America is better than Utopia, Mr. President

Utopian visions have stirred men’s souls at least since the time of the ancient Greeks. The philosopher Plato unmasked the folly and the evil of all such schemes in his famous "Republic." He did not merely criticize a current tendency but a perennial human temptation. President Barack Obama is a utopian who believes that there are no limits to what can be done with political power. In contrast to the United States Constitution, the powers of which James Madison described as "few and defined," the ideological goal of the current administration is "transforming" the human condition.

Not content with equality in political rights and economic opportunities, Obama seeks to redistribute the wealth. To this end, he means to increase the income tax on the most productive and eliminate it for the least productive. By simultaneously commandeering votes with groups like ACORN, he will ensure that those who pay no taxes will access the money of those who do.

Obama has shown no respect for the law of nature that persons of the opposite sex alone should be married, that marriage should be upheld as a vital institution, or that unborn children should not be wantonly slaughtered. That is why he equivocates on same-sex marriage, ended restrictions on federal money for abortions overseas and for embryonic stem cell research, and supports legislation to end all restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

In perhaps the biggest conceit of all, our President actually says that he can negotiate with the world’s most aggressive dictatorships and make them see the wisdom of restraining their military ambitions. Iran and North Korea somehow will stop producing nuclear bombs and missiles, the Taliban and Hamas will see the error of their ways, and Hugo Chavez, Danny Ortega and even the Castros will change their opinion of us.

Obama pledged during the campaign to cut back on nuclear weapons unilaterally and has repeated the pledge recently. He says that our moral leadership will show the rogue nations of the world that we mean them no harm and that we can develop common interests.

The only sensible response to socialism at home and ill-conceived peace missions abroad is to point out that "there is nothing new under the sun." There will always be persons--and nations--who envy the success of others, blaming others rather than themselves. What talents they do possess they turn to tearing down others’ achievements. Socialism, as Winston Churchill so sagely remarked, produces nothing and makes people equal in their misery.

Mankind is certainly capable of improvements, as our ancestors showed when they founded the freest nation in the history of the world. But the enemies of the American Constitution, foreign and domestic, stretch the limits of human nature and wind up making things infinitely worse with socialism, communism and fascism.

The task of each generation of Americans is to elect leaders who understand that we are better off buying and selling with each other, in our neighborhoods or across national boundaries, than trusting governments to determine who should benefit from its power to redistribute the wealth through taxing and spending.

Those same leaders need to follow the maxim of Alexander Hamilton that nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests. Although the most reliable friends are those with a common heritage of liberty, we should never imagine that American independence can coexist with the fiction of a "community of nations." Many nations are as envious of our freedom, wealth and power as the least successful among us are of the most successful.

It is not in the character of the United States to be belligerent toward the world, but neither should it procrastinate while threats build up to such a degree that we lack the will and the means to counteract them and we are forced to wage defensive war, as we did in 1917 and 1941.

And certainly no America President should ever apologize abroad for policy differences with his predecessors, not to mention frivolously gloss over the great divide that separates the majority of Americans who embrace the Judaeo-Christian tradition and those who adhere to Islamic doctrines. For whatever Christians may have done in the Arab world a thousand years ago, there are no modern-day Christian equivalents of the violent Muslim minority that has declared war on the "Infidel."

Obama cannot legislate inequalities away or make the lion lay down with the lamb. Indeed, it is better for us to trade, as civilized nations do, than to seize wealth by force, as barbarians do. Meanwhile, we must always keep our guard up.

Obie the Obsequious

The other day President Obama seemed to bow upon first meeting King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. Americans should not bow to any person, for to do so would be to show your obeisance to them. "One does not bow or curtsy to a foreign monarch, because the gesture symbolizes recognition of her power over her subjects." (Miss Manners' Guide, 1990, p.697) We are born free and not subservient to monarchs or aristocrats. It is especially shocking for the President of the United States, who represents all Americans, to show such fealty to a foreign potentate. Juxtapose Barak Obama’s bow to King Fahd with Michelle Obama’s condescending pat on the back to Queen Elizabeth. To even touch the British monarch is a serious breach of protocol, but to do so in such a patronizing manner seems to show a great lack of respect. Note also the pat on the back given to President Obama yesterday by Venezuela’s Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez. Should an American head of state tolerate such condescension from a dictator?

Should our president also show outward signs of subservience to King Fahd? The majority of the world’s Muslims hold him in great regard, not necessarily because he is the king of Saudi Arabia, but because he is the guardian of the holiest places of Islam: Mecca and Medina. Islamic law demands that Dhimmis (Jews and Christians subdued by Muslims) show submission to their Muslim conquerors by bowing. The Quran (9:29) tells Muslims to “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture [Jews and Christians who] follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” Dhimmis are required to bow or lay prostrate before their Muslim master. To refuse to do so would mean certain death.

One wonders if that bow to the Saudi king and the pat on the back to the British queen tell us what to expect of U.S. foreign policy over the next few years. Will we damage the special relationship we have had with democratic Britain by offending their monarch, while at the same time showing subservience to the theocratic guardian of the Islamic holy places?

One might also wonder if our new president is a Dhimmi, who shows subservience to a Muslim master, or whether he is a Muslim, who shows respect for the guardian of their holy places. We should hope that it is a third possibility, that he merely doesn’t know what he is doing.

Your waistline: the latest global warming culprit

In case you were wondering what's next on the global warming/climate change agenda -- which is the same as the Obama agenda -- you may not have to look further than your (growing) waistline. A new study in the UK as reported by the BBC has found that getting back to the "slim trim days of the 1970s" would help to tackle climate change: "The rising numbers of people who are overweight and obese in the UK means the nation uses 19% more food than 40 years ago, a study suggests.

That could equate to an extra 60 mega tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year, the team calculated.

Transport costs of a fatter population were also included in the International Journal of Epidemiology study".

Apparently, then, that spare tire that you are more likely sporting  today is not only less attractive to look at, but  takes more fossil fuels and carbon to carry around town. In addition to calculating the increased food costs of the heavier population, the research also addressed how much additional fuel would be needed for transportation of modern-day UK compared with the 1970s version:

"Greenhouse gas emissions from food production and car travel in the fatter population would be between 0.4 to 1 giga tonnes higher per 1bn people, they estimated."

But lest you think this might lead to a campaign against obesity, the self-esteem police are making sure that everyone's "fatness" is to blame:

"This is not really just about obese people, the distribution of the whole population is what's important," said Dr Edwards.

"Everybody is getting a bit fatter. Staying slim is good for health and for the environment.

"We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend towards fatness, and recognise it as a key factor in the battle to reduce emissions and slow climate change."

So, we're all at fault for not being able to fit into those 70s era hip-hugger jeans and tight knit tops with the wide stripes (not to mention the platform shoes). One wonders whether the fashion of the 1970s followed our collective level of slenderness, or whether those tight-fitting fashions and non-breathable poly-blends forced us into a perpetual state of starvation. Whatever the cause-and-effect, the eco-fanatics are now targeting our food consumption as the latest attack on mother earth. It's quite in line with the other prohibitions of personal enjoyment that are now on the chopping block, like taking that family vacation in your fuel-guzzling motor home or driving that V8 Dodge Charger you've always wanted. Nope, from now on you'll squeeze your tight little bum into a Prius and enjoy the rev of that high-performance electric motor -- that sweet hum only a committed tree-hugger could truly enjoy.

In any event, stay tuned. You can bet that this is the next agenda on the Obama mission to remake America. Last year I wrote a piece entitled "The Left's Nanny Aspirations", where I detailed attempts to ban smoking, fast-food and other sins. Left alone, these efforts -- linked to public health considerations -- pose a significant threat to our freedoms. But being able to link our eating habits to climate change will flow nicely with the EPA's recent ruling that CO2 is a pollutant that threatens our health -- even if it is the most common element in the earth's atmosphere. Finding a causal link to global warming should put us on notice that further regulation of our food consumption is coming. You can bet that second helping of potatoes on it!

Giving peace a chance

Bill Kristol's piece today in the The Weekly Standard is a must-read for those who believe that the Obama Administration is playing fast and loose with our security. In the wake of the decision to release the details about our interrogation techniques during the Bush presidency, he quotes the current head of the CIA, Admiral Dennis Blair's attempts to provide some "perspective" to the decision to release this information: "(After 9/11) we did not have a clear understanding of the enemy we were dealing with, and our every effort was focused on preventing further attacks that would kill more Americans. It was during these months that the CIA was struggling to obtain critical information from captured al Qaida leaders, and requested permission to use harsher interrogation methods. The OLC memos make clear that senior legal officials judged the harsher methods to be legal.

"Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future. But we will absolutely defend those who relied on these memos and those guidelines."

News Flash! It's a bright, sunny SAFE April, 2009! Peace is at hand!

For those who have been paying attention, a familiar pattern is emerging. The Obama Administration puts a high premium on symbols that are designed to show liberalism's kinder, gentler side. It has eliminated the term "war on terror" in favor of "overseas contingency operations" and has decided that even the word "terrorism" should be dropped in favor of "man-caused disasters". That's right: terrorism -- the brutal act of murder in the name of radicalism -- is now on par with global warming, globalization and other man-made problems.

Now in an effort to appease the left -- which is always extremely sensitive to the way things look and sound -- it has decided to let us (and the terrorists -- er, the purveyors of man-caused disasters) know that we will never use the techniques of enhanced interrogation again. For Obama and his merry appeasers, the mea culpa has become de rigueur: "we have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history" said the president in his statement announcing the release of the interrogation details. That's right: to this president, exposing murderers to loud music, cold temperatures and harmless bugs is dark and painful. I wonder if Daniel Pearl, beheaded by Khalid Sheik Muhammad (one of those "tortured") would agree?

It's all too much to stomach, really. The left again shows naivete in its understanding of the enemy we face by apologizing for tactics that have been a vital and necessary component of keeping the nation safe. Of course, those on the left never thought we were at war to begin with, so the change in tone and nomenclature is really more than a rebuke of George Bush. It is designed to right the terrible wrongs done to all those detainees caught up in the path of American imperialism. 

Do you think the purveyors of man-caused disasters will also give peace a chance?

What I saw at the big protest

Many folks in Denver are mad and appear not ready to accept our government as it currently stands. More than 5000 people made it a point to congregate at the state capitol under a sunny, warm sky at noon on Wednesday, TAX DAY. The most accurate statement that can be made about the rally is that: Once again, the people “get it,” but the politicians and the media, still do not get it. Let me make my point:

The people really do get it: There were signs all over the place decrying the rise of socialism, higher taxes ahead, government bailouts, the loss of economic freedom, etc. There was even a sign saying, “I left a socialist country for this?”

Most notably there were constant calls for Tax Ritter to show up. A mom likened herself to a rattlesnake that warns its prey before its deadly attack. Politicians take warning was her final statement. Another man told the crowd how “pissed off” he was. To make his point, he repeated his chant as he listed all the ills of our current government policies. He did this to repeated cheers from the crowd. Another speaker called for a third party, as he reminded us that both the Dems and the Repubs got us into this mess. I loved the guy that opined: Kick all the bastard out!!!

Now we get to the media. I’ve got to call out the Denver Daily News. The headline read: Tea-d off over illegals” by Peter Marcus. Wednesday April 15, 2009.

I called Mr. Marcus who told me he had no agenda by highlighting the Illegal issue. When I challenged him, he told me he mentioned the tax issues in the second paragraph and that showed he didn’t have an agenda. Folks, this is the problem with the media today. For someone to take that stand; shows either complete disregard for reality or an agenda. That agenda being, let’s highlight the Illegal Immigrant issue rather than the real tax issues.

It has also come to my attention that many of the major media outlets treated the Tea Party rallies with the same approach. That being: This is just another right wing attempt to rally the Republicans for the next election cycle.

The media's approach just makes my point: The media thinks it makes the news and they hate the fact that they are losing power over the people.