Events have unfolded so rapidly and across so many fronts this past week, it has proven difficult to keep up.  While the President and Sarah Palin were verbally duking it out across the Nuclear Fruited Plain, our enemies seem to have been given a gratuitous glimpse at our Country's new defensive mindset.

This new philosophy which our esteemed leaders espouse appears to be a "New Age" look at military "strategery."  Apparently, the US now wishes to disarm possible enemy states by reducing them to hysterical, roll-about-the-floor, convulsive laughter.

In fact, the new defensive paradigm essentially redefines US policy by graciously providing our possible attackers a checklist of how the US might respond to a given attack scenario.  The point that stands out indicates that the US will not react via a nuclear response in the event of a biological or gas attack (Weapons of Mass Destruction) by our enemies.

So, to logically interpret this particular stance, the US is officially stating an "acceptable" way to kill Americans without the attacking Country having to worry about being turned into a heap of smoking cinders.  No doubt, the Administration's preoccupation with environmental impact plays into this particular mix.  Certainly, a nuclear detonation could substantially increase ambient environmental temperatures for a time. thereby boosting the possibility of man-made Global Warming--which is an emphatic Liberal  No-No.  Gas or biological weapons, on the other hand, will primarily affect human individuals, which are expendable to the Statist collective, as a whole.  Sarah Palin took issue with the new "defensive stance" which then resulted in a media-driven game of verbal give and take between the two.

The Nuclear Playground

The Obama/Palin exchange was comical as Palin had initially indicated that Obama's strategy was akin to kids fighting on a playground and one kid stating to the other:  "Go ahead and hit me--I won't hit back."  Obama responded as follows:  "Last I checked, Palin's no expert on nukes."  We find it fascinating that the President's philosophy as it regards Foreign Security Threats seems to be totally at odds with his stance on Domestic Political Threats where he stated:  "If they bring a knife to the fight--we bring a gun."

At any rate, the President went on to state that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs were comfortable with his position--that being "fetal" no doubt.  Our particular understanding of the military mind would suggest that the Joint Chiefs are concernedly ashen at the thought of this new policy, despite their being unable to voice their concerns as to the mindset of their Commander-in-Chief.

In the President's nuclear summit meeting, which had been highly touted by "most" members of the Mainstream Media, despite  their being dismissed from reporting it, the President came away with what was thought to be an achievement worthy of crowing about.  The main impetus of the meeting was to make sure that nuclear states "would be careful" to lock down nuclear materials in the future in order to keep such material away from the terrorists.

This would presuppose that most countries leave weapons grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium parked beside the road awaiting an orange "abandoned nuclear material sticker"--please tow? The President, providing a figurative exclamation point to his "going nuclear on nukes," had earlier signed a new treaty with the "stalwartly trustworthy" Russian Government where both would eventually reduce their nuclear weaponry stockpiles by one third.

Laudable but Unrealistic

While reducing nuclear weapons is laudable, the thing to remember with regard to nuclear arms is this:  No weapons program in the history of man-kind has been more instrumental in limiting a world-wide engagement of opposing forces.   The advent of the Nuclear Age has resulted in small-scale wars and skirmishes only.  The dire and sobering threat of nuclear annihilation is, most likely, the one thing that has kept the world out of the World Wars that plagued the globe during the the first 50 years of the 20th century.  With regard to Obama's ill-advised modified US stance to possible attackers, we would point to the writings of Sun Tzu who states in The Art of War:

"In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch one can attain is to conceal them."

Perhaps the "ostensibly" well-read Obama skipped that book along with the Bill of Rights while in his formative days of learning.  In fact, the Conservative  President who brought an end to the Cold War espoused a viewpoint of "peace through strength."  Ronald Reagan's insights regarding war and prosperity seem to have been forgotten, despite President  Reagan's having been one of the most successful at leading this Country of any President at any time.  Reagan, in fact, believed the best way to avoid war was to counter the current method being toyed with by this Administration, which seems one of appeasement.  Some would insist that Reagan wished to rid the world of nuclear weapons; however, Reagan's being a "realist" would have most likely meant that a limited supply of nuclear weapons would be the best option one could hope for.

Coordinating Defense to Match the Economy

President Reagan believed in Vegetius' maxim of, "if you want peace, prepare for war," which has been the essential (waxing and waning) defining code of this Country since the dark days of WWII.  But seeing that the economy has been emaciated to the point of showing its rib-boned definition, why not make the same effort with our Country's defenses?

We feel certain that the President will whiff this "defensive strategy" ball as well-- as it curves past the plate.

But both the President and Congress have shown a stance and a face within their Domestic Policies which belie their stance and face to the world.  It's almost as if this administration is acting out a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde routine with the hideous Mr. Hyde showing up whenever a domestic issue needs to be hammered home or more deficit spending needs be meted out.

In fact, our Government, while seeming open and gracious to foreign antagonists,  appears all too often to vilify, if not denigrate, their Countrymen who are not in agreement with their positions.  This leaves much of those in America puzzled  as to the goals and the ideals at play within their Governance.  This is also the most likely reason for the insidious and never-ending conspiracy theories that pop out into the non-traditional Media at various times.

Forbearance Is Not an Aspect of Liberty

As we look at the ideological differences between President Reagan and President Obama, we begin to see a number of stark, glaring differences between the two.  Reagan, who was known as a staunch Constitutional Conservative, believed in the ideas espoused by the US Constitution and its Founders.  The Founders believed in the God-given rights of individuals and their right of self-determination.

Reagan further warned Americans as early as the 1950's about the dangers of allowing Government to take over healthcare, as well as other critical National functions.  Obama, on the other hand, believes in a Government-centered philosophy of "Command and Control."  Over-reaching regulations for healthcare, financial reforms, domestic policy and virtually any other civil society activity, are to be given structure and forbearance by the Government.

The Society as a whole, or the "Community of Americans," is the bread that will receive a thin--yet often bitter--layer of "Government Butter Spread."  In essence the Statists or Liberal Democrats  embrace a philosophy towards individual Citizens of one-size-fits-all.  In addition, the right of self-determination is secondary or even tertiary to the responsibility of Governance to oversee the smooth functioning of its subjects as they move about in their daily lives.  We can begin to see this paradigm in virtually everything that the Liberals have undertaken.

The Toxic Elixir To  Individual Rights

The problems associated with governing  to the whole as opposed to governing to the individual is the defining historical aspect of creeping Tyranny versus Liberty.  The Progressive State will more and more overlook the rights of the individual in favor of the greater good of Society.  In essence, the individual, along with his or her rights, will each increasingly fall through the cracks of hegemony as the new ideology takes hold.

So what began as an "enlightened"  means to increase the security and the latent prospect of prosperity within each individual will eventually turn into a dark and menacing shroud of individual engulfment that each must wear.

Those individuals who now  gather together in parks and venues  all over the United States to make their voices known could be said to have a particular understanding of the problems associated with the toxic elixir of ideology which is being poured out all over this wounded land.

Barry Secrest