For a change, here is a story with a good ending about the threat of losing human rights in Britain. A thief of human rights in Germany named Hitler threatened Britain. The prime minister of Britain resigned; he recommended Winston Churchill as the next Prime Minister.
Churchill became well known in 1941. On his famous photograph, he is 70 years of age and looking like a retired university professor. But his father had decided that Winston should be a military man, and at the age of 24 Churchill joined the "4th hussars."
If Churchill had not been a lifelong military man, Hitler possibly would have conquered Britain, as he did France. Possibly, Hitler would have had nuclear bombs before his ground invasions and thus would have become the historically first world owner.
Now back to 1940, when a military man named Churchill became the Prime Minister of Britain (as I mentioned it in my previous column, according to my Britannica there was no "election by the people" of Churchill as Prime Minister).
It is possible that the very appearance of Churchill as a new British Prime Minister and his speech on the occasion played a role in Hitler's decision to leave Britain alone for a while and immediately invade Russia (which seemed to be preparing to invade Germany). But Hitler did not have nuclear bombs, he lost his war in Russia, and shot himself through the mouth.
The geostrategic situation today suggests a global experience for the free countries, that is, the countries where the human rights have not been stolen. In 1940, the mortal danger was Hitler. But in contrast to Churchill, Hitler was not a lifelong military man: he just served as a soldier in WWI. There may be a precipice between being a soldier twenty years earlier and a lifelong military man and thinker such as Churchill. Apart from slowing down the development of nuclear weapons in Germany (he needed the money for his war in Russia), Hitler made several blunders inside Russia. Thus he did not capture the Kremlin (or Moscow for that matter), though Stalin had no troops there at the beginning of the war. Yet Stalin governed the country via Moscow and commanded the army via the Kremlin.
Today many Americans are sure that Barack Obama is a caricature of a U.S. president. But his predecessor was George W. Bush. Would Obama be any better to ensure the victory or at least survival of the U.S.A. and other free countries in WWIII?
For whatever reasons, the U.S. President George W. Bush was (just as is Obama!) for friendship with the People's Republic of China (with its world-notorious Falun Gong persecution!).
Can the U.S. democracy, a country of human rights, survive with Obama as U.S. President?
Certainly the question requires a broader view. A doctor can treat a patient provided he has a medical degree. But in certain cases, it takes a physician of genius to cure a patient. Similarly, the U.S. president, supposed to win WWIII or deliver the free countries from it, should be a man of genius in the political and military matters of the world, which Obama is certainly not. Obama does not understand the People's Republic of China, as European and American philistines did not understand the "National-Socialist Germany"
before Hitler's invasions.
Obama's presidency will possibly lead to the annihilation of the free countries by China in alliance with whatever other countries will join them. A psychiatrically healthy adult, Obama is supposed to be a sociopolitical and military scientist of genius to keep the free countries in the safety of peace and win the shortest and as bloodless as possible victory in case of being attacked.
I keep saying again and again that the United States should change its system of electing the U.S. presidents. That system worked for about two centuries, but now it is suicidal, especially in view of the fact that millions of those who have illegally crossed the border and got into this country would vote for Obama in exchange for their expectations as well as his promises to have their illegal status legalized and providing all social benefits, including health care insurance and the right to work.
By taxing heavily those who find themselves making more money and hence going over the limit randomly set by him, Obama destroys the American middle class to pay for his programs favoring new voters who will vote for him.