OK. This is a foofy little satire about President Obama being compared to Mr. Spock by columnist for the New York Times Maureen Dowd. Turns out, as I watched it, I realized this is a clever essay that correctly argues that Mr. Spock is not the person that should be in the captain’s seat.

The Dowd Conundrum

OK, so I saw this little gem this morning that is being plastered all over Israel. It sort of sums up my feelings as to President Obama’s foreign policy to date.

To be fair, I don’t think President Obama… well, *I hope*… President Obama is fully against letting Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons. But it is naive for him to think that he can negotiate his way out of Iran and N. Korea out of their nuclear programs. He can’t even convince half of America he is competent, and most of that half just disagrees with his ideology. So what makes him think he can convince two groups of people that hate America to stop, especially without leverage?

Since he has taken office, both Iran and North Korea have accelerated their progams and both are affirmatively testing what Obama will do about it. Let’s face it, the UN isn’t going to do anything unless the U.S. makes a stink. North Korea has launched long range missiles and performed a second underground nuclear test… and what have we done about it??? Nothing. Even our condemnation of the acts is weak.

As I said, I don’t think President Obama wants Iran and North Korea to have nucs, but his lack of doing anything about it is getting really close to impliedly rubber stamping their nuclear weapons programs.

The headline:

Iran’s Ahmadinejad rejects Western nuclear proposal.

The text:

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday rejected a Western proposal for it to “freeze” its nuclear work in return for no new sanctions and ruled out any talks with major powers on the issue.

The comments by the conservative president, who is seeking a second term in a June 12 election, are likely to further disappoint the U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, which is seeking to engage Iran diplomatically.

Did anybody with a brain, for even a nanosecond, really believe that the Iran problem was going to be solved diplomatically? These guys have been playing a complex PR game now for years, and we somehow expected that to change because Barak Obama was elected?

Iran will come to the bargaining table when they have the nuclear missile in their pocket and pointed at Israel. Then they will make their demands. And why wouldn’t they? Who wants to come to the bargaining table knowing they have the weak position? It is better to negotiate when you are doing so from a position of strength.

The Iran problem must be addressed. And now. We simply cannot allow crazies to have nucs for our own personal safety. We need to shut down Iran’s nuclear program. Economic sanctions might work, but we have to be serious about it. Alternately, a few well place bombs might do the trick.

Oh, and if you want a compelling reason why even a single nuclear warhead attached to a missile is a problem. Read about electromagnetic pulses — which could be the most devestating threat to the United States.

This from Politico:

Obama will argue that so-called enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding are not the most effective, undermine the rule of law, alienate the U.S. in the world, serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America.

The president will say that while the nation must ensure that its security measures and our justice system are ready to address the threats of the 21st century, the Obama administration will uphold America’s laws and its values that are the reason we have become the strongest nation in the world and persisted through crises that have threatened our core.

Obama will say that the paramount responsibility of any president is to keep the American people safe. That is what he thinks about every morning when he wakes up and every night when he goes to sleep. The president believes with every fiber of his being that we cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. (emphasis added.)

During the election, I heard a pro-Obama lawyer in my office accuse a pro-McCain lawyer in the office that the only reason he wouldn’t vote for Obama is fear (presumabably fear of a black person as president). That sort of attitude seems pretty prevalent, even now.

Pro-Obama supporters are right in a sense. I do fear the Obama administration. Not because President Obama is black. But because of what Obama does. He may have flourishing rhetoric and he is a gifted politician, but as George Will points out in the article quoted below, what scares me about Obama is the “tinctiture of lawlessness” we are seeing from the Obama-run federal government.

Will points out:

Anyway, the Obama administration, judging by its cavalier disregard of contracts between Chrysler and some of the lenders it sought money from, thinks contracts are written on water. The administration proposes that Chrysler’s secured creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them but that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in claims — and 55 percent of the company. This, even though the secured creditors’ contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing than the union.

…

The Economist says the administration has “ridden roughshod over [creditors'] legitimate claims over the [automobile companies'] assets. . . . Bankruptcies involve dividing a shrunken pie. But not all claims are equal: some lenders provide cheaper funds to firms in return for a more secure claim over the assets should things go wrong. They rank above other stakeholders, including shareholders and employees. This principle is now being trashed.” Tom Lauria, a lawyer representing hedge fund people trashed by the president as the cause of Chrysler’s bankruptcy, asked that his clients’ names not be published for fear of violence threatened in e-mails to them.

Yes, I am scared. I am scared of high taxes and wealth redistribution. I am scared of increasing Federal power dictated by elitists on the coasts and non-reflective of traditional American values. I am scared of what high taxes will do with our economy in terms of incentive and ingenuity. On the incentive point, I am scared that America will lose its economic influence in the world, which is part of what secures our comfortable lifestyle and provides for the peaceful defense (for the most part). I am scared that the whim of the president and his friends (and make no mistake, if you are not a friend of Obama you are deemed an enemy, citizen or not) dictate to businesses what they must do, how they must act, and the metes and bounds of contracts already entered into, even when contrary what was agreed–all this by people who have never sat in a corporate board room, let alone been to a corporate board room.

Yes. I am scared. Not of Obama’s skin, but of what Obama is doing.

Referring again for Obama’s call to end the petty grievances in Washington and "heal," Nancy Pelosi is still at it even after George W. Bush is now ex-president:

Pelosi said one of her favorite moments from Inauguration Day was when Marine One lifted off the Capitol grounds, signifying former President George W. Bush’s exit from Washington. "It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head ," she said.

Classy, Madame Speaker. Even the media has found it in its heart to have some respect for Bush now that his term is over.

UPDATE

Somebody has been listening :

Bloomberg article headline reads "Obama’s First Civility Test Is Pelosi’s Manners ."

More of the same :

[President Obama] cited the worst U.S. economic conditions in 70 years and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as having placed the country in crisis and said it was time to "proclaim an end to the petty grievances " that have long divided Americans.

"What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly," he said.

Why now? Why not two years ago? Why not six months ago?

Liberals mistakenly think that merely proclaiming that the age of partisanship is over, it is over. I’m sorry, but Obama’s statement just reeks of disingenuous. If liberals were committed to "ending the petty grievances," they wouldn’t be clamoring for Bush’s head on a pike today. They wouldn’t have waited until the first day they are in charge to offer the olive branch.

The time for sincerity has long passed. If you are really serious about ending this sort of squabbling President Obama, you liberals will have to take the first steps. And let me clarify, merely saying "let’s be friends" doesn’t count. You will be judged on what you do , not what you say .

To all the liberals, the ball is in your court now. Let’s see what you do with it.

UPDATE

The headline says it all:

Bush Mocked As He Arrives on Inauguration Dais

Yes, let’s put aside our petty grievances…

Today is the inauguration of President Obama. I hope he has his Presidential Seal ready.

This morning’s reading was a little hard to stomach, mostly due to the smugness underlying the articles I read. Two headlines caught my attention. Unfortunately, I think these headlines paint a somewhat accurate picture of the way liberals think.

1. The first is an article by Robert Shrum entitled "Battered Liberal Syndrome ." He explains that Barack Obama will succeed because he is reaching across the aisle in an effort to end partisanship.

He writes:

I’m convinced Obama’s right to pursue the politics of change in his own remarkable fashion. Americans are fearful, but they yearn to be hopeful; that’s why they voted for Obama. They want solutions, not ideological battle. His stratospheric approval rating as transition yields to inauguration suggests how far he has moved beyond his Election Day majority and how effectively he has harnessed the public will. This could be a powerful force for advancing his agenda—and he’s not going to jeopardize it by letting his presidency be cast in partisan terms.

…

Everyone assumes that partisanship ultimately will reassert itself—in a year or two, or certainly four. Differences will remain and debating them will always be the essence of democracy; the sense of a new dawn may fade. Yet maybe there is a chance we’ll see change here, too—that the political clashes of the future will be more respectful, less angry, more open to finding common ground . . . . Today, Obama speaks for America in part because he respects and responds to voices across the American spectrum . At times, this may discomfort progressives. The end result, however, may be a cure for Battered Liberal Syndrome. It may also usher in a new, if imperfect, progressive era.

What bothers me is this: why did liberals have to wait until their man was in office and they control the legislature to have "a more respectful, less angry, more open" discussion? Over the last eight years, hasn’t nearly all the vitriol from the American public come from the left? What I take away from these sorts of statements is that liberals will only play nice when they are in charge. If liberals really wanted to extend an olive branch (which I don’t believe they do… see below), the time to do it is when the other guy is in office. Liberals have had eight years to play nice, but they haven’t.  It simply doesn’t look genuine when, after winning, you say, now things will be different. Now we won’t be angry. Now we will have a respectful conversation.

2. The second is a pair of articles about prosecuting George W. Bush. Did I mention that there isn’t an olive branch? Here is case in point.

(I have to be honest. I am not a huge G.W. Bush fan. I am conservative mostly from a fiscal standpoint, and he has been anything but a fiscal conservative.)

From Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials

I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it ," the California Democrat said. "And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Friday he wants to set up a commission to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives. The Michigan Democrat called for an "independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities ."

From Bashers End Bush Era Deflated by Lack of Prosecutions

Activists who have spent years protesting President Bush admit their chances are slim of seeing Bush or any members of his administration face legal recourse for what they say are "crimes against humanity."

While Shrum tells everybody that partisanship and vitriol are over, his friends are busy setting up the gallows for President Bush. What’s even more ironic here, is that according to Conyers, a "criminal probe" needs to be set up to see if any laws were broken. In other words, Conyers, Pelosi, and the rest have no concrete evidence of any wrong doing.

They want a witch hunt.

Pelosi justifies herself with the "we don’t have a right to ignore it" mantra. Ignore what , Madame Speaker? Moreover, since when does the legislative branch enforce the law ? Since never. That is the job of the Executive branch, which is exactly why Pelosi et al. need Obama to be on board with their lynching of Bush, and the source of the frustrations for the lack of prosecution for the so-called crimes against humanity.

Here we have liberal retribution at its finest. Why are these people so bent on prosecuting Bush for war crimes? Where is the outcry against the terrorists for their crimes against humanity? Are you angry at Bush because he kept us safe for the last seven years? Because he stumbles over his words? Because he took us to war and actually used our military for more than just funding the college education of our troops?

No,  this goes back to the Monica Lewinsky scandle. The liberals have waited a decade for some payback for impeaching President Clinton. It is their turn to loudly proclaim "off with his head." And in so doing, they show their true colors.

On one hand we have Mr. Shrum’s smugness, and on the other we have the balance of the left’s hatred. Sorry, Mr. Shrum, but I don’t see the conversation in Washington becoming any more civil now that Obama is on the beat. The problem is largely with yourselves. A civil discussion doesn’t work when you are only willing to be civil when your guy is in the house and when you are getting your way. It doesn’t happen when you are turning the leader of the other party over to the liberals in the Hague for prosecution of war crimes. The truth is that even now that your guy is in the house, your people still aren’t civil.

From my sister’s blog :

I feel the need to get on a little political soapbox for a while. This is not about who won the election, but rather us as Americans. First off, I am so sick of hearing people say, "we need a change". What the heck is that supposed to mean anyway? A change from what? I will tell you what kind of change I think we need…we need a change of the American people feeling entitled to anything and everything they want. Since when have so many "wants" become "necessities"? Why are we not saving when the going is good? Why do we feel like the rich owe us something? It annoys the living you know what out of me. It is not a governments responsibility to make sure things are always smooth sailing for us. I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but we make do. We budget (I am not always perfect at sticking to it, I must say) and we recognize our position. Do I hope to be rich some day, you better believe it, but if it doesn’t happen I sure hope I am just happy with what I have because I recognize it is a lot and I will continue working hard to achieve our goals.

On a different vein, I am also sick of everyone bad mouthing George Bush. He has done a ton for us as a president…mainly kept our country safe since 911. I imagine that is not an easy task. I don’t agree with all his fiscal policies, but you know what, he has kept us in an offensive position with the terrorists and to me, that means a ton. I am glad we are fighting them on their soil and not ours. And frankly, we need to finish the job we went over there to do. I am all for bringing our troops home, but not until we have finished the job we started. So, everyone get off his case. He has been a good president with good morals and I truly believe the desire to do what is best for this country. I appreciate that he is a religious man as well, because so am I and I want a president who prays and tries to have some divine guidance. It is not George Bush’s fault that we are in an economic downturn, not the republican party…sure there are certain factors that influenced it, but really the economy does this. It will get better and until then we may just have to forgo that new pair of shoes.

You know what change I want to see. I want all of us (me included) to be wiser with what we have, more grateful for what we have and a whole lot less selfish. There you go.

Couldn’t agree more.

John F. Kennedy famous said "Ask not what you country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. "

Does anybody live that principle any more? Senior citizens vote based on who will ensure they get the most $$ deposited in their bank accounts and ensuring somebody else pays their medical bills; Brock Obama plans to ensure over 50% of the electorate pays no tax so they will vote for him again; Republican (and Democrat) legislators use earmarks to pay back favors; Joe Biden (and others) pay millions of campaign dollars donated by constituents to family members (who have token campaign jobs) to enrich themselves; and the list goes on and on and on.

Does anybody still live President Kennedy’s principle?