Obama Warns Africa That Corruption Undermines Democracy

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


108804920AW001_PRESIDENT_OB

That’s a helpful message from a guy who does the bidding of his Green Energy donors to drive up electricity rates for all Americans using the excuse of a Global Warming crisis that even its advocates are backing away from due to the lack of scientific evidence.

I’m not sure Obama is exactly the ideal figure to lecture Africa about corruption. Not when his administration puts its policy at the service of  billionaire backers like Warren Buffett and George Soros, when it just nominated Penny Pritzker for Commerce Secretary while filling his cabinet with tax cheats.

Obama cautioned in his speech that, despite freer societies and growing economies, much needs to be done to eradicate poverty, shed corruption and eliminate conflict.

“We know this progress rests on a fragile foundation,” he said. “Across Africa, the same institutions that should be the backbone of democracy can all too often be infected with the rot of corruption.”

One of those institutions is the United States government which has fallen deep into bureaucratic collectivism. Its agencies exist for no other reason than to perpetuate themselves. Its leaders push destructive policies for special interests. They have ceased to represent the people.

Perhaps African leaders can offer Obama some advice for fixing the problem?

  • T.A.

    It’s true the Obama administration is corrupt. However, I’ve seen no evidence that African governments are less corrupt than ours. So the call for an African leader to give Obama tips on cleaning up corruption seems a little far-fetched.

    (I’ve already posted this but it didn’t appear so am posting again. Sorry if it gets posted twice.)

    • JDinSTL

      I’m certain the African leaders would be satisfied with far less largesse.

      They probably would surmise they couldn’t get the American people to stomach several million dollar family vacations a year – not to mention the interminable “stimulus” cheques to the SEIU and “Cover California”

      • T.A.

        African leaders certainly have less in their pot of gold to work with. However, if they pocket a larger percentage, they are more corrupt.

        Really, it strains the imagination to propose, with no evidence, they are less corrupt than Obama.

  • Guy Fromage

    Obama lecture other nation on corruption?

    No doubt, historians will label this, the “Pot and Kettle Speech.”

    • Harry Black

      “Pot and Kettle Speech”? Ahem! This is the return of the repressed methinks.

      • Guy Fromage

        Uh, what?

        • Harry Black

          Apparently this needs to be spelled out for you Guy. You just gave an abbreviated version of the expression, “The pot calling the kettle black.” So why does this particular expression come to mind when you decide to ridicule Obama for lecturing African leaders about democracy and corruption?

          • Guy Fromage

            Ah yes, the leftist sees racism under every rock.

            The metaphor evokes hypocrisy. Racial overtones are all on you.

            Typical.

          • Harry Black

            Yeah, yeah. This is Frontpage, where almost every day you can read an article that asserts that blacks are the real racists. That Pot-Kettle metaphor came out of your subconscious. One has to be hopelessly naive to believe that words and metaphors have only one meaning–the meaning you consciously attribute to them. Such a view, as Lewis Carroll long ago observed, belongs to the authoritarian mindset:
            “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean ‑‑ neither more nor less.”
            “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
            “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master ‑‑ that’s all.”

          • Guy Fromage

            Thank you for further
            illustrating the phenomenon of projection, so common among leftists and
            racial hucksters. You are so pompous and self-assured, as to actually
            think you know the substance of my sub-concious. What arrogance. What
            presumption. And when you roll in Frontpage, what abject bigotry.

            Racists come in all colors, and although you may want to deny it,
            there are plenty of black racists. Why, the studied incredulity among
            black commentors elsewhere, to the assertion that “creepy ass crac ker”
            is not a racist epithet, as revealed in the Zimmerman self-defense
            trial, is a current example of the doublethink rampant in the arena of
            black racism denial.

            If you weren’t so self-deluded, you’d realize the Carroll quote you
            misapply, mocks the assertion you are trying to make. The irony is
            delicious.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Take your hopelessly retarded sophistry back to whichever commie college spawned it, short bus.

          • Harry Black

            Nothing like a coherent, well-thought-out comment. No wonder Frontpage is famous for its subtlety and intellectual as well as its political sophistication.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Criticism of the left is racist too. Right is white so left must be black.

            Chess is racist. Why do you suppose they use black against white pieces?

            Coca Cola is black too, because they’re trying to kill blacks with sugar and take their hard earned money.

            The black sea isn’t actually black but they gave it that name to demean “blacks.”

            Charcoal is racist. The night time is racist. Why else would you find references to black? Hmm?!!?!?

            You need to meet some “black” conservatives for a weekend retreat where you’re forced to listen for at least half an hour. Then you might mellow out. There are even black moderates who are fairly leftist when it comes to race relations, but at least you can have a rational conversation with them.

            Colin Powell is a bit delusional, but he’s not always a waste of time to listen to. He at least adds value even if one must correct for his bias. That’s OK.

            You’re no Colin Powell, that’s for sure.

  • VHG1

    Obama is like the guy arrested for the crime he got caught red handed committing then tries to give up someone else’s name to throw suspicion off himself as he watches the surveillance video of him carrying out the big screen through the broken window!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Yes, this is the political version of that same game.

  • PouponMarks

    Barack Jeffrey Dahmer lectures Charles Manson on the aspects of murder.

  • Jsjk

    A characteristic of sociopaths (or psychopaths) is that he or she is utterly incapable of “seeing himself as others see him”. In other words, if you were to point out to a sociopath that he is being a hypocrite and you were to ask him “don’t you understand that YOU are doing *precisely* what you’re condemning others for?” It will be met with a blank, uncomprehending stare. The notion of “hypocrisy” doesn’t register in their bizarro world. They cannot shift perspectives (shift from their vantage point to see or understand another). And they cannot learn from experience. That’s Obozo.

    • PouponMarks

      Another aspect of socio/psychopaths is their inability for empathy, to feel the emotion of others, such as pain and loss. Obama and Hillary felt nothing in the way of a normal human being at the casket ceremony for the Benghazi dead. They are mere pawn pieces to this ilk. Likewise, he gives not a moment’s twinge of feeling for the extra casualties he has caused to the rules of engagement in Afghanistan that are suicidal for our people. And, of course, Major Hassan , and “workplace violence”, leaving the victims and survivors as paupers an in great need. “He promised to look out for us, and he lied”, is a very familiar refrain re: this evil and mendacious, malignant POS.

      • Jsjk

        Ditto for the fake tears for dead school children — they feign tears whenever they glimpse a political opportunity (in Obozo’s case, it was to disarm and seize the weapons of law-abiding Americans).
        (They also don’t “get” jokes, btw — beware whenever Obama tells “a joke” — it’s for real ).

  • greg scott

    Democracy and all types of government are based on corruption. They exist only by armed robbery. Take away the theft and all governments would collapse.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Because property is theft.

      Anarchy rules.

      • greg scott

        Property is theft? That makes no sense whatsoever.

        • objectivefactsmatter
          • greg scott

            Just because somebody wrote a book stating that falsehood doesn’t change reality. Without private property nobody would produce anything that took great effort and capital and thus you would have no real technological advancements. If people don’t profit or gain from their labors they won’t produce much at all.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Without private property nobody would produce anything that took great effort and capital and thus you would have no real technological advancements. If people don’t profit or gain from their labors they won’t produce much at all.”

            I agree. My point is that you seem clueless about the positive role of government in protecting property rights. There is a role for government. Anarchists are delusional.

            Without government, armed robbery would be about the only thing you’d have to determine who controls what property.

            Law and order is good. You don’t have law and order without some kind of government. That’s especially true today.

          • greg scott

            Government is the biggest violator of property rights. Its basis of operation is theft of private property.

            The free market could and would come up with systems to protect private property far better that government could.
            You haven’t studied enough and believe the government’s propaganda.
            Depends on whose brand of law and order there is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Government is the biggest violator of property rights. Its basis of operation is theft of private property.”

            Which government? It’s basis is theft? Communist governments, sure.

            In the USA, if you consider all taxes as theft, then your stuck. Because it’s hard to fund the real world mechanisms that protect your property rights without taking some income from somewhere.

            What’s your Utopian suggestion for improvements to the US constitution?

            “The free market could and would come up with systems to protect private property far better that government could.”

            But who would ensure that each private entity was abiding by the constitution? That’s delusional. And what distinguishes these “free market” entities from “government” if they are able to achieve an acceptable standard of law and order?

            The essential function of government is to govern. No government means no governing. That means anarchy.

            Your idea might be little fiefdoms again, if that’s what you’re dreaming of. Or perhaps you hadn’t gotten that far. But even then at some level if you have rules, someone enforces them. That’s government.

            “You haven’t studied enough and believe the government’s propaganda.”

            Ahh. *I’m* delusional. Which propaganda is it that you think I believe? My skepticism of your philosophy and delusion doesn’t mean that I accept anyone else’s delusions instead.

            “Depends on whose brand of law and order there is.”

            Sure. But if you have law and order outside of your dreams, it means you also have a government.

          • greg scott

            Order and rules don’t have to be based on force which is what all government is based on and ALL government operates by theft. If people want peace and security and order they can accomplish it without resorting to theft and violence. Property can be protected in a number of ways without a government. First, by the individual owner directly using weapons, locks, security measures, technology, etc. Second, indirectly by insurance and hiring private security and protection services. None of those measure require giving a huge gang a monopoly on the initiation of violence in a given geographic area.
            Technology has advanced to the point where government is a dinosaur. It stifles innovation and creativity and hampers meaningful change as it maintains a monopoly over almost every aspect of a persons life. And it is based on violence which is immoral.
            Ebay is an example of a free market which works well without any government or violence. You should read the free book, “Practical Anarchy” by Stefan Molyneux. It contains many ideas of how a stateless society might work.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Order and rules don’t have to be based on force which is what all government is based on and ALL government operates by theft.”

            Enforcing rules is theft. Having suggestions is not. It leads to anarchy very quickly.

            Some times delusional people come up with ideas about how the world should be, forgetting that people will live in this world and pursue their own agendas. No coercion means you have anarchy. Maybe not on your ideal first day, but once people live their lives and conflict occurs naturally among men, you will have either rules enforced or you will have anarchy. It’s just that simple, once you have real humans living under this theoretical Utopia of yours.

            That’s also why communism can’t work. Humans are not fungible. You can’t create a perfect balanced or even non-coercive society from above. You can even say that anarchy is the complete lack of ordered coercion. You instead get chaotic coercion. But hey, at least it’s not a government.

            “If people want peace and security and order they can accomplish it without resorting to theft and violence. Property can be protected in a number of ways without a government. First, by the individual owner directly using weapons, locks, security measures, technology, etc. Second, indirectly by insurance and hiring private security and protection services. None of those measure require giving a huge gang a monopoly on the initiation of violence in a given geographic area.”

            I think you’re confused. In the end, all of the people who rely on those intermediate methods are also relying on government for security.

            “Ebay is an example of a free market which works well without any government or violence.”

            You’re quite wrong. Ebay is regulated and when people break the law, any enforcement of those laws would require…force or coercion. Ebay is largely an Internet based company, so citing low levels of violence is just stupid. Sorry. It is. Unless you plan to live your entire life exclusively on the Internet and you plan to have “an Internet community” protect your property rights. Good luck.

            “You should read the free book, “Practical Anarchy” by Stefan Molyneux. It contains many ideas of how a stateless society might work.”

            I already know. Practical anarchy is less likely than Islamic peace. You’re practiced at propagating ideas but not too good at considering that your delusions are not realistic.

            I’ll tell you what. I’ll pay for an island to start a new…society run your way if you can articulate a clear plan on how you will live. You’ll have to answer a few practical questions before I secure the title for you.

          • greg scott

            No possible way I could debate you here. You believe in force and you believe that only through systematic force can order among people be achieved. I disagree and have studied the issue at length. So you have read the book?

            Ebay is a regulated business but it operates on trust and ratings, neither of which entail the initiation of force.
            I would love to move to an island and start a new society. I figure about 2 million will purchase a suitable island.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No possible way I could debate you here. You believe in force and you believe that only through systematic force can order among people be achieved.”

            Correct. Not because I “love” to use “violence” but because I’ve been down this road with many delusional people for more years than you’ve probably been alive.

            “Ebay is a regulated business but it operates on trust and ratings, neither of which entail the initiation of force.”

            Most of our lives involve voluntary adherence to agreements. But in the end, most of the order comes from the fact that when someone does step over the line, we have courts and police to enforce those promises. Some apparently peaceful people know that too.

            Ebay also uses law enforcement agencies. If you think they don’t, you ought to look in to it. And if anyone should be able to invent new rules like you suggest it would be an Internet community. They would not be able to engage in trade except maybe on a very small scale.

            What you’re talking about might work for a very small commune on an island that no sovereign had any interest in.

            “I would love to move to an island and start a new society. I figure about 2 million will purchase a suitable island.”

            How did I know that? Let’s explore this and see where it goes.

            You can’t share borders with anyone. You probably can’t trade much of anything with anyone. No banks.

            So a community farm on an island is fine. Better hope nobody ever finds any valuable resources anywhere near it.

          • greg scott

            You’re missing the point about Ebay completely. Ebay works because people trust other people based on their ratings, which are indicative of how honest they are and how they conduct business. Those ratings have nothing to do with “law enforcement agencies” or the threat of violence they initiate.
            The threats you bring up regarding the island are “state” threats. In a stateless society those threats wouldn’t exist although there would still be bad people who would want to control and harm others. They just couldn’t use the awesome power of a state to do it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’re missing the point about Ebay completely. Ebay works because people trust other people based on their ratings, which are indicative of how honest they are and how they conduct business. Those ratings have nothing to do with “law enforcement agencies” or the threat of violence they initiate.”

            The site itself would not be able to operate if it could not rely on government enforcement. In your imagination it could.

            I understand completely. PayPal requires that people pay their bills. Other banks need to pursue fraud investigations. Crime is a fact of life, therefore law enforcement is a fact of life unless you find an isolated commune that none of the criminals can find. I’m suggesting that your commune will not get very big before a criminal element emerges from within even if you can manage to isolate yourself from the rest of the world.

            “The threats you bring up regarding the island are “state” threats. In a stateless society those threats wouldn’t exist although there would still be bad people who would want to control and harm others. They just couldn’t use the awesome power of a state to do it.”

            Where is this “stateless society?” After I wrote the last time, I realized I should not have suggested an island but instead a new planet out of reach of our tainted civilization. You can take all of the sinless people there and start fresh.

            You have a lot in common with Marx.

            Study the medieval period in Europe and in reality that’s as close as you can get to what you suggest. Most of the men were armed.

            Except now people are more enlightened you’ll say, and I’ll laugh.

            I forgot to ask you, in this “stateless society” who will ensure (I didn’t say ‘enforce’) that no states will form?

          • greg scott

            I get you love the state and believe in it with all your heart and soul. Good for you. You think people are so bad that they must be controlled by a huge gang using threats and violence. But what you don’t get logically is that if people are so bad and must be controlled by force how can good people be found to do the controlling and to employ the force in a moral and fair way? History proves that is a fantasy, a utopian idea.

            When I buy on Ebay and I choose to only do business with the top sellers the government is not involved. I trust them based on their rating to deliver what they promise and they trust me to pay them based on my rating. Government force doesn’t enter the picture.

            Of course Ebay as a company is subject to government force and control as are all businesses due to government monopolies. But that force plays no part in the decision I make to buy and from whom and vice versa.

            Enjoy the chains which you love so much because you can’t even conceive of a world without them. Change is never brought about by people who embrace the status quo and that applies to the system you argue for now.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I get you love the state and believe in it with all your heart and soul”

            I love basing my opinions on reality. With all of my heart and soul.

            “You think people are so bad that they must be controlled by a huge gang using threats and violence”

            That’s overly simplistic. But there are enough bad people and powerful technologies to empower them that states will emerge. It’s organic. What’s your explanation? They pop up independent of one another. You do realize that, don’t you? You think this concept of states is some grand conspiracy when in reality there are lots of alternatives? There are lots of alternatives within the concept of states, but not alternatives to replace them, unless you have one global state. Which I hope is not what you had in mind.

            Study history from a rational perspective first and then try to find out how you’re going to re-engineer the nature of man.

            “But what you don’t get logically is that if people are so bad and must be controlled by force how can good people be found to do the controlling and to employ the force in a moral and fair way?”

            Checks and balances. But even if we didn’t come up with that, it’s undeniable that you have no choice. States emerge organically, This is undeniable. It’s so undeniable that it makes your fantasy incredibly delusional. If you recognize these ideas as just that, ideals, that’s fine. Maybe you’ll inspire people to push for smaller government and more stringent adherence to the principals of checks and balances.

            But if you really think there is any chance at all that a “stateless society” could ever come about…it boggles the mind that you spend so much time on the ideals without looking at the realities.

            “History proves that is a fantasy, a utopian idea.”

            This makes no sense. All I said was that you can’t possible achieve a stateless society. I didn’t say my ideas were close to Utopia, I said they were based on reality because, well, I’m talking about what we have now.

            But it’s interesting that you mention Utopia because as you say, we can’t build Utopia with states. Or people. So we’re kind of stuck with doing the best we can with the realities we’re stuck with.

            That doesn’t mean that all idealists are wasting our time. It just means that you’ve got to sort of test your ideas first before insisting that the status quo is something we should consider delusional (what irony) or something we should strive to destroy the way the communists want us to.

            “Of course Ebay as a company is subject to government force and control as are all businesses due to government monopolies. But that force plays no part in the decision I make to buy and from whom and vice versa.”

            So what we’ve got to do is find all of the awesome people like you and kill the rest. Then you won’t need force. You won’t need states telling you what to do because everyone will be so awesome. Now that sounds like the best way to build Utopia on earth. Or maybe Mars would be a better first trial.

            Do you drive a vehicle? Do you hope not to be hit by drunk drivers? No state needed. Just kill all of the people who are genetically predisposed to drink.

            You have to deal with society as it is, or at least society at its best if you think you’re such an awesome leader. So please show me a society that managed to live in the way that you describe. What’s your excuse if you can’t do that?

            “Enjoy the chains which you love so much because you can’t even conceive of a world without them. Change is never brought about by people who embrace the status quo and that applies to the system you argue for now.”

            I can conceive perfectly of what you propose. I’ve been around lots of places. You live in a bubble. Or you plan on killing a lot of people when you kill the states to create your “so realistic” stateless society.

            “Change is never brought about by people who embrace the status quo and that applies to the system you argue for now.”

            Yeah. That’s the problem. I’m not arguing in support of a system. States are organic. You don’t have civilization without states. And modern technology is omnipresent in most parts of the world, so you’re not going to be able to remove all remnants of civilization.

            Therefore, while states are not quite as predictable as gravity, they’re nearly as inevitable. My love or wishes have nothing and I mean nothing at all to do with it.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    This shows clearly that 0′Bama is against corruption.

  • ziggy zoggy

    “Obama Warns Africa That Corruption Undermines Democracy.”

    No, no, no. He wasn’t warning them. He was coaching them.

  • maquignon

    Obama certainly IS the ideal figure to lecture on corruption!!! He knows more about it than anybody alive!!! He is an expert on dishonesty, lying, corruption and ineptness. We could take an example from the Egyptians. They don’t tolerate dishonest, corrupt, lying, inept tyrants who cozy up to the Muslem Brotherhood.

  • OfficialPro

    “Talk about the pot and the *&^%ing kettle!” – Denis Leary