recycled like a conventionally powered car that's easily converted to scrap.

The story gets uglier by the minute.

Switching to electric cars won't do anything to save the environment-- it will only create more and more hazards: more coal burned, and more, highly toxic chemicals seeping from the millions of useless battery packs; a sure-to-come future environmental nightmare.  

Obama might not be cognizant of it, but his "damn the fossil fuels--save the environment" clean energy policy will destroy the very thing he professes to save, as waste land after waste land of highly toxic, leaking, non-recyclable dead battery discards create the most monumental hazard to mankind as any nuclear accident could ever do.

This government environmental extremism will only serve to take us down the road to lifestyle disruption, economic disruption, and destroy our free-enterprise markets.

Obama and his liberal do-gooders seem quite willing to throw all science and common sense aside, claiming that more government development of alternative energy is the answer to a problem that doesn't even exist.