An America Worth Keeping

There have been times in recent months when I began to despair for the morale of our land and the willingness of it's people to value the cost of freedom.

I fear no more. This video comes by way of Powerline blog and is 12 minutes that every citizen should be able to spare. It's not a professional video by any stretch of the imagination, but it's powerful because of what it depicts. A notice went in a local paper in suburban Atlanta that one of it's citizens, SSgt John C. Beale, a veteran of Desert Storm who had re-upped as a National Guard member, had been killed in Afghanistan. The paper noted his route from the airport to the cemetery in the short piece.

What you see here is the America I was worried had disappeared. The musical lyrics from the songs chosen are appropriate for the moment. Please watch the entire clip to the end...and look at the people who turned out. I am sure they are of many backgrounds and political persuasions...but they are ALL AMERICANS.

Keep a kleenex handy...but trust me...it's a good thing.

Barack Obama's Hope and Change

By the time I want to retire, I hope I have some change left...

Hat tip to Powerline blog

Nancy Pelosi vs. the CIA

I would imagine that most of the people who follow this blog have been up on the controversy of Nancy Pelosi and the CIA. It seems the Speaker has taken the stand that she didn't know that waterboarding was part of the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) being used by the CIA in getting the other planned attacks on the USA in the wake of 9/11.

We captured a treasure-trove of Al-Qaeda's top operatives months after the attacks and some of the highest operatives even boasted that BIGGER events were to come shortly.

Many of us forget the climate of the times. If you had asked most Americans, within the first year of the attacks, "do you think we will go into 2009 without a follow-up attack in the USA" probably 85-90% would have responded "NO!"

And there was good reason for that pessimism. In fact, there were several follow-up attempts that have escaped most American's consciousness. Richard "Shoe Bomber" Reid was stopped mid-attempt, as were other plots like a multi-plane attempt to blow up planes mid-flight coming back from the UK.

Three Gitmo prisoners, two directly involved in the 9/11 plot, and another involved in the Cole bombing (remember that Clinton era attack?) were waterboarded. That's right. At one time or another, several hundred prisoners have been held at Guantanamo Bay and only THREE were considered to have such important information that it would require coercive action.

Let's leave aside whether this was "legal" or not for now. There as many positions on that these days as we have lawyers in the country (a lot).

What has been debated lately is this question: "What did Nancy know, and when did she know it?"

Beside the obvious Howard Baker-Watergate analogy here, it is important to remember that Mrs. Pelosi was NOT Speaker of the House at the time but was a key part of the Democratic house leadership. It's even more important to realize that because she was part of the opposition, it was MOST important for people like her to be briefed because the Republican leadership knew that having the support of the minority would protect them from criticism at that critical time right after the 9/11 attacks.

Again, let's remember the mood of the times. Few were questioning things like "how rough should we be on these guys?" The times right after the attacks was more like "how did this happen and why didn't we know?" And of course, most importantly, "how can we prevent this in the future?"

The CIA's EIT regimen was strongly monitored by both the Congressional Intelligence committees and the White House. I would imagine if there had been attacks, some of those who yell "torture" would be yelling "I thought you conservatives were supposed to keep us safe!"

Regardless, Pelosi has been saying, with varying emphasis and clarifications, that she was NOT briefed about the USAGE of EIT. She put an exclamation mark on it by slandering both the Bush Administration (expected) and the CIA (foolhardy) for being serial liars.

Wow. Mark Twain once said, "Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel" when referring to arguing with the press. Nancy has accused people who monitor conversations, take great notes, and perhaps even have her phone tapped!

Dumb.

To put an exclamation on this whole incident, Jim Geraghty at National Review Online sent a message to Gene Poteat, President of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers. Don't think that they are not keeping in "close touch" with some of their "old buddies" in government. The present officers are part of the executive branch of the US Government. The CIA exists to serve the president. That doesn't prevent some of them from selectively leaking information to suit their own agenda if it conflicts with their ultimate boss, Barack Obama. They sure did a number on Bush, leaking all sorts of doubts about the invasion of Iraq, before and after the event.

Here is what Poteat said to Geraghty, in response:

Those CIA officers chosen to brief the Congress, and especially the intelligence committees, are very senior, experienced officers, who well know the reputation and future of the CIA, as well as their own jobs, are on the line should they be perceived as not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Such restrictions, however, do not apply to members of the Congress when they then appear before the public.

As Chris Farley said famously in Tommy Boy: "That's gonna leave a mark!"

President Obama seems more inclined to insert himself in all kinds of areas that past presidents have not. Ask former GM President Rick Wagoner!

But I don't think Obama will stop the CIA from defending itself. Nancy has made life more difficult for him lately. And she has been acting like a Queen Bee. As far as Obama is concerned, there is only one royal family in Washington.

Update: Is there a revolt against the Federal Government's abuse of power?

First the banks, then the auto industry, what area of American business is next? In the previous post, I talked about Obama's alleged bullying of investment firms who didn't want to go along with his strong-armed tactics to force acceptance of certain aspects of the Chrysler bankruptcy that would violate their fiduciary responsibility to their investors.

It's always easy to see the justification for the President's actions if you demonize financial people as "selfish, and not willing to sacrifice" like the rest of the investors. That's not an honest read on what is going on here. The others accepted his terms BECAUSE THEY HAD TO. THEY HAD ACCEPTED TARP MONEY. Some accepted because they needed it, others because they were told "take it, or else." But the hedge funds and other investment entities had followed the rules and bought Chrysler bonds expecting that the US Government would follow the law.

I'll say it right now. Barack Obama has violated his Constitutional oath. He is NOT following the law of the land. He is making his own. "I won" is his response to the financial people he "negotiated" with and now investors will pay the price. Because his goal all along was NOT to save GM or Chrysler, but to protect the United Auto Workers, who had worked hard to get him elected, and their pensioners. Now, you can expect more federal money to "bailout" GM and Chrysler over the next months and years. But only if those companies produce more unprofitable "green" cars and give up their profitable "ungreen" cars like SUVs and muscle cars.

Who died and made him king? He was elected president, but I don't see in http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html where he gets this kind of power over business. This story continues to percolate today, but it will get nowhere because his personal popularity remains high as does his fawning treatment from the star-struck press. The public is unaware of what the president is up to. So sad. Fixing this is going to be expensive.

At least some states are willing to take on the federal juggernaut. First, you had some governors who were willing to say, "thanks, but we don't like the strings attached" to some of the stimulus money. Now, aware that acquiescence will lead to subservience, Oklahoma's legislature has taken a position that it will not give up it's sovereignty to the US government. Tennessee has taken a similar action.

What are they talking about?

This is why it is SOOO important that Americans understand the rule book for this country that governs ALL men, including the president.

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1790, and written by James Madison says this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As I have said often on this blog, over the last 70 years, since the American people gave unprecedented power to the federal government, FDR, and the Congress during the Great Depression, the federal government has taken powers away from the people and the states and exercised that power in the way they see fit. Here is a website formed by some who are watching this state sovereignty movement. Amity Shlaes, author of a much praised book reassessing the government's actions during the Great Depression, catalogs the jihad against those critical of Obama's power grab here.

Now you have a government in Washington completely controlled by one party. Republicans are spectators, not even allowed in certain key meetings to formulate laws, and Obama feels protected from scrutiny and criticism by the press, and thus the public. When polls ask people if they like the president, a strong majority says "yes!" When they are polled about his policies, without attaching them to him, they reject them. So why does he remain popular? BECAUSE THE MEDIA HAS KEPT THE PUBLIC IGNORANT

And you had better not attack him or them. Or they will "Palin" you...like we "Palined" Limbaugh, Joe the Plumber, Governor Sanford, Governor Jindal, and Miss California. Who said the Republicans had the monopoly on McCarthyism. Or the president will sic the White House Press Corps on you, as alleged in the Chrysler case.

So, what happens next? In a truly two-party system, with a truly "watchdog" press, this would the subject of hot debate. Instead, we will be told, "hey, we are tough on Obama, look at what we said about his wife's expensive tennis shoes!"

Meanwhile, new restrictions on banks that took TARP money is designed to keep them from paying it back, thereby staying under the federal gov'ts thumb. If you pay it back, then you can't be covered by FDIC insurance. Wait a minute! These banks paid into the federal government's FDIC fund with payment of insurance premiums! Do you think any private insurance company would be allowed to get away with that kind of bait and switch? Why should the USG be allowed to do that?!

Frankly, I don't think that the Obama administration will allow even that concession to stand. THEY DON'T WANT TO LET THE BANKS GO BACK TO FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE. They would not have been able to get the Chrysler deal go forward except they had the banks in their control. And they still have to do the SAME KIND OF DEAL with GM. You watch. So, in the end, I think they won't let them off that easily.

The internet has changed things more than even the internet-savvy left-wing blogs realize.

It won't happen, because it is a political act, but abuse of power is an impeachable offense. Obama should be very careful about going forward with his war on American capitalism.

What hath Barack wrought?

I have been quiet lately because I am working on several projects. I have two new classes for adult education this summer, and am in the early stages of my first book.

Each time something comes along, I see something that I want to blog about, but things come up...

But my background in the financial industry keeps coming back to my mind as we watch President Obama take this ship of state in a hard left turn.

He is killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

No one has EVER said that capitalism is perfect. Or even fair. My dad used to say that over and over, "no one said that life would be fair." We have a president who is trying to use fiscal and monetary policy to effect "fairness and justice." His concept is going to run the ship aground.

His latest move was to demonize Parella Weinberg, a financial group known as a "hedge fund." They also represent people. Imagine that. They invest for pension funds, teacher retirement funds, insurance companies...you know...humans.

Obama is trying to use the executive power of the US Government to bully them out of their proper financial position as first lien holders on Chrysler's debt.

Let me explain: Chrysler comes to you and says, "I need billions of dollars to build new cars."

You reply: "ok, I'm interested, but what happens if you fail and go out of business?"

Chrysler says: "We sell off the company, and you get the first dibs on what's left. It's a risk, but worth taking. And since you would be first in line, your risk is the least, so you get the lowest interest rate of any of our debtors."

You reply: "Ok. Since I would be first in line, I'll buy billions."

Suddenly, Chrysler may go bankrupt. Now, Obama doesn't want this to go to a bankruptcy court, because thay would invalidate the union contracts of Chrysler, and the UAW voted heavily for Obama. He's gonna protect them, so he forces most of the debtors to take @ 50 cents on the dollar. Especially the unions, who are far behind you and your pension funds in line.

YOU, you who had the first position, you get LESS on the dollar,(rumored to be more like 30%). After all, he has been demonizing banks and investment firms since he was inaugurated. And if you DON'T agree to this, his people tell you, "we will trash your reputation in the White House press corps." These are the people who worship Obama and will do his bidding. Heck, media people are one step above baby-killers and lawyers in public polling these days, this will make them popular!

I love how the White House denies this report.

"The charge is completely untrue," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, "and there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."

emphasis mine. Get it? "Can't prove it, pal. Learn to wire yourself for sound, amateur."

Meanwhile, the president goes out and says you weren't willing to "sacrifice" like everyone else was. We elected a president, not a king. This is the US Government, not Cook County, Illinois. You can't rule by intimidation. We have laws, Mr. Obama.

If you think I am making this up, read the links above. What this president is doing is chasing capital out of the country

Even Warren Buffet, who supported and voted for Obama, has warned that inflation and dollar devaluation will be the hidden tax.

Now, there is a very interesting post of a letter from a "hedge-fund" guy to the National Review. I spent enough time in the field to know that this guy is not kidding.

Money has flowed into this country since WWII because it was treated well here. Now, things are changing. All around the world, the warning signs are there for those who pay attention, and our number 1 debtor, CHINA, is paying attention. The demonization of the financial world is the mania of Barack Obama. It's like if you decided to discipline your head by tightening the noose around your neck. The head will get "taught a lesson"...and the body...well...

Here's the note...

Hey (redacted by me) — Would you like a sound bite from one of those evil hedge fund guys for Colmes' show tonight? How's this: "As a professional investor I'd have to be out of my skull to partner with this government on anything."

This administration has made it quite clear that they can't be relied upon to honor contracts or legal precedents and if I can't know what the rules are before the game starts then I'm not going to play. Hedge funds aren't like the banks … we haven't failed. We aren't beholden to the taxpayer to make our way. We have contractual and fiduciary obligation which we will honor. People pay us to make them money not to meet a political goal. So Obama had better think long and hard before he tries to bully us like he did the banks, or try to tell us that "he's the only thing between us and the pitchforks."

Also, Geithner and Obama have been saying that they plan on balancing the budget once the crisis is past. The press may believe that twaddle about how he'll do it by "making things more efficient," but we in the hedge fund industry aren't so stupid. We've looked at the numbers and know what he's planning to do. I know dozens of people who are already putting the legal structures in place to move their companies and themselves offshore and away from the grip of the tax man. These are some of the smartest most dynamic people in the world and they'll have no trouble staying ahead of the (offensive remark removed) over at the IRS.

So unless Obama wants to run out of "other people's money" a lot sooner than he expected, he had better keep some people around to pay the bills. And if he keeps demonizing the productive and saying that it's their responsibility to let him spend their money on the unproductive, then we'll all be gone. I'll be working my 14 hour days is Bahrain or Singapore, and Obama can go suck eggs. He needs the productive classes a lot more than the productive classes need him.

On the plus side, at least my [offspring] will be able to get a decent education.

And if the "smart money" leaves the country, who do you think is gonna be stuck with that huge debt payment long after Mr. "HopeIhavesomechangeleft" has left office?

Us...Mr. and Mrs. Dumbmoney...on the way to being Mr. and Mrs. Debtpayors.

You've been warned.

The Return of the Sons of Liberty

All over the nation, Americans will be gathering to protest the US Government's "generational theft" masquerading as "stimulus" and "fighting the recession."

I hope you will choose to attend one of these exhibitions of the 1st Amendment today. You can find where they are here.

I will be at Kiener Plaza in St. Louis, Missouri. Cheers!

PS...here are some facts to consider...

• If you’re a 50-year old-with a college degree, you will pay approximately $81,000 over your working life just to pay the interest on the debt in the Obama budget.
• If you’re a 40-year-old, you’ll pay $132,000.
• And if you’re a 20-year-old, just starting out after college, you will pay a whopping $114,000 just to service the interest on the debt created by the Obama budget.

Our New Commander-in-Chief: kudos and criticism

Let's get this said right away: good on you for the action against the "pirates", Mr. President.

I have been very critical of the president in this blog, so I want it clear that I will also speak out when he does something RIGHT. Taking out the pirates with the action by the Navy SEALS was the right thing to do. And yes, I would still be saying this if it had not been the unqualified success that it was; you can't appease terrorists. I hope Mr. Obama keeps this in mind as he formulates his approaches to North Korea, Iran, Al Qaida, etc., although early signs are not encouraging in Iran, or North Korea.

But there is no question that his approach to the military in the US is different from his predecessor. It's reported that huge military funding cuts are in the works for the Pentagon. This in spite of constant denials during the campaign that he would follow this path. Using the economy as an excuse won't wash, especially when you are planning to give billions to the International Monetary Fund in a strategy that even bypasses congressional approval. That may be considered to be a plus by the majority of those who voted for him, but some of his actions vis a vis the military are starting to cause dismay amongst the people he commands.

I support the Constitution of these United States over and above any person, of any ideology, so I expect and applaud the US military for keeping any misgivings about their new commander-in-chief to themselves. But at the same time, they have an obligation to give him their best advice on how to move forward in addressing some of our challenges in foreign affairs, and the importance of keeping our enemies reticent to take threatening actions against US citizens. I don't believe in random acts, so when we see that Somali pirates, who have been active for years, decide to attack a US vessel for the first time in decades within months of the ascension of a president who has been as critical of his country as some of our "friends" have been over the last several years...well, it's not a surprise. At least he now always wears his flag pin, where before he proudly didn't.

While we can all rejoice at the release of Captain Phillips, we should also be sobered by the prospect that President Obama seems intent on backing off of earlier strong statements about challenging the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. It sends a very bad signal at the time when the action against the Somalis could have been leveraged with very little risk. This kind of precision action reminds the rest of the world's bad guys that they might think twice about messing with the USA. Perhaps that worked better coming from a Texan, but when the bullets are flying, even liberals from San Francisco want a Texan in the foxhole with them. The world is now our foxhole, and we need to make sure our "Texans" have the munitions they need to keep the bad guys in check.

The fact of the matter is that the quiet word has gone out that the president is not happy that the response of his visits to military bases has been less enthusiastic than say, German citizens in Berlin. Perhaps they continue to respect their former C-I-C because he at least recognized the need to not criticize those who have to inhabit that office. It's nice to see George W. Bush remain classy towards Obama, even if Obama isn't classy in return.
Few of us knew that in preparation for his "unannounced" visit to Baghdad, his advance people decided to ensure that the world's media saw a president beloved by the men he commands, even if it took some behind the scenes deceit to achieve a "candid" moment.

This smacks of the kind of "photo-op" worthy of North Vietnamese portrayals of "humane treatment" of "American war criminals" during their captivity in North Vietnam. John McCain has been back to Hanoi several times, and while he has forgiven, he has not forgotten the conflict between the mirage and the reality of life in captivity.

It's unfortunate that the president's people felt that it was necessary to pre-screen his "loving troops" in this way. It would have been better if he had asked himself WHY the troops were less than thrilled about their commander's visit. But then that would require taking positive lessons from Bush's example. And that would be a reversal from the Bush-bashing policy that began with his inauguration.

President Obama puts US Business on Double-Secret Probation

Now here's something I have first-hand experience in: US Business. I was a private investment adviser for 9 years and did money management for a private school for another 8 years. During that time, when analyzing what makes a business successful, you tend to learn some basic principles.

1) You attract the best and brightest to come work at your organization. That usually means a good organization and top compensation.

2) You encourage them to compete and beat other organizations in the field of your business.

3) You work hard to keep distractions to a minimum.

4) You allow the people that know what they are doing to do their job. You hired them because they are the BEST, not because they are necessarily the nicest people.

5) You don't let your best people go to your main competition.

Barack Obama has revealed what we already know: He knows NOTHING about running a business and even less about running a country.

But he sure can make people swoon and he knows how to buy their votes. With taxpayer money.

That is what we have learned from his first 80 days. The Europeans are still swooning over his visit, but they didn't give him what he wanted: a more significant presence in Afghanistan, and a global stimulus package. (The trillion dollars promised was already in the works...this would have been on top of that)

His firing of GM president Rick Wagoner was intended to not only shake up GM, but ring a shot across the bow of ANY US business that has taken government money of late. Many bank executives, including some who were FORCED to take TARP money have tried to give it back lately. They have been told that they cannot. Some in a very forceful way...personally...but the new Czar of US business, Barack Obama. I'm still looking for that presidential power in Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution. But no matter...after all, Obama has said that the Constitution "represents the fundamental flaw of this country." (the link include a link to the audio from the 2001 interview. And this guy used to teach Constitutional Law? Those students should get a refund. Perhaps he will "fix" the Constitution by ignoring it. He's off to a good start.

Obama's war on US business is persuading our best and brightest to leave US corporations and seek out more friendly places with foreign institutions. Some believe that he doesn't want the economy to recover, that is part of what has been called the "Cloward/Piven" strategy for the US economy. This strategy would end the US free market economy and make us look more like European Socialism. I'm not ready to go say he is doing this...yet. But I still don't believe many of Obama's moves are what over 60 million people thought they were voting for last November.

So it is understandable that some executives would be willing to go overseas. Look for that exodus to speed up faster than you can say "Governor Patterson hates the rich people who pay New York City Taxes." What was that about? It was about a governor with approval ratings even lower than Rush Limbaugh...bashing Rush Limbaugh.

Meanwhile, the president has managed to apologize for every American offense short of the Edsel and new Coke. He also threw in a slap in the face, this time to past DEMOCRATIC president Harry S. Truman, by flagellating America over Hiroshima. Looks like he was there for more of the Reverend Wright Hate America preachings then he led us to believe in the campaign. You may remember that Wright's indignant accusations that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were about racism against Asians, and not about ending the war. Shame on you, Mr. President.

Fortunately, the students in my US History classes know more about that event than the president of the United States, as they watch the film Hiroshima every year. It's a pretty accurate accounting of the timeline and reasonings that led to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended World War II. I feel fairly certain that Mr. Obama never saw it. I believe it has great credibility as an accurate portrayal of the events leading up to Truman's decision because the Japanese side of the story is portrayed by Japanese and the US side portraying generally by Canadians. And we aren't terribly popular with Canadians these days...but I feel the US view is well-represented here.

Perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on our president for his mistaken view regarding that act. Even though it probably saved half a million US lives, not to mention over a million Japanese lives, by making the invasion of Japan unnecessary, but it showed us just how bad a full-scale nuclear war would be should we lose control of world events and let loose the ultimate "dogs of war."

Obama is obviously "historically-challenged." He was taught his high school US History in Hawaii where it is portrayed as a racist act by Americans against Asians. How ironic that this be taught in the vicinity of the still-rusting hulk of the USS Arizona at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. But that is the nature of politically correct history in our educational system in the US today.

The few of us who work overtime trying to be fair while at the same time making sure that they don't get the touchy-feely gobbledegook that passes for "social studies" these days.

So, when we hear him bashing his nation in foreign cities, he is getting applause for his more "reasonable" approach to US foreign policy and wiping away the memory of his cowboy predecessor.

Like a high-schooler at prom, they are excited at the thought of an "easy" date. But they won't respect him in the morning.

UPDATE: His boyhood home state asks him not to do anything to further trash their struggling economy

God Bless Thomas Sowell

I guess I'm not much of a blogger if I often just reprint something another writer has written. My thinking is that great crisis generate great thinking and writing from great people. We are very blessed to have some fantastic writers and thinkers at this point in our history, unfortunately, none of them have any political power right now. Our government is currently run by some of the worst demogogues in US History. Barney Frank, Joseph Biden, Chris Dodd, and The One are driving the US Titanic full speed towards the iceberg.

Fortunately, we have Victor Davis Hanson, Mark Steyn, Mark Levin, and the master: Thomas Sowell.

I know that there are those who simply see his skin color...hah! I read his stuff for years before I discovered his background. His latest article reflects exactly where I was during the campaign. Watching Americans elect a president like they are voting for a class president was a painful experience for a person who follows current events and contemplates their relation to the lessons history can teach us.

SO...here is his latest, A Rookie President. Read it, and don't weep, just get organized to do everything you can to stop his statist agenda.

A Rookie President
We can lose some very big games with this rookie.

By Thomas Sowell

Someone once said that, for every rookie you have on your starting team in the National Football League, you will lose a game. Somewhere, at some time during the season, a rookie will make a mistake that will cost you a game.

We now have a rookie president of the United States, and, in the dangerous world we live in, with terrorist nations going nuclear, just one rookie mistake can bring disaster down on this generation and generations yet to come.

Barack Obama is a rookie in a sense that few other presidents in American history have ever been. It is not just that he has never been president before. He has never had any position in any kind of organization where he was personally responsible for the outcome.

Other first-term presidents have been governors, generals, Cabinet members, or others in positions of personal responsibility. A few have been senators, like Barack Obama, but usually for longer than Obama, and not having spent half their few years in the Senate running for president.

What is even worse than making mistakes is having sycophants telling you that you are doing fine when you are not. In addition to all the usual hangers-on and supplicants for government favors that every president has, Barack Obama has a media that will see no evil, hear no evil, and certainly speak no evil.

They will cheer him on, no matter what he does, short of first-degree murder — and they would make excuses for that. Even Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan has gushed over President Obama, and even crusty Bill O’Reilly has been impressed by Obama’s demeanor.

There is no sign that President Obama has impressed the Russians, the Iranians, or the North Koreans, except by his rookie mistakes — and that is a dangerous way to impress dangerous people.

What did his televised overture to the Iranians accomplish, except to reassure them that he was not going to do a damn thing to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb? It is a mistake that can go ringing down the corridors of history.

Future generations who live in the shadow of that nuclear threat may wonder what we were thinking about, putting our lives — and theirs — in the hands of a rookie because we liked his style and symbolism?

In the name of “change,” Barack Obama is following policies so old that this generation has never heard of them — certainly not in most of our educational institutions, where history has been replaced by “social studies” or other politically correct courses.

Seeking deals with our adversaries, behind the backs of our allies? The French did that at Munich back in 1938. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves and, less than two years later, Hitler gobbled up France anyway.

This year, President Obama’s attempt to make a backdoor deal with the Russians, behind the backs of the NATO countries, was not only rejected but made public by the Russians — a sign of contempt and a warning to our allies not to put too much trust in the United States.

Barack Obama is following a long practice among those on the left of being hard on our allies and soft on our enemies. One of our few allies in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, was a whipping boy for many in the American media, who vented their indignation at his regime — which now, in retrospect, seems almost benign compared to the hate-filled fanatics and international-terrorism sponsors who now rule that country.

However much Barack Obama has proclaimed his support for Israel, his first phone call as president of the United States was to Hamas, to which he has given hundreds of millions of dollars, which can buy a lot of rockets to fire into Israel.

Our oldest and staunchest ally, Britain, has been downgraded by President Obama’s visibly unimpressive reception of British prime minister Gordon Brown, compared to the way that previous presidents over the past two generations have received British prime ministers. President Obama’s sending the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House back to the British embassy at about the same time was either a rookie mistake or another snub.

We can lose some very big games with this rookie.

Finally, a film about our military I can recommend

Please click on and watch the above trailer.

Last night, my wife and I were heading for Chicago where I am giving a talk on Abraham Lincoln to one of many clubs around the country who support the school where I teach.

I had seen that the movie "Brothers at War" was going to be shown in Decatur, Illinois, so we made plans to stop there and see it before arriving in Chicago. Little did I know that Decatur was the hometown of the family of the subjects of the film. The director of the film, Jake Rademacher, and oldest of the brothers, had decided to make the film about his two younger brothers in order to get an idea why men were signing up to return over and over again to go back to Iraq.

He showed up for the film last night, being greeted by so many old friends, and gave us a little Q & A after the film. The audience had a decidedly supportive cachet but even more of a frustration with the way the mission in Iraq has been treated by Hollywood and the US press media. It was clear this was one reason that Rademacher made the film, but it is really refreshingly free of politics and polemics. What it is truly a tribute to is the sacrifice that the men and their families make to support their highest sense of service to the United States of America and a chance to help oppressed peoples who have been bullied by dictators like Saddam Hussein.

The last 30 minutes of the film are the most rewarding because we finally get a sense of the Iraqi people, and more importantly, the nascent new Iraqi army. Most of the film was shot in two stints Jake took with his brothers, and their comrades, in Iraq.

We see many things we never see on the TV news: Iraqis telling us our troops are "the good guys", GIs saying "I'd give my life for America...without hesistation", the boredom, the good-natured four-letter word joshing, a firefight...and casualties.

It's not a whitewash...it was clear that the Iraqi army isn't going to be the US Marines anytime soon, but the looks on their faces when they get praise from their Marine advisor for running TOWARDS the gunfire, and taking on the "wahabis" as the enemy is called, is priceless. The men kiss each other on the cheek, and you can see that if we are willing to have the gonads to hang in there with the Iraqi people, and not just for a few months or years, that they just might make a difference in that insane part of the world.

I stopped wiping away the tears after the first few minutes of the film an just let the salt dry; a mark of pride in what I was viewing.

There is no word yet on when there will be a DVD of this film, but I encourage anyone to go to the website and click on either "theaters near you" or "join a task force." As you can imagine, there were plenty of theaters showing junk like "Lions and Lambs" or even "Redacted", but getting "Brothers at War" has been a real challenge. Even with the financial and connective support of Gary "Lt. Dan" Sinese and Jon Voight has not made it easy for Rademacher to get this film distributed.

Any city that can sell 1000 pre-paid tickets will get the film there, so the producers are organizing "task forces" in various states to get the film shown in their area. As you can imagine, much of the focus has been in towns with a large National Guard or military base population.

But this is a film that should be seen by all US citizens so they have a better understanding of what military families sacrifice in order to keep us safe.

I, for one, would love to be able to show it in my classroom someday. There will be issues with that, it's rated R for language and a brief shot of a pretty tough war wound, but the message to our culture needs to be heard.

Coach