When I list threats to our nation I come up with this, to which I’ve added two estimates, certainty and risk to our national existence:
- Governmental debt – very certain, high risk
- Islamic Terrorism – very certain, low risk
- Global Warming – low certainty, non-existent risk
- Energy Shortage – very certain, moderate risk
Note that by placing Terrorism as Low Risk, I don’t mean people won’t be killed, just that it seems a leap that terrorism threatens our national existence. Unlike, for instance, financial collapse, or not having enough energy to run our economy.
It seems to me that a reasonable, responsible and mature way to govern would be to focus on the very certain, high risk threats. Right?
Now… compare to the priorities the Obama administration and the Democratic Party want to focus on. On the list, the only thing they really want to act on is Global Warming. The President has done nothing but worsen the debt problem. On energy, he has made our situation worse by not preparing for oil shock in the Middle East and by cutting back our own oil creation. On terrorism, he punishes Egypt, which was helping us in the effort against Islamic terrorism, and does nothing to Iran or Libya, who actively sponsor terrorism.
So, perhaps, when it comes down to it, our worst enemy, practically speaking, is the modern Democratic Party.
We did a fairly good job of winning a battle against them last election. But as recent events in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas shows… they view little ‘d’ democracy as ‘optional’ when it comes to what their donors want. So that was a battle, the war continues, and they don’t feel limited by the conventions of the normal democratic process.
Ultimately, I think we need to cut away their fuel… the 16th amendment and the government power it funds. Only when that falls will be safe from Democrats, or whatever central government tyrants are calling themselves at that point.