Thursday, August 14, 2014
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
As I have watched the increasingly disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), I have been struck by the number of folks who are now complaining that their insurance is being cancelled. Many of these folks are asking how they are supposed to afford these new, much higher rates, and some are complaining that they liked their old coverage. Even leftists who were in full voice support are beginning to complain. Well, folks, you wanted this, you voted for it, and now you are getting what you wanted. Enjoy it. I am also amused by all the folks complaining about the insanely high premiums on the exchanges - on those rare occasions when one can actually access said exchanges! Hey, you folks were telling us how great government healthcare is. Own it.
But on a more serious note, the more I study this whole process, the more I become convinced that the doom-sayers were right. Obamacare was never intended to succeed. It was intended to destroy the private insurance market and provoke a crisis where people would clamor for the government to come and save them. And voila - single-payer where the government is in total control. In other words - instant communism. The same process would then be employed against every other industry, one by one - they've already seized most of the automotive industry. But health care was the big one because that was the communists' way to control. And thanks to the spineless John Roberts and the four fellow-travelers on the Supreme Court, this blatantly un-Constitutional power grab was allowed to become law.
I'm not sure that the media will permit the full scope of this disaster to reach the ears of the low-information Americans who live on the taxpayer teat, but as more and more Americans begin to lose their insurance - especially with the massive cancellations that will happen next year when the employer mandate hits - I'm not sure even the Democrat Party's many Riefenstahls in the Press can utterly cover up this epic disaster. And if not, then the Democrats will own this - not a single Republican voted for it. If we had a fair and honest media, the Democrats would be suitably punished at the ballot box, but since we have a one-party propaganda corps instead, I am sure that they will not suffer as much as they should.
Monday, September 09, 2013
...the national 'news' media is of course mostly silent. This is hardly news to anyone not living in the Democrat-Media Complex bubble. For example, I was browsing the Web and came across this story in the UK Daily Mail.
To briefly summarize, it seems that once again a member of the Kennedy family of Massachusetts has been unable to control his libido. This is hardly unknown among this clan. JFK, RFK, and Teddy were all serial sexual predators. But it is not my purpose to dwell upon the horrendous history of this worthless clan of hypocritical would-be elitists. Rather, I would draw your attention to an interesting aspect of this story.
To wit, gentle readers, please note that this story is in a British media outlet. Note also that the American 'news' media is still utterly and appallingly silent on this most interesting discovery. Why? Because he's a Democrat. Remember, if you please, how the news media spent months publishing lewd and ridiculous rumors about a Republican Vice-Presidential candidate (Sarah Palin) - but simultaneously couldn't be bothered to report on a fellow Democrat's adulterous affairs while his wife was dying of cancer. I refer, of course, to the man who was once a Democrat candidate for President - John Edwards. His peccadillos were not deemed worthy of coverage - until the National Enquirer, of all sources, finally blew the lid off the scandal.
Let us delve further into the past. I can recall how it was perfectly acceptable to call for President George W. Bush's assassination - in fact, the far-left Hollywood made fantasies where he was in fact, assassinated. The HBO show 'Game of Thrones' actually included his decapitated head as a part of one of their scenes. That was 'art'. And it was eminently respectable to scream and throw shoes and hang him in effigy. Dissent, we were told, was the highest form of patriotism.
With that firmly in mind, imagine, gentle readers, what the headlines would be if this were a Republican. Front page screaming headlines for months, at the very least. Representative Mark Foley was hounded from office over inappropriate texts but his successor Tim Mahoney was allowed to have an adulterous affair and the national 'news' media was silent. Democrats can freely lie (Pelosi/Reid/Obama saying 'It's not a tax!', Obama claiming 'I never made a red line'), whore (Bill Clinton, RFK, Jr, JKF, etc), be former officers of the KKK (Robert Byrd) and even steal while in office (William 'The Refigerator' Jefferson, Alcee 'Impeached Federal Judge' Hastings) without any complaints from the chattering classes. Democrats can even allow US ambassadors to be murdered (Benghazi), conspire to send illegal guns to ostensibly friendly countries (Mexico, Fast & Furious), and even have the IRS, the CIA, and the NSA harass their political opponents and the US press is totally fine with that.
Hat tip to the amazing Instapundit.
Friday, November 09, 2012
A Washington DC contract attorney who goes by the nom de plume 'Raised by Wolves' (RBW, in future references) has written an excellent analysis of what is going to happen to contract opportunities (as well as permanent positions) once ObamaCare hits in January 2013. Among other comments, he asks what contract agencies will do when the new requirements that basically force any company with more than 30 employees to either buy them over-priced, horrible government-issued insurance or pay a hefty per-employee penalty. His answer is as follows:
There are only two choices. First, nobody works 30 hours a week for an agency ever again. That probably is an unworkable solution, but it is not unthinkable, given the trend in the industry toward a 40-hour cap on projects. A 30-hour cap would mean more bodies, staggered, but would not be a dramatic departure from the no-OT policy that already governs so many projects. Given the staggering costs of forced health coverage (or penalties), agencies won't consider this option unworkable. They'll think about it, and you'll have to start finding two projects at a time to make a living wage. Assuming, of course, that agencies and the firms that hire them stop enforcing their concurrent employment policies that ban working two projects at a time.
The second choice is, your taxes just got harder. Agencies could deem contract attorneys to be independent contractors and start issuing 1099s instead of W-2s. That means you'll have to make quarterly estimated tax payments for withholding, Social Security and Medicare taxes. Oh, and by the way, it also means you'll be responsible for the employer's half of those Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, as you will now be self employed. Of course agencies will raise your rates to make up for the fact that your share of the payroll taxes doubled while their share disappeared. Don't doubt it for a second.
Now RBW was focusing on the contract attorney field, but his analysis is valid for any field where contracting is common. This includes the high-tech fields where I earn MY living. And my reaction is that RBW is spot-on. I don't know about you, but I've noticed that where I live, there are lots and LOTS of contract offers. Perm? None. Everyone wants to hire contractors. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that companies know what's coming and are trying desperately to avoid the coming storm? Why, yes, it could. Which is also why permanent opportunities are going to be few and VERY far between for the next ten-twenty years. The Democrats have basically made it uneconomical to hire permanent employees. And so they are desperately trying to get people to do contracting instead. Of course, my sympathy for most of these companies is miniscule since these are largely the same companies whose CEOs are in bed with the Democrats.
But hey, America basically voted for two issues in the 2012 election. These issues, as constantly screamed forth by the Democrat propagandists in the press corps were:
- Lots and lots of government 'free' shit (paid for with Other People's Money) and...
- Killing babies so that irresponsible and feckless young women can have lots of fun without consequences while forcing everyone else to pay for that fun, as Sandra the Slut memorably begged for.
Those were the two main campaign issues the Democrats and their media shills pushed over and over again (in between dragging out seventh-grade stories and telling us what a scary and horrible guy that Mitt Romney fellow was, of course). So guess what, America? You got what you wanted. I hope you enjoy it when the inevitable bill comes due.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
I just looked at the post-election map. For conservatives, this should be deeply disturbing. The Democrats now own Virginia, Nevada and Colorado and to all intents and purposes, Ohio as well. This essentially means that no Republican can ever win a Presidential election ever again and even if one should somehow manage to get past the media bias and demonization, there is no chance that Republicans will ever have a majority in Congress either - especially not in the Senate.
Why is this? well, look at the map. Montana and South Dakota both chose to elect Democrats over Republicans, despite being thought of as red states. Republicans failed to beat outright frauds in massachusetts and failed to beat deeply unpopular incumbents in both Missouri and hold a REpublican seat in Indiana.
Overall, this election tells me two things. First, that the Democrats have succeeded in creating a majority built on government-reliant groups. Second, that the media's scare tactics still work too well and no Republican will ever be able to get past them to try to convince these groups that Democrats do NOT have their best interests at heart. And this is a majority that cannot be broken - they will never vote for those who honestly say they will cut their benefits. And of course Democrats will promise anything and scare them by saying REpublicans want to to take away those benefits. The same goes for parasites like the federal unionized bureaucrats. They will never vote for Republicans.
What this means is that we who love this country are watching it die. The takeover is complete. First the Democrats seized control of the educational system and created an indoctrination program. Then they added those indoctrinated fools to a large group who relies on government to live. And now, they have won and the country's federalist roots are finally dead. The plan initiated by Woodrow Wilson and continued by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson is complete. This country is now ruled by a small cadre who plans to turn all of us into beggars dependent on Almighty Government. And never again will any election do anything to stop it. The best we can hope for is to slow the progress, but now we have gone too far. The government, according to the Supreme Court, can tell us what to buy, what to wear, what to eat, where to live, and anything else, as long as they call it a tax.
I don't know if I can offer any comfort. We had the worst President of our lifetimes, a horrid economy, a disastrous foreign policy and yet a majority of Americans STILL voted to re-elect Obama. And not only that, they gave him increased control in the Senate and cut the Republican majority in the House. As a conservative, there is no comfort that I can take tonight. Our side lost and lost big. And from where I sit, the country is beyond repair. I guess we can look forward to becoming just like California now. Yay.
Now that Barack Obama has won re-election, and the Democrats have strengthened their hold on the Senate, taxes will go up on January 1. The Republicans have lost seats in the Senate and cannot stop any of Obama's legislation. And after tonight's shellacking, I don't expect them to try. I wouldn't if I were them. Why bother? If they try to stand up for ordinary Americans, they will be demonized in the press and they obviously lack the spine - they didn't even nail the president on his many failures during his first term. But this means that Americans will face a massive tax increase. All the Bush tax cuts will expire and not only that, ObamaCare's taxes kick in on January 1 as well. So we are facing the largest tax hike in US history. Thanks, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama!
So, what will this tax hike entail? No one knows for sure, but CNBC says that most Americas will see their investment taxes rise by approximately 3.8 percent. In addition, CNBC says that with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, that means wealthy Americans will see those taxes rise by close to 45 percent.
But that is not all. As Daily Finance.com points out, the expiration of the afore-mentioned Bush tax cuts also means that the average US family will pay 15 percent more in taxes immediately - in addition to those massive investment income tax hikes.
So, get ready for a much higher tax bill in 2013. Thanks to Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress of 2007-2010, it's coming. The only question is whether or not the Democrats will reach for even more tax hikes as well. Personally, I wouldn't bet against it. After all, as Obama famously said in 2009, 'I won."
Well, it's over. Good-bye America, it was great while it lasted. With the results of this night pretty much set in stone, we now know that our future is limited and the end is in sight. Once the socialists seize control of a country, as they seized control of the United States tonight, the future is always the same - huge deficits, disastrous foreign policies, a rising class of political nomenklatura, an educational system designed to indoctrinate, not to educate, and the loss of freedom for the people. That is the future that awaits us as well, especially if the other frequent result - a fascist or communist dictator - occurs. It was due to this type of situation that brought Mussolini to power in Italy. And so, knowing that the great experiment that was America has reached the beginning of the end, we must ask ourselves what happened? Here is my small attempt at explaining this debacle. I see four primary reasons why barack Obama won. These are as follows:
- The media advantage They lied for Obama, they hid news that would make him look bad, they glorified his Administration's response to Hurricane Sandy (behavior that they crucified W over), they falsely blamed all the bad economic news (when thy reported it at all) on either George W Bush or the post-2010 Republican House of Representatives, they refused to report on the many scandals of his Administration, they falsely demonized his opponent and they actively worked with his campaign to report only those items that would reflect well upon him. Media bias was huge for the Democrats.
- Voting fraud The Republicans tried to shut off the illegal voting with Voter ID and they could not do it - Democrat judges shot it down. I would not be surprised to learn someday that this election involved shenanigans like the infamous theft of Illinois in 1960. But without any real way to verify voters, what can we expect?
- The Gimme Vote Mitt Romney said that 47 percent of American was beyond his reach. I fear he under-estimated. Based on tonight's results, I think that over fifty percent is now on the government teat in one way or another. And this was by design. The democrats intend to get the country dependent on government aid so that they can more easily control us. beggars are easier to please, after all - especially ignorant and indoctrinated beggars. Look at Red China and the old USSR for evidence. As Alexander Fraser Tytler is said to have written (this is also sometimes attributed to Alexis de Toqueville), "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." I think we have now reached that point.
- Race. Obama won largely because too many Americans could not bring themselves to vote against The First Black President. His policies were secondary to his skin color. This means that the ideal of equality is dead - people will be judged solely on color, not on what they can do. Martin Luther King's dream is dead - destroyed by his own race. Blacks and other minorities as a group apparently cannot see beyond color. They voted en masse for an incompetent poser solely because of color. This despite the fact that his policies are directly responsible for a great deal of their misery. Amazing and utterly depressing.
Friday, September 02, 2011
Flax looks at the policies proposed and executed by both Communists and Fascists and observes,
In Argentina, everyone acknowledges that fascism, state capitalism, corporatism – whatever – reflects very leftwing ideology. Eva Peron remains a liberal icon. President Obama’s Fabian policies (Keynesian economics) promise similar ends. His proposed infrastructure bank is just the latest gyration of corporatism. Why then are fascists consistently portrayed as conservatives?
In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited, constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently proven capitalism defunct. The remaining choice had narrowed between communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right.
This is very true. Fascism and Marxist Communism both feature very powerful national governments, a Leader class that lives quite differently from the masses, a State-run command economy and government-sponsored winners and losers. The differences were that while Communism focused more on class, the German Nazis focused more on race. However, the Fascist nations also were not friendly to the entrepreneurs and powerful industrialists, though not quite to the same degree as the Communists.
And the Communists and fascists, despite their enmity during the Spanish Civil War, were quite willing to work closely together. The USSR provided Nazi Germany much-needed training facilities during the 1930s for Hitler's slowly growing war machine and World War II could not have happened without the 1939 Non-Aggressions Pact between Hitler and Stalin. In addition, the many dupes and paid tools of the Communists in the United States and Western Europe created a large, vocal presence urging the West not to interfere in Hitler's military adventures and which, following the attack on Poland, was equally vigorous in urging the United States to allow Britain and France to fall. This movement utterly vanished on June 22, 1941, of course.
American conservatives, on the other hand, argue for a small government and accountability for the many government functionaries. They don't like heavy taxes, they don't like many government programs and they prefer to be left alone to do their own thing. This is the impulse that led to the TEA Party movement. American conservatives also are opposed to social engineering as a rule - something that both communists and Fascists truly love to engage in. And they like to own weapons o a hobby that both Communists and Fascists dislike since it makes totalitarian rule much more difficult. On a policy level, the TEA Party argues for a more decentralized form a of government where the majority of decision-making happens on a local level. This too is anathema to both the American Left and to the communists and fascists, who all prefer a much stronger central presence. Above all, TEA Party members argue for individuality and the freedom to make their own decisions, something that Marxists and Fascists alike despise.
Flax also points out that fascism, like communism and the modern American left, despises religion. The TEA Party on the other hand argues religion should have a central place in American life, although I have y7et to encounter a TEA Party member who thinks that government should dictate how and what people should worship. And like the modern American left, both communists and fascists hate private schooling. The indoctrination for both fascists and communists is based on having a school system that no one can escape. TEA Party members - like conservatives - argue that families ought to have choices.
Property rights are another area where TEA Partiers part company with the fascists. The Nazis and all other fascists were terrible on property rights, believing that the government should be the owner, not people. They ruthlessly appropriated property without compensating the owners. Peron in Argentina did as well. Communists too are in agreement with this theory. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is now taking private property, as Castro did before him in Cuba. And the American Left loves the Kelo decision that eviscerated property rights. TEA Partiers on the other hand, were outraged.
Keynsian economic theory, which has been eagerly adopted by every left-wing politician in America since Woodrow Wilson, also is more closely aligned with the fascist model than with anything suggested by the TEA Party. As Flax writes,
Mussolini recognized, “Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics.” Keynes saw the similarities too, admitting his theories, “can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than . . . a large degree of laissez-faire.” Hitler built the autobahn, FDR the TVA. Propaganda notwithstanding, neither rejuvenated their economies.
It seems to me that Flax, Somin and others pretty much have it right. I don't see too many parallels between American conservatives and the Nazis or any other fascists. But I do see a lot of parallels between the communist ideas espoused by the modern American Left and the fascist ideology. As Flax sums up his article by writing,
Even using Republicans as proxies, there was little remotely conservative about fascism. Hitler and Mussolini were probably to the right of our left-leaning media and education establishments, but labeling Tea Partiers as fascists doesn’t indict the Right. It indicts those declaring so as radically Left.
If only our history books and our media were honest enough to admit it, maybe the tired and vile claims that conservatives are somehow equivalent to the German Nazis could finally be laid to rest. But of course, by admitting it, the Left would be admitting who are the real heirs of that horrific philosophy. And that, they can never do.
I was perusing the Solyndra scandal and a few thoughts came to mind. Remember how the media relentlessly tied Enron to George W. Bush's Administration? Yet most people forget Enron's extensive ties to the Clinton Administration, as well as the undisputed fact that the only government official to openly attempt to secure special treatment for Enron during Enron's troubles was in fact Robert Rubin, a former Clinton official. As the Seattle Times admits in their article,
In late 2001, after revelations about Enron's accounting made headlines, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan sought to arrange the company's sale to rival Dynegy so they could split a $90 million investment banking fee and stave off its likely bankruptcy. The suit said calls by Citigroup Vice Chairman and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and J.P. Morgan Chairman William Harrison to credit-rating firm Moody's Investors Service were attempts to "strong-arm" the firm from downgrading Enron before a sale could be completed.
Now the Bush Administration's ties to Enron were in fact far less than the Obama Administration's ties appear to be with Solyndra. Both companies used political connections to try to get ahead. The situations seem pretty similar. So...Will the Press treat this the same way? I'm not holding my breath...
Indeed, when many policymakers see a potential market failure, they almost inevitably call for government intervention to restrain market excesses. Yet when government fails, interestingly enough, the proposed policy solution is often the same: more government intervention. The point here is not that government intervention is never justified — Becker himself believes some government regulations are “essential” — but that it must be justified with serious comparative analysis considers the possibility government may fail as well.
Translation: Why don't we the people treat government failures that same way government likes to treat 'market failures'? Seems to me it is because the market failures are often - perhaps even usually - caused by government in the first place. And government likes this model, as it usually leads to more power for the same organizations that caused the problem! As Rahm Emmanuel famously let slip "Never let a serious crisis go to waste".
I think it is high time we used government failures to strip power from government. Private enterprise is not perfect, but it has a far better track record than government does. One of the many reasons why no command economy has ever succeeded.
Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
The military power must be destroyed, that is, reduced to such a state as not to be able to prosecute the War. This is the sense in which we wish to be understood hereafter, whenever we use the expression "destruction of the enemy's military power."
The country must be conquered, for out of the country a new military force may be formed.
But even when both these things are done, still the War, that is, the hostile feeling and action of hostile agencies, cannot be considered as at an end as long as the will of the enemy is not subdued also; that is, its Government and its Allies must be forced into signing a peace, or the people into submission; for whilst we are in full occupation of the country, the War may break out afresh, either in the interior or through assistance given by Allies. No doubt, this may also take place after a peace, but that shows nothing more than that every War does not carry in itself the elements for a complete decision and final settlement.
Why our own leaders do not understand this simple concept is beyond me. When we went into Kosovo, so it was when we went into Iraq, Afghanistan, and now it is true again as we are engaged in Libya. It is imperative, when a nation-state is involved in an armed conflict, that the enemy's will to win be wiped out. We engaged in total war in World War II and when the respective peace treaties with the Axis countries were eventually signed, those nations knew they were beaten. The will of their governments and of their populations to continue waging war had been blunted and they had no more desire to take up arms again.
But in our current conflicts - at least since Vietnam - we have not engaged in this total war. Why we have not availed ourselves of one of our most powerful assets is not really a mystery however. I can think of several reasons why we have not engaged in total war since 1945. These are as follows:
- The Unpatriots: Ever since the Communist revolutions of the early twentieth century, the United States, like Western Europe, has been home to a large, well-organized and strongly anti-American group of secret Communists. These are the folks who organized the SDS of the 1960s, who did their best to give away the atomic bomb to the Soviets, and who will gleefully repeat every anti-Americans screed that can possibly be imagined. their numbers include most of Hollywood, much of the popular music industry, the vast majority of the American Press, and virtually the entire membership of the collegiate professorial class. They are embittered by the knowledge that their social model has failed and they hate capitalism, even though few of them would prosper in an environment that they try to hard to create. They are vocal and they wield great power, as shown by their ability, even in their current weakened form, to so cleverly destroy any politicians they dislike. I refer here primarily to Sarah Palin, but virtually any Republican who takes aim at the socialist policies this group professes can become a target. Few survive them - Ronald Reagan is one of the very few conservatives they have been unable to demean or destroy. This group will always support any enemy of the UNited States and will do their best to prop it up even when they have been defeated on the ground. It is this group who really won the Vietnam War for the Communists. They are a serious obstacle
- The Rivals: Communism may be discredited (except among the aforementioned Unpatriots) but China and Russia remain as formidable adversaries in the world of international politics. Russia may be much weakened but it is led by many of the same people who were our adversaries and they will do everything in their power to diminish the United States, including offering alliances to groups and nations they have little love for. This groups is also swelled by power-hungry ego-maniacs like Chavez in Venezuela and the Iranian mullahs who understand that the US is their primary obstacle in their respective quests for regional or world conquest. Russia and China also understand that the US is the primary obstacle preventing them from seizing world power. The UNited States in some of the conflicts would have had to fight with one or both of these hegemonies and has not wanted to engage in World War III over objectives that are not vital to our national interests. Thus the ridiculous situation in Korea. This is a more traditional obstacle as most Great Powers have faced similar difficulties. However, in the past our leaders were both better men and stronger leaders. I cannot see Reagan or Roosevelt shying away from confrontation with these dictators. But it is one reason why total war is not always an option.
- Our Own LeadershipOur current President is an ignorant, arrogant empty suit who has little knowledge or expertise in much of anything. He has never managed anything and has never actually had to take a leadership position on anything and thus he is good only at trying to look good while doing not much of anything. Much of our diplomatic corps seems more interested in advancing other nations' interests in preference to our own and much of the political class have neither the skills nor the understanding to actually step up and lead. In addition, a half-century of steady demeaning of the US from the edicational establishment and te Press has left many Americans unsure what they ought to be proud of. The great feats of the previous centuries and the great men who led, such as Lincoln, Washington, Jackson, etc have been replaced in the schools with stories of Susan B. Anthony. Anthony is important in one aspect of American history, but as a historical actor, she comes nowhere close to any of the Presidents, Generals, Admirals and statesmen who built the country. So our leaders tend to be tentative and apologetic. They should instead be fiery and unapologetic. Has any other nation a better historical record? I would argue that the answer is no.
- Moral Relativism: There should never be a comparison between the armed forced of the United States of America and medieval butchers who cut people's heads off, rape female prisoners and deliberately target women and children. Not to mention hiding behind said women and children when they fight. There should be no comparison between a religion that requires its adherents to go out and kill non-members and religions that do not make such demands. There should be no comparison between a culture that allows men to rape women and then kill them for 'honor' and one that offers women freedom. And there should be no comparison between a society that fought a bloody war to end its short experiment with slavery and a culture that acted as the world's slavemasters for almost a thousand years. And with which we fought a war BECAUSE of their slavery (th Barbary Wars). If the Unpatriots did not have such a loud megaphone, we would not even be having this discussion. But they have forced us to defend what should not need to be defended. And moral relativism is a deadly argument. When taken to its logical conclusion, it clearly shows that there is no difference between a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan where women are chattel and where unelected 'religious leaders' can condemn any man or women for any reason and a United States where no one can be condemned without a court trial.
There are other reasons as well, such as the reflexive greed, moral incompetence and reflexive anti_americanism in most international institutions. This is due to envy on the part of Europe and hatred on the part of everyone else. they want to come and live in America, but live like kings (See Dominique Strauss-Kahn) and continue to indulge as they try to force everyone else to give up more annd more so they can continue to indulge. But all of these reasons would be prey to a leader who understood both the unique position and the incredible strength that the correct use of the Armed Forces can bring.
It's time and past time to elect a President and a Congress that understand these concepts. People like Barney Frank, John Kerry, Trent Lott - these are professional politicians who will do and say anything to get elected. We need a leader who can cut through the specious arguments these weaklings bring to the table and take the actions that must be taken. Speaking to the English House of Commons in 1848, the great British Prime Minster Lord Palmerston once famously said,
Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.
We need a leader who understand that and who is not afraid to take the necessary steps, even when countries that claim to be our 'friends' complain. We need a President who understands that our future friends are in the Anglosphere - Australia, possibly Canada, possibly Great Britain and maybe a few others such as India, Japan, etc. These countries share many of our bedrock principles to one degree or another and these are the cultures with whom we should ally. We may have other allies of the moment, but we must find countries that are truly our friends, not our frenemies. Would that we could elect a leader who actually understand this.