“In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama…[defended] his stated intent to meet with America’s enemies without preconditions…: – I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.’ That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit. I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender. FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb. Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops… Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961. Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit… Mr. Abel wrote, – There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America’s power. He questioned only the president’s readiness to use it.’… It’s worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years… History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days… The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it’s dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said: – Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it’.” – Jack Kelly

“Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter- by peaceful or revolutionary means- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.” – Frederic Bastiat

“Time magazine has published another one of those silly and meaningless lists some in the media occasionally and irritatingly compile to validate their self-importance. It is the 100 – most influential people in the world.’… Who on Time’s list fits the definition of – influential’? Not Tim Russert, who is a terrific interviewer, but how much influence could he have at 11 a.m. on a Sunday morning when millions are in church? – If it’s Sunday, it is Meet the Press’ he signs off every week. No, if it’s Sunday, for more people than watch his program, it is church. Why is Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the list? Most of the world’s people don’t live in New York City, though on Friday afternoons while trying to escape by plane or car it sometimes seems that way. Maybe he’s influential because of the high taxes and high tolls over which he presides. Tony Blair?… George Clooney? Chris Rock?… Oprah Winfrey?… I wonder why Jesus of Nazareth never makes the list? Over 20 centuries, uncounted numbers have testified to changed lives upon meeting Him. Changing a life from what it was to something better is real influence, isn’t it? … John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are on Time’s list of the most influential, but only the one who wins the election will have a chance to influence us. Even then, presidents only marginally influence our opinions, most of which we already hold before they are elected. Presidents rarely influence our actions or behavior, except when we don’t like what they do. Time’s newspaper ad says these – most influential people are changing the world and making history.’ Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? I don’t think so.” – Cal Thomas

“The line between judicial – activism’ and due deference is not determined by whether one always lets elected branches get their way, but rather by whether a judge will defer to the clear language of the Constitution regardless of whether that means affirming legislative or executive action or overturning it. Sometimes a judge is being activist by refusing to overturn a congressional action despite a lack of constitutional authority for that action, merely because the judge happens to agree with the policy Congress has enacted… The very problem is that too many judges want to ensure that – no interest is served except the interest of justice.’ The problem is that what one man considers justice is often in conflict with the law, and that too many judges want to put their ideas of justice above the law’s dictates. But Oliver Wendell Holmes was right to upbraid a friend who urged him to – do justice.’ His answer: – That is not my job, sir. My job is to apply the law’.” – Quin Hillyer

“Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?” – Walter Williams

“[I]n the name of fairness, the [Democrat] party has continued to encumber itself with a set of rules that prevents two equally popular candidates like Clinton and Obama from ever truly winning a primary. In Democrat primaries, there are no winner-take-all elections. This creates a situation where a candidate can win what would, under any other circumstances, be considered a landslide (say, 60-40) and walk away with very few more delegates than the loser. This arcane system is a microcosm of socialist thinking. In the eternal utopia of the liberal mind, no one should really win or lose. No one should have more than anyone else. Everything should be equally distributed. In fact, equality of opportunity means nothing, while equality of result means everything. Anyone who gets ahead must be penalized. As in their primary elections, no matter how hard you work, no matter how much you prosper, no matter how diligently you plan, you will never get beyond a certain point. To allow you to do so would be unfair.” – Doug Patton