President's Plan

So, President Obama finally made a decision. He's going to send 3o,ooo more troops to support our operations in Afghanistan. Good. It's about time. I hope that President Obama's plan to "finish" the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their extremist allies works. I'm not sure that President Obama is being realistic....but I can still hope. I am, however, extremely concerned by the "deadline" President Obama has set for leaving Afghanistan. Not only does a "deadline" give those extremists hope...all they have to do is wait for us to leave before restarting their plans...but a "deadline" may not be realistic. I fear that President Obama will become so entrenched in the idea that he has to leave by the deadline he set, that he will ignore military realities that may exist at the time. Anyone who has served in the military knows that no plan lasts beyond first contact with the enemy. My fear is that President Obama, and his advisers, will become so entrenched in the politics of supporting their plan that they forget those military realities.

Socialized Health Care....

Smiley sent this to me in the email and I just can't resist posting it here....thanks Smiley!

Great Post

Jump over to the Villainous Company blog and read Cassandra's post discussing President Obama's staged photo op on the Dover AFB flightline where he saluted and honored our returning war dead. It's a great post and I agree wholeheartedly with her analysis!

Set to Cede Sovereingty?

There's an interesting excerpt from a speech Lord Christopher Monckton gave on October 14, 2009 going around the internet, where he claims that President Obama will actually cede US sovereingty when he signs the United Nations World Climate Change Treaty in Copenhagen in December 2009 . Lord Monckton is a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, and a noted climate change skeptic. He successfully sued to keep Al Gore's climate change movie, "An Inconvient Truth," from being shown in British schools citing numerous inaccuracies. The British judge ruled in Lord Monckton's favor and ordered 9 serious errors to be corrected before the film could be shown. Lord Monckton has repeatedly challenged Mr Gore to a debate about climate change. Mr Gore has repeatedly declined.

According to Lord Monckton, the text of the treaty actually sets up a new form of world government; one that has the ability to force the "rule of law." Lord Monckton intreprets the language in this treaty to transfer wealth from western governments to third-world countries in satisfaction of "climate debt," and that the ultimate purpose of this treaty is to set forth a communist world government on the world. Lord Monckton believes that the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives treaties the force of law, will enable the terms of this treaty to supercede the terms of the Constitution.

Interesting. I don't know if Lord Monckton is prophetic or nutty. Judge for yourself. Here's a 4-minute exercpt from the speech:



h/t Smiley

Something's Very Wrong Here.....

I find this video very disturbing. It's a video showing elementary school children in New Jersey being taught to sing President Obama's praises. Now, I have nothing against patriotic songs, nor do I have anything against teaching children respect for the office of the Presidency or other governmental entities. (Although, as an adult, I often wonder if I can ever respect for the persons filling those positions.) What disturbs me is teaching children to praise the person not the institution. Why can't we teach children about the Constitution, our Democratic form of government, and ideals of freedom and self-reliance? Isn't there something ultimately wrong to teach children to praise a person filling a governmental office, and not teach them to say the Pledge of Allegiance?

Timeless Words of Wisdom

Gotta love Sgt Joe Friday! Watch this to see what he has to say to President Obama.....



h/t FJM

Every Household Should Have One.....

To honor our 44th President, the makers of Chia Pet are offering the Chia Obama. No kidding. Check out their website and "celebrate change right in your own house."

Criminal or Terrorist?

According to this article on FoxNEWS, persons, non-citizens, who are detained on the battlefield (or other places...since who can determine where a battlefield really is in these times), are now read Miranda rights; just like they were US citizens. Not only is this just wrong, but it is extremely stupid, too! I agree with those who criticize this practice (according to the story, Republicans and terrorism experts); this is evidence of a shift a shift in how we see and define terrorism. At issue here is whether terrorism is an act of war or is it a criminal act.

Now this is not just a question of semantics. How we, as a Nation, define a particular act and person who has committed that act drives how we respond to that act. For example, if a citizen of another country shoots a soldier guarding the entrance to a US base overseas, is that person a terrorist or a criminal? If that person is captured immediately, should we interrogate that non-citizen to determine if there are additional threats to US personnel or US interests or should we interrogate her with an eye toward prosecution in a US criminal court for the crime she committed while giving her all the rights a US citizen would enjoy? I understand that it would be nice if we could do both. I believe that's what the Bush administration was trying to do, by labeling someone involved in aggressive actions towards the US as an unlawful detainee and giving them limited rights. The detainees were interrogated to see if they knew something that might stop future attacks or if they had information of value to intelligence; but they were also interrogated to see if they had evidence that would be useful in prosecuting others or themselves.

According to the article "Terrorism analyst Neil Livingstone called the move a 'dramatic shift' in policy." Mr Livingstone said, "[We're] going back to the bad old days that gave rise to 9/11 when we treated terrorism as though it were a criminal problem, not as a war or not as an attack on the United States. We don't want to have to make a legal determination every time we go after a terrorist whether we've got a good case or not, we should go after them as enemy combatants of the United States."

I agree with Mr Livingstone. Except for certain jobs, most of the members of our Armed Forces are not law enforcement specialists. They are warriors. They fight. They should not be made to collect evidence or investigate. I also agree with Representative Pete Hoekstra, a Republican representative from Michigan and the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, when he expressed concern about going backwards to treating terrorism with a law enforcement mentality. He was right on the money when he said, "I think it's a really lousy way to fight a war. ... This dramatically changes the way that our frontline forces work."

This dangerous shift in the underlying philosophy of how we treat and deal with terrorists is a regression to the Clinton-era policies that lead to the "firewall" between intelligence-gathering and criminal investigation that contributed to the failures that led to the successful terrorist attack on 9/11. Much of what this new administration has done concerns me....but this shift from prosecuting a war to prosecuting criminals represents a mistaken view that will make protecting this Nation so much more difficult. It's not just semantics!

Obama is "sort of God"

I wonder how anyone could believe there isn't any bias in the mainstream media, what with some reporters feeling "tingly" in their legs at the mention of President Obama and other reporters so effusive with their praise of the President, his policies, and his administration that it seems any objective reporting from those reporters has gone by the wayside. Anyone who has doubts that there is a "cult of personality" around President Obama, and that many in the mainstream press are card-carrying members, should check out this video of Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas:

Unintended Consequences

James Lewis has an interesting post about the Somali pirates on the American Thinker website. In the post he compares the pirates' taking of a US-flagged ship and holding it's captain hostage after the ship's crew retook the ship with the Iranian "students" taking US Embassy employees hostage in 1979. Mr Lewis is concerned (as am I) that the appeasement-approach that President Carter took in 1979 will be repeated by the present administration; prompting a number of unintended consequences.

According to Mr Lewis, while President Obama "may think this is a 'distraction'. The rest of the world sees it as a test. And so, far Obama is flunking. " Unfortunately, Mr Lewis has this one right. He goes on to explain that US weakness, even if it's only perceived weakness, will have consequences. Some of those consequences will be more than unfortunate or unintended. Some of those consequences could be disastrous.

"If Obama fails to take action, watch for Russia to make a move on the Ukraine. China will get more aggressive toward Taiwan. Iran will openly throw sandals at Obama effigies, and the rest of the world will realize -- uh-oh, no more cop on the international beat. North Korea will launch another missile over Japan -- pardon me, another satellite launch will somehow go astray, heading toward Hawaii.

That means one of two things: either the aggressors start winning, or somebody else has to play the international cop -- the role the United States has carried for sixty years.

So who do you want to play the world's cop?

Russia will happily volunteer do it for Europe, since Europe won't do it for itself. China could squeeze concessions from Japan and South Korea to stop the Norks [North Koreans]. And in the Middle East it will either be Israel -- which can protect the Arab countries from nuclear attack by Iran -- or it will be the mad mullahs of Qom. I would guess that the Israelis will bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, with the covert help of Arab Gulf states. "

Nature abhors a vacuum. Without a strong US, with a strong leader who has a strong will to protect US citizens and their property, someone else will step into that vacuum. Unfortunately, it may be someone with interests adverse to ours. As Mr Lewis says, "Welcome to the age of American weakness. The whole world, we were told in the last eight years, wanted to bring the US down a notch or two. Well, just be careful what you wish for."

UPDATE: Well, it seems that US sailors tried, and failed, to rescue the ship captain held hostage. It will be interesting to know why they were unable to rescue the captain and how these third-world pirates were able to repel sailors from one of the most capable, well-trained Navies in the world. I wonder if the rescue party was so hamstrung by extremely restrictive rules of engagement that they couldn't effectively do their job. Or, it could be the operation was "managed" by their political "masters" to the point that there was no way these extremely competent sailors could adjust to the situation as they may have needed to do. Most of all, I wonder if we'll ever know the truth of why the rescue attempt failed. What I do know is that a failure gives hope and incentive to these pirates, as well as to others who want to bring this Country down. A failed rescue may be as bad as no rescue.

UPDATE #2. Wonderful news! The Captain has been rescued by Navy Seals, who also killed 3 of the 4 pirates and captured the survivor. Along with the rest of the Nation, I'm happy that this has ended well.

Grading Obama's Picks

Don Surber, an editorialist and columnist for the Charleston Daily Mail, has a great blog post grading President-elect Obama's cabinet picks. It's a good post. I totally agree with Mr. Surber's observations that Obama "has spotty judgment, and the choices for attorney general and vice president are real troubling. For a man whose selling card is his perfect judgment, he sure pulls more than his share of boners." It's worth gandering over to his blog and reading the post!

Panetta for CIA??

President-elect Obama has announced Mr Leon Panetta as his nominee to lead the CIA. Curious! Mr Panetta is a Washington insider who was President Clinton's Chief of Staff during Monica-gate. He has absolutely no experience with the intelligence community, other than sitting in on National Intelligence Briefings. Okay....why this nomination? Spook86 at "In From the Cold...." has a great post about the nomination. He speculates that the appointment was either an afterthought (I sure hope not) or was a "bone" thrown at liberal activists concerned with potential nominees who support more aggressive interrogation techniques (which would be worse). I agree with Spook86, the position of the Director of the CIA is too important to our national security to name an intelligence neophyte to fill it. I've said all along that President-elect Obama's judgment about people is critically lacking. This is just another example.

Transition & National Security Law

Yesterday there was a post on National Review Online’s Tank that referred to an essay published in the American Bar Association's National Security Law Report. The author of the essay, Judge James E. Baker of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, offers some advice on how the Obama presidential transition team could get a “running start in the areas of national security law and Presidential process.” Judge Baker’s suggestions are excellent and his analysis is superb. I just hope that someone on the Obama transition team reads his article and takes his advice.

Judge Baker makes a point that the passing of the torch of government from the President to a President-elect is part of the rhythm of government. It is something that we, as Americans, take for granted; but hope goes seamlessly. According to Judge Baker, however, the transition period creates both a tactical and a procedural vulnerability. Our Country is tactically vulnerable during the transition of one administration to another because the old administration is hesitant to act or make policy commitments while the new administration won’t have developed its template for handling problems and their campaign rhetoric may not have adjusted to hard reality. We are also procedurally vulnerable. When one administration leaves their offices, they leave little to guide the new administration. There may be no phone lists or points of contact established between action officers. There may be no personnel in place to make decisions (particularly if the decision-maker needs to be approved by Congress). There may even be no offices or infrastructure in place.

So how does a new administration mitigate the tactical and procedural vulnerabilities inherent in a transition? According to Judge Baker, the transition team for the new administration must recognize them and address them. The new team must avoid flushing all the policies and procedures of the old team. Instead, they must evaluate what worked and what did not. The transition team should also do their best to limit the decisions that must be made during the first days of the new administration by getting ready for those decisions in advance. The new administration should learn relevant national security law in advance, as well as the process for setting a strategic legal framework. They should make critical decisions about process before the inauguration and write Presidential Directives to announce those decisions that will be issued the first day of the new administration. Finally, according to Judge Baker, they should set a six-month policy agenda and determine who is in charge. Sounds like good advice to me!

I agree wholeheartedly with Judge Baker’s conclusion, “In some cases, ‘better is the enemy of good enough.’ Not so in transition. We must do better; we cannot risk less at a time when U.S. armed forces are committed to combat, WMD terrorism is a realistic prospect, and pandemic disease incubates.” As I said before, I just hope someone from President-elect Obama’s transition team reads Judge Baker’s essay and has the judgment to use it as a template.

It's Time for a Pop Quiz

Okay. So the electorate of this great Country has spoken and Senator Obama is the President-elect. According to his running mate and Vice President-elect, Senator Biden, that means “it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy . . . watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Well the “world” may already be testing the new President-elect. The Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, announced in his state of the nation speech that Russia will deploy short-range missiles near Poland, apparently in response to Poland’s decision to “play” with us in a missile defense system. President Medvedev explained the need to deploy the missiles by saying, “From what we have seen in recent years – the creation of a missile defense system, the encirclement of Russia with military bases, the relentless expansion of NATO – we have gotten the clear impression that they are testing our strength.” Russia sees the presence of a missile defense system in Poland and in the Czech Republic as a threat to them, rather as a means to neutralize a missile threat from Iran.

It looks like Russia has decided to test President-elect Obama’s strength with a pop-quiz a couple of months before he’s even inaugurated. Russia’s timing is impeccable. They decide to deploy these short-range missiles when we have an unpopular President who is just finishing out his term of office and doesn’t want to take any extraordinary measures and when his successor has just been elected and may not want to “weigh-in” on possible actions or responses because he’s still riding the euphoria of winning the election (and because he’s still almost 3 months away from sitting in the hot seat). So do we have a missile-crisis-in-the-making? How will President-elect Obama answer this, the first, of the world’s tests?

"Country First"

"Country First." I think that Senator McCain chose a wonderful slogan for his campaign. When it comes to politics, we MUST put our Country first. Our Country is one of the greatest in the history of the world. (Personally, I'd say THE greatest, but then I'm biased.) Our Country is great because the collective "we," the electorate, chooses who will work for them, who will lead them, who will govern them. Our Country is great because we can peacefully pass the reins of government from one elected official to another. Our Country is great because we can have "change" and "hope" and still put "Country First."

The electorate of our great Country has spoken, and elected Senator Obama to be the next President. So be it. As all of you know, I have my doubts about his judgment, his policies, and his ability to lead; but he is now the President-elect of MY great Country. Because I respect the office he will hold, I will act respectfully to the man who hold it. Don't misunderstand me, I will still speak out when I believe a policy, judgment, or action is wrong; that is my right, obligation, and privilege as a citizen. I will do so thoughtfully and respectfully. (Of course, I do reserve my right to be sarcastic when sarcasm is warranted, and I hope I never lose my sense of humor.) But, I will not be like the "loony-left" has been for the past 8 years and develop a kind of knee-jerk "everything-he-does-is-evil" mentality, nor will I develop some kind of Obama-derangement-syndrome. I will still use my brain and any other God-given talents I possess to listen, evaluate, and consider before I act or speak. If I dissent, I will do so respectfully; because I put my Country First.

Obama or the Halloween Fairy?

Last night my grandkids dressed up in their Halloween costumes and participated in our Church's "Trunk-or-Treat" program. It was such fun! Both parents and kids dressed up in great costumes. (My absolute favorite was the couple wearing just a t-shirt and jeans, with pennies, nickles, dimes and quarters taped to the t-shirt along with a sign that read "Real Change You Can Believe In.") Anyway, the parents (and a grandparent or two) decorated the trunks of cars or the beds of trucks and passed out Halloween candy to a wide variety of goblins, mermaids, princesses, flamenco dancers, pink rabbits, and superheroes. Tonight, we'll repeat the costuming of kids and they'll "hit" the neighborhood to ring doorbells and ask for more candy, while someone stays home to protect our house from "tricks" by giving "treats."

As you might expect, this two-night candy extravaganza caused my daughters quite a bit of concern over the dietary habits of their children, all of whom have a sweet tooth (or two). So one of my daughters decided to emulate a friend of hers who has "invented" the "Halloween Fairy." You see, good kids who want to help the Halloween Fairy split their candy-take from trick-or-treating in half. After the candy is split, the Halloween Fairy comes to their homes, takes half of the candy and gives it to other children who weren't able to trick-or-treat. There you go . . . 50% less potential for sugar overload.

I thought it was a great idea, at first. But when I told someone at work about it, I realized that the "Halloween Fairy" was just another an example of socialist redistribution of wealth, or the Obama Tax Plan, whichever you prefer. Just like Senator Obama would tax those who earn more and pay taxes, in order to give to those who earn less and don't pay taxes, the Halloween Fairy would take candy from kids who dressed up and went trick-or-treating to kids who didn't. Voila, wealth redistribution on a child's level. Now I know that my daughters, both of whom are fairly conservative, would not necessarily want to teach socialist principles on wealth distribution to their children. They just don't want their kids to have an excess of candy. But it's interesting how such a little thing can be an example of such a big thing. I'm certain my daughters will teach their children good citizenship and strong American values, so I'm not necessarily concerned about the Halloween Fairy's appearance in their homes. But I do have another burning question:
does this mean that Senator Obama is really the Halloween Fairy?

Scared Yet?

Peter Ferrara, writing on The American Spectator website, has a very interesting look at a possible Obama presidency. His Special Report is titled “The Hugo Chavez Democrats.” I’ll hit the high points, but it’s a good read and I recommend following the link and seeing what Mr. Ferrara has to say.

According to Mr. Ferrara, an Obama presidency would bring the end of prosperity, a decline in our ability to defend the Nation, forced unionism, restraints on free speech, “Brown Shirt” thugs threatening anyone who doesn’t agree with the administration, and a massive swing to radical socialism. Perhaps Mr. Ferrara is a bit of a pessimist, but then again, perhaps he isn’t.

Mr. Ferrara thinks that during an Obama presidency, one supported by a highly-liberal Democrat Congress, there would be a rise in every major Federal tax, which would increase government spending and regulatory costs in order to pay for social programs. Mr. Ferrara points out,

”Obama has the entire country mesmerized by the promise of a measly $500 income tax credit for ’95% of Americans. . . . Yet another government check like that is not going to do anything to change the fundamental incentives, and so will do nothing to advance the economy. Indeed, it will harm the economy as the credit is swiftly phased out at higher income levels, effectively increasing marginal tax rates further by imposing another penalty as income rises.”

Interesting, isn’t it. I know that I’m mostly preaching to the choir, but Senator Obama’s rhetoric about cutting taxes for the average American and making the rich and corporate fat cats pay “their fair share” is really starting to sound like an old, broken record. As he told Joe the Plumber, the real purpose behind his tax and spend policy is to redistribute wealth. I tend to agree with Mr. Ferrara that Senator Obama’s proposed tax cuts are really “tax credits that would send new government checks to those paying little or nothing in federal income taxes” rather than true tax cuts; for anyone.

Mr. Ferrara also questions whether we can “really trust these ultraliberals with our nation’s defenses?” Good question. Liberal Democrat, Congressman Barney Frank, wants to cut national defense spending by 25%, even though Iran is trying to gain nuclear weapons, Russia is threatening its neighbors and trying to reassert itself on the world stage, and China is playing games. How does it make sense to cut defense spending when we have not yet quelled Islamic terrorism or when Iran is trying to build a nuclear capability? Senator Obama has said that he’ll sit down, without preconditions, and talk to Iranian leaders. But Iran has issued its own set of preconditions. They will not talk to us unless we withdraw all our forces from the Middle East (including Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey) and cut our ties with Israel. Remember that Iran is totally committed to the destruction of Israel. Why in the world would anyone think that cutting defense spending and talking to potential enemies would help defend our way of life? Amazing!

Mr. Ferrara also describes how the ultraliberals in an Obama presidency want to eliminate the secret ballot for union elections. The unions, big supporters of the Democrat ticket, think secret ballots are unfair; probably because they lose more elections than they win. A change to federal law would require employers to recognize a union simply when the union presents “union authorization cards” signed by a majority of the company’s employees. If there is no secret ballot, the union will be able to intimidate, threaten, and coerce employees into signing the cards. Anyone who doesn’t want to join the union would still be required to do so; and be forced to pay high union dues and let the union bargain on their behalf. As Mr. Ferrara says, under this scenario “the employer has lost control over his company” the minute union activists show up at their door with cards signed by a bare majority of workers.

Under an Obama presidency, state and local governments would be forced to recognize mandatory unions for public workers, including police and firefighters. Why should we require our “finest” and our “bravest” belong to a union before they can be our first responders. Does that make sense? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a national right to work law that gives individual employees the right to decide whether, or not, to join a union? Isn’t that what freedom really means; the right to make our own decisions?

Then there’s the question of whether free speech can be fair. According to Mr. Ferrara, an Obama presidency would impose drastic regulation of the “public airwaves” that would require a “mandatory balance between competing viewpoints on public policy issues.” Obviously, this “fairness doctrine” is aimed at conservative talk radio, particularly since network news (now called the mainstream media) is exempt. You see, they are totally objective . . . right, sure they are! Under an Obama presidency, free speech is limited by government bureaucrats who will decide what is “balanced” based on totally subjective standards. What a recipe for abuse of power!

But then the Obama presidency is well primed for abusing power. The Obama campaign has already demonstrated it’s readiness to use legal processes, intimidation, and threats to shut down opposing views. Mr. Ferrara refers to these “minions” as “The Brown Shirts.” Consider this. The Obama campaign has sent letters demanding criminal prosecution of an advocacy organization and its primary donor because they sponsored TV advertisements critical of Senator Obama’s association with homegrown terrorist, Bill Ayers. The campaign has sent letters threatening FCC investigations of their broadcast licenses to TV stations that have run NRA-sponsored ads critical of the Senator’s anti-gun record. They have sent “WARNING letters” to potential GOP donors, threatening investigations into “their business and personal affairs” by the IRS, media, or watch-dog groups. The campaign in Missouri has even organized a “Truth Squad” made up of local prosecutors and law enforcement-types who will target anyone who “lies” about Senator Obama. Take a look at what happened to “Joe the Plumber.” Because he spoke out against Senator Obama, local government officials invaded his privacy; releasing information about his taxes, his support payments, and his driving history. Why? Finally, in Chicago, Senator Obama called for his minions to sabotage a WGN talk radio show because the host invited a writer critical of the Senator to appear on his show. The Senator said the writer did not deserve “time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves.” Senator Obama, just who “owns” those public airwaves? I’m really not sure it’s Senator Obama or his minions. Mr. Ferrara warns,

”If this is how Obama and his people are behaving now, what will they be like when they take over the Justice Department, and the FCC, and the entire federal government.?”

Good question. Are you frightened yet? I am. But if you’re not convinced that an Obama presidency would let the “Hugo Chavez Democrats” run wild, Mr. Ferrara ends his Special Report with this:

”I have left out Obama’s support for driver’s licenses and Social Security for illegal aliens, his massive proposed spending increases, including a new global war on poverty financed by U.S. taxpayers, recently totaled in the Wall Street Journal as amounting to $4.3 trillion over 10 years, his proposed government takeover of health care, his specified central economic planning for our energy industry, his support for the most liberal-left Supreme Court appointees in history, modeled after former ACLU General Counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg, his support for federal legislation to repeal every state restriction on abortion, including parental notification, his ardent support for partial birth abortion, his promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and his opposition to making English the official language of America (he said Americans need to teach their children Spanish).

Scared now?

Arrogance of Power

Have you ever known someone that thinks they’re indispensible? These are the folks that think they’re the only one who can finish a project the “right” way, or only one who really “understands” the issues, or that their proposed “solution” is the only one that will really work. You see a lot of these folks in leadership positions. They’re generally well-intentioned, highly-motivated, and extremely competent folks. But for some reason, they develop a kind of myopic arrogance that leads them to believe their way is the only way, or their view is the only view. I don’t know if it’s the exercise of authority or power that leads to the growth of this arrogant belief in their own power, or if it is something in the person’s makeup. But, I do know that someone who is a great leader never thinks they’re indispensible. Great leaders are confident in them selves, and may even be a bit arrogant, but they are not arrogant in their power. They listen to other’s ideas and make a decision on the best course of action without believing that they’re always right.

It seems that politicians often develop this arrogance of power. They start out leading others with good, well-intentioned ideas and motives; and end up so confident in their own abilities and point of view that they lose track of what’s really important. They lose track of the idea that a politician is a public servant, and become invested in the idea that the public is there to serve them. They become so arrogant in their power that they will do anything to get elected or re-elected. It’s a great argument for term limits, isn’t it?

Col. Oliver North has an interesting post on FOXNews, titled When Leaders Get Messiah Complexes that touches on the impact of what I call arrogance of power. Col. North agrees with me that leadership matters, and that (unfortunately) many leaders develop this arrogance in their own power. Col. North describes it as a “messiah complex;” that these leaders come to believe they are the only ones who can provide what is necessary at the time it’s needed. Col. North cites several examples of leaders who developed a “messiah complex; including Napoleon (who had himself declared Emperor of France because he thought he was essential to France’s future), Hitler (who claimed he needed to preserve the Aryan race), Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and Kim Jung Il.

According to Col. North, American’s have resisted following leaders who possess this arrogance of power or a type of messianic complex. Most of our leaders have been humble men, like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Harry Truman. For the most part, Americans tend to like limited government and want public servants to be just that; someone who serves the public good.

Col. North, however, witnessed an event that he found disturbing and shook his belief that the American public understands the dangers of believing a leader, particularly a political leader, is somehow a savior. Col. North describes,

”During Wednesday afternoon’s rush hour, I was making my way home on the “Dulles Greenway” when a phalanx of police motorcycles and cruisers stopped all traffic and ordered us to pull or vehicles off the highway onto the shoulders. Over a loudspeaker we were told to stay put until the Obama campaign convoy passed, on the way to a rally in Leesburg, Virginia.

Instantly, hundreds of people were out of their cars. Directly in front of me a group of supporters—evident by their bumper stickers—jumped out with cameras, cell phones and banners. They began chanting: “The Messiah! He’s coming! Obama is coming!” The shouting only intensified as the candidate and his entourage—motorcycles, police cars, black Secret Service Suburbans and busses—roared past us.”

Col. North found the event profoundly upsetting, because he saw so many who apparently believe that Senator Obama, if he is elected the next President, could save us from ourselves. That somehow only Senator Obama has the key to a brilliant future. I agree with Col. North that this almost messianic belief that many of our countrymen (and women) have developed is a recipe for disaster. Senator Obama, and many of his advisors, are sufficiently invested in their beliefs that they’ve developed that arrogance of power, that messianic complex, and believe that their way is the only way. Col. North reminds Senator Obama that “humility is a virtue that has distinguished our greatest leaders.” Personally, I think that reminder has come too late. If you look at Senator Obama’s entire presidential campaign, from his ads, to the Greek-columned acceptance speech, to the attempt to suppress opposite views, to the manipulation of facts; it’s clear to me that the arrogance of power is firmly established in his belief that only he can be the agent of hope and change. Scary, isn’t it?

Why Can't All Political Speeches Be This Good?

As I was visiting Grim's Hall, I saw this video of Senator McCain speaking at an annual charity dinner last night (in two parts). It's fantastic! I agree with Grim....where have they been keeping this guy? He hits Senator Obama, Senator Clinton and her husband, ACORN, Joe the Plumber, MSNBC, and his own campaign's foibles; and does it with a wonderful sense of humor and a lot of class. Watch it, it's worth your time and you'lll get a great laugh, or three!





Senator Obama also spoke at the dinner, right after Senator McCain. His speech is also extremely funny! Here's his speech:

Joe the Plumber & Britney's Headache

I'm afraid Joe the Plumber is finding out just how dangerous it is to publicly question the policies of Senator Obama and the liberal establishment. He found his "15-minutes of fame" with his cogent, intelligent, and relevant question to Senator Obama about the Senator's tax plans, and his astute analysis of the impact to small business and to "the little guy." Unfortunately, like the child who pointed out the Emperor wore no clothes, Joe's question prompted an answer from Senator Obama that revealed the naked truth of Senator Obama's tax plan; he wants to redistribute dollars from those who earn to those who do not.

As a result, the liberal establishment, bloggers and the mainstream media alike, are now trying to discredit Joe the Plumber. It seems that everything is fair game. So he's not really a licensed plumber. He works for one. So he really doesn't make $250K a year. He never said he did. He only said he might have the opportunity in the future to buy a small business that could make $250K. So he had a lien for unpaid medical bills. The bills have been paid and the lien lifted. So he might owe back state taxes. So his name might be spelled wrong on voter registration lists. SO WHAT??? In a great quote, Joe said that "I'm kind of like Brittney Spears having a headache. Everyone wants to know about it."

What gives the press and the liberal establishment the right to go after and make public every little bit of dirt they can possibly uncover about Joe the Plumber? He's an intelligent and responsible voter, who just wanted to ask a candidate about the candidate's policies. That the candidate's answer honestly showed what the candidate really thought, instead of what the candidate wants the public to think, does not mean that Joe needs to be painted as something other than a concerned voter trying to figure out who to vote for.

The liberal reaction to Joe the Plumber and his 15-minutes of fame is telling; and very scary. It shows that they react to dissent by vilifying the dissenter. It shows that they will go to any lengths to stifle dissent by anyone who doesn't agree with them. When you couple what's happened to Joe the Plumber (an everyday citizen) with the Obama campaign's attempt to use law enforcement to stop dissent in St Louis, or the lawsuits brought against conservative commentators, and the cry of "racist" or "racism" raised every time someone disagrees with Senator Obama or his policies; you get a very scary picture. Add the liberal attempt to re-institute the wrongly named "fairness doctrine" and you have a very clear picture of the liberal mindset: we know what's good for you, whether you agree or not, so you better not rock the boat or we'll make it difficult for you. Scary when you think of it that way, isn't it.

What's next? Re-eduction camps? Oh wait, those are called charter schools these days....

UPDATE: Check out this great article at American Thinker that says what I wanted to say, but does it so much better!