Friday, July 25, 2008

Mere Americans Not Good Enough for Obama

Obviously, America is not quite a big enough stage for Barack Obama, and mere Americans are not as important a constituency as the senator's fellow "citizens of the world" who showed up at his German campaign rally.

Obama's foreign supporters showed their approval of the annointed president-select's criticism of failed American policies and ideals by applauding when he announced, "I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions." Obama went on to talk about why he loves America, but those follow-up lines did not get the applause that his criticism of America received.

Europeans love to hear Americans criticize America while on European soil, but I suspect that mere Americans watching back here at home are not quite so fond of it. And unfortunately for Senator Obama, it will be mere Americans who get to vote in November -- not his adoring foreign supporters.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Obama: I Would Ignore Iraqi Pleas

This morning on Fareed Zakaria's GPS show on CNN, Barack Hussein Obama incredibly admitted that he would pull American troops completely out of Iraq EVEN IF the Iraqi government asked America to stay. Shockingly, the normally sharp Zakaria did not follow up to nail the senator down on the point.

The transcript from the show is not yet posted on CNN's website, but the exchange essentially went like this:

Zakaria: You've said that you think it's a mistake to keep a permanent American presence in Iraq. If the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to keep bases there, would you still pull the troops out?
Obama: Uh, screw the Iraqi people. It would, uh, be a strategic error for, uh, us to keep permanent bases in Iraq. Uh, it would, uh, undermine our, uh, diplomatic efforts with, uh, Iran and the rest of, uh, the, uh, uh, region. Having American troops, uh, in the region would, uh, REDUCE our, uh, diplomatic leverage.

Obviously, I'm paraphrasing rather liberally. But the main points are dead on. Obama isn't just inexperienced and naive. The guy is dangerously stupid.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Obama to Mullahs: Let's Do Lunch

Today’s responses of John McCain and Barack Obama to Iran’s long-range missile test highlight the fundamental differences in how the two men perceive Iran and diplomacy in general.

McCain, the idealist, wants to build a missile shield to protect our allies and our own bases in the Middle East. Obama, the political realist, wants to sip tea with the mullahs and make a deal. In this, the freshman senator shares the outlook of Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon – that America can deal with its sworn enemies to reach a common end. Whereas Nixon cozied up to Mao, Obama would make nice with Achmedinijad. MSNBC has their take here:

A more detailed look at the two candidates’ worldviews is offered by Gregory Scoblete at Real Clear Politics:

Ultimately, the Democrat is displaying the leftist tendency to believe any foe can be placated if only America will reach out its hand to them. To the left, America forced Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro into the arms of the Soviets, brought 9/11 upon itself with imperialistic foreign policies, and maintains a self-defeating unilateralism that precludes diplomatic cooperation and peace.

The Republican, on the other hand, sees the problem as one of Iranian radicalism and hate mongering, and sees direct cooperation with those who advocate genocide as antithetical to decency, let alone acceptable behavior for the leader of the world’s oldest and most powerful democracy.

Once again, the idealism of the right sees good and evil in men, while the left sees only interests and real politick. How sad for the fools who have been duped my Obama’s sophisticated marketing campaign of hope and change. If only they could see it is nothing more than pretty packaging around the same weak-kneed liberal relativism that pays homage to dictators and always blames America first.

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Dealing (or Not) with Russia

The leftist political magazine The Nation ran an article June 30 taking both John McCain and Barack Obama to task for not addressing what it (quite correctly in my view) identified as the most pressing foreign policy issue facing the next president – how to deal with Russia. To set the record straight, though, I must note that while the magazine was correct in its criticism of Obama, the GOP candidate has spoken at length about Russia and how his administration would deal with it. The Nation's half-true article is here:

Portraying McCain more honestly is the also liberal, which (three weeks before the article in The Nation) reported on the Republican's “tough stance toward Russia.” That article is here:

NPR (do I even need to identify them as leftist?), meanwhile, did a piece in early June about Senator McCain's “War on Russia.” Aqui:

Over the past year, McCain has made headlines around the world when he suggested (for about the hundredth time) that, due to ongoing curtailment of democracy and civil liberties in Russia, that country should be kicked out of the G8 and replaced by India. Various articles here, here and here:

Long before John McCain was even his party's nominee for president, he was already paying close attention to political developments in the former Soviet Union. In fact, way back in 2003 John McCain told Jim Lehrer of PBS that,

“I think the United States should not include Russia in the G-8 meetings. I think we should warn American businesses of the risks of investment there. I would instruct OPEC and other institutions not to lend money to Russia at this time and start talking about our expectations that Russia would make a transition to a free and open society.” Ici:

Obama, on the other hand, seems barely aware there is such a place as Russia. Professor Stephen Blank of the US Army War College, quoted on the Center for Defense Information website, summed up Obama's Russia strategy best:

“Obama's ... tired approach leaves out dealing with Russia as an international energy and economic actor and has nothing to say about issues of regional security in Eurasia which are of utmost interest to Russia, America, and many other states.”

Do an Internet search for Obama's speeches or interviews on Russia and you will come up empty-handed. The junior senator simply has never addressed the issue. His website merely lists a single bullet point regarding his hope to “work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert...” That tiny blurb, inadequate though it is, contains a mountain of obscene dishonesty, since the missiles BHO refers to are not on a “hair trigger alert,” but require multiple keys to be inserted and turned, and launch codes to be double-verified and entered. There is no “hair trigger” that might be inadvertantly pressed. Interestingly, Obama's hair-trigger reference is also employed by The Nation in its article on dealing with Russia. Apparently, obsession with hair triggers is a universal leftist affliction.

More than likely, BHO's bullet point is just hot air. If, however, he actually wants to add additional steps in the launch sequence beyond what the military's missile officers have practiced for the past several decades, then Obama is emphasizing his utter lack of military familiarity and unpreparedness to be commander-in-chief. Still, I doubt he has actually thought any of that through to the point of operational changes, but rather is merely parroting the same tired Democrat platitudes left over from the 1970s. In either case, this first-term senator with no military background and no civilian experience dealing with the military almost is screaming out, “I have no idea what I'm talking about.”

Not much of a basis for hope.

Monday, July 07, 2008

BHO and McCain Both Soft on Illegals

Though I support John McCain and agree with him on most issues, one subject on which the honorable senator from Arizona is wrong is the subject of immigration.

Like Barack Hussein Obama, Senator McCain voted for the border fence. That's a good first step in controlling the border, but only a small, partial step. Indeed, the fence protects only a fraction of the border, and should be extended across the entire boundary with Mexico.

Also like Obama, McCain has voted for President Bush's guest worker program, which would help to combat the reliance on illegal labor by allowing employers to hire workers with no intention of immigrating permanently. I can live with this, too.

But a third common position with Obama is too much. McCain and Obama co-sponsored the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2007, which was intended to give illegals huge advantages over American citizens when it comes to paying for college. You see, American citizens who leave their home state to attend college elsewhere pay out-of-state tuition that is exponentially higher than what in-state students pay. In California, that can mean paying five or six times as much. But under the bad DREAM Act, students who enter a state illegally and who are not merely out-of-state students, but out-of-country students, would get to pay in-state tuition heavily subsidized by taxpayers in those states. So while an American citizen from New York would have to pay handsomly to attend UCLA, an illegal alien who sneaks into the state would get instant in-state status and have his tuition paid largely by California's taxpayers (which generally does not include other illegals, contrary to liberal fantasies).

This raises the question as to why any American citizen should have to pay out-of-state tuition when those who cheat the system at every step are catered to so shamelessly. Perhaps those out-of-state students should claim to be here illegally, provide no evidence of residence, and demand special illegal alien preferences.

That is where we are headed unless the GOP can bring McCain into line on this issue.

Illegal Immigrants Don't Deserve Preferential Treatment

If liberals get their way, it will be easier for an illegal immigrant to obtain a California drivers license than it will be for an American-born citizen who’s obeyed the law all along. Why? Citizens must present birth certificates and other identification, as well as proof of residence in the form of a utility bill or other official mail, before they are issued a license. Illegals, of course, rarely have birth certificates, and usually do not have any other identification or proof of residence.

By issuing an official state identification card or license to illegals, we would be granting them a measure of official legitimacy, and we will be doing so in an unfair, discriminatory way that advantages them for their illegality.

How on Earth could anyone think it’s fair for trespassers to have easier requirements for obtaining IDs and licenses than citizens?