Obama’s Outlaw Romance

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.


Pages: 1 2

President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said that “Normal practices of diplomacy…are of no possible use in dealing with international outlaws.”

Rather than listen to FDR’s advice, President Barack Obama squandered yet another opportunity to confront today’s international outlaws during his annual visit to the United Nations. He delivered his usual meaningless platitudes to the United Nations General Assembly during his speech on September 23, 2010 – just like he did last year. He talked in generalities – ignoring the elephants in the room of Islamic-inspired terrorism, Iran’s clear and present danger to world peace and security, and the human rights abuses by the countries running the United Nations Human Rights Council that Obama decided the United States should legitimize by joining.

President Obama’s September 23rd speech to the General Assembly was his second UN speech of the week. It followed his pledge the day before, during the United Nations sponsored summit on the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), to meet commitments to the United Nations for more development aid to fight poverty, disease, sub-standard education, infant and maternal mortality and gender inequality.  In other words, Obama is willing to transfer many more billions of dollars of wealth from hard-working American taxpayers to developing countries, much of it through the same United Nations that was culpable in the oil-for-food scandal that enriched Saddam Hussein and his buddies. Obama also pledged in his MDG speech to lead efforts to revamp the global development process in order to make it more accountable. However, he offered nothing that the Bush administration had not already tried.

When Obama returned to address the General Assembly again the next day, during the official opening of this year’s General Assembly session, he renewed his naive and dangerous calls for “a world without nuclear weapons” that he championed at the UN last year.

Obama touched very lightly and in broad general terms during his September 23rd speech on the continuing global threat of terrorism, which he inexplicably lumped together with unrelated issues such as the “financial crisis on Wall Street.”  He referred to the “men, women and children…murdered by extremists from Casablanca to London; from Jalalabad to Jakarta,” but left out the one crucial ingredient common to all of these massacres: the murderers were Islamic jihadists  who committed their crimes against humanity in the name of Allah.

By carefully avoiding any association of radical Islamic ideology with most of the acts of terrorism occurring around the world today, Obama missed an opportunity to use his global platform to confront the source of this evil while the world was watching.

Obama did solemnly exhort his General Assembly audience to “not stand idly by when dissidents everywhere are imprisoned and protesters are beaten. Because part of the price of our own freedom is standing up for the freedom of others.” Too bad that he has not followed his own advice.

Obama has remained on the sidelines while dissidents in Iran were beaten, thrown into jail, tortured and, in some cases, killed.  The courageous opponents of the ruthless rulers of Iran’s Islamic theocracy were waiting for the leader of the free world to speak out on their behalf from the world’s stage. Protesters were shouting on behalf of democracy in Iran right across the street from UN headquarters. But Obama offered them no hope. He gave the Iranian regime a free pass on its abysmal human rights record.

Obama also missed the opportunity to target the dysfunctional UN Human Rights Council for criticism. Recall that the rationale for his administration’s decision to join this misnamed UN circus of human rights abusers was to obtain the leverage to reform it from within. It hasn’t quite worked out that way. Instead, the UN Human Rights Council continues to go after Israel while ignoring genocides and wars against humanity around the globe. And the Council – with American acquiescence – continues to pass resolutions declaring ‘defamation of religions’ (i.e., criticism of Islam) to be a violation of international law.

With regard to Iran, Obama told the General Assembly that “the door remains open to diplomacy,” while repeating toothless warnings of consequences if Iran does not accept his “extended hand” and “confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program.” Nobody is taking Obama’s warnings seriously, least of all the Iranian regime. A year after he issued similar warnings from the UN podium and months after watered-down sanctions were approved by the UN Security Council, Iran is much closer to achieving its nuclear arms ambitions.

Pages: 1 2

  • Robert Laity
    • bubba4

      I looked at your links and spit coke through my nose laughing. The most incredible thing about these pathetic private blogs made up to look like newspapers or something, is the rampant shamelessness with which the writers operate. Just incredible. Thanks for a view of the fringe radicals that are really trying to destroy America.

      • Iconoclast

        How can anyone with half an ounce of gray matter think that Obama is any good at all?

        • bubba4

          From inside your box….impossible.

          I "follow" FPM, and I admit, most people cannot offer a sophisticated defense necessary to counter the cultic bs….but it is it's own world of belief. All this chain yanking just to get you to vote Republican….um..oh..sorry…Teaparty…whatever.

          You can tell the suckers by the huge hook stuck in their cheek.

      • Stephen_Brady

        I almost did the same thing with my coffee, when I saw that you "spit coke" through your nose. It's a funny word-picture!

        You would admit that the fringe radicals are on both sides of the ideological aisle, right? All one needs to do is go to moveon.org or the huffingtonpuffington post. And don't forget all the fringe Marxist groups and their blogs.

        As for Obama and the UN, his two appearances before the General Assembly are the main reason why the United States should invite the UN to go somewhere more else. The people of the US will decide about Obama and his ilk this November, and in 2012.

        • bubba4

          There are crazy radicals of all stripes…

          The only way to describe it is intellectual dishonesty…allowing yourself to believe all sorts of crazy sh*t about Obama…and for what? The "less filling-tastes great" of politics? FPM and others like it would like to see ideological branding on everything….so you can be trained to reject reality by calling it "left" or any other string of anti-concepts.

          • Stephen_Brady

            First, I don't "allow" myself to believe all sorts of "crazy sh*t" about Obama. It's there for all to see, if one can get past the MSM to actually see or hear it.

            Second, FPM doesn't "train" me to do or believe anything. I have PhD in Philosophy from an Ivy League University. From my experience, the average auto mechanic or receptionist has better instincts about this president than people like me.

            Finally, what is this fear that the Left has about the word "left"? I'm right-wing, and proud of it. I'm in the tea party, and I'm also working in the GOP at the local level. But liberals almost universally fear to be labeled as a "liberal" or "left wing".

            Could it be that those who are left-wing are outside of the American mainstream, and those of the their ideological bent are less-and-less likely to win?

          • bubba4

            First, I don't "allow" myself to believe all sorts of "crazy sh*t" about Obama. It's there for all to see, if one can get past the MSM to actually see or hear it.

            Because all the Media is left and bias? Except for…who? FPM? NewsMax? Fox…the real ideologues of infotainment? Can you trust the reality they tell you about? The fact that you have a PhD doesn't mean you can't delude yourself. "Smart" people join cults too…

            "Finally, what is this fear that the Left has about the word "left"?"

            Who fears whatsit? I'm a fan of words and concepts that help understanding.

            After more than a decade of carefully reworking the political lexicon inside this little bizarro world, "the left" is an incredible satan like entity responsible for everything bad in history ever. Just look at Discover the Network…that strikes a PhD as a perfectly normal thing to do?

            I'm right-wing, and proud of it. I'm in the tea party, and I'm also working in the GOP at the local level.

            Well of course you are…you don't want to be responsible for Stalin's murders and you believe in Freedom and puppies and so forth. The thing about the GOP and the "Teaparty" is they are organizations…they are actual entities of sorts with membership and written out philosophies/goals…stated objectives, etc…

            "Could it be that those who are left-wing are outside of the American mainstream, and those of the their ideological bent are less-and-less likely to win?"

            I don't know…if you are a bit left of center then you would probably be for healthcare reform for instance…but then along comes (name here) and tells people that reform will kill their grandma and that health reform of any stripe is radical marxism. If that isn't an example of intellectual dishonesty I don't know what is.

          • Stephen_Brady

            It must be very reassuring and comfortable to be more intelligent than anyone who doesn't agree with you. Except for the fact that those with whom you agree are about to lose power, possibly for a decade or two. That fact can't be very reassuring to you.

            However, I can assure you that no one in the tea party, the GOP, or Rush Limbaugh, is going to drop by your house and eat your puppy. I'm not so sure about the cadre around Mr. Obama …

  • JSF

    A true President of these United States would have asserted a proper legal pretext to not allow a man who has financed terrorist operations which have directly caused the deaths of American citizens and soldiers, into this country to attend this travesty of injustice at the so-called United Nations. If the nations of the world are at all united behind this crazed despot of unbalanced psychology and dictatorial misuse of power against his own people and others, then we are truly in much more trouble as a planet than we prefer to believe in our overwhelming complacency.

    Place Achmadinejad on the terror watch list and never allow him to enter our nation again.

    Cat Stevens si, Achmadinejad, No!

    • ajnn

      We cannot keep Ahmadinejad out of NYC when the UN is in session. He gets a 'free pass' on the basis that he is going too the UN, which is technically / legally not in the US.

      Of course, the UN could keep him out. They have the legal authority.

  • flaedo

    Obama hates the US. l can deduce that and l'm halfway around the world. That he hates the US should be blindingly obvious to everyone in the States.

    • ajnn

      You are correct. Wacky stuff – but true.

  • Cuban Refugee

    Obama's dazzling smile, and hope and change mantra, may have worked to sway the brainwashed masses in the U.S., but they are as effective as a folding umbrella in a tornado with the likes of the oppositional dregs of humanity that inhabit the U.N. Something tells me that, rather than sway these miscreants to a peaceful world of nations united, he wishes to align our once-sovereign republic to a one-world government under the auspices of the loons in this bin. Where are the lunatic jihadists in hijacked planes when you need them?

    • bubba4

      You're doing Bin Laden's work for him you moron. The sane people in this world are trying to keep everything from collapsing and you are wishing more terrorist attacks on us.

      • Cuban Refugee

        Sarcasm is lost on you, Bubba4 — are you sure you wish to post your comments on this forum for morons? Perhaps your sensibilities would be better served by the hopelessly brainwashed geniuses at the Huffington Post or MoveOn.org. Why don't you scurry on over there, Bubba, and be comfortable with your ilk?

        • bubba4

          But then I would miss your fantasic sense of humor….sure it's sarcasm…right.

  • riddler01

    Liberals(like Obama)are JEALOUS of totalitarian despots like Castro,Chavez,etc.,etc..He said(during the election)that he thought The US Constitution is"A Flawed Document"because it RESTRAINS what the Federal Government can do(to The People).What Obama fails to understand is that is EXACTLY what it was designed to do!!

    • bubba4

      Yeah I'm sure Obama fails to understand the constitution as well as you do. Maybe if he had been a constitutional law professor a bit longer he could have risen to your level of understanding.

      Down with intellectuals…hello idiocracy…

      • Cuban Refugee

        Who told you he was a professor? That's what they would like you to believe, dear Bubba4, but your constitutional scholar was not a law professor — he was merely a T.A.. Who told you he was a constitutionally-elected President of the U.S.? Didn't you hear? He is just an usurper … Dear Bubba4, do you still believe in fairy tales? You are in for a sad awakening ….

        • bubba4

          You mean a teacher's assistant…sigh…ok for you semantic junkies that see a conspiracy in mere words…

          UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

          This is from http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_

          Which was listed first in a simple google search. No one has to tell me things…I don't wait for people on the tv or radio (or FPM) to tell me something before it is fact.

          He was elected President of the United States….sorry but you are starting to sound pretty unAmerican..

          • Bob H

            Isn't Clinton bubba 1 ?

          • bubba4

            only if you have a tinfoil hat.

  • Wesley69

    Obama does not want to confront international outlaws. He wants to join them. He is working hard at creating his Shadow Government, getting rules and regulations in place to manage every aspect of our lives. If this Republic is to be saved, Mr. O and his Czars (Cass Sunstein, john Holdren, Bill Ayers) must be stopped!! Maybe Obama, after he is defeated in 2012, will become Secretary General of the UN. We can then kick it out, once and for all, from the US.
    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
    Thomas Jefferson

    • bubba4

      Sure and you'll be taken away on FEMA train cars to communist re-eduation camps…wake up idiot. You'll believe Obama is a manchurian candidate but you can't fathom that rich powerful people would want to destroy Obama for money and power reasons that have nothing to do with communism and terrorism. Thats just the mother's milk you love…and if that's what will get you to vote against your own interests…then that's what they'll give you.