The United States (and the World) Ride Off Into the Sunset

February 5, 2010 | american ideals

Victor Davis Hanson once again goes to the central problem facing the world, at this moment in history:

The world’s masses — most of them young, poor and non-Western — may applaud a hip, post-racial Barack Obama more than they ever would an old-money Texan like Bush. Obama may give soaring Wilsonian speeches abroad and be crowned with the Noble Peace Prize for his anointed vision of a new global brotherhood.

But, unfortunately, national leaders themselves do not behave like excited concertgoers or European intellectuals. Instead, they have only long-term self-interests — not temporary emotional crushes — and so seek to expand their influence whenever they can.

Obama better understand that difference. A world without strong U.S. leadership really would become a far more dangerous place where the strong do as they please and the weak obey as they must.

A very important point. A world without strong U.S. leadership is a dangerous place. We have lived with a ‘Pax Americana’ since the end of WWII; there have been wars, but the tensions have been contained, because the United States has been stronger than any coalition of enemies combined. Without that strength and leadership, bad guys flourish. As I have written, in a previous post:

In his The Case For Goliath: How America Acts As The World’s Government in the Twenty-first Century, Michael Mandelbaum suggests a different role for the United States than that of ‘imperialist’ or empire, or even “the world’s policeman.” Mandelbaum suggests that the United States is, more and more, functioning as the government of the world.

The National Problem

February 3, 2010 | american ideals

The first step invovled in solving a problem is understanding what the problem is…and it is very important that we all understand that the Democratic Party is NOT the Liberal party of Hubert Humphrey and Jack Kennedy…that party was rational and patriotic. What we are dealing with, today, are Communists, masquerading as Democrats. They do not understand Capitalism, Democracy or freedom. They favor centralized government control…a model which has NEVER worked, but favors those in power.

I went to the Republican Caucus,  here, in Minnesota, tonight…and the point I made was that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is principle. Democrats do not have principles. Republicans do…though Republicans do not often follow those principles. When Republicans do not maintain their principles, they lose, as was seen in 2008

Dennis Prager spoke to the Republican Party, and defined the problem very succinctly:

I would like show you some of the large themes involved in your present work.

First theme: It is harder to sell truths than to sell falsehoods.

It is very easy to say, “Vote for us and we will give you, we will give you, we will give you.” It is much harder to advocate what is right and to say, “Vote for us, but no, we won’t give you” — even though that is the more moral and the more American position. So you have the far more difficult task.

Second theme: You are not fighting liberals. You are fighting the Left. Democrats were once liberals. But you are not fighting liberals any longer. You are fighting the Left. And as leftists, they do not like to confront reality, even if it means rewriting it.

Third theme: Most people on the Left are True Believers. This is critical to understand. They are willing to lose Congress; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are prepared to lose both houses to get this through. Why? Because losing an election cycle means nothing compared to taking over more of the American economy.

And finally, theme four: I have a motto that I offer to you because this is the ultimate moral case for us: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”

We have to learn to make our complex beliefs simple — though never simplistic. And this is our powerful response to government doing more and more for people: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”

Obama Is Still Wandering in the Dark

January 23, 2010 | obama

Newsmax Reports  that David Plouffe, who led Barack Obama’s winning campaign for the White House, will play a larger role in advising the president as reeling Democrats try to rally in this important election year.

Ok, here is Plouffe;

But not if Democrats do what the American people sent them to Washington to do.

In 2006 and 2008, voters sent an unmistakable message: We want decisive change. This was not just a change of political parties. Instead of a government that works for the entitled and special interests, a government that looks out for Wall Street, they wanted a government that works better for them, a government that plays the role it should to help foster the security of the middle class.

Many of last year’s accomplishments are down payments on those principles.

Does this sound like a guy who has any concept of what is going on around him? What accomplishments is he talking about? Does it sound like Obama, by appointing this guy, understands what happened to him, last Tuesday?

What a bozo.

The World Turned Upside Down; The People Take a Stand in Massachusetts

January 21, 2010 | election

Victor Davis Hanson describes what happened in Massachusetts last Tuesday in classical terms: 

In Plato’s ideal society, philosopher kings and elite Guardians shepherded the rabble to force them to do the “right” thing.

To prevent the unwashed from doing anything stupid, the all-powerful, all-wise Guardians often had to tell a few “noble” lies. And, of course, these caretakers themselves were exempt from most rules they made for others.

We are now seeing such thinking in the Obama administration and among its supporters.

A technocracy — many Ivy-League-educated and without much experience outside academia and government — pushes legislation most people do not want but is nevertheless judged to be good for them.

Columnists all over the media are trying to interpret what the capture of the Senate in the most Liberal state in the Union by a Conservative Republican means in all terms, and they are almost all missing the point. Conservatives point to exit polls which show that voters were upset by the tactics used by the Democrats to push a very unpopular healthcare bill through Congress, and the way the President is handling the war against Islamofascism as reasons why the voters vote for Brown. There is some truth in that. There is more to it, however.

The American Left is not a friend of democracy. Mark Humphreys has a very detailed study of the association with the Left and totalitarianism where he points out that there is no megalomaniacal dictator, in the 20th century, that was not supported by Leftists, and, in their current incarnation, ‘Progressives.’

The Democratic party’s left wing is composed of these Progressives who share one point of view with the majority of the Democratic Party, the distrust of the common man. They are little different from the early American Federalist party, which distrusted the public, thought the elite should be in charge, and favored national power over state power.

That is what got them into trouble with the healthcare bill. Their efforts to pass this bill were anything but democratic; they eschewed compromise and bi-partisanship. They used methods of intimidation and bribery to maintain and expand support for the bill, and they used these methods well past the point where polling showed that the American public rejected the bill.

In other words, it was their methods which made this bill so unpopular, the totalitarian pushing of an agenda against the wishes of the people.

Ann Coulter points out how this is not unusual, for the Democratic Party, and a good reason why they never hold Control of Congress for more than one term at a time.

Except when Republicans win political power, they hold onto it long enough to govern. The Democrats keep being smacked down by the voters immediately after being elected and revealing their heinous agenda.

As a result, for the past four decades, American politics has consisted of Republicans controlling Washington for eight to 14 years — either from the White House or Capitol Hill — thus allowing Americans to forget what it was they didn’t like about Democrats, whom they then carelessly vote back in. The Democrats immediately remind Americans what they didn’t like about Democrats, and their power is revoked at the voters’ first possible opportunity.

 The people rejected the Healthcare bill for the reasons Ann gave; they were reminded just who the Democrats really are; totalitarians, who do not care what the people want, but will tell the people what they are going to get, whether they like it or not.

Conservative Support for Scott Brown

January 16, 2010 | democrat, election, republican

Rick Moran brings up an interesting point about Conservative support for Scott Brown, in the Massachusettes (sic) Senate run-off campaign. I do not know if it is relevant, though; Conservatives are supporting Brown NOT because of his Conservative credentials, but because he will upset the calculations for passage of the health-care bill; it will probably still pass, as they can ram it through with a reconciliation procedure, but it is making the Dems look worse and worse to the general public.

My guess is that Scott Brown is bound to disappoint conservatives, and it will happen sooner rather than later. As Boris Shor points out in his analysis, Brown is conservative — for Massachusetts. Just as Dede Scozzafava was considered to the right of most New York Republican legislators even though the perception of her outside of the Empire State was quite different, so too is Scott Brown considered a man of the right even though many of his votes would be seen as conservative apostasy outside of New England.

The Massachusetts Senate race is bringing into stark relief the choice faced by movement conservatives in 2010: pragmatism or principle? Supporting a Brown victory will probably kill ObamaCare and slow the liberal tax-and-spend agenda, if not destroy it altogether. But supporting Brown means backing a candidate who won’t always vote the way conservatives wish on a wide variety of issues. Some conservatives, as Andrew Ian Dodge points out, are sitting out the race, refusing to vote for someone who clearly doesn’t support their positions on some issues. Others are swallowing their differences with Brown and are working to send him to Washington.

Who’s right?

al Qaeda Has a New Strategy

January 10, 2010 | al qaida, islam, islamism, islamofascism, war on terror

As I have been saying, when one plays defense, you give the other guy a chance to figure out how to beat you. All this sounds very plausible. Obama doesn’t have a clue what is going on. From the Washington Post

First, al-Qaeda is increasingly focused on overwhelming, distracting and exhausting us. To this end, it seeks to flood our already information-overloaded national intelligence systems with myriad threats and background noise. Al-Qaeda hopes we will be so distracted and consumed by all this data that we will overlook key clues, such as those before Christmas that linked Abdulmutallab to an al-Qaeda airline-bombing plot.

Second, in the wake of the global financial crisis, al-Qaeda has stepped up a strategy of economic warfare. “We will bury you,” Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev promised Americans 50 years ago. Today, al-Qaeda threatens: “We will bankrupt you.” Over the past year, the group has issued statements, videos, audio messages and letters online trumpeting its actions against Western financial systems, even taking credit for the economic crisis. However divorced from reality these claims may be, propaganda doesn’t have to be true to be believed, and the assertions resonate with al-Qaeda’s target audiences.

Heightened security measures after the Christmas Day plot, coupled with the likely development of ever more sophisticated passenger-screening and intelligence technologies, stand to cost a lot of money, while the war in Afghanistan constitutes a massive drain on American resources. Given the economic instability here and abroad, al-Qaeda seems to think that a strategy of financial attrition will pay outsize dividends.

Third, al-Qaeda is still trying to create divisions within the global alliance arrayed against it by targeting key coalition partners. Terrorist attacks on mass-transit systems in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005 were intended to punish Spain and Britain for participating in the war in Iraq and in the U.S.-led war on terrorism, and al-Qaeda continues this approach today. During the past two years, serious terrorist plots orchestrated by al-Qaeda’s allies in Pakistan, meant to punish Spain and the Netherlands for participating in the war on terrorism, were thwarted in Barcelona and Amsterdam

We Are At War, But With Whom?

January 10, 2010 | Middle East, al qaeda, islamofascism, war

Mark Steyn says it all, and gives a pretty good commentary about why we have had such a hard time winning wars since the end of World War II

On Thursday, having renounced over the preceding days “the system worked,” the “isolated extremist,” the more obviously risible TSA responses, the Gitmo-Yemen express checkout and various other follies, the president finally spoke the words: “We are at war.” As National Review’s Rich Lowry noted, they were more or less dragged from the presidential gullet by Dick Cheney, who’d accused the commander in chief of failing to grasp this basic point. Again, to be fair, it isn’t just Obama. Last November, the electorate voted, in effect, to repudiate the previous eight years and seemed genuinely under the delusion that wars end when one side decides it’s all a bit of a bore, and they’d rather the government spend the next eight years doing to health care and the economy what they were previously doing to jihadist camps in Waziristan.

On the other hand, if we are now at war, as Obama belatedly concedes, against whom are we warring? “We are at war against al-Qaida,” says the president.

Doesn’t this sound like a bigger problem than “al-Qaida,” whatever that is? The president has now put citizens of Nigeria on the secondary-screening list. Which is tough on Nigerian Christians, who have no desire to blow up your flight to Detroit. Aside from the highly localized Tamil terrorism of India and Sri Lanka, suicide bombing is a phenomenon entirely of Islam. The broader psychosis that manifested itself only the other day in an axe murderer breaking into a Danish cartoonist’s home to kill him because he objects to his cartoon is, likewise, a phenomenon of Islam. This is not to say (to go wearily through the motions) that all Muslims are potential suicide bombers and axe murderers, but it is to state the obvious – that this “war” is about the intersection of Islam and the West, and its warriors are recruited in the large pool of young Muslim manpower, not in Yemen and Afghanistan so much as in Copenhagen and London.

But the president of the United States cannot say that because he is overinvested in a fantasy – that, if only that Texan moron Bush had read Khalid Sheikh Mohammed his Miranda rights and bowed as low as Obama did to the Saudi king, we wouldn’t have all these problems. So now Obama says, “We are at war.” But he cannot articulate any war aims or strategy because they would conflict with his illusions. And so we will stagger on, playing defense, pulling more and more items out of our luggage – tweezers, shoes, shampoo, snow globes, suppositories – and reacting to every new provocation with greater impositions upon the citizenry.

You can’t win by putting octogenarian nuns through full-body scanners.

If we can’t define our enemy, we can’t beat them. An inexperienced President, such as President Obama, who is learning the job as he goes along, cannot possibly have the background or education to understand what war means…and how to win it. President Obama is, as has been commented on so often, way over his head, here, and we can expect few accomplishments in our war until he is removed from office.

A Teacher Is Arrested in New York

January 10, 2010 | Uncategorized

A public school teacher was arrested today at John F. Kennedy International Airport as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a compass, a slide rule and a calculator.

At a morning press conference, the Attorney General said he believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-Gebra movement. He did not identify the man, who has been charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.

‘Al-Gebra is a problem for us’, the Attorney General said. ‘They derive solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in search of absolute values.’ They use secret code names like ‘X’ and ‘Y’ and refer to themselves as ‘unknowns’, but we have determined that they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, ‘There are 3 sides to every triangle.’

When asked to comment on the arrest, President Obama said, ‘If God had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, he would have given us more fingers and toes.’ White House aides told reporters they could not recall a more intelligent or profound statement by the President.

 It is believed that the Nobel Prize for Physiques will follow.

The Best and the Brightest for the Job?

January 2, 2010 | obama, obamacare

Not from this Administration. LINK

Help Wanted, No Private Sector Experience Required

By Nick Schulz

November 25, 2009, 8:19 am

A friend sends along the following chart from a J.P. Morgan research report. It examines the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy. It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all.

obamacabinet

But who needs experience to be a Socialist?

Europe is Making Terrorism Easier

January 1, 2010 | islamism, islamofascism, obama

Pamela Geller is a blogger gone mainstream, who has reported extensively on the dangers of what I would call ‘Muslim Creep,’ the slow, insidious expansion of Moslem culture in Europe and in the United States. Here she reports on a virtually unknown agreement to establish closer ties betwee Moslem North Africa ane Europe.

A disastrous and suicidal pact called the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership is going into effect with little fanfare or examination. It boggles the mind that such a consequential and seismic cultural shift could be mandated and put into play without so much as a murmur from the mainstream media.

Why should Americans care about this? Americans have to care because this global gobbledygook is coming to our shores, thanks to our globalist president.

Union encompassing both Europe and North Africa, with the Mediterranean Sea becoming a domestic Eurabian sea. The goal is to establish a “comprehensive political partnership,” including a “free trade area and economic integration”; “considerably more money for the partners” (that is, more European money flowing into North Africa); and “cultural partnership” – that is, importation of Islamic culture into post-Christian Europe.

According to the SIOE, in the Euro-Med plan “Europe is to be islamized. Democracy, Christianity, European culture and Europeans are to be driven out of Europe. Fifty million North Africans from Muslim countries are to be imported into the EU.”

Skeptical? It’s already happening. The British newspaper the Daily Express reported in October 2008 on “a controversial taxpayer-funded ‘job centre’ “that opened in Mali at that time as “just the first step towards promoting ‘free movement of people in Africa and the EU.’ Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will ‘need’ 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the ‘demographic decline’ due to falling birthrates and rising death rates across Europe.”

I recently wrote how Britain would prefer to hate rather than save their soldier’s lives. This article is a good indication of how far that social suicide has gone. Europe is very quickly and voluntarily throwing off their own heritage in favor of moving towards becoming a dominant Muslim region.

Does America have enough to resist this? There was a time where I would not have had a problem answering this question. Now, considering our Moslem President, I am having doubts.