Obama the world leader
In the comments to yesterday’s post about Obama’s immunity, a discussion developed about Obama’s intentions. It began with this comment by “southpaw,” and the back-and-forth went on for some time:
[Obama’s] whole act was supposed to win over the world and he would be looked up to as the reluctant leader- the healer, the reasonable one, the great organizer. These admissions of US wrongdoing, selfishness, and insensitivity were meant to impress the world and win him goodwill, and respect- not the opposite. talking down the US was designed to increase his personal prestige and influence. The fact that he diminished us in the process was an after thought, not the main goal. we are just another expendable entity to inflate his galactic sized ego.
I think this explanation is a lot more consistent with his narcissism and naé¯veté, than to believe he wanted to preside over the demise of US influence and power as an actual goal…
First of all, why do we care which it is? I spend a lot of time discussing what I think might be on Obama’s mind—what his motives and goals might be—and none of it changes what Obama actually does as he moves through his lengthy (and seemingly interminable) presidency. Well, I still think it’s good to understand what one is fighting in order to even try to defeat it. In order to add my own contribution, however small, to that endeavor, I write these posts.
I also think it’s usually a bad idea to underestimate one’s opponent. Overestimating isn’t a great idea either—it can lead to stagnation and despair. But thinking Obama is merely a narcissist doesn’t do any good, in my estimation. He is indeed a narcissist, as has been abundantly clear from the time he began to campaign for the presidency (and probably even before, although most of us including me weren’t paying attention back then), and it’s an overarching element of his personality. But he is not just a narcissist: I submit that he is a leftist ideologue as well as a narcissist.
The two are hardly mutually exclusive; they can co-exist quite nicely most of the time. Obama wants to elevate himself, and he wants to undermine the traditional role of the US in the world and replace it with a new role for this country as a leftist nation among many other leftist nations. As such—and with Obama gaining worldwide prestige as leader and transformational trailblazer—the US would become far more cooperative with the larger international community.
Obama sees his role on the world stage, not just as the head of the US and with power derived from its power, but with his own larger status as a major international figure, above it all. That was his goal even before he was elected, as his behavior and speeches made clear.
What other presidential candidate would even think to deliver a speech like Obama’s in Munich in July of 2008? Let’s revisit it in a Spiegel piece whose title quite aptly combines the two ideas, leftist internationalism and narcissism “Obama’s Berlin Speech: People of the World, Look At Me” (in the speech Obama did everything but call his audience “comrades”):
Obama began his speech with sentences about what he claimed not to be — at least for this one Thursday in Berlin: He was neither appearing here as a candidate nor a typical American. Instead, he claimed to be a “proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.”…
…In the final minutes of his address, Obama called out to the audience: “We must come together to save this planet.”
“This is the moment to give our children back their future. ”¦ This is the moment to stand as one.”
“This is our time.”
“Let us remember this history, and answer our destiny.”
What American presidential candidate—or even American president, for that matter—has ever gone abroad and given a speech to 200,000 people and referred to himself as a “citizen of the world”? If you can find one, please let me know.
But the most telling remarks of all may have been Obama’s response to a question about American exceptionalism early in his first term:
…[E]arlier this year, while attending the European summit of the Group of 20 major economic countries, the president was asked if he believed in American exceptionalism. He replied, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
Not exactly the way Mr. Reagan would have answered…
President Obama’s reference to British or Greek exceptionalism suggests a belief that the United States doesn’t stand alone with a particular greatness but that every nation is great in its own way and America is simply one of many nations with something cool to offer.
This kind of multicultural, politically correct, “we’re all unique in unique ways, every kid must win at dodgeball” thinking is the basis for his economic and foreign policies, from his schemes to nationalize the auto, banking, and health care industries to his lollygagging on behalf of those fighting for greater freedom in Iran.
It is the rationale for his Vesuvian explosion of big government and the much higher taxes required to finance it. It also explains Mr. Obama’s irrepressible urge to apologize for past perceived American injustices and ill-conceived foreign “meddling.” In Mr. Obama’s kaleidoscopic left-wing view, no nation is better than any other, no country can tell another country not to have nuclear weapons, and we’re all socialists now.
In other words, American exceptionalism was so last century.
Obama never thought that jettisoning American exceptionalism would mean that his own image and prestige would suffer. Au contraire; it would be enhanced on the world stage as a result. He believed (and almost certainly still believes) that the world will applaud the reduction of traditional American power, and its transformation into a sort of international peacekeeping unit in cooperation with the UN and other bodies such as the World Court. That means the world will applaud him.
Does Obama think he looks bad on the world stage right now? I don’t have the answer, but my guess is “no, not really.” That may seem odd—the opprobrium right now is so widespread and so strong—but that’s another strange thing about narcissism. It can allow a person to deflect or deny criticism—to ignore it or think it’s temporary and meaningless, to believe that one can pull any situation out of the fire by the sheer force of one’s brilliance.
“Not exactly the way Mr. Reagan would have answered…”
A….MEN.
Speaking of the way President Reagan saw things, I have to share this comparison of how he communicated and how our present “Great Leader” communicates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=wrRTau5jusU
BTW, I haven’t posted here in a long time for two reasons. Late in 2012, I was diagnosed with aortic stenosis (a narrowing of the aortic valve) which required open heart surgery to replace the valve. Subsequently, I had a mild stroke the day after coming home from the hospital, leaving me with mild apasia- searching for words.
I’m fine now. Getting stronger and stronger from the open heart surgery and almost completely recovered from the stroke.
The second reason I haven’t posted here is that after Obama’s victory for a second term, I couldn’t stand thinking about anything political. I just had to take a holiday from politics.
Thank God for the Republican dominated House of Representatives. Our founding fathers, in their wisdom, gave us a way to keep Obama from doing TOO much harm to our country. I’m beginning to have hope again.
texexec:
So sorry to hear you’ve been ill, but glad to hear you’re on the mend, and hope it continues and you are restored to full health.
I can understand your taking a vacation from politics for a while after November of 2012.
Thanks, Neo. It feels good to be back.
Neo:
“Does Obama think he looks bad on the world stage right now? I don’t have the answer, but my guess is “no, not really.”
I think that’s absolutely true, but do you thank it so because this was all part of his brilliant agenda or because he’s clueless and lives in a bubble? I’d say the latter.
Harry the Extremist:
Neither.
His agenda is not necessarily “brilliant,” but it is an agenda and he has it and has had it from the start.
And although he is clueless in many ways and most definitely lives in a bubble, that’s not the reason either. As I explained in my post, narcissism often insulates the narcissist from reality. Obama brings his own bubble wherever he goes; it is inside his psyche and his head.
He is also surrounded by sycophants, yes-men and women, and/or fellow ideologues of the leftist variety. He has chosen these people to further his cause AND to preserve the bubble.
It remains to be seen whether his bubble will burst in terms of his own sense of himself. I don’t think it will, whatever happens in the outside world.
Great to have you back, texexec.
Mark Steyn’s recent take following the Putin column in NYT:
With this op-ed Tsar Vlad is telling Obama: The world knows you haven’t a clue how to play the Great Game or even what it is, but the only parochial solipsistic dweeby game you do know how to play I can kick your butt all over town on, too.
He’s been running for UN Secretary General since he became president.
That being “surrounded by sycophants” is key. Narcissism can get one just so far, and then it’s up to those folks to maintain the illusion.
Damn Neo, I agree with what you say. To me, the picture you paint is scarier than I had at imagined; the “Perfect Storm” of ego and ineptitude. An Inspector Clouseau: He’s incompetent but will accomplish his goals anyway and protected by the bubble, never become aware of his incompetency.
I dont think you could write the demise our our nation better in fiction than what’s going on now.
I thought he pretty much can’t be Sec Gen because the french will just veto anybody that doesn’t speak French. Well ok, they were told the current one either did or would take lessons and they saw how that turned out.(IE he doesn’t and pretty much never will.) I doubt they’ll fall for that a second time.
What should scare people is that Obama is not special or an anomaly on the Left. The Leftist alliance is even now creating leaders like him, in the millions of numbers inside the US.
Ymarsakar: disagree. O is special alright. in a lot of ways. although I get your point.
I tire of comments that Obama is an “idiot”, “incompetent”, or attributing his policies solely to “narcissism”.
All of those things are true, of course. He is all of that and more. Still, they don’t explain everything he has done and is doing.
He is a leftist through and through, and I believe that he has internalized the standard leftist beliefs that capitalist America is a force for evil in the world, and that white Americans became rich by stealing wealth from “people of color” in the Third World. He is determined to take us down a peg, by diminishing American influence in the world, and also by destroying the independent white middle class within America and forcing us into poverty and dependence on the government. He believes that these are just and righteous acts.
Some argue that he is blundering by diminishing America in the eyes of the world, since that would also diminish himself, which should be intolerable to a narcissist. But is it really a blunder?
Artfldgr has said that a committed revolutionary is willing to sacrifice himself to the cause. Is it possible to be both a committed revolutionary and a narcissist? I would say yes, although I can’t explain the mechanism of how that works.
I’m more inclined to believe the narcissistic argument because of who he surrounds himself with. Sure, they’re all sycophants, but they’re also surprisingly incompetent. See Samantha Power’s approach to Iran for one example, and the lack of coordination with Kerry for another.
Someone who was E-vil would find better henchmen (and henchwomen).
Two more examples just occured to me: Stalin and Hitler. Without hyperbole, we all know they were both evil. Yet neither surrounded themselves with incompetent underlings.
…that would’ve made their jobs harder.
Matt…
You are incorrect WRT the Stalin and Hitler: they ‘rotated out’ (wet or dry) anyone who gave them any resistance/ backtalk. Both were manifestly evil, but with seriously high IQs; not high enough to reason their way to sanity, though.
(Hitler was clinically insane by dint of syphilis — late stage — the nerve damage is oft proclaimed to be that of Parkinson’s. His personal medical records indicate that no attending physician ever diagnosed it; just syphilis. His terminal syphilis explains his weird ‘love life’ — as, obviously, he was entirely sterile no later than the early thirties.)
(Stalin was clinically insane by dint of the USSR’s foremost psychiatrist’s proclamation: “The most emphatic case of paranoid schizophrenia ever encountered.” (paraphrased)
Upon revealing this datum to his closest medical peer, said doctor was introduced to the perils of the Lubyanka, with death following two weeks later. Nikita Khrushchev’s diary spells out the day to day consequences of surviving in Stalin’s outer circle; the ‘turnover’ among his inner circle was brutal.)
The difference with Barry is that he starts from a dramatically lower personal IQ — so to step down from him is to recruit from AA and A teams. (His AAA picks went for free-agency a while back.)
It’s significant that Barry has turnover within his cadres entirely in line with the aforementioned tyrants. Take a hint.
The Hastings-Darth Brennen stories indicate that the maladministration is not above wet work. Someone hacked Hastings car — right into a tree. Then, like magic, the authorities destroyed the death evidence, en flambe. How convenient!
Darth Brennen scuttles over to the CIA… heads start rolling immediately. Astounding timing!
The NSA has been, like the IRS and other agencies, ‘re-purposed’ towards the ‘internal front.’ It no longer focuses on alien transmissions. It’s in-box is hyper loaded with dirt on Congress, state governors, and vile Tea Party conservatives… as, and when, nominated by the Pink House.
The savant-idiots in the bowels of the digital hive blithely toil away — naively assuming that they’re serving the national interest — when Chicago on the Potomac has hijacked all for itself.
The Census Bureau led the way: first to be drafted INSIDE the Pink House — thence to be traduced into serving the Wan vice the nation.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
KLSmith,
so long as people support and celebrate evil as a celebrity, they will continue to get their Special Treatment.
Nothing will change until people’s minds and hearts change first. It wasn’t the Iraqi’s hearts and minds that first needed changing.
Yet neither surrounded themselves with incompetent underlings.
What are you talking?
Both Hitler and Staln destroyed their best military officers because they disliked competence.
The definition of evil is that competence is considered useless next to loyalty to the regime. And with loyalty, comes yes men. Yes attacking Russia is a good idea. yes, let’s kill all the Jews, take their stuff, and destroy Germany’s intellectual elite.
I agree with Rickl that Obama is too driven, and has been too effective in implementing his Leftist agenda, to be written off as simply an idiot.
I see Obama as more cunning and street smart (always using the Chicago way) than the brilliant intellectual the MSM and others would have us believe. He hasn’t bothered to learn history and his policy ideas are decades old (not surprising since he is a 3rd generation communist), but that doesn’t make him an idiot.
And while he isn’t the master negotiator or eloquent speaker his sycophants claim him to be, he is a master at manipulation, such as using vague statements to give the impression he supports a cause when he doesn’t, using white guilt to avoid criticism and accountability, and exceeding his Constitutional power knowing Congress won’t stop him.
While he may foundering on international policy (no surprise given his inexperience & the pathetic team he’s assembled), he has been devastatingly effective in destroying America.
Texexec, hope things go good for you and that you take things slow and easy. And enjoy Obama’s self-immolation and how he describes it as a guiding light for the world.
As for Obama the world leader given that he has no talent except for campaigning and making himself look good to the naive there is no need to ascribe to him any malevolent capacities. His destructiveness comes about as a by-product of his own and the public’s inanity. I wish he did have an intended goal of destroying the US; I would feel much safer. Go with the adage that one should not attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence and you have a simpler and probably truer explanation for the Obama administration’s methodology.
BTW, Texexec, I too took time off form posting after the election because I was waiting until I had some intelligent observations to make. I got tired of waiting.
Neo said…
Does Obama think he looks bad on the world stage right now? I don’t have the answer, but my guess is “no, not really.”
I think that “no, not really” is borne out by his appearance today with George Stephanopoulos:
Surreal. And from the guy who’s all style, yet. But, man, does he ever display confidence — watch the video clip.
Lizzie:
“I agree with Rickl that Obama is too driven, and has been too effective in implementing his Leftist agenda, to be written off as simply an idiot.
As for myself, I tire of the “evil genius” meme. Obama really isnt that bright nor is he really that successful, Yes he got Obama care passed, at the final moment with great arm twisting. If you must credit one person for all this credit Saul Alinsky. He’s the true genius behind this mess.
Obama is able to get post birthed children in Chicago terminated, and he gets the profits off of this. He is able to kill black and white people and blame it on you whiteys, at no consequence to him.
Whether people call this evil or genius, I call it “results”.
These results are something other people, who call themselves geniuses, cannot produce. There is a discrepancy.
Both Hitler and Staln destroyed their best military officers because they disliked competence.
1) If you could name some specific officers destroyed because they were too competent, it would be helpful. I’m unaware of any.
2) If they destroyed officers because they were not blindly loyal enough, that’s a different argument.
Unfortunately, I’m not a huge WWII history buff so my info is limited. But I look at, say, Rommel at a data point that proves my original assertion.
Werth, in “Russia at War” lists the number of officers purged by Stalin. It is truly a huge, unbelievable number–which I have forgotten–and which presupposes a pretty good-sized military.
There have been suggestions he was faked into it by German intel (Gehlen), feeding on his paranoia.
Even if the officers were not purged for threats due to competence, but for loyalty issues, real or imagined, they had to be replaced, by guys who had less time in grade, less experience, fewer staff schools, less command time, fewer efficiency reports–however the Red Army did that–and were suddenly in over their heads.
So the effect, even if not aimed at the obvioiusly most competent, was to disorganize the Red Army for a couple of years, leading up to the war.
Neo said: “First of all, why do we care which it is?”
If I didn’t know better, I would swear you were channeling your inner Hillary…. 🙂
Ok, let me say I don’t think Obama is an idiot, but I don’t think you’re making much sense about his intentions with foreign policy. Neither do I think he is as clever as you believe he is. He’s a knave, but he’s proven himself to be an incompetent knave. And he’s lazy in just about every aspect of his job. The only thing he shows an interest in is golf and campaigning. This laziness and lack of time in the office is well documented even by his supporters, which supports what I contend – he’s not a tireless planner or strategic thinker. He wings it. He always has.
His domestic achievements have been slim since he lost his super majority — outside of Obama care, he’s lost more than he’s won.
The fact that he’s succeeded in reducing America’s influence – whether or intentionally or not I suppose is not important if we accept that is what he’s done. But I do not accept that; I contend he’s reduced his own far more than ours. American influence will be restored when he’s gone. It’s not going permanent; but history will remember him for being a confused and inarticulate boob where foreign policy is concerned.
So other than being pedantic, my only reason for arguing this point is you’re just not thinking logically about Obama. Every time he screws something up, you wonder aloud if it was not a cleverly disguised illusion.
The argument that by losing influence and prestige he wins, is impossible to refute. If his ‘America is rotten’ strategy had increased American influence and/or his own, you’d argue that was a winner too. Or should we expect him to reject the increased influence and devise more strategies to ruin his unintentional success? Of course he wouldn’t, he would exploit it if he could. But to be consistent, if his strategy had succeeded, he would have to work harder to undo it. So there’s no way to reconcile this disagreement that losing and winning are both winning – if you insist Obama planned it that way, he’s can’t ever lose.
But he didn’t plan to be less influential, and here is why:
If decreasing American influence was what he really wanted to do, the simplest and most effective way to do that would be to withdraw completely. Withdraw from the Middle East, let the prisoners in Gitmo free. Do not engage in foreign policy at all.
Instead, he re-invaded Afghanistan for no apparent reason – other than he said he would, and lost over 3,000 lives. What was the strategy there? There was no upside or downside where influence is concerned — it’s not a country that has any strategic significance for us. There was no rationale whatsoever. He engaged in and is still engaged in an aggressive drone campaign. He backed the Libyan and Egyptian revolutions — granted, from “behind”, but he took a side. When there was no particular reason for him to do so, he drew the infamous red line which ultimately harmed his personal credibility and caused political problems for himself domestically. That was purely an impulsive moment . He had no policy or plan in mind when he interjected the comment at Carney’s press conference.
When he got his ass in a wringer, instead of walking away from it, he made it worse. He went out of his way to show he was influential with the UN, Britain, and France, then Congress and the American people – and failed. For a guy who has no interest in being influential, he certainly goes out of his way to prove the opposite.
According to your argument, these direct and indirect actions are designed to decrease American influence. Exerting force and killing people is a funny way of showing you want the world to notice you don’t want have something to say.
On the other hand, doing nothing at all on the international stage would have been a lot more effective way to decrease influence.. But all he has succeeded in doing is to draw into question his own competency. Doing Nothing at all; declining to be involved anywhere is a time proven, simple strategy to do be less influential. It works every time, and sends a perfectly clear message to allies and enemies. In fact, doing nothing is what he likes best, so it’s not clear to me why he did all these things when he could have sat on his ass and accomplished more.
Which seems to be the strategy with Iran, and by God, that’s working perfectly.
To those who argue that his committed leftist ideology is evidence that he’s also trying to damage us internationally, I don’t understand that either. The Soviet Union was committed to communism, but they were very clear on their intentions to spread it by any means they could. They weren’t pacifists.
The present day Russian government isn’t afraid to exert their will or spread their influence; so I don’t know what being a lefty has to do with ruining your own country’s international influence or interests. Socialism doesn’t mean you’re obligated to destroy your own country’s international relations.
For what it’s worth, I’m betting Putin thinks Obama is an idiot, and he’s not done anything to disprove that assumption.
southpaw:
I’m thinking very logically, and I think you still are misreading what I’m saying.
I have never—I repeat NEVER—used the word “brilliant” or brilliantly” to describe Obama (except sarcastically, or in terms of his abilities as a campaigning politician). I don’t know why you continue to mischaracterize what I’ve been consistently saying, but you do continue to mischaracterize it.
I have said over and over I think he’s good at campaigning (dirty campaigning, but campaigning nevertheless). I have said he’s clever as far as propaganda goes. For the rest, I’m talking about his intent and his beliefs. I believe he is a doctrinaire leftist who would like to undermine traditional American power (I don’t have to go into this again; I’ve explained it sufficiently). Is he “brilliant” at it? Never said that. But I do think he’s doing pretty well at it within the confines of not being able to be completely overt about it.
The killing of Osama bin Laden, the drone attacks, Gitmo, the Afghan war, are in my opinion a question of trying to prevent a terrorist attack on his watch. He definitely does NOT want a terrorist attack to happen for which he could be blamed. And the Afghan War was the “good” war as defined by Democrats, and I seem to recall he campaigned from that stance in 2008. So he had to pay lip service to not pulling out of there too fast. He also knew that killing Osama would really help his 2012 election, which it did. And his red line remark about Assad had to do with personal bluster plus appealing to international law and the international humanitarian angle, which I’ve already said is something he does believe in, and something he wants to be given kudos from the world for defending.
I think he was and still is in way over his head with Putin. That is where the fact that Obama is by no means “brilliant” comes out. But I don’t think Obama much cares, for two reasons. The first is that he doesn’t think he has been made a fool of by Putin; he just doesn’t see it (his narcissism protects him). The second is that he does not see Putin as an enemy. But Putin does indeed see him as a fool (or collaborator, or perhaps both, but almost certainly fool).
As for whether the diminution of US power and influence will be permanent, the jury is out on that. I fear it will (at least some of it) because until now the world has counted on US continuity in that respect. All American presidents, to a greater or lesser extent, have ascribed to the same basic role for the US. Obama broke that mold, and that must be frightening to other countries who depend on our reliability. Another president could restore some of the faith in that particular president, but not complete faith in American reliability in that regard.
On the domestic front I am also talking about leftist intent. Has he succeeded? More than you give him credit for. Obamacare may not be repealable, and it may segue into single payer. He has appealed to the low information voter and various ethnic groups in ways that entrench them more as Democratic voters. He has increased dependence on big government. These are not specific policies (except Obamacare), but they are deeper changes that may become systemic. And they are definitely intentional and in line with his leftist views. You are being shortsighted in your evaluation of his accomplishments.
Great points Neo, that Obama has furthered the leftist cause. Maybe he should at least get credit for that. I think you’re also right that this is pretty much irreversible. The media will next elect Hillary Clinton to continue where Obama left off. Almost as incompetent a world leader herself, she will still continue to unalterably change this nation. very sad.
Matt…
It was the Competent generals who nay-say’d Stalin and Hitler.
Hitler normally sent the fellows into prompt retirement. Some were pulled back out — BECAUSE of their competence.
Stalin, likewise, pulled some fellows out of the gulag who went on to become his most famous marshals.
In both cases, the ebb and flow turned on ‘tank theory.’ Both tyrants sent down generals who knew more about the merits and limits of tanks than they. Then, when the pinch was most intense, they ate crow and brought these very fellows back.
Barry has mimicked the tyrants — sending into retirement extremely competent generals — even celebrated ones — because they were the locus of just such celebration.
In Stalin’s case, he had a design philosophy: murder all tall marshals. This effect will become apparent when you study just exactly who was being liquidated. They were uniformly tall. EVERY single marshal at the end of the Great Patriotic War was within 1″ of Stalin’s (short) height.
The very first marshal to die during the purge stood well over six feet tall. Stalin went down the ranks — pretty much by using his ruler.
Such is insanity.
Harry…
She’s the true source of the famous Red Line — using it ten days before Barry’s gaff.
Now she’s re-setting with Huma Weiner.
Giving Bill another go at the body politic is all that could happen in a HRC presidency.
Merely grating in public, she’s a termagant when behind the curtain. (Just like Al Gore, in that regard.)
So, whereas Barry is an infectious pus; HRC is a throbbing gluteal boil — and impossible to sit with.
As a perfectionist — of a sorts — she takes great pains — and gives them to others.
Matt SE,
Others here have given you the benefit of enough hints and clues that you can find things out for yourself.
But to address your inaccurate portrayal of Romel doesn’t require history research, it just requires being able to read and search for things on the internet.
Rommel is regarded as having been a humane and professional officer.[4] His Afrika Korps was never accused of war crimes, and soldiers captured during his Africa campaign were reported to have been treated humanely.[5] Orders to kill Jewish soldiers, civilians and captured commandos were ignored.[6] Late in the war, Rommel was linked to the conspiracy to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Because Rommel was a national hero, Hitler desired to eliminate him quietly. He forced Rommel to commit suicide with a cyanide pill, in return for assurances that Rommel’s family would not be persecuted following his death. He was given a state funeral, and his cause of death announced as old battle wounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel
Truth is not held by a few experts or elite academic graduates of historical research. Truth is obtained by those who make the effort. Those who do not, merely regurgitate the regime’s propaganda.
A dictator defines loyalty as someone who is too stupid and weak to fight against the Cause. The Cause being whatever the dictator says the Cause is.
Same goes for the Obamacans.
Btw, Obama’s not just dealing with america from a foreign policy issue, he is constructing what they call the permanent Democrat majority here in the US.
His intent and primarily the intent of his handlers, is to break the back of American power: its people, their soul, spirit, and bodies.
The foreign policy initiatives are just a logical extension of their cause.
Meanwhile, people underestimate the left, talk about political compromises with education, Democrat unions, Democrat military standards, Democrat porn profit industries, Democrat abortion, and think they are “winning”.
They aren’t winning. Their goal isn’t to break the back of Democrat power or the Leftist alliance’s power in the US. Which is why when the Left is at war with you, and you think you’re at a picnic, they win that war. The war does not disappear.
“So, whereas Barry is an infectious pus; HRC is a throbbing gluteal boil – “
Ewwwwwww……..
I assume what you mean is that Hitler forced Rommel to committ suicide. This is true, but it occured because Rommel was a suspect in the attempt on Hitler’s life.
The German army was a major institution, and the one German institution that Hitler had to seriously respect. Only late in WW2 did he begin to turn on it to some degree, and that was in the phase where it was becoming obvious that Germany was going to lose the war.
In fact, the Night of the Long Knives where Himler’s SS destroyed the SA brown shirts was done because the SA wanted to replace the army. Historically the German army was very non-political, and this tendency protected Hitler.
I think it does matter what Obama’s motivations are, because that allows us to better predict what he will do.
I tend to think that this mess has not turned out quite how he wanted, and he has some realization of his failure. His failure, after all, impacts his ability to get things done: gain Dem control of the House, retain control or increase it in the Senate, push gun control, etc.
While I don’t think he cares for American power, etc., and is willing to trade that, I think that at some level he realizes he’s been played, and that evil forces won. I think some reality must sink through.
Ymarsakar:
I’m in agreement with your 10:08 AM comment.
Neo I take your points about his domestic agenda; I just don’t agree they will be lasting or permanent. Dependency will only last as long as the money lasts, and we’re on a fast track to European style problems. I’m being optimistic; in any case, he’s the most recent in a long line of compromises that Americans have accepted and I blame us too.
The Afghanistan policy is a stretch if the argument is it was he was trying to prevent further terrorist attacks. By the time he took office, the threat coming out of there wasn’t imminent or credible from any international intelligence agencies. It was Obama’s war to show his toughness in my opinion. His own Homeland Security Dept. stated “the greatest existing threat to terrorism is from home-grown terrorists”
Where we disagree isn’t with his leftist agenda or implementation of it. I simply don’t buy into is the theory one of his goals was to was reduce American influence. I won’t argue that he has, I just argue he was indifferent to it, except in the case where it serves his ego.
Syria is a perfect example. First off, he threw down a gauntlet. Then he backed off. Then he hinted America would go it alone.
Then after being criticized, he tried to round up UN support; when that was obviously not going to happen because of Russian and China, he went to Britain and France, who rejected him. Then there was the announcement that he would go it alone again; but after being criticized again for not consulting with congress, he announced he would put it to a vote in congress, but made a point of reminding everyone he didn’t need their approval. When it was apparent he was going to lose face with congress, he postponed the vote rather than face more embarrassment.
At each turn of events, his vanity was behind the actions – posturing himself as an enforcer, drawing a line in the sand — that was impulse and vanity. He wasn’t trying to avoid the spotlight or shy away, he needed to be the center of attention. He couldn’t resist it.
Since then, he’s done nothing but try to save his face doing exactly the opposite things- both threatening unilateral intervention and quoting reasons he can’t. You say this incompetence is a show or some other ruse, or imply the end result is what he wanted anyway. I simply say no, he was trying to take a lead of some kind — in the sense that he believes in the UN and international cooperation, I agree with you — but he failed at getting it — if he had thought for a moment that NOBODY would jump up when he invoked children, chemical weapons, and litany of clichés that work so well on the American public, he never would have risked bruising his ego. Note he wasn’t willing to get publicly slapped by his own congress when he made the mistake of asking for their support — he wasn’t going to make that mistake twice in the same week.
So I simply say that Obama may have succeeded to reduce our influence, but it hardly a conscious effort to do so, but good old fashioned incompetence as a leader.
His incompetence isn’t feigned or diabolical, or part of a darker scheme to advance an agenda, it’s rooted in lack of experience combined with unfounded supreme self confidence in his own natural abilities. At this point, he couldn’t lead a herd of sheep away from a wolf.
I don’t underestimate his ability to do damage to us on many fronts, but I also know a screw-up when I see one — Being the world leader no other head of state respects or takes seriously wasn’t planned, or he wouldn’t embarrass himself begging for their support.
southpaw:
“I don’t underestimate his ability to do damage to us on many fronts, but I also know a screw-up when I see one “
Yep, that about sums that up. I also agree with your assessment of Obama in the post prior to this: “He’s a knave, but he’s proven himself to be an incompetent knave. And he’s lazy in just about every aspect of his job.” That’s absolutely true. He likes the position but doesnt like the work. He’s not “No drama Obama” because he’s comported. He’s that way cause he’s detached.
He likes the position but doesnt like the work
His followers break down into two groups: the “true believers” whom I estimate to be around 15%, and the rest. Many of the rest are posers just like Obama; maybe they liked being fashionable by being anti-American, but once other countries started laughing at us they decided they couldn’t stand being mocked.
Anti-American posers who really covet prestige.
I have a feeling Obama’s legacy may be easily unraveled after he’s gone, if we get someone even halfway competent.
Matt…
He’s created a government that just can’t be financed.
For a time, this can be faked around by issuing immense amounts of fiat currency/ digital chits.
But, eventually, the very nature of such a political opiate causes the abuser to over dose — and crash the economy.
China invented paper — and paper money. Over printing is linked to the fall of virtually every dynasty. (Invasions cover the rest.)
Liquidity does not equal wealth creation. This equation baffles the brightest to this day. (Summers, Bernanke, et. al.)
Without the immense economic support of the Red Chinese, Barry-world would come crashing down.
Even at this hour, flight capital from the totally insane Beijing residential real estate market is gunning daughter markets in Australia, Vancouver and Los Angeles. Like the Japanese of the Eighties, these panic buyers are ALL CASH BUYERS. Natch. They’re foreigners! They just got off the plane.
When they concentrate in selected, golden, markets, the price ramps are astonishing. Since residential real estate is priced on emotion and leverage — at the margin — even the other buyers are forced to dance right along.
(The ‘all-cash’ Red Chinese buyers obtained their buy-in via leverage back home. It’s an illusion that they’re paying all cash. In this way, they can short Red China’s fiat currency. — They’re long American real estate and short the Beijing loans required to juice their portfolios.)
Hedge funds LOVE to go with momentum plays. So they amplify the Red Chinese real estate bug. Like the Japanese before them, the Chinese are willing to take prices into orbits unknown to the round-eyes. As you might imagine, the hedge fund crews use massive leverage, too. It just does not show up at escrow.
Unlike actual residents, these players are hot money. For them these are not homes, they are houses — a financial asset that mates with a rate favored (fiat money shorting) mortgage/ institutional debt of epic scope.
Sadly, these big boys are wrong. Money printing = hyperinflation. Real estate CRASHES in hyperinflation. The reason is that leverage is completely withdrawn from the asset class.
Like the Red Queen, without leverage, real estate investments can’t even hold their place. They start moving backwards down the economic treadmill.
In Argentina, it was discovered that entire apartment blocks were reduced to the value of a second hand car! (Yes, it was a nice car; but still!) The apartments could not collect rents in tempo with outlays — even when the associated mortgages evaporated. (!) The (government imposed) real estate levies — naturally grew to overwhelm the landlords. Repairs stopped. Tenants lost their incomes and en mass became dead beats.
The entire sector became a third rail of lending and investing.
This is where Barry is taking our economy. Get hip.
Read up on the craziness of the hyperinflated economies of history.
BTW, Paulson confused inflation with hyperinflation. It cost him and his investors BILLIONS. They are two totally different beasts — as different as fungi and bacteria. Only the names — picked up by historical accident — make them seem related.
You see the mass confusion if you turn on ANY financial channel. The talking heads have it all wrong. None have a clue as to what breaks down in hyperinflation.
Crushing the dollar is Soros’ highest goal. Such an outcome would generate worldwide warfare to eclipse WW1, WW2, WW3 and todays WW4 — even if they were all stacked up together. One should reasonably posit deaths in the billions.
In which case, we’d all forget Stalin, Hitler and all the rest. Pikers compared to the Wan.
southpaw: if you don’t think O has been consciously trying to reduce our influence then what do you think his apology tour was all about? Or bowing to the leaders of Saudi Arabia and China?
You write as if you believe incompetence and deliberateness are mutually exclusive. Why would they be?
Why do you think he constantly demeans the office he holds with his petty and divisive speeches? Because respecting your country is old school and we in new school now.
And anyone who thinks he hasn’t irreparably damaged this country is naive.
“southpaw: if you don’t think O has been consciously trying to reduce our influence then what do you think his apology tour was all about?
I’ll field that: Obama thinks putting America in it’s place elevates him in the eyes of the world. That part is planned. Making himself look like a fool while he’s doing that is not planned. Those are two separate issues.
Matt:
“I have a feeling Obama’s legacy may be easily unraveled after he’s gone, if we get someone even halfway competent.”>>
I fear that will be way too optimistic. Even if we had a Ted Cruz in office, we couldnt hope to reverse much of what Barry’s done to us, but we’re not going to get anyone competent. We’re going to get Hillary.