"For when the people are fit for a master ...

... it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes."

The 33rd Czar now. The only question at this point is how long before we start with the official commissioning of Faberge eggs? This promises to be the most intrusive Czar of all, a "Health Insurance Choices" Czar. Uh huh ... I see. One thing is certain. Whenever a bureaucratic title is presented to the public, that public would do well to assume the inverse is true ... "employee free choice act" etc. Why we, as the shining example of the most effective form of democracy the world has ever known, would employ such a phrase as "Czar", which translates quite literally as "emperor", is beyond me. I assume it is just foreign enough not to raise the eyre the term "king" would with the voting public, but those voters should be aware that in practice there is very little to discern the two ... but I digress.

****
Sarah Palin ... I don't know. And if I don't know, how could a fence sitting voter? It occurs to me that all the media speculation on this move is too clever by half. I am no longer of the opinion that this is a political strategy. I first considered that going around on the speech circuit, writing a book, doing fundraisers for GOP candidates given her rock star status might be an understandable approach (it seemed to work for the Jr. senator from Illinois). And perhaps that is her plan, and perhaps she thought it a betrayal of her oath to attempt all that as governor. But if that's true, isn't that just the same old "politics as usual" of putting yourself before your duties? I happen to think this is much more personal. She got a taste of what national politics is like, especially for an attractive conservative female - i.e. ruthless, and she simply no longer wants to participate as a candidate. I know for Washington insiders NO ONE willingly gives up power or status, but I think she has done exactly that. And if I'm right that makes Titus's observation fair - that if she can't take the "heat" as governor how could she as president? But let me add to that observation. If my hypothesis is accurate our political system has become so visceral, so 24 hour guns blazing that a down to earth, honest, capable person, whom rose to success by the grace of her own talent, has been driven from public service. If that is to become the standard, we all lose.

****
Yes, yes, I am guilty of the much talked about "barrage of texts." At least Jambo has the occasional good manners to return them (ahem). The reason for them is quite simple. I sit there, typically alone as my (for the moment) other half has little to no interest in such things, and I listen to the most preposterous rendition of American history from none other then the President of the United States himself and I instantly text not in fear that the other Bund members may have missed that news cycle or speech but rather due to the overwhelming urge I have to confirm that I am not the only sane man on earth.

Our Commander-in-Chief has the unyielding ability to make my jaw drop at light speed. I am sincerely convinced that he can give no speech, no answer, no talk, no presentation on American exceptionalism without hearing the revisionist diatribe that was pumped into the air at any one of the various Jeremiah Wright sermons echoing in his ears. Truly I am of the opinion that he feels to extol the virtues of America is telling only half of the story and to do so would be to betray both his friends and mentors, as well as those that have ever suffered an injustice at the hands of the American experiment in self governance.

Now one may say, and accurately so, that there is in fact another side of the story - slavery, treatment of American Indians, Jim Crow, woman's suffrage, etc. And you'd be right. And being "historically aware" or informed on all aspects of American history is something I advocate. But the question is - is it the proper role of the President of the United States to continually go around our nation and to others reminding everyone whom will listen of those American inadequacies? Does that unite? Heal? Help? As a proud American I get the distinct impression of being scolded for that pride every time the president opens his mouth.

Let us put it another way. There was perhaps no more ruthless, oppressive, murderous regime in all of human history then that of Joseph Stalin's. But would it serve to further the cause of the Russian Federation if Vladimir Putin or Medvedev scurried around the world apologizing for the murders in the woods outside of Kiev? The work camps in the East? The political repression that existed from the Moscowvite Kings all the way down to Gorbachev? To know & acknowledge such things in historical settings is indeed a worthy endeavour, but the very thought of a Russian head of state doing so in a speech on foreign soil (let alone his own) is laughable on the face of it. Consider this excerpt: "Make no mistake this change [ending the Cold War] did not come from any one nation alone. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful." Not only is this breathtaking revisionism, but he can't even bring himself to mention BY NAME his own nation, despite our center role as a driving force. Mr. Obama further noted to the gathered Russians, "And there is a 19th century view that we are destined to vie for spheres of influence, and that great powers must forge competing blocs to balance one another. Both assumptions are wrong. In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chess board are over." (Source: remarks, as prepared)

Really? To Russia you want to say this? And referring to America's past as that of empire? Why do I get the distinct impression that while Putin is playing chess our leader sees the world as checkers?

His entire focus when communicating domestically or to the world abroad is that America's day of reckoning has come. That all the patriotism, extolling of our great virtues, heoric efforts and singularly exceptional Constitution, that all of that will now be put into "context" as he first names, then corrects her many injustices. Reparations will now be made. Whether it be free health care, cap & trade, or a litany of other wealth draining devices he is determined to see America "pay" for her sins, for her great wealth, for her great power. In such a mindset life is a zero sum game. We could not of become so wealthy a nation but by taking it from others. Our wealthy citizens could not have become so, but on the backs of others. In this world the history of America is less one of unimaginable achievement and sacrifice, but rather one of unending hypocrisy promising liberty, equality & a fair shake on the one hand, while with the other is oppressing her people, robbing the world, and raping the environment.

D-Day holds a special significance to the course of world history, but if I may make it more personal, a special significance to the members Bund. We all fancy ourselves quasi WWII aficionados, or at least more than familiar with that epic struggle. That being noted consider the fact that our President, on the hallowed ground of Normandy, made a it a point to state that while our boys (and I paraphrase) in France scaled the cliffs to defend freedom, at home some of those same minority soldiers couldn't eat at the same counter as whites. Yes, they poured out of those Higgins boats into a hell of fire, BUT ... Yes, the boys from Pennsylvania ran up those rolling fields at Gettysburg, BUT ... Yes, the framers may have been genius in their unique inception at Philladelphia, BUT ...

This seems to be a theme on his outlook of America. He actually made the point in that Russia speech to note that while the founders penned a great document, at that time he wasn't even "considered a whole person." He walks around with this giant chip on his shoulder about the very nation that elected him to the highest office in our land. And to be honest I think THAT is what this is all about. Every social program, every intrusion of the public sector, every new power proclaimed by the government, every exclamation of the intrinsic worth of the collective over the individual is part of a mindset. Yes, it is socialist, yes influenced by leftist ideology of his past and present mentors, but that is merely the vehicle. In my opinion he alone sees himself as the one whom will finally, finally cause America to live up to what she espouses. Finally deliver on her promise of freedom and justice for all. True liberty, you see, is freedom from want; from need; from lack of healthcare. Free from war no matter how just; freedom from class. Freedom from responsibility, from choice. He has a version of freedom that he believes is the true promise of America, and he intends to deliver upon it.

"We've tried it their way." I can not get that phrase, that sentence of Barak Obama's out of my mind. For this is not to mean Bush or the GOP. He means Franklin. Washington. Jefferson. Adams. And every other signatory to our Constitution, nay the Constitution itself.

I listen, and I hear a man that isn't very impressed with his nation. Doesn't quite see the singularity of its existence. Finds that the pride of her history is only properly served when accompanied with a heaping side dish of shame.

"The happy union of these states is a wonder; their Constitution, a miracle; their example the hope of liberty throughout the world. Woe to the ambition that would mediate the destruction of either." -James Madison

So ask yourself . . . what is Barak H. Obama's ambition?