Moral Courage and National Security

On 9/11 it is impossible to not stop and meditate on the images, both terrifying and heartrending, of people who woke up on a morning just like any other, trundled off to work convinced that their most crucial decision that day would be to either buy or sell, or perhaps where to have lunch, and wound up having to decide whether to die in flames or jump out of a window, or to decide whether to risk one's own life while rushing up a set of stairs in a blind hope of saving someone else, or to decide whether, and how, to rush the terrorists attempting to run an airplane into a target unknown.

John O'Sullivan recently wrote in National Review:

There are such creatures as heroes of prudence. In general, the prudential hero is someone in a position of power or authority. His courage consists of making the right decisions in difficult circumstances and sometimes against fierce opposition or in contrast to his interests and alliances. This is known as moral courage, and though it ought to be easier to summon up than physical courage, it has often been in very short supply. As Charles Peguy once said, "It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of looking insufficiently progressive."

Statists, socialists, progressives, liberals, or Democrats - whatever moniker you affix to them, they are all, in fact, the same (and add fascist to the list), are certainly not people of moral courage. In an eternal quest to expand power, they find the vulnerable underside of the opinion of the uneducated masses and simply appeal to it, telling them, as it may suit their purpose, that "all will be just fine if you trust me" or "things are really going to explode unless you trust me." Appealing to the irrational fears of the intellectual cripples that constitute their constituency, the statist alternately stokes those irrational fears or soothes them with a Marxist tonic guaranteed only to irritate the problem and lead to governmental expansion, once again, in the indefinite future.

Whether the statist is a feminist, pacifist, or communist (or some other -ist) - ultimately he cares nothing about truth or his own constituency. The feminist destroys women by convincing them that they are enslaved to their husbands, convinces her to destroy her own family, and then weds her in eternal slavery to a new husband: a Fascist government. The Communist, of course, tells us of a new world coming in which social distinctions caused by wealth will be erased, but fails to tell us that his juvenile understanding of economics cannot ensure widespread wealth, but rather that all will be equalized in poverty.

Nowhere is the populist snake oil salesman more dangerous than in the field of foreign policy, however. The pacifist convinces the cowards among us that hate-filled, violent demagogues motivated by warlike ideologies can be convinced, through "dialogue," to make peace with all nations. Outrageously encouraging his cowardly constituents to trust such warmongers as Hitler and a succession of Soviet leaders or to reason with such lunatics as Kim Jong Il or Sadaam Hussein, he defunds the military, promises to use the "peace dividend" to ensure a chicken in every pot, tells us that warlike actions are best handled in the criminal courts, and leaves those with even moderate levels of understanding to await the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

Barack Obama is a fool. Everyone in his administration is a fool. All of his supporters are fools. Nothing is more certain than that Barack Obama is in over his head. He promises that, if only we give him his desires, unemployment will not exceed 8%. It is currently tracking 10%, unless you believe those who assert that it is in excess of 20%. His court jester, Joe Biden, comes along with a heavily-salted crow and slightly grimaces before swallowing it whole and, beaming, telling us, "Oops! We guessed wrong!"

Guessed? The most powerful economy in the world and the grandest political experiment in human history is now at the mercy of those whose solution to solving massive, life-changing problems is to flip a coin? Dear foolish Obama supporter, if these paragons of buffoonery can muster no better solutions than a healthy guess about the issues that you, their supporters, actually care about - the economy - what makes you think that they have a better response planned for the issue that you ignored when you voted for him? You remember? National security?

This same team of empty suits will warble on about a "national day of service" today - giving the impression that all is well. It is fine to come out of your bunker now. There is no threat. After all, why would our primary focus be encouraging the marginal development of volunteerism if, in fact, there was still the danger of vicious attack by Islamofascists?

Barack Obama is an empty suit, an illusion (if a striking one) from beginning to end. Like all successful Democratic politicians, he is more effective running for office - a position that merely requires the painting of a picture, not the skill to actually fix a problem - than he is in actually governing. This is because the modern Democratic party is completely divorced from reality. The neurosis that causes Democrats to be able to paint such pretty castles in the air also impedes them from actually picking up necessary tools and using workable blueprints to build something stable on the ground. Their political philosophy has devolved from the various mental illnesses contrived during the 60s in America: either they are engaged in the eternal wishing of juveniles who are first beginning to notice the world around them and hope for a change in its imperfections, but who correspondingly lack the worldly wisdom to think concretely enough to actually solve the problems, or their minds really were blown by all those drugs and, in addition to seeing pink elephants walking on the wall, they really do think that disarming the nation is a certain way to attain peace and that crazed Islamofascists who have nothing to gain on earth and nothing to lose in Paradise can be convinced through simpering, pedantic "dialogue" to lay down their arms and be nice boys.

I was no fan of George W. Bush. As a domestic president, he was far too comfortable with the expansion of governmental power for someone whose libertarian stripe runs as deeply and as widely as mine. But every 9/11, I thank my blessed Lord that George W. Bush was the president when the United States of America came under attack by the politico-religious philosophy of Islamofascism. For all of his weaknesses in the domestic arena, his presence as the leader of this country was an act of divine mercy not to be overlooked. He was a man - something very much lacking in the Obama administration, the Democratic party, and the nation today. He was a man of moral courage, whose compass pointed constantly toward that great north star of preventing further attacks against innocent people on American soil. And because he was willing to refuse to compromise with the neurotic left, the United States has stayed safe, and avoided attacks on our own soil, for eight years.

Because Barack Obama is in over his head and is a coward, the same will not remain true through the entirety of his administration. Because Barack Obama is a fool, the United States is no longer safe. Because Barack Obama's administration has replaced the wise decision with the haphazard guess, Americans are in danger of terrorism on their own soil once again.

To all those who died on 9/11, 2001, I apologize on behalf of this country that your blood will not be the last, because so many of your countrymen are fools.

Baracksheviks Have "Something": Jeb Says So!

Well now, she CERTAINLY has "something!"

The following appeared in the May 3, 2009 Washington Times:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it's time for the Republican Party to give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 elections.

"You can't beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don't like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that," Mr. Bush said.

Jeb, bless his heart, is afflicted with Bushism, a malady more perverse and dangerous than even swine flu. To see Bushism in action, refer to the administrations of H.W. and W.

Bushism causes objects of great substance, when viewed in your rear-view mirror, to appear to be merely "nostalgic." It also leads one to believe that economic programs based on actual economic principles are related to voodoo, and causes one to equate the spending of money with compassion.

Jeb would like us to "steal the strategy" of the Baracksheviks? Pray tell, exactly what was this vaunted "strategy?" Running an empty suit that is addicted to a teleprompter? Refusing to engage the significant issues while doing one's best impression of some weird combination of Jon Bon Jovi and Snoop Dogg? Choosing a candidate based on his "hip/cool quotient?" Emblazoning the country with meaningless, single-word tripe designed to appeal to the most ignorant among us, a la the best Soviet agitprop of the 1970s?

Soviet... errrrr, Barackshevik propaganda at its.... errrrrr, finest!

Having this, the Baracksheviks have "something?"

Huh?

Perhaps they do have something, but my theory is that it can be cured with antibiotics.

Or reading.

The 100 Day Verdict: Obama Sucks!

If one listens to MSNBC or CBS, one gets the impression that, not only is Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama the greatest president in American history (and perhaps the most wonderful divine gift to mankind since fire), but that the American public is squarely behind his socialist machinations - given the exception of a few fringe lunatics and the KKK.

The evidence, as always, is completely different from what the media is telling us.

There are a half dozen ways to measure the "verdict" on Obama prior to the 100-day mark of his administration, and all of them agree: Obama Sucks!

First, Obama, we think, was largely elected on a two-pronged theory, partly subjective and partly objective. Of course, most of the votes that flew Obama's way were from those who were grossly misinformed; people who are so utterly ignorant that they ought not only be allowed to vote, but they ought not be allowed to drive! Typical of this group (certainly 70% of Obama voters) are those who voted for him because he would be the nation's first black president, those who voted for him because of Oprah's endorsement, and those, like the now-famous YouTube video of the young black lady who supported The One because now she would never have to worry about paying her mortgage or for gas again.





These people are too ignorant and morally perverted to ever come to know the truth. They won't be convinced that their subjective fantasies have the reality quotient of "Once upon a time in a land far away...." even if they someday receive orders from Obama to come to the county square for a free Kool-Aid treat.

For those few who actually had an objective reason for supporting Obama, it was likely because of the sorry shape of the economy at election time. A strange congruence of forces which came together merely months before the election coupled with the simplistic thinking of Americans (i.e., "if it happened under Bush, Bush caused it" when in fact the forces that caused the economic meltdown were entirely the brainchild of Bill Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus) basically ensured Obama's election as Americans searched for someone to fix the economy. In a strange twist of fate, the candidate representing the Democratic party (who caused the economic meltdown) was viewed as being more capable of repairing the crashing economy than the candidate of the Republican party (who had personally warned that Democratic policies would bring this meltdown to pass).

So, what has Obama done for the economy? This will be our first objective measure of the Obama administration.

On the morning of the 2008 election the Dow Jones Industrial Average opened at 9326. On the evening of the next day, the first full day of trading with the certainty that Barack Obama would be president, the market had taken a nearly-200 point nose dive to 9139. Not bad... (sic). Between the election and the inauguration, the market continued to decline to the tune of 1100+ points.

On February 17, Obama signed his first major piece of legislation into law - the multi-trillion dollar stimulus package. The stock market on that day dropped from 7845 to 7502. On February 27, Obama announed his budget proposal. The Dow Jones responded by dropping from 7181 to 6763.

Between January 2009 and March 2009, the DJIA lost 28%, nearly a third of its value, its worst performance for the same time period for any U.S. president in history.

While it is true that capital markets are forward-looking, the Dow Jones largely reflects the so-called "Large Cap" stocks which tend to reflect the current condition of the market, especially in difficult times. It is the NASDAQ that tends to reflect stocks that are growth-oriented, and therefore that index tends to be more forward looking. Surely, if the capital markets believed that the future looked rosy with Obama, the NASDAQ would reflect that hope for growth?

Between November 3, 2008, and April 28, 2009, the NASDAQ has declined from 1726 to 1694.

Not as precipitous a drop, but the NASDAQ has been down as much as 450 points during the Obama tenure. The objective economic results thus far are decidedly mixed to negative.

Secondly, Obama has proposed spending at a level, during his first 100 days, to send the U.S. careening into bankruptcy, proposing almost $10 trillion in spending in 100 days for a country that had already amassed $11 trillion in debt in its 200+-year history! Doesn't "fiscal responsiblity" feel good?

Thirdly, the tea-parties which have met the Obama administrations proposals and performance are nearly unprecedented in America's history. Outside of the Civil War, is is hard to imagine a more negative greeting to any president upon his election. While there is a lobotomized and ignorant plurality of the nation that is easily led by Oprah's pallid imitations of papal bulls, those who are most informed and most engaged in the political process are horrified by Obama, his incompetence, and his proposals.

Finally, the polls themselves present a decidedly mixed picture of the nation's "approval" of Obama and his administration. Despite the natural tendency of Americans to support the nation's leadership and the understandable desire to give each new president a chance to enact his own agenda, Obama's strident socialism and evident incompetence has already placed him in a highly unusual position - he is one of the few presidents to have lost significant support during his first 100 days.

Obama's current "approval ratings" stand at 56%. This is a paltry figure, given that he was elected with 53% of the vote and that his approval rating in February was 65%. Even so, his 56% approval rating places him SEVENTH out of the last nine presidents for approval ratings at the 100-day mark. George W. Bush actually had a higher approval rating at the 100-day mark, exceeding Obama's by six points.

Further, as I have previously noted, a non-scientific poll conducted by MSNBC in fact had nearly forty percent of all respondents giving Obama an "F" for his performance for his first 100 days.

The orgiastic writhings (and writings) of the mainstream media notwithstanding, the objective measures of Obama's competence to this point are unencouraging to say the least. To say the most? Obama sucks!