Victor Davis Hanson: 2009 Chickens and Their 2010 Roost

realclearpolitics.com ^ | December 31, 2009 | Victor Davis Hanson

[neverdem]

In the coming year, plenty of our chickens will be coming home to roost.

Take foreign relations. In 2009, the new administration assumed that George W. Bush was largely responsible for global tensions. As a remedy, we loudly reached out to our foes and those with whom we had uneasy relationships.

But so far these leaders -- like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Russia's Vladimir Putin -- have only interpreted Barack Obama's serial goodwill gestures as weaknesses to be exploited. They play the part of the pushy class bully, we the whiny nerd.

In the waning days of 2009, Iran has announced it has no intention of dismantling its nuclear facilities and ignored the latest Obama deadline to cease. There's no reason not to expect the theocracy to make significant strides in its nuclear program in 2010, while continuing without rebuke to beat and murder democratic dissidents in its streets...

--snip--

By year's end, oil was creeping back up to $80. If the economic upswing continues, in 2010 it may near its old high of nearly $150 a barrel. Soon we will wish we had done something concrete in 2009 rather than offering more stale rhetoric about wind and solar power.

In other words, 2009 may seem to have ended relatively quietly. But in our foreign relations, in the war against terror, in our massive borrowing, and in our energy policies, we created chickens that soon will come home to roost in 2010.

[neverdem]

In other words, 2009 may seem to have ended relatively quietly. But in our foreign relations, in the war against terror, in our massive borrowing, and in our energy policies, we created chickens that soon will come home to roost in 2010.

That's among other reasons why I believe that if the left attempts massive voter fraud next November, then the Battle of Athens, TN will look like child's play.

[nathanbedford]

Eight months ago in April 2009 I posted the following reply which I think anticipates much of Dr. Hansen's remarks:

... his[Obama's] decision [to prohibit domestic drilling] costs America countless jobs and countless tens of billions of dollars in our balance of payment account. It weakens the dollar. It increases the deficit and debt. It funds those oil producers like Saudi Arabia who fund terrorists with more petrodollars. It enriches tyrants like Hugo Chavez who might otherwise go bankrupt and enables them to make alliances with tyrants like Putin to undermine American security by placing nuclear bombers in Venezuela. It supports tyrants like Putin who might otherwise go bankrupt and who supplies Iran with nuclear technology and invades his neighbors. It makes America more dependent on foreign energy. It leaves America more vulnerable to terrorists. It prolongs and deepens the recession. It makes America vulnerable.

This decision is so inimical to America's national interests that I can conceive of only two reasons why a man who has been entrusted by the people with their security and their prosperity would make such a decision.

First, Obama could be a committed ideologue who is determined to break the United States away from fossil fuels and switch our economy over to wind and solar. (One notes that he has not opted for nuclear, having declared the waste problem prevents that.) He is willing to suffer the costs identified in the first paragraph at a time when America is facing a historic financial crisis which involves real suffering by his people who are out of work. The hold of this ideology on the President is so strong that he cannot even countenance domestic drilling not even only until the financial crisis has passed.

The second possible reason is that the president has cold bloodedly calculated that his energy policy, when considered in pari materia with cap and trade will so dislocate the economy and produce so much chaos which he will exploit and move the country towards Marxism.

I leave the reader to make his choice or to furnish a third or fourth more benign explanation for what the president is doing. Whatever motivation has prompted this action, it is clear that his ideological commitment, whether green or red, is so strong that he will never be deterred by reason. I also suggest that if his motivation were merely to forward the green goals of eliminating emissions of fossil fuels, Barak Obama would opt for atomic energy. That he has not suggests that his posture is a sham calculated to advance the revolution.

[abclily]

Remind me again, please. Why are we not pumping our own oil?

[HiTech RedNeck]

his ideological commitment, whether green or red

I vote for both, which makes it brown.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Historically, OPEC responds to such moves by undercutting the price of domestic oil, seeking to punish US domestic drilling by whipsawing it in boom-bust. This still might not be a bad thing to risk, since the less petrodollars taken in, the less it can fund terrorist Islamic activity.

[iopscusa]

THX Never for again mentioning the Battle of Athens TN. I absolutely love this example and appreciate the references that remind me of how just men can overcome tyrants!

[gnawbone]

I am amazed by the story of Athens, TN. I’m not the most well read of citizens but I am stunned I’ve never heard of this before ....

For those of you that have not read “neverdem’s” Battle of Athens, TN, read it and you’ll be crystal clear on why the political class doesn’t want us to have guns but don’t care if criminals have them.

Amazing story.

[Elsie]

Thank You!

This just went out as an E-Mail!

[Elsie]

I am amazed by the story of Athens, TN. I’m not the most well read of citizens but I am stunned I’ve never heard of this before ....

Public school 'educated'?

[geologist]

God help us in our day, in Jesus name, amen.

[happygrl]

He is willing to suffer the costs identified in the first paragraph at a time when America is facing a historic financial crisis which involves real suffering by his people who are out of work.

I don't think he cares about or empathizes with any of his fellow Americans.

We are just props in the Great Obama Drama.

I write, repeatedly, on this forum that He is not one of Us. He truly identifies more with the outsiders, than the natives, as he spent his formative years unconnected with this country.

His roommates, while at Columbia U, were Pakistanis.

His church was anti-American.

His associates in Chicago were Iraqis and Palestinians.

He is in way over his head, and has fallen back on the phrases quoted at bull sessions in college, or as Walter Williams put it, "he's 19 going on 48."

Liberalism has the same effect that drugs have on one's mind: it stifles mature thinking.

That's why he comes off like a frat boy in his speech and mannerisms.

[grey_whiskers]

In other words, you'd accuse him of being a
(green on the outside, red on the inside), but you're afraid of being called a racist due to historical stereotypes and your screen name.

Therefore, may I suggest an alternative term:

Which would also explain his stuttering when away from his teleprompter. ("Hold on, I can't hear myself...")

Cheers!

[abclily]

So, we need a federal law that prohibits the importation of foreign oil. Pump and use our own petroleum.

[abclily]

Yes, drugs stifle mature thinking. Drugs retard intellectual development. This is why so many who experimented with drugs find it difficult to see cause and effect in real life situations. And BarackO is no exception.

[abclily]

Why would anybody be called a racist in relation to BarackO? He is not 100% black. Which race would we be talking about in relation to BarackO? The Arabian race? The white race?

[okie01]

So, we need a federal law that prohibits the importation of foreign oil. Pump and use our own petroleum.

Do you have something against Canada? Canada sells us around 75 million barrels a month, the most we import from any country by far.

[abclily]

How about we use only North American oil?

[okie01]

How about we use only North American oil?

Gee, that would cut one of the President's buds -- El Lider Hugo Chavez.

It would also eliminate the new Brazilian strike, which the U.S. granted foreign aid money to develop -- and one of its owners is also a Presidential bud: George Soros.

We couldn't be cutting out ol' Georgie and Hugo from their piece of the American pie, could we?

[abclily]

We sure could. North American oil only. What would be wrong with that?