Newt Gingrich On The NK Missile Launch,

As Obama spoke dreamily of a world without nuclear weapons, in Prague, Kim Jong Il  thought it would be funny to launch a missile through Japanese airspace, as if to say to Obama and the Euroweenies at the G-20 Summit, “What are you going to do about it, chumps?”

We can forget about Obama taking any kind of leadership role to thwart North Korea’s  nuclear ambitions. He will  follow whatever the U.N. deems appropriate, which will tend to be little or nothing.

The days of “cowboy diplomacy” are over, folks. We’ve gone from “preemptive strikes” to “first responders”…in other words, threats will be allowed to become attacks…..and it will be okay, because we’ll have highly trained professionals to deal with the situation, and the world will love us…..except for the ones who don’t, and won’t ever.

Nonetheless, according to Obama, the goal of total nuclear disarmament is a worthy goal that civilized nations should be working toward.

This YouTube video, that Obama made for the 2008 Presidential election should have disqualified him from the Presidency. The best that realists could hope for, was that this was just a cynical bid for support from the nutroots. But alas, it turns out, he was really serious.:

Ed Morrissey puts the lie such naive thinking:

There has never been a weapon in human history that all people simply decided to stop using, unless a bigger weapon superceded it.  Science does not go backward.  Nuclear weapons will not simply disappear, and it’s childish to believe they will.  What we need is better leadership on how to live in a nuclear world, better commitment to non-proliferation, including the will to force rogue nations into compliance.  Sitting around wishing for the world to forget established science will only make those tasks harder.

Here’s Gingrich on Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace, saying he would have taken the missile out:

As I’m sure Newt knows, Obama would never follow his advice. Precisely nothing effective will be done to thwart our enemy’s plans.

As Joe Biden might say, “Gird your loins”.

Video: Revolution Talk

It turns out the far right aren’t the only ones prone to such talk. The far left does it, too, (listen at 1:40):

“We’ve got a revolution that needs to take place…” (?!)

Now, obviously, Obama isn’t talking about an armed revolution in this clip from a 2004 interview in Chicago. But this little exchange does give you a good indication of just how radical Obama’s vision for America has been.

Hat tip: Quipster

Two Points Of View On Obama’s Control Of The Banks

Charles Krauthammer believes the Bank and Auto interventions are  bizarre sideshows; distractions  Obama doesn’t want or need in his quest to transform the American system of government:

In fact, we are now so deep into government intervention that constitutional objections are summarily swept aside. The last Treasury secretary brought the nine largest banks into his office and informed them that henceforth he was their partner. His successor is seeking the power to seize any financial institution at his own discretion.

Despite these astonishments, I remain more amused than alarmed. First, the notion of presidential car warranties strikes me as simply too bizarre, too comical, to mark the beginning of Yankee Peronism.

Second, there is every political incentive to make these interventions in the banks and autos temporary and circumscribed. For President Obama, autos and banks are sideshows. Enormous sideshows, to be sure, but had the financial meltdown and the looming auto bankruptcies not been handed to him, he would hardly have gone seeking to be the nation’s credit and car czar.

Obama has far different ambitions. His goal is to rewrite the American social compact, to recast the relationship between government and citizen. He wants government to narrow the nation’s income and anxiety gaps. Soak the rich for reasons of revenue and justice. Nationalize health care and federalize education to grant all citizens of all classes the freedom from anxiety about health care and college that the rich enjoy. And fund this vast new social safety net through the cash cow of a disguised carbon tax.

Stuart Varney, the British economic journalist, who currently works for the Fox News Channel isn’t quite so so blithe about Obama’s move to control of the banks:

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration’s thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash — which was often forced on them in the first place — the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That’s what’s happening right now.

Here’s a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He’s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with “adverse” consequences if its chairman persists. That’s politics talking, not economics.

Varney states that after living for 35 years in America, he believed he never would see such class warfare.

I’m not sure who’s right, ( I have my suspicions)… but I think the difference is between being very afraid, and very, very afraid.