Obama’s Unserious Foreign Policy Mentality

Bashar al-Assad of Syria uses chemical weapons on his enemies and President Obama personally reviews hit-lists and sends in missiles by drone strikes. The victims are dead either way, yes?

The sudden realization that al-Assad is evil because he deployed chemical weapons (from Iraq?) is akin to the discovery that Russia’s Putin is a really awful, bad guy now that he wants to enforce laws that discriminate against gays.

It’s time that national security is returned to its rightful, sole priority – protecting our national interests, which do not include making the world a happy place. The Obama administration reportedly wants to initiate the use of military force in Syria to ‘send a message.’ Do these people in this White House think that foreign policy among tyrants is like a game among high school girl friends. Do they actually believe the al-Assad and Putin actually give a flying F what the ‘international community’ says about them at dinner parties. Our military power is not meant to be a messenger pigeon. It should be used for only one purpose – to destroy, to obliterate any threat against our sovereignty and our direct national interests.

The only ‘message’ our military should ever deliver is this:

If you harm or credibly threaten the USA, you shall suffer a painful and swift death.

No more nuance, no more pin-prick surgical strikes. The military must be deployed only to deliver overwhelming and deadly force with one goal – victory.

 

The Portrayal of MLK: Why So Dreamy?

A contrary thought: Is it possible that the left – the media, the progressives, the political class in general – has overstated the importance and impact of MLK and his speech of 50 years ago?

For starters, how can they suggest that it was of profound, near biblical, importance and in the next breath tell us that we have so many miles yet to travel? One or the other, please. (Not to suggest that cognitive dissonance is something new for them.)

Their deification of MLK – I’m certain that BHO is next on their list – speaks to an ugly tendency on their part to demean and diminish America in general. After all, the speech took place, without interruption or any attempt to deny him the right to speak his mind, in the “capital of the free world” and not in Moscow, East Berlin, Tokyo, Tehran, Havana, Baghdad, Saigon, Paris, London or Beijing. The speech explicitly stated that the basis of his dream, the basis of his complaint was the incomplete and imperfect implementation of the plan set forth in the US Constitution and its inspiration, the Declaration of Independence. And, by the way, he was murdered by a man, acting alone, not acting under orders from any state power, the KKK, the GOP or the NRA.

MLK’s speech was inspiring, yes. Important? Sure. But it did not fundamentally challenge or change the nature, the morality or the impetus of the American experiment. His speech did not identify a new right or privilege or suggest a need to eradicate a transcendental flaw in our founding principles. The speech reiterated the fact that the privileges of freedom and individual sovereignty are universal and inalienable, they are of the essence of manhood. It emphasized the necessity of the idea that, in a free society – in America! – a majority’s coercion of a minority to live in an unfree state is immoral and unjust as morality and justice had been defined by, though not yet realized in, the AMERICAN ideal.

The leftists are portraying the speech as more of a turning point, a pivot point in American history. That signals an ignorance and consequent disregard of our history. Or, more ominously, it portends of an agenda to misuse the historic importance of that day some 50 years ago for unjust purposes, it suggests an intent to misconstrue MLK’s message to justify the idea that a fundamental transformation is in order.

They are not that ignorant, and I’m blowing the whistle.

But the Teddy Bears Were Cute!

They didn’t walk out, did they?

After this [unauthentic] photo (of questionable timing, it turns out*) Will Smith is filmed applauding enthusiastically for a performance with lyrics that described sexual acts just as lewd as the ones Miley Cyrus performed on stage. The celebrity culture has taken over and the [feigned] shock on Smith’s face is belied by the fact that his children are with him, on the front row, at an event renowned for its sexually charged, pornographic, intentionally provocative and sensationalistic performances. 

I call BS on everyone who is pretending to be shocked or surprised by the behavior of these people. Smith is just one of the hundreds of super-wealthy trend setters who produce this garbage. Very few if any of the performers on that stage behaved any better than did Miley C, and not one of them will see his or her record sales decrease. The crowd was in awe of every lewd, disgusting performance. No one booed, hissed or walked out. Instead, they shared a few knowing glances, grinned and shrugged. Not a single sponsor will terminate a single contract. Shocked my ass.

A society that occasionally pretends to be disturbed by a single episode of rampant raunchiness while simultaneously promoting every vice as a life-style choice will self destruct. When the only line of demarcation is that between legal and illegal, when morality is relative and optional, when the law of the land condones theft and coveting in the name of beneficence, and property, the product of a man’s life, ceases to be his own, then his life is no longer of any value and can be used for the benefit or pleasure of his master. And, at that point, civil society has descended to the bottom, and there is no code, no ethic, and no law. There are only naked, ugly, animalistic and unthinking spectacles and gawking.

Welcome to America 2013, brought to you by the pseudo virtues of fairness and tolerance.

Welcome to the end.

 

(* The photo misrepresented the Smith family’s reaction – they were actually cheering Lady Gaga’s lewdness! – See here.)

Will FORCE Make “I Have a Dream” Come True?

Dear Mr. Al Sharpton,

As a learned man, a student of the law and the philosophy of human relations, surely you are aware of two fundamental truths.

 

 

• The purpose of the law is to punish or compel certain acts.
• The law is given power by the threat or use of force.

Now, it is well known that you and your cohorts advocate the use of the law to ‘improve’ the lives of blacks and others of certain preferred, protected classes.  It is generally understood that you support state actions that would, as you’re fond of saying, promote the realization of MLK’s dream of equality and opportunity for all men.  You do not, to my knowledge, persuade people to act voluntarily to ‘help’ the poor, the unemployed or the ill.  No.  You’re a political activist whose intent is to change or make new laws.

QUESTION:  In America today, what specific, LEGAL acts perpetrated against any man, black or white, justify the use of force to correct?

Please answer that question, confirm that you support the use of FORCE to fulfill MLK’s dream, acknowledge your conviction that FORCE is the solution to the problems we find in the black community.  Do that and then I will march proudly and in solidarity with you, from sea to shining sea, so that together, we might repeal any and all laws that sanction taking the life or property of any man or woman.

However, if you can’t answer that question, if you can’t or will not condone the use of force to improve the lives of blacks, then my suggestion is that you find a real job.  Your current gig proves you are a thug and a liar, and it’s wearing thin on the rest of us.

MLK’s Dream

To talk about the MLK speech only in terms of “I have a dream” does it a disservice. It was not merely about a dream of the government making things equal. The key point is found in these lines:

“In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”

“the riches of freedom and the security of justice.” That’s not a plea for affirmative action, racial quotas or any kind of race-based justice. It is a legitimate demand for the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The problem? Today, there is no race or group that is free from the oppression of the federal government. Tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations micro-manage every part of your life regardless of your race, color or creed.

So, I have a dream, too. That my children will not be saddled with that body of laws. That they will not be enslaved to repay the $17+ trillion in debt that this nation intends to hand them.  They didn’t vote or choose to spend a significant portion of their lives paying back debt our generation incurred in their name, and it’s immoral to force them to pay for someone else’s consumption.

I have a dream that they will be blessed with the riches of freedom. I fear my dream is a fantasy, and the people who invoke the name and legacy of MLK to justify generational theft are, plain and simple, thieves.

I have a dream that my children will not get an insufficient funds message.

The Unanswered Question About ObamaCare: Why isn’t Barack Obama executing evil Republicans?

During a recent discussion with Biff, a pro-ObamaCare friend, I suggested that in a health care market untouched by the government­, one’s health insurance and employment would most likely not be inter-twined; they’d be completely separate matters.  I asked, Does your neighbor lose his auto insurance if he loses his job?

Biff said, “Huh” so I continued the quiz: Do you know the history of employees’ buying health insurance from/thru their employer?  Answer: Government wage controls in WWII made health insurance the coin of the realm for recruiters.

Then, as is typical in such a discussion, Biff criticizes and mocks our (not) free-marke­t health care system, as though that’s the only model we’ve ever had.  Unfortunately, I aver, that hasn’t been the case for decades.  Nonetheless, Biff suggests that the current system is an abysmal failure.  I reply, ‘not the most abysmal, but definitely in the ‘Top 10 Most Abysmal.’  He continues by saying that nothing short of a government take-over (but he denies he’d ever propose a government take-over) will solve the problems that the market, he says, has caused.

It’s damn near impossible to defeat that illogical logic.  So I continue channelling Socrates.  I ask few more questions:

Do you, Biff, really believe that Republican­s are so daft and evil that they want their fellow citizens to die of preventable disease?  Do you honestly think that the Republican­s and their financial supporters want to watch over a sea of poor men and women on their way to being dead bodies?  Don’t you suspect they’ll ask ‘EGADS, who will scrub the bottom of the yacht?’ before they let them ALL die?

Really?  Please, get a grip, Biff; and a real name, please.

If you think that it is true that Republicans, if you think that anyone opposed to ObamaCare, has a death wish for his fellow man, then you’re an irresponsible and immoral person for not killing me, on the spot, with a bullet shot squarely between my pensive brown eyes (well, yeah, only if I let you borrow my Charlton Heston autographed Smith & Wesson, which I offered to him).

Then, after my gun is removed from Biff’s trembling hand, I ask:  Biff and Barack, since neither of you really think such a bad thing about me or any of your Republican friends, please stop saying that you do.  It’s irresponsible to fuel that kind of vitriol [Biff hates it when I use that word without a reference to Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin].  Please find something to say about government’s role in the delivery of health care that is interesting, productive or original and that does not impugn my love of sick people or insinuate that I wish them continued sickness and suffering.

Or, be quiet and let the adults take care of making the laws.  And delivering health care in an open market.