Having Cake and Not Be Able To Eat It At All.

Well, the unions killed the goose that laid the golden twinkie. The tasty Hostess Company will not return as it was.  Some have asked the question, "Was Hostess not too big to fail?" Apparently, the union bosses involved did not have as much influence with the White House as the auto worker union bosses did. Imagine, if you will, federal money being borrowed for bailing out Hostess, but thy feds telling bond owners to take a hike, firing the CEO and making the unions part-owners of the company and non-union suppliers left out in the cold.  That is what happened with Chrysler and General Motors.

As usual, union bosses screwed things up.  It is ludicrous, especially in this dreadful economy, to expect a company devoted to sweet snacks to survive without cutting their expenses. You would think that even a union thug was smart enough to see that striking against court-ordered restructuring of union benefits would leave Hostess with no other option but to cut their losses and sell off their assets. But it has been a long time since union bosses have been realistic about strengthening the workers' positions. Mainly, union bosses are trying to feather their own nests and currying political connections.

Mexico can make the products much cheaper and maybe just as tasty. Hopefully, other companies will buy the brands and they can continue the iconic brand of Hostess alive, perhaps in more business-friendly states. Most of us would prefer to have our tasty treats made in our own country, or even in our own states or towns, but unions are making it more and more difficult for people to have good jobs. Right-to-work states, for the most part, have more work and more jobs. Supply and demand is still the best control in any economy. If you build a company, workers will come. If you are a thriving company and want and need to keep good workers, you will naturally pay more and offer  more benefits than your competitor. If your product is wanted, you will prosper. If your product becomes less attractive to the consumer, you need to change your product or, perhaps, cut the cost of your product to make it more appealing. This is the simple reality of business in the free market place. However, when the unions enter the equation, reality is suspended for many. There is never an end of company money, as far as union bosses are concerned. The investors and management are always "fat cats" who are trying to live big on the backs of the workers. Have you looked at how big union bosses live? Have union members asked union bosses to cut back?

GM, as George Will recently noted, had become a health insurance company for its employees and twice as many retired employees, and which had to try to sell enough cars on the side to pay for all of the employee benefits. The only fix that would preserve the status quo for unions and their Democrat cronies was to have the big "Auto-Bailout". It was actually a union bail-out, but that is getting too technical . Hostess is doing the only practical and honest thing it can do, after filing bankruptcy several times since 2004, trying to keep the company and over 18,000 jobs afloat. I only wish General Motors had done the same thing. GM might have come back leaner and meaner and with products the country and the rest of the world want and can sell without government subsidies. Can you imagine a government subsidized twinkie? Michelle Obama might have a say in what goes into it. It would be like the Chevy Volt: nobody would want have one, let alone eat it.

The Man Who Knows Too Little

Who would have thought the spirit of Sargent Schultz, of Hogan's Heroes fame, would possess the body of our wonderful president--note the sarcasm dripping from that statement.  Our president, Barack Hussein Obama (umm, umm, umm), seemingly is unaware of anything that he should know. Just as he was unaware of  the gun-running operations of the Justice Department to Mexican drug cartels which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and one of our border agents, Obama has no idea what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. It has been nearly two and a half months and when questioned about what happened and why, his response is, in essence, "I know Nothing!" To be honest, he does not actually put it that way. His usual response is actually an effort to sidestep the question with an irrelevant suggestion that he is offended that anyone would suggest that he would be politically motivated in any way. Or, he declares that "we are trying to get to the bottom of it" and "we will bring the perpetrators to justice".  His notions of actual justice being brought to bare would be laughable, if I thought for a moment that it was at all funny. 

We have a real problem with the Benghazi event. We are not being told why Stevens was in Benghazi, a hotbed of terrorist activity, on 9-11, after telling his superiors at the State department that he feared for his safety and requesting more security, with a light security team. Why was he meeting a Turkish official just hours before he was attacked and killed? Why? What did he do while 4 Americans were being murdered? What did the president know and when did he know it? Who was calling the shots?

We also have a real problem with the news media, who gets excited about an extra-marital affair by CIA head, David Petraeus, while they give the president a pass on the a fore mentioned questions. Granted, a FOX reporter dared ask a question, but the other news organizations have been silent. They are constantly protecting their Messiah--Obama is obviously the closest thing they have to deity in their lives--from any political harm. Any evenhanded observer would know that a Republican president would not be able to skate through such a debacle as Benghazi gate without an anal exam by the press. It is what the press is supposed to do. The fact that they choose not to, is a very serious problem for the nation. Ignorance may be bliss, as they say, but it is also the very road to destruction. Did I just coin a phrase? I hope so. When a political storm strikes a presidency, the press should not be providing a rain coat for him to keep from getting wet.  America, WE Have A Problem!

Did Your Vote Count?

The question must be asked. I wish I didn't have to be the one to ask it. But, since no one else will, it falls to me. Did Barack Obama actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election? My answer is an unequivocal no. It was not a free and fair election. In fact, if we as a nation don't acknowledge the reality of what I am saying, we may never have a free and fair election again in the future of this once-great nation. You can look it up, as they say, but here are some facts that may have eluded you:

The Obama campaign willingly accepted foreign campaign funds.  They were not obliged to accept it but they did. They accepted illegal campaign contributions in 2008 and got away with it, so why would they not expect to do so again. They favorite mantra of Obama is "Nobody told me anything about it!" He refused to identify donors of $200 or less, though most of the funds were supposedly small donations.

Did anyone other than my friends and family see the videos captured by James O'Keefe of the Project Veritas--remember him exposing the ACORN people trying to facilitate prostitution rings?--showing Democrats operatives willing and eager to help commit voter fraud by allowing people to cast numerous votes.

And again, as is the case when Democrats run the Defense Department, our service men and women were systematically denied the opportunity to have their votes count. If there was public service union for our members of the military, I suspect that they would be driven to the polls, given coffee and pastries and told who to vote for. But, the very people who fight to allow us the freedom of voting have to jump through unrealistic hoops to do the same.

Then there is the photo ID requirement. Democrats believe that photo ID requirements suppress the vote.They do, of course, but only illegal votes, which Democrats apparently need in very close elections. The same logic should be used in most everything where photo IDs are normally required. Photo IDs suppress illegal activities like writing bad checks, credit card theft, purchasing illegal substances, illegally driving a car, getting into the Democrat convention, etc. By coincidence, Obama won every state where open voting--no ID required--was the law. I mean seriously folks, there is absolutely no good argument for not requiring someone to provide proof of who they are before the perform their sacred American duty of casting a vote. That right to have your vote count one time and only one time should be protected. Yet even when governments try to provide photo IDs at little or no cost to the voter, Democrats are against it. The obvious answer is that it cuts down on their cheating options.

In Philadelphia, Republican poll inspectors were forcibly removed from voting sites where Obama was the winner of nearly 100% of the vote. In Ward 4, where a poll watcher was wearing an Obama shirt
, the vote was 9,955 for Obama and 55 for Romney. Really? In today's economy? 9,955 to 55?  Obama also won 44 Cleveland voting districts by 99.8%. In one Ohio county, Obama won with 108 percent of the registered voters. Then there are the numerous reports of voters trying to vote for Romney in an electronic voting booth but every time they pushed the button for Romney, Obama's name was marked. It never seemed to happen the other way around. Who knows how many people did not catch the "glitch"? Interestingly, Romney received 3 million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008 while Obam snared 10 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. But Obama the 4 most critical swing states by only 500,000 votes. It was also reported that about 5 million independents who voted for Obama in 2008 changed this time around and voted for Romney.  This would suggest that nearly 5.5 million Republican and Romney independent votes were either did not show up or their votes were not counted.
So I ask again, did Obam win? Yes. Did he actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election? If you think so, you are delusional. If you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent, and do not care, and think that the ends justify the means, you are killing this great country. Granted,voter fraud has been around since this country began. Fraud has determined the outcome of way too many elections in local, state, and federal levels, but we do not have to like it and we do not have to quietly accept it.

Yes, I Am Disgusted!

Well, what can I say? True to my word, I am disgusted by the election results (see my last blog). The news media, for the most part, has become the enemy of truth and the unofficial --it might be official, actually--PR arm of the Democrat party. I have literally grown to loathe them for their failure to live up to their responsibility. I have no hope that they will even give lip service to trying to get to the bottom of the Benghazi Cover Up. But I am even more disgusted by the idea that a small majority of the American electorate has finally arrived at the place where they want to vote themselves more free stuff rather than to vote themselves more freedom. Let there be no mistake about it: Free stuff is not free. You have to pay for it with your moral soul. In my mind, we have now officially joined the rest of the socialist world. The road back will likely be long and hard.

We have also reached a point where a small majority seems to have bought into affirmative action in political terms. In 2008, America elected its first "Black" president. America was anxious to do so. It would be a sign that racism had been overcome. To do so, they would elect a man whom they knew virtually nothing about. In 2012, America elected a man that had proved in 4 years that he was unqualified and unprepared to do the job. To elect him to a second term, they had to reject a man who had much better qualifications and a wonderful track record of success. It is obviously a case presidential affirmative action. Our small and silly majority felt it necessary to give Barack Hussein Obama a do-over, to see if he could do it better this time. The problem is that they still do not know who he is, because they have to be spoon-fed information, as they have become accustomed to in the necessities in life. Like a child who will not eat his broccoli though it is really nutritional and would help make him healthy, they refuse to be educated  about things which will make them smarter and wiser  Yes, I am disgusted!  I'm keeping this short so I can go cry!

FIVE THINGS THAT WILL DISGUST ME TO NO END ON ELECTION DAY

Here it is the Saturday before Tuesday's election day. If I am to believe the polls at this point, I would be disgusted. There are five things that come to mind that would thoroughly disgust me this Tuesday:

Firstly, I would be disgusted with the mainstream media. Never, in my sixty years, have I witnessed a betrayal of the American people by the news media so profound to try to keep a politician in office. As ignorant and self absorbed as the general public can be at times, I am convinced that, if you held our nose to a pile of crap, even the biggest navel contemplators among us would likely recognize the smell as CRAP! Unless, of course, our olfactory senses had been fried by cocaine addiction--I actually believe drug abuse can push you to the left, philosophically.  Almost two months ago on 9-11--anyone remember the significance of that date? I do and it should be understood that it has even more significance to our enemies who are crazy Muslims--our consulate in Benghazi was attacked by Al qaeda affiliates and four Americans, including the Ambassador to Libya, were murdered. Earlier in the day, as a number of embassies were being overrun and Muslim crazies protested an anti-Muslim video on the Internet, which none of them had seen, but only heard about, our embassies started sending out messages of apologies to the Muslim world for allowing such a nasty piece of work to be produced. Mitt Romney came out at this point and said that we should not be apologising for having free speech in America. The media attacked Romney for trying to make political hay so quickly. Though Romney was right, the  media hounded on this issue for several days, until it was apparent that it had not traction with the general public. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, murder and mayhem was taking place in Benghazi.  For over two weeks the Obama administration tried to cover up the fact that they had hung Ambassador Stevens out there in Libya without sufficient security, lying the the American people about a supposed demonstration against the infamous video gone awry. When extra security was asked for, the embassy was told to make do. We--I use the word "we" to include others beyond my self here--still do not know why Stevens was meeting with an official of Turkey a couple hours before he was murdered. It is obvious to even the most casual observer--maybe not Giraldo Rivera--that the cover up by the administration was devised to mislead America about what they were doing in Libya and to continue the hoax that Al qaeda was on the run.  Such information might not be good for the president's reelection.  As I have said before, Where is the curiosity of the left-leaning news media? Do they want Obama reelected so badly that they will refuse to do their job? They never needed a Democrat challenger to carry the water for them when the went after Nixon, Reagan or the Bushes. FOX NEWS is the only major news outlet that can be taken seriously. The rest should be doing their job too!

Secondly, I would be disgusted by anyone who might be moved in their convictions about Obama based on his TV appearances post Hurricane Sandy.  You want to tell me he is more presidential now that he has been seen hugging disaster victims?  Again, he came out and made attractive promises to those who suffer, without any real follow through.  Anybody really believe anything he says? He made a huge number of promises concerning jobs, the economy, health care, divisive politics and such that he was unable to deliver on. Oh, and there was the one about the oceans receding. If anyone sees him other than what he is, an ACORN community organizer (agitator) with the power of the White House to spend tax-payer money to create more dependence, they are the blind following the blind. He has never done anything beyond selling two autobiographies and getting himself elected to political office. He voted present almost exclusively as an Illinois senator, did nothing for four years as a United States Senator, and mucked up everything he has touched as president. He was unable to make any decisions for fear of hurting himself politically, including calling for the hit on Bin Laden without being pushed into it by Hilary Clinton. Now he looks presidential? He said yesterday that voting was the best revenge. Presidential? I like Romney's response: Vote for love of country.

Thirdly, I always have a hard time understanding how people can vote for a president because they want him to accomplish certain things and at the same time cast a vote for a person who will instinctively work against that president to the best of their ability. I have noticed in the polls of various states, such as Montana, Missouri and Indiana, that Romney is favored by the state electorate, but that the Democrat running for that state's senate seat is leading in the polls. How stupid are you to do that? I could understand it if the Republican was somehow a Satan-worshipping, child-molesting cretin, but these are candidates who will support Romney's agenda.  The great statesman, Harry Reid--boy was that hard to say, even in sarcastic jest--has proclaimed that as Senate majority leader he will try to disrupt Romney's every move. Do you want to keep that clown as the Senate Majority Leader? Heaven forbid! I mean, PLEASE, HEAVEN FORBID! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. How about just shooting yourself in the head!

Fourthly, I would be disgusted if you have not made up your mind until you enter the voting booth. Polls tell us there are still some undecided voters out there. Really? What is wrong with you that you are unable to see what is going on around you. Are you as incapable of making a hard decisions--not that this at all a hard decision--as Obama has been most of his political career. Does it have to effect you personally? Do you not care more about the state of our country than you do about how your clueless friends will view you?

Fifthly, I would be disgusted if you as an American could not care less about this election. You have been given a gift! For whatever reason, you were born in the greatest country, with the most opportunity and freedom, that has ever existed in recorded history. This nation is special, because of unique constitution and the internal struggle we have gone through over the past couple centuries to make this an even greater country to live in. We are inadvertently, though I believe some are actively trying to lead us there, heading for destruction, as far as freedom and opportunity are concerned. Eventually the people who are asleep at the wheel will be jarred awake as our country veers completely off the road. We need a majority of careful and serious minds that comprehend our actual state. We need people to wake up and see where we are heading. For example, if we put our union concerns ahead of the good of the country without looking at repercussions, we are hiding our heads in the sand. We are ripe for destruction, it would seem. Maybe even over ripe. Do we smell rotting fruit or a clean breeze trying to reach us?

Please America, do not leave me disgusted! Vote for Romney and give him a congress who will help him get this country back on the road and heading in the right direction.

DEBATES and REALITY

I wanted to do a blog on Alinsky's rules for radicals and another on Marx's Communist Manifesto for my next blog, but I will get to them, possibly in the next couple of weeks. But, I feel like I have to say something about Benghazi and the debates. I'll start with the debates.

The remarkable thing to me is that people wait so long to start paying attention to politics, while the country is in such dire straits. But, I guess that is reality. The debates, so far have cemented in my mind my theory about the polls and why they appear to be changing drastically. In national polls of likely voters which are not skewed by 5 to 9 over sampling towards democrats, Obama has been consistently below 50%.  The polls have shown a very close race, often with Romney a bit behind. Why, if the American people are generally satisfied with Obama's presidency, would he have trouble getting to and staying at 50%? And why then, if Romney is a viable alternative in the minds of the American public, would Romney have the same trouble? I believe the reason is that the American public has been subjected to the Obama show now for 4 years and pretty much know him. Those who are not addicted to the Obama koolaid pretty much know that Obama is a failure, that he has no clue about the economy and job creation. But, until the debates they have been smothered with the Democrats' story-line that Romney is a selfish, money-grubbing, tax-dodging, cancer-causing, woman-hating monster. It is a wonder that Romney was even close in the polls. The debates changed that perception.

In the first presidential debate, the public, apart from the koolaid drinkers, got to see that Romney is a human being with absolutely no similarity to the Democrats' pictures of him. He had facts, numbers, and reasonable answers to the nations ills. Obama came in, showing his real self to no one's surprise. Obama was arrogant and disdainful. He had no arguments, except that Romney is a rich guy who only cares about the other rich guys--rich women would be excluded, of course.  Romney cleaned his clock! Even the liberal media could not come to Obama's aid or explain it away The result was an immediate surge in the polls for Romney. The Obama answer after the fact was that Romney was lying about everything. No evidence, just the accusation. I guess money-grubbing rich guys who are not Democrats are automatically big-time liars.

In the vice-presidential debate we saw Biden doing his diabolic "Joker" impression while stretching the truth even more than he usually does. Biden was obnoxious and rude, trying hard to get under Ryan's skin, while Ryan was respectful and stayed on message. The result was even more clarity that Biden is an old fool who has a problem controlling himself when he is in front of a camera, and that Ryan is serious-minded and self-controlled. The public could see that Biden was as bad a twit as they knew he was and that Ryan was not the radical right-winger as he has been portrayed by the Democrats and liberal media.

On the second presidential debate, Obama came out swinging, declaring that Romney was lying about virtually everything, while Romney continued to rely on facts about the bad economy and the Obama policies which have failed. Obama was much more animated this time. He apparently realized that he was not necessarily impervious to facts and would have to more energetically call Romney a liar whose pants were obviously on fire. He also received a lot of help from the liberal moderator, Candy Crowley. If Romney was about to metaphorically knock Obama down, Candy would step in and ring the bell by changing the subject. Obama was given 10% more time to make his arguments. The most egregious interruption came during the give-and-take over the Benghazi fiasco. When Obama was about to get knocked out (metaphorically) over the question of when the president first acknowledged that the murders of the ambassador and three others in Benghazi were a terrorist attack. Obama claimed that he acknowledged it as a terrorist act the day after. As the blow was landing, Candy stepped in, with a transcript of Obama's speech no less, and deflected the blow by suggesting that the president's claim was true. What?!  What a hack she is. She later tried to excuse her meddling in and said that Romney was mainly accurate in his criticism of the president's declaration. Even with Romney having to debate both Obama and Crowley at the same time, Romney was able to perform at the same level of intensity and to continue to destroy the image of him that the the Democrats and liberal media have created.  The result will likely be firmer conviction by the folks in the middle that Romney is at least a better alternative.

Now, about the Benghazi debacle. The attempt by the Obama administration for two weeks to depict the Terrorist attack on the consulate as a demonstration gone awry against a silly you tube video is extremely troubling.  It has been revealed that there was real-time video and audio at the consulate to which the state department was tuned in as it occurred, which let the state department know that it was not a demonstration, but a direct, well planed terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9-11. Who would have thought that evil and wacky Muslims might try something evil and wacky on the anniversary of 9-11? Apparently not the Obama administration.  It has also been revealed that Ambassador Stephens was in fear of his life and that the embassy security team had requested several times for more security measures, only to be told that they would not get it. Why was Stephens in Benghazi, a known locality of terrorist infestation, on 9-11-12 with no significant protection? Why was the request for extra security ignored? Who decided that they would not get the extra security? That, incidentally, is the question put forth in the second debate that brought up Benghazi, which Obama avoided actually answering. Why did the Obama administration work so hard to write the event off as a demonstration against a stupid video, which was not seen by very many people to that point, when they would have clearly knew that the facts would not support it?  Why is the mainstream media, by and large, not asking these questions?  In my opinion, there is something going on here beyond the obvious answer, that Obama did not want his foreign policy to appear to be failing as the election looms ahead. To me, this obvious cover up is more significant than what happened in Watergate. FOUR PEOPLE DIED, including an American Ambassador, because of, at least, negligence! In it's best possible light, the administration tried to cover it up for political reasons. The Watergate cover up was about a fumbled break-in--a stupid act that would have gone away if it had been acknowledged--but nobody died as a result of it. Benghazi-gate is a cover up of the facts of events that resulted in the brutal murders of FOUR INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS! Hopefully we'll get some answers. The main-street news media will not try to get to the bottom of it by themselves, but I know that the next debate will be on foreign affairs. I suspect it will come up again there. Hopefully, we won't have a debate moderator getting in the way this time. 

Read A Good Book Lately? I Have!

If you have read one of my blogs before, you realize that I am profoundly conservative, both socially and politically.  I do not think that I was necessarily born that way.  I am a product, to a great degree, of my upbringing and my early school education. I liked to read a lot growing up and, like a good part of my generation, I watched a lot of television. I tended to gravitate towards historical programs, if they were available.  My parents were socially conservative and generally politically conservative, in theory, though my father was a registered Democrat. However, I am relatively sure that he would be apposed to what the Democrat Party embraces, if he were alive today. The point is that I had pretty good conservative roots.  As I grew older and began to think for myself, I struggled with the fact that the things I was being told by society and popular media were distasteful to me. Part of this is because I am a religious man and much of what society is pushing these days is 180 degrees out of my comfort level. By 1980, I became a dyed-in the-wool Conservative. My political thought had become firmly entrenched in conservatism. I knew what I felt, but like most people I wanted to reinforce my "feelings" with logical thought. I have spent significant time and effort the last few years trying to educate myself, or reeducate myself in some cases, to better understand our history. It is extremely valuable to know where we came from philosophically and how this nation and culture evolved.  So I have read and, in some cases, reread documents and books to reaffirm the things I understand and believe. If you want to know how I arrived at my current state of belief, I would suggest the following books and documents which I have read and studied:

The Declaration of Independence; it needs to be read every 4^th of July to remind the thoughtful patriot of why our forefathers thought this government was necessary.

The Constitution of The United States; especially the first ten amendments known as our Bill of Rights; The Bill of Rights made the rest of the document relevant. It should be read every year as well.

The Federalist Papers; these are the arguments put forth by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, to interpret the Constitution and belay the American people’s fear of a more powerful central government and to show that its powers would be limited and would not trample on personal liberties. The Anti-federalist Papers argued the opposite, but I admit that I have read those more sparingly. After all, their arguments did not prevail and the Articles of Confederation, which the anti-federalists were not anxious to abandon, were a total failure and were leading the fledging United States to an early grave.

The Bible, The Book of Mormon and The Koran; though other religious texts can be read and studied as well, these books are invaluable, if read with the intent of understanding what makes their adherents tick.  The Bible and Book of Mormon are, in a nut shell, about people who are admonished by God to be faithful to Him and to love their fellow man, and how, if they become prideful and ignore God’s power in their lives, they will, of their own doing, become ripe for destruction.  The Bible was the root of the Judeo-Christian culture that drove the founders and eventually inspired them to create a republic like ours. The founders, such as Samuel Adams, were steeped in the study of The Bible and saw their state as similar to the children of Israel. The Bible showed that people needed to trust in God and not the arm of the flesh. Against God’s will, the people of Israel rejected the rules of judges and asked for a king. They suffered almost continually thereafter because of their choice. The Book of Mormon also endorses the rejection of kings because a people can’t always count on having a good one. The Book of Mormon is especially relevant to America in what Mormons perceive as the Latter Days. The story line in The Book of Mormon parallels our current time, if you believe that Christ is returning soon and that wickedness sows the seeds of destruction. It also specifies America as a land of promise, which will be blessed as long as its inhabitants are righteous and worthy.  I’ll probably get my head cut of for saying this (hopefully, only figuratively), but The Koran seems to me to be very disjointed, erratic in its doctrines and extremely uninspiring. It seems to be mostly about Mohamed’s revelations to rewrite events in prior scripture and to teach followers to bring others into subjection. It is easy to see how extremist Muslims can interpret their scripture to kill and terrorize non-Muslims. The Allah of The Koran is much scarier than Jehovah of the Old Testament. The Koran is a must read to get a more accurate picture of the religious fanatics who want to carry its teachings to the destruction or subjugation of all non-Muslims. I have read several books on Mohamed and Islam but, though some of the books were sympathetic, my discomfort with jihadist mentality was not eased.  The point is that one cannot judge a book by its cover. If the book is revered as God’s word, it warrants actual reading before discarding.

Plato’s The Republic, Machiavelli’s The Prince, Thomas More’s Utopia, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, and John Locke’s and Montesquieu’s Treatise on Government ; More, originated the term ‘utopia’, but all of these books or documents describe what the authors believe to be the utopian or most ideal political system. Machiavelli describes how to create power and rule by force. The Machiavellian approach to gaining power can be recognized in many of the rulers on the Left. Plato actually describes several options, but none are an actual democratic republican form as we have. All of the systems envisioned by these men, with perhaps the exception of Machiavelli, were socialistic in nature and depended on an enlightened ruler or ruling class to keep order. However, there is not much in their theories to explain how to keep the ruling class in order. Locke and Mantesquieu are the odd men out here, though. Locke’s notions of natural law, moral duty and limited government along with Montesquieu’s ideas about divided powers in government, namely executive, legislative and judicial, were the fountains of thought that the founders turned to when issuing the Declaration of Independence and constructing The Constitution of the United States. If you don’t want to take the time to read all of these works, but want to get a good understanding of their basic messages and how they have historically impacted world politics in general, threaten our system or endorse our form of government, you can read Mark Lavin’s Ameritopia. As is his wont, he has thoroughly studied the subject and puts these works in true context.

I have also read numerous biographies of our founding fathers. If you want the best understanding of the lives of the founding fathers and what they wanted to create, I would suggest that you read about the lives of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and read as much of their own words as possible. I have read several biographies on George Washington, including: George Washington: A life by Ron Chenow; His Excelleny: George Washington by Joseph Ellis, and Being George Washington by Glenn Beck.   Washington was the most impressive man of character of his time. he was trulu indespensible in the formation of our nation. He set a very high standard as our first president, under our existing constitution. Very few presidents have even come close to him since.  

Franklin’s autobiography is a good start in studying him, and then you should go on to read Walter Issacson’s Benjamin Franklin: An America Life.  Benjamin Franklin was a remarkable intellect among the intellectual giants of his time and he was considered by his contemporaries as the first great American.

I also recommend biographies of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. The ones I have read are: David McCullough’s, John Adams, Joseph J. Ellis' Founding Brothers and and Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton. These books show very different personalities united in purpose to form a unique nation.  Of course, their differing world views also caused them to go against George wahington's warnings given in his farewell address from the presidency and inadvertantly created a party system which still divides us today.

Other important historical figures of whom I have read biographies and auto biographies include: Daniel Boone, Andrew Jackson, Davy Crocket, Abraham Lincon, Frederick Douglas, george Washington Carver, W. E. B. Dubois, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, both George Bushes , and Bill Clinton.  Each of these historical figures made lasting impressions on their contemporaries and represented a particular world view. The political figures, in particular, changed the direction of politics and philosphical direction of the nation for important lengths of time; some for good and some for bad, in my opinion. I particularly enjoyed Ronald Reagan's diaries while president. It was. I think, a window into the man and his true character that even an autobigraphy could not sufficiently provide. Autobiographies are good origial sources, but they can be no more than an attempt at rewriting history or create or recreate an image. One must be suspicious and read between the lines at times.

  I recently read Barack Obama’s Dreams From My Father and encourage others to give it a read.  Again, you cannot theoretically discard a book without actually reading it first and sustain complete intellectual honesty.  If after reading it, there is any doubt in your mind about his screwed up view of the world, I would ask you to read Dinesh D’Souza’s The Roots of Obama’s Rage.  There can be no doubt as to what Obama is doing to the country, as his “useful idiots” enthusiastically follow along.  They should read both too.

Since I am conservative in my politics and world view, I try to read all of the conservative books I can fit in. I have read the historically utopian viewpoints that Liberals keep trying to resurrect from the bone yard of political thought and I easily reject them out of hand. The arguments against such silliness are legion. Books of a conservative viewpoint which I have read in the past few years that strengthen my position include: Thomas Sowell’s  Basic Economics and Black Rednecks and White Liberals; Ann Coulter’s Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America,  How to Talk to a Liberal, If You Must, Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, and Godless: The Church of Liberalism:  Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression;  Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning;  Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged; and David Horowitz’s autobiography, Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey.

 Sowell’s books explain how the real economic world works and how we have misconstrued the origins of “black” culture and unveils liberal fallacies.  He is meticulous in his research and might be the most intelligent and practical man, who happens to be a black man, in the country.  Ayn Rand was pretty morally messed up when it comes to life style, but she was right -on about the destructive effects of socialism, and how it destroys the spirit of innovation and work ethic.  Atlas Shrugged is a rather laborious read when the characters drone on for pages making a simple point so, after a page of a character’s argument, you can skip a few pages to the next event and you will not miss anything. Nevertheless, you should read it once.  I found David Horowitz’s book about 15 or more years ago and found it fascinating. He tells of his parents being communists and how it was the plan for the Communist Party in America to join infiltrate the Democrat Party and take it over, moving it towards the radical Left. He tells how, as a radical Marxist, he worked with the Black Panthers and Weathermen organizations, but that he eventually became disillusioned with their politics and violent intents and of his conversion to conservatism.  The rest of these books are highly researched and historically accurate exposes of forgotten history. The Left, since the days of Woodrow Wilson, has been controlling the history that our children and young people study from grammar school through college, shaping their views and attitudes. These books mentioned above put history straight and have helped me understand that my innate world view is correct.    

The study of history and philosophy must be a part of our education, if we are going to have a chance of making informed decisions, come election time. With our vote, informed or not, we are nudging our nation in one direction or the other. My study of history shows that we have been, with a few exceptions, steadily moving away from the founders’ model. If you think moving further left is good, you should do so fully informed. However, you will not be informed by today’s mainstream media. Their agenda is clear to anyone paying attention.  They have bought into the old Utopian idea that socialism is a perfect solution to the world’s ills.  The problem is that socialism has lowered the creativity and production of the people subjected to it in every place in the world it has been tried. My study has shown me that individual liberty and the pursuit of individual happiness should be every person’s goal.  Artificially making the playing field level for everyone limits the gifted and encourages the less gifted not to try.

Granted, most of my reading leans toward current conservative thought, but I have invested a lot of time studying the classics and I recognize that all current liberal thought is generated by the same Utopian sources mentioned above. I read Obama's book and concluded that it was self promotional tripe. Researchers have since discovered that much of it was made up of whole cloth. He deliberately "combined" some of the characters and fabricated certain events to better lay out his narrative. He intentionally hid the identity of some of the characters in his autobiographies, like his old mentor, "Frank", who was in truth the "poet", Frank Marshall Davis, a dissident member of the Communist Party and a part-time pornographer.  It would not do for him to divulge too much about his past associates and their philosophies.  Incidentally, Obama's audio version does not even mention Frank. When the occasional light has been shown on his past connections and affiliations, news organs like The New York Times and NBC totally ignore it. I have found that I can get more information about the Left's true agendas from writers and news outlets on the right.

Most Americans think they have no choice or they do not care.  They will, in time, realize that they have foolishly given up another piece of their freedom to be a little more comfortable in their lives, but only when it is too late   My challenge to anyone reading this blog is to get yourself a clue. Don’t vote until you know something and form a truly informed opinion.  Read a good book!