Another Incompetent Leader From Harvard

The pronunciation is “Haa-vard”. The school has given the U.S. two incompetent leaders in succession: Bush and Obama. Bush received an MBA from Harvard; Obama graduated from the Law School.

Bush wanted his oil money. By taking the army into Iraq, he made billions of dollars because the price of crude oil soared. He apparently never read St. Augustine, who essentially wrote that war is only justified in defense, after an attack has been made on a nation. Bush could never convince himself that he was the aggressor against Iraq, a nation that had not attacked the U.S.

He was on a religious spiel, constantly making reference to “The Threat To Our Way of Life”. True, the country survived after 9-11 under his leadership, but it was a real fight to continue. The economic collapse started in 2007-2008, and by the time Bush left office the government was bailing out banks and insurance companies. It has been the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Obama seems delusional. He has done little to effectively counter the world economic depression, relying primarily on further bailouts of the insurance companies and car manufacturers.

Meanwhile, he wants a public healthcare system which brings with it inestimable costs. At best, this healthcare system is much like the government-established Insurance industry. That industry just collapsed. At worst, millions in North America may starve to death because of the basket-case economy.

Other issues plague Obama as well. He still has not closed the Guantanamo prison, nor has he removed the army from Iraq.

Bush and  Obama are not the first “visionaries” from Harvard to mislead the country. William Rhenquist, a Harvard Divinity School graduate, was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serving for more than thirty years until his death in 2005. He left the country with a prison system that is notoriously bad: Over seven million people are currently incarcerated, on parole, or on probation, the largest number in the world. During the days Rhenquist led the Court, Californians adopted the “Three Strikes Your Out” rule, under which a man may be imprisoned fifty years for simple theft. The Rhenquist court refused to strike down the rule despite the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Some saw Rhenquist as a saving response to the Civil Rights era. On economic issues, they have a point in that the Rhenquist court consistently struck down measures that were tantamount to socialism. Unfortunately, the Rhenquist court’s dogmatic attack on the rights of the accused – mainly the Fourth through Ninth Amendments of the Constitution – left the prison system in horrid condition. That court compromised some with the re-affirmation of the Miranda decision and the ban on the death penalty in federal cases. Still, the lasting consequences of its decisions on the prison system are undeniable.

Perhaps the country should look to some of the other universities and academies for leadership.