Let's Not Act Like Democrats . . . Me Included

Request:  If you read a blog post on Hennessy's View that seems to be rooting for America to fail or suffer in order that Obama take the blame, please e-mail me (bill-at--hennessysview--dot--com) and comment.  I'm a hot-head, and I might not catch myself. The United States and every country on earth is in a perilous position right now.  The world economy is on the brink of depression.  Bad business practices driven by even worse government policies and regulations have destroyed $ trillions in wealth and left us on a narrow, swampy peninsula between deflation and hyperinflation.

We have, for good or ill, elected a young and inexperienced president.  That man's past rhetoric was clearly Marxist.  But his post-election appointments and words seem closer to those of George Bush than of Gus Hall.  We can work to win back Congress and the White House without destroying the country in the process.

Here's a few recommendations:

  • Praise Obama's rightward tacks more than you attack his leftist moves
  • Look for people or businesses in your area who need help and help them if you can
  • State the positive results of conservative governance more often than you assail the consequences of liberal error
  • Wave to drivers of cars with Obama stickers, even as you pass them to expose your McCain-Palin tags
  • Write letters to the editor, blog comments, and blog posts complimenting Obama's good judgment, but always identify yourself as a conservative Republican who work for his defeat in 2012

All of us are saying goodbye to co-workers let go because of the economy.  The way out of this mess is lower taxes, less government, and graceful ends for companies that can't make it.  Each of these right actions carries with it painful consequences for some of us.  We can and must make these changes to our national direction.  But we can and should make them without being asses.

We all know how painful and maddening it was to hear Democrats and liberals cheer American casualties in Iraq and fantasize about the assassination of a Republican president.  While we might not go so far, why take the chance?  Let's sell our superior system of economics and limited government.  The deficincies of their alternative will be undeniably obvious soon enough.

Obama's Weird Chess Game

Democrat candidate for president Barack Obama's bizarre chess game with foreign policy took another twist today. In remarks to a report, Obama seemed to formulate his nuclear policy as he went along:

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Is this a chess game? Does Obama have some grand politic strategory in mind? It's like a game of Good Cop, Bad Cop with Obama playing both parts. One day he's doing Hennessy shots with Kim Jong Il, the next he's pulling out of Iraq, then he's invading allies, and later he's eliminating our nuclear arsenal.Policy-o-Meter

Democrat rivals pounced on the neophyte's fourth foreign policy gaffe in two weeks. At the beginning, Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama's foreign policy might have been mere campaign maneuvering. But many Democrats must now wonder if Obama is capable of making it to the Iowa Caucuses.

Moreover, the general population should be very concerned that one of the country's two parties takes Barack Obama seriously. His statements on genocide, invading nuclear-powered allies, kissing up to despots, and no-use of nuclear arms prove the man has never really thought about America's place in the world. Therefore, anything--ANYTHING--Obama says about Bush's foreign policy can be summarily dismissed. Now, if only the Democrats would summarily dismiss Obama.

Matt Margolis calls Obama "clueless"

There may be more on the OTB Traffic Jam. While at OTB, don't miss this wonderful tidbit about WSJ.

CNN calls Obama the Democrats' "punching bag."

Dan Balz, writing in the Washington Post, manages to break away from his Ode to Obama long enough to mention this:

He continues to walk a fine line between sounding fresh and sometimes appearing green, between being the candidate who can offer an appealing break from the past and one whose inexperience may give people pause.

Quite.  But Mr. Balz mentions only two of Barack's four gaffes.  Were Dan paying closer attention, he might have concluded as many have:  Obama isn't ready.

Obama's Little Mind on Foreign Policy

Barack Obama proves he would be a dangerous commander-in-chief. Two weeks ago, he told us that the United States is obliged to stay out of wars, even to prevent genocide. He would not have fought Germany in World War II unless Germany attacked the United States. He would not stop the genocide in Darfur or Congo. He would not have gone to Somalia or Bosnia.

That, again, was two weeks ago.

In last week's YouTube debate, Obama told us that as President his first foreign policy blunder . . . move would be trips to North Korea, Chile, Cuba, and Syria. He clearly doesn't understand how dictatorships work, thinking such visits would do any good for the people of those country. As was know, dictators capitalize on naive foreign leaders by turning state visits into propaganda devices.

Now this week.

Yesterday, Obama changed course again. Now he's all for going to war with Pakistan. An AP analysis sees right through Obama's stance:

This new policy is designed to show that Obama would be a tough commander in chief when times demand it, even though he opposed the Iraq war and wants to open a dialogue with foreign foes.

But Obama goes further than the analysis indicates. By invading a sovereign country without its consent and in violation of treaties, Obama would likely start a war with a nuclear power. The chain-reaction of such an invasion would be unpredictable and immensely dangerous. India could pre-emptively strike Pakistan, hoping to take out its nuclear missiles. Israel might do the same, drawing Syria, Egypt, Iran, and other into an all-out Middle East war. How would Pakistan's other neighbors respond? How many men would join al Qaeda in response?

Ed Morrissey, blogging on Obama's shifting stance, says this latest foreign policy gaffe ought to end Obama' career as a serious candidate for president. I agree. (See Ed's links to Michelle Malkin, too.)

Barack Obama has evolved from curiosity to wonder to worry. His handle on how the world works is very loose and shaky. One more blunder, and even his race, curiousness, and "wonder boy" status won't save him. Party leaders will have to look hard at the weak mind that lies beneath his polished surface.

UN Approves Darfur Force

The UN Security Council, today, finally got around to approving a 26,000-strong force to control the violence in Darfur (FoxNews.com). I have a depressing suspicion that this means there are no Christians left for the Muslims to kill in Darfur. Expat Yank thinks the same:

There are only two reasons a predator state engaged in fomenting widespread slaughter (the UN has not termed Darfur “genocide”) will voluntarily allow in a UN peacekeeping force: 1) that state has already accomplished most of its ”slaughter” goals (remember, this conflict began in February 2003), or 2) it doesn’t believe the UN force will be able to accomplish much of anything anyway, so its best to let it be deployed in order to get the “international community” off its back.

Sadder, still, is the lack of blog and editorial reaction to the news. A couple of years ago, even Barack Obama was calling for action in Sudan--even unilateral US military action. Today, nothing.

Either genocide has become too familiar to notice, or the economy is providing enough distractions that otherwise good people don't care.

Also, Theo Spark has the official banner of the operation.

MichelleMalkin.com Called "Hate Site"

Michelle Malkin responds to that unnecessary race of humans known as liberals. The liberals, it seems, have gone about calling her web site, michellemalkin.com, a "hate-site." Other bloggers are jumping in to defend Michelle. I won't. I think she has one of the best blogs in the business, but she doesn't need my defense.

First, liberals are evil little creatures--more little than evil, in the small, petty sense. Their self-righteous slander is not really meant to hurt its target as to aggrandize the speaker or writer in his own small mind and among his own petty peers.

Second, I hate a lot of things, and I suspect Michelle does too. Since I write often about things I hate (even if I don't say I hate them), I couldn't be upset if HennessysView.com were called a "hate-site." It's very much a "love-site," too, though, because I write about things I love (even though I don't always write that I love them). Remember that liberals are small, petty, and narrow-minded. They react impulsively and inappropriately to stimuli, the way waterbugs react to light.

Finally, with all the hatefulness that liberals -- small, evil bastards that they are -- have directed toward Michelle, including calls to rape and murder her and her small children, Michelle can sleep well knowing that nothing she's written rises to the level of evil visited routinely by her enemies.

First Gaffe of the Campaign?

If Hugh Hewitt is right, the distinction goes to Barack Obama for promising to meet the leaders of "Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea without precondition." Huh.

Didn't Jimmy Carter promise something like that in 1976? Except then it was China, the Soviet Union, East Germany, and the Grand Dutchy of Fenwick.

This gaff (is that how to spell "gaff?") came during the YouTube debate, which I didn't watch. I actually have avoided everything about it, but I stumbled onto Hugh Hewitt and had to giggle.

Jeff Jarvis confirms my original instinct to stay far away.

I suppose Obama didn't win. Who did?