Palin/Jindal 2012?

There's really no shortage of interesting possibilities for the GOP in 2012, a year by which this country will likely be waking-up with a painful socialist hangover and a trillion-dollar Federal deficit, then asking "what were we thinking?"

The GOP's rising stars are being discussed as the party seeks direction, and there may be a couple surprise prospects by the time the presidential primaries of 2011 roll-around... driven by a good Republican showing in 2010 mid-terms. Yeah, it is a little early... but so what, why not have some fun thinking about it? You can be sure that both the major parties already are.

You can't dismiss Mitt Romney's intelligence, ambition, and abilities. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was just re-elected by 18 points in a state that that went to Obama. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia has also been mentioned. Florida Governor Charlie Crist is another prospect for the GOP. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty's an ambitious young conservative who's an evangelical Christian, popular with the religious right. There is of course the chance of another run in 2012 from Mike Huckabee and/or Rudy Giuliani.
_____________________________________

As conservatives are well-aware, the DNC has just completed successful Presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional campaigns... and Democratic strategists such as David Axelrod seem to have a thumb on the pulse of the electorate at this point in time. They of course are thinking long-term now, and would love to establish Democratic preeminence. Wouldn't it be interesting to see who they think is the most likely to oppose them in the 2012 Presidential contest? Or better yet, who do they fear the most?

With a little analysis of recent words and actions of Democrats and their allies in the press, the answer may be more apparent. While the left is now leaving John McCain to lick his wounds in peace, the emergence of fresh post-election attacks on Sarah Palin certainly rouses curiosity... and are now starting on Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, as well.

There seems to be a strategy of preemption afoot, and from the left, of all places (I thought they were opposed to that sort of thing)- MSM, online media, and bloggers are all going after Governor Palin in a sustained effort, and mysterious leaks and rumors persist. Theories are bantered-about such as about how her Christian faith could have her pushing the "nuke" button to expedite the moment of Rapture. MSNBC's crew has been relentless. And liberal websites and bloggers have never let-up.

To an outside observer, the Democrats appear perhaps fearful of Sarah Palin coming back at them in 2012 with a dynamic and complementary VP nominee like Bobby Jindal. While the press couldn't deny her success and popular appeal during the campaign (particularly following Palin's impressive debut at the convention), they neutralized this unavoidable positive coverage with synthetic "scandals" from the day she was first introduced by McCain in Dayton.

And of course those who discounted Palin's short tenure as governor would be the last ones to note that she was the only candidate on either ticket with any executive experience whatsoever. Or that she is responsible for an $11B budget... which is currently running a surplus. Instead, they will continue to belittle Sarah Palin as some sort of backwoods-Barbie with bizarre religious beliefs, purely strategic, defensive propaganda that serves their own purposes.

The Democrats' double-standard sexism is appalling; she's "dumb" because she's a happy and attractive Christian, who enjoys being a mother? Real feminists need to be angry, wear combat boots, no make-up, short hair, and live alone in a studio apartment in the East Village? She's not the right kind of example because she doesn't support affirmative action... and instead went out there and just kicked the ol' boys butts?

Regardless of what they are saying, don't think for a minute that the Democrats didn't duly note her strengths and appeal during the campaign... as current their behaviour indicates that they most certainly did.

Palin consistently enjoys 70+% approval ratings as governor... are all those people idiots? Alaska was a pretty corrupt system until she stepped in. Her reforms took on entrenched politicians (inc. Republicans), a mafioso-style union boss, and Big Oil.

Wouldn't it have been nice if Obama had been principled and brave enough to confront the corrupt Chicago Democratic Machine?

Or shady political operators like Tony Rezko?

Racist preachers?

Instead of doing business with every last one of them?

The DNC's friends in the leftist media and blogosphere will be behaving in the most hypocritical manner possible over the next couple years, discrediting Palin and claiming condescendingly that she is a "joke"- precisely because they know the opposite to be true. She has been highly-successful in life while ignoring the left-wing feminist model... this helps to explain the extra dose of venom in these attacks. They are pursuing efforts to destroy her, of that you can be sure... we've already seen the start of it.

A recent column in the Washington Post listed "Ten Republicans to Watch" for 2012... and curiously left Palin out, reasoning that "opinion leaders and establishment types within the GOP regard her VERY lightly", and that "it is not yet clear how she will find a way to remain in the national dialogue" from her frontier "far-flung outpost" in Alaska (never mind that Osama Bin Laden has no trouble whatsoever obtaining access to the media from his cave in the Pakistani tribal boonies). Not only is much of the country interested in her continued narrative, Sarah Palin shows no intention of fading away- as her post-election PR tour attests.

A liberal newspaper like the Washington Post has their (new) "Republican" columnist imply that Palin is a non-starter for 2012? Excuse me, but I smell a rat; this reminds one of how short-sellers on Wall St. get someone in the financial press to trash the company that they've already bet against.

And while there are plenty of reasons to doubt these claims made about GOP leaders having a low opinion of Palin, the sad fact is that after the last two electoral debacles, nobody really cares what the party leadership allegedly thinks, anyway. The party grandees up in Alaska weren't too keen on her taking on the GOP incumbent for governor, either... and Sarah Barracuda rolled right over them. With much of the country in a throw-the-bums-out mood, demanding accountability from Wall St.-to-Motown, it is difficult to envision any GOP "elite" holding a very strong hand with the party's grass-roots after 2006 and 2008... because they don't.

Most Republicans I speak with want a bottom-up revolution in the GOP to restore Reaganite principles. And Sarah Palin has the potential to be The Gipper in heels.

The crucial senate runoff in Georgia has featured appearances by political heavyweights from both sides of the aisle. To the surprise of some, the GOP has broken out Palin to lead the charge for the incumbent Saxby Chambliss. For Palin to join in a series of rallies across the state the day before the runoff is perhaps indicative of her new role in the party. While others such as Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani have appeared too, it looks like Palin has been brought-in as the closer.

There's likely to be quite a political backlash in this country when Obama pushes his radical agenda forward, and some people find out quite a bit too late what they actually voted for. Palin would be well-positioned to emerge as the leader of such a movement. Basically, the kind of things she steadfastly represents will be finding an increasingly receptive audience as Obama's shallow novelty wears-off and failures mount.

While Palin may need to hit the books and seek-out expert advisers on foreign policy, etc. to develop her platform, she is obviously an intelligent, principled, and gifted woman .. as well as a quick study. But the common sense, courage, natural charisma, and genuine connection to the party faithful that is so vital in winning elections are all things that simply can't be taught... and Sarah Palin's got them in spades.

A Palin/Jindal 2012 ticket is a very real possibility, they actually complement each other's experience, appeal, and abilities quite well. Both are also idealistic and brave conservatives. And when the country finally realizes what a scam Obamamania really was, and how he really has very little to offer this country, they'll be interested in somebody real... like these two fine individuals.
____________________________________

Both Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal have done wonders to straighten-out corrupt state politics of her Alaska, and in the case of Jindal's Louisiana, decades of mismanagement, too. The political establishment in these states had little interest in letting an idealistic woman, nor an Indian-heritage wiz-kid, come in and disassemble their old-boy network, then take away their patronage and perks. But in both the cases, the electorate was fed-up with politics as usual, and brought in a clever, brave reformer. Both of these states have been delighted with the results. Palin and Jindal are both also dyed-in-the-wool fiscal and social conservatives... there would be zero debate within the GOP about the issues that divided and weakened the party in 2007-08.

And why else has Jindal produced such enthusiasm in GOP circles?

Jindal is, at 37, the youngest governor in the country. And his resume is nothing short of astounding. A graduate of Brown University, Jindal studied at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. He then turned down acceptances to Yale Law School and Harvard Medical School to go into government. After Oxford, Jindal worked briefly at the highly respected consulting firm McKinsey & Company, where the phenom advised Fortune 500 companies.

At just 24 years of age, Jindal was appointed Secretary of Louisiana's Department of Health and Hospitals. During his tenure, Louisiana's Medicaid program went from bankruptcy, with a $400M annual deficit... to three years of surpluses totaling $220 million.

Bobby (legal name "Piyush", the nickname adopted at the age of four, to emulate his favorite character on "The Brady Bunch") also served as an assistant secretary in the Federal Health and Human Services department. He was president of the University of Louisiana system, where he raised graduation rates, retention and private donations. Jindal served as a senior health policy adviser in the Bush administration. He then successfully ran for U.S. Congressman from Louisiana in 2004, and was subsequently re-elected in 2006 with 88% of the vote.

Jindal is a gifted communicator, with a trademark rapid-fire delivery. His story as the son of Indian immigrants is truly a fulfillment of the American dream. Simply put, Jindal embodies a GOP ideal; America offers a chance to those who want it take it and run with it, rather than entitlement to those who simply have the audacity to come here and demand it.

He converted from the Hindu religion to Roman Catholicism while a teenager, and his platform is pro-life, pro-school choice, pro-gun rights and pro-free market. He runs as a social and fiscal conservative, promising no tax-increases.

In running for governor in 2007, Jindal's win was also quite impressive, winning 60 of 64 parishes in Louisiana. He received 54% of the popular vote in a four-way race ... his nearest competitor was at 17%. This was enough for Jindal to win the election, as he attained over half the vote in the first-round primaries.

Governor Jindal oozes competence. In contrast to the Katrina disaster, Gov Jindal's emergency plans this year ran like a well-oiled machine. He oversaw one of the largest and smoothest evacuations in U.S. history in late August 2008, prior to the Louisiana landfall of Hurricane Gustav.

As for the GOP's recent setbacks at the polls, Jindal said in an interview with Rush Limbaugh that "People need to look at the history of Ronald Reagan when he lost his first attempt at the Presidency (in 1976). He didn’t go back and say, ‘Let’s water down the conservatism. Let’s dilute what we’re saying. He made it even stronger. He made it even sharper. There’s a lesson there for potential candidates"

"We need to be principled in our conservatism. We need to be unabashed, unafraid. We won’t always be popular with editorial writers and a lot of the members of the national media, and that’s okay. At the end of the day, it’s more important that we stick to our principles."

And of course, the media already have their long knives out for Gov Jindal... in a similar approach to the one used on Palin: paint her as a wack-job, an eccentric, and just too far-right for American voters. Outfits such as the Huffington Post and Daily Kos are already trying to nip Jindal's ascension in the bud.

But they are right about one thing; they have reason to fear the electoral appeal and success of Bobby Jindal. This accomplished conservative doer is the very antithesis to the Democrat's unaccomplished, liberal talker now in the White House.

As for the media that will be trashing these two over the next couple years, they are about to be exposed as the fraud that they've become. Any major disappointment with the Obama Administration will see-to-it that Obama cheerleaders like MSNBC are never again taken seriously by voters. Add to that the near-certainty that the variance between Obama the candidate-as-rock-star and Obama the President is bound to disillusion whole lot of people. What they say about Palin and Jindal will then be simply disregarded by most voters... just as the electorate ignored the press' alarmist rantings against Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Palin/Jindal 2012?

Well... it's got a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Another Crap!

It's been almost a month since I last spoke with Ezzie and 2 weeks since I last spoke with my only Taurean friend or let me call him A.I, he's Ezzie's best friend since ages, 2 weeks ago I called him few times and he didn't pick up or return my calls, I thought that maybe he's busy blowing someone or something, few days later I read on his Facebook profile that he has a broken elbow, I got worried so I called him but he didn't pick up, so at that moment I felt that something is not right! I texted him to wish him a rapid recovery but still no sign of life from him....
Another abandonment, another disappointment...another crap! It's reached a level of untagging me from some pictures on Facebook! I didn't comment and never will! I never doubted that he could be that childish! He's 30 god damn years old for fuck's sake! I still don't know their reasons behind all of this drama....

I'm very confused, shall I move on? I deserve an explanation but is it worth waiting for? Shall I wait and see where this is going to or it is simply the end? Some incidences like this happened before between them and other common friends, they fight and get back together after some time but shall I accept that? Accept them again if they seeked acceptance?

It's just I'm in a very bad phase right now, I've only 2 best gay friend left but one is living in Alexandria and the other had left the country for good last summer! They are priceless, they complete me, they are really true friends, they always make me feel that there is something missing whenever I try to fit in another group of firneds! even with Ezzie and A.I group, there was still something missing! I wish the trio of us were living in one place, a big lier who said that the internet/phone calls make the world a small village but unfortunately that's the only available choice for us to communicate and it's satisfying a bit!
So now I should either try to fit in Jovee's gang or go through the whole exhausting process of making new friends but I can't do neither this nor that! the more I get closer to Jovee's gang, the more I can't fit in, I feel that they are immature somehow(I never had gay friends who are around my age, they are usually 3-5 years older at least), you know when you feel that you are not getting the expected center of attention or appreciation? I donno how to explain it but I just feel it....again there is something missing! and speaking of Jovee, the more I deal with him without having any agenda, the more I figure out that I was so blind not to see that his paradise is not for me! Touché Madonna!

Bottom line; I will only concentrate on my studies(my finals are pretty soon) and use all my unleashed energy in working out until further notice!

Of Expectation Inflation... and the Barack Bubble

For those who value the principles that our country was founded upon, the behavior of the press in the 2008 election was deeply disappointing- particularly that of the notionally-balanced, traditional mainstream media. They were at best neglectful of their duty to the nation- and at worst, flippant and borderline treacherous.

When the Founding Fathers enshrined the First Amendment right of press freedom, it was done with a consideration that duty fell to this same press to properly investigate the candidates' background/claims during the campaign process, the performance of officials once in office, accuracy of their statements, etc. Press freedom was to be a right of free people, but also a means to an end; journalists had a requisite function to supply a vital service to America, by providing a fair and efficient system for the distribution of information ... the oxygen of any democracy.

The Fathers were also likely assuming such a free press would foster competition, balancing itself through market-forces, and consequently covering a wide range of opinion. It is doubtful they ever imagined instead a biased, bubbly, and ballyhooing media could emerge, doing handstands in unison and shaking their pomp-poms for one candidate (who they resolutely refused to investigate), while treating as a leper the old friend who's usefulness to them had run-out, (former) press favorite John McCain. Obama's MSM sycophants, such as Chris Matthews, Katie Couric, and Brian Williams, in an act of monumental ingratitude, basically gave the Founding Fathers "the finger" with this shamelessly prejudiced group-think.

With the exception of right-leaning Fox News, it often appeared as if the MSM were trying to out-cheer and out-slander new media competition on the left like the Daily Kos and Huffington Post, dropping the once-valued principle of at least some semblance of balance like a hot potato. This was similar to how network TV simply walked away from prior standards of TV probity in a bid to compete with cable television's more-racy fare in the early 90's... they didn't think they had a choice. And in addition to any political bias/elitist arrogance, the media also seemed to have reached the conclusion that the role of unbiased observer simply no longer fit their business model.

Some of the MSM's talking heads have recently admitted the obvious, that they harbored a pro-Obama agenda all along... and seem to see absolutely nothing wrong with this. MSNBC's Chris Matthews states "it's my job to see that Obama is successful". I thought he was there to report the news, but Matthews has deemed it now preferable to model his work along the lines of the Soviet Union's ITAR-TASS, for some reason.
____________________________________________

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism just published their findings in a study of recent campaign coverage. Ironically, they didn't find much excellence. Instead, the data points to a strongly negative tone in coverage of McCain... in contrast to far more positive coverage for Barrack Obama. Senator McCain had one-third less positive stories... and twice as many negative ones.

In an attack that appeared concerted, the character-assassination of Sarah Palin as carried out by the media was probably more valuable to the Obama campaign than any other single event, save the financial crisis. According to Pew, Governor Palin endured triple the amount of coverage Joe Biden received... with 72% of that glaring spotlight either negative, or "neutral" in tone. And once the afterglow of her strong convention performance receded, the media came at her with guns blazing. While they couldn't effectively deny her popular appeal, they simply neutralized the unavoidable reporting of her success with diversionary, petty issues- like "Troopergate" (where she tried to protect the public from an alky rogue cop who tasered a 10-yr old ), private family issues, hypocritical feminists' diatribes, a handful of Alaskan malcontents... death by a thousand cuts.

The revelation that CBS's Katie Couric interview of Palin was edited to make her appear foolish was beyond-the-pale... but ABC's Charles Gibson reportedly did the same in his interview too. It then emerged that Couric was actually coached by pro-Obama advisers on how to "handle" Palin in the interview. As for the print media, the slanderous and disingenuous "Us Magazine" cover "Babies, Lies, and Scandal" was particularly appalling.

Conversely, there was little attention paid to loose-cannon-supreme Joe Biden's countless howlers, such as "FDR went on the television" to address the nation re. the depression in 1929... a year in which there was no public TV, no depression, and no President Roosevelt. The MSM's general lack of interest in Biden could be perhaps be explained in that if editors wouldn't approve negative coverage of Biden (no shortage of material there), perhaps the writers were too lazy or preoccupied to tackle the daunting challenge of producing a positive piece on this wholly-unimpressive and misguided career apparatchik.

The incredible display of arrogance and lack of journalistic principle in the 2008 campaign was akin to suspecting that a long-trusted friend (who's opinion you often seek and value) has been manipulating you for over a year- then suddenly one day they admit it, saying "Yeah, I lied to you... so what?- I know what's best for you anyway, stupid."
____________________________________________

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch had some interesting observations last week re. the future for the (rapidly fading) newspaper business. Murdoch said the profession may still have a bright future if it can weaken the grip of journalists and editors who have lost the trust of their readers- "... it's not newspapers that might become obsolete. It's some of the editors, reporters, and proprietors who are forgetting a newspaper's most precious asset: the bond with its readers".

Murdoch, whose company's holdings also include new media assets such as MySpace, criticized what he described as a culture of "complacency and condescension" in some newsrooms.

"The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly-and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception."

He added: "Journalists like to think of themselves as watchdogs, but they haven't always responded well when the public calls them to account." He then used the example of CBS's reaction to bloggers disproving Dan Rather's 2004 "60 Minutes" report (that falsely claimed President Bush had evaded service during his days in the National Guard).

"Far from celebrating this citizen journalism, the establishment media reacted defensively.... a CBS executive attacked the bloggers in a statement that will go down in the annals of arrogance: '60 Minutes is a professional organization with multiple layers of checks and balances'. The executive then went-on to demean the bloggers that had caught Rather lying as "a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas, writing" In the end, as is now the stuff of blogger lore, Dan Rather and his producer consequently resigned in disgrace.

Murdoch continued: "A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let's be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves."
_____________________________________________

Post election, the media's Obama-fest is getting worse, if anything... with their vexatious victory lap inflating expectations beyond anything that can be reasonably expected. Since they are a capitalist enterprise, media outlets cannot be blamed for trying to cash in on any trend that they can. And, it is natural for the country desire re-unification after a long, bruising campaign. But the irresponsible promotion of the bloated Obama myth by the media has definitely entered some new and risky territory- now far past the point of helping him in any practical way.

With print media in decline, and in a terrible economy, newspapers are elated at having to run the presses overtime to meet demand, and the sound of cash-money has been addictive. As for the TV networks, NBC is releasing an Obama DVD; ABC (and USA Today) are publishing books; and HBO will soon be showing a documentary on the campaign. Of course, serial flatterers Time and Newsweek are going all-out with nonsensical, even tacky portrayals of Obama as FDR, "Camelot II", etc. when the man hasn't even taken the oath, nor accomplished one thing as president... and yes, precious little as senator too. Interestingly, one of the only publications taking a more realistic, wait-and-see approach is the UK-based Economist (which actually endorsed Obama): "With such a victory come unreasonably great expectations" states last Friday's editorial.

Come January 20th, it will be time for Mr Obama to earn our respect... and he's got a lot to prove to the less-smitten amongst us. Perhaps the press should consider taking a break from their self-righteous gloating and moralizing, and drop the premature and baseless assertions about how we have now "shown the world" that we are nice and moral after all, and have chosen a "cool" president, so we're obviously not racist, militarist- or anything like that.

Truth is, this rookie QB may have entered the NFL draft a bit early... especially considering that he never once took a snap in college. In his pending big-time debut, facing a daunting situation that would make even a seasoned vet a little shaky, the kid's about to be handed the ball at his own 5-yard line... and is hoping against hope his (media) blockers can provide adequate protection.



President John F. Kennedy had affected a serious tone in the 1960 campaign, to counter for his young age and limited experience. Soon after the victory over Nixon however, the narrative took on a life of it's own, of "Camelot" fame. The press and country simply went ga-ga over the handsome, charming, and articulate young president and his photogenic family... and it appeared to many to be the dawn of a new era.

Despite his popularity and seemingly-impressive cabinet, Kennedy promptly stumbled into the Cuban Bay-of-Pigs debacle, in which he was comprehensively outwitted by Fidel Castro. JFK was again tested soon thereafter by the Soviet Union's aggressive nuclear brinkmanship on that very same island, just 90 miles from our shores... which brought the world to the precipice of WWIII. He later proceeded to launch our ill-fated move into Vietnam in a most ineffective manner.

So, despite a few historical speeches- Kennedy's Chicago gangster connections (sound familiar?), serious strategic errors, shameless promiscuity, and other character flaws have left his legacy in tatters. To some students of history, the media's dubbing Obama's White House "Camelot II" is really not a compliment... more like a bad omen.

Obama's image as an all-knowing, transformational savior surely won't last forever, as reality is bound to intervene. It may be advisable for the president-elect to dampen the expectations that are now snowballing out-of-contol. He has made a number of seemingly contradictory pledges in the campaign, as well- what happens when he makes decisions that inevitably disappoint a section of his erstwhile supporters?

There was in the 2008 campaign still some that counted on major network broadcast/cable news for much their political due diligence. But, the day will come when many realize that they were sold a bill of goods in the heavily biased coverage of the election. They will also likely come to see just how badly they were condescended to, by a media that felt it had the right to make decisions for them... rather than put all the facts on the table.

This dawning realization of having been done wrong will perhaps come after the first international strategic setback; insatiable enemies such as Al Qaida and the Iranian regime care little if we, "The Great Satan", think that we elected a "historical" and "transformational" candidate. These enemies' ambitions aren't going to change, far from it- their agenda doesn't allow for that. And allies like Israel are planning unilateral, self-sufficient military plans... both defensive and pre-emptive in nature. As history has shown us repeatedly, simply desiring peace, or attempting to attain it through appeasement provides little in the way of national security.

The media continues to irresponsibly inflatethe Barack Bubble, with ludicrously high expectations now pushing his approval rating to 70% for doing nothing... while he faces the most daunting challenges any incoming president has in decades. Unless simply a ploy to maximize ratings and newspaper circulation, it's hard to see the wisdom for creating such exaggerated suppositions. If they are seeking confirmation from the electorate after attacking the Bush administration for years, it now seems a substantial gamble to be placing a continued unhedged bet on the least qualified president in US history.

Mr Obama faces a number of complex issues, and tends to offer liberal solutions that have failed in the past. The lack of checks and balances in a Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime is another cause for concern. And with a still unfolding financial crisis, two unfininshed wars, and other military rivals probing for weakness throughout the globe, satisfying the current level of reverie while avoiding pitfalls would be difficult for even a the most seasoned leader... which Obama so clearly is not.

Any major disappointment with the Obama Administration would make it unlikely that the MSM are ever-again taken seriously by voters. The American mainstream media have piled all their chips on blue like a Vegas down-and-outer, in what seems a last-ditch attempt to restore some relevance to themselves in the age of new media.

Now that they've boosted Barack Obama sky-high, what are they going to say when he falls back to earth... or something worse, like a real political crash-n-burn?

The Unidentified Columbus

The writing of Human History, be it from 2000 b.c., 1492, or yesterday, is meant to be an accurate account of that space in time. In telling the story, however, the facts are not always correct and at times even the sequence of events can get jumbled up. Imagine, then, a case in which the original events were intentionally misrepresented, the facts later invented, and an "official history" arrived at by "plausible consensus," instead of by factual evidence, and you have the current "official history" of Christopher Columbus.

Those who accepted the "official" version of the facts may find Manuel Rosa's 17 years of investigation futile. That however is not the case. Mr. Rosa has brought much new information and new ways of interpreting the facts that a total review of the "official history" is already being undertaken by other scholars. But so that no one thinks that Mr. Rosa is the first Columbus historian to put in question the history, here are some views from nearly 100 years ago.

BOOK REVIEWS

Cristoforo Colombo. Docurmenti & Prove della sua Appartenenza a Genova. By the CITTÁ DI GENOVA. (Genoa[ ?]: Officine dell' Isti- tuto Italiano d 'Arti Grafichi, Bergamo, MCMXXXI - Anno X. E. F. [Era fascista]. Pp. XXIII, 292.(1)

The early writers on Christopher Columbus did not attempt to prove where he was born. They simply asserted that it was in Genoa in the province of Liguria, Italy. Later historians and biographers brought this assertion, into question. All attempts to prove it have failed. The one before us is perhaps the most noteworthy, not only because it comes a little nearer than its predecessors to succeeding, but because it is the most elaborate. Under the patronage of the city of Genoa, a commission of fourteen members, presided over by the Podestà (facist mayor), has brought forth this volume measuring 15 x 12 x 2 inches and weighing 9 1/2 pounds, to prove, not where Christopher Columbus was born, but that he was born in the city of Genoa, Italy.
Besides the XXIII and 292 pages indicated, there are 201 sheets, or 402 pages, interpolated and not serially numbered, making the total number of pages 717. There are no running titles. There is no index. The table of contents is sketchy. There are no designated chapters. Neither lines nor paragraphs are numbered for reference. A preface by the Podestà, together with a note at the end of the volume, authenticates the work as a product of Genoa's municipal scholarship. This is followed by an introduction by a member of the commission, Dr. Giuseppe Pessagno, which is referred to (p. 287) as a Stutdio critico introduttivo. It informs us that the documents presented were se- lected for their pro-Genoa tendency ("Esaminata la mass documentaria col criteria delta prova della 'genovesita', si e visto". . . p. XIX); that its method is strictly "objective and impersonal" (p. XVIII), and on the same page, that it is "objective and necessarily not impartial, because the voice of the documents is one and does not admit of variants or compromises"; in other words, that this work is not a study, but a brief; that the case is argued with documents making links in a chain of absolute proof; that, therefore, no other ev- idence than that presented is worth considering; either the discoverer of America was the Christopher Columbus of Genoa, figuring in the Genoese documents, or he never existed. (" Cristoforo Colombo e quello dei documenti genovesi o non è ". P. XVI.) This dictum is the keynote of the work. With only apparent exception, the evidence presented is circumstantial. Being admittedly picked for its partial- ity, it is not the best obtainable, and fails to convince or satisfy,-- to say nothing of justifying the haughty pretensions of the author.
The body of the work is made up of facsimiles of printed matter and manuscripts compiled by another member of the commission, Professor Giovanni Monleone, with the assistance of Dr. Pessagno. It is interspersed with comments and discussions by Professor Mionleone, and includes three colored illustrations which might better have been maps.
Part I sets out printed texts and a few manuscripts dating from 1502 to 1837, most of them of the sixteenth century. They represent the discoverer variously as Genovese, di nazione or patria Genovese, cittadino [di Genova], without indicating whether natural born or nationalized, and in a few cases as a native of Genoa. I take the name Genova to stand for the city and the qualification Genovese to refer to the state; the word patria to imply native country or place of birth, according to context, and the word nazione, not. On this basis, I find that, of the 103 statements only eleven clearly credit the discoverer with being born in the city of Genoa. None includes its authority or source of information. Scant or no reference is made to persons who may have represented him as born outside of that place or have acknowledged or implied that they did not know where he was born.
Parts II and III are manuscripts; most of them unsigned and unt- dated fragments. These are generally accompanied by a transcript and translation in print. For the date, the reader must rely on the printed heading or footnote, which he would do well to check when he can. On page 127, the heading gives the period of a series of documents as running from 1 October, 1450 to 1 November, 1451. The facsimiles, which happen to include the dates, show it to run from 10 November, 1450 to 25 September, 1451. The provenance and authenticity, rarely indicated in the facsimile, may be learned from footnotes, but not always as explicitly as desired.
On page 123, Document No. 1, which might be taken for an original of 1440 or a contemporary certified copy, appears from the fac- simile, to be an uncertified copy found in a pro-Genoese propaganda compilation, such as the one before us, made in the seventeenth century. The notable Assereto document (pp. XIII, XIX, 137, 173) passes as an original until critical examination finds it to be an indifferent, uncertified copy of two documents, themselves perhaps un- authenticated. On pages 108 and 144 we find material which in the manuscript appears to be struck out. If there is justification for its restoration, the reader may complain that it is not set forth.
Part II is divided into two parts, which we may call Section I and Section 2. Section 1 is composed of notarial deeds and deeds of the Genoa government, all in Latin, and section 2, of "other documents". Section 1 is subdivided into what may be called chapters, as follows:

1. Geneological acts.
2. Acts showing Genoa as the birthplace of Christopher Columbus, and de- termining the year of his birth.
3. Acts showing changes of residence between Genoa and Savona....
4. Acts proving [?] the identity of the Columbus of Genoa and the discoverer of America.

Section 2 consists of six miscellaneous documents testifying as to the birthplace of the discoverer.
In the above Chapter I, the seven 'genealogical deeds' are intended to prove his descent from one Johannes de Columbo, a wool weaver from Moconexi, eastern Liguria, residing (February 21, 1429) in Quinto, a suburb of Genoa, through one Dominicus de Columbo, son of a Johannes de Columbo, provenance and occupation unknown, and his wife Sozana, daughter of one Jacobus de Fointanarubea of Bisagno, also in eastern Liguria. The bits of more or less dubious and unrelated lineage, contained in these documents, are forced together into a rickety structure which, in the form of a family tree, is presented as Document VIII. This, all the same, is not a document, but a questionable composition by the author.
The object of the next chapter is to determine the birthplace and date of birth of the discoverer. The documents show, says the author, "that the birthplace is revealed by Christopher himself, who, being in Savona, declared himself in a legal deed to be 'a weaver of Genoa' ". . . Turning to this deed, we find that the declaration was made, not by Columbus, but by the notary, on what authority does not appear. Let us assume that he got it from Columbus. How does this prove place of birth? The author says, . . . "by this last declara- tion, made in a city of Liguria which was not Genoa., Columbus evidently intended to indicate the place in Liguria in which he was born". According to the author (p. 141, item IV), Cristoforo had been a. wool weaver in Savona as well as in Genoa. If then, in Genoa he had declared himself a wool weaver of Savona, he would have proved himself born in both places! So much for the place of birth.
The date of birth is placed between the 26th of August and 31st of October, 1451. The earlier date is computed by our author for a Christoforus Columnbus civis Janue (citizen of Genoa) summoned in 1479 from Lisbon to Genoa as a witness to a commercial operation of a Loldovco Centurione, about a year before (p. 173, Assereto doc.). Examined on the 25th of August, 1479, he gave his age as annorum viginti septem vel circa (about 27 years), which would put his birth about the 25th of August, 1452, or including his 28th year, as about said day and month in 1451.
The later date, 31 October, 1451, is determined for a Christoforus de Columbo filiuis Dominici (citizenship or birthplace or provenance not given) major annis decem novem (between 19 and 20 years of age). The deed is dated 31 October, 1470. This would place the birth between the 31 October of 1451 and of 1450. According to the author, the age given in this deed was declared by the witness himself (p. 121, No. VI). It was apparently a conclusion of the notary's, set down by him as evidence:

1. As to the identity of the witness.
2. As to his being of age to testify.

Neither of these purposes called for correctness. The first might be served by the current belief, the reputed age; and the second by an indefinite one definitely over or under the legal age. The author's conclusion that the discoverer was born between his two dates, 26 August and 31 October, 1451, depends upon the identity of his two Columbuses with each other and with the discoverer. This identity is not demonstrated, but assumed-a begging of the question which the author was to prove. Even assuming that the two ages were both given by the discoverer, they are too indefinite for the definite maximum and minimum of the author. They intimate that the witness did not know or believe his age to lie within such or any other precise limits.

Chapter III treats of the movements of certain Columbuses be- tween Genoa and Savona.
In Chapter IV we come upon the crux of the whole work: "Deeds proving the Identity of the Genoese Columbus with the Columbus Discoverer of America", followed by a Conclusione (pp. 161-178). With one exception, the seven documents here presented refer to the Columbus of Genoa. The exception is the questionable Assereto document. The relationships on which the author seems to rely for the identification of the two Columbuses are:

1. Genoese, cousins (3 sons of Antonio, brother of Dominico, Christopher 's father) arranging to get in touch with a Christoforus de Columbo, admiral of the king of Spain.
2. The Genoa firm of Lodovico Ceturione and Paolo di Negro, as employer in 1478, of a Columbus, citizen of Genoa and resident of Lisbon; together with the remembrance of this firm by the discoverer in his will.
3. One Jeronimus de Portu, a Genoa creditor of the Genoa Columbus and, according to author, of the discoverer.

With respect to the first, it is alleged (p. 178) that the three cousins had arranged to visit the admiral. They had in fact arranged only to share the expense of a visit to be made by one of them, Johannes (Giovanni, p. 174). The author says "evidently for rea- sons of kinship". His evidence is not specified, but appears to be:

1. The statement, on the 11th of October, 1496, as a fact of common report in Savona, that Christophorus, Bartolomeus and Jacobus, sons of Dominicus de Columbo, of Savona., had long been beyond the jurisdiction of Savona, living in Spain (p. 176) together with the identity previously established, of the Savona and Genoa Columbuses.
2. The coincidence of the Christophorus de Columbo of Genoa and the admiral of the King of Spain, in name, in age, and in relationship in Genoa.

That the name of the admiral was, in Latin, Christophorus de Columbo, should be supported by better evidence than the statement of a Genoa notary (p. 175) or an irresponsible interested party, in a Genoa document. If there was a Spanish document in Latin that gave to the admiral the name of Christoforus de Columbo, the author should have produced it. Let us assume that there was one; also that the son of Antonio, Johannes de Columbo, did present himself to the admiral and was eventually given command of one of his ships. In all this there is no proof that in resorting to the admiral, Johannes was actuated by a call of the blood; that either he or the admiral recognized the other as a cousin; that the admiral claimed or admitted filial relations with Johannes.'s uncle Dominicus. Diego, a brother of the discoverer, does in his will, name a Giovanni Antonio Colon, but did not give his father or identify him or relate himself to him in any way (p. 259). The text of the will is taken in print from Harrisse (C. Colomb, II. 467), who does not give his source.
The Columbus of Lisbon, who is represented by the author as serving the firm of Centurione and Dinegro, appears in the Assereto document (p. 172) as Christofforus and as Cristoforus, Columbus, not as Christoforus de Columbo. He is said by the notary to be a citizen of Genoa. In his testimony, given under oath, he says nothing about citizenship or origin, but that he did go, for the forementioned Paolo Dinegro, on a commercial mission to the island of Madera in 1478. He does not tell how he knew, if he did know, that his Paolo Dinegro was the one in this case, the partner of our Centurione. It appears from the document that the testimony of Centurione was shown or read to the witness as a preliminary to his examination; that he thus knew what he was summoned and expected to testify; also that his testimony is not given in his own words, but at best, in those of the notary and, possibly, not in the notary's words, but in those of a copyist. Under these circumstances, we can hardly take this testi- mony as proof of his having had any dealings with our Paolo Dinegro.
In 1502, the discoverer made a will which is lost. We have no certain knowledge of its contents. In 1505, he made a supplement, or codicil, to this will, without incorporating therein the will itself. This codicil was executed in 1506. Its original is lost. Our author presents it in print (p. 253) taken from Navarrete (Colección de los Viajes . . . II. (1859), 350), who gives it as a legally authenticated instrument (Testimonio authorizado) in the archives of the Duke of Veragua. It is not apparent why he does not furnish a manuscript copy of it. Navarrete's text may be divided into two parts:

1. The aforementioned codicil, said by the escribano, Pedro de Iinojedo, to be in the handwriting of Cristobal Colon, and signed [in the same handwriting?] with his name.
2. A postscript to the foregoing supplement, or codicil. This postscript is not signed by the discoverer, but is said by another esoribana, Pedro de Azcoytia, to be in the handwriting of the first part. There is no date to the postscript, but it was evidently written between the signing of the first part by the discoverer and escribano, August 25, 1505, and its execution with the signing by the other escribano, May 19, 1506.

In the postscript, Columbus, names the heirs of Luis Centurion, "a Genoese merchant", and those of Paolo de Negro, as legatees. He leaves a sum of money to be divided equally between the two families and another to go to the Centuriones alone, each sum in round num- bers, without indicating any particular financial, civic, or blood relationship.
There is notarial proof that in Genoa, on the 22d of September, 1470, Dominicus, son of Johannes, de Columbo, and Christoforus, son of Dominicus, agreed with one Jeroninus de Portu, son of Bartholomeus de Portu, to submit a money question to arbitration; that six days later, Christophorus and Dominicus were obligated by the award to pay to said Jeronimus de Portu thirty-five lire within a year.
Our author says (p. 178, 1. 16, 17) that this de Portu is named by the discoverer in his will. Turning to the will (p. 252) we find a provision for payment: "to the heirs of Geronimo, del Puerto (Spanish), father of Benito del Puerto, Chancellor of Genoa, twenty [Spanish] ducats or its equivalent [in Italian money] "; nothing about the father of Geronimo.
It is reasonable to suppose that this debt of the Columbuses was paid within a year or two of its creation by the arbitral award in 1470, and it may be surmised that the 20 Spanish ducats, equivalent to about 129 lire, bequeathed about 34 years later, were an obligation of another Columbus to the same or some other Puerto. According to the author (p. 252-b), 20 (Spanish) ducats are about equal to 35 lire. My number, 129, is computed from the figures of Desimoni (Racc. di Doc., Pt. II, v. 3, pp. 124-125).
The "Deeds proving the Identity of the Genoese Columbus with the Columbus Discoverer of America" should leave us unconvinced, but if they did convince us, the proposition that the Genoese Christopher Columbus was born in the city of Genoa would remain to be proved. In the next and last section of Part II (pp. 179-194) are six documents bearing on these two points. Not one represents the discoverer unequivocally as a native of Genoa.

Part III is formed of Section 1, devoted to the autographs and other documents of the discoverer, in the archives of Genoa; and Sec- tion 2, to deeds of Christopher Columbus and of his relatives and descendants. These deeds consist of six wills and two formal affirm- ations. The first will is the notable entail, or mayorazgo, of 1498, containing the phrases: "I being born in Genoa" and "from it [the city of Genoa] I came, and in it I was born". This is the only piece of positive evidence as to the birthplace of the discoverer that can be taken seriously. Does it decide the question? The original of the mayorazgo, is lost. No legally certified copy of it has come down to us, but its legality is here of secondary interest. A document may be in perfect legal form and full of lies. Was this declaration made, was the original deed signed, by Christopher Columbus, the discoverer? Nobody really knows; but assuming that it was, did the discoverer know where he was born, and if so, did he tell the truth about it? There is room for doubt and speculation on each of these points. Without cross examination or corroboration, this testimony of his can- not be accepted as proof.

The second will in our series is the discredited military codicil of 1506. It is recognized by our author as apocryphal, but this does not prevent his drawing on it for evidence. "It is very significant," he says, "that the forger wishing to give to the codicil every appearance of authenticity, could not but fashion a Columbus born in Genoa". The forger's words are "meae Patriae Reipub[licae] Genuensi"; not a word about the city of Genoa. Besides, how could naming Genoa as the place of birth give to the writing an appearance of authenticity, except on the assumption that Genoa was the discoverer's birthplace? This is another case of gratuitously assuming what is to be proved. Most of the remaining documents have already been considered. None of them calls for further comment.
It is hard to imagine any one reading this bulky, scrappy opus through. The further one gets into it, the greater the vexation and disappointment. It will be used principally as a work of reference. In spite of the emasculation of the documents and the difficulty of finding one's way among them, it is a serviceable compendium of documentary data. As a demonstration that the discoverer of America was born in the city of Genoa, it stands a monumental failure.

JOHN BIGLOW

Washington, D. C.

________________________________
(1)A translation of this work into English and German was issued in 1932. The English appears on the left hand page or column and the German on the right. The English title is Christopher Columbus: Documents and Proofs of his Genoese Origin; and the German, Christoph Columbus: Dokumente und Beweisse seiner Genueser Ierkunft. This edition is substantially bound in heavy white canvas- like cloth. The inside papers, front and back are a reproduction of the Juan de La Cosa map of 1500. The facsimiles of documents are excellent and bound in with care. There are also many facsimiles of title pages.

-- Source: The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 13, No. 2 (May, 1933), pp. 204-212
Published by: Duke University Press

The Columbus Question:

A Survey of Recent Literature and Present Opinion

"....Several of the traditional occurrences associated with the youthful Columbus are now known to have been utterly impossible. These include the mythical voyage to Iceland, the expedition to Tunis in the service of Rene of Anjou, and the alleged exploits as a corsair.
In view of the repeated expositions of the absurdity of these imaginary episodes, it is surprising that belief in them still exists in some quarters. At one time it was difficult to explain the legends other than on the assumption that the admiral later circulated falsehoods concerning his own youth. It now appears more likely that he was the innocent victim of biographers intent upon enchancing his reputation.... The definitive biography of Columbus seems relegated to the indefinite future. Recent "lives" of the great navigator are frankly popular in tone. The true Columbist, with a knowledge of the problems and pitfalls awaiting him, shrinks from the biographer's task and confines himself to monographs. The problem of Columbus calls for the efforts of a superscholar, versed in many fields of learning other than history. With the possible exception of Humboldt, the past produced none answering this description. If the future yields one such, willing to devote a lifetime to a single topic, there may someday be a univer- sally accepted history of the discovery of America."

CHARLES E. NOWELL
Fresno State College

-- Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Jul., 1939), pp. 802-822
Published by: American Historical Association

The Power of the Totalist Cult

A lot of people are feeling pretty frustrated these days. And, the frustration that they're feeling is often coupled to a lack of apparent solutions to deal with the many issues confronting them in 2008. Obviously, in trying times, anybody will eventually become tired physically, emotionally, and intellectually. 


As worries mount, a growing number of people start looking for someone who offers deliverance... and become less likely to question their methods. Be it David Koresh, Reverend Sun Myung Moon, or Kim Jong Il, there is a liberating feeling when you surrender yourself to a spiritual and/or political authority, be it messiah, king or dictator- you don'thave to weigh complex issues anymore (now unnecessary and discouraged), The Leader has all the answers. 


And it's reinforced to you daily that you did the right thing... but whatever you do- don't listen to outsiders, they're all bad.Young people are particularly susceptible to totalist movements, especially with fractured family structures and a permissive society; they are often yearning for leadership and a direction that is lacking in their lives. They also have endless reserves of energy and idealistic loyalty on offer... what else could a cult leader want? 


And nobody pondering cult membership lists positives vs. negatives in a T-chart, then leans-back in their chair and makes a logical decision. Rather, they tend to discover an "out" from their unhappy predicament, then abruptly run away from the overwhelming weight of their problems and concerns . They offer themselves to the savior, and are immersed in a euphoric, liberating freedom, plus a soothing righteousness. 


Removed from the unsatisfying social network of their past, they find a complete sense of belonging with the new crowd that thinks and acts like them. They share a new belief system that answers every question, with no stressful analytical thought required anymore- and all those problems just dissappear (for awhile, anyway). 


Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler studied the psychology of crowds, and how to exploit the dissatisfied masses- as well as practicing their dramatic speech presentations in front of a mirror. Both mastered this art of manipulation to perfection. And it doesn't take much imagination for anyone who's seen him in action to imagine Barrack Obama in front of the mirror for hours, too.



Interestingly, like The One, Der Fuhrer famously wrote a self-absorbed, racially-themed book of triumph..."Mein Kampf (My Struggle)", presenting himself as a brave saviour for all the country's ills in a time of peril. That author then went on to construct one of the most powerful and destructive personality cults in human history.
 ____________________________________________ 


 In the The Psychology and Psychotherapy Journal (1984), "Destructive cults, a view from the inside", Fielding and Llewelyn offer some interesting observations regarding the cult mentality... and there are numerous parallels with Obamamania phenomena: 


"This gesture of recruitment...the cult offering deceptive security to a vulnerable individual, is a familiar one. The potential recruit is not only physically vulnerable, but also, and primarily, psychologically vulnerable.... ‘The target ages are 18 to 25." 


"The new recruit is often facing a number of personal and external insecurities; ... psychological distress is a fre­quent antecedent to conversion to a sect." 


"Both per­sonal and universal questions are answered by complete faith in the wisdom of the cult, enshrined in the per­sonality of its absolute leader." 


"It appears that the adult respon­sibilities of decision-making and thought are not only under attack from the cult, but are willingly surrendered by the recruit""... new recruits come to doubt their own independent judgments and to accept the unanimous opinions of the people around them." 


"An important aspect ... is the suspension of critical thought, and a distrust of the power or value of the rational, critical mind. Thinking, as opposed to feeling or ‘experiencing’, is wrong... ‘there is nothing quite so impenetrable as a human mind snapped shut with bliss’. 


"cults are effective because they initially use very efficient techniques of persuasion and then destroy the ability of people to think, doubt, ask questions and formulate alternatives. (Of course, it is not only in the religious cults)" 


Or, in the words of a now de-programmed, former "Moonie":"To me, it is the rising up, both in the individual and in society, of one image, which crushes and punctures all other social constructions or images...


Historically, I think the phenomenon of the religious cult is a regression signalled by social disintegra­tion. Whenever there is social disintegra­tion, people turn towards absolutes, and in the cult the individual has certainty." 


 http://www.allentwood.com/articles/psychology.html____________________________________________


Gallup is telling us that Mr Obama already enjoys a whopping 70% approval rating... when all he's done so-far is make vague promises, insult Nancy Reagan, and take a tour the White House. If faith can be defined as belief without evidence, then for The One to poll 53% on November 4th, then hit 70% just a week later for no apparent reason is pretty hard to explain otherwise. 


And blind faith in The Leader is the cornerstone all totalist cults are built upon. If they'd only let the pollsters in, one would imagine that the often bizzare leaders of these sects would have "approval ratings" approaching 100%; that is, until it all comes crashing down in flames and a hail of gunfire, like at the Branch Davidian complex in Waco. 


As we all know, the Obama campaign also boasted record-smashing fundraising, too- with an unusually large proportion coming from individuals. It may not be a coincidence then that financial sacrifice for a vague, emotionally-based salvation (and it's messiah) is one of the oldest ways in the book to separate the vulnerable from their money... thus the legend of the Guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh driving one of his 83 Rolls-Royce's around the communal farm, blessing his freshly-fleeced followers. 


Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel this week reiterated Obama's plans for a "civilian youth corps"... however the "Change.gov" Obama website had promptly removed this previous reference, presumably because many found the mandatory tone of the scheme just a bit unsettling: 


"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."


This step towards Obama's ideals of socialist unity and (organized and mandatory) common sacrifice for the next generation sounds a lot like communist East Germany's Free German Youth (FDJ), who were deployed in such rewarding and educational "community service" activities as ripping TV antennas off people's roofs that could be used to pick-up West German broadcasts, and informing on their neighbors to the Stasi. Again, totalist sects are based upon selfless service to the group above all else, and the youth are most pliable and vulnerable. 


A President Obama "calling" on all us to serve his collectivist agenda , and attacking those who understand the job-destroying nature of his planned tax increases as "selfish", etc. should sound frightening to any American for whom the ideals of individualism, entrepreneurial ambition, and (voluntary) charity are what made this country great.


No more reassuring are Mr Obama's plans for a "civilian national security force" (militia?), which he shockingly said in July would be "just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. Military" (as well as a new "Health Corps" and "Clean Energy Corps"). "Security for who?" is the question that quickly comes to mind, as Hitler had the same kind of security apparatus, staffed with his most loyal followers in the SS (Schutzstaffel, or "shield squadron"). The infamous SS was also a powerful parallel security force outside the command structure of the Army, who received the best of everything... and was heavily politicized. 


Mr Emanuel's extensive background in the art of ballet may well have lent him the intense self-discipline and focus he has displayed in his political career, but the eerie totalism many ballet organizations have in common with cults is actually well documented, and seems to mirror a mind-set in common with the most fervent of Obama's following (couldn't have made this stuff up):


http://chuckstewartphd.net/Ballet_Cult.html 


"Doctrine over Person", in which "replaces human experience with ideology. Past events can be rewritten, altered, and ignored in order to conform to ideological myths.""The “Sacred Science”- implies that there is “absolute truth” that is beyond questioning.... teachers and cults often will claim that they are the “best”... their form of ballet is the “best;” ... all others ... are impure.""Mystical Manipulation- is designed to create a mystique around the group and its goals, and that “truth” transcends reality and the individual.... teachers insist that “art” requires great sacrifice including family, friends, and, eventually, the self; they state that ballet (or, fill-in-the-blank) is the “highest” art and there is nothing more noble; and encourage students to view themselves as “keepers of the 'truth''.

While de-programming of the delusional Obama cult can't start soon enough for the sake of this country, coming events should eventually steer America back towards it's admirable tendency to self-correct.The question is just how much redistributionist pick-pocketing, how much "Great Society" style-programs, how much constitutional revision, how much damage to American individualism and the culture of entrepreneurship, and how much international humiliation, and how much reconstruction of American society along both totalist and totalitarian lines we will have to endure before this country finally snaps-out-of-it... and that's what I'm worried about.