4
The Peacenik Phantom

How Peace and Love and Obama Granola Goodness Threaten Your Life--And Why That Warmongering U.S. Military Is Your Best Friend

Whom would you rather have protecting your family and nation? Rambo? Or Bambi?

That was your choice in 2008. And, thanks to Obama Zombies, America elected Bambi. The only difference is that the original Bambi had far more foreign policy experience, what with all that negotiating with the squirrels and birds of the forest and whatnot. Plus, Bambi never hobnobbed with anti-American radicals or apologized for American power.

John McCain was a woefully weak spokesperson for the conservative cause. Still, on military matters, the man was unmatched. And listen up, all you Obama Zombies: Your civil liberties don't mean squat if you're dead! Got it? That's why presidents are commanders in chief before all else. We elect presidents to do the most important thing a government can do: keep us from being murdered by hostile regimes.

McCain's military credentials are beyond compare in politics. A brief biography goes like this: McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, following in the deep military footsteps of his family. His father and grandfather were both four-star admirals. McCain became a prisoner of war in Vietnam after he was shot down while on a mission in Hanoi. As a POW, McCain was brutally tortured, day after day. The North Vietnamese eventually realized how important Mac's father was in the military. As a show of respect, they offered him early release, but he refused the special treatment. Get that: the Vietnamese offered to release him, but McCain rebuffed the offer, choosing to let the next compatriot in line go first. In the end, McCain's war wounds left him with lifelong disabilities, such as not being able to lift his arms above his shoulders or type on a computer. By any standard, the man is an American hero.

After getting elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986, he served as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, keeping him deeply enmeshed in and informed on all military and intelligence operations affecting the United States of America.

Here are Barack Obama's military experience and credentials:______.

Yet with all of McCain's experience and all of Obama's lack thereof, young people distrusted the former when it came to foreign policy.

A poll conducted in the fall of 2008 by Harvard's Institute of Politics found that 44 percent of young people ages 18-24 still trusted Obama over McCain on the issue of Iraq (28 percent trusted McCain).¹ More shockingly, 40 percent trusted Obama more on the broad category of "Foreign Policy" (27 percent sided with Mac).² A whopping 51 percent thought Obama would "improve the U.S. image abroad," while only 17 percent believed that of McCain.³ Young people were evenly split over who would better protect them from terrorism.⁴

Who could forget the drama over Bill Ayers, the unrepentant bomb-thrower-turned-university "educator"? The relationship he had with Obama--political activity, foundations, and directing education projects together--rightfully called into question where Obama's allegiances lay. After all, Ayers's terrorist activity was not a relic of a rejected past but rather of a past he proudly bragged about on numerous occasions. I'm not looking to relitigate the relationship, especially since McCain stupidly took the "high" ground and tiptoed around the issue. But Obama Zombies need to understand how Ayers and his radicalism felt right at home in academia.

When Ayers became a problem for Obama, due to the dutiful coverage the relationship received on talk radio and the Fox News Channel, Ayers's colleagues constructed a website dedicated to his defense, SupportBillAyers.org. The main page of the website read as follows:

It seems that the character assassination and slander of Bill Ayers and other people who have known Obama is not about to let up. While an important concern is the dishonesty of this campaign and the slanderous McCarthyism they are using to attack Obama, we also feel an obliga- tion to support our friend and colleague Bill Ayers. Many, many educators have reached out, asking what they could do, seeking a way to weigh in against fear and intimidation. Many of us have been talking and we agree that this one gesture, a joint statement signed by hundreds of hard-working educators, would be a great first step. Such a statement may be distributed through press releases or ads in the future.⁵

The website also pledged to combat the characterizations of Ayers as an "unrepentant terrorist" and "lunatic leftist." To them, he was just working "passionately in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, as did hundreds of thousands of Americans. His participation in political activity 40 years ago is history."

Ayers was no MLK, peacefully marching through the streets of Selma, raising awareness of injustice. Rather, Ayers was judge, jury, and executioner--and he relishes that to this day. In his 2001 book, Fugitive Days, Ayers gloats how he "participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972."⁶ This is what he had to say about the Pentagon bombing: "Everything was absolutely ideal . . . The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."⁷

It gets worse. On September 11, 2001, the day of the terrorist attacks, Ayers told the New York Times that he doesn't regret setting off bombs and laments that he didn't do enough.⁸

With that in mind, do you want to take a wild guess on how many "academics" pledged solidarity at SupportBillAyers.org? More than four thousand! And many of these professors "teach" at prominent institutions, including Columbia University, New York University, the University of Chicago, Rutgers University, and George Mason University, among hundreds of others.

Bill Schubert, a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago, signed the letter to stand by his colleague. "I certainly support him in the sense that I think he's an outstanding faculty member and a good colleague," Schubert said. "I'm very disheartened by any discrediting kind of material in the news."⁹

Discrediting? Only in academia are you not disqualified from a posh tenured position on a campus if you lament not having eviscerated more people and property with dynamite. Rather, it's grounds for a promotion.

The disturbing thing is that intellectual thugs like Ayers are precisely the types of dirtbags that Obama hung around with in college. In Dreams from My Father, Obama recounts that he consciously connected with all the radical students to "avoid being mistaken for a sellout." Obama hung with the "Marxist professors," "structural feminists," and the "punk-rock performance poets" who got exercised about "neocolonialism," "Eurocentrism," and "patriarchy,"¹⁰ which are all leftist buzzwords for overthrowing America as a world power.

And in a recently discovered op-ed that Obama penned at Columbia for a student magazine, he took aim at our country's culture of "militarism" and advocated nuclear disarmament. The title of the piece said it all: "Breaking the War Mentality."¹¹ As the New York Times put it, Obama "agitated for the elimination of global arsenals holding tens of thousands of deadly warheads" and railed against what he called "the relentless, often silent spread of militarism in the country" amid "the growing threat of war." In the article, Obama profiled two peacenik groups, Arms Race Alternatives and Students Against Militarism, which helped lead efforts to incorporate "peace, disarmament, and world order" into Columbia's curriculum to shift America from its "dead-end track."

Fast-forward to today. Now president, Obama is seeking to establish global coalitions that start the path to a "nuclear-free world." Obama has also cut back on developing missile-defense systems home and abroad that can protect America from rogue regimes; he wants America to decrease its weapons stockpile and wants to play patty-cake with Iran and North Korea to beg them, pretty please with sugar on top, to halt their nuclear ambitions.

At a forum sponsored by MTV and MySpace during the campaign, Obama explained to the young audience how he'd handle Iran:

I'm going to tell them, "Should you develop a nuclear weapon, it's going to set off an arms race in the Middle East. You have to stop funding terrorist activities." But I'm also going to offer them some carrots and say to them, "But you know what? If you stand down on the nuclear issue, then potentially you could be admitted to the World Trade Organization. You can potentially have a greater economic benefit. Ultimately, at some point, we may be able to set up normalized diplomatic relations."¹²

Obama added that having these types of conversations would send a signal to Iran and the rest of the world that America is "listening" and not just "telling them what to do."¹³

Such rhetoric sounds nice, but it's why Obama had egg all over his face when it was revealed just eight months into his presidency that Iran had built an undisclosed, second nuclear facility. Obama's gullibility borders on willful negligence. It's one thing to be stupid, it's another thing to turn a blind eye to facts and overwhelming evidence.

The mullahs in Iran have made it clear that they seek the destruction of America. They don't want diplomatic relations; they want worldwide domination. Such hatred for us is driven by their interpretation of Islam. "Death to America" chants are common enough to be almost like a greeting for many of them. In fact, what type of meaningful diplomatic overtures can Obama legitimately expect from Iranian rulers who don't blink an eye when it comes to brutalizing their own people? We saw exactly that when the "supreme leader" of Iran ordered his Basij force to club, shoot, and ax to death young people protesting Iran's staged and fraudulent election.

North Korea is similar. Kim Jong Il has made it crystal clear that he seeks the West's annihilation, and he stymies every attempt by the United Nations to curb his weapons programs. Obama prefers to "negotiate." Meanwhile, back in the real world, we take our enemies at their words and view their actions as a middle finger to sane diplomacy. As military analyst Frank J. Gaffney commented, "If the implications were not so serious, the discrepancy between Mr. Obama's plans and real-world conditions would be hilarious. There is only one country on earth that Team Obama can absolutely, positively denuclearize: Ours."¹⁴

It's as if Obama wants to say to North Korea and Iran, "Now, fellas, I know you say you want to destroy Western civilization, but I think you're just misunderstood. I know you really don't mean what you say." Um, B.H.O., when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declares that the Holocaust was "a false pretext to create Israel"¹⁵ and that attacking them is a "national and religious duty," or that a world without America is "attainable," what type of negotiations could you possibly bring to the table without brute force and fierce sanctions? Especially when Ahmadinejad says that Iran has its own "war preparation plan" for "the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."¹⁶

Obama seems not to care. After all, he fancies himself the "apologizer in chief." Such moral equivocating is insane and morally loathsome. Worse, it's downright dangerous. But why should this surprise us? If Obama Zombies would have taken their earbuds out of their ears long enough to actually research and listen to this man, they would have known just how radical he truly is.

* * *

EIGHT DAYS AFTER 9/11, Obama wrote an op-ed for Chicago's Hyde Park Herald in which he argued that Americans needed to have compassion for those who had just slaughtered our brethren:

The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.¹⁷

Obama kept with the same meme when addressing the MTV/MySpace presidential forum, specifically tailored toward youth. In it, he was asked this question via an interactive instant message: "The current administration has significantly affected global opinion about the United States. How do you hope to change the global opinion of our nation, and what are the most impor- tant American principles that you feel should be emphasized if you get a chance to represent the United States globally?"¹⁸ The Washington Post reporter who conveyed the instant message followed up with this: "What's the face that we need to put out for the world?"

Obama's answer: "Mine."

That was fitting with the line the campaign fed us that only someone with a "multicultural" background can bring peace and harmony to the world, which coincided with hilarious rhetoric that he'd heal the planet and bring everyone to suddenly like America.

But Obama continued in the forum, addressing how he would handle our "plummeted" standing in the world:

A couple of things I would do very specifically. I would double foreign aid because I want to send a message that we are concerned about other people, we're not always just talking about our agenda. We want to build schools around the world to teach math and science instead of hatred in America.

Reality check: The Muslim fanatics that have waged and are waging war against us did not do so because of poverty. Dropping rice and beans from the skies along with Hooked on Phonics les- son plans won't curb terrorism. As columnist Mark Steyn has pointed out,

There's plenty of evidence out there that the most extreme "extremists" are those who've been most exposed to the west--and western education: from Osama bin Laden (summer school at Oxford, punting on the Thames) and Mohammed Atta (Hamburg University urban planning student) to the London School of Economics graduate responsible for the beheading of Daniel Pearl. The idea that handing out college scholarships to young Saudi males and getting them hooked on Starbucks and car-chase movies will make this stuff go away is ridiculous--and unworthy of a serious presidential candidate.¹⁹

During the MTV/MySpace forum, Obama gave us a taste of liberals' curious logic. He told the kiddos that we must quash "the genocide in Darfur" because "it's the right thing to do." But then in the next breath, he declared that "we've got to end this war in Iraq" by "focusing on diplomacy." Let's see if I got this one right: Intervene in some remote African country that has no national security relevance at all, but abandon Iraq, where the U.S. military is killing al-Qaeda operatives and other terrorist cells by the thousands (19,000 terrorists killed and more than 25,000 detained, just so you know²⁰).

It's easy to be a liberal. It's easy to say you'll pull out of war and restore diplomacy and make everything better. Never mind that America finally went into Iraq after a decade of "diplomatic" sanctions from the United Nations. Obama paints a world that doesn't exist. Moreover, being a superpower, a world leader, means that other countries may not like you, that other countries may not support your actions. But that's American leadership: we lead and do not follow. Quite frankly, it's a good sign when terrorist states don't like what you're up to. That means you're doing something right.

One reason Barack and his ilk push to disarm America is that they view this country through the prism of the Vietnam War. They view America as constantly walking in sin, in need of redemption. On several occasions, B.H.O. has sought to apologize to foreign audiences for the actions of the nation that made him the most powerful man on the planet. By the Heritage Foundation's Nile Gardiner's count, Obama begged for forgiveness to "nearly 3 billion people across Europe, the Muslim world, and the Americas."²¹

Where do you think Obama delivered this whopper? "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."²² In Strasbourg, France, last April. Yes, yes: Obama apologized to the French for haughtiness! The French!

Obama's apologies to the Muslim world, a common favorite of his, are even more menacing considering the fact that the terrorist threats we face today are coming from radical Islamists--not Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, atheists, but radical Muslims.

In an interview with Al Arabiya, Obama said, "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that."²³

Or how about our illustrious leader standing in the Turkish parliament apologizing for slavery and torture:

Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That's why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That's why we prohibited--without exception or equivocation--the use of torture. . . . The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.²⁴

Obama even seems hell-bent on exalting Islam at the expense of facts and evidence. As Alex Alexiev, an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute, pointed out, it's amazing how wrong Obama is on the history of Islam, especially since he has an unlimited resource of researchers, fact checkers, and experts on call all the time. Regarding Obama's Cairo address, Alexiev observes,

Obama touted Islamic contributions to music (an art form prohibited among the devout) and printing (regarded by the mullahs as the devil's invention, and not available to Muslims until three centuries after Gutenberg), and his preposterous promotion of Saudi King Abdullah, ruler of the most religiously intolerant country on earth, as a champion of "interfaith dialogue."

More telling still are Obama's historically inaccurate portrayals of Muslims as being at "the forefront of innovation and education," and his blaming colonialism and the Cold War for their falling behind. In fact, Muslims have not been at the forefront of anything since ijtihad (reason) was declared un-Islamic ten centuries ago and replaced by blind obedience to reactionary sharia dogma, which, in turn, ushered in a cultural and intellectual stagnation that is yet to be overcome.²⁵

As commander in chief, Obama has a duty to present America in the best possible light, not to bring up every misgiving of the past. Our human rights record is unmatched worldwide, but Obama's vision of a flawed America blinds him from realizing this. He does not believe that America is special and unique in its virtues. At the G-20 conference in Europe, a reporter asked Obama if he subscribed to the idea of American exceptionalism. He replied, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."²⁶ In other words, No, nothing exceptional, America is like any other country. Big deal. Shoulder shrug.

During the Summit of the Americas, Obama sat idly and even took notes while Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega ripped the United States as a terrorist and imperialist nation. When asked about Ortega's diatribe, Obama said, "It was 50 minutes long. That's what I thought."²⁷ At another point he jokingly said, "I'm very grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was 3 months old."²⁸

Way to defend your country, champ.

The left rejects American exceptionalism because they want to put big bad America in its place by disarming us to give other countries around the world leverage to counterbalance our power. But don't take my word for it. Leading leftist "intellectual"--and I use that word sparingly for the left--Deepak Chopra wrote an article for the Huffington Post called "Can We Stop Being a Superpower, Please?" In it, Chopra shows the left's true intentions for America.

"It's been roughly 20 years since the fall of the Soviet Union," he grieves, "which means that the U.S. has experienced two decades of being the world's sole superpower. The experience hasn't been positive." His beef? The "enormous waste of resources involved in being a superpower," for starters. "Has the Stealth bomber justified its staggering cost? Has the nuclear submarine, Polaris missile, Titan missile, not to mention Star Wars? Most of these weapons haven't seen the slightest use. Billions of dollars have been spent on a defense system that is protecting us from a foe who long ago neutralized its threat."²⁹

Forget the fact that having a strong military arsenal is for defensive and preventive measures. After all, it's not like we have crazy regimes around the world who seek our death and destruction. Nah.

Folks, as the saying goes, when you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail. We live in dangerous times. Peace is an anomaly. But Chopra, like his fellow lefties, naively believes that "peace is achieved by being peaceful, no matter what the military-industrial complex claims to the contrary."³⁰

Sadly, young people are prime consumers of Obama's and the left's moral equivocating. The concepts of "right" and "wrong" are a blur to them. Political correctness--the fear of offending liberal orthodoxy--already handcuffs us from speaking our mind on basic Christian principles, including marriage and sexuality--a la the blond bombshell, Miss California. But the PC stranglehold also has deleterious effects on our understanding of how real the terrorist threat is.

In two national surveys conducted by Barna Research Group, young people were asked if they believe that there are "moral absolutes that are unchanging or whether moral truth is relative to the circumstances." Seventy-five percent of those ages 18-35 answered the latter.³¹ This notion of "if it feels good do it" no doubt gut-checks us from saying that Rachel Maddow looks like a dude, but that's far less serious than moral relativism allowing us to define Islamic terrorism, the spade of which Obama will not call as such. Instead, liberals demur each time conservatives mention the constant specter of terrorism.

During George W. Bush's last State of the Union address, for instance, the College Democrats over at Brigham Young University decided to mock the president by taking a shot of alcohol every time he used the words terror, enemy, and evil.³²

Grandmaster liberal bloviator Keith Olbermann typified the idea that conservatives hype terrorism when he said this on the air at the 2008 Republican National Convention:

. . . 9/11 has become a brand name. A Republican campaign slogan. Propaganda of the lowest form. 9/11 has become 9/11 with a trademark logo. "9/11 TM" has sustained a president who long ago should have been dismissed, or impeached. It has kept him and his gang of financial and constitutional crooks in office without-- literally--any visible means of support. "9/11 TM" has made possible the greatest sleight-of-hand in our nation's history.³³

Similarly, on student reactions to 9/11, Professor Patricia Somers of the University of Texas found that students she interviewed worried that retaliation for the terrorist attacks would result in the death of more innocent Americans. Moreover, her subjects feared that members of the American Muslim community would be wrongly targeted. One student complained that "patriotism blinds people to what's really going on." Others said the "cheering for America as if it were a football team" sickened them.³⁴ The patriotic mood of the country at the time, according to Somers's respondents, was "hypocritical and false," while others were alarmed that Americans got caught up in the moment of "waving a flag." Instead, in the words of a USA Today story on Somers's work, the post-9/11 campus environment settled for "blood drives, community service, and group hugging."³⁵

According to liberal authors Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, young people are more inclined to "group unity" than to unilateral action. That influence, they argue, was cemented into the hearts of millions of Millennials from their childhood days of watching Barney! "They all solved their problems by the end of the half hour, and they all accept one another,"³⁶ the duo concluded. That's right, folks. We're the Barney Generation. And only to liberal ears would that be cause for celebration. Good grief. I'd hope to think that the big purple dinosaur is not why younger Americans are more blinded about Islamic terrorism. The terror organization Hamas, by the way, has its own cartoonish character. But "love" and "unity" are not themes of the show. Nope: It's a Bugs Bunny look-alike who declares, "I will eat the Jews!"³⁷ Not a joke.

But of course American college students have been bamboozled. Just look at the classes and textbooks we're subjected to. Peace studies, offered on hundreds of campuses, is one big political think tank for leftist foreign policy. For example, a widely used text in such courses is a book called Peace and Conflict Studies, written by Professor David Barash of the University of Washington and Professor Charles Webel of the University of California-Berkeley. The preface reads, "The field [of peace studies] differs from most other human sciences in that it is value-oriented, and unabashedly so. Accordingly we wish to be up front about our own values, which are frankly anti-war, anti- violence, anti-nuclear, anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, pro-environment, pro-human rights, pro-social justice, pro-peace and politically progressive."³⁸

Liberal bias in academia? What liberal bias in academia?

As Islamic radicals are determined to perpetrate more terrorist attacks against America, the authors of Peace and Conflict Studies analyze the events of September 11, 2001, through the prism of moral relativism. First off, say the authors, "Any actual or threatened attack against civilian noncombatants may be considered an act of 'terrorism.' In this sense, terrorism is as old as human history."³⁹

Befogged in such moral equivocation, Professors Barash and Webel conclude that the American Revolutionary War was actually launched by terrorists, not patriots: terrorism is "a contemporary variant of what has been described as guerrilla warfare, dating back at least to the anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist struggles for national liberation conducted in North America and Western Europe during the late 18th and early 19th centuries against the British and French empires."

The professors acknowledge that placing terrorist in quotation marks "may be jarring for some readers who consider the designation self-evident." But, as they argue, "one person's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter.' "

Translation: The murderous bastards who took the lives of three thousand Americans on 9/11 died for the cause of liberty.

Peace and Conflict Studies offers further reflection:

After the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., many Americans evidently agreed with pronouncements by many senior politicians that the United States was "at war" with "terrorism." Yet, to many disemboweled people in other regions, "Americans are the worst terrorist in the world." . . . Following the attacks, President George W. Bush announced that the United States would "make no distinction between terrorists and the countries that harbor them." For many frustrated, impoverished, infuriated people--who view the United States as a terrorist country--attacks on American civilians were justified in precisely this way: making no distinction between a "terrorist state" and the citizens who aid and abet the state.⁴⁰

Second translation: Here's hoping the authors of Peace and Conflict Studies get captured by al-Qaeda so they can see just how similar the Islamists are to our troops.

DESPITE JOHN MCCAIN'S military credentials, the liberal machine had no shame in falsely painting him as a warmonger. Sadly, it's gotten to the point in America that those who are honest about the serious threats to national security are slimed as just wanting to stir up conflict. Here on planet earth, Islamic terrorism cannot be wished away.

During the campaign, Barack's military adviser, retired general Wesley Clark, bad-mouthed John McCain's war record, noting that "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," and falsely adding that McCain hadn't held any executive responsibility.⁴¹

But the McCain trashing didn't stop there. Senators Jay Rockefeller and Tom Harkin got in on the action. In an interview with a West Virginia paper, Rockefeller all but accused McCain of cold-blooded murder: "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues." In reality, McCain's plane was shot down because of military orders to fly combat missions at lower altitudes to avoid collateral damage.⁴²

Senator Harkin of Iowa actually argued that the military tradition of McCain's family was "dangerous" for the country. He told reporters, "Everything is looked at from [McCain's] life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous. It's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."⁴³

Liberal talk radio host Ed Schultz, a wannabe Rush Limbaugh on the left, was even more direct, calling John McCain a "warmonger" at a fund-raiser for Barack Obama. On CNN, Schultz continued to be inflammatory, repeating the feckless charge. "John, fit the description [warmonger]. There's no question about that. . . . He's saber rattling with Iran. He wants to throw the Russians out of the G-8. And yesterday, on your network, he said he wants to increase the military. Now I ask Americans this morning, what kind of message does it send to the world when we're occupying Iraq and we've got a candidate calling for more of a military buildup. This is outrageous. The man is a warmonger."⁴⁴

John McCain understood that there are deadly terrorists and he would do everything possible to deter them.

The narrative that McCain was an out-of-control, bellicose warmonger was so prevalent that even the liberal Washington Post called out the left, claiming their charge a "caricature" and stating that "McCain is no warmonger."⁴⁵

It's no wonder liberals make up a small percentage of the armed services. And boy, is it pathetic. According to a Military Times poll, the largest ideological bloc in the active-duty military are those who describe themselves as conservative: 46 percent!⁴⁶ Now the embarrassing part for liberals: only 8 percent call themselves liberal. That's dismal. Among the National Guard and Army Reserve, the number of conservatives climbs to 54 percent, while liberals continue at 8 percent.⁴⁷

Better leave the fighting to conservatives.

In any event, why would Obama encourage young people to sign up for the military, an institution he's been taught to believe is evil and oppressive?

The false leftist view of America as an evil dictatorship has gotten to such a hysterical level that two goofballs writing for the left-wing website CampusProgress.org were actually debating whether supporting the home team in soccer reinforces Ameri- can "hegemony." Asheesh Siddique argued that our "dominance of international soccer [would] only reinforce detrimental anti-American sentiments from the world, since our pursuit of global political hegemony has done precisely" that.⁴⁸

The madness continued: "By reaching out and supporting great soccer teams even if they aren't our own, especially given our team's general badness, we demonstrate that we favor cooperative co-existence over chauvinistic and backlash-inducing dominance. That could have positive repercussions for international diplomacy and our standing in the eyes of other countries."

CampusProgress.org is heavily funded by the liberal sugar daddy George Soros. Where does he find such "winners" like Asheesh?

With such a barrage against the military coming from the left, it's no mystery why 53 percent of young people polled distrust the U.S. military to do the right thing.⁴⁹ A majority! But when their elders are polled on whom they trust more, the military always receives a percentage of support north of 80. In fact, priests and judges are usually the only categories considered more trustworthy than the military. But young Obama Zombies?

It's disgusting that every time you hear a liberal define or say they are for "freedom," they don't take a stand against tyrannies around the world, even if only for moral support. They don't even talk about freedom when it comes to protecting America from Islamic nutjobs. That's "arrogant" and "unilateral," they tell us. Freedom, to them, is the freedom to kill third-term babies in the womb.

The fact is that young people benefit by American power. They benefit from America's strong military and constitutional form of government, even if liberals despise both. The closest most young people come to a foreign country is either a study-abroad program in a safe place, on a safe campus, or in meeting foreigners who have work visas in the United States or are studying here. The disconnect of terrorism for young people is typified with silly Facebook groups such as "No, I don't care if I die at 12 a.m., I refuse to pass on your chain letter," which has nearly a million members, or other groups such as "Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!" which has similar large numbers. Young people in Iran don't bother with such stupidity. After all, when you're getting hacked to death with an ax, shot at from rooftops by government officials, and clubbed mercilessly for peacefully protesting in the streets, well, Facebook and Twitter are utilized, but it's for spreading the word about your government's atrocities, not about who you butt-smacked the night before. Similarly, we see legendary man-on-the-street interviews where young people can easily identify Jordan Sparks, Derek Jeter, or Britney Spears, yet have no clue who the secretary of state, vice president, or similar important official is. Ironically, such ignorance is a testament to our military greatness. We're able to enjoy clueless lives precisely because we don't have to worry that some government death squad might round us up. Unfortunately, though, this complacency breeds lazy logic, the hallmark of the Obama Zombie.

It's easy for Obama to say he will usher in a new form of diplomacy; it's easy for him to say he will talk to Iran and North Korea. It's easy to promise peace. Liberalism is easy. It requires no thought, just feel-good messages. What's hard is to acknowledge the ubiquity of evil--and that the military might be needed to defend against it.