The Liberty Professor Endorses Chris McDaniel for US Senate

McDanielPerhaps there is nothing more wonderful, more perplexing, or more troublesome than the challenge of discovering where we belong in life. As a Christian and theologian, I believe that life is God’s greatest gift to each of us. It is a gift that must be unwrapped daily, little by little. It can forever surprise and delight us.

The poet e. e. cummings was a unique person. To be oneself, he argued, is the toughest challenge of all. “To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.”

Yet discovering yourself is the first challenge.

I have come to realize that I am simply not called to the political arena. God has opened new possibilities for the fulfillment of my life’s genuine vocation. We academic types are used to argumentation. In some ways we even thrive on it. Others are not used to it and find it not only baffling, but confrontational as well. I do not wish my political commitments to be a barrier to those to whom I may be called to minister.

My political commitments have certainly not changed. But I will no longer be a public spokesman for those commitments. This will be the final post for The Liberty Professor.

These are unsettling times for constitutionalists. We are under fire from both sides of the political aisle. We are labelled with the cruelest of names and accused of the most vile of attitudes–for no other reason than the fact that we have asked important questions. Has government become too unwieldy? Is it too powerful? Are both major parties responsible for growing the size and scope of government for the sake of their respective agendas?

I believe the proper response to each of these questions is assuredly “yes.”

As we approach the 2014 midterm elections, Mississippi has an opportunity to make history. In my opinion, Sen. Thad Cochran has not done enough to support the Constitution. He is a big-government Republican whose time in DC should come to an end. With this post I thank him publicly for his service and I humbly ask him to return home as a private citizen.

In addition, I happily and vigorously endorse Chris McDaniel, whom I believe will bring a new voice to Washington politics on behalf of the good people of Mississippi. I have met Chris. I have heard him speak. I believe he is a genuine constitutionalist.

It goes without saying that I don’t always agree with Chris McDaniel. No one with a brain should agree with any politician all the time. There are things I would say differently than McDaniel. There are ways I would emphasize the message differently. But one thing is absolutely certain to me: Chris McDaniel is a person of profound integrity and soul-searching honesty.

I believe Chris McDaniel will join political forces with other elected officials in DC who are “fighting the good fight” to bring back to the national debate a full appreciation of the power of limited government as laid out in our Constitution. For that reason I support him without reservation.

Humbly, I ask you to give Chris your consideration. Think of the future and the burden being placed upon your children and your grandchildren. Think of the unbridled power and expense being accumulated in the halls of the federal government. Then take note of the growing clamor of false accusations and mud being slung toward McDaniel and his campaign. It speaks louder than words. It tells you that some powerful people are very afraid of the McDaniel campaign message.

Ideas are dangerous. McDaniel has a good idea: let’s be faithful to the Constitution.

Please mark your calendar. The Republican primary is set for June 3rd. I urge you to cast your vote for Chris McDaniel, and to vote for him a second time in the general election on November 4th. I have already contacted my neighbors and asked them to consider Chris. I hope you will do likewise.

It is a great honor to offer this endorsement, and it serves as a fitting way to bring this blog to a close.  May God bless America, and may God preserve the Constitution.

Tonight a Snare Was Laid for Mitt Romney

The second presidential debate is done.  Perhaps you’re searching for some independent analysis.  You’re in the right place.  But if you’re a Romney supporter looking to feel good, you’d better keep moving.

I call the shots as I see ’em.  And from my perspective, Romney was on the defensive almost from the beginning.  He fell quickly behind and he never recovered fully.  He did all he could do, and his performance was not poor, but he was outnumbered.

How so?

Well, I’ll never be able to prove it, but my intuition tells me that there was a backroom deal struck somewhere.  It may come out one day or it may never see the light of honest analysis.  But somehow, in a hidden corner of the media world, a deal was struck.  Who made the deal?  I don’t know.  What were the specifics?  I don’t know that either.  But tonight’s debate “moderator,” Candy Crowley, was somehow invovled.

Call me an oddball if you wish.  Write me off as a conspiracy theorist if it makes you sleep better.  On the other hand, you can think back to tonight’s debate.  Or, if you missed it, watch rerun segments as they are played.    There was no moderator.  Candy Crowley was an Obama cheerleader, not a moderator.  She might as well have been his speech coach.

Yes, she did fulfill some duties traditionally assigned to a moderator.  She tried to keep both candidates to their time limits.  But she more often showed deference to President Obama while being sharper and quicker to cut off Governor Romney.

Right now, Facebook and Twitter are dancing with Democrats and Republicans declaring “their guy” the winner.  Political debates have no winner unless the voting constituency emerges better informed by way of a genuinely fair debate.  That didn’t happen tonight.  Candy Crowley didn’t come to the debate for the sake of fairness or information.  She came to see Barack Obama win.  She came to see him recuperate from his dismal meltdown in the previous debate.  She came to put Mitt Romney in his place.

To demonstrate this we have only to look at the section of the debate in which the recent Libyan fiasco came to the discussion.  Our ambassador was murdered and our consulate was burned.  Our ambassador had requested increased security.  Newspapers had suggested a terrorist attack was possible.  The anniversary of 9/11 was approaching.  Then all of these facts came together in a “perfect storm” of violence.  The president of Libya called it terrorism.  The press around the world, even before the event, referred to it as terrorism.  It was plain as day.

Yet Barack Obama appeared in the Rose Garden of the White House and blamed an anti-Islamic video produced in the United States.  Then the producer of the video was arrested.  To me it sounds uncomfortably like the actions of a two-bit dictator.

Sure, in the Rose Garden, Obama mentioned terrorism.  Of course he did.  But he never linked the Libyan events with terrorism.  In fact, over the course of a couple of weeks he lectured Americans about their portrayal of Islam more than he lectured Islamic extremists on their violent behavior.  His administration repeatedly disavowed the video with more energy and gusto than they condemned the murder of our ambassador.  What lesson do we take from this?  It’s better to kill a foreign dignitary than to produce a video that some people with guns find offensive.

When Romney made this known in tonight’s debate, Ms. Crowley took the side of Obama.  She intervened.  She overruled.  She took sides.  She saw the entire thing through the lens of the Obama explanation.  She attempted to make Romney look like a fool.  And to all except those who are firmly in the Romney camp she succeeded.

Wait, who was debating tonight?  Crowley and Romney?  No, I don’t think so.

Shame on Candy Crowley.  The role of moderator in a political debate is a sacred one.  Everyone has biases. Everyone has opinions.  No one is perfect.  But the honest judge and honest moderator understands the civic duty of allowing the citizenry to hear candidates as cleanly, clearly, and directly as possible.  Taking sides is a violation of a sacred duty.  In the first debate Jim Lehrer assisted Obama as he struggled to complete his thoughts aloud.  Their minds seemed in unison like the Vulcan Mind Meld seen on reruns of Star TrekTonight, however, Candy Crowley went an egregious step further.  She obviously tooks sides.  She offered what she believed to be a correction to one of the debaters.  She lied for President Obama.

So what was Romney to do?  How was he to save face as a presidential candidate?  Honesty.  It’s always the best policy.  He should have stopped the debate and put his foot down.  He should have called her on it.  By refusing to do so he looked nearly as meek and chastised as Obama looked in the first debate.

Mr. Romney, is this the strong stance you’ll take to overbearing dictators?  Stop worrying about how you’ll look to the meek and undecided.  Be presidential.  Be strong.  Be the man who puts the biased members of the pro-Obama press into their place.  This wish-washy “nice-guy” stuff is what scares constitutionalists away from you.  If you can’t stand up to the likes of pathetic Candy Crowley, how will you stand up for the Constitution?

This, my friends, is a terrible and fearful moment.  When government authority and media bias team up to instruct the citizens in “truth,” nothing good can come of it.  Our only hope as a nation of free persons is to have a media that functions as an independent, critical arm of investigation.  Every move by government must be analyzed and questioned, checked into, criticized with a deep and discerning eye.  Candy Crowly showed us once again what we already knew.  She confirmed for us that, for the most part, the United States has no such media.

Author Bruce Coville may have said it best:  “Withholding information is the essence of tyranny.  Control of the flow of information is the tool of the dictatorship.”

I care not what party you belong to.  Every American should fear this development.  We have crossed yet another Rubicon.  We have inched ever so closer to totalitarianism.  Is there no end to the liberties that the current administration and its media allies will tread upon?

GOP Steam Builds for Romney

Opening my email in box this morning, I was greeted with several alerts from Fox News:  Romney takes Connecticut; Romney takes Delware; Romney takes Rhode Island; Romney takes Pennsylvania; Romney takes New York.  In the first week of this blog (November 2011) I predicted that Romney would be the GOP nominee.  Seems I was right when I went out on that particular limb.  But all is not sweetness and light for the Republican party.

Newt Gingrich continues his verbal assault.  Ron Paul still attracts hordes of supporters.  Rick Santorum has not endorsed Romney, and in a recent mailout recently admitted that he’s truly frightened “to think what’ll happen if Mitt Romney is the nominee.”  This is in spite of the fact that the press is calling the Romney victory in Santorum’s home state of Pennsylvania a landslide.  News has leaked that Romney and Santorum will be meeting in the first week of May, but even if the former senator from Pennsylvania does endorse Romney, I predict that it won’t come with much enthusiasm.

The liberal, pro-Obama, dyed-in-the-Democrat-wool press will paint this as a problem for the Republican party, and in a sense they will be correct.  But it’s a bigger problem for America.  We need a real choice in this presidential race and, sadly, we’re not going to get it.  I do believe, barring some unforeseen national disaster (real or imaginary), that Mitt Romney will take this election.  On the day that Obama was elected I told a liberal colleague of mine at the college where I teach that Obama would not be re-elected because he had set the bar of idealism so high that it would only end in disillusionment.  I suspect this is the case among many who previously voted for him.  Romney will be their “not Obama” vote, but I don’t believe a Romney victory will be as big as Limbaugh has predicted.

For constitutional conservatives, like me, we have to make a choice.  Will we fall in line to save the country and cast our vote for Romney (using the same fingers to hold our nose that we used when we voted for McCain), or will we make a statement and give our vote to a political outsider?  It’s a strategic question, really.  In a state where the election between Obama and Romney looks close, a person might choose to go with Romney just to say no to the Obama regime.  But in a state where Romney has the clear advantage one might mark the ballot defiantly for a third-party candidate or choose to write in the name of Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, or someone else just for the sake of making a political statement to the GOP establishment.

If I’m wrong, and Obama is re-elected, get ready for a Red Tide like you’ve not imagined so far.  If Romney becomes president, as I also previously predicted, that must serve as only the first volley in our political revolution to return the nation to the limited government outlined in our Constitution.  It will be an uphill battle because the press has successfully misrepresented groups like the Tea Party as racist, out-of-touch hatemongers who selfishly use religious values to oppress the poor.  The reality is that these groups are just the opposite.

According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, the number of Americans receiving SNAP (the food assistance once known as “food stamps”) is up 70%, with a projection that this number will continue to rise through 2014.  Despite the ignorance and falsehoods expressed by the “mainstream” press, our economic woes aren’t over.  This is the disastrous hole into which the Democrats have dropped us and it won’t change magically when Romney takes the White House.  In fact, the residual economic suffering after he is elected will quickly be painted by Democrats as another failure of free markets, resulting in a renewal of their socialist battle cry.

Beware:  a second term for Romney may well be more difficult to secure than the first.  We’ll face that together, and in the meantime, we’ll see how many of my predictions are accurate.

Dick Durbin Does the Democrat Two-Step for Barack Obama

I happened to catch a bit of an interview this morning with Dick Durbin on CBS This Morning.  “Trickie Dickie” is the senior senator from Illinois, the bastion of political purity and honesty.  (OK, now I’ll take my tongue out of my cheek.)  Dick is also the Senate Majority Whip, responsible for keeping Democrats in line with the marching orders issued by Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Let’s face it:  Democrats have long been better at the political game than Republicans.  I’ve been a Democrat and I know that from the inside.  As a master politician and an avoider of truth, Dick did such a good job of peddling dishonesty this morning that I quickly lost my appetite and I failed to eat breakfast.  Here are a couple of gems from his commentary.

He lashed out at Paul Ryan (R-WI) for his budget-cutting plan entitled A Roadmap for America’s Future.  In my estimation, it should be entitled A Different Roadmap for America’s Future because the Obama regime already has a map and it includes a sharp decline as the nation goes over a financial cliff.  That being said, there is much in the Ryan plan that is admirable.  But Durbin criticized it for its lack of balance.  You know the complaint:  Republicans don’t want to increase taxes. 

What Durbin failed to say is that the solution must be proportionate to the problem.  The nation does not have an income problem … what we have is a spending problem.  This is precisely why the Democrat-controlled Senate, under Harry Reid’s frightening and irresponsible leadership, refuses to pass a budget (it’s been more than 1,060 days).  Any realistic budget will have to make cuts, and cuts always anger somebody.  So the Senate dodges the problem in order to give the Democrats an edge in the next election (Obama included).

Honestly, when it comes to taxes, I understand that they’re necessary.  Any community of persons that spends as a corporate body must have a system for the financing of community interests.  What we have now, however, isn’t healthy.  Spending choices have more to do with keeping large blocks of voters happy so that politicians can be re-elected.  It’s dangerous.  It will be the end of the nation as we know it.  As we move rapidly toward socialism it will mean less wealth for most of us, but more for the powerful elites in office and more for their cronies in industry and in Hollywood.

Durbin really showed his dancing abilities when the CBS interviewer asked about gas prices.  In line with the Obama mantra, he talked about alternative fuels and efficiency.  That’s all fine and good, but it’s tough to pay almost $4.00 a gallon for gasoline while you’re driving on top of enough underground resources to provide fuel for the next 100 years.  Oh, Durbin also got a chance to get to mention the re-election line that is destined to go down in history:  Obama can fix all our problems if we just give him another term.

God help us if this becomes the case.  I suspect that the 2012 election is our last chance to slow the economic blood-letting.  Make no mistake, dear reader, the election of Mitt Romney (which I predict will take place) will not change our course dramatically.  But it will slow the economic death march on which we’ve embarked.  What I fear, however, is that it’s too late to avoid some of the most difficult consequences of our past mistakes.  If the economic chickens come home to re-roost after we put a Republican in the White House, the popular tide may change again and we may quickly return to Democrat control of Congress and the Presidency.

An honest plan of real cuts to spending is our only hope.  It’s not enough to talk about cuts to future growth in spending–we need cuts now.  Many Republicans are afraid to say it, and this includes my own congressman, Steven Palazzo (R-MS).  He calls himself a conservative and certainly appears on track to be re-elected now that he has taken the Republican primary victory.  Compared to Obama he is a conservative.  In the court of common sense and national salvation … not so much.

I suppose such realities are the reason that I voted for Ron Paul in the Mississippi presidential primary.  I still harbor concerns about his foreign policy.  He’s not a perfect candidate; none of them are perfect.  But I suspect that Paul’s sense of urgency is so overwhelming that he would make immediate changes upon assuming office.  Those changes would be much like a U-turn on the interstate.  One way or the other our Ship of State has to come about.  At some point the plug in the tub will pop and the ship will sink if we remain on our present course.

Friends warned me that a vote for Paul was a wasted vote.  Perhaps.  But it sends a signal.  Nearly 13,000 of us in Mississippi cast our vote for Ron Paul.  I think we’re trying to send a message:  “it’s time to change course.”  With every passing day I am more confident that my prediction of a Romney nomination will come to pass, but signs of disappointment abound.  Illinois Republicans turned out in very low numbers.  They are not excited about Romney.  Interestly, though, Ron Paul received twice as large a percentage of the vote in Illinois as he did in Mississippi.

Our nation is at a “hinge moment” in its history.  Let’s follow the course over the next few months and let’s remember to pray for our country.  Feel free to offer your own comments on this blog, even if you disagree.  I don’t have all the answers.  Please invite your friends to join us here as well.  I suspect we’re going to be surprised by some of the things that take place between now and November.  We need a place for reasoned debate on the significance of those events.

“Anybody But Obama” — Is That Enough to Save Us?

This blog has been quiet since the Florida primary–it’s been a time to think.  I’m sure my gentle readers prefer that these posts be a product of sound reflection rather than an exercise of writing just to be writing.  There is enough of that in the world already.  Ours is an age of “information overload.”  We don’t need more information.  We need better information, honest information, and sound, reflective judgment.  That’s not what we usually get from most of our political leaders, and Americans know it.  What Will Rogers said decades ago holds true today:  “Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke.”

My political insights arise as a product of intuition, and I’ve learned the hard way that I should listen attentively to my intution.  What’s it telling me these days?  That’s why I’ve been quiet.  Though I’ve predicted a Romney victory in the GOP nomination process, I’m ready to go the next step.  My intution is screaming at me and here’s what it has been saying:  Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States.  I suppose Romney feels it, too.  Now that Herman Cain has dropped out, he’s the only GOP candidate remaining who has requested Secret Service protection.

This prediction isn’t based upon my own political hopes, nor is it based upon a sense that this choice is inevitable.  There is very little in life that can’t be changed.  I think Romney will be the successful candidate for the presidency mostly because of the powerful reality of “group think”–the same phenomenon that gave us Barack Obama.  The GOP establishment is increasingly voicing its approval of Romney, the money continues to flow in for him (though not as quickly as for Obama), and most Republicans and independents will fall in line.  That’s not to say that they have to fall in line, but they will.

When I talk politics with friends and acquaintances, the strongest sentiments fall mostly into two camps.  One side argues that Obama has to be re-elected in order to finish the job of “fixing” the economy.  God help us.  The other tendency argues that the primary concern is to get Obama out of office.  In other words, this election appears to me to be Obama vs. Anybody But Obama with the latter being the victor.  God help us on that score, too.

Voter turnout among Republican primary voters in Florida was lighter last week than in 2008, suggesting a lack of enthusiasm.  In addition, exit polls tell us that nearly 40% of the voters who turned out want to see someone else in the GOP race.  Does Romney have his fervent supporters?  Of course.  But most of us aren’t any more excited about him now than we were four years ago.  We still don’t really know who Mitt Romney is, other than what we’ve seen from his work as the governor of Massachusetts.  That doesn’t sit well with us.  Of course he’s a great businessman, but like most owners of large companies he favors a top-down model of problem-solving.  When translated into political life, that means more control in DC, more decisions and rules being disseminated from a centralized source, and less of the liberty that made our economy strong.

When Romney is elected to an anybody-but-Obama presidency, I believe America will be surprised at how far to the Left his policies are.  Commentator Charles Krauthammer put it perfectly a few days ago when he pointed out that Romney is new to conservative values.  He’s a latecomer, and when it comes to his conservative ideology, “he still can’t speak it very well.”  Over at the National Review, Jonah Goldberg puts it this way:  “This, in a nutshell, is Mitt Romney’s biggest problem. A late immigrant to conservatism, Romney doesn’t speak the language naturally.”

Well, duh. 

By the way, I no longer fear a Ron Paul third-party candidacy in the general election.  You may adore him or despise him, but the Congressman is honest in his country-first attitude.  He knows a third rail in November will guarantee an Obama victory.  I believe he’s building a strong constitutional base on which is son, Rand, can carry the small-government banner.  Rand Paul for president in 2020, anyone?

Back to Romney.  His presidency might not be a disaster, but it also won’t be the change we need to return us to the constitional values that made us a strong nation.  Romney has tipped his hat to the Constitition and he has made some conservative promises (regarding Obamacare and genuine cuts to federal spending).  He may very well be true to his word.  But since he speaks conservatism as “a second language,” it’s doubtful that he’ll actually govern as the constitutional conservative that the nation so badly needs now … before it’s too late. 

The economic chickens have their claws in the door but haven’t quite made it home to roost yet.  They won’t wait forever.  A Romney victory in the 2012 general election will send an immediate jolt of vitality to the markets.  There would be an upswing in the money invested by businesses, but the long-term prognosis will remain vague until Romney’s conservative credentials are tested. 

As a business partner, President Romney will be trusted by businesses, but that will be part of the conundrum.  Constitutional conservatives like me don’t want to see government as a business partner at all.  Economic winners and losers must emerge from the free market, not the Oval Office.  If the so-called “conservative” Romney plays the same game as Obama, then it will be quite clear that Romney’s conservatism is not just a new language to him, it’s one that he simply doesn’t understand.

Have you ever owned a parrot?  You can teach the darned thing to say almost anything.

The Next President

Politics is all about the negotiating of power.  It answers the question of “who has authority, and over whom?”  Its outcomes are the deciding factor for how much authority is given and to which person or groups of persons.  Too often the decisions about who wields power are made on a whim, or they’re based upon the person who looks best in public, has the most attractive personality, or the one who makes us feel as if we matter through the use of media messages and portrayal in art.  Not a small amount of influence is exercised by the so-called “mainstream” media as it picks our winners and losers (such as it did for us in 2008). 

It’s quite clear to me that Barack Obama, being inspired as he is by Marxist ideology, has obtained the most powerful job on the planet as a means for bringing massive economic and social change to the United States of America.  The Constitution that sets up the government over which he presides is no deterrent to him.  It’s simply a tool for his manipulation and an occasional obstacle to be reinterpreted.  For constitutionalists like myself, the Constitution is a contract to be interpreted conservatively and plainly.  For Obama it’s a “living document” that changes shape and purpose depending upon the whim of powerful politicians and their agendas for control.

As the GOP meanders toward the day that it will choose its nominee to replace Obama, there is much that is worthy of remark.  Will Mitt Romney succeed in his role as the “presumptive nominee,” or has the Newt Gingrich star risen permanently?  Will Rick Santorum gain momentum, or did mistakes in Iowa vote-counting cost him his dream?  Has Ron Paul topped out already?  Polls in Florida suggest that results there could be much like South Carolina, but this could change in an instant.

I’m going out on another limb here, and perhaps sooner or later all of this political branch-scooting will cause me to have to eat my words, but I’m going to do it anyway.

My prediction is that the next candidate to leave the race will be Rick Santorum and here’s why.  I don’t think he excites voters to any considerable degree.  With him in the White House we’d all feel like George W. Bush had come back.  When he says he’s the “real conservative” in this race, he means he’s the real social conservative because that’s his base.  I think he has overplayed that hand, though it may be useful when the eventual GOP nominee goes a-courting for a VP running mate. 

Recognizing the tight race that is theirs, Romney and Gingrich will continue to snark at one another and reveal every possible weakness worthy of discussion–and some that aren’t.  Each of them will claim to be the “real conservative,” though each simply means by that terminology that he’ll increase the size and power of government in ways that differ from the other. 

I suspect that the Ron Paul base will continue to grow as Santorum fades and as Gingrich and Romney blast one another over the next few weeks.  My expectation is, however, that Gingrich will eventually melt down in one of those candid moments when he allows something in his brain to leak out–something that is better left unsaid, something that will alienate potential supporters.  We’ve seen this before, and it’s one of the reasons he was pushed out of the office of Speaker of the House.  I still predict a Romney nomination.

The next President is ours to choose.  We can have anyone we want.  Getting Barack Obama out of the White House, however, is only the start to a brighter tomorrow.  I may fully expect Mitt Romney to take the GOP nomination, but that doesn’t mean I’m happy about it.  It simply means I can see the direction of the tide.

Truly, the power is ours.  But until we decide as a people that we really want a different kind of president, one who sees the nation’s answers elsewhere than Washington, very little in going to change in the halls of federal power.

Republican Race Loses Perry; Democrats Gain Mickey Mouse

As I predicted just a few days ago, the boisterous Rick Perry has decided to give up his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.  No surprise there, except that I thought he’d at least wait until after the South Carolina primary this coming Saturday.  He started his campaign with a great deal of energy back in August.  He ends with a bit of a whimper. 

There are some things I really adore about Perry’s political philosophy, like having a part-time Congress such as Texans enjoy with their state legislature.  I’m also a fan of his belief that the Union is a voluntary association of sovereign States rather than one that can be required by force of arms.  Such ideas make me adore the Texas spirit of independence.  Still, for all of the authenticity that emerges when he opens that big ‘ole Texas mouth of his, he still came off as unpresidential at times.  I mean, really, could you see him meeting with the Premier of China and asking, “Did ya’ll remember to bring the sushi?”

*** URGENT NEWS FLASH ***

Our furry, little, liberal friends over at the Huffington Post have an interesting piece about Mr. Obama’s visit today to Disney World in order to announce a number of executive orders aimed at increasing tourism and bettering our economy.  Hoorah!  After all, Barack Obama is “the leader of the gang who’s made for you and me,” right?  It actually works when you put it to the traditional tune:  “M-I-C, K-E-Y, O-B-A-M-A”!

Now, dear readers, everyone knows that the Magic Kingdom is a place of fantasy, a place to pretend.  We all need to escape reality from time to time.  So it’s particularly appropriate that Mr. Obama will announce his latest executive orders at Disney World.  He imagines that he can build a strong economy by fiat, by demanding that it improve. 

That’s not how it works, Mr. President.  Command economies are always destined for failure.  You’ve done an excellent job of proving the theory. 

Have fun in Disney World, sir.  Be sure to pose for a photo on the spinning teapot ride.  Don’t worry about looking presidential.  Like so much of the Magic Kingdom, for you, that’s just pretending.