"PLEASE BOMB US," OBAMA PLEADS

NEWS FLASH

Exasperated following months of fruitless partisan gridlock in Washington, President Barack Obama has officially requested foreign aid to reverse America's economic downturn.

"Please bomb us," the President begged world leaders during a live television broadcast.

Noting that a foreign attack or invasion is the only way to divert public attention from a stagnant economy and despicable political infighting in Washington, President Obama took his case to the world stage.

"We cannot create jobs or spur domestic development unless we get the American people to rally against a devious foreign enemy," the President remarked. "I've tried my ass off to make economic changes peacefully, but I've broken my head against the wall one too many times. We need someone to bomb us ASAP."

President Obama observed that Americans need to hate someone other than him in order to balance the budget, reduce unemployment, overhaul health care and curtail spending.

"I've tried to solve our problems by letting the American people hate me," the President explained. "But the simple fact is that the American people need to hate a foreigner in order to really get the economy rolling again. The bottom line, my friends, is that we're never going to get below 9.2% unemployment unless one of you motherfuckers steps up to the plate and bombs our ass. Please, if you care about America, attack one of our naval bases without delay. We've got tons of them all over the world. Take your pick. It's on us."

President Obama appeared confident that his plan would work. He cited historical precedent to support his position.

"Look, FDR did all he could to reduce unemployment in the 1930s with domestic spending. But he didn't really beat the Great Depression until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and people started really hating the Japs. And George W. Bush wasn't going anywhere until Osama bin Laden bombed the World Trade Center and people started really hating Muslims. Once that happened, Bush got to do whatever the hell he wanted. I am confident that if you would be so generous as to launch missiles against a military installation of your choosing, America could easily solve its economic woes."

President Obama insisted that his plan was not just another greedy American power grab. "I understand that many of you may suspect a selfish motive in my request for an attack on us. I assure you, however, that if you bomb us, you, too, will benefit. After all, by bombing us and saving our economy, global markets will strengthen. When the US economy thrives, so does the world economy. Thus, if you bomb us, your economy, too, will improve. And everyone loves good economic times."

"True, we might flatten a couple of your cities or overthrow your government. But all benefits have their price," the President concluded.

President Obama also pointed out that favoritism played no role in his decisionmaking. "America does not discriminate," he said. "While some of you might think that we only go to war with Muslims, brown people or communists, the time for stereotypes is over. We are perfectly willing to allow Caucasians to bomb us, too. We just need somebody to help us out."

Speaking directly to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the President pleaded: "Come on, Angie, blow up one of our air force bases. They're right on your territory. You have no idea how much that would help. Please, I'm begging you."

Despite the President's confidence in his plan, Republican leaders remained unconvinced.

"It wouldn't work," responded Tea Party candidate Michelle Bachmann. "We won't rescue our economy without completely eliminating all government spending and abolishing taxation once and for all. If an enemy attacks us, we'll have to spend money and raise taxes, so I can't support the President's plan."

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney agreed. "No way. If the President drags us into another war, that just means more job-killing regulations. It doesn't matter if we're the ones who get attacked. War means regulations, and regulations kill jobs."

Sarah Palin was more specific in her response to the President's plan. "Nope, wouldn't help," she said. "To fight a war, you need government. And we're not going to solve our problems until we get rid of all government for good."

For their part, world leaders were split on Obama's request. Fidel Castro said he would love to attack the United States, but that he wasn't willing to expose his people to retaliation that would devastate his country.

Vladimir Putin praised the President for his wisdom, but refused to commit Russia to an invasion because he knew war with a foreign enemy would strengthen America, just as Obama predicted.

"Their own economy will kill them. There's no need to hasten that by risking Russian troops," Putin concluded.

Chinese Premier Hu Jintao summarily rejected the President's request. "Absolutely not. If we attack you, we'd never collect all the money you owe us."

As of press time, President Obama still held out hope that other powers--such as Turkey, Uzbekistan or Somalia--might decide to attack the United States.

AN ETHICAL PRESIDENT? OBAMA, LINCOLN AND THE HEALTH CARE VICTORY

AN ESSAY

While the moment is fresh, I must write a few words about the monumental health care reform bill that passed Congress this week. It is really quite a surprising--and inspiring--development. I had to temper my usual cynicism when I realized that the United States actually took a serious step toward reforming its health insurance system. Although President Obama always said he wanted to change health care, I gradually lost faith that he could penetrate furious Republican resistance. But against all prognostications, he did penetrate the resistance. He may have won only by a small margin. Nonetheless, Obama's principled win over private health insurance companies is unprecedented in modern American history.

Still, I am not writing about the health care bill today per se. I am not going to exhaustively discuss its intricacies, loopholes or missed opportunities. True, it is not fundamental reform. It does not create a European-style "single-payer" government-run health insurance program that guarantees coverage to every citizen as a matter of right. Nonetheless, as President Obama noted, it is "major" reform. It regulates private health insurance companies in significant ways. It prevents them from refusing to cover people with "pre-existing medical conditions" (ie, "most people"). And it mandates that everyone obtain health insurance. Uninsured Americans (including me) will benefit because the legislation provides extremely low-priced coverage from a "high-risk, government-supported" insurance company. In other words, health care won't be free for uninsured people. But it will be close to it.

For almost a century, no President has achieved such meaningful reform to American health care. And it is not just the legislation's substance that bears mention. In my view, the most memorable thing about Obama's health care victory is the ethical manner in which he conducted himself throughout the debate.

Public faith in American politicians is virtually nonexistent. People expect them to lie, hoodwink, steal, gladhand and enrich themselves at public expense. They expect politicians to sacrifice all their principles to save their jobs. When a politician says something, the natural response is to assume that he will do the opposite. In short, most people think that ethics is completely foreign to Washington politics. Promises mean nothing. People expect politicians to break them as soon as the water gets hot. In a word, people are extremely cynical about politicians in America.

But then along came Obama. In 2008, he won a landslide victory by promising "change we can believe in." He seemed a breath of fresh air in the noxious political marshland, a man who did not seem ready to engage in backroom dealing or pork barreling. He talked about principles and truth. He was a "white knight;" he was an uncorrupted soul. Although cynical Americans always have a hard time dropping their natural suspicion about politicians, they did when they elected Obama. They really thought that Obama meant what he said. They thought he would hold to his promises. He promised to reform health care.

In 2009, President Obama began the push for health care reform. Despite his good intentions, mean-spirited Republican resistance undermined his popularity. As the year wore on--and as the economy continued to falter--even Democrats began to question whether Obama could get anything done. They wondered whether all his campaign promises had just been rhetorical fluff. Republicans caricatured Obama as a "law professor," a man who thought too much and did too little. Critics castigated him for being "too polite for Washington." They blamed him for giving too much deference to opposing arguments. In other words, he was too weak to survive Washington's ruthless, dog-eat-dog political atmosphere.

Yet President Obama stayed true to his heart. He did not turn into a conniving Washington technocrat. No, he stood by his promises. He swore to push through health reform no matter the political cost. He did not care whether his commitment to his word would cost him a second term. He said he would fight for health reform. So he kept fighting. And he did not become an ogre in the process, either. He retained his composed decorum, even as Republicans hyperventilated around him and spread outrageous horror stories about "Obamacare."

Obama's fidelity to his own word paid off this week. Despite all the tempests and scares in Congress over the past few months, both the House and Senate passed a substantial reform bill. Although every vote along the way split sharply down party lines, the reform effort pressed forward. Something larger was at work beyond mere politics. Obama's commitment to his word seemed to vault Congress past its stifling political slavishness. What was it? It was the power of ethics.

It is no surprise that Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln the day before the House voted on health care reform. Obama quoted: "I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have." Put another way, it is always more important to do right than it is to worry about your political future. And there are deeper rewards to be gained from ethical fulfillment than mere reelection. No words could have encapsulated Obama's extraordinary commitment to ethics in Washington more poignantly.

Abraham Lincoln is the most inspiring President in American history because he was the most ethical President. He took office as the Nation faced its single worst crisis. He then transformed a War for Union into a crusade to end slavery in the United States. He did this because slavery was simply "wrong" as an ethical matter. His decision was politically unpopular. Someone assassinated him for it. But he did it because it was the ethically right thing to do. Lincoln had no personal interest in freeing the slaves. Politically, it was unnecessary. Yet he did it because he did not just care about "winning." He cared about being "true" and "living up to the light he had." That meant following ethics in his heart, not the politics that raged outside him.

Almost no President has dared to jeopardize his political future to "do the right thing." While health reform may not be as significant as ending slavery in America, President Obama nonetheless followed in Lincoln's footsteps by committing himself to an unpopular cause and risking everything to realize it. That is inspiring. And it is almost shocking, because it contradicts the comfortable cynicism most people adopt when thinking about Washington politicians. After all, can you believe what you just heard? A President is willing to risk everything to reform health care because he promised to risk everything to reform health care? You mean he actually takes his word that seriously? Can't be!

But it is, and that's what is so moving about Obama's victory. It was not just a technical victory over unfairness in health care. It was a victory of ethics over politics. It was a victory of principle over expediency. Obama pushed health care because he said he would. That is almost unprecedented in modern American political history. And it is even more inspiring that he did not let the "turkeys get him down" along the way. He kept his composure. He maintained his respect and dignity. He remained a "law professor," no matter how much people ridiculed him for it.

He didn't just care about winning. Rather, he was "bound to be true." And suddenly I find myself with an anomaly: Ethics just prevailed in Washington. That makes it harder for me to scowl and wax cynical about America.

Now, I'm actually inclined to smile. I feel strangely justified today. I love it when ethical people prevail, even if just for a day.

As I have always said, there is more to life than winning games.

PRESIDENTS ARE BORING : WHATEVER HAPPENED TO INTERESTING RULERS LIKE FREDERICK THE GREAT?

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

In centuries past, political leaders led much more interesting lives than they do today. They were not just politicians and party bosses. They were more than petty thugs and criminals. They did more with their time than merely sign legislation, negotiate treaties and give speeches. They had more freedom to be themselves, not the calculated personas we see in rulers today. In the past, rulers have not just been commercial administrators. They have been painters, singers, writers, sculptors, generals, conquerors, heroes, scientists, philosophers and theater lovers. But today, most political rulers have no outside interests: They are usually just devious lawyers and cutthroat business tycoons who crave reelection.

By American standards, Barack Obama may be "interesting." But he is still pretty staid compared to history's more well-rounded rulers. In brief, he's just another wealthy lawyer who wears a lapel pin and panders to business interests. Come to think of it, no American President has ever been very well-rounded. The office simply does not lend itself to flamboyance or rebelliousness. Perhaps that has something to do with Democracy: People in a Democracy want relatively boring "stewards" to manage their affairs. In the American Democracy, for instance, people want stability, not calamity. After all, you can't make money without stability. That explains why virtually every American President has been either a lawyer or business baron. Lawyers and business barons are "stable people." Boring as hell, generally, but stable. They don't invite calamity, at least intentionally.

By contrast, interesting people aren't usually very stable. And they court calamity. That's why American Presidents aren't very interesting. American Presidents just want to keep the economy going and get reelected. That might yield a comfortable existence, but it isn't very memorable.

But rulers like Frederick the Great of Prussia (1712-1786) are memorable. Frederick was no mere commercial orchestrator. He was a general, a conqueror and an arts patron. He invited French philosophers to stay with him in his palace and engaged in homoerotic banter with his all-male courtiers. He played the harpsichord and the flute. He carried on correspondence (in French) with Voltaire and wrote music in his spare time. He even penned marches for his army. About his wife, he said: "There can be neither love nor friendship between us." He never had children; his wife lived in her own castle and he visited her once a year for tea. And he even tried to flee his own country with his ostensibly gay lover when he was 18. His father caught them before they left. Then he forced his son to watch as he had his lover beheaded.

Now that is interesting. A man like that could never be President: Too interesting.

Yet Prussia became a major European power under Frederick's rule. Frederick might have been a composer, artist, general, philosopher and arts patron. But he also ran the country extremely well. He was interesting and well-rounded. He inspired faith in his people. His example shows that well-rounded rulers can be exceptional, despite the impulsion to be boring commercial orchestrators.

I find it significant that no one remembers Frederick for his commercial tact. In fact, no one ever thinks about commerce when they think about Frederick. They think about his military prowess, cultivation and Enlightenment. They think about the things that made him a well-rounded person, not his skill as a financier.

In a way, Frederick's example shows that great rulers transcend commerce. After all, people don't remember quiet bourgeois comfort. They remember unique personalities who vault beyond the banal concerns of prospering at business. They remember interesting people.

That is why most American Presidents are quite forgettable. They just aren't interesting. The only ones worth remembering did things beyond commercial management. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. He saved the country from dissolution, led it through war and abolished slavery. He might not have been an artist or composer, but he spent his time attending to matters larger than commercial management. In America, that is memorable. After all, almost all the other Presidents did little but manage the economy. Like Frederick the Great, Lincoln transcended commerce. That is why he is the most memorable American President.

But even Lincoln was not as interesting as Frederick. Lincoln was just another lawyer in a long line of lawyers who became Presidents. An exceptional lawyer, to be sure, but nonetheless just another bourgeois. He was a creative statesman and even an amateur inventor, but still nothing like Frederick. America simply does not tolerate such colorfulness in its political rulers. They would never get elected in the first place. Can you imagine what the media would say if a Presidential candidate admitted he tried to flee the country with his gay lover? Or that he preferred to speak French? That would not go over too well in South Carolina. America just doesn’t like flamboyant originals in high office. Especially flamboyant originals who might be gay.

Instead, America likes mediocre career politicians in high office. America likes one-dimensional Washington insiders who know how to work the system just well enough to keep unemployment down and income up. It does not want men like Frederick the Great, or even Abraham Lincoln. Put simply, American democracy does not want leaders who rock the boat too much, even if rocking the boat improves things in the end. Well-rounded men might be brilliant, but they are risky. And commerce abhors risk.

It is no accident that someone killed Lincoln. That's what happens to American rulers when they get just a little too interesting for comfort. And that's a shame, because interesting people can lead Nations to incredible new heights.

A MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE

By : Mr. John G. Roberts, Chief Justice, United States Supreme Court; Harvard Law School Graduate, magna cum laude; Former Law Clerk to Hon. William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice, United States Supreme Court (1986-2005, deceased); Highly successful lawyer in private corporate practice with annual income exceeding $1,000,000; white male Republican with no love for radical Baptist socialist upstarts.

Several weeks ago, I wrote that I promised to deliver occasional, irrational conservative judicial opinions in the Obama era. But I was writing before I administered the constitutional oath of office to President Barack Hussein Obama on January 20, 2009. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. And I am not at all happy with this smug, svelte demagogue. By every judicial means at my disposal, I intend to wage constitutional war on this insolent black man, commander-in-chief or not. He didn’t appoint me. And he’s not in my branch.

Who does this guy think he is? The New York Times is calling him the next FDR. People are buying Obama dolls, hanging up Obama posters and reciting absurd slogans like: “Mr. Obama, please give us hope.” What is going on here? In my previous article, I noted that I would write constitutional opinions in whatever way I chose, because I hold my office “during good behavior.” See U.S. Const. Article III, § 1. I reminded giddy Democrats that it is not so easy to sack Supreme Court justices, and George W. Bush put both me and Sam Alito on the bench before flying back to Texas last week. We are both in our mid-fifties; no matter what Obama says, we are here to stay. But now I intend to do more than merely write occasionally irrational conservative judicial opinions to contradict Obama’s policies. This is no longer about the law. Obama made this personal. He said I flubbed the constitutional oath, and every news network in the country is calling me a doofus or worse. “Oaf of office,” says the New York Times.

Screw you liberal assholes. I’m Chief Justice; you’re just a bunch of European-loving reds.

What do these pansy reporters know about the Constitution? Or tell me, what does this African rabble-rouser in the Oval Office know about the Constitution? I went to Harvard Law School. I graduated magna cum laude. I clerked for Judge Friendly on the Second Circuit, then Chief Justice Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. These are top legal jobs; you can’t do any better than what I’ve done. I have lived, breathed and eaten the Constitution my whole life. I have argued dozens of constitutional cases before the Supreme Court. I know my grammar, too. I am a superb writer, and I am extremely intelligent. Yet these losers say I “flubbed” the oath of office.

So what if I did? I said: “I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will execute the Office to President of the United States faithfully.” True, the constitutional text appears as follows: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.” Article II, § 1, cl. 8. I used the preposition “to” instead of “of,” and I put the adverb “faithfully” at the end, not before the verb “execute.” They’re calling it the “oaf of office” because I missed a word here and there? Well, I meant what I said. I actually wanted to mis-administer the oath so that we could sue to remove him from office later. Unfortunately, Obama called me in the next day to correctly repeat the oath. But they are not leaving me alone with this “oaf” nonsense. I am not feeling good about this at all, especially because these people have no business challenging my constitutional expertise.

Nobody calls me an idiot and gets away with it. I am Chief Justice. I am the ultimate authority on the United States Constitution. This is about right and wrong; and it is not open for interpretation. President Obama thinks he can just smile broadly and give a high-flown speech to avoid danger. Well, not if I have anything to say about it. I may not be a thrilling orator. I may not even be that good looking. But I command the Constitution, and I intend to muster every constitutional weapon at my disposal to have my revenge on Obama.

Obama has no idea what he has gotten himself into. I am going to make his life a living hell. I will use judicial review on him every chance I get. Every time he issues an executive order, I will waive the standing rules, grant certiorari and declare it unconstitutional. Every time his commie Congress passes a wasteful civil rights bill, I will invalidate it on Contract Clause grounds. I will also make direct rhetorical attacks on the President without the usual Supreme Court elegance. For example, I will no longer say: “In our separated system of government, the President must heed constitutional bounds.” Instead, I will say: “Obama has his head up his ass if he thinks he can pass this bill, so help him God.”

I have no more time for half-measures and polite discourse. True, I’ll have to make Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg “disappear” for a while, but that will not be difficult. A few free opera tickets will entice Ginsie to stay away from Court, while some sleeping pills for old John Paul will render him comatose in his seat during oral arguments. With those two liberal relics out of the way, I will have a 5-2 majority to block every damn thing Obama tries to pull. And there is nothing Obama can do about it. You can’t remove us, baby. See Article III, § 1.

You can’t call me stupid. I am smarter than you will ever be. And nobody opens me up to public ridicule without serious consequences. I will not just frustrate Obama’s legislative initiatives. I intend to personally embarrass him, too—in public. I command the Supreme Court police. I can order them to trip the President during press conferences, or throw popcorn at him on the White House lawn. These are my guys. They do what I tell them to do. They do not take orders from the President, and we’ll see who’s “the oaf” after my officers toss a crème pie in Obama’s face during a tete-a-tete with Russian President Medvedev. That may not be constitutional, but it sure will make me feel good. Let’s not forget who is Chief Justice. You cross me, and I’ll cross you. The era of judicial restraint is over, Mr. President. This is war.

President Obama may think he’s a righteous crusader. He may think America looks up to him as the savior. But no matter how many crowds cheer him, and no matter how many news articles praise him, I am still the Chief Justice. George W. Bush appointed me, not Obama. I am true to my benefactor; Obama actually voted against me in the Senate. Bad move, my friend.

It’s time to settle the score, Hussein. I will take you down from your pedestal faster than you can say: “Faithfully Execute.” Are you ready to get judicial, Mr. President? I am. Let’s get it on. The Courtiznit is now in sessioniznit, bee-ochiznit.

TOP SECRET MEMO TO THE PRESIDENT

TO : George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

FROM : Richard B. Cheney, Secure Location in the Eastern Hemisphere

RE : Dawn Johnsen & National Security

This memo is to advise that the incoming 44th President, Barack "Hussein" Obama, intends to appoint Ms. Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. This is a national security threat. I recommend strong action.

A. BACKGROUND

Dawn Johnsen is a law professor at the Indiana University School of Law. She has communist, feminist, Islamist and terrorist tendencies. She says she respects the "Constitution and the rule of law," but in fact she is an insurgent. Over the last few years, she has written numerous "internet articles" revealing her view that you have "gone too far as President," that I am part of the so-called "unitary Executive" and that we both have "trampled on liberty." Obviously she is an abortion supporter, too. As you can see, we're dealing with a hammer-and-sickle ideologue here with no idea about national security issues.

It gets worse. Ms. Johnsen will be joining an influential department in the upcoming "negro administration." She will write memos that urge "Hussein" to undo all of our work. She will tell him to lift wiretaps and dismantle our foreign interrogation centers, including the torture chambers in Poland. She even has told Hussein to close down Guantanamo because our detainment policies "violate the Constitution." In our administration, constitutional violations were just a nuisance to be ignored. They were everyday business. Now this communist wants to somehow make the Constitution important again.

Ms. Johnsen intends to target us after we leave the White House. She says she wants "full disclosure" about everything we did since 2001 in order to "restore national honor and human decency" to Presidential discourse. Basically, we're dealing with an estrogen-pumped socialist bitch on wheels here, Mr. President. She is going to make the Watergate tapes look like Sesame Street re-runs. After all, we didn't talk about "third-rate burglaries;" we talked about invading another country knowing that we lied to the American people about weapons of mass destruction. Luckily, our conversations were never taped, and we still have time to burn all our files. I would not worry about prosecution. My men are handling the evidence problem, so sleep easy.

Ms. Johnsen is dead wrong. She thinks our policies "damaged national honor and human dignity." We did what was necessary to protect freedom. The fact that we stripped some Arabs naked and stacked them up for television audiences was all part of the plan. Basically, we said: "You mess with America and we will torture you." No one attacked us after 9/11, so we did the right thing. There is nothing dishonorable about protecting America from foreign marauders.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. President, we had a good run. We just need to watch out for this Dawn Johnsen she-witch. This fire-breathing lesbo is on the hunt for us. She will not calm down until we face investigation under Hussein's Department of Justice. True, we would stand trial under loyal judges you appointed, but let's try to avoid the problem before it materializes.

We hold executive power until January 20 at 12:01 PM. We still have authority to designate people "enemy combatants" in the War on Terror, no matter what legal niceties the Supreme Court thinks apply to the question. I suggest that you designate Ms. Johnsen an "enemy combatant" and a "national security threat." After all, she is threatening to pilfer our files, reveal CIA practices, secret surveillance protocols and torture discussions. Those are vital weapons in the War on Terror. Without them, national security would be at risk. We must detain Ms. Johnsen so that these practices do not come to light. We need them to protect America.

Additionally, Ms. Johnsen is an avowed Islamist. She studies Middle Eastern history and culture. We can tell the FBI to say she corresponds with Al-Zahrqawi and bin Laden. We can circulate stories that she secretly watches 9/11 footage and cheers in Arabic when the Twin Towers collapse. That will justify her indefinite detention without charge, hearing or access to counsel. We'll see how much her "Constitution" helps her when she is tied up in an orange suit somewhere in the South America.

Act now. Designate Dawn Johnsen an "enemy combatant" and send her to Guantanamo while you still can. Hussein says he wants to close Guantanamo, but that will take a long time. And I think it would be poetically just to send this snooping communist wench to Guantanamo. So you think we violate the Constitution? Let us show you firsthand, lady. How about a little afternoon waterboarding? That would show her who's the man in this relationship. Dousing her with water while she's covered with cellophane would make her stop carping about "human dignity" and "habeas corpus." Unitary executive? Woman, we will show you the nature of executive power--and you won't like it.

Mr. President, you must take action against Dawn Johnsen immediately. This woman is a national security threat. She is dangerous. She must be stopped before she takes office. Please advise through appropriate channels as soon as she has been neutralized.

Say hello to Laura for me. I'm not sure when I'll see you next. If you need me for any reason, contact Colonel Frank Dilbert on the 5th Floor of the Pentagon. He knows how to contact me.

In closing, let me say that I am worried about our country. If Hussein keeps appointing radical left-wingers like Dawn Johnsen, the Constitution might actually mean something in American government again. Thank God we did not have to worry about the Constitution while we were in office. We could not have gotten anything done.

Dick.

A PREDICTION

Normally I do not try to prophesize. When it comes to the future, we are all ignorant. All we can do is guess. There are serious limits to human sense; among those limits is the temporal limit. Thomas Hobbes explained this limit well more than 350 years ago: "The Present onely has a being in Nature; things Past have a being the Memory onely, but things to come have no being at all; the Future being but a fiction of the mind." Leviathan, Chap. III. Later, Hobbes says: "The best Prophet naturally is the best guesser; and the best guesser, he that is most versed and studied in the matters he guesses at: for he hath the most Signes to guess at." Id.

I am only 31 years old, but I have assembled some experience in life. I have studied history since childhood and I think I have gained some skill in judging the "Signes" Hobbes discusses in Leviathan. Experience is memory. I remember how a situation played out in the past, and when a similar situation arises in the present, I can "guess" at the result based on what I experienced in the past. Obviously this is always an imperfect venture, for it is impossible to sense an event that has not yet occurred. But there are certain future events that we can reasonably say "will happen" based on past events. For example, experience instructs that if we observe 4 teenagers getting extremely drunk, then pile into a car, we can "guess" an accident may occur after they drive away from the house. Even though we do not "perceive" the accident at the time, we can "prophesize" that it will happen later based upon what we "perceive" in the present.

Some could say that "predictions" or "prophecies" amount to little more than "common sense." If we collect experience, then that experience tells us how future events will play out under similar circumstances. But "common sense" implies a mean, everyday art. Still, no matter what we call it, we can make predictions about future events, even events that transcend our own limited experiences. If we remember circumstances, we can predict that similar results will flow from those circumstances when they appear before us again. For example, in 2000, I remember thinking that terrorists attacked American embassies in Tanzania in 1998, then attacked the USS Cole in 2000. I remember thinking that, in both those attacks, there were similar perpetrators, and they both publicly declared they attacked American targets because of overweening American foreign policy in the Middle East. On that basis, I predicted that a much more significant attack would take place on American soil, and that indeed came to pass on 9/11. Was this foresight? No. I merely analyzed historical circumstances and applied my analysis to likely future events. I knew that America did not change its foreign policy between 1998 and 2001, so there was nothing to stop the same perpetrators from wishing to commit the same violence in the future. They had the same motive in similar circumstances; the result should not have been unexpected.

This year, a black man is running for President in America. I don't think people appreciate how truly revolutionary this is: A black man is running for President in America. From its earliest history in the 17th Century, America existed to exploit black men. They provided an unskilled forced labor force that drove American commercial success. They did not choose to immigrate to America; they were captured in Africa and shipped here against their will. They were not even considered human beings at law until 1865. After 1865, more than 100,000 black men and women were murdered in "extra-judicial" proceedings in the South and Midwest. Today, black men and women make significantly less money than whites, they live shorter lives and they occupy death row cells and prisons in dramatically larger proportions than any other racial group. And all this is fact, despite immense legislative and constitutional efforts to level the playing field between the races. What does this mean? Simple: America has never stood for black men. In a strictly historical view, on balance, I would venture to say that America has expended tremendous energy subjugating, marginalizing and oppressing black men. Yet today, a black man is a candidate for President of the United States. This is remarkable. And it bucks history.

It is also dangerous for Barack Obama, precisely because it bucks history. Past events inform our appraisal of future events, and America's track record on race is no exception. Nor is America's track record on political violence. To our credit, as a formal matter, the American Constitution provides a relatively stable mechanism for political succession, unlike historical examples (such as Rome) in which the State devolved into chaos whenever a ruler died. Admittedly, American elections are anything but civil, but at least we have an agreed-upon, legal process by which we select rulers. Nonetheless, 4 American Presidents out of 43 have been assassinated. That is slightly under 10%. One out of ten Presidents has been killed because someone sufficiently disagreed with them on one political matter or another. Although we praise tolerance for opposing political views in principle, history has shown that when Americans disagree enough, they will kill. John Wilkes Booth disapproved of Lincoln's "crusade against the South" and "racial reordering," so he shot him. A disgruntled immigrant's son killed President McKinley. And while no one knows for sure who killed JFK, it is safe to assume that the killers did not like his avowed liberalism on racial, international and military matters. All these Presidents met violent ends because their policies inspired sufficient disagreement in a portion of the population. They were all white, although their compassion for blacks--at least in Lincoln's and JFK's cases--played a role in their deaths.

Americans kill Presidents who sufficiently arouse "critical resentment" in a portion of the population. Political violence has a long and vibrant history in America. So does racial hatred. In fact, the two are at least arguably linked, because the most contentious political issues in America commonly center around race. Race puts America's rhetoric to the test. And rhetoric usually fails.

Given these historical experiences, I predict that Barack Obama--if elected--could very well be assassinated, most likely in a State in which he inspires "critical resentment." It is my earnest wish that this does not happen. But history provides a strong basis for my prediction. True, we live in 2008, not 1865 or even 1963. We try hard to believe that America is different now, that it is less intolerant and less impulsive. Still, America's history of racial hatred and political violence has existed far longer than any discrete historical event. Hatred, intolerance and violence were the cornerstones of American colonization over Native Americans and the colonial economy that followed it. These are deeply-ingrained American characteristics. They do not vanish in a few generations. The fact that blacks continue to occupy a patently inferior position in American civilization only confirms that old wounds have not healed. I know for a fact that many, many Americans do not share these values of intolerance and hatred. But there are enough Americans who do, and they believe in them deeply enough to act upon them.

Obama's race and name (ie, "Hussein" and "Obama...only one letter removed from Osama") alone are sufficient to inspire "critical resentment" in a portion of the American population. His policies merely provide more fodder for hate. Obama is a true-blue liberal, the likes of which have not been seen since the 1960s. He is not a Clinton centrist or a Carter country-fried southern Democrat. JFK was a true-blue liberal and he was assassinated. His brother RFK was a true-blue liberal and he was assassinated before he could even be nominated for President in 1968. Liberal policies--like race--inspire "critical resentment." Thus, Obama has "two strikes against him" from a historical perspective: (1) He is black; and (2) He supports bona fide liberal positions. Either is sufficient to inspire "critical resentment." But together, they increase the chances for violence.

At this point, it looks like Obama will win the 2008 Election. A sufficiently large number of Americans are sufficiently dissatisfied with government to elect a black true-blue liberal. This is testament to changing times in America, but we cannot avert our eyes from history. There has been--and always will be--a strongly-motivated cadre of hateful people in this country, and they act violently when they disagree politically with a ruler. Their political views coincide with their racial views, and, taken together, that spells danger for Obama.

Obama's slogan reveals his intentions: "Change. Yes We Can." If America elects a black President, it will certifiably have made a "change" of the highest historical magnitude. But it is precisely the historical precipitousness of this change that could lead to violence. If history is our guide, precipitous change in America typically foreshadows reactionary violence, then massive, fundamental struggles that last for years afterward. I can only hold my breath to see whether my guess is correct.