Democrats Call in the George W. Bush to Save Their Party

As polls show Obama and the Democrats in the distinct political minority in dealing with radical Islamic terrorism, they’ve decided only one person can save them:

I guess we really all do miss W, now.

This ad is nauseating – for 8 years Democrats routinely insulted President Bush in the most disgusting terms possible. He was Chimpy McSmirk BusHitler. He was evil. He lied to get us into Iraq so that Cheney could make money. He was a war criminal. But here are the Democrats at their shameless worst – using the reasonable words of a good President to try and shore up support for the disastrously failed policies of President Obama.

We all know why President Bush downplayed the Islamic aspects of our enemies – in order that it would be easier for us to defeat those elements within Islam determined to kill us. And to this day, no wise person wants any sort of war on Islam – which is why the GOP candidates of 2016 are careful to state that our problem is with radical Islamic terrorism – not with Islam, as a thing. But Obama doesn’t see anything in Islam as a problem – he has decided that there is no problem within Islam. That Islam has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in Syria – or what happened in Paris last week. Or what may happen in the United States when the terrorists attack here, again.

It is Obama’s miserable failure in Iraq and Syria which has led the world to a crisis where half the population of Syria has been displaced and a sea of humanity is now seeking safety anywhere they can find it. In what must be some sort of pathetic attempt on Obama’s part to make up for his failure, he has decided that he’ll get 10,000 Syrians into the United States – a drop in the ocean of suffering. This allows Obama to preen himself on his generosity – while doing nothing to actually solve the problem his failures have helped to bring about. But in the aftermath of Paris, everyone is wary – everyone with any sense at all wants to have much more careful screening of refugees. This is just common sense – but as it wasn’t Obama’s idea, he wants no part of it. But the people are against him – and so this cynical use of President Bush.

I think this will go over like a lead balloon. Nothing in the past 7 years has to completely demonstrated the moral bankruptcy of the Democrat party.

Regarding “The Donald”


To my good conservative friends- especially those who support “The Donald.”
In these days of milquetoast (or worse) defenses of conservatism by elected leaders, especially the ‘establishment’ GOP leadership, it is easy to get excited over a seemingly unapologetic firebrand who finally articulates much of what you and I have wanted to scream from the mountaintops.

I get that.

But remember what was happening 8 years ago. Many on the left and ‘center-left’ rallied behind a charismatic, well-spoken candidate who nobody really knew much about.

Not that there wasn’t information available. There was information galore about Barack Obama– from his associations with known domestic terrorists, to his belonging to a communist party in Chicago; from his 20-year association with a preacher who preached hate about the United States, to his being mentored by an avowed communist in his earliest days. The information was available to any who wished to do even a cursory internet search.

Many (myself included) tried to warn people about Barack Obama, how he wasn’t the man whom he portrayed himself to be.

But people would have none of it. They looked upon Obama as an open canvas; they looked upon him and projected upon him their greatest hopes, and ignored the reality of his checkered past. They didn’t see a guy raised by communists and people who hated America. They saw a guy descending from Greek columns. They saw ‘the One”–their own personal messiah the one who would finally deliver them to the “Promised Land” and make the sea levels lower and the earth heal. They scoffed at reports of his past, thinking, “Well, even if he did cut his teeth on communism and Islam, he wouldn’t *govern* like one. He would certainly out of a sense of duty and responsibility carry out America’s most time-honored traditions.” And they elected him anyway. The ‘cult of personality’ took over. There was no reasoning with people who refused to be reasoned with.

And we all know how that has turned out.

Now, back to Trump.

Donald Trump does an awfully good job at selling himself. He can sell ice cubes to Eskimos. He is very good at portraying himself as larger than life.

He is very good at ‘portraying’ himself as an unapologetic conservative.

But understand, people. Donald Trump is NO conservative. He has a very long record of taking very progressive stances on everything from border security to abortion to tax policy. He has engaged in crony capitalism, and has been part of the problem all along.

Are we to believe that he REALLY took a 180 on all these issues, just in time for the Republican primary?

Again– I understand how Donald Trump can be appealing. He is charismatic and unapologetic–something we wish more of our elected leaders would be. But let’s leave our passions behind and look at things realistically:

1. Given his long track record of being a crony capitalist and a big-government, pro-abortion progressive, can we reliably count on Donald Trump to actually govern as a conservative?

2. Even if Donald Trump were to attempt to keep his promises (which I have sincere doubts), can he accomplish all that he proposes in a system of checks and balances? Or will he govern with a ‘phone and a pen’ like our current dictator-in-chief?

Let’s not let our passions get in the way of our good judgment. We have an embarrassment of riches in fine candidates such as Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Ben Carson who, while admittedly not as charismatic, have long track records of conservative stances and successfully advancing the conservative agenda with reasonable chances that they will govern accordingly.

No more cults of personality, please.

On the Iran Deal, Obama Gets Tough…

With his fellow Americans, of course – not with the Iranians:

President Obama: I realize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously. But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to talks… Just because Iranian hardliners chant ‘Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those hardliners that are more satisfied with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “death to America” who’ve been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.

So, there you go – the only people who want to kill the Iran deal are those on the side of the Iranian hardliners! Kerry is also out there warning us against upsetting the Iranian hardliners…and they’ll be mad as wet hens if we don’t do this deal! So mad, I guess, that they’ll start sponsoring terrorism and building up nuclear weapons…

This is getting unreal – the Obama position is that if you don’t want his deal, then you want war. Here’s just a small bit of advice for Obama and Kerry – the alternative to the deal isn’t war, but simply no deal. Status quo. And that means Iran’s government is still hobbled by sanctions and has much fewer resources for sponsoring terrorism and building nuclear weapons.

To me, the whole thing is clearly not about getting Iran to stop being Iran, but about getting sanctions lifted. Obama and Kerry appear to believe that we can befriend Iran’s current government and they’ll work with us for peace and stability in the Middle East…that it will be a peace of the grave for many and the stability of Iranian tyranny doesn’t seem to concern Obama. To Progressives any sort of peace is superior to any sort of war – and if it is a bunch of foreigners living far away who are paying the blood price for our peace, no problem at all.

Of course, we’ll get war, eventually. The thing about helping tyrannical regimes to gain in power and prosperity is that this merely provides them with more sinews for war, as well as convincing them we are a paper tiger which can be defied at will.

Welcome to the Nuclear-Armed World

The basics of the world since the end of the Second World War – a few Great Powers with nuclear weapons counter-balancing each other while no major wars were allowed to get out of hand by the international community – is gone. The last few bits of it are being interred by Obama – his failed policies in general are doing it, but midwifing Iran’s nuclear program is the nail in the coffin.

I did a quick look around at Saudi Arabia’s military today and I noticed that some years ago, Saudi Arabia purchased some nuclear-capable medium-range ballistic missiles from China. They are of an old design, to be sure, but from all appearances, they’d work just fine – and they put all of Iran within range. And given the Saudi bank account, there is no telling what sorts of upgrades they’ve been able to purchase for the missiles. Meanwhile, there are rumors that Saudi Arabia has either already purchased some nuclear warheads or has an option to buy them from Pakistan, which got at least part of its nuclear research funding from Saudi Arabia. If Ikea had a nuke-mart, then Saudi Arabia has been shopping there – and all they have to do is insert tab B into slot A, and its all done. They’ll be a nuclear power probably within a very short time of Iran becoming one…if not sooner. And it appears that Saudi Arabia is in the market for some German submarines…the very same very high quality submarines Germany sold to Israel, and which are likely capable of being armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

Welcome to the new world, boys and girls – a world where regional powers are arming to the teeth and readying themselves for war because other regional powers are arming to the teeth and have aggressive intentions. How long before Poland decides it needs some nukes? Japan? The only thing which prevents any nation from getting them is money – do they have enough to buy the technology? Most nations do. Ready for a jittery, 30 year period where nuclear blackmail is considered part of the armory of diplomacy? It isn’t going to be pretty – and while one can’t entirely blame Obama for this, his eagerness to strike a deal with Iran is letting the genie out of the bottle for good.

Obama’s Diplomacy in a Void

There are two reasons you engage in international diplomacy:

1. You both want roughly the same thing, but there are some thorny issues involved which must be addressed before either of you can get it. Trade agreements and alliances against a third party are this sort of diplomacy.

2. You and the other guy want diametrically opposed outcomes and you’re both trying to force the other to climb down, with a risk of war ever present. This sort of thing comes up when two nations with a great deal of enmity are getting at loggerheads.

The first example is mostly harmless in that success doesn’t lead to universal peace and brotherhood, but failure also doesn’t come with much cost. It would be the rarest of rare birds if, say, a negotiation over a trade deal resulted in war breaking out between the two parties because they couldn’t come to an agreement on tariffs. On the other hand, the second form of diplomacy is fraught with danger because the whole point of negotiating is to try to prevent a war – both sides want something the other side cannot agree to. In negotiating, what they are really doing is trying to answer the question, “are you willing to fight over it?”.

In the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish War in 1877, Russia – victorious – was in a mood to just do as she wished with Turkish possessions…which then ranged deep into the Balkans of Europe and which were of great concern to other major powers. When Russia’s plans for prostrate Turkey became known, Britain, especially, let it be known that Russia’s plans were unacceptable and if not modified, war would result. The Germans, under Bismarck, held a conference of all interested parties in Berlin and to Bismarck fell the task of finding out if the British answer to the question was really, “yes”. Bismarck went at it for quite a long time against the British Prime Minister, Disraeli, trying to get out of him a “no”. At the end of it, Britain’s position was crystal clear and Bismarck, who was trusted by the Russians, let them know that if they persisted, they’d have a war with Britain, with incalculable risks that other nations would become involved. Russia, having got her “yes” from Britain, answered her “no” in reply…Russia didn’t want a war with Britain. They weren’t willing to fight over it. War was averted (well, strictly speaking, it was delayed…until 1914 when Russia started fishing in those same troubled waters…but, still, peace was achieved in the 1870’s which endured for decades). That is the sort of diplomacy we’re really thinking of when we think “diplomacy”.

Our liberals use the word diplomacy quite a lot – in fact, it is their magic talisman against all threats. All you gotta do is get some diplomacy going and everything can be made right. But what liberals don’t understand – refuse to understand – is that in the great international crisis, the question remains as always: are you willing to fight about it? If you are not willing to fight about it, then you will not get what you want. The other side, once sure you won’t fight, will just grab what they demanded – and then probably demand even more, just to see how far you can be pushed until the answer becomes “yes”, with the risk that they’ll miscalculate your weakness and thus provoke a war (this was Hitler’s problem in 1939 – he thought that after Munich he could take Poland without Britain fighting…he miscalculated…there was a lot of surrender in Neville Chamberlain, but not complete national abasement). In Obama’s Iran negotiations, what we are seeing are the results of one side thinking that negotiations are the end rather than the means – and they are viewed as an end, in themselves, because a person like Obama is fundamentally incapable of envisioning war resulting from failure.

Obama is going to get his agreement with Iran – which will be of no real value, because all Obama wants is the “agreement”…something on paper which says that peace and amity are secured. What actually happens is irrelevant – the agreement is all. This is diplomacy in a void – mere sound and fury, signifying nothing. I’ve watched a few MSM reports of late – forgive me for wasting my time – and they’re all, “there is only a few days left until the deadline”. Deadline? Deadline for what? Suppose we pass it – are we going to go to war? No. Impose new sanctions? No. Stop negotiating? No. We’ll just set a new deadline. Because we have to get an agreement – and, in fact, the current deadline, given Obama, means the pressure is on us. As we won’t do anything if the deadline is passed, it is up to us to get something on paper before the deadline arrives. The Iranians know this full well – and are taking advantage of it (their demand that all sanctions be lifted is a, “we know you won’t do anything, so give us all we want” ploy). At the end of the day, it would have been better all around if Obama had just unilaterally terminated the sanctions and entered into no negotiations, at all. Our overall position would be stronger – we could still, in theory, have a military option on the table, even if only as a wink and a nod to Israel, should they decide to strike. Now there is no military option, rumors that we’ve agreed to prevent even an Israeli strike, and an upcoming agreement which will commit us to removing sanctions without stopping Iran’s nuclear program. Obama is essentially going to make the United States the guarantor of Iran’s nuclear program – protected until fruition by an “agreement”…and once complete, impossible to reverse because you can’t ever force a nation to give up nuclear weapons.

My view is that Obama doesn’t understand this – he has shown over time that he understands very little about how the world works. Combine this with a set of liberals in his Administration who are likely convinced that Iran is only an enemy because of bad American actions, and you’ve got the impetus for one of the most astoundingly stupid foreign policy programs in human history. Obama is going to redeem Neville Chamberlain – after Obama gets done with Iran, people will be able to look back and say, “well, at least Chamberlain didn’t actually arm the Germans”.

How this mess is to be cleaned up remains to be seen – if Iran tests a nuclear weapon before 1/20/17, there will be no way for us to really do anything. We’ll just have to wait for the inevitable Iranian collapse – their fertility rate is below replacement level and corrupt, dictatorial governments are really never too long for this world. The USSR showed probably the maximum length of time such a thing can endure before it implodes. But this could mean several decades of a nuclear-armed Iran causing massive trouble around the world. If Iran doesn’t get a nuke before Obama leaves office, then the next President will have to make stopping Iran the first priority of foreign policy – and we’d better be loud and clear that our answer is “yes” to the question, or we’ll just be wasting our time.

Republicans Write a Letter; Liberals Go Insane

Our liberals have insta-amended the Constitution – now, instead of treason being defined as adhering to America’s enemies or levying war against the United States, it is now defined as “writing a letter Obama doesn’t like”. Our liberals have gone very deep into Deal Leader devotion on this.

The letter, itself, is not much – just noting to Iran’s leadership that any deal made with President Obama will not be held binding on future American Presidents. That is just a statement of fact – because if Obama does get a treaty, then it is a dead letter unless ratified by the Senate, which simply will not happen. If Obama gets some sort of executive agreement, then it is something which has no force of law and the next President can ignore at will (and likely will ignore because no President – not even Hillary – is going to want to be bound by what Obama did 2009-2017). To me, this was a wise thing to do – we don’t want the Iranians thinking that the entirety of the United States is whatever Obama says it is – he’s gone in less than two years and other people in the United States have other ideas. Indeed, enough people have other ideas to ensure that no treaty negotiated by Obama regarding Iran’s nuclear program has any chance of ratification (this is because Obama’s ideas on how to deal with Iran are so mind-bogglingly stupid that even a lot of liberal Democrats won’t sign off on them). But, a lot of liberals are just beside themselves over the Republican letter.

It is best seen, so far, with the #47Traitors hashtag on Twitter. Yes, they are really calling the Republican signatories traitors! I guess their memories don’t stretch back even to 2007 when then-House Speaker Pelosi went to the Middle East in an essay of foreign policy in direct contravention of Bush Administration foreign policy. I won’t even bother with the Democrats’ 1984 “Dear Commandante” letter to the communist dictator of Nicaragua, nor Ted Kennedy trying to work with the Soviets to defeat Reagan in the 1984 election; anything prior to, say, 2000 is ancient history and not at all relevant.

What I think is making the liberals really mad here is that the letter exposes the hollowness of Obama. Obama cannot get anything concrete done – everything he does especially in his last two years is subject to immediate reversal by whomever takes over on January 20th, 2017. And, rely on it, a very large amount of Obama’s actions will be immediately undone after he leaves office. Why should any President – even a liberal President – just keep an Obama order alive? Out of respect for Obama? Please. Liberals are in a shrieking conniption fit because they just got told that their Dear Leader is actually not all-powerful.

INSANE UPDATE: Democrats start petition to jail the 47, get 140,000 signatures.