Barack Boo-Boo: The Never Ready for Prime-time Socialist Star
President Pantywaist Capitulates Again in Ukraine
By Kelly OConnell
Obama, the Dudley Do-Wrong of world politics, has made his next tremulous and stumbling maneuver by speechifying a warning vis-à-vis Kiev, then standing down to President Putin over his Ukrainian invasion. More, it's utterly bizarre how the left in the American political spectrum refuses to either admit Barack is an astounding danger to the future of our democratic republic, or to stand up to him over his many shameful actions.
Doesn't this therefore mean that the Democrat party, even upon continual hemorrhaging during election after election, ratifies Obama's illogical, anti-American, condescending, contradictory, utterly inane, bizarre and suicidal policies? The question answers itself.
What can Americans do when our elected officials, from alpha to zed, in our putative democratic state, refuse to represent our opposition to Barack's putrid policies and force his capitulation? President Obama warned "the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine." Huh? Charles Krauthammer commented on this, "What he's saying is we're not really going to do anything and we're telling the world."
"I've said it before, but if Barack Obama had been president instead of Ronald Reagan, I'd still be a citizen of the Soviet Union."—Former World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov Tweet
On the alternative, what was the implied deal when Barack assured the Russians that, after his reelection, he could cut deals more easily? The LA Times reported March 26th, 2012... "Television footage shows Obama telling Russian leader Dmitri Medvedev that "after my election I will have more flexibility."" Whatever Barack meant, it's doubtful such secret promises to Russia's leaders would benefit America, or they would not be seen by him as unacceptable by the US public before the election.
Whatever Obama's foreign policy malfeasance, and despite the scent of American apostasy and outright treason trailing Barack everywhere he goes, the situation in the Ukraine is admittedly unseemly. Russian Ukrainians were targets of open prejudice. An unseemly band of Ukrainian neo-fascists, Aryan proselytizers, and outright Nazis openly politic against outsiders in this troubled land. More shocking, the UK Daily Mail claims the US helped the Ukrainian leader to escape to Russia, where he now appears on TV. Global Research states, "Ukraine was a Textbook CIA Coup d'etat." If true, what business does America have in staging overthrows in foreign countries? Whether true, Obama represents a wholly Un-American face of leadership and ought to be impeached ASAP, before the entire smoldering globe finally bursts into flames from his failed ideas and actions.
I. Obama: A Clumsy Ukrainian Waltz With Russia
Barack peremptorily announced that America's response to Russia's Ukrainian invasion will follow global decisions. But why must this be our reaction? This is akin to a lion announcing to a passing herd of gazelles that he just had his teeth pulled!
What is America's interest in telegraphing our refusal to act outside the "world's response"? As any poker player will attest, laying one's cards face up on the table before the game ends is an idiotic strategy. What can be gained by informing others that you do not plan a strong response to foreign intrigues, before one takes place?
How does any unrest in Eastern Europe aid America's interests? And can Obama's claim of following world opinion here, instead of leading the global response, do anything but give aid and comfort to our foes interested in future acts against US interests? Does a militarist and active Russia really aid the liberty, prosperity or safety of any other country? Who is Vladimir Putin, the kleptocrat worth $40 billion, who seeks to return Russia to its former glory? How can this man be America's natural ally? And yet Barack promised him cooperation. Chilling!
According to the CIA Factbook, Ukraine has endured a painful past, which gave way to some independence:
During the late 18th century, most Ukrainian ethnographic territory was absorbed by the Russian Empire. Following the collapse of czarist Russia in 1917, Ukraine achieved brief independence (1917-20), but was reconquered and forced to endure a brutal Soviet rule that engineered two forced famines (1921-22 and 1932-33) in which over 8 million died. In World War II, German and Soviet armies were responsible for some 7 to 8 million more deaths. Although final independence for Ukraine was achieved in 1991 with the dissolution of the USSR, democracy and prosperity remained elusive as the legacy of state control and endemic corruption stalled efforts at economic reform, privatization, and civil liberties. A peaceful mass protest "Orange Revolution" in the closing months of 2004 forced the authorities to overturn a rigged presidential election and to allow a new internationally monitored vote that swept into power a reformist slate under Viktor Yuschenko.
But now the Ukraine is on the verge of civil war and awaiting invasion by Russia. And Barack fiddles, while waiting for the UN to scold Putin, while doing nothing, so he can acquiesce to this abdication of power. Apparently, Obama enjoys pouring American moral authority and might down the toilet, with a smile on his face and a song in his heart.
II. Obama's International Malfeasance
Is there any end to Barack's trail of international failures? What was the point of Barack running for office if he had so little common sense or commitment to the rest of the globe, let alone America? Especially when he claimed he would right the wrongs of George W Bush's foreign policy failure!
Perhaps the first bit of housekeeping is to decide whether Barack fails accidentally or on purpose? It now seems pointless to debate whether the smug and obtuse Barack is failed in foreign relations. So, as to why he fails, there are two schools of thought. The first claims the inexperienced and doctrinaire Obama, doesn't `understand international leadership or crisis management. Also, Barack's reluctance to champion Christianity, over Islam, and capitalism over the welfare state must hold him back from acting with conviction, globally.
The second reason given for Barack's failure is that he is secretly working to help convert the globe over to socialism and an international ruling bureaucracy. So he is trying to destabilize America's place in the world. The thinking here is that Obama is a socialist, and so must work to crush capitalism, which means America must be humbled and downsized to prepare for this transition. This means wherever US interests are outlined, Obama does the opposite. This choice is illustrated by military historian and classical scholar Victor Davis Hanson, in an article titled, Obama' Recessional:
Summed up, the Obama Doctrine is a gradual retreat of the American presence worldwide—on the theory that our absence will lead to a vacuum better occupied by regional powers that know how to manage their neighborhood's affairs and have greater legitimacy in their own spheres of influence. Any damage that might occur with the loss of the American omnipresence does not approximate the harm already done by American intrusiveness. The current global maladies—Islamist terrorism, Middle Eastern tensions, Chinese muscle-flexing, Russian obstructionism, resurgence of Communist autocracy in Latin America—will fade once the United States lowers its profile and keeps out of other nations' business.
It would be exhausting to attempt to list all of Obama's manifest foreign policy disasters. But consider some of these article titles from just the last year: Obama's foreign policy in a tailspin; Top 10 U.S. Foreign Policy Blunders of 2013; Obama's Many Foreign Policy Failures; Obama's Multiplying Foreign Policy Failures.
One classic title announces: Cambridge Journal: Obama's Callous, Ineffective Foreign Policy Blunders Onward. But perhaps the best title was one which summed up why Obama is a confounding combination of cockiness, lack of deep thought, indifference, and under-education, is here: Obama Foreign Policy Blunders Fueled by Unchecked Ideology. Why else, during a crisis of the magnitude of the Ukrainian coup, would Obama decide to avoid an opportunity to educate his self on the topic? Yet the latest headline states, Obama Skips National Security Team Meeting on Russia, Ukraine! Certainly a Marxist ideologue could consider orienting himself on the details of a crisis a waste of his time!
III. Lessons for a Blind Ideologue: Machiavelli's The Prince
Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince, was written in 1513, and is considered the first modern work of political science. Some have regarded it an evil book. Yet, in an interview with the New York Times, Pulitzer Prize—winner Jared Diamond was queried which book he would require President Obama to read. Diamond replied—The Prince. Barack, the na√Øve, kingdom-wrecking tyro, could use some wisdom, along with a massive dose of common sense. This intellectual featherweight ought to consider the insights of Machiavelli:
A wise man ought always to follow the paths beaten by great men, and to imitate those who have been supreme, so that if his ability does not equal theirs, at least it will savour of it.
This quote might help Barack find his way back from the Marxist wilderness. For example, instead of imitating Mao, as many of his czars have cited, he should embrace Ronald Reagan's revolution, and the ideas behind it. Machiavelli lists Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus as models. Barack should add such leaders as Charlemagne, Lord Nelson, Churchill, and Washington.
As Machiavelli mentions retaining kingdoms gained by sheer good fortune, Obama should include himself in this camp since he was not elected via leadership experience, and nor has he distinguished himself through success. Instead, Barack seems to cling to the belief he will go down as a hero by crushing the American state so the crippled behemoth will be rebuilt as a run-of-the-mill socialist tyranny. Tsk, tsk, Barack! Why not listen to Machiavelli, who offers this advice to a leader:
Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him.
Barack has America at the precipice of utter ruin. It might only be the prayers of Believers at this point saving us from a blind demagogue who only sees evil in the US. Let us pray he repents of his illiterate bias and childish convictions and turns his heart back to defending the red, white and blue and all it symbolizes.