I have no interest in soccer. Just as I have no interest in most events staged during the Olympics. And, frankly, I don’t get why any American feels the need to tune in every four years to watch the World Cup or synchronized swimming.

I just find it profoundly stupid to sit and watch a game played with a ball in which you can’t use your hands. I’m not suggesting it isn’t a display of great stamina, but so is the marathon. What’s more, as with soccer, marathon-running is a sport in which scoring is apparently frowned upon. But I don’t hear about a lot of people spending hours on end watching other people run 26 miles for no particular reason.

Still, when a car passed me here in L.A., at a time when both Mexico and the U.S. were still in competition, and the driver had two Mexican flags waving from his back window, I was infuriated. I had no way of knowing if the schmuck had snuck across the border or if his family had been in L.A. for a hundred years.

What I do know is that if you live here and get to take advantage of all this wonderful nation has to offer – even with Obama in the White House and Harry Reid running the Senate as his own personal fiefdom – you don’t root for the other guys. It’s just a matter of good manners, no matter who the other guys happen to be. And that’s the case even if the competition involves something as pointless –- both literally and figuratively – as soccer.

Speaking of things that annoy the heck out of me, I have never been able to figure out why people such as Cassius Clay, Lew Alcindor and Stokely Carmichael, decided that the best way to express their dislike of America was to change their names to Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Kwame Ture. Anti-American bigotry is bad enough, but when you combine it with historical ignorance, you’re really establishing your credentials as a bottom-feeder. Is it possible that these three lunkheads were unaware of just who it was that was rounding up and placing the shackles on their ancestors in Africa? Could it be they simply didn’t recognize that their name-change was the equivalent of a Jew’s deciding to call himself Goering, Eichmann or Hitler?

On the other hand, when you think of the advantages they had by being born in the U.S., perhaps it was their way of expressing their appreciation to the Muslims and Arabs who even today are widely involved in the slave trade. Nah, I don’t think so, either.

I know that liberals take pride in being regarded as pacifists. But it’s worth noting that it was warfare that brought about our freeing ourselves from English rule; that it was warfare that freed the slaves in the South; and it was warfare that stopped Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in their bloody tracks. On the other hand, it’s war-fear that allowed the Soviet Union to gobble up and cannibalize Eastern Europe for half a century and is today allowing Islamic barbarianism to expand its disgusting domain.

Speaking of Muslims, it recently occurred to me that the followers of Muhammad are a lot like the typical American teenager. They’re full of false pride, otherwise known as self-esteem, although they have accomplished nothing, invented nothing and created nothing. And if it weren’t for what others have produced, Muslims wouldn’t even be able to blow up themselves and their innocent victims with those bombs to which they’ve become so addicted.

In the meantime, we have the president and his would-be successor continuing to make public spectacles of themselves. Barack Obama actually had the gall to announce: “By every economic measure, we are better off now than we were when I took office. You wouldn’t know it, but we are.” Now if he were speaking to Michelle, I might buy it, but apparently he was actually addressing the American people. Or “the folks,” as he likes to call us when what he really means is “you boneheaded suckers.”

Recently, I had call to send my friend Michael Medved an email, suggesting he stop telling his radio audience that Hillary Clinton is a nice person simply because he liked her when they were both at Yale. As I pointed out, that was four decades ago. She has since married Bill, been the First Lady of both Arkansas and the United States, been a senator, a secretary of state and become a multimillionaire.

It seemed to me that Medved was either being hopelessly naïve or going out of his way to let us all know that he had once been on a first-name basis with Mrs. Clinton, not that I would think that was something a conservative talk show host should ever brag about. As I reminded him, back in those days, he and I had both been registered Democrats. So why on earth would he imagine that she hadn’t changed even more dramatically than we had since those long ago school days?

This afternoon, when I tuned in to his show, I heard him proclaiming Hillary brilliant because she had been a successful lawyer. Well, for one thing, a person can be both a success in his or her chosen profession and an ignoramus. For another, calling her a successful lawyer is a lot like calling Barack Obama a constitutional scholar simply because that’s what he calls himself, or his wife a successful hospital administrator. Michelle was pulling down $350,000 at a Chicago hospital because her husband was an up-and-coming politician in the Illinois legislature.

As for Hillary, she married Bill when she was 27 years old. When she was 28, her husband became the governor of Arkansas. Does anyone, including Michael Medved, think you have to be Antonin Scalia to be a successful lawyer when your hubby is running the state?

Speaking of Mrs. Clinton, she keeps insisting that she and Bill accrued $150 million by “dint of hard work.” When you realize that these Herculean labors consisted of putting their names on books written by lesser mortals and delivering $250,000 speeches written by hacks to the various wolves of Wall Street they pretend to revile, you begin to wonder if Hillary has already gone into her folksy campaign mode and is pronouncing “didn’t” as “dint.” The fact is she hasn’t done a lick of actual work since completing her college thesis, a devotional dedicated to Chicago’s thuggish community organizer, Saul Alinsky.

Speaking of Alinsky, I got to see “America,” Dinesh D'Souza’s tribute to this nation, the other night. It is quite different from his earlier “2016: Obama’s America,” in which he exposed Obama as the anti-American creep he is. This time around, like the appreciative immigrant he happens to be, D'Souza both defends and lauds his adopted land in a way that most native-born Americans never would, lest they be regarded as cornball and labeled xenophobic.

D'Souza not only proves that America is not the oppressive, imperialistic, cesspool constantly condemned by the contemptible likes of Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Mr. Alinsky and, unfortunately, Barack Hussein Obama, but that it remains, in spite of the traitors and haters among us, the shining city on the hill Ronald Reagan claimed it to be.