The Grim Dilemma of Government Leadership

An interesting article from www.ucg.org about the problems of government leadership. This follows this post about storing up gold and other treasures. This follows this post about an interesting Seminar.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

The Grim Dilemma of Government Leadership






article by John Ross Schroeder





The present financial crisis has handed members of the world press a field day. Most current affairs journalists are having a go at both America and Europe—decrying the lack of political leadership. Why are we in this monetary mess, and what does God require of our leaders?



Wrote Fareed Zakaria in Time magazine recently: “Americans need a government that works. What the debt crisis highlighted is that Congress—the heart of today’s government—is utterly and completely broken” (“The Debt Deal’s Failure,” Aug. 15, 2011, p. 15). Alternatively, some observers blame U.S. President Barack Obama. The title of The Economist’sLexington column labels him “an underperforming president”—the article’s drophead stating that he “allowed the Republicans to rout him over the debt ceiling” (Aug. 6, 2011).



ASunday Telegraph article by Peter Oborne broadened out this grim picture to include European leaders, the drophead summarizing, “Washington and Europe seem powerless in the face of the economic tempest” (“In a Crisis Like This, the World’s Leaders Are Out of Their Depth,” Aug. 7, 2011). Oborne further warns, “Wake up: the eurozone is very close to collapse.”



Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown blamed the euro-crisis on both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy (“Brown: I Blame Merkel and Sarkozy for Financial Crisis,” The Independent on Sunday, Aug. 7, 2011).



Clearly, there are myriads of magazine and newspaper articles that assign blame or report on others assigning blame and telling readers what needs to be done to restore order. Trouble is, the various observers are all over the political spectrum, as is the advice the proffer.



One British observer came closer to defining the cause of America’s financial ills. “The country is in the middle of a moral crisis,” wrote Christopher Caldwell in The Spectator (“Divided We Stand,” Aug. 6, 2011). This observation implies that we may be falling foul of absolute standards and values not of human making. It even suggests that God may be involved. That, in fact, is the proper perspective.



Divine judgment at work?

God is certainly involved in the leadership of nations. And Scripture reveals that our lack of adept leadership today may be the result of His judgment. The prophetic Word explains in Isaiah 3: “For behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, takes away from Jerusalem and from Judah . . . the mighty man and the man of war, the judge and the prophet, and the diviner and the elder; the captain of fifty and the honorable man, the counselor and the skillful artisan, and the expert enchanter” (verses 1-3).



Clearly, the various functions of skill and leadership are expressed in the terminology of that day. Competent leadership across a whole range of national fields and endeavors was to surely disappear from ancient Judah. And the same applies to our societies today. Remember that Bible prophecy is dual in nature. Prophetic fulfillments can occur more than once—the later and greater fulfillment often coming in these latter days. Our free booklet You Can Understand Bible Prophecy explains this basic principle of proper scriptural studies.



But in the nation of Judah, who wound up taking the place of professionally competent leaders? God said: “I will give children to be their princes [rulers], and babes [people sorely lacking in maturity] shall rule over them. [As a result] The people will be oppressed, every one by another and every one by his neighbor” (verses 4-5). Poor leadership adversely affects the general populace of a nation. The common people often suffer immensely when governments go wrong: “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan” (Proverbs:29:2When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.).



In ancient Judah, the ruling classes either reached the point of lacking sufficient maturity to make proper decisions or lacked the courage to implement what needed to be done in spite of popular outcries. It’s the same today.



The moral causes

But why would God cause financial adversity to happen to a nation? Isaiah 3 goes on to say: “For Jerusalem stumbled and Judah is fallen, because their tongue [what they say] and their doings are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of His glory . . . And they declare their sin as Sodom [shamelessly]; they do not hide it. [Is it not the same in Western society today?] Woe to their soul! For they have brought evil upon themselves” (Isaiah:3:8-9[8]For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory.[9]The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves., emphasis added throughout).



Ultimately nations and individuals reap the results of their own actions. God made a moral universe in which evil brings its own tragic consequences. God’s laws are self-enforcing. This is one way our Creator points us back to right paths. Jeremiah:2:19Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the LORD thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord GOD of hosts. explains, “Your own wickedness will correct you, and your backslidings will rebuke you.”



Returning to Isaiah 3, we note that God strongly rebuked the wrongs of ancient leadership: “As for my people, children are their oppressors and women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the ways of your paths” (verse 12). Again, these principles apply to our own day as well.



Essentials of proper leadership

The Bible identifies the type of leadership that pleases God Almighty: “But on this one will I look: On him who is poor [humble] and of a contrite [repentant] spirit, and who trembles at My word” (Isaiah:66:2For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.). Our Creator desires rulers who have a healthy respect for His Word and the spiritual laws it reveals.



Moses’ father-in-law rightly instructed him on whom to appoint to lead others: “Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness, and place them over them” (Exodus:18:21Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:). Leaders should be competent as well as men of truth who fear and respect their Creator.



King David plainly relayed the words of his Creator: “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me: ‘He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God’” (2 Samuel:23:3The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.). David himself made some mistakes and on one occasion sinned very seriously. Yet according to the apostle Paul, the witness of God stands firm: “He raised up for them David as king to whom He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will’” (Acts:13:22And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave their testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.).



David became the standard bearer for the kings of Judah and Israel who came after him. Why? “Because David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite” (1 Kings:15:5Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.). This constitutes an overall divine judgment of David’s life.



A few kings of Judah followed his righteous ways, but most did not. Tragically, all the kings of the northern nation of Israel imitated a bad example, that of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who introduced false elements into national worship.



What God requires of leaders

Anciently God sought through the Book of the Law to strongly encourage Israel’s rulers to follow His way of life. One way was to require, as Deuteronomy:17:18And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: states, that the reigning king write a copy of God’s laws for himself. The next verses explain: “And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes. That his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel” (verses 19-20). In principle, the Old Testament reinforces the importance of daily Bible reading today.



Sadly, we’re a long way from that today. Ignorance of the Bible has reached unbelievable proportions in the 21st century. In Britain leading intellectuals who appear on popular radio programs that test their general knowledge do very well—until they are asked to name the four Gospels.



The testimony of God’s Word remains clear. “There is no truth or mercy or knowledge of God in the land. By swearing and lying, killing and stealing and committing adultery, they break all restraint, with bloodshed upon bloodshed” (Hosea:4:1-2[1]Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land.[2]By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.). Is this not basically true of our Western nations today?



When it comes to serious issues, our national leaders truly are out of their depth. More and more, it appears that this is the result of the curses our nations are accruing to themselves as they continue to ignore God or defy Him outright (see Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28). Why can’t we get it right when it comes to the economy and other pressing matters? Because we refuse to get it truly right in matters of right and wrong. That is the real bottom line.



Thankfully, a day is coming when the right kind of leaders will govern not just the Western nations, but the entire planet. When Jesus Christ returns to reign, all will learn the right way to live. Blessings will mount up instead of curses. And all people everywhere will thrive.



But be warned: Things will get far worse before they get better when that new day dawns. So stay close to God. Our free booklet, Transforming Your Life: The Process of Conversion can help you in building a relationship with your Creator.



Even if our national leaders don’t turn to Him now, you will be blessed personally if you genuinely commit your life to Him and His ways. And you will be preparing to be the kind of leader God requires for the new society He will soon set up.

.

The Mike Is Always Live

An interesting article from www.verticalthought.org about being careful when speaking.
This follows this post about school. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

The Mike Is Always Live
A commentary by Paul Hadleye
There's an old saying in broadcasting: "The mike is always live." It's a reminder that someone around a microphone should always assume that it's on and never say anything that he or she wouldn't want to be heard on the air.
Former Prime Minister
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently learned this lesson the hard way. While campaigning for reelection, he stopped for a discussion with Mrs. Gillian Duffy. During a polite conversation, she explained that although she was generally a supporter of Mr. Brown's Labour party, she had a few concerns.
As Prime Minister Brown was leaving (not realizing his microphone was still on), he called Mrs. Duffy "bigoted." His comments were picked up by the microphone and have been broadcast all over the world.
Gordon Brown was already in an uphill reelection battle and these remarks may have terminally damaged his campaign. Millions of Britons who share the same concerns as Mrs. Duffy now knew what their Prime Minister thought of them.
Unringing the bell
Of course the Prime Minister apologized when he realized that the mike was on, but as another saying goes, "You can't unring the bell." His apology failed to quiet the uproar and many Britons may have questioned its sincerity. Mr. Brown broke a cardinal rule of broadcasting and paid a huge price.
Have we ever considered that our mike is always on? We may not have a literal microphone clipped onto our collar, but our words are still being broadcast to those within earshot.
On the other hand, given today's social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, plus the proliferation of blogging, perhaps we do have a microphone on us continually. With the abundance of mobile recorders and websites like YouTube, it's easy to put something out there that anyone can see and hear.
Heart-to-mouth
What do our words say about us?
The biblical historian Luke recorded a profound principle that Jesus Christ taught: "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matthew 12:34).
If we find that our words keep getting us into trouble by embarrassing us, family and friends or by offending others, and if we find we have to repeatedly apologize for what we say, then we need to consider how what Jesus said applies to us.
Perhaps the answer is not just to watch what we say, but to change our heart.
We can bite our tongues for only so long before what is really in our hearts comes spilling out. Once that happens we can apologize—but what's been said has been said! There is no unringing that bell.
We are what we say
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown served as a public example of what can happen when someone speaks what he really thinks in an uncensored moment. His words insulted a voter in front of the world, offended millions of his countrymen and possibly played a role in his political defeat.
Our words can have the same impact within our sphere of influence. It's possible to say things that can damage relationships in ways we can never repair.
We've all heard of a gut check. What we need is a heart check. Take a moment to read "The Hole in Your Heart."
Let's check what's in our hearts to see what we need to fix—before it leads to tragic consequences. VT


About the AuthorPaul Hadley and his wife Karen live in Columbus, Ohio, where they attend the United Church of God.

Arizona, Britain, And Harvard Law All Show Elite Contempt For Ordinary People

An interesting post from www.VDare.com about contempt for mainstream people.This follows this post about Major League Baseball and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso across from the recent Juarez shooting. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Arizona, Britain, And Harvard Law All Show Elite Contempt For Ordinary People
By Steve Sailer
Freud noted that human beings like to "project" their own undesirable feelings onto others. The wisdom of that observation became clearer than ever last week as a mounting hysteria infected the elites of the English-speaking world, from Arizona to Britain to Harvard.
The rage of the privileged classes was on full display as they projected onto citizens their own vices: ignorance, resentment, and irrational anger.
The signing of the Arizona immigration law, followed by the slow realization from opinion polls that it was broadly popular, elicited paroxysms of hatred for the American people from the Establishment.
For example, veteran New York Times columnist Frank Rich’s May 1 op-ed included a full helping of the standard media code words used to denote that voters aren’t appropriately obeying their rightful masters: "angry," "virus," "hysteria," "vicious," "bigoted," "apoplexy," "slimed," "snarling," "notorious," "incendiary," "rage" and so forth and so on.
Meanwhile, in Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown called a cheeky voter "bigoted" after she dared question his immigration policy.
And in Massachusetts, , the dean of the Harvard Law School, Martha Minow, one of President Obama’s oldest confidantes, denounced one of her own students for writing an email expressing open-mindedness on the forbidden topic of race and IQ.
Bizarre as it may seem, the potential Supreme Court nominee publicly condemned a private message to a few acquaintances written six months ago—even though it had only been dug up and leaked to the Black Law Students Association by a romantic rival in a petty catfight!
In other words, citizens are winning the debates, so elites would rather demonize than discuss.
Yet, as comical as the last week has been, the power of elites to shut down freedom of speech, to ostracize, to impose dumb dogmas as loyalty tests, must never be underestimated.
Arizona’s SB1070 and immigration: by the end of a tumultuous week, Democratic Party leaders were in disarray as their efforts to turn the illegal immigration controversy into a racial struggle between Hispanics and whites had badly backfired.
The Democrats have long tried to goad Latino voters into viewing enforcement of the laws as a racial insult. But there has never been overwhelming evidence that the average Hispanic-American citizen really shares the Latino Democratic elites’ obsession with opening the border.
For example, in 2006 Arizona voters passed—over the usual bipartisan opposition of the states’ elites—Proposition 200, which required individuals to furnish proof of citizenship when applying for benefits or to vote. Latinos gave it 47 percent support. That’s far more than you would expect from elite assumptions that Hispanic voters' race makes them mindlessly biased in favor of illegal immigration.
Back in the spring of 2006, pundits predicted that after the massive marches by illegal aliens that Hispanics would rush to the ballot box in November. Yet, according to the Census Bureau survey, the Hispanic share of the vote fell—from 6.0 percent in 2004 to 5.9 percent in 2006.
The simple reality, of course, is that illegal aliens aren’t supposed to vote, while Hispanic-American citizens have sensibly ambivalent views about their impact on America.
More importantly, egging on a Hispanic v. white racial struggle is a losing proposition for the Democrats at the ballot box in 2010 because there are still more white voters.
The plan is to change all that. But it can’t happen fast.
But these obvious truths were lost on the Democrats because they have inflicted, as they say, "epistemic closure" upon themselves by denouncing all opponents of illegal immigration as evil racists. Hence they have shot themselves in the foot in 2010.
Last Thursday, President Barack Obama and Senate majority leader Harry Reid announced contradictory plans for immigration legislation. According to an AP article on late Thursday evening, "Obama Takes Immigration Reform Off Agenda:"
"With that move, the president calculated that an immigration bill would not prove as costly to his party two years from now, when he seeks re-election, than it would today …"
Of course, when the unemployment rate in California is 12.5 percent, amnesty’s not looking so hot right now. But the long term political trend is against amnesty too. So Obama is probably blowing smoke when he claims that he’ll get around to it when he’s running for re-election.
In contrast to Obama, earlier that day Reid had outlined the Senate Democrats’ proposed comprehensive immigration reform.
This bill is still a scam, but the winds are blowing in the right direction. The Washington Post headlined Spencer S. Hsu’s article on Sunday, May 2: Senate Democrats' plan highlights nation's shift to the right on immigration. Hsu pointed out:
"The Democrats' shift underscores how, in the struggle between enforcement advocates and legalization backers, the former seem to be gaining, experts said."
The bill actually contains a few good ideas that could be salvaged in a 2011 enforcement-only bill. For example, Reid concedes that we finally must upgrade the Social Security card, which is pathetically easy to counterfeit. For decades, that cheap, flimsy piece of paper has served as tangible evidence to illegal aliens that the powers that be want them to forge it to get American jobs.
So: what are the top Democrats up to?
I don’t know. Do they?
The Democrats’ botched tactics stems from their not actually having thought much about immigration, other than to congratulate themselves for being ever so much more sophisticated and tolerant than the American public—those hate-filled racists.
Democrats’ certainly don’t know much about illegal aliens. And they don’t want to learn.
To top off the week, on Saturday, May 1, 2010, the vast mobs of illegal aliens whom the press was counting on to turn out for angry May Day rallies to intimidate voters … mostly didn’t show up. The Los Angeles Times wrote:
LAPD estimate crowd at immigrant rights rally is about half of what was expected [Updated]
"Police had anticipated a larger crowd because of the controversy surrounding the recent passage of a tough immigration law in Arizona that allows police to check the legal status of people they believe are in the state illegally."
About 50,000 apparently were there. That’s a big number, but it’s only roughly one-tenth as many illegals as marched in LA as in 2006.
What happened?
Who knows? Democratic elites sure don’t. The Hispanics spokesmen who are constantly being interviewed in the English-language press as the self-proclaimed leaders of illegal aliens really aren’t. They are just claiming to lead the vast numbers of illegals in order to get themselves cushy jobs advising clueless Anglo elites.
Who are the illegals’ real leaders?
To the extent that anybody organizes them, it appears to be primarily Spanish-language radio disk jockeys. Funny DJs got them to turn out in 2006. Apparently, it didn’t happen in 2010.
Needless to say, having vast throngs of foreigners march through our cities waving Mexican flags on May Day, the day when the Soviet Politburo used to review a parade of nuclear missiles aimed at America was never exactly a political masterstroke. Those marches helped kill the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesties of 2007 and 2008.
Britain, Brown and "Bigotry": the Labour Prime Minister was outraged that a mere voter had asked him about the unspeakable: his immigration policy. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, Brown was the second-most powerful member of the Labour cabinet that secretly boosted immigration to Britain a decade ago in order to elect a new people. Former Downing Street speechwriter Andrew Neather admitted in 2009:
"Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural. I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended—even if this wasn't its main purpose—to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."[Labour let in migrants 'to engineer multicultural UK', Daily Mail, October 24, 2009]
In public, though, Labour elites were reticent about what they were planning in order to keep their "core working class vote" from finding out about it.
Elites like it best when nobody gets to vote, when nobody thinks for themselves.
Massachusetts, Minow, And Malice:
Thus, the strange tale out of Cambridge, Massachusetts. According to numerous rumors, a young woman at Harvard Law School (who, curiously, is remaining nameless) got into a catfight over some guy with another young lady law student, Stephanie Grace. So Ms. Nameless dug up out of her email archives a six-month-old private email from her rival, Grace, discussing the race and IQ controversy with an above-average level of sophistication and open-mindedness. The jealous girl then leaked the Grace’s email to the Black Law Students Association, who forwarded it nationally to set off the usual Two Minutes Hate.
A huge number of bystanders on the Internet immediately started auditioning for the Junior Varsity Thought Police, putting the boot in on the suspicion that Grace might be a Double-Plus Ungood Crimethinker!
Clearly, in a world increasingly run on text communications that are permanently archived, old-fashioned values like privacy and intellectual honesty are in mortal danger. In the old days, when people tended to have conversations rather than exchange messages that are automatically stored, this absurd panic over some completely obscure person’s doubts about the conventional wisdom would never have gotten off the ground.
We are headed for a stultified world of ideological conformism.
Most egregiously, the Dean of Harvard Law, Martha Minow, [Email her] then put her nose in to denounce—the victim. She wrote:
"I am writing this morning to address an email message in which one of our students suggested that black people are genetically inferior to white people."The Dean of Harvard Law ought to be able to read English, but she flagrantly mischaracterized her own student’s private email, which in fact ended:
"I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.
Please don't pull a Larry Summers on me."Minow burbled on:
"This sad and unfortunate incident prompts both reflection and reassertion of important community principles and ideals. We seek to encourage freedom of expression, but freedom of speech should be accompanied by responsibility. This is a community dedicated to intellectual pursuit and social justice. …
As news of the email emerged yesterday, I met with leaders of our Black Law Students Association [Email them]to discuss how to address the hurt that this has brought to this community. … The particular comment in question unfortunately resonates with old and hurtful misconceptions. As an educational institution, we are especially dedicated to exposing to the light of inquiry false views about individuals or groups. "So much for Harvard’s motto: Veritas.As a commenter on the Volokh Conspiracy blog who aptly calls himself "Cynical" explained:
"The real threat is to not just to the ‘social justice’ worldview, but to the entire affirmative-action, diversity and racial reparations industry. If individuals are judged for their deeds and abilities instead of their skin color, Griggs goes away along with the jobs of a great many compliance officers. Worse, the rampant credentialism which has fed the expansion of colleges and universities as substitutes for pre-employment aptitude tests would fall by the wayside, and that whole racket would start to collapse as well. You can see how true color-blindness threatens to break the rice bowls of many influential people, and they’ll do almost anything to prevent it."
Martha Minow is on Obama’s short list for a Supreme Court nomination. She has been Obama’s friend since the 1980s. In David Remnick’s hagiography The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, the Chicago political consultant Don Rose describes on p. 225 her crucial role in the launch of Obama’s political career:
"First, [Obama] comes to Chicago with a reference from Newton Minow’s daughter, Martha. Then Newt introduces him to a circle of high-class liberal lawyers. ... There are also liberal, elite funders and agency heads: Bettylu Saltzman was also part of the Minow grouping and she has lots of friends."
For the sake of amusement, here are the titles of some books Dean Minow has authored or edited: Just Schools: Pursuing Equality in Societies of Difference; Breaking the Cycles of Hatred: Memory, Law and Repair; Engaging Cultural Differences: The Multicultural Challenge in Liberal Democracies; Not Only for Myself: Identity, Politics and Law, and Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law. Jim Kalb writes:
"I knew the Dean slightly when she was in law school and she struck me as a very nice and very well-brought-up young lady. I think a lot of her response in this case was shock and incomprehension that someone would say something that's obviously not what one says or even admits thinking. She brings a woman's touch to the position she holds."
Indeed, in all the parsing of the victim’s email to show she had it coming to her for violating reigning norms, there’s a distinct whiff of Junior High School. It’s reminiscent of how the In Clique of popular girls dissects the clothes of a newcomer to decide whether they’ll admit her to the club or destroy her with gossip.
Somebody should ask the President’s press secretary what Obama thinks of his old pal’s attempt to silence dissent by misstating the content of a private email that only became public due to petty vengeance in order ruin the career of one of her students.
After all, the President is much closer to the Dean of his old law school than he was to Professor Henry Louis Gates. And we all remember how much fun that turned out to be.Let's be frank about what this ridiculous Harvard Law School brouhaha is all about. It's about whether you have internalized the elite class dogmas sufficiently to be allowed into the elite. The more unbelievable the dogma, the better it serves for demonstrating your class loyalty. The more you rat out others for heresy, the more you prove your fealty.What can be done about the self-serving stupidity of our elites? There will always be elites, and any movement that doesn’t have any is doomed. So we have to do something about the ones we are stuck with now.
The Sailer Solution: Scoff at them.Make fun of them. Point out their moral and intellectual failings at every opportunity.
That way, when a Martha Minow declaims, Americans will roll their eyes and fail to stifle their giggles.
[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]