Has Thomas Sowell been reading my column? See my recent article, "Democracy" vs. "Republic" here: http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2013/03/democracy-vs-republic.html I don't say that Mr. Sowell hasn't thought about this before. But, the timing is very close.

If readers want an education on the value of Mr. Sowell's suggestion on term limits, they should watch Netflix's "House of Cards," in which Kevin Spacey, an amoral career Democratic politician, employs "arts of evasion, effrontery, deceit and chicanery" to maneuver himself to the office of vice president. He boasts in one episode that he was reelected eleven times. The series is a valuable instruction in statist politics, and goes far to reveal the true character of career parasites like Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, et al.

If readers want an education on the value of Mr. Sowell's suggestion on term limits, they should watch Netflix's "House of Cards," in which Kevin Spacey, an amoral career Democratic politician, employs "arts of evasion, effrontery, deceit and chicanery" to maneuver himself to the office of vice president. He boasts in one episode that he was reelected eleven times. The series is a valuable instruction in statist politics, and goes far to reveal the true character of career parasites like Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, et al.

To continue: The prohibitionist's motive was: I would prefer you not to drink (or smoke, or drink big sugary sodas, etc.). The affirmative action advocate's motive was: I prefer to see more blacks, or Hispanics, or women in your work force, or sports team, and in these proportions. These are the motives of authoritarians.

"Like Prohibition, affirmative action and then diversity were originally noble efforts…." I hate to disagree, but Prohibition and affirmative action were not "noble," not in practice, and certainly not in motive. Prohibition's origins were the result of a concerted, populist campaign against liquor consumption, something not constitutionally a concern of the government. Neither was affirmative action, which mandated that employers were forced to hire people based on their race or gender, and not on an employer's own measure of value. Both laws were grounded in the Utopian and statist premises that reflected their champions' personal vision of how men should behave, for the good of "society." The prohibitionist's motive was: I would prefer

Nomad5: Bad money drives out good. Lousy or mediocre teachers in a government enforced monopoly (such as unions), outnumber and drive out good teachers. School administrators will not recognize or support good teachers because they are beholden to the unions, which resent good teachers and go out of their way to punish them for establishing benchmarks of excellence they don't think they need to measure up to. Beingbetter than a semi-literate or "average" teacher the unions regard as an imposition. Bureacracies tend to drown and suffocate outstanding talent. It's called "leveling the poppies."

Never mind removing teachers' colleges, which are indeed a collective joke.. How about getting the government out of education? In Kevin Spacey's "House of Cards," the villain, a congressman, tries to get an education reform bill passed. Teachers' unions going through a draft of it insist that private "charter" schools get no federal funding, that public schools get all the funding, and that union teachers be exempt from any kind of evaluation or skills measure. People really ought to watch that Netflix series. It's a genuine education on how Congress really works.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Obama hopes that Iran will detonate a nuclear device somewhere in America – very likely one of the major cities – or even in Israel, so that he would have an excuse to impose martial law and remain in office indefinitely. It would explain why he ignores Iran's nuclear program. Look at the character of the man; he goes to Las Vegas in the midst of an attack on an American consulate, and prefers golf to dealing with crises. I don’t think that's puerile negligence, but rather calculated behavior. As a dedicated Marxist, he treats the presidency as an imperial one, assuming he can do whatever he wishes without consequence or recrimination. And the MSM is his de facto Ministry of Truth.

This is not a precedent. When George W. Bush visited troops in the Mideast, Iraw, and Afhantistan, the troops were not allowed in his presence with any weapons at all. They all had to disarm.

Further to my point: Are the "disinterested officers of the Government" so "disinterested"? No. Their jobs require an interest in exercising power. They have an "interest" in playing dictator of the dollar. It makes them feel good. And they're unelected. The Fed, together with the 16th Amendment, are the two worst things that passed under Wilson's tenure and which he encouraged and approved. He should be blasted in American history texts as just as bad a president as FDR and Obama. They all agreed that Americans should live for reasons other than their own, that they're servants of the state.