obama would be catastrophic

A perfect storm:


Some elections are routine, some are important and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic... and catastrophic.



Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.



Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.



Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries— and failed repeatedly in other countries.



Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century...



The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of "change."



Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.



Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.



Higher taxes to "spread the well around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.



Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counter-attack.




Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy— and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.



Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?



If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.



In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat— yet.



America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.



Do you think our leaders wouldn't do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn't bet my life on that.



What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.



None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions— none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.


--By Thomas Sowell

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• barack
• obama
• dangerous
• catastrophic
• clueless
• Marxist
• naive

[mjamesb2008]

Why are you showing this.....when the Bush adminstration had clear warning of this "possible attack" in July 01..and failed to act...you people are americas worst enemies...you put your party above america...shame....

[miat1111]

1/3

Play my YT video, 'Virtual Kill.' Listen to Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA bin Laden division under CLINTON. He tells of the CIA having bin Laden targeted 16 times and 16 times [out of stupidity and for self-serving reasons] clinton REFUSED TO PULL THE TRIGGER.

[miat1111]

2/3

Like clinton, Obama makes decisions to serve self, not country.

Like clinton, Obama doesn't understand that asymmetric warfare is not of place, e.g., Iraq.

Like clinton, Obama doesn't understand that a terrorist war requires only one consenting player. If a terrorist declares war on you and commits act of war against you, you are perforce at war. You have 2 options: fight or surrender.

[miat1111]

3/3

For 8 yrs, clinton surrendered and the endpoint was 9/11. And Obama tells us he would do exactly the same.

We will not survive another 'clinton.' (Indeed, we may yet not survive the 1st.)

[miat1111]

1/2

Clearly Obama supporters are as naive as obama, himself.

If you doubt the profound risk of Obama to the national security, listen to Joe Biden's assessment of obama before he became his VP candidate. (Indeed, listen to Biden AFTER he was plucked by Obama.)

[miat1111]

2/2

Obama doesn't understand that asymmetric warfare is not of place, e.g., Iraq.

Obama doesn't understand that a terrorist war requires only one consenting player. If a terrorist declares war on you and commits act of war against you, you are perforce at war.

You have 2 options: fight or surrender. For 8 yrs, clinton surrendered and the endpoint was 9/11.

We will not survive another 'clinton.' Indeed, we may yet not survive the 1st.

[berndiggydiggy]

Obama killed Osama. Something bush couldn't or wouldn't do.

[mdfilmguy]

well, it's been over two years, and America has not been turned into a Vichy-esque Iranian client state. Can we stop pretending Sowell's smart now?

[ralfjacobs]

fix your mic and i might listen to what you say

[penguinpanda0]

Well then, why does even more people hate Bush?

[lakerfan3118]

the previous republican administration gets us in the economic recession we are dealing with now, into a war which is costing us american and iraqi/afghani lives every day, and a tarnished foreign policy record and it's the obama as president that would be catastrophic?

grow a brain.

[edhdz82]

What a dumbass...Why is everyone against Obama? it one thing to disagree with him, but to have so much hate??? I guess some people want Bush to stay.

[mjamesb2008]

I'd watch what I post here..it's a federal offense to post threatening material against any elected official, but especially a sitting or president elect...your post seems to be pretty directly aimed at Obama..and it's dangerous to insinuate actions or events like that...

[HallowmaN715]

Mass detruction of america?? Im sorry if your living in a cardboard box man. Wake up dude, GWB fuck up shit, but it wasn't entirely his fault. Nevertheless, Obama will have another land slide, but this time at his funeral.

[takebackourtemple]

What can we do now that people voted for this Nazi?

[Tsgehrin]

this video is ignorant, this country is divided in itself over its own intolerance through misinformation. If you seriously think obama is going to destroy our country, go to canada eh, we dont want you here.