War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. — John Stuart Mill

Every nation on the Earth that embraces market economics and the free enterprise system is pulling millions of its people out of poverty. The free enterprise system creates prosperity, not denies it. – Marco Rubio

The great historian Bernard Lewis once said that America was frequently “Harmless to our enemies, and treacherous to our friends”. This is the first thought that came into my mind when I heard of President Barack Obama’s comments on the status of the Falkland Islands. Here is what he said:

‘And in terms of the Maldives or the Falklands, whatever your preferred term, our position on this is that we are going to remain neutral. We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue. But this is not something that we typically intervene in’.

First of all, let’s just ignore (much like the fawning mainstream media) the fact that the supposed smartest president in history is mixing up the Maldives (which are in the Indian Ocean) with “Las Malvinas” (The Falklands). This is embarrassing, but it’s what I’ve come to expect from president teleprompter. What is most troubling is Obama’s oh so sophisticated and nuanced view that the claims that Argentina and Britain have on these islands are of equal merit.

Let’s analyze this.

Argentina’s claim to the islands are tenuous at best. Britain has maintained a permanent colony on the islands since 1840, which is longer than Texas has been a State. The islanders themselves have voted repeatedly to remain a part of the Empire, rejecting both admission to Argentina and independence. The Falklands have been British since before Argentina ever existed, and have never belonged to Argentina. If this is not enough, the Falklands War settled the issue. Wars have consequences. Not only did Britain have international law on its side but it proved it had the will to assert the rights of the islanders to self – determination. The Falklands are British, full stop, and there is nothing to discuss.

But that is just the legal and historical argument. How about the point that Bernard Lewis is making? Is there any value in being America’s ally? While Obama was making his Malvinas/Maldives gaffe, British troops were fighting and dying alongside their American brothers in Afghanistan. What’s more, it was Britain who provided the greatest aid when America overthrew Saddam Hussein. Does America have a greater ally in the world then Britain? Is this worth nothing?

For whatever reason, this seems to be yet another example of Obama’s notoriously anti-British streak. From the symbolic, thoughtless slights (removing the bust of Winston Churchill or giving then Prime Minister Gordon Brown a bunch of unplayable DVD’s comes to mind) to the more serious (agreeing to provide information to the Russians on Britain’s nuclear deterrent), Obama is no friend of Britain.

At the end of the Second World War, if you were looking to emigrate from the devastated continent, you really had two choices, North and South America. Although both were primed for rapid expansion, only half of this duo fulfilled its promise. Canada and the US took off, whereas Argentina and the rest of South America have struggled to escape 3rd world status. The difference is that Argentina, under leaders like Juan and Evita (of “Don’t cry for me Argentina fame) Peron embraced a policy of rampant, progressive, statism. Demonizing foreign investors and “The Rich”, he nationalized everything from the British owned railroads to the American owned telephone system, plus the energy and agriculture sectors. Everything he did was for the poor, although no one noticed that these politics of envy were making everyone poor. When things are falling apart at home, you need distractions. With her attempts to isolate the Falklands and her recent nationalization of YPF, (the countries largest and largely Spanish owned energy company) this is what Cristina Ferandez is trying to do. Almost sounds like she’s taking a page out of Obama’s reelection strategy, doesn’t it?

Off the coast of Newfoundland are the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Small and wind swept, these islands are the last remnants of France’s North American colonial empire. Nonetheless, the residents of Saint Pierre and Miquelon are quite happy to remain French, and Canada has never had the least desire to invade. Of course, Canada is a prosperous and civilized country, and has no need to play these Argentinean games.

Despite Obama’s pretensions, there is no choice between right and wrong, between civilization and barbarism. Obama’s prevarication’s on the Falklands are a disgrace. It reflects poorly on him and shames the great nation he leads. Harmless to it’s enemies and treacherous to its friends indeed.

Related articles

• THIS MUST BE MORE OF THAT “SMART DIPLOMACY” STUFF WE WERE PROMISED: Barack Obama makes Falklands ga…(pjmedia.com)

  ---

• Obama’s Falklands Gaffe; Calls Malvinas the Maldives. (pumabydesign001.com)

Subscribe to my blog on the right and you’ll get a copy of my book, “The Quotable Obama”, for free. Here’s the description for the book from Amazon.com:

On February 10, 2007 Barack Obama announced his intention to seek the Democratic party nomination for the presidency. Considered a long shot against the favored Hillary Clinton and with little record of achievement behind him, Obama would nonetheless mount one of the most audacious electoral campaigns in American history. Portraying himself as a new kind of politician who could bridge America’s divides, Obama employed a soaring and at times almost religious oratory which captured the imagination of the public. As 2007 drew to a close the once considered long shot had become a serious contender for the highest office in the land. It was in this period that the foundation for his presidency would be laid.

How did we get from there to here? The Quotable Obama attempts to answer this question by using chronologically ordered quotes from the media, the American people, and the man himself. What emerges is a stream of consciousness, an almost virtual twitter feed that provides insight into the nation’s thoughts and mood during that time. Hope, fear, excitement, skepticism…it’s all here as America bears its soul and the junior senator from Illinois begins his ascension to the highest office in the land.

Here’s an example of the star power that some saw in Obama. As noted thespian George Clooney put it:

“You’ve been in a room once in awhile with a rock star. He walks into the world, and he takes your breath away” – actor George Clooney

So true George, so true …

If you want a public culture that reeks of indestructible faith in its own righteousness, try Europe — especially when they’re talking about America: If you disagree with Eutopian wisdom, you must be an idiot. Obama and far too many Democrats have bought into this delusion, most thoroughly distilled in Thomas Frank’s book What’s The Matter With Kansas?, whose argument is that heartland voters are too dumb (i.e., “moronic muppets”) to vote for their own best interests.

Europeans did “vote for their own best interests” — i.e., cradle-to-grave welfare, 35 hour work-weeks, six weeks of paid vacation, etc — and as a result they now face a perfect storm of unsustainable entitlements, economic stagnation, and declining human capital that’s left them so demographically beholden to unassimilable levels of immigration that they’re being remorselessly Islamized with every passing day. We should thank God (if you’ll forgive the expression) that America’s loser gun-nuts don’t share the same sophisticated rational calculation of “their best interests” as Thomas Frank, Obama, too many Democrats and the European political establishment.

Related articles

• MARK STEYN: Democrats Should Let Sleeping Dogs Lie. “My point is that self-loathing cultural relat… (pjmedia.com)

As I ponder the upcoming US election I think the role new media is going to play will be decisive. What’s more, most of the old guard seems utterly unaware of just how much the landscape has changed.

The latest example of this comes from the recent White House Correspondents Dinner. In it the president made several dog eating jokes, which went completely over the heads of many of those in attendance.

(Side note for those of you who only get your news from the New York Times or Jon Stewart. Initially, the Obama campaign tried to make an issue of Romney strapping their dog to the roof of their car when they went on a family vacation. The idea being, I guess, is who do you want to be president? The guy who cruelly straps dogs to the roof of his car, or the guy who doesn’t? No sooner had they gotten this talking point established then it blew up in their faces. Jim Treacher of the Daily Caller immediately pointed out that Obama himself had admitted to eating dog during his childhood in Indonesia. Thus followed all kinds of Obama eats dog jokes on Twitter/Facebook etc. Jon Stewart, SNL etc did not comment on this. After all how can you? Obama is just so darned cool …)

What this demonstrates is that even Obama’s palace guards of clown nosed buffoons (Stewart, Colbert, the SNL gang) can’t completely protect him. They can all choose to not comment on a story that makes Obama look bad, but the story will still get out. If you’re a beltway media type and you only get your news from these stories, you’re completely out of the loop. However, just because you don’t acknowledge a story doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. What’s more, your lack of attention will not suffocate it due to lack of oxygen. There are other sources now.

Obama’s election was largely the result of 2 major factors. One was that he had no record, so people could read into him whatever they wanted. That won’t be the case this time around, as he now has one (and it ain’t pretty). The second was that most of the media were so far in the tank for Obama it was embarrassing. They basically sold their last shreds of credibility to get him elected. If Obama turned out to be a miracle worker this wouldn’t have been a problem. As it turns out though being President of the United States is a pretty tough job. It’s made even tougher when you have no executive experience whatsoever. This makes the Obama loving media look bad as it becomes obvious that questions should have been asked, but weren’t, 4 years ago. Even now I don’t think they realize how closely their fates are bound to this man.

This is not to say that the mainstream media (all non-Fox stations, The New York Times, as well as “Comedians” like Stewart) are not still extremely powerful. However, they are not as powerful as they once were. It’s going to be fascinating to watch.

Mark Steyn’s take is here.

John Hinderaker’s take is here.

***Don’t forget to subscribe to my blog so that you can get “The Quotable Obama” for free. Learn more here:
http://davidnordmark.com/the-quotable-obama/
***

In the video above I analyze an advertisement made for MSNBC news. In it MSNBC “Personality” Lawrence O’Donnell makes the case that of course government can create jobs, as government creates jobs all the time. All those crazy right wing politicians who claim governments can’t create jobs ignore the fact that, hey genius, the government created YOUR job. At least this is how Lawrence O’Donnell sees things.

The point that O’Donnell, and others of his ilk (I’m looking at you Paul Krugman) completely misses is that government has no money of its own. In order for it to create a government job, it must first take money away from the private sector (what I call wealth creating jobs in the video). The money it takes away in taxes is money that cannot then be used in the private sector to hire more workers, buy other products or services, or expand their business. Government “job creation” is thus always a zero sum game at best. It can only give with one hand by taking away with the other.

Does this mean that government jobs are then somehow not real jobs? Not in the least. Many jobs that government creates, such as policeman and fireman, are vitally important. However, these jobs are wealth supporting jobs, in that ideally they help true wealth creators do what they do best. As I point out in the video, my two entrepreneurs (Fred and Sam) are quite happy to pay some money in taxes in order to be protected from criminal activity and the threat of fire.  When the government grows too onerous, however, the wealth creators are squeezed and unemployment is the result. A high unemployment rate is an indication that government has grown too large and needs to be paired back. Too many government jobs, paradoxically, wind up destroying real wealth and real jobs. This the point that Lawrence O’Donnell misses and why he is wrong.

For more information on this check this article posted by the CATO institutes Dan Mitchell. He goes into greater detail about how economies with large public sectors experience less prosperity.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2012/02/11/world_bank_report_shows_large_public_sectors_reduce_economy

This article by Gary Nolan makes the same case I do in the video, but he uses math to make his point, and you can’t argue with math, right?

http://kayleighmcenany.com/2012/02/08/gary-nolan-simple-math-even-a-liberal-should-understand-yet-they-don%E2%80%99t/

And finally, the great John Stossel explores the difficulty he has in setting up a lemonade stand in New York. This is a beautiful example of government moving beyond its legitimate core functions (police and fireman, for example) into wealth destroying insanity (bureaucrats preventing kids from setting up lemonade stands are not helping anyone).

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2012/02/24/creators_oped

I came across this article that I thought raised several issues. First, the story.

It seems that Chandler, Arizona resident Erin Carr Jordan was at her local McDonald’s with her kids when she took a closer look at the play space in the restaurant. To her surprise, she found it disgusting (and why wouldn’t it be that way? Kids were crawling all over it!) and subsequently complained to the manager. During ensuing visits she found the play space still didn’t meet her standards.

So, what did she do when faced with this potential bubonic plague of a threat to civilization?

• Did she simply decide to not patronize the offending McDonald’s and take her kids to a local park? I mean, there are no germs in a public park, right?
• Did she write a letter to the management, perhaps informing them why she no longer planned to patronize their establishment? Unlike government monopolies, such as the post office or the DMV (and even educational institutions, in some cases), private companies need business to survive and generally respond well to reasonable (key word there) complaints.

Of course not!

Instead, she actually had samples taken, which were then analyzed by a lab. The result? Horrors! All kinds of pathogens were found! She then went on a crusade, complaining to the manager, bothering other parents in the McDonald’s about her findings, and just made such a nuisance of herself that her local McDonald’s actually banned her from their restaurants. Who would have thought that was possible?

I think this story nicely illustrates some real differences in how conservative/libertarians view the world vs lefty progressive types. To wit:

• If you find something in a restaurant you don’t like, simply stop doing there? If you’re really gung ho, write a letter saying why you are no longer visiting the premises. Why go on a regulatory crusade?
• Isn’t she interested in finding out how many plagues can be linked back to McDonald’s playgrounds? I have a guess at this number – 0.
• Why isn’t she interested in the pathogen count in public playgrounds? Or at public libraries? Why pick on McDonald’s?
• For that matter, why not do a check for pathogens on kids themselves? Is she not aware how unhygienic they are? They pick their nose and eat it. They eat glue. They drink from dog bowls, for crying out loud. Maybe we should get “at the root causes” and mandate that all kids should be encased, bubble boy like, in plastic?
• Isn’t she slightly worried that if she gets her wish and some new regularity framework is set up, that many restaurants, including McDonald’s, might decide that having a play area is just not worth the bother?

As a conservative/libertarian type I accept that fact that the world is not perfect. However, I know that any attempts to fix that come with costs that must always be weighed. It seems to be that the Erin Carr Jordan’s of the world have their risk/cost meters seriously out of adjustment. What do you think the pathogen count would be if you did a count in her fridge?

What do you think? Would you be at all surprised if I told you that Erin Carr Jordan was a college instructor? Aren’t you kind of impressed that she was banned (I LOVE that part, actually, makes me want to buy a Big Mac in solidarity)? What do you think it reveals about the progressive mindset?

Related articles

• Dr. Erin Carr-Jordan, Mother of 4, Banned from AZ McDonald’s (VIDEO) (blippitt.com)
• Mom Gets Banned From McDonald’s For Wanting To Be Clean! (wycd.radio.com)
• Specialist Says that the Filth at McDonald’s Playgrounds Can Kill Your Child (cutie79.wordpress.com)

“Is it foolish to think that a nation stained by centuries of slavery and racism is prepared to elect a black president? Rarely phrased so bluntly, that’s the central question posed by Barack Obama’s candidacy — especially for many African-American voters, whose doubts are informed by having seen many an oasis turn out to be a mirage.” – Eugene Robinson, writing in the Washington Post, Dec 11, 2007

This quote, from the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson, I think accurately portrays the skepticism that many black’s had to the possibility of a black president being elected. This is why so many black’s at this point were Hillary Clinton as opposed to Barack Obama supporters. They seriously underestimated how badly white America wanted to vote for a black president.

On a side note I’m debating whether to use the term ‘African American’ more instead of ‘Black’. To me it is a somewhat silly term. Is there anything wrong with being called ‘Black’ or ‘Brown’ or ‘White”. Further, how would you describe someone like Nelson Mandela? A little heavy on the ‘African’, light on the ‘American’, if you ask me.

Currently, the “We are the 99%” and the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd are (in theory) protesting against the “1%”. The problem is that these 1 percent make up the people who create and invent new goods and services for people. They are protesting the most productive people around. Societies that lack these people collapse. However, there is another 1% that the protesters SHOULD be protesting. This 1 percent really does live parasitically off the other 99 percent. Who makes up this villainous class? The STATE. Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. of the Mises institute has more on this here:

The State Is the 1 Percent

Related articles

• There’s An App For Getting Arrested While Occupying Wall Street (alan.com)

“I want Barack Obama to be president,in 2016. It’s not a matter of being inexperienced. It’s a matter of being young … there’s a certain level of maturity … you’ve got to learn to take a certain amount of (expletive) … There are more black people that Bill and Hillary lean on, you cannot be president alone. … To put a brother in there by himself is to set him up for crucifixion. His time will come and the world will be ready for a visionary leadership.” – Civil rights icon Andrew Young, explaining why he doesn’t believe Obama’s time is now, largely due to his lack of a support network, Dec 10, 2007

I think this quote showed some prescience on Andrew Young’s part. Due to his inexperience, Obama didn’t have a support network of any kind coming in. Reagan had Reagan people, Clinton had Clinton people. Who did Obama have? This is the reason there were so many leftovers, particularly from the Clinton years, in his administration. The line about learning to take a certain amount of (expletive) is noteworthy as well. If you’re going to pass legislation in a truly bipartisan way you have to learn to take some hits. I was never a John McCain fan as a politician, but this is what he did constantly. When he worked with Kennedy on immigration reform it nearly cost him the nomination. Obama initially supported this effort, but bailed when the temperature got too hot. Obama never learned what it takes to get things done, as he never got anything done.