jump to navigation

Thoughts on the Coming Election October 30, 2014

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

The Progressives in both parties may be the establishment now but they have always been and continue to be revolutionaries seeking to turn the American dream into a socialist nightmare.

Since the 1890s the Progressives have worked to change our American Experiment from a federal republic operating on democratic principles that recognized our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness into a democracy where the government grants rights and pursues its own happiness.

Inch by inch, step by step they have worked to change one aspect and then another until today the cacophony of minute changes has become a centrally-planned federally orchestrated symphony playing Hail to the Chief.

We have transitioned from federal republic into an imperial bureaucracy controlled by a Chicago-raised Alinsky-style outfit determined to reduce us to abject obedience. This is the direct result of an education system captured by the Progressives delivering generations of uninformed voters and of the entitlement society delivering a near majority of citizens who get more than they give from the federal trough.

This should be no surprise to anyone. A country once famous for the political engagement of its citizens has raised generations on the dictum that neither religion nor politics were the subject of polite debate. The culture of media-hyped sports addiction and hedonistic indulgence has produced millions who know more about their favorite team or about the latest fashion than about their own government.

I don’t know about you but I’m so tired of being lectured by people who get their news from Fallon, Letterman, Colbert, or the Daily Show that I have all but stopped speaking of anything of substance with most people. We have all developed ways to identify fellow patriots. We listen for anyone to say anything that will give us an indication that here is another American who realizes where we are and from where we have fallen. Then we have great conversations, comparing observations and trying to encourage each other that the United States as we have known it will survive four more years of America’s Chavez.

Often I wonder, are we just singing to the choir, lighting a candle in the dark, or sticking our thumb in the dyke? Will our clandestine discussions on the fringes of a complacent society make any difference? Or are we merely whistling in the wind as our beloved country changes forever into the dead letters of a living constitution?

We have to admit that the Progressives have out maneuvered and out organized those dedicated to limited government. They have turned the world upside down. They captured the Corporations Once Known as the Main Stream Media turning them into a propaganda arm dedicated to suppressing the truth and giving the government party all the cover they need to do anything they want. They radically empowered the federal bureaucracy ceding it powers granted to Congress to set policy and make law. This red-tape machine has grown to become the largest organization in the world. It is ever-expanding and filled with career people dedicated to enlarging their private kingdoms and increasing the power of the nomenclature at the expense of the people.

The courts have been packed, the banks have been bought off, and the unions use legally mandated dues to support candidates and policies their unwilling members don’t want. Check and check-mate. The situation has become so dire and the hour so late that it appears the only line of defense we have left between the USA and the USSA is a House of Representatives controlled by Progressive Republicans and the hope of a Senate controlled by the same crowd.

These Progressive Republicans want the same things as their Democrat counterparts: bigger government and more power even if they may want to drive us to the poor house a little slower.

There are a few younger ones who have been elected by the Tea Party such as Rand, Lee, and Cruz who are trying to make a difference. At every step the Progressive establishment in their own party tries to ridicule them into toeing the party line of compromise and surrender. The old bulls talk conservative to get elected then join hands across the aisles in a marriage of despotism with deceit.

The further we get from the puzzle factory in Washington one would think the closer we would get to our American heritage of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. However, the same uninformed disengaged voters form the majority all the way down to the precinct level. The community organizers have done their jobs very well. Try to name a state that isn’t in debt. Try to name a county that isn’t working to install Agenda 21, promote sustainability or cram its Master Plan down the throat of an unsuspecting public. Try to name a city, town, or village that doesn’t have its good old boy network that manages to stay in power year after year.

Several years ago after an unsuccessful attempt to unseat an entrenched state senator from a gerrymandered district my wife and I decided to become involved on the local level to try and make a difference. We spent several years battling Agenda 21 while watching the good old boys win by hook or by crook either ignoring or fooling the voters. Maybe it’s because I grew up in Chicago and was raised on the milk of “You can’t fight City Hall?” Maybe it’s because I have seen bribes work and honest petitions fall on deaf ears? Maybe I’m just a cynic at heart? Maybe it’s true that a pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist? Or that there really are only two types of people optimists and pessimists and the pessimists are better informed.

Although we shall not go gently into that good night it appears we are in the twilight of our Republic and about to enter the sunset of liberty and the dawn of an America with a living constitution, a herd mentality, and a cradle-to-grave welfare state. If the bell has not tolled yet it is about to. Even if the Obama Zombies don’t flock to the polls as directed and return Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House or even keep Harry Reid in control of the Senate so that a one party state can drive the final nail in Columbia’s coffin, the swelling debt will eventually bring collapse. This is of course the end result of the Progressive’s long march towards the realization of the Cloward-Piven Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. After the engineered collapse these social planners believe they can impose any type of system they want on a public clamoring for relief.

Ready or not here it comes………………………..

So what can we do now that it has been done?

First of all we have to educate ourselves about American History and the principles of limited government. Principles which formed the cornerstone for our two century experiment with personal liberty, individual freedom, and economic opportunity so that we can educate future generations about who we were and what we hope someday to be once again. We can’t teach what we don’t know.

Then we have to build a library of books and DVD’s that tell the story of America. For books look for reading lists at Tea Party sites, also check out conservative media people such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck for suggested readings. For DVD’s the History Channel has produced many great series on such things as the Revolution, the Constitution, the Founders, etc. Individually or in local groups create an asset that our people can use to immerse themselves in the heritage of freedom.

Finally we need to stay engaged in the political process. Become involved with likeminded people and figure out what, where, and when is the best place for you to spend our political capital. None of us is as smart as all of us so if we all look for the way back to limited government eventually a spark will be ignited that will burn with the intensity of a thousand suns and a new chapter in freedom will begin.

In the upcoming election vote for whoever will step on the brakes as we rush to oblivion. There may not be any candidates that are independent enough to stay independent for long however at least there are a few who will vote to take the Federal Government’s foot off the accelerator as we head for the fiscal cliff.

As patriots do what you can do. It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.

Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

Why the Welfare State Isn’t Well and It Isn’t Fair October 24, 2014

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics, Politiocal Philosophy.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Why the Welfare State Isn’t Well and It Isn’t Fair

Throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries Socialism had a fairly precise definition, a somewhat clear program, and a generally agreed upon goal. The definition of Socialism was some variant of Karl Marx’s well known statement, “From each according to the ability to each according to their need.” Socialism’s program was the nationalization of all means of production, exchange, and distribution. Socialism’s goal was the use of all three in a comprehensive plan to bring about some chimera of social justice.

There were two general schools or roads socialists followed to utopia, Marxism and Fabianism. Both were variants of Socialism. They differed mainly in their stated ultimate ideal of a Socialist State and how to get there.

The Marxists said they believed that in a fully Socialist State the State itself would wither away, and all that would be left was a classless society basking in the sunshine of social justice for all. The method advocated by the Communists to achieve this social nirvana was revolutionary change leading to a dictatorship of the working class (proletariat) which ruthlessly exterminated the old society and built the new.

The Fabians saw their road to social justice leading through a highly centralized government built up gradually by democratic means slowly gaining control of the levers of power and gradually implementing its program of bureaucratic control until complete social justice was achieved.

In Europe these schools of thought were explicit and open forming political parties and vying for power either through the ballot or from the barrel of a gun. In America the engrained belief in personal liberty, individual freedom, and economic opportunity were too strong to allow the open development of any party that openly claimed Socialism as their philosophy. Therefore the gradualist approach of the Fabians became the incremental approach of the Progressives.

Starting with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, massively redirecting society under FDR, and moving ever forward under every president, except Ronald Reagan, the Progressives have slowly built the web upon which America now is bound.

With the fall of the Soviet Union and of its satellite empire communism finally lost its great patron. It had long since lost its allure in the reality of a brutal dictatorship that ground its people into the dirt in the race to social justice. So in the West Socialism has gone underground in the Green Movement, the vast network of community organizing groups, and in the Democrat Party. Many of the leaders of the Party now openly call themselves Progressives. All of them champion the idea of a Living Constitution that is evolving from the old American ideal of individualism toward a new collectivist ideal of social justice.

As long as the ideas and goals of Socialism were just that: ideas and goals, it all sounded good and many intellectuals as well as many members of the general public bought into the lofty sounding fairness of social justice. However once the Socialists gained actual power in the USSR and later in its satellite empire the crushing reality of its brutish methods and the soul killing dullness of its execution dimmed the glow. It changed its image from a rising sun of opportunity into the glare of an interrogation lamp.

This is where the insidious and dangerous character of the new underground Socialists in the plethora of underground manifestations reveals itself. Today we don’t have a socialist state in America; instead we have a welfare state. Unlike Socialism the welfare State has no precise definition. The attempt to understand all its implications is like trying to take a picture of fog: it obscures the picture however it cannot be seen as anything solid. The leaders of this homegrown style of Socialism: Progressivism, have learned that by incrementally increasing the level of governmental control over private industry and individuals they can still achieve the Socialist goal of income redistribution without the stigma of advocating an admittedly authoritarian dictatorship.

All they have to do is speak in vague terms of the general good and spreading the wealth around and the low information citizens nurtured in state schools will stand in line to proudly vote for hope and change. Never realizing that the prosperity Paul thinks he is voting out of Peter’s pocket will not reach him as it is syphoned off to feed an ever growing bureaucracy needed to transfer the wealth.

As long as the danger to liberty came from self-declared Socialists who were openly pursuing collectivist goals and as long as there was the glaring disconnect of a brutal dictatorship saying it was oppressing its own people in the quest for social justice it was easy to argue that the tenets of Socialism were false. There were examples to show that it would not achieve its goals, that its execution was brutish, and that it would inevitably produce results which most Socialists themselves would find abhorrent.

The situation is different when we face the Welfare State. It has no definite form and is instead a conglomeration of diverse and sometimes even contradictory elements. Some of these elements may seem to make a free society more attractive such as something for everyone while others such as the means to take from one to give to another are incompatible with freedom.

I am not in any way advocating for no government. I am advocating for limited government. There are many things which most will agree are beneficial to society and which are legitimate concerns for government such as defense, the mail system, taxes appropriate to a limited role, and the judiciary. Most people today would also agree that some form of a safety net is possible in a free society to protect against risks common to all.

However here it is important to differentiate between two views of this type of protection. There is limited protection which can be achieved for all and absolute security which can never be achieved.

The first of these types of protection is against severe poverty: the assurance of a minimum level of support for everyone. The second is the guarantee of a certain standard of life which is determined by comparing the standard enjoyed by one group against that enjoyed by another. In other words the difference is between the protection of an equal minimum income for all and the protection of a particular income for particular groups. This is the goal of the Welfare State that brings us back to “From each according to their ability to each according to their need” or as our current Progressive President puts it, “Spreading the Wealth Around.”

To accomplish this, the coercive power of the State is used to ensure that particular people get particular things which in turn require discrimination between people and unequal treatment. Some are forced to give while others receive. This is incompatible with a free society. Thus the welfare State which aims at social justice inevitably leads back to Socialism with its coercive power and arbitrary methods. In addition though some of the aims of the Welfare State such as income equality can only be achieved through the use of methods which are incompatible with freedom all of the aims may be pursued in that fashion.

The primary danger is that once the aims of the Welfare State have been accepted as legitimate it is then tacitly assumed that the use of means which are contrary to freedom are acceptable. The ends justify the means and the rule of law is sacrificed in the name of social justice.

Ultimately we arrive at a place where the criticism of the generally accepted goals of the Welfare State leads automatically to negative labels. If you point out that Obamacare is socialized medicine you are throwing grandma over the cliff. If you point out that common core is indoctrination you are against education. If you point out that progressive taxation is inherently discriminatory and unfair you are the friend of millionaires and billionaires and the enemy of the poor. If you point out that government regulations are strangling business you are against clean air and consumer safety.

Our Progressive leaders always point to the shining city on a hill where everyone has everything. Our low information fellow citizens never seem to realize that a government which ceases to administer limited resources put under its control for a specific purpose will instead use its coercive power to ensure that people are given what some bureaucrat decides they need. They never connect the dots. They do not understand that when larger and larger segments of the population come to depend on the government for everything eventually it will be the decision of those in authority what anyone receives. This isn’t freedom. This isn’t what America was or what it is supposed to be. And this is why the Welfare State isn’t well and it isn’t fair.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

Law vs Anti-Law October 16, 2014

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics, Politiocal Philosophy.
Tags: , , , , , , ,

America was founded upon the principles of Natural Law.  The Progressives led us into the realms of Legal Positivism.  The vast government apparatus they have constructed has progressed into a dystopian fantasy land beyond law where faceless bureaucrats in an alphabet soup of departments create regulations with the force of law from thin air.  Such is the journey from tyranny to tyranny in ten generations.  Such is the journey from law to anti-law.

We built this Republic on the foundation of Natural Law:

The opening sentence of the Declaration of Independence is unarguably the most famous.  Countless American students have memorized it, regurgitated it for exams, and many can still recite it many years later.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

While many will point to this preamble as  a statement of why the Declaration was made few in our present generation can define what Thomas Jefferson was referring to, which was a common term and a common understanding at the time of its composition, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

In his book, The Five Thousand Year Leap, by Dr. W. Cleon Skousen,he  points out that “…the debates in the Constitutional Convention and the writings of the Founders reflect a far broader knowledge of religious, political, historical, economic, and philosophical studies.”  He also states, “The thinking of Polybius, Cicero, Thomas Hooker, Coke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, John Locke, and Adam Smith salt-and-peppered their writings and their conversations.  They were also careful students of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and even though some did not belong to any Christian denomination, the teachings of Jesus were held in universal, respect and admiration.”

The ancient Roman Cicero was a victim of turbulent power politics and eventually killed for writing against the dictatorship of Caesar, but in his writings On the Republic and On the Laws he spoke about Natural Law.  He spoke of it as True Law or Right Law. “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting;…It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely.  We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people…one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law,…”

Introduced in 1766, Blackstone’s became the law book of the Founding Fathers.  In fact, political scientists have shown that Blackstone was one of two most frequently invoked political authorities of the Founders.  Like Cicero more than a thousand years before Blackstone recognized Natural Law as the sure foundation of human society when he stated, “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation (the law of nature’s God), depend all the human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”

In essence what all this means is that there are laws greater than any laws man can make therefore there are areas which are beyond legislation.  In America we attempted to safeguard those areas such as individual liberty, personal freedom, and economic opportunity with a constitution.  This Constitution was written to limit the power of government to those powers and only those powers which had been specifically delegated to it.

The final amendment in the Bill of Rights reads, “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.”  It would be hard to be more clear.  However this amendment has been interpreted into irrelevancy as the Progressives made their long march to power.

The Progressives nudged us into Legal Positivism:

Throughout the last twenty five years if we spoke of “the laws of nature” many Americans would think we are speaking of doing whatever comes naturally as typified in the saying, “If it feels good do it.”  Most seem not to consider the relevance or even the existence of absolute truth or God’s Law.

To the leaders of today and the compliant populace they and their government controlled schools have indoctrinated man’s law as supreme.  The epitome of this is extolled in the belief in a “Living Constitution.”  One in which everything is constantly evolving, and where people, legislatures, and courts do not seem to be concerned with a constitution meant to limit the power of government.  Instead they say relevance and necessity drives them to interpret a constitution which empowers government to do anything it decides is necessary.

This brings us to the legal philosophy which undergirds this assault upon traditional American law: Legal Positivism.

This legal philosophy posits that law consists exclusively of that which is created and directed by the human will.  In other words with the limiting guide of Natural Law removed the appropriateness of government action becomes a question of mere legality.  Anything which has become law is acceptable.  The Final Solution of the Third Reich was legal.  The purges of Stalin were legal.

As one German professor intellectually paving the way for the Nazi dictatorship stated in his analysis of the death of limited government after World War One, “fundamentally irretrievable liberty of the individual … gradually recedes into the background and the liberty of the social collective occupies the front of the stage.”  He further notes that this change in the emphasis of freedom from the individual to the collective signaled the “emancipation od democratism from liberalism.”  Remember that in this context Liberalism had its original meaning, which is advocating liberty, and not its corrupted American meaning, advocating for exactly what the good professor was describing.

This newly liberated democracy equates the state with the legal code.  Whatever the majority decides is legal is right.  This leads inevitably to the position that there are no limits to the power of the legislator.  There are no natural rights and no fundamental and inviolable liberties.

Turning traditional reasoning on its head the proponents of Legal Positivism advanced the position that when a state is bound by law it is an unfree prisoner of the law.  They reasoned that in order for a state to act with true justice it must be free of the law.  Since personal freedom and the rule of law are inseparable as Legal Positivism overtakes a state, personal freedom becomes progressively more proscribed until the individual is enmeshed in a bewildering web of laws.

By the end of the twentieth century America was tangled in law after law.  The Federal laws alone fill more volumes than anyone could carry: libraries full of laws written by lawyers often weighing out the gnat while swallowing the camel.  There were laws about this and laws about that until finally there were laws about everything.   Until even those we have elected to protect and defend the Constitution believe, as one Congressman said, “The Federal Government can do most anything in this country.”

Today we are entering the rule of Anti-Law.

With the prevalence of omnibus bills numbering thousands of pages written to read like telephone books with addendums and commentaries in insurance speak, the legislature has abdicated its power to bureaucrats who fill in the blanks.

The situation is typified by statements by some of the leaders of the post-constitutional Obama Congress.  From the former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s famous, “We’ve got to pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill,” to perpetual incumbent Congressman Conyers outburst, “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill.’ What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

The philosophical position of the rule of bureaucracy has been best stated by Soviet political theorists attempting to explain and justify that great prison of nations: the USSR.  One put it this way, “Since it is impossible to distinguish between laws and administrative regulations, this contrast is a mere fiction of bourgeois theory and practice.”   Perhaps the best description of the Soviet position is from another Russian, “What distinguishes the Soviet system from all other despotic governments is that … it represents an attempt to found the state on principles which are the opposite of those of the rule of law .. and it has evolved a theory which exempts the rulers from every obligation or limitation.”

Or as a Communist Theorist summed it up, “The fundamental principle of our legislation and our private laws, which the bourgeois theorist will never recognize is: everything is prohibited which is not specifically permitted.”

Here we are in a land strangled by regulation.  Our elected officials pass laws they don’t read about things they don’t understand and unelected bureaucrats fill in the gaps.  As can be seen in the IRS scandal they see themselves as above the law and there seems to be no way to make them accountable.  Like a runaway train involved in a slow motion wreck the citizens stand helplessly by as our nation implodes.  We can vote for one of the parties of power; however, they are merely two heads on the same bird of prey.  No matter which one is in power the government grows and grows.

How do we end this death spiral?  How did Washington, Jefferson, and Adams do it?  We started with the Declaration of Independence so we might as well end there,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.

These were dangerous words then, and they are dangerous words now.  Let each citizen swear to do and be whatever is necessary to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.  God bless America.

Keep the faith.  Keep the peace.  We shall overcome.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

Nobama October 9, 2014

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.
1 comment so far

The once haute couture No Drama Obama has fumbled his way to the “What me worry?” of Alfred E. Newman.

After almost five full years of the coolest, smartest, least prepared president America has ever had it has become obvious, even to the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media, that except for efforts to transform America into a Social Democracy we are rudderless.

In Josh Kraushaar’s “Obama’s Pass-the-Buck Presidency” in the National Journal we are told, “The president has a pattern of deflecting blame and denying responsibility.”  After an off-duty officer tackled the recent fence jumping knife totting intruder in the White House, after a gun totting felon was allowed on an elevator with the President, and after it was revealed that there have been more than a thousand security breaches on Obama’s watch one Secret Service Agent told a Congressman recently, “We just keep getting lucky.”

There in a capsule is our hope for America.  Let’s just hope we keep getting lucky.  We have been able to survive the Clinton interlewd.  We survived George II and his endless wars for peace.  If we are lucky we will survive BHO and his campaign to remake America.  That is a big if.

While President Obama seeks to throw the Intelligence Community under the bus for his failure to react to the rise of ISIL it turns out that he has been getting explicit warnings all year.  Now we learn that he skips over half of his intelligence briefings or as one source at the State Department puts it “He receives briefings whenever he can.”  One Obama national security staffer said, “Unless someone very senior has been shredding the president’s daily briefings and telling him that the dog ate them, highly accurate predictions about ISIL have been showing up in the Oval Office since before the 2012 election.”

Maybe if we put the cover of Golf Digest on the intelligence briefings they would get a closer read?  Perhaps somebody could put them in the 10 letters he reads every day to stay connected to the common people.

I don’t believe that he isn’t told.  I don’t believe he doesn’t know.  I believe he doesn’t care.  His only interest is in his agenda: the transforming of America.  Anything outside of that is a distraction, and something to be shooed away until the polls say he has to do something.  Except for the transformation processes it is government by reaction moving by fits and starts into the shabby dim future.

Whether you agree with the president’s new war or not the fact that he seems to learn everything from watching the news should be disturbing to anyone.  Especially since anyone who has been watching the news knew about ISIL at least since they captured Fallujah back in January.  It makes me wonder what news is he watching: The Daily Show?

They called Reagan the Teflon President because no matter what happened nothing ever seemed to stick to him.  Perhaps we should call BHO the Teleprompter President.  It seems as if he doesn’t read it on his teleprompter he doesn’t know about it.  Then again without the teleprompter and the Hollywood script writers he doesn’t sound quite as slick as we usually hear him in his stage-managed photo ops.

Or perhaps it is as the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media spin it, “Obama is so smart that his mouth can’t keep up with his brain”  This explanation resonates in Academia where Presidential Historian Michael Beschloss is on record stating that BHO is the smartest man to have ever been elected president even though he admits he has no idea about the president’s IQ.  Or as Mark Steyn explains  the spin, he is just too smart to be President and we were too dumb to know he was too smart.

Just like the legions of economists who are constantly surprised by whatever seems to happen next, our Teleprompter President is waiting to see what he reads next to know what happened yesterday.  Perhaps we should change our national anthem to “Don’t Worry Be Happy,” our national motto to “What me worry?” and our national pastime to watching BHO golf.

So while our soon-to-be lame-duck president rides his golf cart into the sunset singing, “It ain’t me Babe, no, no, no it ain’t me babe” blaming everyone else for everything or as Bart Simpson is wont to say, “I Didn’t Do It, Nobody Saw Me Do It, There’s No Way You Can Prove Anything!”

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

%d bloggers like this: