Ralph Peters has a most excellent piece today, courtesy of the NY Post:

An ugly pattern’s emerging in our president’s beliefs:

He’s infallible. This is rich, given all the criticism of the Bush administration’s unwillingness to admit mistakes. We now have a president with Jimmy Carter’s naivete, Richard Nixon’s distaste for laws, Lyndon Johnson’s commitment to the wrong war, and Bill Clinton’s moral fecklessness.

Democracy isn’t important. Our president seems infected by yesteryear’s Third-World-leftist view that dictatorships are essential to post-colonial development — especially for Muslims.

Look where Obama has gone and who he supports: the pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, his groveling speech in Egypt, his embrace of Hamas, his hands-off approach to the gory regime in Sudan — and now his dismay at the protests in Iran.

Strict Islam is true Islam. This is bewildering, given Obama’s childhood exposure to the tolerant Islam practiced in most of Indonesia. The defining remark of his presidency thus far was his Cairo demand for the right of Muslim women to wear Islamic dress in the West — while remaining silent about their right to reject the hijab, burqa or chador in the Middle East.

History’s a blank canvas — except for America’s sins. Of course, we’ve had presidents who presented the past in the colors they preferred — but we’ve never had one who just made it all up.

Testify, Brother.

Today’s Recommend Reading.

Gateway Pundit has a wonderful piece comparing and contrasting the stands of G. W. Bush and B .H. Obama, regarding the struggle for freedom and democracy in the world today:

“All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”

President George W. Bush
Second Inaugural Speech
January 20, 2005

President Bush’s made this pledge to political dissidents and freedom activists in 2005, “We will stand with you.” And, the oppressed took him at his word. There was an Orange Revolution in Ukraine, a Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and a Cedar Revolution in Lebanon that spring. There were democratic elections in Afghanistan where women were not only allowed to vote but took seats in parliament. There were democratic elections for the first time in the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia released political dissidents. There were Arab democracy conferences in Qatar and women were allowed to vote in Kuwait. Egyptian judges stood up against a regime. Another regime in Libya opened up to the West. And who could forget the Iraqis who walked for miles, braving terrorist death threats, to vote in free democratic elections for the very first time.

President Bush later met with democracy activists from Burma on the twenty year anniversary of the bloody 8888 Protests in Burma. And before he left office in December 2008 President Bush met with dissident bloggers on Human Rights Day.

But those days are over. There’s a new administration in town with a new set of rules and a new set of priorities. Persecuted political dissidents and brave democracy activists do not rank high on the list.

Already this year the Obama Administration has waived sanctions on Syria, considered opening travel to Cuba, announced plans to drop sanctions against the murderous junta in Burma, reportedly approved Sharia Law in the tribal regions of Pakistan in exchange for a bogus peace treaty, praised the Venezuelan “democracy,” discussed holding talks with the Iranian regime, and accepted China’s human rights abuses. That’s quite a record and it hasn’t even been 200 days since they took office.

In February seven former Iranian student prisoners wrote a letter to President Obama and urged him to support the democratic movement of the Iranian people. Their letter went unanswered. It should come as no surprise then that as chaos broke out this weekend in Iran over a very controversial election result the Obama Administration fell silent.

Less than 24 hours after the flawed results were announced by the official media the Obama Administration announced that they would engage with the regime.

Whatever else his flaws, G. W. Bush was a vocal supporter of people around the world, of all faiths and races, who wanted to be free.

B. H. Obama, like most on the left, does not believe that Freedom and Democracy should be “imposed”, or, for that matter, that what we think of as American (or even Western) values are superior in any way to the oppression suffered by people in other nations, in the name of Religion or any particular brand of Politics.

Thanks to Kyle Drennen at Newsbusters:

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

…”Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial.”

Thomas elaborated on Obama as God, patronizingly explaining: “He’s going to bring all different sides together…Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn’t even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He’s all about let us reason together…He’s the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he
can do that.”

Now beyond the obvious issue that anyone and everyone should have with a supposed Journalist and editor of a national (purported) News magazine likening a President to God, I have a greater issue with the other things that he said.

Reagan was President of The United States, and he was our greatest advocate and standard bearer.  Whatever else may be said about Reagan, he believed in this nation, and had unending pride in our accomplishments and our potential.  America is, after all, even today, the only nation on earth where literally MILLIONS of people struggle to emigrate to, so they can live in freedom of thought and religion, and (at least for the moment) have economic freedom.

What Thomas is saying is that Obama is ABOVE being America’s advocate.  That he has a higher calling.

And if Obama were President of the United Nations, I would probably not have a huge issue with that.

But it’s not his JOB to be the worlds Messiah, or Teacher on the Playground, as Thomas asserts.  His JOB is to represent the United State, and to look out for our best interests.

If Obama doesn’t, or can’t, put aside his own ambitions or personal feelings about America, he should resign his office.

The United States of America needs a President that has our best interests at heart, first and foremost.  We do NOT need a man dedicated to tearing America down to everyones elses level.  To taking away what makes America a special place.  And yes, a BETTER place that most other nations on this earth.

As an aside, in a recent speech, Obama made the following statement:

“I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”

I have a serious problem with this, as should anyone who lives in freedom, enjoys freedom, or yearns for freedom, philosophically.  It is also patently untrue in a historic sense.

Indeed, in the ashes of World War II, which, coincidentally, is a subject today due to the anniversary of the D-Day invasion, America (and in some cases, our Allies) “imposed” representative forms of government on several nations, which remain in power today.

Iraq’s “imposed” Republic is stabilizing by the day.

Indeed, the most immoral thing possible is to ignore our brothers and sisters who even today suffer under repression and oppression.

Obama is a “…sort of God?”  What a horrible, sad thought for free people everywhere, and all those who yearn to be free.

Courtesy of Time:

…what we need is an ex post facto international regime with real teeth: You test a bomb, and you face certain and total economic embargo, one that will make the pre-emptive sanctions we have in place now seem like a day at the polo club. Right now China should be closing its border with North Korea, cutting off everything except food. It is only when the lights go off in Pyongyang that the North Koreans will seriously consider giving up the bomb.

I would go a little farther than Mr. Baer.

The US should announce a policy of overwhelming retaliation in case of Nuclear Attack against ANY of our allies; to include the bombing of all medium and large cities (say, over 50,000 population) and all military facilities.

I would also inform the North Koreans that any attack on South Korea, or ANY US ally, will be considered an act of war, and will result in the complete destruction of their nation, and, more importantly, their military.

I would also have charges brought before the United Nations of Crimes Against Humanity against the entire ruling party of North Korea.  There is ample evidence of their prison labor and “re-education” camps, the the routine use of starvation as a tool to keep the population in check.

But then, unlike the Obama administration (and pretty much all the administrations since 1953), I actually care about the suffering of the Korean people who are trapped in Kim Jog Il’s “workers paradise”…

I happened to trip over a commercial that is being run by Youth for Human Rights International, concerning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The full text of the UDHR is posted here.

Overall, the basic tenants are familiar:  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, just expanded upon.

After reading through the UDHR, it occurs to me that there are less than a handful of nations where even a majority of the 30 (that’s right, 30!) enumerated rights enjoyed by the population.

In the vast majority of nations in the world, few if any of these “rights” are enjoyed by any but the societal elite; the United States being a one of the exceptions.

The first 21 articles deal with fairly fundamental issues, though a few venture somewhat far afield.  I think the Bill of Rights did a better job, far more succinctly.

ARTICLE 1… All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

ARTICLE 2… Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status

ARTICLE 3… Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

ARTICLE 4… No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Read the rest of this entry »