Thursday, September 24, 2009

President of the World

Yesterday, US President Barack Obama became the President of the World. After his eloquent speech to the nations, many of them made up of thugs who obtained and keep power at the point of a gun, the world has learned that the American President agrees with them that American capitalism is a scourge.

In other speeches, using the worldwide platform of the UN, leader after leader informs us that capitalism is dead. Now our esteemed leader makes no defense of America. It is more important for his strategic plan to find common ground with Hamas, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Zelaya and every other brutal thug on this earth. Our former allies must now ally against us and the thugs. Our President now implies what we know he is thinking: to Hell with England, Poland, the rest of Eastern Europe, the people of Honduras and the people of Iran.

Do you think the world will now accept Obama as the leader of the world when he represents a nation that is considered to be the scourge of the world; after he has apologized, bowed, shaken hands with and tried to convince the thugs of the world that he too has a third world viewpoint? What do you think will happen after he has unilaterally prostrated his country before the machine gun-wielding part of the world?

When a nation’s leader thinks that the lies told about his nation are true, he has surrendered it to the world. That nation is no longer a leader but the sacrificial lamb whose carcass will now be eaten by vultures of the UN. Is it possible that our President is living through his own “Gorbachov moment”? Indeed, there can be no national pride left when our esteemed leader tells us we are greedy and un-self-sacrificial and that this greed has caused all the world's problems. How much applause does he want...really?

I think it is reprehensible that Obama and his supporters start with the caricatures of Bush that they have invented...things they were saying about Bush that he never did, that he was not about. In fact, Bush was none of the things Obama claims he was because he did nothing but try to disprove the left's caricatures of him. What does this mean about Obama's knowledge of the world, his knowledge of world history and about what he will do to rectify the problems that he has invented in his own minds? More importantly, what will our enemies do about them? They'll realize that the path is open and they can walk right in and take over whatever they want. The path is clear to attack Israel. The path is clear to re-take Eastern Europe. The path is clear to destroy America by calling in the bonds. We are a sitting duck.

Didn’t we just arrest a guy who wanted to kill lots of Americans? I think that’s the answer we can expect from the thugs of the world after our President admits we are the most evil nation on earth.

Is it possible that the President of the World has just elected himself as the Patsy of the World?


  1. What planet are you living on? The President is trying to reassure the rest of the international community that he has disavowed Bush-style unilateral war-mongering and unwillingness to engage in constructive debate on global issues such as climate change. The rest of the civilized world wants America to be a responsible leader, and it has a wonderful history as such. In no sense does engaging with the rest of the world amount to a capitulation to thugs. Grow up!

  2. Caitlyn, you have not thought carefully through this issue.
    1. The U.S. should never have to reassure the international community that it has disavowed Bush-style unilateral war-mongering because Bush was not a war monger. I have my problems with Bush, but you've forgotten that Saddam had violated countless UN resolutions and had kicked out the UN team that was monitoring his activities. He was a supporter of Palestinian bombing attacks and he had Al Queda in Iraq. He made it a point to provoke and initiate wars and he killed his own people with chemical weapons. This, and much more, make Saddam the war monger, not Bush. In fact, Bush sought a coalition of nations in order to fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq and can hardly be called a unilateral war monger. What you have accepted is the out-of-context criticism of Bush waged by the left in order to try to defeat Bush in the war and in the elections.
    2. Bush accepted and promoted the lies about global warming that the Marxist environmentalists promoted. He gave them money and he accepted their unfounded notions. He supported them...he just wasn't suicidal enough to actually try to impose crippling and unnecessary economic sanctions in the form of Cap and Trade legislation. Obama has no such problem with destroying our economy. But it has nothing to do with has more to do with establishing a new economy based on oligarchy that rewards businesses who contribute to Obama's campaigns. All you have to do is read the news and realize that there is more to this issue than global responsibility. Destroying our economic base will destroy lives, lower our standard of living and cause people to starve and die. We need energy, we don't need more wind mills and other such ineffective energy-non-producing industries.
    3. America has always been a responsible leader. We have fought two major wars to save Europe. I've seen the graves of many of those soldiers. We have a free economy (or had) that enables Americans to work hard and enjoy good lives through honest work.
    4. Obama's actions and words both domestically and internationally amount to a capitulation to thugs. He took days to say anything to support the Iranian people protesting the stealing of their election and he supports Zelaya in Honduras who was trying to violate the Honduran Constitution to set up a Chavez-style dictatorship in Honduras and Obama stands against the people of Honduras who don't want to live under a dictatorship. He bowed to a Saudi Prince and he just unilaterally capitulated to the Russians about the defense shield. The Poles will still not answer Hillary's phone calls to them.

    You can try to spin Obama's actions but his history has shown a distinct anti-capitalism and a hatred of what makes America great...freedom and free trade. He is doing many bad things now that are clearly socialist and fascist in nature, the most significant of which was the violation of the contract between Chrysler investors and Chrysler. This move was an attack on the sanctity of contract. If you don't know that sanctity of contract is one of the pillars of our society and that no one person can violate it without also commiting a crime, you don't understand what makes America the country that it is. Yet Obama, as President has done it while people like you applaud this egregious violation of our freedoms. If you think this kind of thing will save Chrysler, you'll learn that Obama's act destroyed Chrysler as well as made lots of Americans uneasy about the future. This act sends a bad message to the rest of the country that this President does not care about the rule of law but about his own rule.

  3. Robert, a brief riposte. Saddam Hussein had not attacked the United States. Yes, he was hostile to the U.S. and he was a classic "thug," but those facts alone did not warrant bombing Iraqi civilization back to the Middle Ages. The weakening of Iraq in the region has played right into the hands of Iran, from which we now fear the threat of nuclear weaponry. If sponsorship of terrorism and abuses against ones own citizenry constitute sufficient justification for war, President Bush should have been using his power (oh, that's right, the power to declare war really belongs to Congress, but that's just a technicality isn't it?) against Iran and Syria. While we're at it, Robert Mugabe's crimes against the people of Zimbabwe deserved correction.

    Anthropogenic climate change is a scientifically accepted fact, and those who understand the science and follow through on its policy implications are hardly Marxists. Intelligent policies do not necessarily have to harm GDP, but even if they do the damage to our lifestyle pales in comparison to the damage that will be caused by climate change. You need to think that one through.

    Your comments about the sanctity of contract remind me of one of the Supreme Court's most famous blunders, Lochner v. New York (1905), in which the court struck down worker-protection legislation in the name of a "right to contract" read into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. (That kind of constitutional law - substantive due process - now draws the ire of social conservatives who despise the woman's right to choose.) There is no right to contract in the Constitution. The government can intervene in the economy and there are always some losers in bankruptcy proceedings.

    If you are as concerned as you purport to be with presidential over-reaching, did you sound a similar tocsin when the Bush-Cheney administration (which one was president, again?) trampled all over the writ of habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment in the name of national security? Did it bother you that the president ignored his primary constitutional role to execute the laws through the promulgation of "signing statements" indicating he would only enforce the parts of bills with which he agreed?

  4. 1. We did everything possible to avoid destruction of infrastructure and civilians in Iraq. We did not bomb Iraq back to the Middle Ages but did the opposite of that. However, it is typical that, in hindsight, that liberals change history in order to denigrate a President that was a Republican. In fact, today, Obama is bombing people in Pakistan killing the families and children of those he is bombing. I suppose you have a problem with that, right? Where is your outrage?
    2. Your definition of what is a just war is not defined. You only argue that we should not have gone to war against Iraq for this reason or that which is not based upon a principled definition. I suspect that the Dems (and you) have no standard for a just war and that, with a different President (a Democrat) you might find what Saddam did was reason enough to go to war. As an example, look at the war in Vietnam which was started by a Democratic President (Kennedy) that then saw all the Democrats oppose the war, pandering to communist protesters on the streets, when Nixon became if Nixon had started the war...only to have millions of Vietnamese killed as a result of our betrayal of them. The Democrats are responsible for those deaths. The fact is, the Dems in Congress did approve of the Iraq war by giving Bush the power to make war there...probably in order to use it to defeat Bush later politically...(only they didn't figure that Bush would find a way to win there) a repeat of what they did in Vietnam. I think the Dems were against the Iraq war for one hurt Bush. There was no principle here...just pure politics and hypocrisy on the part of the Dems. So much for their belief in principles and their willingness to use our troops for political purposes.

  5. More: 3. The Lochner case was a travesty and provided the "legal" case for the destruction of the Constitution. I've written about it in my blog. If you believe it settled anything you are wrong. It gave the liberals and progressives the arguments they needed to violate the primary contract of our nation, the Constitution. The basic flaw in the argument is that it provides no reasons for its argument; it is nothing more than an assertion by Justice Holmes that he sees no argument for individual rights in the document that enumerates those very rights. Lochner is the singular case that started the destruction of our rights by progressives and eroded the validity of the Constitution. I beg to differ on the legal question made by Holmes on this case. The Constitution is the precedent that establishes rights. Otherwise, why would it have been written if it did not say that the government should be limited to defending rights, not attacking them.
    4. As for the right to contract, it is a pillar of business activity. Without the legal protection of written contracts by government in our society there could never be business or civil agreements because people could not count on them being upheld. What would be the alternative? Dictatorship and economic depression. The sanctity of contract keeps our society functioning and the President has no respect for that. There is indeed something in the Constitution that protects contracts. Article I, Section 10 states: "No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." Moreover, in the famous case Hale v. Henkel, the U.S. Supreme Court says: "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited." Keep in mind, your rights, including your right to contract inheres in you as an individual. The Constitution merely recognizes that fact, it does not create it. Plus there is the whole history of common law in several countries that backs it up.
    5. Regarding the so-called violation of rights by the Patriot Act, are you referring to those parts of it that were voted on by the Democrats? As I recall, a full 98 US Senators voted for the Bill. And when the Act was renewed, a full 89 US Senators voted for it. Is this the violation of individual rights you are referring to? And have you checked to see how many innocent American citizens have actually been prosecuted under this Act? Please point out the many many violations of the Constitution that have taken place under the Act. Last time I looked, the Act said that it was only concerned about violations of existing laws at the time of the passage. And I think murder of American citizens is still considered a crime that the government is supposed to stop if it can find out about it beforehand. Maybe I'm just old fashioned. Or are you talking about the violations of the rights of terrorists who made calls into the United States to plan attacks? Is that the travesty that you seek to criticize?
    6. As for the signing statements, are you talking about the one where Bush, despite the law's requirements, could withhold top secret information from Congress if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."? In view of Congressional leaks, I think this was wise. He withheld from Congress...all of Congress, but did continue to inform members of Congressional intelligence committees that he was bound by law to inform.

  6. 7. I supported going into Iraq (not the war) but I suspect that the reason Bush went to war with Iraq was because he knew the Dems would not let him make war with Iran...which we should have done. He was probably right to think that the Dems would oppose any war that he let's get the low hanging fruit first and hope the American people wake up to Iran eventually. And he also knew that there was a vibrant pro-freedom movement in Iran that we were supporting. Bombing these freedom-loving people was probably not the right thing to do. There was no such movement in Iraq.
    8. As for Mugabe, we couldn't harm that country any more than he has done. Mugabe did not sponsor terrorists or harm American citizens. I don't believe in the USA being a policeman of the world. And this is where I disagreed with Bush. What was with the food packages? Just go in there, kill bin Ladin and get out. Same for Saddam. Let's not sacrifice American lives for an on-going war. That's just dumb.

    Cheney is a hero who deserves a lot more credit than he gets. Your hatred of him exposes the fact that your disagreement is about individuals who have been denigrated in the media without argument. The Dems attack Cheney and you must think there is a reason for it...yet they've never given a reason, just character assassination, innuendo and childish suppositions. The fact that President Obama does not listen to to truth that Cheney has been telling about so-called torture reveals his utter naivete about fighting our enemies. We're in trouble.

  7. Finally, it is a well-known fact that environmentalists accept the Marxist critique of capitalism. In fact, it is a known fact that the Soviet communists who were discredited after the Soviet Union fell, found a home in the environmental movment which meant they could continue to campaign against capitalism and industrial progress. In the USA, Van Jones, an admitted communist and a former Obama Czar for "green" jobs, went into the environmentalist movement for the same he could go mainstream and continue to fight against industrial progress under the cloak of creating a new green economy that would displace capitalism. Environmentalism is anti-capitalism and anti-capitalism requires a belief that profit is evil, that labor is the only source of economic value and that the government should be the representative of the people by creating "the dictatorship of the proletariat." Environmentalism is Marxism.
    There is no proof that global warming is caused by is only a consensus of some so-called psuedo-scientists who depend on government grants for their livelihood. There is no way to actually know that the temperature on the planet is definitive way to know it and the so-called scientists that claim global warming is real base their conclusions on the presence of carbon dioxide in the environment which does not take into consideration other more important factors such as the sun and water vapor to name a few. The science is not settled and many of the scientists who were credited with being part of the consensus on global warming in the IPCC report have since said that their names were used without their consent on that issue. Read "Heaven and Earth" by Plimer which lays all this out and more. A consensus of scientists does not develop is only a consensus. Only a valid, peer reviewed process of scientific induction that considers known facts and properly interprets them creates certainty. The people who argue for the existence of "climate change" are not scientists. They are fellow travelers trying to destroy capitalism because they hate human progress. I'm not jumping to conclusions. They will tell you if you read their books.