It came up in a casual conversation. A rather simple question that was, "What has Obama done that’s been truly beneficial." Someone answered absolutely nothing. Now, I thought that was a bit harsh and felt the need to defend the man who could after all be the messiah. Well, he did kill a fly. Only a PETA whacko could complain about one less annoying bug in the world.
And it must have been quite an accomplishment the way the DNC sycophant media went ga ga. Why, our president is quite the karate kid. Actually, their reaction indicates that eerie feeling in their gut that just won’t go away of how inept Obama might be. Polls of Obama keep getting lower. It might be time for them to sell their Obama stock. If a fly massacre excites them so, what does that say about his real accomplishments?
For instance, Obama criticized Bush for his “Cowboy diplomacy.” Supposedly, it wasn’t suave enough to coddle the world’s dictators into a state of complete “happy happy joy joy.” Yet, in many westerns, cowboys were the good guys. In fact, they were the ones who when the bad guys were threatening the town folk, they formed the posse that went out to defeat them.
So, cowboys preserved the peace and flourished freedom. They were “How the West Was Won.” But, if harsh words followed with threats of action are wrong, what has Obama proposed instead. Apparently, his change is implementing the opposite, a “Do Nothing” diplomacy. Yeah, the kind of useless, endless dialogue that accomplishes absolutely nada in making the world safe from anything.
For instance, Neville Chamberlain dialoged with Hitler in what was the ultimate diplomatic “da” moment of the 20th century even announcing, “Peace in Our Time.” Did he stop Hitler? Did he make England or Europe safe? Did Chamberlain accomplish anything? His efforts no matter how well intentioned were “do nothing.”
So, the war he thought he had averted happened anyway. Obama must ask; what phrase didn’t Chamberlain say? What negotiation point did he miss? And what other allies should he have sold out along with Czechoslovakia? Maybe, Belgium should have been offered as well. If diplomacy is the end all of what should be done then where did Chamberlain go wrong? Liberals have no answer because there isn’t one.
Like 30 years before, Iran presents a difficult case for an American president who boasted that he thought it was ridiculous Bush didn’t have direct talks with its leader, “My Mood I’m in a Jihad.” Yeah, a lot of anti-American talk, and then Obama comes up with the ingenious idea of inviting them over for a barbeque. Yeah, some fireworks and pork ribs, whoops, maybe pork wouldn’t be a good idea, given that Muslims never do pig.
But alas, it was all for naught. Obama’s invitation had to be revoked. It started with an election gone awry. Not the November election here in America, although more and more voters are beginning to suspect something, no the Iranian election had some “discrepancies,” which led to street demonstrations and a violent crackdown from the regime resulting in seeing dead people.
The only thing consistent in Obama’s inactions towards the Iranian dictatorship was that it was inconsistent. Obama just couldn’t bring himself to support the demonstrators. Well, he probably thought they were tea partiers. He’s kind of been adverse to them.
Finally, after two weeks where even the president of France gave more moral support to the detractors of the mullahs, Obama gave them some lukewarm words claiming, of course, that he was with them all along.
Anyway, no Iranians was at American embassies barbeques. Still, there’s movie night at the White House served complete with presidential fried pork rinds, leftovers, of course, from dubya.
Lastly, there’s the case of the Honduras Honcho being arrested for trying to setup a dictatorship in that Latin American country. He ignored their constitution like Obama is with ours. Both the Honduran Supreme Court and legislature told him to stop.
Yet, he ignored them until the military arrested him. There was no violence except for leftist demonstrators. Control was immediately given back to the civilian government, and such there was no coup.
But, it was with remarkable speed that Obama joined with the world’s other dictatorships to condemn the ouster of a leader who wanted to hold onto power unconstitutionally. Disturbingly, Obama has aligned himself with the likes of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro, all diabolical dictators of Latin America.
So, America can’t interfere in the internal affairs of a country centrifuging itself silly, yet where the people are repelling the evil deeds of a dictator wannabe, he intervenes immediately. Perhaps, it’s because Obama doesn’t like the presidential precedent that’s been made there.
Posts
