L.E. Ikenga, a "first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970's from the country now called Nigeria" finds a disturbing comparison between our new president and a common trait among African leaders. American Thinker, Obama, the African Colonial.
Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious.
Kyle-Anne Shiver, also at American Thinker, comments on our 'Wimp in Chief's' position on the crisis in Honduras in, Obama's True Colors Shine in Honduras.
Obama's response to the Honduran military removing a dictator-wannabe from office (at the behest, it must be noted, of the Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress), and escorting him to the border, was sure and fast. He declared the military action an "illegal coup" faster than you can say Fidel Castro. And just as quickly the rest of the region's socialist gang chimed in too. The real Castro brothers. Hugo Chavez. Daniel Ortega.
Birds of a feather do tend to flock together.
Birds of a feather do tend to flock together.
Careful Ms. Shiver. We don't want to be rash and label Obama a Communist!
Another from American Thinker, America's Socialist Past by Ryan Siefert, is a short but necessary historical review of the damage from socialist inspirations.
There seems to be a need in American society to have to relearn the same hard lessons over and over again, regardless of whether the results were seen on the other side of the planet or suffered through by our own people.
We're living in a country that elected a President that believes in redistributing wealth. He's mentioned this himself, from the "Joe the Plumber" incident[i] to his critique[ii] of the failures of the civil rights movement. Whether you call it Socialism, Communism, Marxism, or by its simpler name, theft, they are all part of the same economic system that destroys private property and puts everything in central control of the state.
We're living in a country that elected a President that believes in redistributing wealth. He's mentioned this himself, from the "Joe the Plumber" incident[i] to his critique[ii] of the failures of the civil rights movement. Whether you call it Socialism, Communism, Marxism, or by its simpler name, theft, they are all part of the same economic system that destroys private property and puts everything in central control of the state.
"Russian media are now abuzz with speculation about a new war in Georgia, and some Western analysts are voicing similar concerns" - so reports Cathy Young in the WSJ Opinion section on Thursday. She asks, "What would the Kremlin gain" from a war with Georgia:
A crushing victory in Georgia would depose the hated Mr. Saakashvili, give Russia control of vital transit routes for additional energy resources that could weaken its hold on the European oil and gas markets, humiliate the U.S., and distract Russians from their economic woes. Mr. Piontkovsky also believes the war drive comes from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who is anxious to reassert himself as supreme leader.
YES! That was our response when reading Gordon G. Chang's WSJ Opinion, How to Stop North Korea's Weapons Proliferation. He writes about that N.K. ship, Kang Nam, that has been trailed by US warships (as if trailing is a foreign policy). Chang explains a legal way to board or sink the Kang Nam, refering to the North's May 27 rejection of the armistice that ended the fighting (not the war) in 1953. When you read this, remember how Clinton turned down a chance at Bin Laden for a lack of legal justification...
...an armistice as a legal matter cannot remain in existence after one of its parties, a sovereign state, announces its end. Today, whether we like it or not, there is no armistice.
Furthermore, there has never been a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War. This means the U.S., a combatant in the conflict, as leader of the U.N. Command, is free to use force against Pyongyang. On legal grounds, the U.S. Navy therefore has every right to seize the Kang Nam, treat the crew as prisoners of war, and confiscate its cargo, even if the ship is carrying nothing more dangerous than melons. Because the Navy has the right to torpedo the vessel, which proudly flies the flag of another combatant in the war, it of course has the right to board her.
Furthermore, there has never been a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War. This means the U.S., a combatant in the conflict, as leader of the U.N. Command, is free to use force against Pyongyang. On legal grounds, the U.S. Navy therefore has every right to seize the Kang Nam, treat the crew as prisoners of war, and confiscate its cargo, even if the ship is carrying nothing more dangerous than melons. Because the Navy has the right to torpedo the vessel, which proudly flies the flag of another combatant in the war, it of course has the right to board her.
Did the North wait for Obama to replace Bush before setting sail with illicit cargo? If so, pretty smart. The only way Obama will get tough is if the criticisms of his pathetic foreign policy migrate from here to the nightly news...
No comments:
Post a Comment