Just this morning, I was watching President Obama‚Äôs speech before the United Nations. I must admit it was given with eloquence and was quite moving. However, for the most part it was rhetoric and the dreams of an idealistic man in Fantasyland. I do not want to really beat a dead horse, but as stated in my last article about the ideology of liberals, President Obama‚Äôs foreign policy completely ignores reality. It is almost delusional. Obama dreams about everything being utopian, but ignores the writings on the wall. And, in the process he insults our trusted ally Israel by demanding it stop building settlements without requiring the Palestinians to acknowledge Israel‚Äôs right to exist.
The speech was also very Wilsonian. I could imagine the words of Woodrow Wilson pitching the League of Nations to the United States Congress after the end of World War One. The League of Nations . . .
‚Äúis a definite guaranty of peace. It is a definite guaranty by word against aggression. It is a definite guaranty against the things which have just come near bringing the whole structure of civilization into ruin. Its purposes do not for a moment lie vague. Its purposes are declared, and its powers are unmistakable. It is not in contemplation that this should be merely a league to secure the peace of the world. It is a league which can be used for cooperation in any international matter.‚ÄĚ
In fact, parts of President Obama‚Äôs speech today mirrored these themes exactly.
The American Congress did not buy the sales job of Wilson and did not ratify the Versailles Treaty. America was not a member of the League of Nations. The League of Nations failed and the bloodiest war in the history of mankind resulted. As a result, for the most part, history looks at Woodrow Wilson‚Äôs presidency as a failure.
Wilson was an idealist and President Obama is an idealist. In fact, the two men have quite a lot in common. They are both of the extreme left and considered Progressives. And, there is much more.
Woodrow Wilson and Back Obama were both educated in elite Northeastern Ivy League Schools. Wilson was a graduate of Princeton; Obama a graduate of Harvard. They were both lawyers who did not practice for an extended period of time. And, most importantly, both became President with very little governmental experience. Wilson was in the midst of his first term as governor of New Jersey. Barack Obama was in the middle of his first term as a Senator from Illinois. And, both became President because of circumstances beyond their control: Wilson because of a split in the Republican Party during a three man election and Obama because of the crash of the economic system six weeks before the election.
In addition to their idealistic viewpoints on foreign affairs, both were staunch supporters of the Federal Reserve. Wilson, in fact, was President during its creation and managed to slip it through a Congress that mostly opposed it. Obama is increasing the powers of the Fed on an almost daily basis. There are many that feel the Fed is part of an idealistic world view. (See e.g., The Secret of Jekyll Island). This is the same idealistic world view that is a cornerstone of President Obama and Woodrow Wilson‚Äôs foreign policy. It is also, unfortunately, socialist. The underlying theme of both is that the creation of a World Bank will make every country and every person equal.
Many of the initial supporters of the Fed and its progeny of paper money believe that the rich countries should support the rest of the world and put all nations on an even playing field. In fact, it can be argued that this was the main argument of President Obama‚Äôs speech before the General Assembly today. It is idealistically based socialism pure and simple. Unfortunately, Margaret Thatcher said it best. ‚ÄúThe problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people‚Äôs money.‚ÄĚ And, that may be what is happening right now. The Fed cannot print its paper money fast enough. The realism is beginning to set in.
Will America continue to buy into Obama‚Äôs rhetoric? Maybe. Will Obama be considered a failure in the same vein as Woodrow Wilson? I hope not, but if things continue as they are, it is beginning to look more likely each and every day.
On other fronts – In my opinion President Obama made a major error last week when he agreed to withdraw the missile defense system from Poland and the Czech Republic. This is kowtowing to the Russians pure and simple. The governments of both Eastern European countries feel the President has sold out our NATO allies. Do I need to remind my readers that these two countries were once within the tyrannical control of the USSR? They are both now members of NATO. We have promised them defense. What has the President done to end their fears of another Russian takeover? Nothing. In fact, the President gives in to Russia at the expense of our Eastern European allies.
Yesterday I became aware of an Executive Order signed by President Obama on January 27 of this year. It is Executive Order Number 2009-15 and is published in the Federal Register. I simply do not understand why this was not picked up by the mainstream or any media for that matter. The order is very simple. It allocates 20.3 million dollars of our taxpayers‚Äô money to aid refuges of the Gaza Strip. Isn‚Äôt this where the Hamas controls? Aren‚Äôt these refuges that our taxpayer money is being used for going to be enemies of Israel? Isn‚Äôt Israel one of our most important allies? I know it was before the current administration.
Developing news on the health care front is that Harry Reid is going to use reconciliation in the Senate if he cannot get the sixty members necessary to block a filibuster. In other words, he is going to bend the rules to his favor so that a simple majority can bypass Senate rules.
Sounds a lot like what is going on in Massachusetts right now. When John Kerry was running for President and Mitt Romney was the governor, the Democratic Legislature immediately took the power out of Romney‚Äôs hands to appoint a Senator had Kerry won. I mean, God forbid that the Republican Romney would appoint a Republican to the Senate representing Massachusetts. Now, that Ted Kennedy has passed away, the situation is reversed. The Massachusetts Legislature is changing the rules again to give the Democratic Governor the power to appoint a successor to fulfill Kennedy‚Äôs term. The Democrats do not want to risk a special election in which a Republican might win. This is typical Democratic liberal behavior. The rules are only as good as long as they benefit their ideals.
Lastly, the State of California‚Äôs unemployment rate has reached a 70 year high. What can we do about it? The state is in a mess and our Democratic Legislature and Republican Governor cannot even begin to come up with a solution. The budget deficit is out of control. Storefronts are empty everywhere you look. Foreclosure rates are at an all time high. And, real estate is in a free fall. Maybe, the time is right to kick them all out of office. Couple that with our Democratic Congress that has got to go; and, maybe government will start being for the people and not for itself. Isn‚Äôt that what the American form of Democracy is supposed to be all about?
¬©2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be granted freely upon request.