This first year of his Presidency looks like it has taken a toll on him.
Anthony Stevens-Arroyo argues that nuclear disarmament is a pro-life issue and that pro-lifers should support nuclear disarmament with the same zeal that we oppose abortion. He is correct that there would be no winners in a nuclear conflict, only victims. Leaders of nuclear-armed nations, like all leaders, have been put into power under the authority of God (Romans 13:1) and face a special responsibility to not pursue policies that harm noncombatants.
But here’s the problem: nuclear disarmament is simply not a realistic goal. There will always be rogue states (such as Iran now, or Iraq under Saddam Hussein) which will seek to acquire the means to produce nuclear weapons. World powers such as Russia are not going to give up their nuclear deterrent, and perennial enemies such as India and Pakistan (or India and China) will not give up the primary deterrent they have to military aggression from the other. While we can seek to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons through various policies, the genie is out of the bottle on nuclear-capable nations, so to speak. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
(Read more after the leap)
Big ole tip of the hat to Red State on this one:
Just over a month ago, Specter told The Hill “I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role — a more important role — to play there. I think the United States desperately needs a two party system. It is the basis of politics in America. I think each of the 41 Republican Senators, in a sense, and I don’t want to overstate this, is a national asset, because if one was gone you would only have 40. The Democrats would have 60 and they would control all of the mechanisms of government.”
Over the weekend Sharrod Brown, a Democratic Senator from Ohio, appeared on ABC’s “This Week” and appeared to blame President Bush for being partly responsible for the conflict that is taking place between Israel and Hamas right now.
Brown: “But I’m hopeful that with a new president — you know, you look at President Bush is now in a pretty weakened state, and countries around the world know that. I’m hopeful that as this transition comes, as we look to January, that strong presidential leadership can make a difference here.”
Does Senator Brown actually think that the inauguration of Senator Obama on January 20th will lead to a more peaceful and stable situation in the Middle East? Certainly the period surrounding a presidential transition can give rise to more unrest in certain regions of the world. But I think the world knows by now that President Bush, for whatever other flaws he may have, is not someone who tolerates terrorism by radical Islamic groups.
If anyone is being tested during this transition period it is probably Senator Obama. The incoming Vice President, Joe Biden, declared during the campaign that shortly after taking office a crisis will occur somewhere in the world to test the resolve and strength and skills of the new president. Of course, the current conflict between Israel and Hamas does not have as its focal point the US Presidential transition, there are other political and historical factors far more important than the recent U.S. election at play here. But if the transition has anything to do with the conflict, it seems that Senator Biden, and not Senator Brown, has the more likely explanation.
One wonders what liberals will be able to complain about after January 20th. There will be no more President Bush to blame for the problems of the moment. I’m sure they will think of something, but the “Bush’s fault” line was a nice line for them when they wanted to short-circuit a careful explanation of their opinion.
As for the ongoing developments in the Middle East, I strongly support Israel’s decision to take decisive action against Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has not chosen to adopt peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve the problems that it is facing. It is simply unacceptable for any organization, group, or country to continually assault a neighboring country day after day while violating basic standards of morality and international laws of warfare.
Benjamin Netanyahu makes the case for Israel’s actions much more eloquently here:
Despite the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 6, clause 2 of the Constitution), Barack Obama is forging ahead with the nomination of Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State.
Via My Way News:
Obama plans to appear at a morning news conference Monday in Chicago to announce Democratic primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton as his secretary of state.
To review, the Emoluments Clause states that, while a person is serving a term of office to which they were elected, he or she may not be appointed to any civil office which was newly created, or for which the compensation was increased in that same term.
The salary of the Secretary of State was increased in January 2008 by an executive order, promulgated pursuant to a 1990s cost of living adjustment statute. Because the increase occurred during the time Hillary was a Senator she can not be the Secretary of state.
Richard Nixon had the same problem when he nominated Senator William Saxbe to be his AG. The AG’s salary was subsequently lowered and it was known as the “Saxbe Fix”. I questioned last week whether a similar move could be underway for Hillary. I guess we know that “the Clinton Fix” is on.
Really this doesn’t bother me very much at all. Why? Because it royally ticks off the peacenick moveon.org types who thought the election of Obama was the end of war as we know it in the world. That he would bring peace and harmony and tweeting birds, flowing glassy rivers and rainbows back to the American landscape (it’s like they live in their own Thomas Kinkade painting…minus the religion of course). Hillary is a hawk compared to Obama and far leftists are shocked…Shocked! I tell you, at the thought that Obama is becoming less dovish.
Via Politico:
It’s a disorienting moment for the peace wing of the Democratic Party, at once elated America selected a new president opposed to the Iraq war and momentarily disoriented by the imminent removal of a commander-in-chief whose every action they’ve opposed for the past eight years.
“Shock has paralyzed them for the moment,” said Steven Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation who writes The Washington Note, a popular foreign policy blog. “We are in an Obama bubble now. And it’s tough to step out and be first to deflate the bubble.”
Now before I continue relishing in the far left’s complete ineptitude to understand how our world works, I’m going to don my political strategist hat and and actually give Barack Obama high marks for his choices in dealing with war time matters.
(Read more after the leap)
This is former congressman Joe Scarborough at his finest on one of the most liberal news networks. But hey, at least MSNBC is starting to admit it.
(H/T – The Facts Were These)
I thought it was Joe Biden’s job to remind voters why it’s a good idea to vote for Barack Obama, not to scare them by saying if he’s elected America will be in the sights of our enemies.
*Updated with audio*
“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
And Joe, who might be generating these crises?
(Read more after the leap)
I’m a pro defense guy. There is no doubt about that. But even I have to chuckle at a Washington Post article from today with the headline “Senate Boosts Funding for Laser Weapons” (it’s actually a pretty interesting read). Am I the only one that still thinks of the Austin Powers character Dr. Evil whenever I hear the word laser? Probably. How sad.
Oh..and consider this a Monday open thread.
In a sickening and frightening act of jihad, “animal rights” fanatics attempted to murder a California scientist who was performing biomedical research at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Read more about this despicable act of terrorism here, here and here. CBS News reports:
One scientist and his family, including two small children, were forced to flee from a second-story window Saturday after a firebomb was lit on their front porch, filling the off-campus house with smoke, Santa Cruz police said. An adult was treated for minor injuries at a hospital and released.
It gets worse, when the North American Animal Liberation press office issued a fatwa.
“It’s regrettable that certain scientists are willing to put their families at risk by choosing to do wasteful animal experiments,” press office spokesman Jerry Vlasak said in the statement.
(Read more after the leap)
…reminds me of the Democrats response to soaring gas and energy prices, the war in Iraq, national security, the economy, ect. and Bluto’s reaction is how I wish I could respond sometimes.
John Belushi (may he rest in peace) brings you your Friday open thread.
(H/T to Mark Warner and his snazzy new website for the video)
In the Presidential race, some noise has been made over the last few days about President Bush’s comparison of negotiation with terrorists and radicals to the appeasement of Nazi Germany. Obama apparently thinks that the President Bush was talking about him and has stated that he is willing to debate McCain on foreign policy “any place, any time”.
John Bolton has written an editorial in the Wall Street Journal where he suggests that McCain “should accept that challenge today.” Bolton goes on to state why Obama’s foreign policy idea of negotiating with all our enemies is bad:
Quote below the fold:
President Bush stood at the podium, blinking back tears and struggling to utter the words. Finally, he gestures with his hand and a couple in late middle age moves towards the front of the room where they will receive their son’s posthumously awarded Medal of Honor. The room is filled with dignitaries and guests, some of them members of the elite Navy unit known as the SEALs.
The group would not be gathered there if it wasn’t for the heroic actions of Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor, a Navy SEAL who sacrificed his lifein Iraq in order to protect his fellow SEALs and defend his country.
The day is September 29, 2006 and the coalition forces have been battling the enemy all morning. As the afternoon came, the SEALteam guarding the western flank of the operations in Ar Ramadi shifted it’s position slightly in order to be better prepared to fend of likely enemy attacks.
MA2 Michael Monsoor was positioned with his heavy automatic weapon on an outcropping of roof that affording him and two SEAL snipers a good view of the area. As the threesome kept a vigilant watch for enemy activity, an unobserved enemy fighter hurled a hand grenade onto their position, where it bounced off of Monsoor’s chest. There were three people, one live grenade, and one escape route. The only person who could escape before the inevitable blast was Michael Monsoor.
Monsoor did not abandon his comrades.
(Read more below the fold)
