I can’t think of a person I respect more than Victor Davis Hanson (well, maybe Charles Krauthammer).  Here is a segment from a great interview he did with Robert Baer and Peter Robinson.  (You can also read most of Hanson’s recent articles here).

Watch the rest of the series here

Human Rights Watch (HRW) just got their a**’* handed to them last week in the New York Times.  It turns out that Human Rights Watch is so blinded by their hatred for the state of Israel that even the founder of the organization has been forced to publicly denounce his own organization for the unbelievable double-standard it applies to Israel and Israel alone.  Here’s a few of the more important portions of the piece:

As the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.

At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.

That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights…

Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel…

Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.

To those of my friends who live under the delusion that Israel is the problem… I would hope that the next time you read some scathing report by Human Rights Watch about some unconscionable allegation about “war crimes” commiteed by Israel… you might just remember who is writing this report… and what their agenda is… “[to turn] Israel into a pariah state”.

via Op-Ed Contributor – Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast – NYTimes.com

I have long been a critic of Obama’s speeches… and the more of them he gives, the more unbearable they are.  His recent address to the U.N. may be the epitome of Obama’s naiveté and narcissism.  Without giving too much of my commentary away, let me just say that this may be the most arrogant and inaccurate speech ever given by a U.S. president.  Here’s just a bit of commentary I thought might be helpful for those of you who don’t approach Obama’s words with the seriousness that I do:

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentleman: it is my honor to address you for the first time as the forty-fourth President of the United States. I come before you humbled by the responsibility that the American people have placed upon me; mindful of the enormous challenges of our moment in history; and determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad.

What about justice for the murder of Iranian dissidents protesting in the streets — justice you neither boldly addressed nor collectively supported?  What about bringing justice to the Iraqi people for Saddam’s atrocities — justice you not only criticized but declared a worthless pursuit.  What about justice for the people of Honduras who’s court ousted a delusional, power-hungry thug?  You didn’t support justice then… in fact, your official policy towards Honduras is to undermine their democratic process… don’t talk to me about your love of justice.

I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer.

Given the hectic nature of your daily television schedule, I’ll bet it does…

I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted – I believe – in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in hope – the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.

Well, you are partly right… America has acted unilaterally… but not “without regard”… but with a very specific regard for oppressed people… a regard your precious United Nations can never bring itself to act on.  You are right though… reflexive, uninformed anti-americanism has been a serious problem… for those people and countries who suffer from its effects.

Like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests. But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 – more than at any point in human history – the interests of nations and peoples are shared.

Please tell me you are joking… “the interests of nations and peoples are shared?”!!  Tell that to Japan, who’s conflict with China continues to this very day… tell that to South Korea…  tell that to Georgia and Poland — whose desire for a missile shileld you axed in favor Medviev’s disturbing geopolitical goals.  Tell that to India.  See if their conflict with Pakistan is the result of “shared interests”.  How ignorant are you Obama?

The religious convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or tear us apart. The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever darken it. The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it. What happens to the hope of a single child – anywhere – can enrich our world, or impoverish it.

In this hall, we come from many places, but we share a common future. No longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the work that we must do together. I have carried this message from London to Ankara; from Port of Spain to Moscow; from Accra to Cairo; and it’s what I will speak about today. Because the time has come for the world to move in a new direction. We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interests and mutual respect, and our work must begin now.

We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems – it will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.

“Speeches alone will not solve our problems” — this coming from the man who’s primary activity as president is speech-giving.  And what new direction, specifically, are you suggesting?  Your inability to articulate what specific direction you champion is troubling — especially considering how leftist your domestic agenda has been.

And then, only minutes into your speech, you do the impossible:  you make what is perhaps the most arrogant statement ever made on the floor of the United Nations… you ask those “who doubt the goodness of America…” not to look beyond their own prejudices… not to remember the thousands of American men and women who have sacrificed for the sake of freedom across the globe… not to recall how we lead the world in the abolishment of the slave trade… not to remember the promises we have kept to nations who have been invaded such as France, South Korea, England, Quait, Poland, and Germany during World War II… You do not ask them to recall the billions of dollars of aid we give not only to Aids-ravaged Africa, nor the billions of dollars in food, supplies, and hope we provided Berlin during the air lift nor the Marshall Plan.  When trying to convince member nations who doubt the goodness of America, you do not remind them of justice system designed to protect human rights; you do not convince them of our consistent criticism and exposure of humanitarian injustice in Iran, China, Africa, or Russia… you do not remind them how many orphans individual American Citizens support through myriads of charities and

No.  Your evidence for those who doubt the the character and goodness of America lies in THE CONCRETE ACTIONS THAT [YOU] HAVE TAKEN IN THE PAST 9 MONTHS.  I guess the inherent goodness of the American people as evidenced countless times over generations doesn’t strike you as meaning very much.  On the contrary, your narcissism leads you to elevate YOURSELF to the epotime of American goodness and character.  Your arrogance, Sir, knows no bounds…

On my first day in office, I prohibited – without exception or equivocation – the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.

Except, you have YET to close Guantanamo… which makes this statement pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies – a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we – and many nations here – are helping those governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.

That’s funny, because at the moment you seem incredibly hesitant to send a single extra troop to Afghanistan despite the fact that the General YOU put in charge is warning of defeat against Al-Qaeda.

In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all of our combat brigades from Iraqi territory. And I have made clear that we will help Iraqis transition to full responsibility for their future, and keep our commitment to remove all American troops by the end of 2011.

I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

… but don’t have the will to stop Iran’s nuclear program…

In Moscow, the United States and Russia announced that we would pursue substantial reductions in our strategic warheads and launchers. At the Conference on Disarmament, we agreed on a work plan to negotiate an end to the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. And this week, my Secretary of State will become the first senior American representative to the annual Members Conference of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

But Obama, how naive are you?  The United States has always taken the lead on nuclear arms reductions… and Russia has never been willing to fall behind the US in its Nuclear stockpile.

Upon taking office, I appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, and America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two states – Israel and Palestine – in which peace and security take root, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are respected.

To confront climate change, we have invested 80 billion dollars in clean energy. We have substantially increased our fuel-efficiency standards. We have provided new incentives for conservation, launched an energy partnership across the Americas, and moved from a bystander to a leader in international climate negotiations.

…while China completely wipes out those gains with every coal plant they build.  But I’m glad you feel so good about the United States…

To overcome an economic crisis that touches every corner of the world, we worked with the G-20 nations to forge a coordinated international response of over two trillion dollars in stimulus to bring the global economy back from the brink.

you call THIS  ”back from the brink”?  We are ON the brink and continue to loose jobs every month!

We mobilized resources that helped prevent the crisis from spreading further to developing countries. And we joined with others to launch a $20 billion global food security initiative that will lend a hand to those who need it most, and help them build their own capacity.

We have also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council.

In fact, we have always  paid a huge portion of the United Nations operating expenses.  Furthermore, we didn’t join the Human Rights Council on principle (a principle you don’t seem to have the slightest appreciation for).  As ForeignPolicy.com put it: “The United States had been a leading advocate for reform, but refused to sit on the Council at its inception, fearing that it would degenerate into a talking shop that would aid and abet the worst violators. That position is looking pretty prescient now. The Council has condemned Israel 8 times, but refused to pass judgment on even a single other regime. Regional blocs cover for their own, while tyrants point to the shortcomings of democracies to hide the fact that they aren’t even trying. All of which just goes to show the inherent weakness of a body that treats all of its members as formal equals in judging matters in which they manifestly are not.”

We have signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Did we need to sign this?  What country is more attentative to the needs of Disabled children than our own?

We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals. And we address our priorities here, in this institution – for instance, through the Security Council meeting that I will chair tomorrow on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and through the issues that I will discuss today.

This is what we have done.

Except for everything else in U.S. history done in the name of human rights… which you don’t seem to even know about…

But this is just a beginning. Some of our actions have yielded progress. Some have laid the groundwork for progress in the future. But make no mistake: this cannot be solely America’s endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone. We have sought – in word and deed – a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

If we are honest with ourselves, we need to admit that we are not living up to that responsibility. Consider the course that we are on if we fail to confront the status quo. Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world. Protracted conflicts that grind on and on. Genocide and mass atrocities. More and more nations with nuclear weapons. Melting ice caps and ravaged populations. Persistent poverty and pandemic disease. I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: the magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our action.

Seems to me like this is some of the highest praise of George W. Bush ever given on the floor of the United Nations.  Wasn’t it Bush that refused to accept the “status quo” of meaningless security counsel decisions and held the United Nations to task for doing nothing but promoting the status quo?

This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together. Franklin Roosevelt, who died before he could see his vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way – and I quote: “The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one Nation…. It cannot be a peace of large nations – or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.”

The cooperative effort of the whole world. Those words ring even more true today, when it is not simply peace – but our very health and prosperity that we hold in common. Yet I also know that this body is made up of sovereign states. And sadly, but not surprisingly, this body has often become a forum for sowing discord instead of forging common ground; a venue for playing politics and exploiting grievances rather than solving problems. After all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and to point fingers and stoke division. Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anyone can do that.

As you continually evidence…

Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demand more. In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.

[*raises eyebrow*] No nation CAN dominate another nation?  Since when!

No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.

So are you saying we need more imbalance?

The traditional division between nations of the south and north makes no sense in an interconnected world. Nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone Cold War.

So you want to throw NATO under the bus?  What about alignments of nations rooted in World War II?  What makes the UN any MORE special than any other alignment of nations?  Do you realize how incoherent your ideas are when put under the slightest scrutiny?

The time has come to realize that the old habits and arguments are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. They lead nations to act in opposition to the very goals that they claim to pursue, and to vote – often in this body – against the interests of their own people. They build up walls between us and the future that our people seek, and the time has come for those walls to come down. Together, we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides – coalitions of different faiths and creeds; of north and south, east and west; black, white, and brown.

Lets all sing “cum by yah” around a fire because there is no such thing as corruption, evil, depravity, greed for power — all of which continually corrupt peoples and nations and require more than just a touchy-feely approach.

The choice is ours. We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off hard choices, refused to look ahead, and failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for. Or, we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the name given to this institution: the United Nations.

OMG… it keeps going on and on like this for about 4 more pages!  I’m done… I’m out… read the rest of the speech if you want to at the following link… I’m sure you can fill in the gaps with your own since of irony, disbelief, and criticism.

Read more at: The Huffington Post

Mark Steyn is really an interesting character.  Whether its discussing rather obscure points of british cultural humor on national radio or just zinging one-liners at liberals… he is one of the most enjoyable personalities in media today.  He’s the kind of guy who finds the irony in everything… which tends to make his humor a bit dry… but that’s the way I like my humor these days… extra dry.

His recent book, “America Alone, The End of the World as We Know It“, is really a book about demography, or, to be more precise: demographic decline in Europe, the rise of Islam in Europe,  and its consequences for both Europe and the United States.  I don’t think it is a stretch to say that Steyn is a student of Oriana Fallaci… its clear he has at least familiar with her book “The Force of Reason”… and draws on similar themes.  This isn’t to say that I am in full agreement with either author, but the parallels were immediately clear.  As Christopher Hitchens might say: there is something just a bit disconcerting about an obsession with the birth rates of any particular people group.

Nevertheless, even with a healthy skepticism of the practical limits of demographic study, I find that Steyn makes some rather persuasive arguments.  He first points out the dramatic, unsustainable birth rates in most of Europe: Ireland is in first with 1.9 children per woman; Canada only has 1.5; Germany and Austria are at 1.3; Russia and Italy, 1.2; and Spain, 1.1.  When the replacement level is 2.1 children per woman, I think it goes without saying that this poses serious problems for Europe’s future.  As Steyn points out:

By 2050, Italy’s population will have fallen by 22 percent, Bulgaria’s by 36 percent, Estonia’s by 52 percent–or more… In theory, those countries will find their population halving every thirty-five years or so.  In practice, it will be quicker than that, as the savvier youngsters figure there’s no point sticking around a country that’s turned into an undertaker’s waiting room.  Not every pimply burger flipper wants to support entire old folks’ homes single-handed…

One of the things Steyn tries to accomplish in this book is to explain WHY these countries are in free-fall.  The primary culprit?  European Social-Welfare systems.  It turns out that when you live in a social-welfare system… where all responsibilities of adult life are subcontracted to the state… there is very little incentive to actually grow up:

The real issue, though, is not whether you like Euro-statism.  Regardless of how you feel about it, it’s kaput.  The un-American activities in which Europe has invested its identity are deeply self-destructive.  Secondary-impulse states can be very agreeable–who wouldn’t want to live in a world where the burning political priorities are government subsidized care, the celebration of one’s sexual appetites, and whether mandatory paid vacation should be six or eight weeks?  But they’re agreeable only for the generation or two they last.  And, as we’re about to see in demographically barren, economically ossified Europe, for good or ill it’s the primal impulses that count. Europe’s belief that you can smooth off the rough edges of Anglo-American capitalism and still remain wealthy has trapped it in societal structures predicated on false arithmetic whose disastrous consequences can’t be postponed much longer.  Unchecked, government social programs are a security threat because they weaken the ultimate line of defense:  the free-born citizen whose responsibilities are not subcontracted to the Government.

This raises the obvious question: from what does Europe need to defend itself against?  Well, nothing… YET.  But behind the rather peaceful facade of modern politics, Steyn sees very troubling signs of a culture war in the making: a war between western, enlightened values, and 7th century values of radical Islam.  And to a certain degree, that makes sense: if Europeans are dying off… and Islamic couples in Europe are vastly out-producing European couples (he claims the birth rate for muslim women in the EU is 3.5 children) than it is quite forseeable that the majority of the French or Germans could be Muslim at some point in the future.  And perhaps it is at this point where I am the most critical of the book:  Steyn doesn’t provide any citations for these figures… and does not address the great difficulties in calculating these figures… so we have no idea whether his figures are on the high or low end of the spectrum.  It is often frustrating to simply “take his word for it”.

But lets assume that Steyn is right and that the muslim birth rate is far higher than that of western women.  SO WHAT!?  What’s so bad about a religion of peace?  Most Muslims don’t buy the whole “jihad” thing, right?  Well, Steyn doesn’t buy this argument:

[I]slam is not just a religion.  Those lefties who bemoan what America is doing to provoke “the Muslim world” would go bananas if any Western politician started referring to “the Christian world.”  When such sensitive guardians of the separation of church and state endorse the first formulation but not the second, they implicitly accept that Islam has a political sovereignty too….

So it’s not merely that there’s a global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project…

And not only is Islam a political project, but Europe is the perfect petri-dish for its growth:

While its not true that every immigrant on welfare is an Islamic terrorist the vast majority of Islamic terrorists in Europe are on welfare, living in radicalized ghetto cultures with nothing to do but sit around the flat plotting the jihad all day at taxpayer’s expense…

Abu Qatada, a leading al Qaeda recruiter, became an Islamist big shot while on welfare in Britian, and only when he was discovered to have £150,000 in his bank account did the Department for Work and Pensions turn off the spigot

This notion of a “nanny-state” seems to be a central component of Steyn’s argument throught the book: with it, society crumbles, without it, society becomes stronger.  In fact, in the last chapter of the book, Steyn is rather critical of the American slide into dependency.  The more responsibilities we turn over to the State, the less able we are to fend for ourselves:

[T]he only reason “a box-cutter can bring down a tower” is because on September 11 our defenses against such a threat were exclusively the province of the state. If nineteen punks with box-cutters had tried to pull some stunt in the parking lot of a sports bar, they’d have been beaten to a pulp.  The airline cabin, however, is the most advanced model of the modern social-democratic state, the ski-high versions of the wildest dreams of big government… So on September 11 on those first three flights the cabin crews followed all those Federal Aviation Administration guidelines from the seventies.  By the time the fourth plane got into trouble, the passengers knew the government wasn’t up there with them.  And, within ninety minutes of the first flight hitting the tower, the heroes of Flight 93  had figured out what was going on and came up with a way to stop it.  That’s been my basic rule of thumb since September 11:  anything that shifts power from the individual judgment of free citizens to government is a bad thing, not just for the war on terror but for the national character in a more general sense.

There is obviously much more in his book, I merely hit the major points.  While I think many perceive the book as anti-Islamic, I think it perhaps better to say the book is a warning to the West… a warning against complacency and dependency.

Miguel Estrada has a very thorough legal analysis in the Los Angeles Times regarding the Honduran “coup”…. It turns out it really wasn’t a ‘coup’ after all… but a proper, judicially-ordered removal of President Zelaya resulting from his activities in violation of Hunduran Law.  Here are some relevant portions of the piece:

As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya’s arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office. The Congress is led by Zelaya’s own Liberal Party (although it is true that Zelaya and his party have grown apart as he has moved left). Because Zelaya’s vice president had earlier quit to run in the November elections, the next person in the line of succession was Micheletti, the Liberal leader of Congress. He was named to complete the remaining months of Zelaya’s term.

It cannot be right to call this a “coup.” Micheletti was lawfully made president by the country’s elected Congress. The president is a civilian. The Honduran Congress and courts continue to function as before. The armed forces are under civilian control. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November. Indeed, after reviewing the Constitution and consulting with the Supreme Court, the Congress and the electoral tribunal, respected Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga recently stated that the only possible conclusion is that Zelaya had lawfully been ousted under Article 239 before he was arrested, and that democracy in Honduras continues fully to operate in accordance with law…

And my favorite line from the piece:

It would seem from this that Zelaya’s arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot.

What then can we say?  Zelaya tried to subvert the constitution of Honduras by means of a referendum ruled illegal by the Honduran Congress.  He insisted on a course of illegal activity and evidenced a totalitarian willingness to remove anyone who stood in his path.  Consequently, he was dismissed by the Honduran Supreme Court pursuant to the requirements of Honduran law.

Despite all this… despite the brave actions by the Attorney General and the Honduran Justices… the western world is turning its back on Honduras.  In fact, in a recent press conference, Obama has stated Zelaya’s removal was “not legal”…  evidencing not only a serious ignorance of Honduran Law but also a disturbing lack of judgment.

In a startling juxtaposition, our president found it entirely proper to meddle in a country in order to support a potential dictator… while refusing to meddle in a country [think Iran] where democratic protests threatened to remove a dictator.

In the words of Jonah Goldberg, “It sure seems like Obama has an ideological problem with democracy.”

Update 7.11 @11pm: Read my initial post on the Honduran ‘coup’ here.

If you want to know what is really going on in Honduras… you should read Honduras Abandoned.

If you’ve been paying attention to the mainstream media, you might be surprised to learn that important events have transpired in the last 48 hours – other than than Michael Jackson’s death.   Perhaps most notible was the recent coup that forceably removed the Honduran president Manuel Zelaya from power.

For those of you who are unware of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Zelaya’s forceful removal… allow me to briefly bring you up-to-date:  Mr. Zelaya was nearing the end of his term as president.  Instead of taking the proper Constitutional measures to allow him to run for another term, he decided to bypass the law in order to maintain power (the more elaborate version of the specifics can be found here).  The Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that Mr. Zelaya was acting in violation of the Honduran Constitution and prohibited him from running for another term.   This ruling had no affect on Zelaya and he persisted in his attempt to maintain his power.  As a result, political and military leaders acting in coordination, arrested and deported Mr. Zelaya for his illegal and dictatorial tendencies.

Now, being the “on the ball” guy that he is… Obama immediately came out with a statement highly critical of the military and political leaders that had instigated the Coup.  He noted his “concern” and implored that “democratic norms” be respected.  In a short but firm statement, Obama said:  ”We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there”.

This rather strange quote lead me to opine on twitter:

“Obama says the Honduran coup was “not legal”… well, by that measure, neither was the Declaration of Independence.  What’s your point?”

My point, of course, was that the whether or not a political activity is “illegal” is not the only relevant consideration we should entertain when judging foreign affairs.  Sure, coups are never legal… but they may nevertheless be justified  – and their moral justification may exceed the injustice of “illegal” activity.  But I am making the mistake of accepting Obama on his terms…  After all, was not the justification for removal because of President Zelaya’s illegal activity?  But this inconvenient fact seems to have evaded Obama.

I could not have put things better than Andy McCarthy:

What on earth makes Obama think he knows better about what is legal under the law of Honduras than the Supreme Court of Honduras and the law-writing legislature of Honduras? The Honduran military acted after Zelaya defied an order by that nation’s highest court which pronounced his coup attempt illegal; he has been replaced under a Honduran legal process by that nation’s Congress, which essentially impeached him and democratically voted in a successor. That sounds pretty legal to me. I am the first to admit I am not an expert in Honduran law, but I’d bet the Honduran Supreme Court has a better grasp on it than President Obama. On the issue of what is legal in Honduras, as between Hugo Chávez and the Honduran Supreme Court, our president has decided to go with Chávez.

It seems, Mr. Obama, that you are in dire need of a basic lesson in international diplomacy…  a lesson I like to refer to as the “serendipitous turn of events” rule.  Mr. Obama, when the world hands you a country full of democratic individuals overthrowing their oppressive and dictatorial leadership… it shouldn’t really matter how the events unfold.   In fact, how is pretty irrelevant — especially considering it has already been done and there is nothing you can do about it.  In these sort of situations, it is best to just let that country solve problems their own way… and offer whatever political, economic, and moral support you can.

In other words, don’t ‘F’ up a serendipitous change of events just because in a perfect world it might have happened differently.

Mr. Obama, believe it or not, the rest of the world does not solve all its problems the same way we the United States solve our problems.  Are you not the very same person who continually lectures the U.S. about “imposing our values” on the rest of the world?  You say this but then hold Honduras to American standards. Furthermore, given we are on the topic of your inconsistencies, wasn’t it just weeks ago in Cairo where you said:

No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

How about taking your own advice for once and just do the American thing for once — supporting those who want freedom from oppression.  Just this once… try it… you might like it.

Victor Davis Hanson just might be my #1 idol.  Thomas Sowell, Charles Krauthammer, and Christopher Hitchens are close seconds… but Hanson’s words, to quote a smart lawyer… they are “beautifully simple and simply beautiful”.

The binary oppressor/victim narrative goes something like this: the United States for the last half-century—through its embrace of neocolonialism and imperialism, and then again through its birthing of globalized capitalism—is at fault for most of the mess outside the West.

We as the bad guys impose, dictate, exploit, ignore, and manipulate the more noble Other to such a degree that he is forced to lash out in understandable, though often dangerous ways.

This is a sort of all-inclusive worldview that in postmodern fashion pits those with “power” against those without it. And in such a simplistic bipolar world, only a few gifted Western elite intellectuals, of superior intelligence, empathy, and insight, can reach across the divide, understand the Other, and find common ground, by accommodating the West to alternate paradigms of politics, culture, and economic and social life…

Then something messy comes along that doesn’t fit the neat paradigm like the purple-finger elections in Iraq, Tiananmen Square, or the most recent democracy demonstrations in Iran that confound that easy calculus. Just when you are singularly prepared, in bold face-to-face diplomacy, to understand the historic grievances of an unshaved, Nehru-coated Ahmadinejad, and to make the necessary apologies and accommodations, thousands of Iranians hit the street in Levis, with English-lettered protest signs, hitting their cell-phones and chanting Western-like protests again indigenous Iranian theocratic fascism.

So how can it be, that anyone would wish to model their politics after Western-style free speech and consensual government, given our culpability for so many global pathologies? The even weirder result that follows is that we become skeptical of the pro-Western Columbian, Israeli, Iraqi—and Iranian—as somehow less “authentic” by the very fact of his good will to, and admiration of, us (contrary to everything one has been taught in post-colonial classes).

In that vein, Obama is almost more at ease with virulent anti-Westerners, whose grievances Obama has long studied (and perhaps in large part entertained), and whose estrangement alone offers opportunity for Obama’s sophisticated multicultural insight and singular narcissistic magnanimity.

via Again, Why the Diffidence? – Victor Davis Hanson – The Corner on National Review Online.

I’m not going to lie, it’s becoming hard to take Obama seriously… seriously.  Each and every speech this guy gives contains nothing more than vague platitudes and nonsensical prevarications.  Let’s take a look at his most recent speech in Cario, Egypt to get a feel for his use of language. Here’s what he said:

“Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique,” he said in the Grand Hall of Cairo University.

Woh… wait… is personal story is NOT unique?  The first (and only) African-American man to become president of the United States is “NOT UNIQUE”?  You’re kidding me, right?  I suppose Obama may have intended to appear humble with that statement, but it just comes across as ignorant.  He continued:

“The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores.”

So… let me get this straight… the promise of the dream of opportunity (whatever that means) is there for all our immigrants… but not for our own citizens?  Really! I guess this begs the question: What do you mean by “the dream of the opportunity for all”?  Do you mean opportunity that must be taken advantage of… or opportunity that must be PROVIDED by a government program?   Because last I checked… there were lots of opportunities out there for those willing to work hard… even in this economy.   Show me one person who doesn’t have opportunity  and I’ll show you a person demoralized by a government program.

Obama went on to discuss wars and conflict:

“It’s easier to start wars than to end them” he said.

Duuuuhh.  Tell me something I didn’t know.

“It’s easier to blame others than to look inward;

Your continual criticisms of the “previous administration” are proof of this…

“[it is easier] to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path”

But… wouldn’t it have just been EASIER to just let Saddam and his sons continue to rule Iraq with impunity?

There is one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. [Applause] This truth transcends nations and peoples.”

Um… this is called the “golden rule”… a saying often confused with scripture and biblical teaching.  Maybe if you wouldn’t have missed so many of Reverend Wright’s sermons… you might have picked up on this.

Later in the Speech Obama discussed his role as President:

“I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

What about fighting against the negative stereotypes of Republicans?  You know, the ones about being racists, sexists, bigots, and homophobes… do you have a greater responsibility as the president of the UNITED STATES to fight against negative stereotypes of your fellow Americans or muslims?  I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on that, President Obama.

Finally, he got around to women’s rights:

“I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.

Who in the west have THIS view?  “some”?  Like who?   I shouldn’t have to remind you, Mr. President, that IT IS MUSLIMS WHO FORCE women to wear burkas and it is MUSLIMS who treat women as inferior…NOT those of us in the west.  This is perhaps your weakest ’straw man’ you have ever used in a speech… and that’s really saying something.

Mr. Obama… it is EASY.. VERY EASY to refrain from criticizing the shameful practices of many muslims in the middle east… and it is much easier to be loved and adored than it is to be respected.  For someone who cautions others against taking the easy route… you certainly don’t seem to lead by example.

quotes via POLITICO.com.

I don’t even know how I stumbled across this article but it is quite, illuminating, shall we say, regarding the state of denial regarding the Iranian Nuclear threat.  Take a recent article by M.J. Rosenberg in Talking Points Memo Cafe.  Here’s what he had to say:

Check out this interview Netanyahu gave the Atlantic’s Jeff Goldberg today. Netanyahu says flatout that either the Obama administration deals with Iran’s nuclear development or Israel will have no choice but to act unilaterally (i.e, with bombs).

Pretty incredible. An Israeli attack on Iran would jeopadize [sic] a myriad of American interests in the region, starting with 130,000 US troops but Netanyahu talks as if he can call the shots without any regard for our interests. The fact is that, in the eyes of Iran (and the world), there is essentially no difference between an Israeli attack and one by us. Israel is viewed as our client…

President Obama needs to get on the phone and let Netanyahu know that Israel can take no action vis a vis Iran without full consultation with Washington. Obama is pursuing diplomacy which means, whether it lkes [sic] it or not, that Israel is too. And that, quite simply, means that Israel cannot act unilaterally as if it is a free agent. It isn’t. Like the Britain, Germany, Canada, or France, it cannot take unilateral actions that would endanger Americans.

Now, what is M.J. Rosenburg really saying?  Well, I would argue that his primary concern with the Iranian nuclear issue is not the inherent danger posed by Ahmadineijad, nor it it the lives of the Israeli people, nor is it the concern about unchecked poliferation or the future of the greater middle east.  On the contrary, his biggest concern is some vague, amorphous concept “American Interests”– a concept he thinks is IMPROVED by allowing Iran to continue nuclear development.  Forgetting for a moment that were Iran to actually USE a nuke would, American (and WORLD) interests would be irreperably harmed, what is concerning here is that his entire theory rests on the assumption that Ahmadineijad won’t use nukes!  One can justify almost any foreign policy so long as one adopts, a priori, certain favorable assumptions.

I fear this is nothing more than a resurgence of the worst aspects of the ‘realpolitic’ school of American political thought.  Unlike the realists of the last century, however, these modern thinkers are willing to tolerate what amounts to a russian roulette by even the most extreem regimes, regardless of the risks involved.

We will see how the Iranian threat plays out;  I for one am not optimistic anything good will come from a Nuclear Iran… on the contrary, I fear serious consequences will result.  Let us hope I am wrong.

I’m not going to provide too much commentary here; I’m sure you all are perfectly capable of deducting the various ironies, good points, and other pieces of worthwhile information yourselves (but I’ll help out a bit with some visual styles):

As we learned in the 1970s, the devil of arms control often lies in the technical arcana of warheads and delivery systems, so we’ll await the text before pronouncing judgment. But the devil of arms control also lies in the overall concept, with its implicit assumption that the weapons themselves are inherently more dangerous than the intentions of those who develop and deploy them.

What Mr. Obama wants to kill specifically is the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which the Bush Administration supported over Congressional opposition, and which Mr. Obama now opposes despite the support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the military. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told us this week that “we do need a new warhead.” When we asked about Mr. Obama’s views on the warhead, the Admiral said, “You would have to ask him.”

The irony is that Mr. Obama’s opposition is making substantial reductions in the total U.S. arsenal that much riskier. In the absence of actual testing, which hasn’t happened in the U.S. since 1992, the only real hedge against potentially defective weapons is a larger arsenal. Naturally, arms-control theologians are instead urging the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and ban the production of weapons grade uranium and plutonium.

The thinking here is that somehow the American example will get Russia, as well as North Korea, Pakistan and perhaps Iran, to reject nuclear weapons. In fact, a U.S. nuclear arsenal that is diminished in both quantity and quality would be an incentive for these countries to increase their nuclear inventories, since the door would suddenly be opened to reach strategic parity with the last superpower. Mr. Medvedev, for one, recently announced Russia would pursue “large-scale rearmament” of its army and navy, including nuclear arsenals.

France also plans to deploy new sea-based nuclear missiles next year, even as it reduces the overall size of its arsenal. The French understand that a credible nuclear deterrent requires modern and reliable weapons. The Obama Administration should understand that the best security for both the U.S. and the allies that rely on our nuclear umbrella lies in an unchallengeable arsenal, and not an invitation to the world’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejads to compete on equal terms.

Let’s just say that for the first time ever on this blog, I am on record as wanting to be LIKE France — a country with a little more common sense than Obama seems to be exercising at the moment.  I mean, wasn’t Bush’s biggest criticism during the war being too ideologically driven and not listening enough to his military advisors?  Bush bent over backwards to find common ground with Russian leadership only to have that generosity used against him to further Russian power politics.

Bottom line: we shouldn’t sacrafice ‘deterrence’ — and all its various benefits– for the sake of political popularity or Russian opinion.

via Barack Obama Seeks to Sign an Arms Control Agreement With Russia’s Dmitri Medvedev.

Yup… Senate Dems just do wonders for the prospects of American companies:

One would have thought that leading Democratic senators who claim to be interested in finding other sources of funding to replace American dollars in Iraq, in helping Iraq spend its own money on its own people, and in lowering the price of gasoline for American citizens, would have been all for it. Instead, Senators Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, and Claire McCaskill wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rice asking her “to persuade the GOI [Government of Iraq] to refrain from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a hydrocarbon law is in effect in Iraq.” The Bush administration wisely refused to do so, but the resulting media hooraw in Iraq led to the cancellation of the contracts, and helps to explain why Iraq is doing oil deals instead with China.