Inspired by the realization that Harvard educated Obama has apparently never realized that there are five main branches of philosophy,two of whch he displays no knowledge: METAPHYSICS: (the study of what is): EPISTEMOLOGY: (the theory of knowledge -- (how can I know what is?): and in a crucial third branch, that of ETHICS (MORALITY;) he fails on all seven criteria that Ayn Rand has fully defined for us as being crucial to life for a free mankind in this one world we have to live. 

THE SEVEN: HONESTY, INTEGRITY, INDEPENDENCE, PRODUCTIVENESS, JUSTICE, PRIDE, AND ABOVE ALL: RATIONALITY.

OBAMA'S BREACHING OF MORALITY IN ALL HIS ACTIVITY, INCLUDING OF COURSE HIS LACK OF PRIDE IN, AND HATRED AND CONTEMPT FOR HIS COUNTRY, DESERVES SEVERE PUNISHMENT. I'D SUGGST AN UNINTERRUPTED 30 MINUTES OF HAVING TO WATCH MICHELLE DOING HER HULA-HOOP AS RECENTLY DEMONSTRATED DISGUSTINGLY ON HER RECENT "NIGHT ON THE TOWN."

.

PERHAPS STARBUCKS SHOULD RETAIN AN INEXPENSIVE ATTORNEY TO ADVISE IN SUCH MATTERS TO AVOID CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM.

I was not merely an escapee, as were some who went through that moral apocalypse but somehow left it without bearing permanent psychological or physical damage. In my case I was completely spared by being an ordinary, life-loving young businessman in the clean, open-faced, innocent city of the Toronto of that time, as an "army" of whining, draft-dodgeing vermin sought redemption for living while existing on the largesse of a US Big Daddy.

Ah, I remember it well. Woodstock escapees living in walk-up lofts in the ciy's Cabbagetown section, smoking up and scewing while lolling in their own feces and bitching about having to be alive, wearing in their blank faces a hopeless sense-of-life, an attitude devoid of any personal pride or desire to celebrate this one wonderful gift of life that someone had dealt them.

And many of themwere permantly damaged, and even today nostalgic for that disatrous time when their youth, health an joy of living was robbed from them by a counter culture that was against their and everyone else's best interests.

Suggested memorial celebration of Ted Kennedys "legacy:" An annual day for female interns in Washington to take swimming lessons.

Don't let the Dems use the Kennedy story to help ram the Obama health care initiative through Congress.

The answer should be obvious. Michelle may not be very bright, but she's not a fool, and the thought of pretty blonds lurking Lewinsky-style beneath the desk in the Oval Office would be just too much to handle. Sotomayor would be a much safer bet. There's just not enough room.

He has just one barrier to hurtle before arriving at the very top, for he has successfully taken the really big leap to go from the importance he was to the nation and even the world, to standing tall among all his peers, leaving them hopelessly in the dust.

Limbaugh was the host who made very bright people want to make excuses to step out of the office for any believable reason, just so they could sit in their cars and turn on the radio for even so little as five minutes of his program. He was always bright, entertaining, knowledgeable, informative, and nearly always correct in specifics. He has been amazing in his ability to essentially ad lib his way through three entertaining hours every day

But he had one glaring deficiency. Oh, the modern liberals hated his guts for being mostly right in economics and other social issues. And he used the tool of most conservatives, that of the invoking of religion to ice his arguments when he felt it necessary, but he was amazingly strong on individual rights and the abstract idea that capitalism actually works (I say abstract because while he saw the empirical evidence of capitalism’s efficacy, he never quite grasped the crucial philosophic premises underpinning capitalism as the only moral social system. Then he finally read Ayn Rand; in particular, Atlas Shrugged, her magnum opus defining for us the morality of capitalism as the one and only moral social system.

In the minds of a man or of an entire nation, when given the choice, morality will trump practicality. Thus a conservative may know what works for the economy at the practical level, but if he feels it’s immoral, he will vote against the practical. Rush comes close to the finish line in an argument, but often loses because his opponent, the modern liberal, is dealing from what both he and Rush assume is the morally proper – the sacrifice of individual liberty and rights to the collective, for the "common good.”

Why? What is the one principle defeating the advocate of capitalism, and what still leaves Rush short of being the effective voice he could be? That philosophic principle is ALTRUISM, which says man should live his life in eternal sacrifice for others. What one does for himself is the bad. What he does for others is the good. Functionally this would not be a problem if it just involved “me sacrificing to you,” for that’s a personal choice. But when it involves me expecting that “you sacrifice to me,” it takes on a darker meaning.

But worst of all, if it means me voting for “him to take away from them,” that becomes an entire nation drowning in an orgy of forced sacrifice for “the common good.” And it describes exactly what Obama and his administration is trying to do.

Rush seems to understand all this in his public pronouncements, but altruism is ingrained in him at the subconscious level, embedded in his spsyche by the religious indoctrination in his past. You can't be a card carrying Christian without being an altuist and accepting altruism's code of sacrifice. Rush hould take the high ground, and learn how to validate capitalism as the only moral social system. I suggest that he re-read Atlas Shrugged; it will carry him far beyond the primitive grasp he has of it now. It could establish him as one of liberty’s greatest champions.

A blonde woman was speeding down the road in her little red sports car and was pulled over by a woman police officer who was also a blonde.

The blonde cop asked to see the blonde's driver's license. She dug through her purse and was getting progressively more agitated. 'What does it look like?' she finally asked.

How he got a role as a Dancing With The Stars contestant is hard to understand. But in watching his performance in the finals last evening, I have to admit he showed the Softer Side of a Silly Sapp.

Could it be that many women don't like other, more beautiful women? Could it be that she was too much a prototype of the image many people hold of the erstwhile popular edition of the American Sweetheart? After all, she doesn't look like a man, or dress like a man, or do many other things that the Woodstock women have done to narrow the distance between estrogen and testosterone.

We hear it said that her pro-life stand is intolerable, irrational, unforgivable. But that isn't quite enough to explain the visceral hatred with which many women, especially those in the public eye, have treated Sarah.

I think I get it now though. Their hatred of Palin's pro-life position was too abstract to explain all the venom toward her. It had to be concretized in a particular way, and sure enough Sarah gave them a concrete example. She gave them something even they couldn't handle with a clear conscience.

She had a Down Syndrome child in her body. She knew it, and yet she didn't want to kill it. Further, she treats it as if it were a blessing, something that brought her joy and that she obviously loved. "She should have killed the little devil," is the "liberated one's" first, knee-jerk reaction. But then, on seeing the child, the real, living thing, even they had a conscience, finding their core belief a bit hard to reconcile. The conflict caused within was too much. They hated her for doing that to them.

I have been pro choice all my life, but my recommendation to all pro choice women is, "keep your knees together." That's the best choice a smart virgin can make. Turns out, it would also make her, automatically, pro-life.