What Would Obama Do?

It's an eminently fair question to ask of any presidential candidate.  Yet, interestingly, the closer Barack Hoover Obama has gotten to Election Day, the less eager he has grown to candidly answer that question.  Months ago he spoke openly of massive tax increases; now all he can talk about is how he's going to "cut taxes for 95% of Americans" - including the more than half of Americans who aren't even ON the tax rolls.  Over a year ago he told us he would meet "unconditionally" with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim jong-Il, Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Bashir Assad; now he says he wouldn't - not without the "normal advance low-level preparations," anyway.  And, of course, he was proud of his radical associations with Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, et al, but has since either minimized or thrown all of them under the temporary bus.

But you know what Bruce Wayne said in Batman Begins: "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."  The Biblical corallary is: "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man."

So if he becomes president, what will Obama do?

Well, it appears that he'll be late a lot:

This may seem petty at first glance.  And yes, Bill Clinton also had a self-involved penchant for serial tardiness, and he served two terms without (quite) getting the country destroyed, though the families of 9/11 victims might have a few things to say about that.

But it does speak to the character, or lack thereof, of False Messiah.  When you can't be on time for anything, it bespeaks a self-centeredness, an egocentrism that everything is not only all about you, but that it SHOULD be all about you, that you being at the center of the universe is the natural order of things.  It suggests that you don't think anybody or anything else matters.  It implies that nobody and nothing else is important.  It indicates that you consider yourself to be bigger than the office you seek, and bigger than the country you lustfully want to rule .

It screams that you are highly unlikely to listen to anybody else's advice and counsel, PARTICULARLY if it differs from your "judgment".  And that you would be contemptuous of dissent, and seek to suppress it wherever it arose.

Now, to be "fair," there is another old saying, made famous by one-time pro wrestler Ken Patera: "It ain't bragging if you can back it up."  But in the case of this man who is a strange hybrid of Peter Pan and Satan, he's no longer playing in the proverbial sandbox, or even in the back-bencher minor leagues.  Unlike an unearned junior senate seat, one cannot treat the presidency like a hobby; whatever your "judgment" may be, experience - and the humble willingness to accept advice and counsel in lieu of it - is not optional, it is MANDATORY if you actually take being entrusted with the highest office in the land as the sacred trust and ultimate responsibility that it is.

Of all the images that Barack Hoover Obama has projected in this campaign, humility is most definitely NOT one of them.  Which leads to the meat of this RNC spot:

"Can we afford to wait while Barack Obama learns?"  It's an entirely fair question.  I would follow it up with an even more sinus-clearing, deodorant-testing query: Where is the evidence over the course of his adult life that Barack Hoover Obama is CAPABLE of learning?  Not in terms of assimilating information, but in terms of learning from his mistakes?  Learning from HISTORY? 

Socialism has been tried.  All over the world.  Repeatedly.  And it has ALWAYS failed.  The result has ALWAYS been poverty, disease, oppression, and death.  Foreign policy pacifism has been tried.  All over the world.  Repeatedly.  And it has ALWAYS resulted in bigger, bloodier wars.  Neville Chamberlain's and Eduard Daladier's appeasement of Adolph Hitler produced what is, to date, the biggest, bloodiest global conflagration in human history.  Jimmy Carter's appeasement of the old Soviet Union nearly got the U.S. "finlandized," conquered, and/or destroyed, and his sterling "judgment" turned Iran into an enemy that is now on the brink of going nuclear.

Which segues into this devastating McCain ad:

A cardinal rule of negotiating is that the side that can afford to wait the longest usually wins.  A corallary of that rule is that the side that needs the negotiations the least always comes to the table with the upper hand.  This is precisely why Euro-American diplomatic efforts to de-nuclearize Iran over the past several years have produced absolutely nothing.  The West very much wants these negotiations because they so very much do NOT want the alternative of military action to disarm the mullahgarchy.  The Iranians, on the other hand, have no desire to genuinely negotiate, and have therefore used the conspicuous Western "deal-cutting" eagerness to keep the diplodiddling going as a cover and time-buyer for their nuclear weapons program.  Once they conduct their first nuclear test - whether at a test range in their own territory or smack in the middle of Tel Aviv - the de-nuclearization negotiations will be over, and the "Get out of the Middle East or we'll nuke you" negotiations will begin.

Put Barry O in the White House, though, and the mullahs won't even need to prove their entrance into the nuclear club.  Why?  Because he'll be even more conspicuously eager to negotiate with the Iranians than the Bushies have been, and will lack by design the deterrence factor of being perceived as willing to restort to military options if sufficiently provoked.

Appeasers want agreements.  They want that piece of paper to wave around while grinningly proclaiming "peace in our time".  They don't want to think about the possibility that they got taken, and that their "partners in peace" may not share their idealism, may have other objectives, may have ulterior motives, and may not share their commitment to abiding by its sparkling, "world transforming" terms.  To question their own "judgment" is not just anathema to them, it NEVER OCCURS to them.  It is blind ideological faith.  It is the conductor's creed:

1) The conductor is never wrong.

2) If the conductor ever is wrong, refer to (1).

This is what makes the McCain ad, and the spectre of an Obama presidency, so chilling: History - RECENT history - has already proven him wrong across the issue board.  His adult lifetime began with the election of Ronald Reagan twenty-eight years ago; Reaganian ideals of small government, low taxes, individual freedom, and strong national defense and foreign policy has made not just America, but the entire planet freer, more peaceful, and more prosperous than at any time in human history.  And yet Barack Hoover Obama has learned NOTHING from it.  Ronald Reagan ALREADY "changed the world," and it is B.O. who wants to roll all of that back, not to Carter's late-'70s malaise, not to JFK's early-'60s "Camelot," but all the way back to what, for an Orthodox Marxist, is the golden age: the 1930s, when the entire world was in the throes of economic misery, burgeoning global war, and communism was "the wave of the future" even in the U.S. of A.

Yes, we know what Obama would do.  He wants that piece of paper; he wants that grinning photo-op with Adolph; so he'll give the mullahs everything they want.  The result will be at least regional Armageddon (because Israel isn't just going to sit there and wait to be annihilated), nuclear blackmail, skyrocketing oil prices, economic depression and renewed al Qaeda offensives here at home.

At worst, the result will be a global nuclear holocaust.  Because without the United States's benevolent global economic and military hegemony, the entire planet will destablize as the "bad guys" (Russia, Red China, the "rogues" gallery), no longer checked by Uncle Sam, will make their bids for the global power they seek.

It happened once before; history refers to it as "World War II".  The saving grace then was that (1) there wasn't yet the means for mass destruction on a planetary scale and (2) the United States was on the rise as a superpower.  The former long since ceased to be true, and if Barack Obama wins on Tuesday, the latter will go away as well.

The short answer to "What would Obama do?":  He'd get us all killed.

I don't like John McCain.  But I believe that, as Zell Miller said of President Bush four years ago, that he'll do everything in his power to keep my most precious possession - my family - safe.  And that's because he knows WHAT to do to do that.

Every four years the presidential election is shrilly and hyperbollically called "the most important in our lifetimes!"  This time it isn't just actually true - it's a matter of life and death.