If even Chris Matthews is done with Obama, who’s left? You can even watch the video here but this is the text:
‘What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn’t
like dealing with other politicians — that means his own cabinet, that
means members of the congress, either party. He doesn’t particularly
like the press…. He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what
Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft,’ Matthews said.
‘So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning,
visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio or
somewhere,’ Matthews continued. ‘But what part does he like? He doesn’t
like lobbying for the bills he cares about. He doesn’t like selling to
the press. He doesn’t like giving orders or giving somebody the power to
give orders. He doesn’t seem to like being an executive.’
On Tuesday’s program, Matthews similarly called Obama ‘a ship with the engine off.’
“A ship with the engine off.” He’s actually much worse than that and far more destructive but it will do for now.
[W]hy should the Palatine Boors [ie Germans] be suffered to swarm
into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language
and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded
by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be
so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will
never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our
“When in 1929 the thirtieth president climbed onto a train at Union
Station to head back home to Massachusetts after his sixty-seven months
in office, the federal government was smaller than when he had become
president in 1923.” Why, you may ask, do we not know more of this man, this American leader?
There is a monstrosity of a term in German: Allgemeinbildung - general education or educational background. What turns the German term - for me - into a monstrosity is its historical and institutional background.
For Lincoln's dictum certainly holds true in the case of Germany, where homeschooling is a crime and institutions of private education are strictly content-controlled by the state:
“The philosophy of the classroom will be the philosophy of the government in the next generation.”
Nothing could be more antithetic to the idea of genuine education than a monopoly on asserting what it is.
Education is the ability to acquire, handle and advance human knowledge. For these purposes, freedom and competition are of the essence.
Instead those who ought to be protected against any kind of conscription are being conscripted into a behemoth broadcaster of prejudices - as Arthur Schopenhauer said:
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false
appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by
weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
Robert E. Peterson at The Freeman offers an account of a far better model:
The results of colonial America’s free market system of education were
impressive indeed. Almost no tax money was spent on education, yet
education was available to almost anyone who wanted it, including the
poor. No government subsidies were given, and inefficient institutions
either improved or went out of business. Competition guaranteed that
scarce educational resources would be allocated properly. The
educational institutions that prospered produced a generation of
articulate Americans who could grapple with the complex problems of
self-government. The Federalist Papers, which are seldom read or
understood today, even in our universities, were written for and read by
the common man. Literacy rates were as high or higher than they are
A study conducted in 1800 by DuPont de Nemours revealed that only four
in a thousand Americans were unable to read and write legibly.
The German caption translates into: Get ready for blind flying!! Yet again?
Killing people all over the world has become a sort of half thrilling, half boring pastime for the Western consumer of government propaganda (see also Panem et Circenses).
As a manoeuvre in self-importance, Western governments kill and create havoc in hapless foreign countries, carefully chosen for being the weakest and poorest in the world.
Who would risk, say, his job to safe a few lives in Mali? And if they kill one another, why should we not share in it, at least we bring the right values to the brawl.
The habit is so fashionable nowadays, i.e. politically correct, even the Germans put a toe in the pond.
It is the failure to understand that heavy handed intervention itself
creates new problems has been the central failure of American policy
makers ever since 9/11, witness the debacles in Iraq, Libya, and
Afghanistan. Blowback is the intelligence term used to describe the
development of a new and larger problem due to a military or political
action that is not carefully considered.
In order to avoid making a mistake, Washington inevitably and
automatically magnifies every hiccup internationally into a threat,
mobilizing massive resources that lead to the proverbial flea being
smashed with a sledge hammer. That there is some kind of existential
threat resulting from international terrorism is pretty much a myth.
There are lethal insurgencies and terrorist groups to be sure but most
have strictly local agendas and nearly all are being hunted and hounded
successfully by every police and intelligence agency in the world.
Terrorists ready, willing, and, most important, able to travel to Europe
or the United States and successfully undertake a terrorist action are
few, which means that the United States alone is spending some hundreds
of billions of dollars to counter at most a handful of extremists.
Which brings us to the alleged terrorist threat in Africa in general
and to Mali in particular, which might well be considered a case study
of how non-traditional military engagement driven by interventionist
policies can develop willy-nilly when some bad choices are made. What
kind of terrorist threat does Mali actually represent and how did the
current situation come about?