There is ample anecdotal evidence that clearly points to a history deficit for many on the left, and Arianna Huffington drives the point home with a remarkably ill-informed piece wherein she appears astounded that Americans aren't entirely comfortable with the adulation Sen. Obama is receiving on his campaign tour of Europe.

We'll stipulate that Obama has performed well thus far, but since his appearances are in the same vein as a Beatles tour in the 60s, it's hardly surprising.  Huffington draws on quotes from a variety of Americans, and seems sincere in asking why many of her fellow countrymen might be uncomfortable with the praise that's being lavished upon Obama in Europe.  We can begin with the fact that, to many, Obama appears to be running for president of the world, not America.  Indeed, with policy recommendations that range from health care mandates to higher taxes and regulations and, which smack of a soft version of socialism, he's much more in tune with citizens of France or Germany than those of America.

Another pet preoccupation of Huffington and her leftist colleagues is the charge that America's reputation suffered under President Bush.  What they conveniently omit is the fact that 29 Democratic senators voted to support military action in Iraq and, when the war became challenging they headed for the tall grass.  History has recorded the pathetic fact that many Western European countries failed to stand with America because the war became unpopular at home.  Well, if toppling Saddam Hussein and standing up Iraq as a fledgling democracy was the right thing to do in 2003, what's changed?

The change begins with the saturation of the Western hemisphere with a liberalism that loathes authority and power projection, that stigmatizes success, that is instinctively drawn to arguments concerning the moral equivalence of all nations, and that is most comfortable with transnational agencies such as the International Criminal Court, the World Bank, and the United Nations.  Although it's ignorant of the history that informs its misguided thinking, it champions the Westphalian notion of absolute sovereignty, which China exploits to defend its horrific human rights record, and, a version of that defense is used to refute arguments for demanding that Iran cease its nuclear weapons program.

It's only in the bell jar of liberalism, where evil has been written out of the script and where America's foibles loom far larger than the good it's done for the world, that Obama traipsing across Europe to be lionized by foreigners has the ring of electoral ecstasy.  He's everything George W. Bush isn't:  He's charming, cool, hip, glib, culturally tuned-up, and on the right side of all the important issues, from being against the war in Iraq to the redistribution of wealth to on-demand abortion to an abhorrence of guns.

Well, perhaps that's why his campaign tour of Europe makes mainstream Americans queasy.  But we can't expect the likes of Arianna Huffington to understand that.

One of the more loathsome hallmarks of political correctness is its insidious ability to work its way into our civic fabric at the local level.  Because its adherents depend upon the concomitant of pre-emptive capitulation for its success, they have advanced their curious cause in ways never suspected just a decade ago.

Here in Colorado, in response to the Western Colorado Atheists' charge of breaching the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, the Grand Junction city council has conceded it may be breaking the law by not featuring a nearly limitless multiplicity of prayers in advance of their meetings.  

In Colorado Springs, despite the fact that the city council has historically brought in a variety of ministers, as well as rabbis, and priests, it won't satisfy the likes of Becky Hale, a founding member of Freethinkers of Colorado Springs, who complained it's not "all-inclusive," noting that her organization hasn't been included in such efforts because "we're too controversial."

Not surprising, if they were included, she said they wouldn't call it a prayer--God forbid--but rather "a call for people to be their best human selves," a wonderfully secularized and effete assertion that would pointlessly expand the scope (and definition) well beyond the traditions of inter-denominational faiths.  But, more critically, it's yet another example of the minority imposing itself on the majority, demanding equal accommodation regardless of whether they're 5 percent of the population or a tenth of one percent.

It also reflects a dim understanding of the First Amendment, which has suffered at the hands of the courts in recent decades, which provides such would-be challenges a wholly undeserved legitimacy.  Indeed, inherent in all our rights is a presumption of reasonableness with respect to their interpretation and application.  As such, inviting a variety of faiths to lead the prayer before a city council meeting ought to satisfy the clause's demand.  Being forced, either by a de facto legal challenge, or the threat thereof, to include secular agencies would constitute a perversion of the process since they aren't truly praying.

However, that's the next logical step, and it would include everything from animal rights zealots to global warming extremists to champions of polygamy, exploiting their hour upon the stage for purely political reasons.  None of this should surprise anyone who follows the aggrieved rights and victimhood pathologies that are rampant in America today, where the threat of lawsuits brings down traditions and reinterprets statutes in a conflagration of idiocy.

There's a silent but broad majority of Americans who are both tired and angry as they see their rights ignored and abused, as courts defend presumed victims and those feel their rights have been compromised.  Thanks to the liberal establishment, which has seeded our public education system with its offspring and which has put our sensitivities on hair-trigger, we've become a nation of people who take offense at the slightest provocation, whether real or imagined.

It's transformed our civic landscape into a litigious place where trial lawyers and class actions propagate like fruit flies.  Beyond the needless expense, this can't be healthy for our collective well-being because it creates challenges to our traditions based on an extremist view of our Constitution and statutes.  But because our judges are reliable champions of creating legislation from the bench, they manufacture new law and rights on a daily basis, which only advances these ill-begotten causes and provides them with an unwarranted credibility.