— by Odysseus
In 2008, candidate Barak Obama, who sought the presidency of the United States of America, made reference to “all 57 states”. Although the United States has only 50 member states, in that year, the African Union had 57 member states.
On June 10th, 2014, President Barack Obama compared gun shootings in the United States to the rest of the countries of the world, stating “We’re the only developed country on earth where this happens, and it happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There is no place else like this”. He showed clear anger and annoyance that the United States does not have an identical gun control policy to every other country in the world.
In Brussels, Belgium, when President Obama condemned Russia’s abuse of the Ukraine earlier in 2014, his speech condemned that “bigger nations can bully smaller ones to get their way. . .”, and the way in which he said it made it sound as though he was condemning the United States along with Russia.
When the announcement was made in the Rose Garden, about the release of the FIVE top leaders of the Taliban in exchange for one AWOL soldier, Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, President Obama was clearly comfortable with the anti-American views of Bergdahl, his father, and his family.
For those who refused to clinically assess President Obama’s lifetime of political views and associations before his presidency, it must be apparent now. Just exactly who does Barack Obama want to be president of?
It is our considered opinion that he does not really want to be President of the United States. In fact, his wife Michelle Obama said early on that, during his campaign for the presidency, was the first time that she felt proud of America.
Barack Hussein Obama has an ideology structure that really makes him President of the United Nations General Assembly. These other nations are his true constituents and they hold with the ideas closest to his heart.
The UN General Assembly has long taken positions and passed resolutions that have an anti-western, socialist tenor. These countries focus on “positive rights” of what additional powers governments should have, rather than denying governments powers. This is a position that Barack Obama has always advocated, even before assuming public office.
Due to the large number of Islamic states, the UN General Assembly is frequently Islamist in sympathy and is certainly partial to the developing “third world” countries. It is known to be always opposed to the democratic state of Israel, opting instead to side with the Arab theocracies on every issue. The UN General Assembly is hostile to England and to the former colonial powers, except — and to the extent — when they are temporary advocates for anti-Americanism. The UN General Assembly typically holds the position that “America is always wrong”.
In his June 10, 2014 essay, titled “The Prisoner Swap Deal” reprinted below, Thomas Sowell notes that “People who are questioning the president’s competence seem not to want to believe that any President of the United States would knowingly damage this country’s interests.” He astutely goes on to observe that:
“Many people who are painfully disappointed with President Obama have no real reason to be. The man’s whole previous history, from childhood on, was shaped by a whole series of people, beginning with his mother, whose vision of America was very much like that of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose church Barack Obama belonged to for 20 long years.
Obama is not a stupid man. There is no way that he could have sat in that church all that time without knowing how Jeremiah Wright hated America, and how his vision of the world was one in which “white folks’ greed runs a world in need.”
Professor Sowell observes that:
“As for Barack Obama, you cannot judge any President’s competence by the results of his policies, without first knowing what he was trying to achieve. Many wise and decent people assume automatically that President Obama was trying to serve the interests of America. From that standpoint, he has failed abysmally, both at home and abroad. And that should legitimately call his competence into question. But what if his vision of the world is one in which the wealth and power of those at the top, whether at home or internationally, are deeply resented, and have been throughout his life, under the tutelage of a whole series of resenters? And what if his goal is to redress that imbalance?”
Indeed, the entire direction of Mr. Obama’s presidency only appears to be a failure, if one presumes (as one might with Mr. Obama being the titular President of the United States) that his aim is to improve the economic, diplomatic, and security needs of the United States. If that were his goal, he has been a colossal failure on all counts.
Our economy continues to flounder. We fail to pursue energy independence which President Obama has publicly stated that he opposes. Our allies around the world are weaker and our diplomatic ties are frayed with all our allies. President Obama actually encouraged the overthrow of the few states in the Islamic world that had been cooperating with the west, from Egypt to Libya to Tunisia. Under Obama, the United States actively participated in the overthrow and killing of Libyan strongman Muammar Quaddafi, who had essentially turned state’s evidence against his former terrorist buddies.
President Obama pursued “Heath Care Reform”, using legislative chicanery and, arguably, electoral fraud to seat Minnesota Senator Al Franken. He forced through a massive change in the American system with Obamacare, despite consistent, large majority public opinion against it. His primary motivation seemed to be that “other countries have it”.
President Obama’s policies have been nothing but failures if they purported to serve the geo-strategic interests of the United States of America. However, if they are viewed in light of the desires of the UN General Assembly, his policies fall directly in line with their positions. The United Nations has pronounced goals for its member states that include universal health care, gun control, wealth redistribution from the developed world to the under-developed, reserving natural resource wealth to primarily flow to third world nations, and so forth.
Similarly, the UN General Assembly seems largely unconcerned with domestic surveillance by states on their own citizens and the use of draconian measures by national governments to suppress internal dissent. Similarly, President Obama is little concerned about reining in the National Security Agency’s domestic intelligence expansions and has used the Internal Revenue Service and other bureaucracy elements to target his political opponents,
It may be unfair to criticize President Obama’s policies as “tone deaf” to the American electorate or unsuccessful in advancing America’s agenda because that does not seem to be his goal at all. He is far more interested in pursuing the agenda of the United Nations rather than of the United States.
For that reason it would be better to think of him as the UN-President.
=======================================================================================
The Prisoner Swap Deal
By Thomas Sowell – June 10, 2014
People are arguing about what the United States got out of the deal that swapped five top level terrorist leaders for one American soldier who was, at best, absent from his post in a war zone. Soldiers who served in the same unit with him call him a deserter. The key to this deal, however, is less likely to be what the United States got out of the deal than it is about what Barack Obama got out of the deal. If nothing else, it instantly got the veterans’ hospitals scandals off the front pages of newspapers and pushed these scandals aside on television news programs.
It was a clear winner for Barack Obama. And that may be all that matters to Barack Obama.
People who are questioning the president’s competence seem not to want to believe that any President of the United States would knowingly damage this country’s interests.
One of the problems of many fundamentally decent people is that they find it hard to understand people who are not fundamentally decent, or whose moral compass points in a different direction from theirs.
Many people who are painfully disappointed with President Obama have no real reason to be. The man’s whole previous history, from childhood on, was shaped by a whole series of people, beginning with his mother, whose vision of America was very much like that of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose church Barack Obama belonged to for 20 long years.
Obama is not a stupid man. There is no way that he could have sat in that church all that time without knowing how Jeremiah Wright hated America, and how his vision of the world was one in which “white folks’ greed runs a world in need.”
Even if the Reverend Wright had been the only such person in Barack Obama’s life — and he was not — it should have been enough to keep him out of the White House.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a good rule in a court of law, which has the power to deprive a defendant of liberty or life. But it is mindless and dangerous nonsense to apply that standard outside that context — especially when choosing a President of the United States, who holds in his hands the liberty and lives of millions of Americans.
People who are disappointed with Barack Obama have no right to be. It is they whom others have a right to be disappointed with. Instead of taking their role as citizens seriously, they chose to vote on the basis of racial symbolism, glib rhetoric and wishful thinking.
Moreover, many are already talking about choosing the next President of the United States on the basis of demographic symbolism — to have “the first woman president.” And if she is elected on that basis, will any criticism of what she does in the White House be denounced as based on anti-woman bias, as criticisms of President Obama have been repeatedly denounced as racism?
And what if we have the first Hispanic president or the first Jewish president? Will any criticism of their actions in the White House be silenced by accusations of prejudice?
We may yet become the first nation to die from a terminal case of frivolity. Other great nations in history have been threatened by barbarians at the gates. We may be the first to be threatened by self-indulgent silliness inside the gates.
As for Barack Obama, you cannot judge any President’s competence by the results of his policies, without first knowing what he was trying to achieve.
Many wise and decent people assume automatically that President Obama was trying to serve the interests of America.
From that standpoint, he has failed abysmally, both at home and abroad. And that should legitimately call his competence into question.
But what if his vision of the world is one in which the wealth and power of those at the top, whether at home or internationally, are deeply resented, and have been throughout his life, under the tutelage of a whole series of resenters?
And what if his goal is to redress that imbalance?
Who can say that he has failed, when the fundamental institutions of this country have been successfully and perhaps irretrievably undermined, and when the positions of America and its allies on the world stage have been similarly, and even more dangerously, undermined around the world?
COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/10/the_prisoner_swap_deal_122921.html#ixzz371owhHbK
