Friday, April 10, 2009
Yesterday, I noted with dismay the fact that Barack Obama kowtowed to a barbarian king and then had a minor functionary lie about it. Today, I find that Charles Krauthammer has painstakingly cataloged the damage Obama has done (so far) on his overseas tour. Here are highlights:
- After vowing to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, Obama responded to North Korea's missile launch by calling for a "strong international response." What he got was, in Krauthammer's words, was, thanks to China and Russia, "not even ... a U.N. statement that dared express 'concern,' let alone condemnation."
- "The very next day, [Obama's] defense secretary announced drastic cuts in missile defense, including halting further deployment of Alaska-based interceptors designed precisely to shoot down North Korean ICBMs. Such is the 'realism' Obama promised to restore to U.S. foreign policy."
- "Obama seems not even to understand that [renewed disarmament] talks are a gift to the Russians for whom a return to anachronistic Reagan-era START talks is a return to the glory of U.S.-Soviet summitry."
- "Our president came bearing a basketful of mea culpas. With varying degrees of directness or obliqueness, Obama indicted his own people for arrogance, for dismissiveness and derisiveness, for genocide, for torture, for Hiroshima, for Guantanamo and for insufficient respect for the Muslim world."
- "He wanted more stimulus spending from Europe. He got nothing."
- "From Russia, he got no help on Iran. From China, he got the blocking of any action on North Korea."
- "And what did he get for Guantanamo? France, pop. 64 million, will take one prisoner. One! (Sadly, he'll have to leave his swim buddy behind.) The Austrians said they would take none. As Interior Minister Maria Fekter explained with impeccable Germanic logic, if they're not dangerous, why not just keep them in America?"
Whether Obama is deliberately trying to sabotage our nation as an unadmitted leftist radical or his mind is completely addled by his self-sacrificial ideals -- or both -- is immaterial. He will sell us out as a matter of principle, and it is this principle -- that self-sacrifice is noble -- that we Americans must renounce, once and for all.
In the meantime, we have a columnist at home chiding Obama for bowing -- but conceding the false premise that the Saudis "own" the oil he chalks up as an impetus for the bow. Much of that is actually our oil, which makes the bow even worse. This "king" has no business being in charge of anything but a bunch of half-starved, superstitious nomads.
Before our body politic will stop electing Bushes and Obamas, it will have to re-learn the proper purpose of government, which will require it to better grasp the actual meaning of the term, "individual rights" as well as accept their moral basis in selfishness. In other words, we Americans will not have a Commander-in-Chief until we begin to stand up for ourselves consistently, as a matter of principle, and on the grounds that our lives are sacrosanct.
At the moment, this looks like an uphill battle, with many showing a slippery grasp of the message in Atlas Shrugged, the book which best expounds these prinicples and demonstrates their goodness and efficacy.
But the word is out, and the battle is on.