Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Thank You, President Obama

President Obama, I would like to thank you for your speech today.

Thank you for denigrating our former President (albeit indirectly) on the world stage. How very American of you.

Thank you for telling the world absolutely nothing positive about the greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Speaking of green, thank you for not speaking directly to India and China, two growing nations whose agenda regarding pollution control is equivalent to your apparent respect for The United States - none.

Thank you for throwing our brave troops under the bus. We understand that you could not take time away from your busy 5 network tour to address the serious request for more troops brought forward the Generals in charge of the region, for after all you do need to maintain your status as the coolest celebrity around - but maybe next time you get up on the world stage you might consider speaking well of the efforts and sacrifices of the brave men and women who have given life and limb for the hope of a more safe and free world?

Thank you as well for spitting in the face of the brave people of Iraq and Afghanistan, who have weathered incredibly unforgiving conditions of domestic political corruption within their budding new governments, as well as civil and military conflict, in the hope that their children may someday live in lands that are free.

Thank you for telling Israel to bend over and take it from the Arab and Muslim world. Thank you for not promising the Israeli people that we will stand by their right to live.

Thank you for telling the entire world that you would like to be rid of nuclear weapons, in essence offering the idea of peace throughout the world. I could not agree with you any more that this is a wonderful concept; in fact, I'd call it rather Utopian. Sadly, it is also extremely far-fetched, and while it feels good to act as if we're "part of the masses," the truth is a real leader would stand before the world and tell them that only responsible nations should ever be allowed the privilege of having such harmful mechanisms.

On that note, thank you for saying absolutely nothing to Iran directly regarding their obviously underhanded and manipulative behavior in an effort to gain such powerful killing devices.

Mr. President, you have compared yourself to Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. At this point in your presidency, I would put you on pace to be the next Jimmy Carter - if you're lucky.

Mr. President, if you really wish to be a leader, then lead. True leaders have the courage to stand before those who oppose them the most and tell their opposition the truth. Period.

18 comments:

Opus #6 said...

Sol, I wish we could get Jimmy back. Seriously. This joke has gone too far now.

Soloman said...

Opie - I think we did get Jimmy back, more or less..

Rational Nation USA said...

Great Post!

This guy is much worse than Jimmy, as scary as hell.

The Obamanation I believe has started his campaign to become the President (or Imperial Emperor) of the New World Order. He obviously is working hard on creating it.

Soloman said...

Hey Rational.. thank you!

I'm not quite old enough to remember Carter. I got to see Reagan speak during the '84 campaign - that was really cool. I didn't really even care about politics - I was a senior in H.S. at the time. He grabbed my attention because he talked about what a great land we lived in and all the opportunities we have as Americans.

I always though that's what a President did - talked good about us. Even Clinton had good things to say about us.

This joker seems to despise all that we stand for, and it's making me sick.

Hazaa Blue-Eyes said...

"Mr. President, if you really wish to be a leader, then lead. True leaders have the courage to stand before those who oppose them the most and tell their opposition the truth. Period."

Couldn't have said it better.

Track-A-'Crat said...

Obama's idea of leading is to follow.

What's he ever led in his life? What leadership role has he ever fulfilled?

He daren't make a simple, blanket statement that opposition is not racism.

Rarely do people ever elect "leaders" who are so contemptuous of the country they purport to lead as Barry is.

Malcolm said...

You say that President Obama said nothing about the greatness of the U.S. You don't think the following statement he made is a positive one about our country?

"As an African American, I will never forget that I would not be here today without the steady pursuit of a more perfect union in my country."

The president's address to the UN General Assembly was not a "rah rah, these are the ways that America is great" speech. Then again, that isn't necessarily the purpose when a president is addressing the U.N.

Also, are you saying that it's un-American to criticize a U.S. president (current or former) or the U.S. itself in a foreign country?

Soloman said...

Hazaa - thank you.

Seems pretty simple to me - obviously to you too. We did not rise to become the best nation on Earth by sucking up to dictators and terrorists.

We unfortunately have drifted perilously close to doing so, given our behavior towards the Saudis and a couple of others over recent years.

We can't continue down that slope. We must regain and maintain our position as the moral compass of the world, but that does not happen if we continue capitulate, and accommodate ne'er-do-wells.

Soloman said...

Track - I'll grant the president the fact that he did state this weekend that racism is not the issue at hand, and that this opposition is no different in substance than his predecessors have faced. It's policy, plain and simple, and at least he said it.

Now... if we could just get the state run media to get the message, and his ardent supporters to get in line with his message of non-race related debate.

Mostly though.. not gonna happen...

Soloman said...

Malcolm,

First, let me thank you for visiting me and commenting.

For the record, I do not believe the United Nations is a productive organization. It has been riddled with corruption, and allows malicious dictators a platform they do not deserve. I wish American leadership would tell the U.N. to take their business elsewhere, because they know they can always count on us when they need us anyway.

In the statement you present, "As an African American, I will never forget that I would not be here today without the steady pursuit of a more perfect union in my country," the impression Obama left with those who despise America (Chavez, Castro, Kim, etc.) is not one of America’s learning and accomplishment.

They only focus on the negative, so their first point of exploitation - which is their only desire - will be America's history of destructive race issues, which (I believe) is an ongoing yet much improved situation as compared to the days of slavery and segregation.

I do not specifically expect an American president to be an American cheerleader on the world’s stage.

However, I also do not expect him to stand before the world and speak of all the wrongs of our past, therefore justifying the world's dictators' predisposition, all the while attempting to frame himself in his short time in office as a great savior of America and the world because he has changed the policies we held.

These are policies that America held not just over the past administration’s time, but throughout the majority of our history.

This ultimately leads back to the great debate of our time – whether or not waterboarding is torture, because that is the big central issue of the left, including Obama.

I will tell you that in my opinion, it is just as criminal that the Obama administration is now participating in extraordinary rendition – the act of taking a suspected terrorist and sending that person to another land where they may be treated in more harsh ways than he would have been treated in our captivity.

This is real and it is happening right now, just as it did under Clinton’s administration.

In my opinion, it is less responsible for America to ship a captive off to some other nation to have him interrogated when we can handle such interrogations responsibly right here, as was done to KSM and two others – safely and with positive results.

Finally – regarding your question about criticizing a U. S. President – I believe that what Obama is doing delves deep into American partisanship on a stage where he should represent ALL Americans.

This man is doing more to divide this nation than any president I can remember – including Bush, who did his dividing without intent.

In his contemptuous lack of acknowledgment of the ‘tea party’ protests, Obama told an sizable number of Americans that we do not matter, that we do not have a voice.

While some may have disagreed with Bush, he never dismissed the voice of the opposition.

Many will try and point to the "You're either with us or you're against us" statement Bush made, but the 'us' in that statement was not Bush and the Republicans, it was all Americans - and he was speaking to the world regarding the idea that some may harbor terrorists or attempt to create difficulties for America.

Obama also needs to reign in his lackeys in Congress as well as his state-run media outlet at MSNBC and some internet sites, for they are fanning the flames of the vitriol from the left by perpetuating the myth that the right is violent and racist.

And While on the world stage, our President could at least drop the partisan gamesmanship and pretend to be truly proud, and attempt to represent us all.

j summ said...

in response to malcolm:

obama is the president of the united states of america, not the president of the united states of african-americans. it's a small thing, but as a guy that wants to unite, he should drop it. seems he is always quick to point this out, and had no problem calling his grandma a racist.
on the international stage, he should never criticize america, all the other countries do that more than enough.
as far as criticizing former presidents, that was a long standing rule by the men who held the office, right up until GWB got elected. funny how we can't criticize the lincoln of our times, while our elected representatives call us nazi, racist loud mouth thugs, and obama blames everything on GWB.

Soloman said...

took me a little bit to get back, but..

j summ - I agree that I would like Obama to be the president of all Americans... but I don't feel that he's pandering to Blacks, I feel he's pandering to an extremely leftist ideology. I say this because I know plenty of Black Conservatives, and Obama is their president, but he's certainly not pandering to them!

The rest of what you discussed I think is spot-on. It makes me sick that he's so condescending of Bush on a world stage. It's bad enough he's still trying to use that excuse here in the States. And the fact that we Conservatives aren't allowed to speak up - well....

Malcolm said...

Soloman: I don't think any president intends to divide our country. However, I do feel that Obama is more concerned about this division than Bush ever was.

If you think MSNBC is currently state-run, what are your thoughts on Fox during the presidency of George W. Bush? As you can guess, I don't think MSNBC is state-run. They have had plenty of commentary criticizing/questioning the Obama administration. However, they don't go out of their way to find fault with everything Obama does and their criticism is fair and valid. In other words, the direct opposite of the majority of the programming on Fox.

J Summ: I see no harm in President Obama mentioning his ethnic background as proof of the great strides this country has made. I also think it's unfair for anyone to claim that he is putting the interests of blacks ahead of everyone else in this country. Unfortunately, he is in a no-win situation because some feel he should talk about race more and others don't want to hear about it at all.

I don't have a problem with any president acknowledging on foreign soil the mistakes the U.S. has made. To me, it shows the world that we are owning up to the mistakes and that we are striving to do better. Just so I'm clear on how you view the "rules of criticism", was it OK for Sarah Palin to criticize President Obama during her speech in Hong Kong recently?

One thing I find troubling is that members of the right only focus on the so-called negative when it comes to President Obama speaking on the international stage. For whatever reason, it gets overlooked when Obama has criticized Europe for anti-Americanism and its failure to recognize the good that America often does in the world. Why do members of the right conveniently fail to mention this when it comes to Obama?

Soloman said...

Malcolm, part 1 - I have to say, I fully disagree with your perspective about the way our nation is being divided. I think it is a strategy on the part of Obama to isolate the right and make them appear to be uncooperative.

Obama is a student of Saul Alinsky methods, and it's showing. If you're not familiar, read http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm and tell me you can't see where these fit the Obama admin perfectly since he's entered office. Notice that page was created in 2000 and does not mention Obama at all - this is just pure fact. Notice also the sentence "to create an emotional commitment to victory" - which is what Obama has in his supporters - emotional committment.

Obama's core support group are people who deal more in emotion than reality. I'm a 'reformed' liberal, so I know this to be true - you will beleive as you like, but this theory is widespread.

I think FNC has had many changes take place over the last couple of years, and those changes are actually making FNC the ONLY fair network around. John Gibson leaving makes a big difference. Brit Hume not being the host of Special Report matters too. Chris Wallace right now has the best Sunday morning show, with ABC a close second.

Of course, I know Hannity is a partisan hack, as bad as or worse than anyone at MSNBC.

However, O'Reilly has been MORE than fair to Obama, and has guests from both sides to debate the issues. The left has issues with O'Reilly because he hold Conservative views on social issues like marriage and abortion, but generally speaking O'Reilly is Obama's best friend, because he is tough but fair with the president.

Brett Baier is very non-partisan.

Greta is very balanced - in fact many think she's a liberal who's in distress over Obama. Unfortunately, all she's had to report on lately is Obama's miserry, which is overwhelming. She has begun to really specialize on the financial issues which is great, becuase that's a huge concern.

Most of all - Glenn Beck, as much as I know the left thinks he's unfair, is actually incredibly willing to hit BOTH parties equally. He RODE the Bush admin for years about the Patriot act, the war, spending, and much more. He doesn't believe we have very many politicians FROM EITHER SIDE who haven't sold their souls to special interests, and I think that's his biggest issue with Obama - because Obama promises "change" but he's amazingly similar to Bush in the aspect of special interests and poor fiscal policy.

The problem is that he is now on FNC, and everyone notices him now. He's been on radio for 10 years or more, which is something most on the left do not realize. Of course, there's the "big comment" Beck made, but he also has very well explained his reasons. Check out http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28574/ and http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28317/ if you care to, these clips will offer better understanding.

Soloman said...

Malcolm, part 2 -

On MSNBC, you've got Ed, who's a hack period. Matthews, getting tingles up his leg. I used to respect him, so don't get me wrong - I'm not as purely partisan as some - but he's lost any ability to see things from a perspective of reality.

Olbermann is a joke. He calls his show a 'news hour' yet he puts out more misinformation about issues than anyone, and he spends half his show worrying about what's going on at FNC. Plus, he'll NEVER have a guest with an opposing point of view. That reaks of partisanship.

Maddow I was impressed with for a while, but lately she's sunken into the valley of misinformation. She's lied lately about health care, the ACORN issue, and

Regardin Palin, see my post on the subject - http://wisdomofsoloman.blogspot.com/2009/09/sarah-palin-v-dixie-chicks.html - that will explain very claerly what the difference is.

And I will acknowledge that Obama has said some things to put Europe in its place, but here's the real problem - he spends SO MUCH time criticizing America, or talking about our past failures, that it's difficult to recognize anything else. He's EXTREMELY weak on foreign policy, and while I know the mindset of the left is "can't we all just get along" there are some with whom we will never get along, plain and simple.

FYI - I was a Clinton supporter - big time - until late in his time, when he stopped dealing with foreign policies and got tied up in Lewinsky-gate. He wasn't POTUS on 9/11, but he certainly failed on issues of terrorism enough that he essentially emboldened the terrorists.

As I've grown older, I have learned two things matter - foreign policy and economy. Sadly, Obama's failing miserably on both fronts, so anything else he does will be much less noticed.

And to be fair - while Bush was 'strong' on foreign policy, he ultimately failed there as well. The ONLY possibility Bush has for redemption is years away, which would be a long-lasting free society in Iraq that influences other middle eastern nations to seek the same, and as much as I hope that will happen, I have my doubts.

j summ said...

sollie, i don't want to hi-jack your site, but i feel there are some points that need to be addressed that malcolm tried to make.
1) it is self evident mr. obama is black. he can stop mentioning it, even the dullest of us has grasped that fact.
2)he is the one that keeps bringing it up, not me, and he is the same guy who said he could not disown jeremiah wright anymore than he could his white grandma, who was afraid of blacks on elevators, and a racist.
3)are we a more perfect union because some of us elected a black man as president, or because we elected BHO president?
4)if you read my comment, you will see that i stated that former presidents, men who had held the office, refrained from criticizing the current president until GWB was elected. after that carter, ford and clinton all crawled out to undermine his time in office. sarah palin has, to the best of my knowledge a)never been a man and b)never been president.
5)is obie the official criticizer in chief or the commander in chief? it's ok for him to run down the country to europeans but they better not try it while he's around? makes no sense.
6)back to #1, i can not for the life of me remember any other president being a hyphenated american, can anyone else?

look, solomon has a great blog here. lets not spoil it, come argue with me on my site malcolm

Malcolm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Malcolm said...

Soloman and J. Summ: No mas. Although I enjoy a good debate, I've begun to see that it's pointless to continue this back and forth. President Obama isn't perfect (what politician is?). However, you and many other conservative/right-wing bloggers seem to bend over backwards and find fault with everything he does and go out of your way to avoid criticizing any politician/pundit on the right.

During his presidency, GWB received some criticism which was unfair. Understandably, the right hated that. It appears now that Obama is in office, many members on the right are exhibiting the tendencies they accused the left of having and throwing objectivity right out the window. If Obama found a cure for cancer, some of you would find a way to criticize him for that.

Although there are legitimate criticisms that people can make against Obama, a lot of it is over the top. When people don't seem willing to even look at topics with an objective eye, debating them is like washing your feet while wearing your socks. Take care.