Recently, many commentators in the mainstream media here in America and abroad have gleefully announced the death of Capitalism and Conservatism.  We are to believe that the Reagan Revolution has been routed like Ewoks without Luke, Leia and Han.

Conservatism and Capitalism, I can assure you, are both alive, though not so well.  These twin pillars saved America and the free world from feckless impotence of Jimmy Carter and the very feckled and potent ambitions of the Soviet Union; they will not crumble in the face of Barney Frank, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or any other mental midget on the Left.

Conservatism, while not dead, is homeless.  It was run from its home by Republican greed, avarice and incompetence.  I don’t agree with John McCain on much, but we do agree that Republicans came to change Washington, but Washington changed Republicans.  Spending has run unchecked, earmarks and wasteful programs have run rampant.  These new toys have led Republicans to lose their way and compromise their principles.  Perhaps four years in exile will focus the party’s attention and lead to meaningful reform.  It will at least lead to new blood.

Capitalism is not dead, but it has been framed for murder.  Capitalism did not kill your 401(k), Barney Frank did.  Had he, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and others not allowed (nay, encouraged) two government created behemoths to flood the mortgage market with billions in subprime loans, everyone would have been better off.  Housing prices would have stayed low, banks would have stayed solvent and retirement accounts would have stayed fat.

Laissez faire capitalism remains the most efficient economic theory.  Consider the following: whom would you trust to advise you and negotiate a transaction on your behalf: Warren Buffett or Nancy Pelosi?  Donald Trump or Barney Frank?  Michael Milken or Mark Foley?  Those who have the mental tools to understand the economy make money.  Those who don’t, run for office.  It is the nature of our world that some politicians will be among the dumbest, least informed, greediest, most incompetent of us.  Almost everyone else will do better things with their talents.  This is not to say every politician is completely out of their depth, but I would not bet on a majority of them being smarter than my dog.  The less the government interferes with your life, your business and your finances, the better.

Nonetheless, it is not yet time to “go John Galt.”  This is not the beginning of the end of our way of life, it is end of the beginning.  Together, we have destroyed slavery, fascism, communism and socialism.  Our task now is to destroy modern liberalism.  We must destroy political correctness and nihilism before it destroys us.  We will overcome the soft bigotry of lowered expectations and restore accountability and common sense to the economy, the legal system and the government.

Conservatism and Capitalism are wounded, but they will return stronger than ever.  Patience is a virtue; capitulation is a sacrilege.  In time, we will see the end of the Democratic majority and the Obama administration.  In time, we will see an end to the forced charity of “patriotic” taxes.  We will see the last welfare check cashed.  We will see an end to the tortured twisting of the words in the storied document that governs us.  We will see a government that knows its limits, recognizes its enemies and aids only its allies.  We will see a strong, proud America leading the world, the entire world, into a free, peaceful and democratic future.  We will once again be a shining city on a hill.

Barring a major collapse or a terrorist attack, Barack Obama will be the next president.  He will be aided by a Democrat-controlled Congress, and soon enough a Left-leaning supreme court.  For his ascention, we can blame John McCain; for Congress, we can blame Republican leadership who allowed corruption and greed to infect the Reagan Revolution.  But looking forward, here are some predictions for the coming four years:

Free Speech

The Fairness Doctrine will be re-enacted, driving radio, the last bastion of conservatism, Leftward and, ultimately, into bankruptcy.  President Obama will encourage prosecutors to investigate “unfair, biased and untruthful” comments about government policies.  Conservative bloggers and talk radio show hosts will quietly slip away, and Daily Kos and the Huffington Post will become “mainstream.”  Fox News ratings will initially climb, but President Obama will again deny them access and will continue to slander the network until it becomes marginalized.  If things get really bad, “Sedition” will rejoin the lexicon.

Financial Markets

Reeling from the recent subprime collapse, Wall Street will struggle for several years.  With their pay and benefits curtailed by Congress, Wall Street firms will be unable to hire or retain talented executives.  Those who do take the jobs will be tempted to make money in other, less ethical ways.  Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will merge into the banking sector and the innovative products and ideas that put America at the forefront of finance will dry up.  Some firms will move out of New York, or significantly reduce their presence.  Without the tax revenue from these firms, New York City will begin to collapse as it did in the 1970’s.  The city may be nationalized.

The Broader Economy

Without risk taking on Wall Street, the credit crunch will tighten.  Firms will have little or no incentive to take large risks, and any rewards will be taxed mercilessly.  Several large corporations will fail.  If the government steps in, intervention will be used as an excuse to raise taxes again, just as Clinton did in the early 1990’s.  Layoffs and unemployment will become common place as American companies struggle to meet the demands of President Obama and his union-endorsed wish list.  Higher corporate taxes and increased labor demands will drive manufacturing jobs off-shore.

Taxes

Obama will raise your taxes.  At first, he will work with Congress to avoid a squeeze of the middle class.  Ultimately, we will be told that taxes are not being raised, we are merely returning to “pre-Bush” levels.  We will also be told that, most Americans will “pay the same as they did under President Reagan.”  This will be a lie, but it will be unchallenged by the press.

Energy & Environment

Offshore oil drilling will be blocked.  Obama has already said that he does not object to $4 per gallon gas, only that the increase occurred so rapidly.  Under the guise of “Global Warming”, oil and gasoline prices will steadily increase as windfall profits taxes and other taxes are passed on to the consumer.  Congress will pass stimulus bill after stimulus bill to offset the cost of heating oil in the winter, and gasoline prices in the summer.  Redistribution of wealth will become a reality.  Meanwhile, $7 per gallon will be the new normal.  What the government doesn’t spend in stimulus packages, it will use to distort the market for alternative energy sources.  These new projects will make Ethanol look like a brilliant idea.  (Incidentally, the next four years will set cold temperature records.  Crops will fail and the price of food will skyrocket.  We will be told that this “climate change” is due to human activity.)  If owning an SUV is not strictly illegal, only Hollywood elites and politicians will be able to afford them.

Terrorism & Foreign Affairs

We will suffer a major terror attack on U.S. soil within the first two years.  This would likely be the case in a McCain administration, but the response will be markedly different.  The Obama response, if there is one, will embolden al Qaeda, who will move from hiding in Aghanistan to ruling Pakistan.  Iran will continue to grow in strength and President Obama, will indeed meet with Ahmedinijad or his successor. Russia will invade Ukraine or Latvia and NATO will fail to react.  Obama will call on the UN to impose sanctions, which they will not.  Our image in Europe will at first grow, but the Obama bounce will be fleeting.  As America’s status as a superpower wanes, we will become West England: tolerable to much of Europe, but not included in their reindeer games.

Healthcare

Obama and Congress will enact comprehensive healthcare reform.  Premiums will first fall, then rise as health insurers begin to first compete with a government program, and then the government program becomes all consuming and yet irrelevant.  There will, indeed, be two Americas as there are two UK’s when it comes to healthcare.  The broader population will be covered by Obamacare, a form of Medicare and SCHIP on steriods.  The premiums will be next to nothing, but the covereage will make people long for HMOs.  Instead of arguing with your insurance company (who can be bullied by the market, Oprah, 60 Minutes and others), you will have to argue with a government bureacrat for whom accountability is as foreign a concept as quantum chromo dynamics.  The rest of America will continue to pay for health care through their employer or directly.  The coverage will be better, but the lack of competition and the government program will raise prices.  Good doctors will become harder to find as government mandates, malpractice claims and insurance headaches drive smart people out of the profession.  Without a profit motive, new drugs are fewer and further between.

Social Issues

Gay marriage will become the law in all 50 states, either by federal fiat or through the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  Whether you agree or disagree, the issue will inflame opinions just as Roe v. Wade has for over thirty years.  A new Supreme Court case will enter the public lexicon, just as Roe did.  Abortion will also continue to be a contentious issue.  Crime and unethical behavior will grow and a “malaise” will infect the country.

Seven years ago this morning, America was awakened from its complacency by 19 little men on four planes armed with little more than small knives and a determination to kill innocent people. Through the heroism of a small band of heroes, only three of those planes met their targets. The names Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, and Tom Burnett do not play nearly the role in everyday life that they should.

In the past seven years, the world has become a very different place. America no long plays victim on the world stage. Nor should it. The wave of sympathy and compassion that embraced us seven years ago is gone. We have spent that capital, along with our blood and treasure, making the world a safer place. Since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq there have been no attacks on U.S. soil, and only two terrorist attacks in Europe. We have taken the fight to our enemies and the results are clear.

Thousands more men and women have given their lives willingly to save those they don’t know. In the words of the dearly departed Tony Snow, “love can propel a man to run into a burning building to save a complete stranger; but a man motivated by hate cannot save even himself.” Because of the sacrifice of brave men and women, Americans, Brits, French, Spaniards, Poles, and not least of them, Iraqis, the Middle East now has an exemplar of democracy and a secular levee against the tide of Islamic fascism. Young American GI’s have once again reshaped the face of the world for the better.

The United States and its allies will continue their struggle against Islamic fascism. It is a long fight against a determined enemy. The alternative for us is not a fragile peace, but certain death. As the threat of attacks at home fades, however, so do the raw emotions of that day. The sinking fear has been replaced with a clear sense of awareness, but recessed in our minds; behind our families and work; behind worries about taxes, health care and bailing out failed bureaucracies.

Terror may never completely die, but it is on the run. It hides in remote regions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It shouts impotently from the safety of cassette tapes and grainy videos. It squanders its youth and rage in clean, quiet cells in Cuba. It dies futily alone in the streets of Iraqi villages and the rugged trails of Afghanistan. As the allies who liberated the world from European fascism and soviet communism, we have a duty to see terrorism find its place on the ashheap of history. Let’s Roll.

Wow, what an exciting day.  I have to admit, I am really impressed with McCain for picking Sarah Palin.  She’s a tough, young governor in an oil rich state with the gravitas on Change.  The thing that strikes me about her is, everything Barack Obama claims to be, she actually is.

• Obama claims to be post partisan.
  Palin has not only worked with Democrats, she’s appointed them to high-level posts in Alaska.
• Obama claims to be an ethics reformer.
  Palin chased out of office the Governor, the attorney general and head of the political party in Alaska.  And they were REPUBLICANS.
• Obama claims to be against earmarks and pork barrel spending.
  Palin killed the biggest icon of wasteful spending, REPUBLICAN Ted Stevens’s bridge to nowhere and made sure it went nowhere.
• Obama claims to be against Big Oil™
  Palin rooted out corruption in the most oil-centric state in the Union.
• Barack Obama claims to be a leader.
  Sarah Palin is a leader.

There are many great aspects of this pick.  Look for Democrats to claim (1) this is a cynical ploy to attract Hillary voters and (2) this removes the experience attack.

I agree that a Sam Palin might not have been McCain’s VP pick.  A typical white guy from Alaska, even with Palin’s stunning record of reform would probably have lost to Romney’s name recognition.  Sarah Palin is a dynamic, young conservative, and yes a woman.  But there is no way that someone with such a Pro Life history, personal and professional, will attract all Hillary voters.  The correct person for that job was Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.  She’s an established senator with a pro choice record.  If anything, Sarah Palin is a pick calculated to shore up the Conservative base.  And boy, has it.

On the second point, I disagree.  The experience argument works both ways.  Democrats are already falling into the trap (including the dumbfounded Obama campaign) of attacking Palin on experience.  If anything, picking Palin will add depth and range to the attack.

First she has 12 years of executive experience.  Yes, the majority of that is in a small town in Alaska.  But Obama has 10 years as a legislator, most of that in Illinois.  How many of your own state legislators can you name?  Can you name your town or local city’s mayor?  The thing that small towns have that legislatures don’t are numerous, but they certainly include public services like police and firefighters, budgets that have to be kept to, decisions that have to be made–and quickly.  Legislators (especially Senators) get to pontificate, pose and prevaricate.  Mayors need to make decisions and their results are unfiltered.

Second, remember the old saying, when you point a finger at someone, three more are pointed at you?  Anytime Democrats attack Palin’s experience, they’re only drawing attention to the huge gaping holes in Obama’s resume.  Next January, Sarah Palin may be a heartbeat away from becoming president.  The alternative is that Obama will be president.  Not even a heartbeat will separate him from office.

Third, the fallback for experience is judgment.  What, exactly, is there in Obama’s history to point to good judgment?  He has practically no legislative accomplishments.  He has never run a business or made a significant policy decision on his own (other than picking Joe Biden as VP, and time will tell on that).  In his personal life, you have William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright and Antonin Rezko.  What’s left?  In 2003 he “voted” against going to war with Iraq?  Really?  He was in the Illinois legislature!  The largest army that body controls is their security detail.  That’s like Obama saying he yelled at his TV during the Superbowl and told Tom Brady to “avoid the blitz more.”  It wasn’t his decision, it wasn’t binding on him or anyone else, nobody heard him, and, if they did, frankly, nobody gave a damn.  Even if you take Obama seriously on this point, that’s it?!? No other examples of good judgment in 47 years?

In contrast, there are 12 years of Sarah Palin’s policy decisions (small and large) that we can review.  She and her husband ran a successful commercial fishing business in Alaska.  (Have you seen “Deadliest Catch?”).  Unlike Barrack Obama, we can see her thought process, how she dealt with crises and what the results were.

Finally, unlike the Illinois legislature, the governor of Alaska does control a standing military.  For the last two years, Sarah Palin has been commander in chief of the Alaska national guard.  She has visited Iraq, almost as many times as Obama has.  (She visited Alaska’s troops there once, as far as I can tell).  The largest armed force Barack has ever commanded was that time Sasha and Melia had a water gun fight.

As Greg Palowitz points out, this leads to a fun game.  Take everything a Democrat says about Palin and switch “Obama” for “Palin” and “Democrats nominate” for “McCain pick”.  For example, Chuck Schumer (D-bag NY) said “while Palin is a fine person, her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling.“  This really means: “while Obama is a fine person, his lack of experience makes the thought of him assuming the presidency troubling.”  Have fun.

As for me, if I had a vote (and, unlike Obama on Iraq, I do), I would rather have Sarah Palin in the White House than Barack Obama.

Republican Presidential candidate John McCain met with the Dalai Lama of Tibet today.  Senator McCain hoped to come away with an endorsement, but the Dalai Lama declined to give any endorsement.  When asked about an endorsement, the Dalai Lama said “Oh, uh, there won’t be any endorsement, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.” So McCain has that goin’ for him, which is nice.

This election season, pundits will argue over recent polling data, “bumps”, key demographics, “Reagan Democrats” and “Hillary Republicans.” People will claim that the economy or the war on terror or gasoline prices are the “most important issue in this campaign.”

In the end, though, the next leader of the free world will (we hope) be picked by voters in secluded booths in their local school auditoriums, church rooms and the odd apartment basement or VFW/KOC meeting hall. And that is why John McCain will win.

John McCain is, by any objective measure a war hero. When a missile was accidentally fired into a neighboring aircraft on the U.S.S. Forestall, he didn’t bail out and run for cover. He fled the relative safety of his cockpit and rescued a fellow pilot in danger, put himself in harms way and subjected himself to serious injury. Faced with a free-ride home, he transferred to the carrier that relieved the damaged Forrestal, the U.S.S. Oriskany. That fateful and selfless decision lead to his being shot down over Vietnam three months later. Even the manner in which he was shot down is telling of his character: his plane was seriously damaged and he nonetheless completed his mission before bailing out over the target he had just bombed. Needless to say, his captors did not welcome him openly.

John McCain spent six years in brutal captivity. His commanding officer and fellow POW in the Hanoi Hilton asked him to serve as chaplain, and he did, reciting scripture from memory. When his captors offered him freedom so that they could claim a propaganda victory, he refused. At a time when America was fighting an unpopular war, John McCain could have been home in months. He followed the code he believed in, and endured years of torture. He never broke.

When Americans go into the voting booths this November, they will choose between a charismatic, young politician and a cranky old war hero. Their heads will, no doubt, be spinning as they consider universal health care, global warming, Iraq, Iran and the seventh anniversary of September 11. No doubt, Jeremiah Wright’s new book and race relations will be in their minds as well. But when they go to pull that lever, I am willing to bet that, when faced with a choice between a man who, even under torture, would not turn his back on his principles and Barack Obama, Americans will pick John McCain.

Sixty-four years ago today, nearly one and a half million British, American and Canadian free men risked their lives to rid a continent and the world from Nazi oppression. These were the boys of Point du Hac, Omaha, Juno, Sword, Gold and Utah. These were the boys who jumped, for the first time, from perfectly good airplanes into combat with the most feared military force in history.

These young men had lived through the Great Depression, emerging just in time to see the world being swallowed by two brutally evil forces, spreading across Europe and Asia. They strapped on their boots and marched bravely into the face of an overwhelming, undefeated enemy. Their journey would take them through Normandy, Holland, Bastogne and, eventually, the horrors of Buchenwald and Dachau.

Having defeated Nazism in Europe, they turned, without flinching, to aid their comrades in the Pacific, ridding the world of Japanese imperial aggression. Only when a group of scientists harnessed the power of the atom, were they relieved of duty and able to return home.

On the backs of these heroes, America, and eventually the world, prospered. They took a society that was only one generation from horse-drawn carriages and the Wright Brothers, and they landed a man on the moon. Their contributions to our freedom, our economy and our history will never be forgotten.

These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth’s foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling,
And took their wages, and are dead.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth’s foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay.

-A.E. Housman

Obama supporters continue to cling (perhaps out of bitterness) to the notion of direct diplomacy with Iran. Their retort to the tidal wave of criticism is, “well, what would you do? Invade Iran.” This is part of the Democratic strategy of criticizing U.S. foreign policy. It takes an incredibly narrow view of the history of Iraq. Perhaps many Obama supporters cannot remember that far back, but the United States imposed sanctions on Iraq for 12 years. For many Obama supporters, this dates back to their kindergarten days. The notion that the United States reflexively invaded Iraq after 9/11 is as absurd as the most deranged Obama fantasy.

Iraq is a separate animal from Iran. Iraq was a brutal, but secular, dictatorship run by an aging psychopath. Iran, though run by equally brutal psychopaths, has a growing populist democracy movement. There are reformers, in some cases openly calling for democratic reforms in Iran, such a pro-American base did not exist in Iraq, certainly not with nearly the same strength.

Invading Iran is not a plausible scenario for many reasons. So what would I do about Iran? More importantly, what would Ronald Reagan do? Toppling an evil empire, as the old Cowboy from Tampico showed us, requires determination, restrained aggression, compassion and cooperation (and a little bit of luck).

Reagan showed us that determination (some would say “Cowboy diplomacy” or “stubborn refusal to be reasonable”) is not a weakness in the face of evil. A president needs to convince the enemy, the people under its oppression, U.S. allies and the global spectators (the United Nations, for example), that the full power of the United States will be brought to bear so that freedom, not tyranny, will win the day. Certainly, a president must be willing (and plausibly so) to commit the full might of the U.S. military to destroying Iran. This commitment must be broader than that. It must include economic policies and diplomatic efforts with other countries. Most importantly, this determination cannot waiver, it cannot be subject to the whims of pollsters or pundits. In 1987, after six years of “preparations”, Ronald Reagan demanded that Mikhail Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall. His speech writers objected. His Secretary of State objected. The media mocked him as a dottering old fool. Two years later, the wall came down.

Reagan knew that naked determination, however, was not enough. Just as in high-stakes poker, restrained aggression is key to brinkmanship. Reagan knew that placing Pershing II missiles in Europe would provoke the Soviets. He also knew they deserved it and would see it as a sign of strength. Reagan was roundly mocked for the Strategic Defense Initiative, a futuristic system that now protects the United States and its allies. But the old man knew that the floundering Soviet economy and years of brain drain meant the Soviets could not possibly keep up.

Reagan also knew that there was a fundamental difference between a Soviet and a Russian. He often spoke warmly of the Russian people, with compassion and empathy for their plight. He knew, and he was able to convey, that every man and woman were born with the same rights and that communism is an affront to basic human dignity. He said so, sincerely, publicly and often.

Finally, Reagan was a great communicator. He knew that, as powerful as the United States is, it cannot take on the entire world. Nor can the United States prosper in a world where our allies become embittered or isolated by our unilateral foreign policy. He knew that, even though the United States would bear most of the burden of promoting freedom, our allies and those who remained neutral should always feel welcome in the fight.

So, what would Reagan have us do?

• He would never, ever, meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As former Reagan adviser K.T. McFarland points out, “negotiating without leverage is not negotiating, it’s begging.” You will know it’s time to meet with the Iranian leader when the Iranian leader is a moderate, not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Patience is a passive form of determination. Reagan would spend his first term in office publicly criticizing and ostracizing Iran until regime change became its only hope for survival. He would promote an aggressive domestic policy for energy independence and a strong U.S. dollar, along with sanctions crippling the Iranian economy (just as cheap oil crippled the Soviet economy).
• Reagan would use our military gains in Iraq to occupy and frustrate Iran along its common border with Iraq. No Iranian would be able to cross the border without seeing an impressive display of American hardware and clear-eyed GI’s just waiting for Mahmoud to try something stupid. Just as the Soviet Union was unsettled by the Pershing II Missiles in West German, so Iran will be unsettled by 10 battalions of the U.S. Army amassed on its border and two carrier groups loitering off shore. Moreover, any Iranian agent found in Iraq will be treated as an invading force. Overly aggressive Iranian speedboats will experience the devastating accuracy of the American Navy, just as Gaddafi’s air force learned in the 1980s.
• Reagan would also find compassion for those suffering in Iran. Radio Free Iran (and Video Free Iran) would give Iranians hope, and kind words appealing to the Iranian people’s basic humanity would embolden reformers and give the Iranian Lech Wałęsa the courage to challenge the mullahs. Americans would open their doors to Iranian families and word of American compassion and the benefits of freedom would be trumpeted throughout the broader Middle East.
• Finally, direct diplomacy would be used, but not with Iran. Reagan would meet with our allies and those who trade with Iran. We would apply pressure against those who would deal with Iran and reward those who turn away.

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama is fond of calling John McCain’s candidacy the “third term of George Bush.” John McCain lacks the flair necessary, but he would be far more justified in calling Barack Obama’s candidacy the second term of the Jimmy Carter failure. I would love to see a side-by-side comparison of Jimmy Carter’s and Barack Obama’s idiotic policies, but I just don’t have the time or emotional capacity to re-live the horrors of the 1970’s. Without doubt, however, the most obvious similarity between the two is their naked willingness to meet with dictators, fascists and terrorists.

Although the Obama campaign is now retreating from the dangerously naive policy set forth by Obama himself, the fact remains that Obama is open to meeting with Iran, without precondition. Preconditions, of course, are those “barriers to diplomacy,” such as “Before we meet with you, you have to stop killing U.S. soldiers and innocent civilians in Iraq,” or “Stop building your nuclear plants, or we won’t meet with you.” Obama now says that how would, of course, have “preparations” before meeting with a man who has called our ally a “rotting corpse” and promised its annihilation.

The term “preparation” is a wonderfully naive term. It makes it sound as if Obama has such a childish view of the world that he thinks McCain is criticizing him for not planning an itinerary. “Of course we’re going to have preparations. We’ve booked the flight, we have a suite of hotel rooms, and I even brought a pen and a notepad, so I can take dictation copious notes from my dear friend Mahmoud.”

In a speech on Sunday, however, Obama betrayed the depth of his naiveté.

(You should watch the video, as Obama’s “come on” demeanor speaks volumes of his attitude). Three things jumped out of his speech:

1. Negotiations brought down the Berlin wall. This is a fundamental misstatement of history. President Reagan’s unflinching anti-Communism, aggressive expansion of our military capabilities and his refusal to talk with Soviet hardliners like Chernenko lead to the internal and external reforms. And, not to be too dramatic, but Reagan’s demand to Gorbachev that he “tear down this wall”, was not made over an ornate conference table in a quiet Swiss hotel. It was made in front of the damn wall to a cheering crowd of Germans.
2. “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union did.” This is absurd. During the Cold War, the USSR could annihilate the United States and its allies, and vice versa. This stalemate, known as mutually assured destruction, only works with rational people. The Soviets were horribly brutal, but they were not about to cause the extinction of mankind to prove a point. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, has never been successfully accused of being a rational person. While it is true that the Iranian military poses no serious threat to the United States military, the Enola Gay, similarly posed little or no threat to the Hiroshima police force. It was the nuclear device it carried that did all that damage. Obama’s idiotic assertion that these “tiny” countries “don’t pose a serious threat to us” begs the question, how many Israeli, European or U.S. cities would have to be sacrificed in nuclear holocausts before Obama realized that one man with a bomb is a serious threat to us?
3. “Iran spends 1/100th of what we spend on their military. If they ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they would’nt stand a chance.”I have to admit, this took me all of three minutes to debunk, most of which was spent looking for my calculator. According to publicly available data on the CIA website, Iran’s military expenditure in 2008 will be (2.5% of GDP) $21.3 billion (not sure if this includes their “peaceful nuclear program”). The U.S. military expenditure in 2008 (including fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and deployments on every continent) will be (4.05% of GDP) $561.3 billion. No matter how you cut it, Iran spends way more than 1/100th of what America spends on their military. In real dollars, Iran spends 1/25th of what the U.S. does on it’s military (four times what Obama implies). In terms of percentage of GDP, Iran spends more than half of what the U.S. spends. Per capita, Iran spends 1/6th what the United States spends. Anyway you look at the numbers 1/100th isn’t even close.

Obama has proven himself, again and again, to be naive on foreign policy (even suggesting we invade an ally and nuclear power, Pakistan). Although he seems to be backing off of his ridiculous policy now, who will be the voice of reason when, God forbid, President Obama’s ridiculous and dangerous ideas are not reigned in by an opposing nominee?