When abroad, Obama criticizes his own country, praises the antithetical world view of another, and tells us that his job is to focus on the well-being of International Muslims. At home, Obama has told us that we should live our lives in accordance with the wishes of "other countries." In the court of international opinion, Obama wants to represent all sides.
Yes, your lawyer must listen to the other side, but he isn't going to express their concerns, or recognize the validity of their points unless it serves your interests in some way. Everything your attorney says and does should serve your interests. That's what it means to have representation.
As the current occupant of the office of the President of the United States of America, it is not Obama's job to represent the interests or express the concerns of other nations. His delusional "President of the World" schtick is even more absurd and egotistical than his "Office of the President-Elect" charade was. As long as Obama insists on being the self-appointed President of the International Community, there is no one representing the citizens of the United States of America.
If the Jimmy Carters, the Susan Sarandons, and the Code Pinks among us want to abuse their freedom to express the concerns of other nations and represent their interests, they're free to do so. Barack Obama is NOT.
If the Jimmy Carters, the Susan Sarandons, and the Code Pinks among us want to abuse their freedom to express the concerns of other nations and represent their interests, they're free to do so. Barack Obama is NOT.
More
Meltdown 101: Highlights of economic stimulus plan
So, how much of a tax cut is he delivering to 95% of the American people with that $790 billion? A whopping $13 per paycheck that later gets reduced to $8 per paycheck.
Democrat Leaders Hold Midnight Meeting, Freeze GOP out of “Stimulus” Negotiations
It is the prerogative of congressional Democrats as to whether the hearing will be an honest and open forum or instead a dog and pony show while real negotiations take place in a smoke-filled backroom.
More Appointment Chaos: Gregg Withdraws After Policies Too Much to Stomach
"It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns."
8 comments:
stand up for America? Sorry we have a trans-national president and fighting for this countries interest is just so jingoistic.
Is this what you're criticizing?
"... All too often the United States starts by dictating...in the past on some of these issues...and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen...Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia...I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage...to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace."
You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but for many, many of us, THIS is what we think the US NEEDS to do for our own national security and interests. We need to be a more humble nation. We DON'T need a bully president, but one who is reasonable.
Besides, Obama is right. The US HAS been heavy-handed at times, presuming the role of thuggish world police while setting ourselves above the law. That is not the voice of one who hates the US, but one who loves our ideals and yet recognizes our own sins.
Terrorism will arise in situations where you have a superpower that can't be taken on head on and when people feel oppressed or put upon. If you can't fight a perceived bully face on, then you have to take little attacks here and there when the massive bully isn't looking. It is VITAL to our interests to shed ourselves of the bully, rogue power nation and talks like this are exactly part of what is needed.
At least, that's what many of us patriotic, America-loving folk who voted for Obama and against the Bush Way think.
There is NO weakness in being humble and gracious.
Liberals like Dan never learn from the history books. Leaders have failed over and over again with the very ideas which guide Obama's foreign policies. Of course, guys like Dan love the pathos--the feeling good, and don't have the guts enough to make the right decision without worrying about everyone else. We need to look out for our best interest, because with Iran's new rocket capability mixed with their future nuclear capability, they aren't hoping to sing the Coke song with us anytime soon.
Clay said:
Of course, guys like Dan love the pathos--the feeling good, and don't have the guts enough to make the right decision without worrying about everyone else. We need to look out for our best interest...
I'm right here. You can address your comments to me, if you'd like.
"Guys like Dan" are interested in protecting the US and are familiar enough with history to know that the Bush way doesn't work. The "Talk belligerently and carry the most massive sticks in history" approach is a failed approach. We want change.
And while it is more fun, perhaps, to pretend that the Others are only interested in "feeling good," it does little to help the conversation. That sort of demonizing of your fellow citizens is part of why the neo-cons have been so soundly trounced out of power.
I truly understand the ranting and blowing off steam by making false charges about those you disagree with, and if that's all you're doing, fine. Sometimes you just want to rant and you're not worried about making sense.
As long as you realize that the folk who are supporting Obama are not ignorant of history or making decisions based on trying to "feel good" - as long as you realize you're speaking in caricatures and not real people, well, go for it. But when it's time for actual conversation about policy and principle, I'd suggest we'd all be better off if we set aside the childish strawman charges and dealt with the real issues at hand.
Real men/women don't need to talk about how much "guts" they have. That is fifth grade diplomacy and it's not well suited for the adult world.
Woo hoo- I can't wait for the 8 dollars a week!
Something wicked is here...and we have paved the way for it...btw, it doesn't rest only on Obama, as Bush could have set up some guidelines for the initial funding. But he did not.
I just heard on Fox News that 58% of the homes in foreclosure that were initially helped are back in foreclosure.
Too bad I cannot call for someone to check under the national mat for the monster...as we are all so dang sheeple...
Except the MSM -they are the makeup artists of the presidency, because they sure put Obama under such soft lightening and made him look like THE MESSIAH. Oh and please just review every photo that the media ran, as if Obama was placed in front of lighting for the halo effect(or was it real? and he is the messiah??)
As for me and my family as foreboding as it is, I am grateful for my current amendment rights(although in June the bullets will be under fire-so to speak)
Jennifer
RV: Yes, of course. Only people from flyover country would dare to disagree with His Royal Highness.
...
DT: "Terrorism will arise in situations where you have a superpower that can't be taken on head on...you have to take little attacks here and there when the massive bully isn't looking. It is VITAL to our interests to shed ourselves of the bully, rogue power nation and talks like this are exactly part of what is needed."
There are so many things wrong with this line of thinking, I don't even know where to start. You're sympathizing with terrorists. Their enemy is your enemy.
Do you really believe that Islamist terrorism would end if America stopped being a "bully"? Do you REALLY believe that? What about tensions between Pakistan and India? Is that America's fault too? What about conflicts between Muslims and Buddhists in Thailand? Are they motivated by grievances against the U.S.?
Do you really believe that angry Islamists all over the world would fold up their operations if the U.S. ceased to exist?
I agree with CB, you sound too like Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter.
...
CB: Iran is hell bent killing as many Americans as possible. We're going to pay a high price for the willful blindness of the Obama worshipers.
...
HW: "I just heard on Fox News that 58% of the homes in foreclosure that were initially helped are back in foreclosure."
This is what happens when we subsidize failure.
I'd like to post that story. Would you send a link?
RK said:
You're sympathizing with terrorists.
Brother, with all due respect, that is a total lie. You are wrong. I am not sympathizing with terrorists. I have never said one thing to suggest that I'm sympathizing with terrorists.
I am, rather, being reasonable. Reasonable people would want to know WHY, for instance, people would fly a plane into a building or WHY a nation would drop a nuclear bomb on a city of civilians.
That I seek to understand WHY someone would engage in terroristic actions does not indicate support for such and it is disingenuous to suggest so. That is a coward's and slow thinker's approach and I do not believe that you are either, so I'd ask you to deal with realities instead of taking cheap, emotion-based shots.
RK also said:
Do you really believe that angry Islamists all over the world would fold up their operations if the U.S. ceased to exist?
No, absolutely not. If you read what I actually said, you will note that I did not say this. Rather, what I believe is that terrorists couldn't get popular support if there wasn't a sense of oppression amongst their potential followers. The way to kill terrorism is to isolate them, marginalize them - terroristic actions are deplorable on the face and unsupportable... UNLESS, the attacked shows themselves to be a bully with no other way of being stopped but the desperate attacks of terrorists.
As evidence, I give you the data that showed fairly unanimous world support behind the US following 9/11, but increasing support for the terrorists, the more Bush demonstrated a willingness to invade a nation (Iraq) unprovoked, killing many civilians in the process.
Support for terrorism dries up by its own use UNLESS there is a perceived reason for that terrorism. Killing innocents is that reason. Arrogance is that reason.
Bush was wrong to invade Iraq and that decision led to more, not less support for terrorists and, as a result, increased ability for them to recruit. Bush's actions made us less secure, not more.
Please, let's deal with these problems as adults and fellow citizens, not caricatures.
Let me clarify a bit: I am always opposed to terrorism – to deadly attacks that target and kill civilians. I believe such horrific actions are contrary to my Christian and American values, that such attacks are diametrically opposed to decent human behavior.
I am opposed whether it is the US attacking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, whether it is the beheading of an “infidel” by a militant Muslim, whether it is supporting Contra terrorists in Nicaragua (as Reagan did in the 1980s, leading to tens of thousands of deaths), whether it is flying planes into the Twin Towers, whether it is offering support for thuggish, oppressive leaders (Saddam Hussein, Pinochet…) or invading a nation unprovoked, killing tens of thousands of citizens in the process.
I am always opposed to the use of or support of terrorism because it is contrary to our ideals. But the US HAS in fact, engaged in terroristic attacks against civilians, as shown above. What we are saying when we’ve done this is, “You know, sometimes it’s OKAY to target civilians for attacks…” and the problem with saying that is some people may agree with us – “See? They use terrorism, themselves, we can, too!”
Using terrorism undermines our ideals and our fight against terrorism, making us LESS, not more secure. The best defense against terrorism is not to embrace terrorism ourselves. The more our great nation muddies the waters, the more other nations and individuals might think it’s okay, too.
Our ideals make us stronger, not weaker.
And so, to accuse those who oppose terrorism consistently as being “sympathetic to terrorism” is ridiculous and counter to good communication. Seeking to listen, to understand, to live up to our great ideals is not a weakness, but a strength.
Post a Comment