Deja Vue - 1964

Ronald Reagan, 1964. That it remains still spot-on is scary:

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

The Most Dangerous Man On Earth

I remain puzzled at the "rock star" status enjoyed by Mr. Obama.
It appears millions, if not billions, of foreigners believe he will put an end to ugly, evil American capitalist imperialsm and bring peace and prosperity to the entire globe.

BUT:

For better or worth, the US economy still drives the world economy. If Mr. Obama wrecks the US, the world will go down with us. The difficulty is that Mr. Obama does not understand that printing money, all by itself, does not create wealth. Neither does he grasp that there is no one to bail out Uncle Sam. BO is a Chicago hack, accustomed to looking to Springfield or DC for extra money. But now he's running DC. There is no one "upstream" to hand over wads of cash.

Again, for better or worth, the US has the single largest military apparatus in the world. That should concern everyone who living outside the US. A bit of history. When the Romans needed a reliable supply of corn to feed the commoners of Rome, they seized Egypt. What does a Chicago thug do when he discovers that no one will GIVE him what he wants or needs to support his lifestyle?

All hail Barry Augustus!

D Day Remembered

Unfortunately technical difficulties kept us off line the last several days.

However, we would be remiss if we did not recognize 65th anniversary of the Allied landing at Normandy.

The highest ranking officer in the first wave was Theodore Roosevelt Jr., son of President Theodore Roosevelt. General Roosevelt could easily have sat out the war. He was too old for the draft, was financially well off and had served in WWI. Indeed, WWI wounds forced him to walk with a cane.

Instead, he went to war, serving in North Africa and Normandy until his death from a heart attack in July, 1944.

His service on D Day earned him the Medal of Honor. More importantly, he exemplifies the spirit and dedication of all the young men who went ashore that day, that we might live in freedom.

General Roosevelt's Medal of Honor citation reads:

For gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty on 6 June 1944, in France. After 2 verbal requests to accompany the leading assault elements in the Normandy invasion had been denied, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt's written request for this mission was approved and he landed with the first wave of the forces assaulting the enemy-held beaches. He repeatedly led groups from the beach, over the seawall and established them inland. His valor, courage, and presence in the very front of the attack and his complete unconcern at being under heavy fire inspired the troops to heights of enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. Although the enemy had the beach under constant direct fire, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt moved from one locality to another, rallying men around him, directed and personally led them against the enemy. Under his seasoned, precise, calm, and unfaltering leadership, assault troops reduced beach strong points and rapidly moved inland with minimum casualties. He thus contributed substantially to the successful establishment of the beachhead in France.

A Little History

Once upon a time an President Richard Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court.

The nomination was defeated, on the grounds that the nominee had made racist statements in the past and that he was a mediocre jurist (having had many of his decisions overturned on appeal).

What qualifies Ms. Sotomayor for different treatment?

"I Love Big Brother!" No. 1.

According to the Politico, the White House has cautioned critics of nominee Sotomayor to be "careful" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23016.html).

Press Secretary Gibbs' precise words appear to be: “I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation."

Even by Mr. Gibbs' standards (and he makes George W. Bush sound like Shakespeare), this sentence is particularly opaque. Is it a very clumsy attempt to say "We hope we can keep this process civil" or is it a poorly veiled threat?

Perhaps not a threat, as there is no "or else."

A more likely explanation is that we have received a rare glimpse of the White House propaganda machine in action. The Press Secretary was instructing the Press Flunkies that they should not print anything that varies from the official script.

It is a disheartening realization. Take a look at the British papers and note all the good that can be done by a skeptical and diligent press. Revelations of systemic abuses may soon force fundamental changes in Britain.

Here in the Colonies, however, the Potentates have so little fear of the Fourth Estate that they have begun giving it its marching instructions in public.

For The Supreme Court

I understand that one of Ms. Sotomayor's primary qualifications for the Supreme Court is her underprivileged childhood.

My father was, literally, a barefoot country boy. And he lost his father when he was only 16.

Does that mean he's even more qualified?

Of course, Dad has never been to law school. But considering the profound thinkers our law schools are turning out, that might not be a bad thing.

Apologies to Neville Chamberlain

I have been quick to dismiss Mr. Obama as the "Neville Chamberlain of our time." I have been waiting for him to declare "Peace in our time."

But Memorial Day set me to thinking about conflicts past and I realized that my comparison between the two men is unkind - to Mr. Chamberlain.

Wikipedia summarizes his life and career as follows:

Arthur Neville Chamberlain (18 March 1869 – 9 November 1940) was a British Conservative politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1937 to 1940. Chamberlain is best known for appeasement foreign policy, in particular regarding his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany, and for his "containment" policy of Germany in 1939 that culminated in declaring war on Germany on 3 September 1939. After working in business and local government and a short spell as Director of National Service in 1916 and 1917, Chamberlain followed his father and older half-brother in becoming a Member of Parliament in the 1918 general election at age 49. He declined a junior ministerial position, remaining a backbencher until he was appointed Postmaster General after the 1922 general election. He was rapidly promoted in 1923 to Minister of Health and then Chancellor of the Exchequer but presented no budget before the government fell in 1924.

He returned as Minister of Health, introducing a range of reform measures from 1924 to 1929. He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in the coalition National Government in 1931 and spent six years reducing the war debt and the tax burden. When Stanley Baldwin retired after the abdication of Edward VIIIcoronation of George VI, Chamberlain took his place as Prime Minister in 1937. In 1938, he returned the so-called Treaty Ports to the Irish Free State.

Chamberlain was forced to resign the premiership on 10 May 1940, after Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France. He was succeeded by Winston Churchill but remained very well regarded in Parliament. Before ill health forced him to resign, he was an important member of Churchill's War Cabinet. He had a key role in the formation of the Special Operations Executive. Chamberlain died of cancer six months after leaving the premiership.

Chamberlain is most remembered for his appeasement of Hitler, going so far as to agreeing to the surrender of the Sudetenland at Munich. This decision is often depicted as a cowardly submission to Hitler's bullying.

Yet Chamberlain was operating under many handicaps:

1. He personally hated war (what clear thinking person doesn't?);
2. His nation wanted desperately to avoid a repeat of the horrors of WWI.
3. The Sudetenland was a German speaking region of Czechoslovakia. Was it so unreasonable to unite that region with the rest of Germany? After all, in 1938 the full horror of the Nazi regime was not apparent AND WWI was triggered in part by attempts to enforce the rigid old imperial boundaries and authority.
4. Germany had begun merrily re-arming in 1933, Britain had not.
5. Not only was Britain far behind in the arms race, it could not afford to build an army and an air force to counter Germany AND a navy to counter Japan in the Far East.
6. He did not recognize that, in Hitler, he confronted one of the true monsters in history.

In sum, he attempted to reach a reasonable compromise with a thoroughly unreasonable man, while negotiating from a place of relative weakness.

Mr. Obama, in contrast, believes that we - you and I - are the great monsters in history. He evidently believes it is his role to protect us by saving the world from us. In his world view, all the world's ills are a justified response to the depredations of the United States, and particularly those of George W. Bush.

Mr. Chamberlain loved his nation, for all its flaws. As for Mr. Obama, he is sorry that he did not come to power earlier.