Does Obama Need to Appoint a History Czar?

Stupidly. If "stupidly" were an industry, the Obama administration and the Democrat Party leaders in Congress would be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It is apparent, in the past six months, that Obama and Congress are in league to acquire a monopolistic consortium on "stupidly." Obama and the Democrat Congress have validated, with absolute certainty, that they have, in tandem, stupidly interpreted the Constitution and possess a stupidly unsophisticated aptitude for economics; Obama continues to brandish his nugatory knowledge of history.

"Stupidly" is the term Obama used to refer to the Cambridge police department after they arrested Henry Louis Gates, Jr. for disorderly conduct. Obama's exact statement was, "the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." The information available to Obama as he made his statement was that the arresting officer was white, and Gates, an Obama friend, was black. Obama uttered a stupidly prejudiced and racist statement, a statement alarmingly consistent with the anti-white writings in his books, his associations, and his wife's senior thesis at Princeton. There is an obvious pattern of stupidity on display: Obama has proven during his first six months that he is a stupidly economic illiterate, a stupidly constitutional illiterate, and continues to be a stupidly historical illiterate.

During the past two months, Obama has demonstrated that, even after professing to be a student of history, he is as equally illiterate in history as he is in economics and constitutional law, the three primary elements comprising the foundation of a successful leader of a Republican form of government. He has made three separate statements regarding history that are as fantastical as the Wizard of Oz. His statements are consistent with contemporary Leftists' revision of history to read as they wish it had been, rather than what it was, to substantiate their ideology. In Obama's three statements, he jejunely declared, at least to the mildly educated, that he is stupidly illiterate in the history of Islam, the history of the United States, and the history of the world regarding conquerors and conquered, and apparently refuses to accept authentic history, fabricating a revised version of history that illuminates his fantasy of the past.

Obama's statement about the history of Islam during his Cairo speech:
<blockquote>"As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality."</blockquote>
Let's, for argument's sake, overlook the facts that algebra was invented by the Babylonians over 4000 years ago, the compass by the Chinese, printing by the Chinese, astronomy by Copernicus, the mastery of pens by medieval monks, and the "majestic arches and soaring spires" of the Roman empires, which pre-date the birth of Islam by a thousand years.

What cannot be overlooked is the fact that it was the Arab medieval Muslims who were an integral part of ushering Europe from the Dark Ages into the Age of Reason and thus the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. Authentic history dictates that it was not the Islam with which Obama harbors an unnatural infatuation that should be credited with these achievements. The Muslim world, after intimate contact with Greece and its culture, adopted their practices of mathematics, astronomy, and physics. They served Islam as devout Muslims while serving erudition as did the Greeks; this marriage led to a rapidly advancing and evolving Muslim culture. These Muslims were the disciples of Aristotle's ideas, they were <em>Arabs</em> <em>qua Aristotelians</em>. Obama was correct to credit Islam for some of the achievements in his speech, but the Islam he praised is antithetical to the Islam that possessed an advanced civilization a thousand years ago.

As rapidly as Islamic culture advanced, so too it declined. The Islamic orthodoxy repudiated Aristotelian thought and the advancements it beget in the sciences, mathematics, and architecture, and were able, through persecution of the learned, to eradicate reason and intelligence from Islamic culture. After the intentional and systematic elimination of math and science from their culture, the Muslim world hastily retreated into a primitive state and advancement ceased. Decline ensued. It was the <em>Arabs</em> <em>qua Islamists </em>who were responsible for the devolution of the Arab world<em>, </em>the very culture upon which Obama continues to bestow unfettered adulation. This intelligent student of history, Barack Obama, believes that the <em>Arabs qua Islamists</em>, the responsible party for eradicating advanced thought, science, math, astronomy, physics, etc, from their culture, is owed a debt by this world's advanced, cultured, and sophisticated civilizations. Indeed.

Obama's statement about how the cold war ended:
<blockquote>"The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."</blockquote>
The Cold War ended as it did because of Ronald Reagan. Period! The USSR would probably have come to an end at some point regardless of Ronald Reagan, but in what fashion it dissipated, and what the current state of Russia would be, can only be left to conjecture and theory, at best.

Reagan did not single-handedly end the Cold War; as with all great achievements, there are ancillary components involved. Pressure from other countries, especially British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was integral, and Gorbachev's willingness to conform under Reagan's pressure was imperative. But eliminate Reagan from the equation and replace him with someone of the caliber of our last three Democrat presidents, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, and the USSR's inclination to subdue would have been greatly comprised; the Cold War <em>would not</em> have ended when and how it did.

It was Reagan's incessant military and economic pressure on the USSR, with which the USSR could not compete, that was instrumental in subduing a country submerged in stagnation and hovering at the cusp of exhaustion. It was the unprecedented military buildup of the USA, our medium-range missiles strategically placed throughout Europe, dogged pressure from Thatcher, Reagan's Star Wars missile defense system-- which the Russians held in awe--that pushed the USSR to the breaking point. This was the prototypical and time-honored battle between good and evil, and good won.

Obama's statement about the history of conquerors and conquered:
<blockquote>"The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground."</blockquote>
Obama could not have made a more adolescent and naive statement had he the assistance of a 5 year old.

The future always has, and always will, belong to the nation that can either defend itself or have such military might that an attack upon it would be preposterous. The future will always belong to the country "who can gather armies on a field of battle and bury missiles in the ground." As far back in recorded history as one can examine, there have been winners and losers in the quest for dominance and sovereignty, insomuch as nations go. This will not change. A powerful military, as has been the case as long as recorded history, will always be essential for conserving a nation's sovereignty and protecting its resources.

Obama should take a lesson from fellow Democrat Harry Truman regarding his thoughts on appeasement and the prospects of disarming the United States: "No people in history have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies."

Consider the man-made global warming prattle. Even though the mean temperature has been dropping for the past ten years, and there is categorically nil credible evidence to substantiate man's effect, global warming has become a doomsday scenario, forecasted by Sen. John Kerry:

"We are here today to discuss a grave and growing threat to global stability, human security, and America's national security. As you will hear from all of today's witnesses, the threat of catastrophic climate change is not an academic concern for the conflicts over resources, due to migrants, and/or as a means of distraction are not only likely, but likely to exacerbate the underlying climate change problem...climate change is a threat to our national security."

Envision that scenario coupled with a cataclysmic worldwide shortage of water. Who wins in that situation? The country with sustainable resources? The country with military might and the "most bombs in the ground and armies gathered on a field?" The country with the sustainable resources wins-- but only if they can protect them; if not, then the country with the "most bombs in the ground and armies gathered on a field" will annex the resources by force. That is the history of the world in its entirety, past, present, and future, and neither Barack Obama nor his impulsively callow sycophants in Congress will change that.

"The past is prologue," Joe Biden so eloquently stated during his debate with Sarah Palin, without citing the source of the phrase. The phrase, incidentally, is from Shakespeare's <em>The Tempest</em>:<em> Whereof what's past is prologue; what to come, In yours and my discharge. </em>What could one hope an intelligent non-ideologue learned from nations that suffered from being conquered by a stronger military? What was learned from the elimination of advanced knowledge and understanding? What was learned from the unmatchable military power of the United States? What the genuine intelligentsia has learned from history, authentic history, is the knowledge of how to maintain all aspects of sustainability, and avoiding repeating the mistakes of the past. Tread lightly, Barack Obama, as the past is prologue.