Obama and the Law
Posted on 10/28/2008 1:06:59 PM PDT by jazusamo
Some elections are routine, some are important and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic— and catastrophic.
Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.
Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.
Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries— and failed repeatedly in other countries.
Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.
The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of "change."
Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.
Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.
Higher taxes to "spread the well around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.
Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counter-attack.
Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy— and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.
Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?
If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.
In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat— yet.
America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.
Do you think our leaders wouldn't do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn't bet my life on that.
What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.
None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions— none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.
Taxing Times
Obama and the Law
Obama and “The Left”
Polls and Pols
Believers in Obama
Negative Advertising
The Real Obama: Part IV
The Real Obama: Part III
The Real Obama: Part II
The Real Obama
Do Facts Matter?
Idols of Crowds
Changes in Politics
Whose “Special Interests”?
The Galbraith Effect
…As Well As Several Other Issues
Are Facts Obsolete?
Conservatives for Obama?
Cocky Ignorance
Obama and McCain
Irrelevant Apologies
Success Built on Work Ethic
An Old Newness
A Living Lie
Obama’s Speech
Race and Politics
Non-Judgmental Nonsense
In my more perverse moments I want Obama to win. Watching him utterly decompose into a pile of rags and self-pity for four years would be marvelously gratifying.
Now there's a thought I've not seen articulated.
Unfortunately, he will bring down the Country first.
Yes, and I doubt he’s far off the mark.
This is what I do not understand. We have the evidence right in front of us that SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM do NOT work! As other countries are moving away from it, the U.S. is moving TOWARD it? Are we blind or stupid?
Here is where I differ with Mr. Sowell. A weak and feckless president, as Obama would undoubtedly be, would be more, not less likely to launch a pre-emptive or (God forbid) retaliatory nuclear strike on Iran. President Obama would have been backed into a very tight corner by the time this hypothetical came to pass.
Politically he'd be in real trouble -- a nuclear Iran would treat him at far more shamefully than they treated Jimmy Carter. Even Obama could not fail to see the need for action -- though it would be far too late for the sort of action that would have prevented all-out war.
His only option would be to lash out ... and the consequences would, of course, be ugly.
Sowell just totally destroys Obama in this piece!! I mean- he always destroys Obama, but he really nuked him with this one!
I've posted several times that if Obama is elected, in 10 years, we ARE France. Maybe sooner.
There are many that are blind and stupid, hopefully they’re in the minority.
I’m thinking Obama would “negotiate” surrender.
He has done his very best. We need to do our very best. We owe it to ourselves, our nation, and our posterity.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Brides from a War Long Ago"
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.
Very well said, John and dead on the mark.
Quite possible ... as a foreign policy president he would far out-Carter Carter.
Still, I see a lot of Bill Clinton in him, too -- even more than the ideology, I think he's driven by a tremendous narcissism. The political consequences of a "negotiated surrender" would be obvious to all, and they would be utterly ruinous to his "legacy."
That's why I believe that, after a long period of unsuccessful appeasement, and perhaps a military disaster or two, he'd end up calling in a nuke strike.
It depends on the meaning of "working." They "work" just fine in terms of giving a certain group of elites power and control over other groups, which is what I believe the goal for the American Left/Obama is (NOT, as they purport, a successful, well-off, healthy economy/country/society). For them, it is purely about Being In Charge. As for that successful, well-off stuff, there are many leftists who simply think the other attempts at socialism/communism weren't "done right" and that's why they failed, not because the philosophy itself is flawed.
Both I fear.
Yep, but as demostarted by the Russians, the intervening cost in human lives can be in the high millions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.