Another Shot Across Our Bow...

...how we will our Dear Leader respond?

Official: Cuba, Venezuela May Host Russian Strategic Bombers

From the Monroe Doctrine:

Our policy, in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy; meeting, in all instances, the just claims of every power; submitting to injuries from none. But, in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent, without endangering our peace and happiness: nor can any one believe that our Southern Brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course.

A major reason why the United States still exists is that we have been able keep the rest of the world out of our hemisphere. There is nothing like the protection that our two oceans have provided. But even more importantly, it has been our resolve to keep the Americas, both North and South, (mostly) free from foreign involvement that allowed the greatest country in history to grow and prosper.

If Obama doesn't respond to Russia quickly and decisively... well, I personally do not like talking about my death or my country's, but Russian bombers are built to kill. And the only thing worse than having Putin controlled bombers just off our coast is allowing Russia, and the rest of world, to think that we are not willing to defend ourselves.

How will Obama respond? I think I know. But to that nonresponse, I hope we still have time for the American people to re-evaluate their ideas, and stand up for their sovereignty, their lives, and their future. American was and still is the greatest country in the world. To the extent this is true, it is not because of religion – every country has religion – and it is definitely not because of altruism and statism, every dead and dying country has had that one. It is because of our core principles of individualism, justice, and freedom. Without these, we are no different, we have no unique value, and quite frankly we would have no justification for keeping the Russians out. We have a right to exist, because we respect, value, and defend the rights of the individuals who make up this country. Using the line that should have been in our Declaration, individuals were born equally free and independent. This is what is worth fighting for, this is why we should be telling the Russians to “get the hell out, or else”.

In countless ways, America is facing its end; how we stand up when faced with evil, win or lose, says everything there is to say about the soul of our country. There is no question our foundation was strong, and that we have right on our side, but the question that is now being made crystal clear is, do we have what it takes to save the United States of America?

“Stay the hell out, or else!” Is the only proper response. I also love idea blowing up a dozen or so airfields in Venzuela every time Chavez opens his mouth.

Obama's Version of "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

Rational Passion has a nice little ditty on Obama today: Confirmation From Obama Himself!

Global Capitalism: The Cure for World Oppression and Poverty

Economic and political education for Americans

"What deeper principles make possible the freedom and wealth enjoyed under capitalism—and lacking in its political antipodes? How has capitalism already greatly enhanced the lives of millions of human beings in formerly impoverished Third World countries? What can the men of the free world do to further promote the spread of capitalism into the repressed nations of the globe? These are the questions Dr. Andrew Bernstein addresses in his talk."

Global Capitalism: The Cure for World Oppression and Poverty, by Andrew Bernstein (video)

Your Nest Egg on the Government Bailout

Thank you to Diana Hsieh at Noodlefood for this gem:

Why We Still Can't Trust the Republicans

Get this:  a Republican senator appears more in favor of outright nationalization of our banking system than the majority Democrats!

Graham Wouldn't Reject Idea of Nationalizing Banks

Note that Senator Schumer (D-NY) hits the nail on head in saying that the government "is not good at making these decisions" about loans.  It does make one wonder why he thinks the government is good at making many other decisions that should properly be done by private individuals, but we'll let that go.

Also, as leftist Representative Maxine Waters points out, major banks are already on the path to being completely nationalized, but even she's not stupid enough to call for something so politically risky.

This is yet another reminder that the Republicans' recent expulsion to the political wilderness was well-deserved.

Obama: The Geat Economist

"Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And, in fact, there are several who've suggested that FDR was wrong to interfere back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago."

It's so nice when I get referenced in a presidental address!

"Most economists almost unanimously recognize that, even if philosophically you're -- you're wary of government intervening in the economy, when you have the kind of problem we have right now -- what started on Wall Street, goes to Main Street, suddenly businesses can't get credit, they start paring back their investment, they start laying off workers, workers start pulling back in terms of spending -- that, when you have that situation, that government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy."

What can one say, most economist are wrong. From history's greatest economist, Jean Baptiste-Say:

"[O]f all the means, by which a government can stimulate production, there is none so powerful as the perfect security of person and property, especially from the aggressions of arbitrary power. This security is itself a source of public prosperity, that more than counteracts all the restrictions hitherto invented for checking its progress. Restrictions compress the elasticity of production; but want of security destroys it altogether. To convince ourselves of this fact, it is sufficient to compare the nations of western Europe with those subject to Ottoman power. Look at most parts of Africa, Arabia, Persia, and Asia Minor, once so thickly strown with flourishing cities, whereof, as Montesquieu remarks, no trace now remains but in the pages of Strabo. The inhabitants are pillaged alike by bandits and pachas; wealth and population have vanished; and the thinly scattered remnant are miserable objects of want and wretchedness. Survey Europe on the other hand; and, though she is still far short of the prosperity she might attain, most of her kingdoms are in a thriving condition, in spite of taxes and restrictions innumerable; for the simple reason, that persons and property are there pretty generally safe from violence and arbitrary exaction.

"There is one expedient by which a government may give its subjects a momentary accession of wealth, that I have hitherto omitted to mention. I mean the robbery from another nation of all its moveable property, and bringing home the spoil, or the imposition of enormous tributes upon its growing produce. This was the mode practised by the Romans in the latter periods of the republic, and under the earliest emperors. This is an expedient of the same nature, as the acquirement of wealth by individual acts of illegal violence or fraud. There is no actual production, but a mere appropriation of the products of others. I mention this method of acquiring wealth, once and for all, without meaning to recommend it as either safe or honourable. Had the Romans followed the contrary system with equal perseverance, had they studied to spread civilization among their savage neighbours, and to establish a friendly intercourse that might have engendered reciprocal wants, the Roman power would probably have existed to this day."

Thank God He is Still Not My Boss!

“There will be a time for [Wall Street executives] to make profits and there will be a time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time.” So said President Obama on January 29 to reporters (source: “The Kudlow Report,” CNBC)."

Obama has no business telling anyone, including bankers, how much their time is worth. Given that Obama has free room, board, and travel for the next four years maybe he should refuse/return the $400,000 he is being paid each year.

I highly recommend:

As Wall Street Bonuses Go, So Goes the Liberty of All of Us by Raymond C. Niles

In celebration of freedom, Obama calls for slavery

In his inauguration speech, Obama praised the progress of American liberty making it possible that “a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.” Truly, the success of the Civil War and end to slavery, and the Civil Rights Movement, are achievements worthy of the highest praise for the freedom they brought to millions of Americans. And what does this “freedom” mean? It means the freedom to live and pursue ones happiness, to set goals and pursue them independent of the whims and dictates of others, whether they be the laws of an English tyrant or the commands of a slavemaster.

Yet Obama focused not on the great rewards of freedom but the “sacrifices borne by our ancestors”. He described freedom as “that great gift”, the result of the struggle of men and women who “sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life.” And, he told us, this is a gift we must “deliver safely to future generations.” The scene he described is heartbreaking: those who fight for freedom live only to bring happiness to others, their own lives wrought with suffering. Freedom is something not fought for and earned for ourselves, but pursued selflessly to benefit others; this, ignoring the fact that in every fight for justice those heroes fought for justice in their own lifetimes, not out of a duty to the unborn. They fought for their rights and the rights of their loved ones, not for the rights of unnamed masses. The fight for individual rights is and always has been a selfish one. And it is this selfish pursuit that distinguished our Founders and the soldiers in the war against England - their love of life and defense of their right to live it for themselves – from the parasitical English government and its armies marching to the tune of King and Country. Freedom is a fight for the individual against the collective. It was the Americans who fought for their lives, while the English fought to sacrifice theirs. Yet Obama claimed that America’s history is a legacy of sacrifice.

This package-deal of freedom and sacrifice lays the foundation for Obama’s call to service. In the name of freedom, we must serve. In the name of freedom, we must give up freedom. The Founders “sacrificed”, and in honor of them and as a sign of “patriotism”, so must we:

We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

Of course we knew of Obama’s call for national service during his run for office, and we’ve all seen the YouTube clip of then Senator Obama telling “Joe the Plumber” that “when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.” What is new is the idea of service and “spreading wealth” aka socialism in the name of liberty. Obama tells us that this is what the Founders had in mind all along! That “liberty” was simply their code word for “sacrifice”, and that just as they laid down their lives for us, so we will be expected to lay down our own lives “in the spirit of service”.

What I find especially perverted about this charade is the throng of black supporters who champion Obama as the next Martin Luther King Jr., as the next civil rights leader. This man, who they claim is the symbol of liberation, who is the embodiment of hundreds of years of struggle to escape slavery and persecution, now tells us we must sacrifice this very freedom and become slaves to each other of our own free will. And his followers love him for it.

Obama's Historical Ignorance

I will have more to say on President Obama's Inaugural Address later, but I couldn't get past this blatent factual error right at the beginning:

"Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."

That is incorrect. Forty-three Americans have now taken the presidential oath. Grover Cleveland had two non-consecutive terms and is counted as our 22nd and 24th presidents.

But then, do you really expect Obama and/or his speechwriters to be knowlegeable about this piece of trivia when they and countless Americans are ignorant of so many more important facts of our nation's history?

Latest American Auto Ad

This latest ad from the Big Three really hits the nail on the head:

The Republicans Haven't Learned Yet

A sign that things are likely to get worse before they get better for the Republicans:

Huckabee, Palin top list of 2012 GOP contenders, poll says

If the two most religious personalities of the 2008 campaign are now leading the polls for 2012, the Republicans are almost assured of minority party status for years to come. (Of course, this does not take into account the likely possibility that Democrats could make incredibly suicidal mistakes during that time as well.)

Ideas Matter

Thomas Sowell has an interesting article on the National Review website:

Intellectuals: Ignorance has consequences

What I find most interesting about this article is the lack of a punchline. Mr. Sowell seems to want to be making a case that ideas do matter, that leftist are not the intellectuals they think they are, and that the right needs to be intellectual. But he does none of these things.

In fact, in an article that Mr. Sowell subtitled "Ignorance has Consequences", he actually ends the piece with the following lines:

It would be no feat to fill a big book with all the things on which intellectuals were grossly mistaken, just in the 20th century — far more so than ordinary people.

History fully vindicates the late William F. Buckley’s view that he would rather be ruled by people represented by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.

My hope with an Obama presidency is that the Right will be encouraged to become intellectual. Without positing positive ideas and defending capitalism on moral grounds, we cannot protect ourselves against Obama and the left. Sowell is not yet doing this, although, I think it is clear he is wanting to.

Another step in this direction comes from Jonah Golberg:

Individual liberty is meaningless (or, more fairly, near meaningless) without at least somewhat free markets. Property rights and free markets are inextricably connected. As Milton Friedman put it, "A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ...

... So, whether you're right or not, the case for defending the free market is not purely a matter of empiricism. It is a moral obligation for those eager to defend freedom.

Sowell and Golberg are two of best on the Right, but that is not saying much when most of the right is still hell bent on trying to use Jesus to defend America, freedom, and apple pie.

Capitalism is the only moral political system; the only system that is consistent in protecting the rights of individuals -- the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The punchline line should have been that a politics of rational self-interest is morally superior to a politics based on "we are our brother's keepers".

There are intellectuals, books, and ideas that we can use to support America and capitalism. The right needs to embrace these ideas and thinkers. The faculty of Harvard does not hold a monopoly on ideas, nor a trademark on intellectualism.

Barack Obama is pushing the right out of their comfort zone. I do not know what this will mean for our future, but unless the right starts recognizing actual defenders of capitalism and freedom -- John Locke, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Bastiat, Jean Baptiste Say, and most importantly Ayn Rand -- we are lost.

If you want to see an article that actually makes the case that ideas matter, I recommend Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It?

Why America Must Be Saved First

What we do, the world does: China announces $586 billion stimulus plan

No matter how much most the world hates and envies America, we are still the standard, even today, of freedom, liberty, and capitalism. And what we have done the past few months is show the rest of world how to destory capitalism.

Mike Huckabee: I Smell A Contradiction

First: Mike Huckabee: Is America A Theocracy?

Then: Mike Huckabee wants to replace the Constitution

No matter what this man parrots about small government and freedom, even a chance that Republicans could make this man their presendential candidate in 2008, 2012, or 2016 makes me very happy that the Obmessiah came along when he did.

Obama is the worst thing imaginable, save for Arkansas's very own Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee: Divine Providence Helps My Poll Numbers

Environmentalism: Let's Be More Like North Korea

Environmentalism: What is it? An Interview with Peter Schwartz