Disaster in the Making?

Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, July 28, 2009


After many a disappointment with someone, and especially after a disaster, we may be able to look back at numerous clues that should have warned us that the person we trusted did not deserve our trust.

When that person is the President of the United States, the potential for disaster is virtually unlimited.

Many people are rightly worried about what this administration's reckless spending will do to the economy in our time and to our children and grandchildren, to whom a staggering national debt will be passed on. But if the worst that Barack Obama does is ruin the economy, I will breathe a sigh of relief.


He is heading this country toward disaster on many fronts, including a nuclear Iran, which has every prospect of being an irretrievable disaster of almost unimaginable magnitude. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle-- and neither can generations yet unborn. They may yet curse us all for leaving them hostages to nuclear terror.

Conceivably, Israel can spare us that fate by taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities, instead of relying on Obama's ability to talk the Iranians out of going nuclear.

What the Israelis cannot spare us, however, are our own internal problems, of which the current flap over President Obama's injecting himself into a local police issue is just a small sign of a very big danger.

Nothing has torn more countries apart from inside like racial and ethnic polarization. Just this year, a decades-long civil war, filled with unspeakable atrocities, has finally ended in Sri Lanka.

The painful irony is that, when the British colony of Ceylon became the independent nation of Sri Lanka in 1948, its people were considered to be a shining example for the world of good relations between a majority (the Sinhalese) and a minority (the Tamils).

That all changed when politicians decided to "solve" the "problem" that the Tamil minority was much more economically successful than the Sinhalese majority. Group identity politics led to group preferences and quotas that escalated into polarization, mob violence and ultimately civil war.

Group identity politics has poisoned many other countries, including at various times Kenya, Czechoslovakia, Fiji, Guyana, Canada, Nigeria, India, and Rwanda. In some countries the polarization has gone as far as mass expulsions or civil war.

The desire of many Americans for a "post-racial" society is well-founded, though the belief that Barack Obama would move in that direction was extremely ill-advised, given the history of his actions and associations.

This is a president on a mission to remake American society in every aspect, by whatever means are necessary and available. That requires taking all kinds of decisions out of the hands of ordinary Americans and transferring them to Washington elites-- and ultimately the number one elite, Barack Obama himself.

Like so many before him who have ruined countries around the world, Obama has a greatly inflated idea of his own capabilities and the prospects of what can be accomplished by rhetoric or even by political power. Often this has been accompanied by an ignorance of history, including the history of how many people before him have tried similar things with disastrous results.

During a recent TV interview, when President Obama was asked about the prospects of victory in Afghanistan, he replied that it would not be victory like in World War II, with "Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur." In reality, it was more than a year after Japanese officials surrendered on the battleship Missouri before Hirohito met General Douglas MacArthur for the first time.

This is not the first betrayal of his ignorance by Obama, nor the first overlooked by the media. Moreover, ignorance by itself is not nearly as bad as charging full steam ahead, pretending to know. Barack Obama is doing that on a lot of issues, not just history or a local police incident in Massachusetts.

While the mainstream media in America will never call him on this, these repeated demonstrations of his amateurism and immaturity will not go unnoticed by this country's enemies around the world. And it is the American people who will pay the price.

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

And you say your not a republican?

Your spewing Fox News hook line and sinker. Even if it is from a more filtered source.

__________________
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” -Einstein

Nope, hanimmal, I'm not a Republican ... but I am a conservative in the sense that I believe in free markets, a limited central government, free minds and individual liberty.

Judging from your posts, the above would apply to you as well, right? So, what do you call YOUR politics?

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

No your right, I was out of line. I agree with everything that you said in the part I quoted. But that guy who wrote that article is anti-Obama. And those are the things that the republican (or newly starting to christen themselves Liberitarian) news is chanting. That is why I said that. Maybe I am wrong, but your values don't include the US forcing ourselves down other countries throats right?

A nuclear any country should not be considered good for any other country. And instead of going to war with them shouldn't we help them anyway we can to get them to stop? Or just be like the swiss and not give them a reason to hate on us. Or maybe just maybe we limit the scope/size/spending of our government and allow the people affected to make their own decisions.

I don't think anything is a good answer, but to give Obama crap for at least trying to not go the route of another war spending effort and openning up communication with them is not a very pro small government statement.

Which btw is the same as what he did with Korea (path of least resistance) and by stepping back with a open door to talk (they refused) set the stage for China to step in and bring them under control. Saving us countless lives and money if we picked a fight like the republican base wanted us to do.

Did you see the press conferance? The reporter asked him for his opinion, and he said he didn't know the facts, but it is fair to say that the police acted stupid.

Which face it, the guy gave the police a reason to arrest him and they took it. I am on the side of the cop up until he decided to not just appologize and walk away and instead slapped the cuffs on him. So I agree they acted stupid.

But instead it is anti-Obama. Which should be held to the pepublican base. Because if he is not re-elected it means that a republican will be the next president. If you are going to be for all the things you mentioned maybe it is time for all things Obama does wrong to be regulated to how can we make things better. Just getting rid of him would not fix anything. Infact it may just make it worse.

At least Obama is trying to get programs going that will help out the middle/lower class, which is the people. So if you are truly not anti-Obama (and by defult hop[ing for a republican win) I will ask you the same thing you once asked of me, can you name something that you do like that Obama has done?

__________________
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” -Einstein

Actually the proper response from imbecile Obama would have been to state that he is not able to comment on possible lawsuits.

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis

I LOL'ed at this statement... thank you

No your right, I was out of line. I agree with everything that you said in the part I quoted. But that guy who wrote that article is anti-Obama. And those are the things that the republican (or newly starting to christen themselves Libertarian) news is chanting. That is why I said that. Maybe I am wrong, but your values don't include the US forcing ourselves down other countries throats right?

The "guy" you're referring to here is Thomas Sowell, one of the most respected free market economist in the country. He's associated with Stanford University, is a best selling author and is a friend of Dr. Walter Williams. Any friend of Walter Williams is a friend of mine. And yes, Walter Williams is "anti-Obama's as am I. Obama is a collectivist and is directly opposed to what I and Thomas Sowell believe in. And, I believe in the right to self defense, so if we are threatened by another country, then I believe in attacking first and asking questions second.

A nuclear any country should not be considered good for any other country. And instead of going to war with them shouldn't we help them anyway we can to get them to stop? Or just be like the swiss and not give them a reason to hate on us. Or maybe just maybe we limit the scope/size/spending of our government and allow the people affected to make their own decisions.

I don't think anything is a good answer, but to give Obama crap for at least trying to not go the route of another war spending effort and opening up communication with them is not a very pro small government statement.

Which btw is the same as what he did with Korea (path of least resistance) and by stepping back with a open door to talk (they refused) set the stage for China to step in and bring them under control. Saving us countless lives and money if we picked a fight like the republican base wanted us to do.

Should Sharon Tate have "communicated" with Charles Manson? Chamberlain didn't do so well with Hitler, did he?

Did you see the press conferance? The reporter asked him for his opinion, and he said he didn't know the facts, but it is fair to say that the police acted stupid.

Which face it, the guy gave the police a reason to arrest him and they took it. I am on the side of the cop up until he decided to not just appologize and walk away and instead slapped the cuffs on him. So I agree they acted stupid.

But instead it is anti-Obama. Which should be held to the pepublican base. Because if he is not re-elected it means that a republican will be the next president. If you are going to be for all the things you mentioned maybe it is time for all things Obama does wrong to be regulated to how can we make things better. Just getting rid of him would not fix anything. Infact it may just make it worse.

At least Obama is trying to get programs going that will help out the middle/lower class, which is the people. So if you are truly not anti-Obama (and by defult hop[ing for a republican win) I will ask you the same thing you once asked of me, can you name something that you do like that Obama has done?

Yes, I liked and appreciated the fact that Obama was very upfront and honest during the campaign about the vision he has for the country. The problem was, no matter how much I tried to warn some people on this site about what that vision was, they still voted the Marxist/fascist into office. At least a few have stated that they know now that they made a mistake and won't make the same mistake again.

Obama is just as sure that he's right, as I'm sure he's wrong. I believe he's sincere in his beliefs. The problem is, I've been around long enough to know that his kind has been here before. It was no accident that he chose to give that speech in Berlin during the campaign where he said, and I paraphrase: "The majority will have to sacrifice for the for the good of the community." There was another egomaniac who stood at the exact same spot with the exact same message. I think it was around 1939 or so.
Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

I will disagree, we have nothing to fear and attacking first when we are seperated by several countries and an ocean, when they don't have the capibilities to do anything to us besides maybe a grass roots effort (terrorists) there is no reason to attack. I agree with self defense as well. But that doesn't mean if a 6 year old boy looks at me wrong and says he is going to beat me up I break his skull open.

Difference is that they had already proven to be a threat and when they came after them, then yes game on. But without a crystal ball it is tough to do. We cannot kill every leader that we disagree with.

And I appreciate your choice to vote w/e way you want to. But really what do you think would have been different if McCain would have won? This was pretty much his health care plan btw. Do you think he would have let the economy melt, or anything else really that different?

One major difference with where we are today and 1939. And it is this beutiful thing that we are on right now.

The media (not 'news' but access to internet, books, tv, phones) we have today makes us all able to actually see what is happening within minutes/hours. Back then that was not the case, we were very isolated.

Also business is so advanced today vs where it was back in the 30's that most countries attacking a trading partner is pretty much gone. We just need to open up and get past 1984 them and us mentality. The entities we need to fear are not the countries. We can wipe anyone out that is a threat to us within an hour if need be. We wiped out Iraq's government in just about 2 months. And that was without the big guns. But here we are 6 years later and we still are fighting the people.

Keeping nukes out of the governemnt hands is one thing, but to deny them the ability to give their citizens a stable power grid is us again controlling a country that we shouldn't.

But this would also bring up again green energy sources. If we could wake up and pump out hundreds of thousands of solar panels and at $10,000 a piece that would be $1billion total *for 100,000 panels.

That would seriously help out our economy (i.e. stimulus package) and at the same time help shore up their energy grid, while allowing us to pull them out of the nuclear program they want to do.

__________________
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” -Einstein

1. Until the "Greens" start talking about building nuclear power plants, I can't take them seriously.

2. Scenario: Iran fires nukes at Israel, Israel fires back. War breaks out in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia is involved. Now the world's oil supply is in danger of being cut off with devastating effects on the world economy. The United States hasn't been attacked, but our economy is threatened with collapse. What do you do, President hanimmal?

3. If McCain would have won, the unions would not have gained ownership of the auto companies. Nor, would we have increased the deficit to almost 2 trillion. Plus, the VP would have been a LOT better looking than Joe Biden. A lot smarter too.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

1. Fair enough, I disagree with no nuclear plants stance too. But not going solar panels because people don't want to believe in climate change is equally silly.

2. Where did Iran get this nuke? Developing a nuclear power plant can unfortunantly be seen to us in america wrongly as "They are building nukes!" Should be begrudge them the same power that you are saying that the green party needs to get on before you will take them seriously? If we could solve their power issues then we could sit back and see what they are doing next.

But that aside I will answer your question. If a country today launched a nuke the entire world would be at war. There would have been many signs and the lines would have been drawn. In that situation the people on our side, would do everything in our power to get them out of power before they had the chance to get it done.

The reason why it was so hard to see if Iraq was making "weapons of mass destruction" from the survailence, was because they were not, and couldn't. So we did a good thing for the wrong reasons. I do not think we are the ones that need to over react again.

3. Palin aside although there is something sexy about her, I think we would disagree with her ideas of keeping hands off our civil liberties. The auto bailout would have been a moot point. Obama wasn't the president when they were bailed out. And to avoid saying I am putting everything on Bush, the facts are the facts. It was his administration that o.k'd that, not Obama's as it was Dec. 11th 2008. Obama would have, but you cannot say that McCain would have let Michigan and Ohio meltdown by letting them fall. At least the auto loan allowed them to get everything in order and get them through one of the fastes largest bankruptcies in history. And also giving the people that rely on those jobs an extra 6months to a year to save up money before the curtain closed.

And with the stimulus package I strongly think that it was the right move. We can disagree with it, but as long as we can pull back it was the jump start that our economy needed and it is going to things that our country can get a lot of miles out of and not just going to military.

And if we can cut out a lot of the fat in the government that deficit can be reduced greatly. But we shall see.

__________________
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” -Einstein