TeaPartyWire.com – Tea Party News by and for Tea Party Members

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Recently, Romney’s Democratic opponents in politics and the press attacked the GOP candidate for saying there “are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Romney’s critics describe his remarks as heartless attacks by a wealthy Republican on the poor.

Meanwhile, a 1998  audio recording surfaced of then Sen. Barack Obama discussing his views on government and its role in wealth redistribution.

“I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign – against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved: the Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither, necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means, then, is that as we try to resuscitate – that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind – we do have to be innovative in thinking, ‘What are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?’ And my suggestion, I guess, would be … the trick … is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pull resources and hence facilitate some redistribution. Because I actually believe in redistribution – at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Let’s excavate Obama’s words as though we are archeologists:

First, notice that Obama makes no pretense that his world-view is backed by the weight of experience or history. He merely calls his redistributive theology a “notion.”

Second, Obama undercuts his own “notion” by sighting the real-world failure of the Chicago Housing Authority. Starting in the 1920s, Chicago sociologists saw “slums as an urban ecological problem with decaying structures and unplanned landscapes acting as a cancerous ‘blight,’” writes D. Bradford Hunt in Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. All that “blight” was supposed to end with the passage of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 Housing Act. Progressive leadership and redistributed funds from the public would create a paradise for the less fortunate, giving them affordable housing and a brighter future. That New Deal triumph became a drug and violence-ridden, world-renowned failure. Today, Chicago’s city fathers are bulldozing these high-rise deathtraps for developers to gentrify.

Third, seventy-nine percent of Chicago’s schoolchildren are not grade-level proficient in reading, 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math, and their city’s school day is shorter than the national average. Chicago teachers make an average salary of $74,839. The recently concluded Chicago teacher’s strike was not over money but an upcoming initiative to tie teacher evaluations to the success or failure of their student’s scores on standardized tests, which would also determine which schools remained open and which to close. The union agreed to have test scores account for 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Just in passing, for their private-sector counterparts, student test scores account for 70 percent of a teacher’s assessment. According to the Washington Post, Chicago schools cost underserved taxpayers $4.8 billion in 2012 … and that’s with a $665 million deficit.

Fourth, Obama “can only confiscate the wealth that exists,” wrote economist and conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, “You cannot confiscate future wealth – and the future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.” The Soviet Union ran headfirst into that little conundrum. As one of the 20^th century’s’ great military giants, history’s first communist power exited the world stage, not with a bang, but a whimper. After seventy years, there simply was no more wealth to redistribute, and Vladimir Lenin’s great “notion” fizzled.

The Obama audio recording shows that resuscitating “the notion that government action can be effective” has been a driving force since his days as a Chicago community organizer. Can anybody honestly say he left Chicago better than he found it? Can anybody honestly say he’s done the same for the nation?

All that being said, the onus is not on Romney to explain his remarks regarding the 47% of the electorate that is in the bag for Obama and his brand of failed Chicago values. The onus is on Obama and the 47% to explain the failed Chicago blueprint of wealth-destroying  redistribution that gives everybody “a shot” at economic and social misery.

Nearly four years after Obama assumed the presidency, Joe The Plumber and the 53% of Americans that pay redistributive taxes are waiting for an answer to that question.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Recently, Romney’s Democratic opponents in politics and the press attacked the GOP candidate for saying there “are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Romney’s critics describe his remarks as heartless attacks by a wealthy Republican on the poor.

Meanwhile, a 1998  audio recording surfaced of then Sen. Barack Obama discussing his views on government and its role in wealth redistribution.

“I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign – against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved: the Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither, necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means, then, is that as we try to resuscitate – that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind – we do have to be innovative in thinking, ‘What are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?’ And my suggestion, I guess, would be … the trick … is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pull resources and hence facilitate some redistribution. Because I actually believe in redistribution – at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Let’s excavate Obama’s words as though we are archeologists:

First, notice that Obama makes no pretense that his world-view is backed by the weight of experience or history. He merely calls his redistributive theology a “notion.”

Second, Obama undercuts his own “notion” by sighting the real-world failure of the Chicago Housing Authority. Starting in the 1920s, Chicago sociologists saw “slums as an urban ecological problem with decaying structures and unplanned landscapes acting as a cancerous ‘blight,’” writes D. Bradford Hunt in Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. All that “blight” was supposed to end with the passage of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 Housing Act. Progressive leadership and redistributed funds from the public would create a paradise for the less fortunate, giving them affordable housing and a brighter future. That New Deal triumph became a drug and violence-ridden, world-renowned failure. Today, Chicago’s city fathers are bulldozing these high-rise deathtraps for developers to gentrify.

Third, seventy-nine percent of Chicago’s schoolchildren are not grade-level proficient in reading, 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math, and their city’s school day is shorter than the national average. Chicago teachers make an average salary of $74,839. The recently concluded Chicago teacher’s strike was not over money but an upcoming initiative to tie teacher evaluations to the success or failure of their student’s scores on standardized tests, which would also determine which schools remained open and which to close. The union agreed to have test scores account for 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Just in passing, for their private-sector counterparts, student test scores account for 70 percent of a teacher’s assessment. According to the Washington Post, Chicago schools cost underserved taxpayers $4.8 billion in 2012 … and that’s with a $665 million deficit.

Fourth, Obama “can only confiscate the wealth that exists,” wrote economist and conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, “You cannot confiscate future wealth – and the future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.” The Soviet Union ran headfirst into that little conundrum. As one of the 20^th century’s’ great military giants, history’s first communist power exited the world stage, not with a bang, but a whimper. After seventy years, there simply was no more wealth to redistribute, and Vladimir Lenin’s great “notion” fizzled.

The Obama audio recording shows that resuscitating “the notion that government action can be effective” has been a driving force since his days as a Chicago community organizer. Can anybody honestly say he left Chicago better than he found it? Can anybody honestly say he’s done the same for the nation?

All that being said, the onus is not on Romney to explain his remarks regarding the 47% of the electorate that is in the bag for Obama and his brand of failed Chicago values. The onus is on Obama and the 47% to explain the failed Chicago blueprint of wealth-destroying  redistribution that gives everybody “a shot” at economic and social misery.

Nearly four years after Obama assumed the presidency, Joe The Plumber and the 53% of Americans that pay redistributive taxes are waiting for an answer to that question.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Recently, Romney’s Democratic opponents in politics and the press attacked the GOP candidate for saying there “are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Romney’s critics describe his remarks as heartless attacks by a wealthy Republican on the poor.

Meanwhile, a 1998  audio recording surfaced of then Sen. Barack Obama discussing his views on government and its role in wealth redistribution.

“I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign – against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved: the Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither, necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means, then, is that as we try to resuscitate – that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind – we do have to be innovative in thinking, ‘What are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?’ And my suggestion, I guess, would be … the trick … is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pull resources and hence facilitate some redistribution. Because I actually believe in redistribution – at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Let’s excavate Obama’s words as though we are archeologists:

First, notice that Obama makes no pretense that his world-view is backed by the weight of experience or history. He merely calls his redistributive theology a “notion.”

Second, Obama undercuts his own “notion” by sighting the real-world failure of the Chicago Housing Authority. Starting in the 1920s, Chicago sociologists saw “slums as an urban ecological problem with decaying structures and unplanned landscapes acting as a cancerous ‘blight,’” writes D. Bradford Hunt in Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. All that “blight” was supposed to end with the passage of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 Housing Act. Progressive leadership and redistributed funds from the public would create a paradise for the less fortunate, giving them affordable housing and a brighter future. That New Deal triumph became a drug and violence-ridden, world-renowned failure. Today, Chicago’s city fathers are bulldozing these high-rise deathtraps for developers to gentrify.

Third, seventy-nine percent of Chicago’s schoolchildren are not grade-level proficient in reading, 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math, and their city’s school day is shorter than the national average. Chicago teachers make an average salary of $74,839. The recently concluded Chicago teacher’s strike was not over money but an upcoming initiative to tie teacher evaluations to the success or failure of their student’s scores on standardized tests, which would also determine which schools remained open and which to close. The union agreed to have test scores account for 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Just in passing, for their private-sector counterparts, student test scores account for 70 percent of a teacher’s assessment. According to the Washington Post, Chicago schools cost underserved taxpayers $4.8 billion in 2012 … and that’s with a $665 million deficit.

Fourth, Obama “can only confiscate the wealth that exists,” wrote economist and conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, “You cannot confiscate future wealth – and the future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.” The Soviet Union ran headfirst into that little conundrum. As one of the 20^th century’s’ great military giants, history’s first communist power exited the world stage, not with a bang, but a whimper. After seventy years, there simply was no more wealth to redistribute, and Vladimir Lenin’s great “notion” fizzled.

The Obama audio recording shows that resuscitating “the notion that government action can be effective” has been a driving force since his days as a Chicago community organizer. Can anybody honestly say he left Chicago better than he found it? Can anybody honestly say he’s done the same for the nation?

All that being said, the onus is not on Romney to explain his remarks regarding the 47% of the electorate that is in the bag for Obama and his brand of failed Chicago values. The onus is on Obama and the 47% to explain the failed Chicago blueprint of wealth-destroying  redistribution that gives everybody “a shot” at economic and social misery.

Nearly four years after Obama assumed the presidency, Joe The Plumber and the 53% of Americans that pay redistributive taxes are waiting for an answer to that question.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Recently, Romney’s Democratic opponents in politics and the press attacked the GOP candidate for saying there “are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Romney’s critics describe his remarks as heartless attacks by a wealthy Republican on the poor.

Meanwhile, a 1998  audio recording surfaced of then Sen. Barack Obama discussing his views on government and its role in wealth redistribution.

“I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign – against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved: the Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither, necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means, then, is that as we try to resuscitate – that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind – we do have to be innovative in thinking, ‘What are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?’ And my suggestion, I guess, would be … the trick … is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pull resources and hence facilitate some redistribution. Because I actually believe in redistribution – at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Let’s excavate Obama’s words as though we are archeologists:

First, notice that Obama makes no pretense that his world-view is backed by the weight of experience or history. He merely calls his redistributive theology a “notion.”

Second, Obama undercuts his own “notion” by sighting the real-world failure of the Chicago Housing Authority. Starting in the 1920s, Chicago sociologists saw “slums as an urban ecological problem with decaying structures and unplanned landscapes acting as a cancerous ‘blight,’” writes D. Bradford Hunt in Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. All that “blight” was supposed to end with the passage of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 Housing Act. Progressive leadership and redistributed funds from the public would create a paradise for the less fortunate, giving them affordable housing and a brighter future. That New Deal triumph became a drug and violence-ridden, world-renowned failure. Today, Chicago’s city fathers are bulldozing these high-rise deathtraps for developers to gentrify.

Third, seventy-nine percent of Chicago’s schoolchildren are not grade-level proficient in reading, 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math, and their city’s school day is shorter than the national average. Chicago teachers make an average salary of $74,839. The recently concluded Chicago teacher’s strike was not over money but an upcoming initiative to tie teacher evaluations to the success or failure of their student’s scores on standardized tests, which would also determine which schools remained open and which to close. The union agreed to have test scores account for 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Just in passing, for their private-sector counterparts, student test scores account for 70 percent of a teacher’s assessment. According to the Washington Post, Chicago schools cost underserved taxpayers $4.8 billion in 2012 … and that’s with a $665 million deficit.

Fourth, Obama “can only confiscate the wealth that exists,” wrote economist and conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, “You cannot confiscate future wealth – and the future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.” The Soviet Union ran headfirst into that little conundrum. As one of the 20^th century’s’ great military giants, history’s first communist power exited the world stage, not with a bang, but a whimper. After seventy years, there simply was no more wealth to redistribute, and Vladimir Lenin’s great “notion” fizzled.

The Obama audio recording shows that resuscitating “the notion that government action can be effective” has been a driving force since his days as a Chicago community organizer. Can anybody honestly say he left Chicago better than he found it? Can anybody honestly say he’s done the same for the nation?

All that being said, the onus is not on Romney to explain his remarks regarding the 47% of the electorate that is in the bag for Obama and his brand of failed Chicago values. The onus is on Obama and the 47% to explain the failed Chicago blueprint of wealth-destroying  redistribution that gives everybody “a shot” at economic and social misery.

Nearly four years after Obama assumed the presidency, Joe The Plumber and the 53% of Americans that pay redistributive taxes are waiting for an answer to that question.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Recently, Romney’s Democratic opponents in politics and the press attacked the GOP candidate for saying there “are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Romney’s critics describe his remarks as heartless attacks by a wealthy Republican on the poor.

Meanwhile, a 1998  audio recording surfaced of then Sen. Barack Obama discussing his views on government and its role in wealth redistribution.

“I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign – against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved: the Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither, necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means, then, is that as we try to resuscitate – that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind – we do have to be innovative in thinking, ‘What are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?’ And my suggestion, I guess, would be … the trick … is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pull resources and hence facilitate some redistribution. Because I actually believe in redistribution – at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Let’s excavate Obama’s words as though we are archeologists:

First, notice that Obama makes no pretense that his world-view is backed by the weight of experience or history. He merely calls his redistributive theology a “notion.”

Second, Obama undercuts his own “notion” by sighting the real-world failure of the Chicago Housing Authority. Starting in the 1920s, Chicago sociologists saw “slums as an urban ecological problem with decaying structures and unplanned landscapes acting as a cancerous ‘blight,’” writes D. Bradford Hunt in Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. All that “blight” was supposed to end with the passage of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 Housing Act. Progressive leadership and redistributed funds from the public would create a paradise for the less fortunate, giving them affordable housing and a brighter future. That New Deal triumph became a drug and violence-ridden, world-renowned failure. Today, Chicago’s city fathers are bulldozing these high-rise deathtraps for developers to gentrify.

Third, seventy-nine percent of Chicago’s schoolchildren are not grade-level proficient in reading, 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math, and their city’s school day is shorter than the national average. Chicago teachers make an average salary of $74,839. The recently concluded Chicago teacher’s strike was not over money but an upcoming initiative to tie teacher evaluations to the success or failure of their student’s scores on standardized tests, which would also determine which schools remained open and which to close. The union agreed to have test scores account for 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Just in passing, for their private-sector counterparts, student test scores account for 70 percent of a teacher’s assessment. According to the Washington Post, Chicago schools cost underserved taxpayers $4.8 billion in 2012 … and that’s with a $665 million deficit.

Fourth, Obama “can only confiscate the wealth that exists,” wrote economist and conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, “You cannot confiscate future wealth – and the future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.” The Soviet Union ran headfirst into that little conundrum. As one of the 20^th century’s’ great military giants, history’s first communist power exited the world stage, not with a bang, but a whimper. After seventy years, there simply was no more wealth to redistribute, and Vladimir Lenin’s great “notion” fizzled.

The Obama audio recording shows that resuscitating “the notion that government action can be effective” has been a driving force since his days as a Chicago community organizer. Can anybody honestly say he left Chicago better than he found it? Can anybody honestly say he’s done the same for the nation?

All that being said, the onus is not on Romney to explain his remarks regarding the 47% of the electorate that is in the bag for Obama and his brand of failed Chicago values. The onus is on Obama and the 47% to explain the failed Chicago blueprint of wealth-destroying  redistribution that gives everybody “a shot” at economic and social misery.

Nearly four years after Obama assumed the presidency, Joe The Plumber and the 53% of Americans that pay redistributive taxes are waiting for an answer to that question.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Recently, Romney’s Democratic opponents in politics and the press attacked the GOP candidate for saying there “are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Romney’s critics describe his remarks as heartless attacks by a wealthy Republican on the poor.

Meanwhile, a 1998  audio recording surfaced of then Sen. Barack Obama discussing his views on government and its role in wealth redistribution.

“I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign – against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved: the Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither, necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means, then, is that as we try to resuscitate – that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind – we do have to be innovative in thinking, ‘What are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?’ And my suggestion, I guess, would be … the trick … is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pull resources and hence facilitate some redistribution. Because I actually believe in redistribution – at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Let’s excavate Obama’s words as though we are archeologists:

First, notice that Obama makes no pretense that his world-view is backed by the weight of experience or history. He merely calls his redistributive theology a “notion.”

Second, Obama undercuts his own “notion” by sighting the real-world failure of the Chicago Housing Authority. Starting in the 1920s, Chicago sociologists saw “slums as an urban ecological problem with decaying structures and unplanned landscapes acting as a cancerous ‘blight,’” writes D. Bradford Hunt in Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. All that “blight” was supposed to end with the passage of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 Housing Act. Progressive leadership and redistributed funds from the public would create a paradise for the less fortunate, giving them affordable housing and a brighter future. That New Deal triumph became a drug and violence-ridden, world-renowned failure. Today, Chicago’s city fathers are bulldozing these high-rise deathtraps for developers to gentrify.

Third, seventy-nine percent of Chicago’s schoolchildren are not grade-level proficient in reading, 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math, and their city’s school day is shorter than the national average. Chicago teachers make an average salary of $74,839. The recently concluded Chicago teacher’s strike was not over money but an upcoming initiative to tie teacher evaluations to the success or failure of their student’s scores on standardized tests, which would also determine which schools remained open and which to close. The union agreed to have test scores account for 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Just in passing, for their private-sector counterparts, student test scores account for 70 percent of a teacher’s assessment. According to the Washington Post, Chicago schools cost underserved taxpayers $4.8 billion in 2012 … and that’s with a $665 million deficit.

Fourth, Obama “can only confiscate the wealth that exists,” wrote economist and conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, “You cannot confiscate future wealth – and the future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.” The Soviet Union ran headfirst into that little conundrum. As one of the 20^th century’s’ great military giants, history’s first communist power exited the world stage, not with a bang, but a whimper. After seventy years, there simply was no more wealth to redistribute, and Vladimir Lenin’s great “notion” fizzled.

The Obama audio recording shows that resuscitating “the notion that government action can be effective” has been a driving force since his days as a Chicago community organizer. Can anybody honestly say he left Chicago better than he found it? Can anybody honestly say he’s done the same for the nation?

All that being said, the onus is not on Romney to explain his remarks regarding the 47% of the electorate that is in the bag for Obama and his brand of failed Chicago values. The onus is on Obama and the 47% to explain the failed Chicago blueprint of wealth-destroying  redistribution that gives everybody “a shot” at economic and social misery.

Nearly four years after Obama assumed the presidency, Joe The Plumber and the 53% of Americans that pay redistributive taxes are waiting for an answer to that question.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Abdullha Ismail is dead. As one of 10,000 angry Islamic protestors attending a Lahore, Pakistan, America hate-fest, Ismail joined in the obligatory U.S. flag burning. He was standing too close to the flaming emblem of the land I love. “Witnesses said he had complained of feeling unwell after the smoke from a U.S. flag burnt at the rally,” said the International Herald Tribune. He died shortly after he was admitted to that city’s Mayo Hospital.

The late Ismail, like many of his fellow Muslims, was angry at Western encroachments on his “civilization.” There is little doubt anti-colonial anger is part of the mix at the violent Muslim demonstrations around the world. So, it’s more than a little ironic that Ismail was rushed to a Western hospital and not to a Hakim, or practitioner of “prophetic medicine.” Handed down from the Prophet Muhammad himself, some of the Islamic remedies include herbal formulas, healing with essential oils and the innovative 5th century insight that illnesses arise at various stages of the soul’s evolution.

Instead, Ismail died at a hospital built in 1871 by the British Viceroy and Governor General of India, the Earl of Mayo.

Back at the Lahore flag-burning, Hafiz Huhammad Saeed, leader of the Pakistani terrorist group Jama’at-ud-Da’wah, told the Herald that for the insult of depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a barbaric, bloodthirsty killer, Americans associated with the production of the YouTube hit “The Innocence of Muslims” should be “hanged publicly.”

The answer to Mr. Saeed’s demand is simple: The U.S. should double next month’s shipment of poison-smoke flags to Pakistan.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Abdullha Ismail is dead. As one of 10,000 angry Islamic protestors attending a Lahore, Pakistan, America hate-fest, Ismail joined in the obligatory U.S. flag burning. He was standing too close to the flaming emblem of the land I love. “Witnesses said he had complained of feeling unwell after the smoke from a U.S. flag burnt at the rally,” said the International Herald Tribune. He died shortly after he was admitted to that city’s Mayo Hospital.

The late Ismail, like many of his fellow Muslims, was angry at Western encroachments on his “civilization.” There is little doubt anti-colonial anger is part of the mix at the violent Muslim demonstrations around the world. So, it’s more than a little ironic that Ismail was rushed to a Western hospital and not to a Hakim, or practitioner of “prophetic medicine.” Handed down from the Prophet Muhammad himself, some of the Islamic remedies include herbal formulas, healing with essential oils and the innovative 5th century insight that illnesses arise at various stages of the soul’s evolution.

Instead, Ismail died at a hospital built in 1871 by the British Viceroy and Governor General of India, the Earl of Mayo.

Back at the Lahore flag-burning, Hafiz Huhammad Saeed, leader of the Pakistani terrorist group Jama’at-ud-Da’wah, told the Herald that for the insult of depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a barbaric, bloodthirsty killer, Americans associated with the production of the YouTube hit “The Innocence of Muslims” should be “hanged publicly.”

The answer to Mr. Saeed’s demand is simple: The U.S. should double next month’s shipment of poison-smoke flags to Pakistan.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Abdullha Ismail is dead. As one of 10,000 angry Islamic protestors attending a Lahore, Pakistan, America hate-fest, Ismail joined in the obligatory U.S. flag burning. He was standing too close to the flaming emblem of the land I love. “Witnesses said he had complained of feeling unwell after the smoke from a U.S. flag burnt at the rally,” said the International Herald Tribune. He died shortly after he was admitted to that city’s Mayo Hospital.

The late Ismail, like many of his fellow Muslims, was angry at Western encroachments on his “civilization.” There is little doubt anti-colonial anger is part of the mix at the violent Muslim demonstrations around the world. So, it’s more than a little ironic that Ismail was rushed to a Western hospital and not to a Hakim, or practitioner of “prophetic medicine.” Handed down from the Prophet Muhammad himself, some of the Islamic remedies include herbal formulas, healing with essential oils and the innovative 5th century insight that illnesses arise at various stages of the soul’s evolution.

Instead, Ismail died at a hospital built in 1871 by the British Viceroy and Governor General of India, the Earl of Mayo.

Back at the Lahore flag-burning, Hafiz Huhammad Saeed, leader of the Pakistani terrorist group Jama’at-ud-Da’wah, told the Herald that for the insult of depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a barbaric, bloodthirsty killer, Americans associated with the production of the YouTube hit “The Innocence of Muslims” should be “hanged publicly.”

The answer to Mr. Saeed’s demand is simple: The U.S. should double next month’s shipment of poison-smoke flags to Pakistan.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Abdullha Ismail is dead. As one of 10,000 angry Islamic protestors attending a Lahore, Pakistan, America hate-fest, Ismail joined in the obligatory U.S. flag burning. He was standing too close to the flaming emblem of the land I love. “Witnesses said he had complained of feeling unwell after the smoke from a U.S. flag burnt at the rally,” said the International Herald Tribune. He died shortly after he was admitted to that city’s Mayo Hospital.

The late Ismail, like many of his fellow Muslims, was angry at Western encroachments on his “civilization.” There is little doubt anti-colonial anger is part of the mix at the violent Muslim demonstrations around the world. So, it’s more than a little ironic that Ismail was rushed to a Western hospital and not to a Hakim, or practitioner of “prophetic medicine.” Handed down from the Prophet Muhammad himself, some of the Islamic remedies include herbal formulas, healing with essential oils and the innovative 5th century insight that illnesses arise at various stages of the soul’s evolution.

Instead, Ismail died at a hospital built in 1871 by the British Viceroy and Governor General of India, the Earl of Mayo.

Back at the Lahore flag-burning, Hafiz Huhammad Saeed, leader of the Pakistani terrorist group Jama’at-ud-Da’wah, told the Herald that for the insult of depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a barbaric, bloodthirsty killer, Americans associated with the production of the YouTube hit “The Innocence of Muslims” should be “hanged publicly.”

The answer to Mr. Saeed’s demand is simple: The U.S. should double next month’s shipment of poison-smoke flags to Pakistan.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Abdullha Ismail is dead. As one of 10,000 angry Islamic protestors attending a Lahore, Pakistan, America hate-fest, Ismail joined in the obligatory U.S. flag burning. He was standing too close to the flaming emblem of the land I love. “Witnesses said he had complained of feeling unwell after the smoke from a U.S. flag burnt at the rally,” said the International Herald Tribune. He died shortly after he was admitted to that city’s Mayo Hospital.

The late Ismail, like many of his fellow Muslims, was angry at Western encroachments on his “civilization.” There is little doubt anti-colonial anger is part of the mix at the violent Muslim demonstrations around the world. So, it’s more than a little ironic that Ismail was rushed to a Western hospital and not to a Hakim, or practitioner of “prophetic medicine.” Handed down from the Prophet Muhammad himself, some of the Islamic remedies include herbal formulas, healing with essential oils and the innovative 5th century insight that illnesses arise at various stages of the soul’s evolution.

Instead, Ismail died at a hospital built in 1871 by the British Viceroy and Governor General of India, the Earl of Mayo.

Back at the Lahore flag-burning, Hafiz Huhammad Saeed, leader of the Pakistani terrorist group Jama’at-ud-Da’wah, told the Herald that for the insult of depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a barbaric, bloodthirsty killer, Americans associated with the production of the YouTube hit “The Innocence of Muslims” should be “hanged publicly.”

The answer to Mr. Saeed’s demand is simple: The U.S. should double next month’s shipment of poison-smoke flags to Pakistan.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Abdullha Ismail is dead. As one of 10,000 angry Islamic protestors attending a Lahore, Pakistan, America hate-fest, Ismail joined in the obligatory U.S. flag burning. He was standing too close to the flaming emblem of the land I love. “Witnesses said he had complained of feeling unwell after the smoke from a U.S. flag burnt at the rally,” said the International Herald Tribune. He died shortly after he was admitted to that city’s Mayo Hospital.

The late Ismail, like many of his fellow Muslims, was angry at Western encroachments on his “civilization.” There is little doubt anti-colonial anger is part of the mix at the violent Muslim demonstrations around the world. So, it’s more than a little ironic that Ismail was rushed to a Western hospital and not to a Hakim, or practitioner of “prophetic medicine.” Handed down from the Prophet Muhammad himself, some of the Islamic remedies include herbal formulas, healing with essential oils and the innovative 5th century insight that illnesses arise at various stages of the soul’s evolution.

Instead, Ismail died at a hospital built in 1871 by the British Viceroy and Governor General of India, the Earl of Mayo.

Back at the Lahore flag-burning, Hafiz Huhammad Saeed, leader of the Pakistani terrorist group Jama’at-ud-Da’wah, told the Herald that for the insult of depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a barbaric, bloodthirsty killer, Americans associated with the production of the YouTube hit “The Innocence of Muslims” should be “hanged publicly.”

The answer to Mr. Saeed’s demand is simple: The U.S. should double next month’s shipment of poison-smoke flags to Pakistan.

Too many people today think they are entitled to be rude to others, including in the workplace. Then when they can’t hold a job, they think are entitled to live off the government dole, taking money from others. We need a revival of civility and manners.

As rudeness is becoming increasingly common in our culture, Americans are finding it more difficult to work with each other. Far too many people now lack morals and manners. The U.S. has become a materialistic culture full of self-interest and lacking in respect for humanity. The outward manifestation of this is an inability to get along with others.

This culture of rudeness has deeply impacted the workplace environment. Too many Americans cannot hold jobs because both employers and employees refuse to behave civilly towards each other. There is less forgiveness and there are fewer efforts being made to solve disagreements by working things out. As a result, the welfare rolls are staggering under the weight of everyone on them. Over 100 million Americans are on welfare, almost one-third of the population. Instead of changing their behavior in order to maintain a job, these Americans would rather demand more from the government. They do not consider that by taking more for themselves, they are taking from others. These rude Americans don’t ask what they can do for their country, but what their country’s welfare system can do for them. They feel that everyone else owes them something.

This self-centered generation has developed an attitude that they are “entitled” to be rude, entitled to cut each other down. Instead of greeting others with a smile, brightening their day, it has become commonplace to be negative and grouchy towards others, including their co-workers. Publications like the Phoenix New Times, an alternative news weekly, reveal how degenerate the culture has become. Its articles and the comments left after them are not only rude but replete with foul language.

Movies and television shows have become so crude it is painful watching most of them. The Disney Channel, which is supposedly the television channel for children, is full of loud, impatient, hyper, crass-behaving children, teenagers and their parents. Yet the actors and actresses portraying these rude individuals are always represented as beautiful and successful. This is a terrible example for our children. They grow up believing that they can behave that way and still be successful. Even worse, they may correlate the bad behavior with success. Children idolize actors and actresses and want to emulate them. They don’t understand that what they are emulating is not reality, it will not work and is just plain wrong.

People are no longer helping their families and relatives as much as they used to. Barack Obama, the president of the United States, would not even help his own half-brother when his son needed medical care. The half-brother, George Obama, called Dinesh D’Souza and asked him for the money. D’Souza, a kindhearted conservative author, immediately wired $1000 to him. George Obama thanked D’Souza, saying, “You are like a brother to me.”

Taking God out of the schools has contributed to the decline in civility. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who is credited with removing prayer from the schools, was herself a rude person. Her son became a Christian and revealed how she had treated others and her own relatives, calling her “evil.” Obviously the concept of respect is not a tenet of atheism. By contrast, the Bible provides excellent moral instruction. 1^st Timothy 5:1 says, “Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father.”

Feminism has also helped destroy civility. It has turned women against men, telling women they can be just as crude as the crudest man, all in the name of equality. Instead of elevating men to a higher level, we have brought women down to a cruder and crueler level.

Children used to be reprimanded in schools for using foul language. Now it is rare to find a teacher who will admonish them. The public schools claim they cannot change children’s behavior, since it is learned at home, but aren’t the schools there to train our children? The public schools were originally founded not only to teach children arithmetic, reading and writing, but also morals and manners.

The internet and social media have exacerbated the problem. People feel less constrained to say something behind the safety of their computer screen than they would speaking to someone in person.

There is a misnomer that it is necessary to claw your way to the top to be successful; however, ruthless businessmen like Donald Trump are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason why Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy twice. The multi-authored book Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization explains how the most successful businesses are the ones where employees treat each other well. The least successful businesses are companies where employees have bad attitudes or try to keep others down in order to promote their own careers.

The increase in rudeness no doubt contributes to why so many Americans today are on antidepressants and suffer from addictions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 400% increase in Americans taking antidepressants since 1988, with more than one in 10 taking them. 14 million are addicted to alcohol or abuse it. The number of baby boomers with drug or alcohol addictions is expected to double by 2020. Dealing with rude people constantly can be mentally and emotionally draining. Those inflicting the pain on others through their cruel remarks also end up on drugs, because ultimately, their obnoxious behavior will cause people to reject them.

William Wilberforce, a leader in the 18^th century effort to abolish slavery, was so appalled by “the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances” that he started a movement to introduce civility. Wilberforce had the Archbishop of Canterbury request that King George III issue The Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice. It called for the prosecution of those who engage in “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices.” He founded the Society for Suppression of Vice. He was effective, and by the end of his life, morals, manners and a sense of social responsibility had spread throughout Britain.

A modern day Wilberforce is needed to bring civility to our nation. The U.S. is a freer country than England was in the 18th century, so instead of making inappropriate behavior illegal, other methods to curtail it should be utilized, such as peer pressure. A leader must emerge to launch this movement. Most disputes can be fixed without burning bridges. We must retrain Americans to be peacemakers and respect each other.

Ironically, Obama cited Wilberforce’s civility efforts in a speech he gave to the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2010. Obama is no Wilberforce. Wilberforce didn’t just talk about civility, he led by example. Obama uses the rhetoric of civility in order to force people to accept his viewpoints. D’Souza notes that one of Obama’s favorite sayings comes from the Bible, “We are our brother’s keeper.” However, Obama doesn’t mean that individuals should help each other, he means the government should play the role of Big Brother, alleviating himself and others of this individual, moral responsibility. 

Too many people today think they are entitled to be rude to others, including in the workplace. Then when they can’t hold a job, they think are entitled to live off the government dole, taking money from others. We need a revival of civility and manners.

As rudeness is becoming increasingly common in our culture, Americans are finding it more difficult to work with each other. Far too many people now lack morals and manners. The U.S. has become a materialistic culture full of self-interest and lacking in respect for humanity. The outward manifestation of this is an inability to get along with others.

This culture of rudeness has deeply impacted the workplace environment. Too many Americans cannot hold jobs because both employers and employees refuse to behave civilly towards each other. There is less forgiveness and there are fewer efforts being made to solve disagreements by working things out. As a result, the welfare rolls are staggering under the weight of everyone on them. Over 100 million Americans are on welfare, almost one-third of the population. Instead of changing their behavior in order to maintain a job, these Americans would rather demand more from the government. They do not consider that by taking more for themselves, they are taking from others. These rude Americans don’t ask what they can do for their country, but what their country’s welfare system can do for them. They feel that everyone else owes them something.

This self-centered generation has developed an attitude that they are “entitled” to be rude, entitled to cut each other down. Instead of greeting others with a smile, brightening their day, it has become commonplace to be negative and grouchy towards others, including their co-workers. Publications like the Phoenix New Times, an alternative news weekly, reveal how degenerate the culture has become. Its articles and the comments left after them are not only rude but replete with foul language.

Movies and television shows have become so crude it is painful watching most of them. The Disney Channel, which is supposedly the television channel for children, is full of loud, impatient, hyper, crass-behaving children, teenagers and their parents. Yet the actors and actresses portraying these rude individuals are always represented as beautiful and successful. This is a terrible example for our children. They grow up believing that they can behave that way and still be successful. Even worse, they may correlate the bad behavior with success. Children idolize actors and actresses and want to emulate them. They don’t understand that what they are emulating is not reality, it will not work and is just plain wrong.

People are no longer helping their families and relatives as much as they used to. Barack Obama, the president of the United States, would not even help his own half-brother when his son needed medical care. The half-brother, George Obama, called Dinesh D’Souza and asked him for the money. D’Souza, a kindhearted conservative author, immediately wired $1000 to him. George Obama thanked D’Souza, saying, “You are like a brother to me.”

Taking God out of the schools has contributed to the decline in civility. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who is credited with removing prayer from the schools, was herself a rude person. Her son became a Christian and revealed how she had treated others and her own relatives, calling her “evil.” Obviously the concept of respect is not a tenet of atheism. By contrast, the Bible provides excellent moral instruction. 1^st Timothy 5:1 says, “Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father.”

Feminism has also helped destroy civility. It has turned women against men, telling women they can be just as crude as the crudest man, all in the name of equality. Instead of elevating men to a higher level, we have brought women down to a cruder and crueler level.

Children used to be reprimanded in schools for using foul language. Now it is rare to find a teacher who will admonish them. The public schools claim they cannot change children’s behavior, since it is learned at home, but aren’t the schools there to train our children? The public schools were originally founded not only to teach children arithmetic, reading and writing, but also morals and manners.

The internet and social media have exacerbated the problem. People feel less constrained to say something behind the safety of their computer screen than they would speaking to someone in person.

There is a misnomer that it is necessary to claw your way to the top to be successful; however, ruthless businessmen like Donald Trump are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason why Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy twice. The multi-authored book Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization explains how the most successful businesses are the ones where employees treat each other well. The least successful businesses are companies where employees have bad attitudes or try to keep others down in order to promote their own careers.

The increase in rudeness no doubt contributes to why so many Americans today are on antidepressants and suffer from addictions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 400% increase in Americans taking antidepressants since 1988, with more than one in 10 taking them. 14 million are addicted to alcohol or abuse it. The number of baby boomers with drug or alcohol addictions is expected to double by 2020. Dealing with rude people constantly can be mentally and emotionally draining. Those inflicting the pain on others through their cruel remarks also end up on drugs, because ultimately, their obnoxious behavior will cause people to reject them.

William Wilberforce, a leader in the 18^th century effort to abolish slavery, was so appalled by “the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances” that he started a movement to introduce civility. Wilberforce had the Archbishop of Canterbury request that King George III issue The Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice. It called for the prosecution of those who engage in “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices.” He founded the Society for Suppression of Vice. He was effective, and by the end of his life, morals, manners and a sense of social responsibility had spread throughout Britain.

A modern day Wilberforce is needed to bring civility to our nation. The U.S. is a freer country than England was in the 18th century, so instead of making inappropriate behavior illegal, other methods to curtail it should be utilized, such as peer pressure. A leader must emerge to launch this movement. Most disputes can be fixed without burning bridges. We must retrain Americans to be peacemakers and respect each other.

Ironically, Obama cited Wilberforce’s civility efforts in a speech he gave to the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2010. Obama is no Wilberforce. Wilberforce didn’t just talk about civility, he led by example. Obama uses the rhetoric of civility in order to force people to accept his viewpoints. D’Souza notes that one of Obama’s favorite sayings comes from the Bible, “We are our brother’s keeper.” However, Obama doesn’t mean that individuals should help each other, he means the government should play the role of Big Brother, alleviating himself and others of this individual, moral responsibility. 

Too many people today think they are entitled to be rude to others, including in the workplace. Then when they can’t hold a job, they think are entitled to live off the government dole, taking money from others. We need a revival of civility and manners.

As rudeness is becoming increasingly common in our culture, Americans are finding it more difficult to work with each other. Far too many people now lack morals and manners. The U.S. has become a materialistic culture full of self-interest and lacking in respect for humanity. The outward manifestation of this is an inability to get along with others.

This culture of rudeness has deeply impacted the workplace environment. Too many Americans cannot hold jobs because both employers and employees refuse to behave civilly towards each other. There is less forgiveness and there are fewer efforts being made to solve disagreements by working things out. As a result, the welfare rolls are staggering under the weight of everyone on them. Over 100 million Americans are on welfare, almost one-third of the population. Instead of changing their behavior in order to maintain a job, these Americans would rather demand more from the government. They do not consider that by taking more for themselves, they are taking from others. These rude Americans don’t ask what they can do for their country, but what their country’s welfare system can do for them. They feel that everyone else owes them something.

This self-centered generation has developed an attitude that they are “entitled” to be rude, entitled to cut each other down. Instead of greeting others with a smile, brightening their day, it has become commonplace to be negative and grouchy towards others, including their co-workers. Publications like the Phoenix New Times, an alternative news weekly, reveal how degenerate the culture has become. Its articles and the comments left after them are not only rude but replete with foul language.

Movies and television shows have become so crude it is painful watching most of them. The Disney Channel, which is supposedly the television channel for children, is full of loud, impatient, hyper, crass-behaving children, teenagers and their parents. Yet the actors and actresses portraying these rude individuals are always represented as beautiful and successful. This is a terrible example for our children. They grow up believing that they can behave that way and still be successful. Even worse, they may correlate the bad behavior with success. Children idolize actors and actresses and want to emulate them. They don’t understand that what they are emulating is not reality, it will not work and is just plain wrong.

People are no longer helping their families and relatives as much as they used to. Barack Obama, the president of the United States, would not even help his own half-brother when his son needed medical care. The half-brother, George Obama, called Dinesh D’Souza and asked him for the money. D’Souza, a kindhearted conservative author, immediately wired $1000 to him. George Obama thanked D’Souza, saying, “You are like a brother to me.”

Taking God out of the schools has contributed to the decline in civility. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who is credited with removing prayer from the schools, was herself a rude person. Her son became a Christian and revealed how she had treated others and her own relatives, calling her “evil.” Obviously the concept of respect is not a tenet of atheism. By contrast, the Bible provides excellent moral instruction. 1^st Timothy 5:1 says, “Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father.”

Feminism has also helped destroy civility. It has turned women against men, telling women they can be just as crude as the crudest man, all in the name of equality. Instead of elevating men to a higher level, we have brought women down to a cruder and crueler level.

Children used to be reprimanded in schools for using foul language. Now it is rare to find a teacher who will admonish them. The public schools claim they cannot change children’s behavior, since it is learned at home, but aren’t the schools there to train our children? The public schools were originally founded not only to teach children arithmetic, reading and writing, but also morals and manners.

The internet and social media have exacerbated the problem. People feel less constrained to say something behind the safety of their computer screen than they would speaking to someone in person.

There is a misnomer that it is necessary to claw your way to the top to be successful; however, ruthless businessmen like Donald Trump are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason why Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy twice. The multi-authored book Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization explains how the most successful businesses are the ones where employees treat each other well. The least successful businesses are companies where employees have bad attitudes or try to keep others down in order to promote their own careers.

The increase in rudeness no doubt contributes to why so many Americans today are on antidepressants and suffer from addictions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 400% increase in Americans taking antidepressants since 1988, with more than one in 10 taking them. 14 million are addicted to alcohol or abuse it. The number of baby boomers with drug or alcohol addictions is expected to double by 2020. Dealing with rude people constantly can be mentally and emotionally draining. Those inflicting the pain on others through their cruel remarks also end up on drugs, because ultimately, their obnoxious behavior will cause people to reject them.

William Wilberforce, a leader in the 18^th century effort to abolish slavery, was so appalled by “the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances” that he started a movement to introduce civility. Wilberforce had the Archbishop of Canterbury request that King George III issue The Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice. It called for the prosecution of those who engage in “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices.” He founded the Society for Suppression of Vice. He was effective, and by the end of his life, morals, manners and a sense of social responsibility had spread throughout Britain.

A modern day Wilberforce is needed to bring civility to our nation. The U.S. is a freer country than England was in the 18th century, so instead of making inappropriate behavior illegal, other methods to curtail it should be utilized, such as peer pressure. A leader must emerge to launch this movement. Most disputes can be fixed without burning bridges. We must retrain Americans to be peacemakers and respect each other.

Ironically, Obama cited Wilberforce’s civility efforts in a speech he gave to the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2010. Obama is no Wilberforce. Wilberforce didn’t just talk about civility, he led by example. Obama uses the rhetoric of civility in order to force people to accept his viewpoints. D’Souza notes that one of Obama’s favorite sayings comes from the Bible, “We are our brother’s keeper.” However, Obama doesn’t mean that individuals should help each other, he means the government should play the role of Big Brother, alleviating himself and others of this individual, moral responsibility. 

Too many people today think they are entitled to be rude to others, including in the workplace. Then when they can’t hold a job, they think are entitled to live off the government dole, taking money from others. We need a revival of civility and manners.

As rudeness is becoming increasingly common in our culture, Americans are finding it more difficult to work with each other. Far too many people now lack morals and manners. The U.S. has become a materialistic culture full of self-interest and lacking in respect for humanity. The outward manifestation of this is an inability to get along with others.

This culture of rudeness has deeply impacted the workplace environment. Too many Americans cannot hold jobs because both employers and employees refuse to behave civilly towards each other. There is less forgiveness and there are fewer efforts being made to solve disagreements by working things out. As a result, the welfare rolls are staggering under the weight of everyone on them. Over 100 million Americans are on welfare, almost one-third of the population. Instead of changing their behavior in order to maintain a job, these Americans would rather demand more from the government. They do not consider that by taking more for themselves, they are taking from others. These rude Americans don’t ask what they can do for their country, but what their country’s welfare system can do for them. They feel that everyone else owes them something.

This self-centered generation has developed an attitude that they are “entitled” to be rude, entitled to cut each other down. Instead of greeting others with a smile, brightening their day, it has become commonplace to be negative and grouchy towards others, including their co-workers. Publications like the Phoenix New Times, an alternative news weekly, reveal how degenerate the culture has become. Its articles and the comments left after them are not only rude but replete with foul language.

Movies and television shows have become so crude it is painful watching most of them. The Disney Channel, which is supposedly the television channel for children, is full of loud, impatient, hyper, crass-behaving children, teenagers and their parents. Yet the actors and actresses portraying these rude individuals are always represented as beautiful and successful. This is a terrible example for our children. They grow up believing that they can behave that way and still be successful. Even worse, they may correlate the bad behavior with success. Children idolize actors and actresses and want to emulate them. They don’t understand that what they are emulating is not reality, it will not work and is just plain wrong.

People are no longer helping their families and relatives as much as they used to. Barack Obama, the president of the United States, would not even help his own half-brother when his son needed medical care. The half-brother, George Obama, called Dinesh D’Souza and asked him for the money. D’Souza, a kindhearted conservative author, immediately wired $1000 to him. George Obama thanked D’Souza, saying, “You are like a brother to me.”

Taking God out of the schools has contributed to the decline in civility. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who is credited with removing prayer from the schools, was herself a rude person. Her son became a Christian and revealed how she had treated others and her own relatives, calling her “evil.” Obviously the concept of respect is not a tenet of atheism. By contrast, the Bible provides excellent moral instruction. 1^st Timothy 5:1 says, “Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father.”

Feminism has also helped destroy civility. It has turned women against men, telling women they can be just as crude as the crudest man, all in the name of equality. Instead of elevating men to a higher level, we have brought women down to a cruder and crueler level.

Children used to be reprimanded in schools for using foul language. Now it is rare to find a teacher who will admonish them. The public schools claim they cannot change children’s behavior, since it is learned at home, but aren’t the schools there to train our children? The public schools were originally founded not only to teach children arithmetic, reading and writing, but also morals and manners.

The internet and social media have exacerbated the problem. People feel less constrained to say something behind the safety of their computer screen than they would speaking to someone in person.

There is a misnomer that it is necessary to claw your way to the top to be successful; however, ruthless businessmen like Donald Trump are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason why Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy twice. The multi-authored book Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization explains how the most successful businesses are the ones where employees treat each other well. The least successful businesses are companies where employees have bad attitudes or try to keep others down in order to promote their own careers.

The increase in rudeness no doubt contributes to why so many Americans today are on antidepressants and suffer from addictions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 400% increase in Americans taking antidepressants since 1988, with more than one in 10 taking them. 14 million are addicted to alcohol or abuse it. The number of baby boomers with drug or alcohol addictions is expected to double by 2020. Dealing with rude people constantly can be mentally and emotionally draining. Those inflicting the pain on others through their cruel remarks also end up on drugs, because ultimately, their obnoxious behavior will cause people to reject them.

William Wilberforce, a leader in the 18^th century effort to abolish slavery, was so appalled by “the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances” that he started a movement to introduce civility. Wilberforce had the Archbishop of Canterbury request that King George III issue The Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice. It called for the prosecution of those who engage in “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices.” He founded the Society for Suppression of Vice. He was effective, and by the end of his life, morals, manners and a sense of social responsibility had spread throughout Britain.

A modern day Wilberforce is needed to bring civility to our nation. The U.S. is a freer country than England was in the 18th century, so instead of making inappropriate behavior illegal, other methods to curtail it should be utilized, such as peer pressure. A leader must emerge to launch this movement. Most disputes can be fixed without burning bridges. We must retrain Americans to be peacemakers and respect each other.

Ironically, Obama cited Wilberforce’s civility efforts in a speech he gave to the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2010. Obama is no Wilberforce. Wilberforce didn’t just talk about civility, he led by example. Obama uses the rhetoric of civility in order to force people to accept his viewpoints. D’Souza notes that one of Obama’s favorite sayings comes from the Bible, “We are our brother’s keeper.” However, Obama doesn’t mean that individuals should help each other, he means the government should play the role of Big Brother, alleviating himself and others of this individual, moral responsibility. 

Too many people today think they are entitled to be rude to others, including in the workplace. Then when they can’t hold a job, they think are entitled to live off the government dole, taking money from others. We need a revival of civility and manners.

As rudeness is becoming increasingly common in our culture, Americans are finding it more difficult to work with each other. Far too many people now lack morals and manners. The U.S. has become a materialistic culture full of self-interest and lacking in respect for humanity. The outward manifestation of this is an inability to get along with others.

This culture of rudeness has deeply impacted the workplace environment. Too many Americans cannot hold jobs because both employers and employees refuse to behave civilly towards each other. There is less forgiveness and there are fewer efforts being made to solve disagreements by working things out. As a result, the welfare rolls are staggering under the weight of everyone on them. Over 100 million Americans are on welfare, almost one-third of the population. Instead of changing their behavior in order to maintain a job, these Americans would rather demand more from the government. They do not consider that by taking more for themselves, they are taking from others. These rude Americans don’t ask what they can do for their country, but what their country’s welfare system can do for them. They feel that everyone else owes them something.

This self-centered generation has developed an attitude that they are “entitled” to be rude, entitled to cut each other down. Instead of greeting others with a smile, brightening their day, it has become commonplace to be negative and grouchy towards others, including their co-workers. Publications like the Phoenix New Times, an alternative news weekly, reveal how degenerate the culture has become. Its articles and the comments left after them are not only rude but replete with foul language.

Movies and television shows have become so crude it is painful watching most of them. The Disney Channel, which is supposedly the television channel for children, is full of loud, impatient, hyper, crass-behaving children, teenagers and their parents. Yet the actors and actresses portraying these rude individuals are always represented as beautiful and successful. This is a terrible example for our children. They grow up believing that they can behave that way and still be successful. Even worse, they may correlate the bad behavior with success. Children idolize actors and actresses and want to emulate them. They don’t understand that what they are emulating is not reality, it will not work and is just plain wrong.

People are no longer helping their families and relatives as much as they used to. Barack Obama, the president of the United States, would not even help his own half-brother when his son needed medical care. The half-brother, George Obama, called Dinesh D’Souza and asked him for the money. D’Souza, a kindhearted conservative author, immediately wired $1000 to him. George Obama thanked D’Souza, saying, “You are like a brother to me.”

Taking God out of the schools has contributed to the decline in civility. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who is credited with removing prayer from the schools, was herself a rude person. Her son became a Christian and revealed how she had treated others and her own relatives, calling her “evil.” Obviously the concept of respect is not a tenet of atheism. By contrast, the Bible provides excellent moral instruction. 1^st Timothy 5:1 says, “Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father.”

Feminism has also helped destroy civility. It has turned women against men, telling women they can be just as crude as the crudest man, all in the name of equality. Instead of elevating men to a higher level, we have brought women down to a cruder and crueler level.

Children used to be reprimanded in schools for using foul language. Now it is rare to find a teacher who will admonish them. The public schools claim they cannot change children’s behavior, since it is learned at home, but aren’t the schools there to train our children? The public schools were originally founded not only to teach children arithmetic, reading and writing, but also morals and manners.

The internet and social media have exacerbated the problem. People feel less constrained to say something behind the safety of their computer screen than they would speaking to someone in person.

There is a misnomer that it is necessary to claw your way to the top to be successful; however, ruthless businessmen like Donald Trump are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason why Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy twice. The multi-authored book Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization explains how the most successful businesses are the ones where employees treat each other well. The least successful businesses are companies where employees have bad attitudes or try to keep others down in order to promote their own careers.

The increase in rudeness no doubt contributes to why so many Americans today are on antidepressants and suffer from addictions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 400% increase in Americans taking antidepressants since 1988, with more than one in 10 taking them. 14 million are addicted to alcohol or abuse it. The number of baby boomers with drug or alcohol addictions is expected to double by 2020. Dealing with rude people constantly can be mentally and emotionally draining. Those inflicting the pain on others through their cruel remarks also end up on drugs, because ultimately, their obnoxious behavior will cause people to reject them.

William Wilberforce, a leader in the 18^th century effort to abolish slavery, was so appalled by “the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances” that he started a movement to introduce civility. Wilberforce had the Archbishop of Canterbury request that King George III issue The Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice. It called for the prosecution of those who engage in “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices.” He founded the Society for Suppression of Vice. He was effective, and by the end of his life, morals, manners and a sense of social responsibility had spread throughout Britain.

A modern day Wilberforce is needed to bring civility to our nation. The U.S. is a freer country than England was in the 18th century, so instead of making inappropriate behavior illegal, other methods to curtail it should be utilized, such as peer pressure. A leader must emerge to launch this movement. Most disputes can be fixed without burning bridges. We must retrain Americans to be peacemakers and respect each other.

Ironically, Obama cited Wilberforce’s civility efforts in a speech he gave to the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2010. Obama is no Wilberforce. Wilberforce didn’t just talk about civility, he led by example. Obama uses the rhetoric of civility in order to force people to accept his viewpoints. D’Souza notes that one of Obama’s favorite sayings comes from the Bible, “We are our brother’s keeper.” However, Obama doesn’t mean that individuals should help each other, he means the government should play the role of Big Brother, alleviating himself and others of this individual, moral responsibility. 

Too many people today think they are entitled to be rude to others, including in the workplace. Then when they can’t hold a job, they think are entitled to live off the government dole, taking money from others. We need a revival of civility and manners.

As rudeness is becoming increasingly common in our culture, Americans are finding it more difficult to work with each other. Far too many people now lack morals and manners. The U.S. has become a materialistic culture full of self-interest and lacking in respect for humanity. The outward manifestation of this is an inability to get along with others.

This culture of rudeness has deeply impacted the workplace environment. Too many Americans cannot hold jobs because both employers and employees refuse to behave civilly towards each other. There is less forgiveness and there are fewer efforts being made to solve disagreements by working things out. As a result, the welfare rolls are staggering under the weight of everyone on them. Over 100 million Americans are on welfare, almost one-third of the population. Instead of changing their behavior in order to maintain a job, these Americans would rather demand more from the government. They do not consider that by taking more for themselves, they are taking from others. These rude Americans don’t ask what they can do for their country, but what their country’s welfare system can do for them. They feel that everyone else owes them something.

This self-centered generation has developed an attitude that they are “entitled” to be rude, entitled to cut each other down. Instead of greeting others with a smile, brightening their day, it has become commonplace to be negative and grouchy towards others, including their co-workers. Publications like the Phoenix New Times, an alternative news weekly, reveal how degenerate the culture has become. Its articles and the comments left after them are not only rude but replete with foul language.

Movies and television shows have become so crude it is painful watching most of them. The Disney Channel, which is supposedly the television channel for children, is full of loud, impatient, hyper, crass-behaving children, teenagers and their parents. Yet the actors and actresses portraying these rude individuals are always represented as beautiful and successful. This is a terrible example for our children. They grow up believing that they can behave that way and still be successful. Even worse, they may correlate the bad behavior with success. Children idolize actors and actresses and want to emulate them. They don’t understand that what they are emulating is not reality, it will not work and is just plain wrong.

People are no longer helping their families and relatives as much as they used to. Barack Obama, the president of the United States, would not even help his own half-brother when his son needed medical care. The half-brother, George Obama, called Dinesh D’Souza and asked him for the money. D’Souza, a kindhearted conservative author, immediately wired $1000 to him. George Obama thanked D’Souza, saying, “You are like a brother to me.”

Taking God out of the schools has contributed to the decline in civility. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who is credited with removing prayer from the schools, was herself a rude person. Her son became a Christian and revealed how she had treated others and her own relatives, calling her “evil.” Obviously the concept of respect is not a tenet of atheism. By contrast, the Bible provides excellent moral instruction. 1^st Timothy 5:1 says, “Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father.”

Feminism has also helped destroy civility. It has turned women against men, telling women they can be just as crude as the crudest man, all in the name of equality. Instead of elevating men to a higher level, we have brought women down to a cruder and crueler level.

Children used to be reprimanded in schools for using foul language. Now it is rare to find a teacher who will admonish them. The public schools claim they cannot change children’s behavior, since it is learned at home, but aren’t the schools there to train our children? The public schools were originally founded not only to teach children arithmetic, reading and writing, but also morals and manners.

The internet and social media have exacerbated the problem. People feel less constrained to say something behind the safety of their computer screen than they would speaking to someone in person.

There is a misnomer that it is necessary to claw your way to the top to be successful; however, ruthless businessmen like Donald Trump are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason why Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy twice. The multi-authored book Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization explains how the most successful businesses are the ones where employees treat each other well. The least successful businesses are companies where employees have bad attitudes or try to keep others down in order to promote their own careers.

The increase in rudeness no doubt contributes to why so many Americans today are on antidepressants and suffer from addictions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 400% increase in Americans taking antidepressants since 1988, with more than one in 10 taking them. 14 million are addicted to alcohol or abuse it. The number of baby boomers with drug or alcohol addictions is expected to double by 2020. Dealing with rude people constantly can be mentally and emotionally draining. Those inflicting the pain on others through their cruel remarks also end up on drugs, because ultimately, their obnoxious behavior will cause people to reject them.

William Wilberforce, a leader in the 18^th century effort to abolish slavery, was so appalled by “the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances” that he started a movement to introduce civility. Wilberforce had the Archbishop of Canterbury request that King George III issue The Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice. It called for the prosecution of those who engage in “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices.” He founded the Society for Suppression of Vice. He was effective, and by the end of his life, morals, manners and a sense of social responsibility had spread throughout Britain.

A modern day Wilberforce is needed to bring civility to our nation. The U.S. is a freer country than England was in the 18th century, so instead of making inappropriate behavior illegal, other methods to curtail it should be utilized, such as peer pressure. A leader must emerge to launch this movement. Most disputes can be fixed without burning bridges. We must retrain Americans to be peacemakers and respect each other.

Ironically, Obama cited Wilberforce’s civility efforts in a speech he gave to the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2010. Obama is no Wilberforce. Wilberforce didn’t just talk about civility, he led by example. Obama uses the rhetoric of civility in order to force people to accept his viewpoints. D’Souza notes that one of Obama’s favorite sayings comes from the Bible, “We are our brother’s keeper.” However, Obama doesn’t mean that individuals should help each other, he means the government should play the role of Big Brother, alleviating himself and others of this individual, moral responsibility. 

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.

Nineteen months ago (Feb, 2011), I wrote an article titled “Reaping What He Has Sown — Why Obama Can’t Handle Egypt“.  I speculated that Obama’s feckless, appeasement-oriented approaches to Middle East policy would ultimately leave him with no influence at all since neither Israel nor Israel’s enemies would take him seriously.

In that article, I suggested that President Obama might deter Iran’s aggresssive intentions by adopting the approach of President Kennedy when Kennedy set a “red line” in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For example, in JFK’s rhetorical style, Obama might have declared:

Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any attack launched from any country against the State of Israel as an attack by that country on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the attacking country. I say now to every friend and foe of Israel: Make no mistake — we will defend Israel.

Would such a declaration have deterred Iran?  Perhaps not, but we’ll never know since he has never declared any such thing.  Even if he were to declare it unequivocally now, who would believe him?  Iran?  Egypt?  Israel?  Is it too late now for “red lines” to be a deterrent to war?

Early on, President Obama chose a foreign policy based on winning love rather than fear or respect.  Predictably, he now has neither love nor respect, and the situation in the Middle East is rapidly unraveling.

Had Obama sought respect first and love later, and had he sought to keep our military and intelligence services strong rather than neglecting, redirecting, and decimating them as he is now, “red lines” might have actually worked.

As President Kennedy said (Inaugural Address,1961):

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

And as Sun Tzu said (The Art of War, circa 600 BC):

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The world may be about to learn (yet again) a painful lesson that President Obama never recognized, let alone heeded.

Heaven help our friend and ally, Israel.  And America as well.