A former governor's rebuke...

This was written in direct response (literally, I address each point specifically) to a posting on Facebook by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin on June 30, 2010.

Sarah wrote:

We have a federal government that is spending trillions, and that has nationalized whole sections of our economy: the auto industry, the insurance industry, health care, student loans, the list goes on – all of it at enormous cost to the tax payer. The cost of Obamacare alone is likely to exceed $2.5 trillion dollars.

Interesting, I'm sure that Ford shareholders would disagree, not to mention all of the Honda, Kia and Toyota employees not currently being paid at the behest of Herr Obama.
 

Also, if the Insurance and health care industry's have been "nationalized", where's my free goddamn health insurance? Last I checked Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Iowa is still getting a decent chunk of my paychecks.

No real argument on student loans, that was kind of sneaky.

Last but not least, the cost of the Iraq & Afghanistan wars are over $1 trillion, and what actual benefit have they been to the people of the US?

As a result of all these trillion dollar spending bills, America’s going bust in a hurry. By 2020 we may reach debt levels of $20 trillion – twice the debt that we have today! It reminds me of that joke I read the other day: “Please don’t tell Obama what comes after a trillion!”

Please, no more jokes, my sides hurt.  But seriously, your savior Ronald Reagan nearly tripled the debt in just 8 years, your statistic has it taking at least 12, Obama must be doing pretty good. Bush II also doubled the debt in 8 years. Seems to me that Conservatives are just as good at spending money as Liberals. 

Something has to be done urgently to stop the out of control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny. We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military.

So what you're saying is that no department should be immune from scrutiny, except for the defense department which should be immune from scrutiny.  "However" is a powerful little word that essentially nullifies whatever comes before it, thanks for creating such a wonderful example of it's proper useage.

This may be obvious to you and me, but I am not sure the Obama Administration gets it. There isn’t a single progressive pet cause which they haven’t been willing to throw billions at.

Did I miss something, have we lost a war in the last 18 months? I'm pretty sure that the "surge" Petraeus got in Iraq, and the surge he will receive in Afghanistan weren't provided by charities. In fact, defense spending has risen every year in the last 30, it's merely shrunk as a % of GDP because the GDP has risen so dramatically. 
 

There are several "progressive pet causes" that have not been hit with a random billion dollars, PETA for example.

Now don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with preaching fiscal conservatism. I want the federal government to balance its budget right now! And not the Washington way – which is raising your taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending habits. I want it done the American way: by cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and letting people keep more of their hard-earned cash.

Actually, historically speaking "The American Way" has been to tax the people to pay for the function of government and the overall public good. It's pretty much always been that way, being that we have been a federal republic since the Constitution was ratified. Granted, it hasn't always been a direct tax on income, but taxes are nothing new. 
 

Can't argue with you on the need to cut spending, although I might disagree on which spending should be cut. I'd also like to see smaller government, just not necessarily the kind of small government that gets to tell me who I can love, who is worthy of sacrificing their life in the defense of their country, what medical procedures I can/cannot have and or what faith I should be.

While we're on the subject of a balanced federal budget, can you remind me again who the last president to balance the federal budget was? Are you even capable of speaking the infernal name?

We should not be cutting corners on our national security.

Funny, I don't recall hearing news about the Obama administration shutting down production on ships, tanks, weapons, etc... All I've really seen is two wars continuing in Afghanistan and Iraq, the continuation of the Guantanamo Bay detainee camp and, well, not really any real changes in our Defense policy. Maybe you could be more specific in telling me how President Obama is making the country less safe? Like providing an actual example as opposed to base rhetoric.

The Navy right now only has 286 ships, and that number may decrease. That will limit our options, extend tours for Navy personnel, lessen our ability to secure our allies and deter our adversaries.

Our adversaries? And they would be? I'm pretty sure that Al Qaeda doesn't have a secret fleet of naval vessels, and I'm guessing that the Taliban Navy is in pretty poor shape, what with being in a land-locked country and all. Iraq at least has a port on the Persian Gulf, but I'm guessing they aren't launching a lot of strike groups from it. The cold war is over, remember, your savior "won it single handedly, without firing a shot.

When George W. Bush came into office, he inherited a military that had been cut deeply, an al Qaeda that had been unchallenged, and an approach to terrorism that focused on bringing court cases rather than destroying those who sought to destroy us. We saw the result of some of that on 9/11. 

"An Al Qaeda that had been unchallenged". Hmmm, well, given that the single largest "terrorist" act committed on US soil during the Clinton Administration was committed by an American citizen, I'm not sure what exactly you would have had him "challenge" al Qaeda over.  Al Qaeda isn't so much a nation we can declare war on, so where should we have dropped the bombs in retaliation for the Dhahran, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombings and the attack on the Cole? Most people in this country had never even heard the name Al Qaeda before 9/11, so who should Clinton have "challenged"? Would Bush 41 or Bob Dole have challenged them?

When President Obama came into office, he inherited a military that was winning in Iraq. He inherited loyal allies and strong alliances. And thanks to the lamestream media pawing and purring over him, he had the benefit of unparalleled global popularity. What an advantage! So their basic foreign policy outlines should have been clear. Commit to the War on Terror. Commit to winning – not ending, but winning the war in Afghanistan. Commit to the fight against violent Islamic extremism wherever it finds sanctuary. Work with our allies. Be resolute with our adversaries. Promote liberty, not least because it enhances our security. Unfortunately, these basic principles seem to have been discarded by Washington. 

I see, so winning is now re-defined as "we need 40,000 more troops". Because that's what I remember was going on in Iraq when Obama was elected. David Petraeus was calling for 40,000 more troops, he got 30K, so obviously Pres. Obama doesn't care about our safety. Also, if you haven't noticed, our "Allies" are the ones that are leaving, we're not abandoning them. 
 

How exactly can one effectively fight a war on an adjective? The "War on Terror" cannot be won anymore than the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty" can be won.

Last time I checked, "Promote Liberty" wasn't one of the responsibilities given to the Federal government by the Constitution. I don't recall the citizens of Iraq issuing a request to be invaded. Should we just invade the sovereign borders of any country with a government we don't like/agree with? What about Cuba, I mean we could take them over in an afternoon, but there they sit, just 90 miles off our shores, flouting their Communism. 

The President’s new National Security Strategy does not even use the word “Islamic” when referring to violent extremism. Does he think the ideology of those who seek to kill Americans is irrelevant? How can we seek to defeat an enemy if we don’t acknowledge what motivates them and what their ultimate goals are?

Yeah, because the only violent extremists are Islamic. I wonder what Tim McVeigh's arabic name was? How about Eric Rudolph, did he have an Arabic name? It is narrow-minded and ignorant to assume that all extremists, that would see us harmed, are Islamic. It is also stupid to call a horse anything other than what it is. Islamic extremism is every bit as dangerous to our security as is racial extremism and christian extremism. I'm not down with PC, but if you want to be truthful, you have to recognize all parties, and blowing up doctors offices and federal buildings is every bit as terrorizing as flying planes into buildings.

They escalated a minor zoning issue in Jerusalem into a major dispute with our most important ally in the Middle East, Israel.

Funny how when one of our allies just takes whatever they want, whenever they want, it it is a "minor zoning dispute" yet when an "enemy" does the same it's called "Operation Desert Storm".

They treated the Israeli Prime Minister shabbily in Washington.

Only after he had treated Vice President Biden "shabbily" in Tel Aviv.

When a Turkish sponsored flotilla threatened to violate a legal Israeli blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, the Obama Administration was silent.

A legal blockade of Gaza, which is run by a democratically elected government that we don't agree with, sounds kind of like Cuba, well except that the Palestinians actually elected Hamas. Funny thing about elections, sometimes they don't go the way you want them to, huh Sarah?

When Israeli commandos were assaulted as they sought to prevent unmonitored cargoes from being delivered to Hamas terrorists, the Obama Administration sent signals it might allow a UN investigation into the matter – an investigation that would be sure to condemn our ally Israel and bemoan the plight of Hamas.

So then you're implying that the Israeli commandos actually did something that the UN would find wrong. Not a very nice thing to say about our allies. See, I can play the "it's not what you said, it what you "said" game too.

Loyal NATO allies in central Europe were undermined by the cancellation of a missile defense program with virtually no warning. At the same time, Russia and China are given preferential treatment, while remaining silent on their human rights violations.

Wow, because human rights violations in China are a new thing. Good lord, Wal-Mart wouldn't exist if it wasn't for China's "human rights violations". What about the "human rights" violated every day in Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Columbia, Honduras, the Ivory Coast, etc... so that we can have those cheap goods we all love so much? 
 

And not to be contrarian, but who exactly was the missile defense program defending against? Russia is one of our allies now, remember? Bush and Putin seemed to get along pretty well.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours. 

God forbid we show our "adversaries" some respect. Seriously, what's Hugo Chavez gonna do to us? Put up another video blog? Who would ever have thought that actually talking to our "adversaries" could resolve anything. I mean it's not like Nixon went to China, or Reagan had any kind of discussions with Gorbachev. Oh wait...

Do we get anything in return for all this bowing and apologizing? No, we don’t.

We, we, we, it's always about what we get with you isn't it? And I was always taught that giving was far more important than receiving. 

And while President Obama lets America get pushed around by the likes of Russia and China, our allies are left to wonder about the value of an alliance with the U.S. They have to be wondering if it’s worth it

Again, I must not be watching enough Fox News, or is this just a special border report from the Palin residence? (I know, you never actually said you could see Russia from your house, but Tina Fey is pretty damn funny). I'm just not sure how Russia and China are pushing us around. Russia has been supporting Iran since, oh I don't know the Iran-Iraq war (you know, that little skirmish where we were playing both sides by selling arms to Iran and funneling the cash to Nicaraguan "freedom fighters". Ask your Fox News buddy Ollie North about it, I'm sure he can bring you up to speed.)

China has been pushing us around for a century, sometimes literally (they did after all give us the rickshaw) but more often figuratively, by selling labor to our corporations at a cost that has essentially all but eliminated the American industrial system. Why would they want a military conflict with us? We're their best customer. Besides, they already own half the country anyways, i'm sure they'd like to cash in on all those bonds they've been buying that have funded the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

it signals to the world that maybe we can no longer be counted on, and that we have other priorities than being the world leader that keeps the peace and provides security in Europe, in Asia and throughout the world.

Here I go, being all selfish again, but seriously. Why the hell do we have to be the ones keeping the peace in Europe, Asia and throughout the world? Why the hell do we have to keep sending our young men and women to the middle of nowhere to fight someone else's war. For that matter, what the hell are we doing in Iraq? They never attacked us, I mean Afghanistan I get, what with providing bin Laden a safe-haven, but what exactly was the actual justification for invading a sovereign nation (Iraq), deposing it's leader/government and denying it's people their right to self-determination (just like the previous government had been doing for decades)? If our allies are so great, why can't they take care of their own damn problems and let us focus on ours?

When the world’s dictators see the United States unconcerned with human rights and political freedom, they breathe a sigh of relief, because they know they have a free hand to repress their own people.

Right, so lets throw out all the illegals, tell all the poor people that if they can't pay their own way then that's their problem and that we would rather they starve to death than pay our taxes. Oh and while we're at it, let's destroy our environment and support the corporate use of slave labor in other countries. That'll learn those dictators.

 America loses something very important when its President consigns human rights and freedom to the back burner of its international priorities. 

I couldn't agree more, good thing that we signed on to the International Declaration of Human Rights that was co-authored by FDR's wife Eleanor...oh, right, we didn't do that. Well, it's a good thing we haven't stood by and allowed any human rights abuse to happen anywhere around the world, like in Somalia, Kenya, Yugoslavia, Darfur, you know, we've done everything right. 

We have a President, perhaps for the very first time since the founding of our republic, who doesn’t appear to believe that America is the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known.

Wow, that's a pretty strong statement. "The greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known..." sounds like something Hannity would say, only more eloquent. I applaud your diction, but you act as if this country has never perpetrated a wrong on anyone. That's just not being realistic. It's also not being a very good Christian, as I'm sure the church (whichever church you happen to be a member of) would like to claim that title for themselves. Now, I'm not saying I don't love America, or sincerely believe that it is the single greatest country in the world to live in, but I'm not naive enough to think that some mistakes haven't been made along the way

I mean come on, we nearly exterminated the Native Americans, sold other human beings as livestock until 1864, used skin color to determine the level of an individual's rights until the 1960's and deny citizens their constitutional rights because of who they choose to love. Let's at least be honest and admit that we, as a country, are far from perfect.

That being said, no one is perfect. The Brits are not perfect, and we end up bailing them out on the battle field too regularly. Let's not get started on the Greeks, I mean what have they ever done for Western civilization (well, aside from creating the theory and practice of democracy).

Really? Mr. President, this may come as news to you, but most Americans actually do like it. And so do our allies. They know it was our military might that liberated countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years.

Well, just not the Russians, Chinese (who technically played us to a stalemate twice), Cubans, Colombians, Hondurans, South Africans, I could go on but why bother. We have liberated the French twice, the Germans once, the Czechs, The Dutch, the Belgians and a bunch of other white folks (not the Hungarians though, they took care of it themselves). We did liberate the Afghanis from the Soviets, and that worked out really really well. Not that they weren't worth liberating, they most certainly were, but you have to admit, we've been fairly selective about who we go around saving. Oh, and it did take a couple hundred years to set our own slaves free.

It is in America’s and the world’s best interests for our country to remain the dominant military superpower, but under President Obama’s leadership that dominance may be slipping away. It’s the result of an agenda that reeks of complacency and defeatism. 

It couldn't possibly have anything at all to do with the fact that we are fighting two concurrent wars with a military that is too small, could it? I mean if we had finished the job in Afghanistan before turning to Iraq we would have had some practice in nation building, instead of a two-front war in an area of the world where we aren't particularly well liked. It couldn't possibly be due to the fact that the Bush administration over-extended our military, could it? No, of course not, because we can't possibly blame President Obama if we acknowledge that Bush made a mistake.