One of the most important decisions of the 20th century was also one of the loneliest.

On the evening of June 5, 1944, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, had a choice to make. Thousands of his troops were poised to begin the assault on Normandy, France, the next day. If it worked, it would lead to the end of World War II in Europe.

But the weather wasn’t cooperating. Winds and rain would disrupt the airborne operations and naval and air bombardments that were critical to the success of the mission. The weather officer expected somewhat of a clearing, but this still was no time for an invasion. Eisenhower knew that without effective bombardments, many of the invading forces would be slaughtered by the Nazi machine gun nests when they hit the beaches.

Ike would have preferred to wait, but the invasion had already been postponed once because of the weather, and the tides would not be favorable again until June 19. That was a long time to keep the finger on the trigger. The men would go crazy spending that much time locked up in camp, and delay increased the likelihood that the Germans would learn of the planned invasion.

One by one, the generals gave their opinions. In a variety of accents, some said go and some said wait. And then it came to Eisenhower. He paced, struggling with the decision. After a moment, he said, “OK, let’s go.” His subordinates cheered and then left for their posts, living Eisenhower alone.

It was a firm decision, but not one made with certainty. The next day, he penned a press release to be made public if the invasion failed. “My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

We now know that Eisenhower was correct – correct to decide to invade, and correct that some of the invading forces would be slaughtered.

World War II produced its share of legends – blood-and-guts generals like George S. Patton and the regal and glory-seeking Douglas MacArthur, and all deserve their place in history. But when it came time for that fateful decision on June 5, I’m glad it was Ike, the humble common man, who was making it.

Now the United States faces a different kind of enemy – its own fiscal irresponsibility. Unlike World War II, which started with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the national debt is an enemy that attacks our freedom and prosperity from within, slowly and undramatically. It can be ignored for decades, as it already has been.

But instead of confronting this enemy, America is at war with itself. If Republicans and Democrats were Allied armies, then the United States and Great Britain would have killed each other instead of the Nazis.

This time, thank goodness the country doesn’t need soldiers willing to charge through machine gun fire across a foreign beach. What’s needed are statesmen willing to make tough choices – to reduce spending on popular programs, and to raise taxes for the purpose of balancing the budget so that our children and grandchildren don’t have to do it for us.

It needs leaders willing to listen to diverse points of view, to make their decisions based on the best information available instead of relying on rigid orthodoxy, and who accept that it’s OK to be uncertain. We need elected officials who accept that any decision they make will be painful but that delay is unacceptable. We need people in Congress and the White House who are willing to accept responsibility for their decisions and to blame no one else when things go wrong.

The country needs more Eisenhowers.

Peacefully, and no, not as a result of assisted suicide.

He was right to shed light on the issue of how America prolongs the suffering of the dying. He was right that people have a right to end their own lives. He was right that there should not be a stigma attached to that act.

I don’t know if physicians should be involved in that act. I hope he never convinced any of his patients to do something they otherwise would not have done.

The bigger picture than assisted suicide is the way America treats the dying. For moral and financial (which are also moral) reasons, terminally ill people are treated far worse than dying dogs and horses – poked, prodded, and hooked up to machines in a sterile, soulless, frightening hospital environment. When possible – and often it is – people should die at home with their families.

Here is a highly informative 60 Minutes report about the issue. In addition to its big picture analysis, it follows an elderly woman in her last days subjected to test after tests, even pap smears, at great cost to future taxpayers, since current taxpayers have decided not to pay our own bills.

Here is the story about Kevorkian.

Sen. John Boozman spoke on the Senate floor today about the national security threat posed to the nation by the $14.3 trillion national debt. Referring to remarks by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, he called it the greatest threat to our sovereignty.

“China owns $1.2 trillion of our debt,” he stated. “The Chinese government contends that it won’t use this liability for political advantage. But this is the same government that also claims that there are no human rights violations in that country. Clearly the Chinese government’s word is not a promise we should bank on.”

Boozman listed other foreign creditors – Iran, Venezuela and even Libya – to whom the United States is indebted.

This year, the federal government will spend $3.7 trillion and take in only $2.2 trillion. The eye doctor’s prescription, unfortunately, will fix only part of one of the lenses. He talked about spending cuts, but is he willing to cut national defense? Medicare? Social Security? I hope so. And is he willing to raise any taxes at all to make up the shortfall? If not, does he really think the federal government can cut its spending in half in order to achieve balance?

“It is up to us to make the tough decisions to get our economic house in order,” he said, “and the time is now to act.”

Yes it is.

Here is Boozman’s speech.

Mike Huckabee announced on his television show tonight that he is not running for president.

I’m not surprised. In my April 24 column for the Arkansas News Bureau, I argued that Huckabee’s building a $2.2 million Florida mansion was pretty good evidence that his heart wasn’t into making a presidential race.

Here is Huckabee’s statement regarding his decision. Notice that he begins by criticizing the “pundits.” Would he rather be ignored? Besides, considering now he makes his money off of hosting an opinion-based political show, writing opinion-based books, broadcasting his opinion-based radio report, and making opinion-based political speeches, what does that make him?

Anyway, here’s the statement.

The pundits and members of the political class who have spoken with certainty about my decision to run or not for President in 2012 are amusing if not amazing to think that they knew what even I didn’t know until late this week. The past few months have been times of deep personal reflection. Even though I wasn’t actively establishing a campaign organization or seeking financial support to run again, polls have consistently put me at or near the top to be the Republican nominee. When possible candidates were discussed in the media and despite polls that showed me in the lead, my name would often go unmentioned while a candidate barely registering single digits was touted as a “front-runner.” I found comfort that the nomination would not be made by commentators, columnists, or consultants, but by the rank and file voters in the Republican primary, and their support is strong and has been growing.

Concerns that I had about raising the necessary funds to be competitive or being able to win in states outside the South were answered when signs of strong financial support materialized and when polls showed me winning in states like Pennsylvania, Maine, and even New Jersey. That kind of shattered the notion that I was only a regional candidate or only supported by social conservatives.

I had not done much toward a race because my life was filled with work that I truly love here at Fox News, doing radio commentaries on my daily Huckabee Report on 600 radio stations, traveling the country for speaking engagements, and helping good conservative, pro-life candidates who were running for office. Other people probably thought about it more than I did.

I don’t have an issue with my family being supportive. My wife actually encouraged me to do it, despite knowing full well it would subject her and the rest of the family to brutal and savage personal attacks. My adult children have also made it clear they would be with me no matter what.

When people asked me what it would take for me to run, I would tell them the same thing—pray for me to have clarity in the decision. I don’t expect everyone to understand this, but I’m a believer and follower of Jesus Christ. That relationship is far more important to me than any political office. For me, the decision is ultimately not a political one, a financial one, or even a practical one —it’s a spiritual one.

The past few weeks, the external signs and signals and answers to many of the obstacles point strongly toward running. When I am with people encouraging me to run, it’s easy to feel the strength of their partnership and commitment to help me to the finish line. Only when I was alone, in quiet and reflective moments did I have not only clarity, but an inexplicable inner peace—a peace that exceeds human understanding. All the factors say GO, but my heart says NO. And that is the decision I have made and in it have finally found resolution. I don’t fully understand it myself—but I’m sure the pundits will. But I know that under the best of circumstances, being President is a job that takes one to the limit of his or her human capacity. For me, to do it apart from an inner confidence that I was undertaking it with God’s full blessing is unthinkable. I can’t know or predict the future, but I know for now my answer is clear and firm. I will not seek the Republican nomination for President this year. I will gladly continue doing what I do and helping others in their campaigns for Congress, governorships, and other positions. I’ll certainly give more detail about this decision in due time and especially to those who have faithfully and so sacrificially been part of the process. I know I will deeply disappoint many people I love. So many good and dear people have put forth extraordinary effort without any assurance I would mount a campaign. It pains me to let them down. I also know my decision will delight just as many who aren’t that fond of me. I am eternally grateful for the faithful support of my wife, children and real friends who promised to stand with me no matter what. I had come to believe I would be in the race for President. I won’t be. But I will for sure be re-dedicating myself to standing for and communicating the principles of common sense, Constitutional government, and civil discourse that I believe are critical to the survival of our great Republic. From New York, This is MH, goodnight God bless, and I’ll be back next week.

Foreign Policy magazine has an interesting take on the issue on its website. In an article by Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, the magazine challenges the assertion by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization that more than 1 billion people are hungry.

Without minimizing the reality of extreme poverty, the article says that the number of people worldwide who truly don’t have access to enough food is much smaller. It questions if there are many people in the world who are trapped in poverty and provides evidence that many of the world’s poorest people choose to spend their money on other things – even relative luxuries such as elaborate weddings for their children. Given the choice between adequate healthy food and more expensive, less nutritious and better tasting food, they will often choose the latter. Like Americans, in other words, though the article doesn’t point that out.

World hunger has always been an important issue to me, starting in college and continuing through adulthood. I have spent four months of my life in Kenya and Somalia as a relief worker and two months in the Dominican Republic as part of a National Guard mission building schools. I have seen people malnourished, but never on the verge of starvation.

That’s not to imply that Americans in our relative wealth don’t have a moral duty to help others. We do. More importantly, Christians have a spiritual duty to do it.

But it’s important for the problem to be correctly defined, and then solutions must be found that solve the problem, not just make us feel better. Foreign aid in the form of big checks from one government to another doesn’t work and is often counterproductive. Foreign aid in the form of basic humanitarian relief, on the other hand, has saved millions of lives.

Most important is to encourage the creation of democratic governments and free markets. It’s time to stop supporting dictators who only seem to be on our side and support foreign governments that share our values. Meanwhile, our policies can encourage free and fair trade. The article quotes Nobel laureate Amartya Sen as saying, “No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press.”

What can average people do? Give, of course, but give smartly. Certainly there are some charities that are inefficient or corrupt, but there are many good ones, such as Living Water International, a Christian organization that digs wells in the world’s poorest places, providing access to clean water so residents don’t get waterborne diseases and can spend their time earning a living instead of hiking back and forth to some polluted stream. Long-term, nothing works better than microloans – small loans of a few hundred dollars that can help a desperately poor person overseas start a business and lift themselves out of poverty. You can give $25 to start. Check out Kiva’s website if you would like to know more.

Here is the Foreign Policy article.