At first glance, it appears as if political courage is back in vogue. Is it courage as in ‘guts’ or simply common sense? We believe to know the answer but let us analyze what happened in the Badger State Wisconsin for the several months. If nothing else, it has shown us a clear distinction between Republicans and Democrats. For many people, there has really not been a clearly identifiable difference between the two Party’s in many years.

Allow us to review what happened in Wisconsin during the past eight months:  People in the State of Wisconsin recognized that it would be very difficult to bring about a balanced budget without raising taxes, this being a situation almost fifty States found themselves in after the economic downturn of the past few years. Unlike the Federal government, the Constitutions of the States require a balanced budget. The Republican candidates campaigned on a platform of doing just that and the candidate for Governor, Mr. Scott Walker did precisely that. He even specifically outlined of what steps he would take to achieve balancing the budget without raising taxes but just sim ply cutting spending. One of those provisions was the removal of collective bargaining provisions of certain public unions. Having been a County Commissioner for several years prior, he recognized the unsustainability of ever increasing union benefits and he was honest about it.

Guess what? In November 2010, he won. The people of Wisconsin decided to give the incumbent Democrat the boot and allow the Republicans to fix this problem. But it was not only the Governor’s office receiving a new occupant, the people also voted for Republican majorities in the State legislature, the Assembly as well as the Senate. The State Senate of Wisconsin is now composed of 19 Republicans and 14 Democrats. And they went to work balancing the budget together with the Governor. In order to do that, they demanded higher contributions towards health insurance and retirement funds from the State’s public union employees and to not having to deal with this over and over again every year, they wanted to remove the collective bargaining powers of some public unions.

When it came to voting on this, the Democrat Senators in a cowardly way fled the State and went into hiding in Illinois. With this action, they wanted to prevent the Senate from voting since the State’s constitution requires bi-partisan participation on budgetary matters. They reasoned that by leaving the State they could prevent such action. And at first, they did. In the meantime, union members from all over the country came to Wisconsin and occupied the State building in Madison. Their protests were heard but it did not deter the Republicans, they remained firm. After a few weeks of this stalemate, the Republicans applied a legislative procedure by separating the union provisions from the budgetary issues and then voted on it.

This brought a rash of unjustified criticism from Democrats and the Union bosses and members. But the Democrat Senators came back to Wisconsin, their mission (action) had failed. This entire episode has shed light on the unholy alliance between Unions and Democrats throughout the country at all levels of government. We believe that the Wisconsin Governor and the Republican majority in the State legislature are to be congratulated for holding firm. They told the voters how they would deal with the State budget, the voters approved and voted them in and now they have delivered on their campaign promises. What a novel concept! The Democrats (and unions) who now want to recall the Governor will fail in their attempt and the people of Wisconsin will have won in the end. If nothing else, we know now that not all politicians are the same, some even do what they promise during campaigns even if it is unpopular and requires courage and guts.

The above title of this article might at first be somewhat confusing but it will become clearer what we mean by that near the end. On Friday, March 11, 2011 (local time in Japan), this country suffered one of the most devastating natural disasters in history. A 9.0 earthquake off the north-east coast of the Japanese island of Honshu resulted at first in incredible damage to structures in the vicinity only to be followed by a massive Tsunami with up to 30 foot high waves that devastated the coastline for several miles near the City of Sendai. The videos of the approaching waves and pictures were overwhelming in that entire structures were ripped away up to several miles inland. Estimates of the overall damage are at this time still vague in that the number of death vary from near ten thousand to possible double that number. Hundreds of thousand of people are homeless and rescue efforts are still ongoing. The damage will rise into the billions of dollars.

These two blows also resulted in severe damage to several nuclear power plants near the City of Fukushima and this is the most troubling aspect of this disaster. Radiation has leaked as a result of the structural damage to the plants and several reactors have had fires and explosions within and radioactivity has been recorded as far away as Tokyo. This is the greatest danger that looms and the true impact of this cannot even be estimated in that it could result in devastation like other similar incidents (like Chernobil in 1986). Radiation fallout could spread to other countries as well and the worst is feared as yet to come. The Japanese government is trying everything in their power to curtail the damage and the world has offered its help to support this country’s people in their hour of need. This triple whammy: Earthquake – Tsunami – Nuclear reactor damage and radiation fallout is of epic proportions and the entire world suffers and grieves with the Japanese nation as a whole and is trying to organize relief efforts and whatever it can to help out. In all this though, it is amazing to witness the dignity with which the Japanese people deal with this horror. One cannot even begin to sense the incredible impact this disaster will have on them for a long time to come. When one hears reports that thousands of residents simply vanished as a result of the Tsunami, it is incomprehensible how that must be for those afflicted by it.  While they are in shock and cannot even truly comprehend the full measure of this catastrophe, they have not lost their human dignity and decency.

And as is usually the case when something so devastating is happening, the world wide media immediately “invaded” Japan to be near the disaster zone and see firsthand the devastation and report home what they witnessed. And – as can be expected, the liberal media members could not help themselves by adding their own opinions to what they only should report as facts. Within a few days of March 11, the media was looking for and could not find any signs of “Looting” by the Japanese people and the victims in particular. Wow, they were perplexed and could not understand it, they, being the media hounds. This is what we mean by the ‘Plus’ in the title above.

There was also a true sharing of resources from food items, drinking water and other life necessities, the Japanese people suffered collectively and showed the world their true dignity and culture. If anything positive should come out of this disaster, it is the conduct of the Japanese people in this time of unimaginable hardship. They are to be admired for remaining the same as individuals and as a people even in terrible times like these. We think it is their culture and it is truly enviable.

Brian T. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute and publisher of the Claremont Review of Books. He has written on national security affairs issues in several national publications. He is also a co-author of the recent book: Shariah: The Threat to America. The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 7, 2011, in the “First Principles on First Fridays” lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C. . Due to its length, we will reprint this speech in three parts with the following proviso: “This reprint is with the permission from Imprimis, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu.”

The following is the third and final part of Brian Kennedy’s speech:

Which brings us to Russia and to the degradation of American strategic thinking during and after the Cold War. This thinking used to be guided by the idea that we must above all prevent a direct attack upon the U.S. homeland. But over the past 50 years we have been taught something different: that we must accept a balance of power between nations, especially those possessing nuclear ballistic missiles; and that we cannot seek military superiority—including defensive superiority, as with missile defense—lest we create strategic instability. This is now the common liberal view taught at universities, think tanks and schools of foreign service. Meanwhile, for their part, conservatives have been basking in the glow of “winning the Cold War.” But in what sense was it won, it might be asked, given that we neither disarmed Russia of its nuclear arsenal nor put a stop to its active measures to undermine us. The transformation of some of the former captive nations into liberal democracies is certainly worth celebrating, but given the Russian government’s brutally repressive domestic policies and strengthened alliances with America’s enemies abroad over the past 20 years, conservatives have overdone it.

Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that our policy toward Russia has been exceedingly foolish. For the past two decades we have paid the Russians to dismantle nuclear warheads they would have dismantled anyway, while they have used those resources to modernize their ballistic missiles. On our part, we have not even tested a nuclear warhead since 1992—which is to say that we aren’t certain they work anymore. Nor have we maintained any tactical nuclear weapons. Nor, to repeat, have we built the missile defense system first proposed by President Reagan.

Just last month, with bipartisan backing from members of the foreign policy establishment, the Senate ratified the New Start Treaty, which will further reduce our nuclear arsenal and will almost certainly cause further delays in building missile defenses—and this with a nation that engages in massive deception against us, supports our enemies, and builds ever more advanced nuclear weapons.

At the heart of America’s strategic defense policy today is the idea of launching a retaliatory nuclear strike against whatever nuclear power attacks us. But absent reliable confidence in the lethality of forces, such a deterrent is meaningless. In this light, deliberating about the need for a robust modernization program, rather than arms reductions through New Start, would have been a better way for Congress to spend the days leading up to Christmas—which is to say, it would have been supportive of our strategic defense policy, rather than undercutting it.

But what about that strategic policy? Some of New Start’s supporters argued that reducing rather than modernizing our nuclear arsenal places us on the moral high ground in our dealings with other nations. But can any government claim to occupy the moral high ground when it willingly, knowingly, and purposely keeps its people nakedly vulnerable to nuclear missiles? The Russians understand well the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the American defense establishment, and have carefully orchestrated things for two decades so that we remain preoccupied with threats of North Korean and now Iranian ballistic missiles. We spend our resources developing modest defense systems to deal, albeit inadequately, with these so-called rogue states, and meanwhile forego addressing the more serious threat from Russia and China, both of which are modernizing their forces. Who is to say that there will never come a time when the destruction or nuclear blackmail of the U.S. will be in the interest of the Russians or the Chinese? Do we imagine that respect for human life or human rights will stop these brutal tyrannies from acting on such a determination?

If I sound pessimistic, I don’t mean to. Whatever kind of self-deception has gripped the architects of our current defense policies, the American people have proved capable of forcing a change in direction when they learn the facts. Americans do not wish to be subjected to Sharia law, owe large sums of money to the Chinese, or be kept vulnerable to nuclear missiles. Having responded resoundingly to the economic and constitutional crisis represented by Obamacare, it is now time for us to remind our representatives of the constitutional requirement to provide for a common defense—in the true sense of the word.

Brian T. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute and publisher of the Claremont Review of Books. He has written on national security affairs issues in several national publications. He is also a co-author of the recent book: Shariah: The Threat to America. The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 7, 2011, in the “First Principles on First Fridays” lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C. . Due to its length, we will reprint this speech in three parts with the following proviso: “This reprint is with the permission from Imprimis, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu.”

The following is the second part of Brian Kennedy’s speech:

Elsewhere this document says:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the means. The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes . . . .

Now during the Bush Administration, the number of Muslims in the U.S. was typically estimated to be around three million. The Pew Research Center in 2007 estimated it to be 2.35 million. In 2000, the Council on American Islamic Relations put the number at five million. And President Obama in his Cairo speech two years ago put it at seven million.

In that light, consider a 2007 survey of American Muslim opinion conducted by the Pew Research Center. Eight percent of American Muslims who took part in this survey said they believed that suicide bombing can sometimes be justified in defense of Islam. Even accepting a low estimate of three million Muslims in the U.S., this would mean that 240,000 among us hold that suicide bombing in the name of Islam can be justified. Among American Muslims 18-29 years old, 15 percent agreed with that and 60 percent said they thought of themselves as Muslim first and Americans second. Among all participants in the survey, five percent—and five percent of the low estimate of three million Muslims in America is 150,000—said they had a favorable view of al Qaeda.

Given these numbers, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the political aims and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood represent a domestic threat to national security. It is one thing to have hundreds of terrorist sympathizers within our borders, but quite another if that number is in the hundreds of thousands. Consider the massacre at Fort Hood: Major Nidal Malik Hasan believed that he was acting as a devout Muslim—indeed, he believed he was obeying a religious mandate to wage war against his fellow soldiers. Yet even to raise the question of whether Islam presents a domestic threat today is to invite charges of bigotry or worse.

And as dangerous as it potentially is, this domestic threat pales in comparison to the foreign threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allies—a threat that is existential in nature. The government in Tehran, of course, is enriching uranium to convert to plutonium and place in a nuclear warhead. Iran has advanced ballistic missiles such as the Shahab-3, which can be launched from land or sea and is capable of destroying an American city. Even worse, if the Iranians were able to deliver the warhead as an electromagnetic pulse weapon from a ship off shore—a method they have been practicing, by the way—they could destroy the electronic infrastructure of the U.S. and cause the deaths of tens of millions or more. And let me be perfectly clear: We do not today have a missile defense system in place that is capable of defending against either a ship-launched missile attack by Iran or a ballistic missile attack from China or Russia. We do not yet today have such a system in place, even though we are capable of building one.

Since I have mentioned China and Russia, let me turn to them briefly in that order. The U.S. trades with China and the Chinese buy our debt. Currently they have $2 trillion in U.S. reserves, about half of which is in U.S. treasuries. Their economy and ours are intimately intertwined. For this reason it is thought that the Chinese will not go to war with us. Why, after all, would they want to destroy their main export market?

On the other hand, China is building an advanced army, navy, air force, and space-based capability that is clearly designed to limit the U.S. and its ability to project power in Asia. It has over two million men under arms and possesses an untold number of ICBMs—most of them aimed at the U.S.—and hundreds of short- and medium-range nuclear missiles. China’s military thinking is openly centered on opposing American supremacy, and its military journals openly discuss unrestricted warfare, combining traditional military means with cyber warfare, economic warfare, atomic warfare, and terrorism. China is also working to develop a space-based military capability and investing in various launch vehicles, including manned spaceflight, a space station, and extensive anti-satellite weaponry aimed at negating U.S. global satellite coverage.

Absent a missile defense capable of intercepting China’s ballistic missiles, the U.S. would be hard pressed to maintain even its current security commitments in Asia. The U.S. Seventh Fleet, however capable, cannot withstand the kinds of nuclear missiles and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that China could employ against it. The Chinese have studied American capabilities, and have built weapons meant to negate our advantages. The destructive capability of the recently unveiled Chinese DF-21D missile against our aircraft carriers significantly raises the stakes of a conflict in the South China Sea. And the SS-N-22 cruise missile—designed by the Russians and deployed by the Chinese and Iranians—presents a daunting challenge due to its enormous size and Mach 3 speed.

China has for some time carried out a policy that has been termed “peaceful rise.” But in recent years we have seen the coming to power of what scholars like Tang Ben call the “Red Guard generation”—generals who grew up during the Cultural Revolution, who are no longer interested in China remaining a secondary power, and who appear eager to take back Taiwan, avenge past wrongs by Japan and replace the U.S. as the preeminent military power in the region and ultimately in the world.

However far-fetched this idea may seem to American policymakers, it is widely held in China that America is on the decline, with economic problems that will limit its ability to modernize its military and maintain its alliances. And indeed, as things stand, the U.S. would have to resort to full-scale nuclear war to defend its Asian allies from an attack by China. This is the prospect that caused Mao Tse Tung to call the U.S. a “Paper Tiger.” Retired Chinese General Xiong Guong Kai expressed much the same idea in 1995, when he said that the U.S. would not trade Los Angeles for Taipei—that is, that we would have to stand by if China attacks Taiwan, since China has the ability to annihilate Los Angeles with a nuclear missile. In any case, current Chinese aggression against Japan in the Senkaku Islands and their open assistance of the Iranian nuclear program, not to mention their sale of arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, would suggest that China is openly playing the role that the Soviet Union once played as chief sponsor of global conflict with the West.