The Obama Undoctrine

BN-CX877_Obama0_G_20140523133623Afghanistan is lost, Iraq and Libya are in the middle of civil wars, Russia is carving off pieces of Ukraine and China is escalating its conflict with the rest of Asia. There isn’t a single element of Obama’s foreign policy that has proven successful. Instead it’s been one international disaster after another.

Obama just smiles into the camera and announces that “America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world.” Anyone who disagrees is engaging in partisan politics. Or reading statistics.

Having signed off on Iran’s nuclear program while its Supreme Leader boasts that the holy war will only end with America’s destruction, he claims that the “odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low.”

“From Europe to Asia, we are the hub of alliances unrivaled in the history of nations,” he proclaims. Meanwhile Russia and China humiliate our European and Asian allies for their worthless alliance hub.

“When a typhoon hits the Philippines, or schoolgirls are kidnapped in Nigeria, or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine, it is America that the world looks to for help,” he boasts.

And yet the masked men go on occupying buildings and Boko Haram goes on killing Nigerians. America has never been stronger than under Obama. And yet it’s incapable of actually doing anything, except maybe joining New Zealand, Sweden, Taiwan, Israel and Chile in providing disaster aid to the Philippines.

And if that doesn’t work, he can always sanction the typhoon. It should do as much to stop the wall of water it as it did to stop Russia and Iran.

Obama’s speeches come from a world that exists only inside his own teleprompter. Another leader might have been reeling from a string of international failures, but he boldly triumphs over reality. The worse things are, the bigger the party he throws to celebrate his victories.

Obama’s speech focuses on Afghanistan, but never mentions the Taliban. Imagine an FDR speech that pretended that Japan didn’t exist. That’s the depth of denial it takes for Obama to claim victory.

After using up the lives of 1,600 American soldiers fighting the Taliban without ever defeating them, he takes a victory lap for defeating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan when the CIA had told him back in 2009 that there were at most 100 Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan.

Thousands of Americans have been lost to an enemy whose existence Obama won’t even acknowledge as he takes another victory lap for losing another war.

With the VA scandal reminding everyone that he doesn’t just throw away the lives of soldiers abroad, but also at home, Obama is changing the subject with one Mission Accomplished speech after another. Like a politician caught with his mistress who begins taking his wife everywhere, he is suddenly in love with the military and can’t get enough photo ops with anyone wearing a uniform.

Even if they work for the post office.

In Obama’s teleprompter reality, a withdrawal is equivalent to success. Setting a withdrawal timeline with no regard for results deserves a victory parade. He wants credit for withdrawing from Afghanistan by the end of his term. Not only is he repeating the timeline mistake of his disastrous surge, but the timeline is once again pegged to a political, rather than a strategic, date.

Obama takes credit for troop removals, rather than outcomes. But if he doesn’t care that Al Qaeda in Iraq is more powerful than ever or that the Taliban control the future of Afghanistan, why didn’t he immediately withdraw the troops? Are we supposed to cheer his inability to either commit to winning a war or pull out? Is indecisiveness the virtue of a great leader?

Do we really need more applause lines about how long it took him to lose a war?

The West Point commencement address dresses up past failures as new successes and lays out a vision for the future by a lame duck leader who has failed at every foreign policy initiative. The address is an expanded version of his 2002 anti-war speech as a Chicago state senator that first brought him to the attention of his future backers. It straddles an awkward line between anti-war and interventionism.

Twelve years later, Obama hasn’t changed.

He’s still posturing as a fake centrist by setting up interventionist and isolationist straw men on both sides. Instead of defending his policies on their merits, he tries to make them seem reasonable by depicting his critics on the right and the left as extremists. After six years of foreign affairs failures, Obama is still talking as if he’s the “reasonable” centrist trying to steer a”‘sensible common sense” path.

At least those are the favorite buzzwords that his speechwriters throw in to influence the “folks.”

Obama wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants applause for being an interventionist and for being a non-interventionist. In one sentence he sounds like JFK and in another like Eugene McCarthy.

He wants to send in the troops and then get credit for pulling them out. He wants to threaten other countries and then appease them at the negotiating table. He wants to set red lines he doesn’t stand behind and apply sanctions that mean nothing. And he wants to pass off this game in which the bad guys always win and America always loses as his smart power doctrine.

That’s not a doctrine. That’s an undoctrine.

The Obama Undoctrine is all things to all people. It respects international opinion, except when it doesn’t. It doesn’t believe in military solutions, but sometimes it does. It believes in taking military action to protect our interests, rather than foreign human rights, except when it believes the opposite.

In Libya, Obama sent in the jets when Libyans in Benghazi were threatened, but not when Americans in Benghazi were threatened.

The world may look to America for help, but Americans shouldn’t.

The shiny new Obama Undoctrine proposes such groundbreaking ideas as partnering with countries fighting terrorism. This is a bold new idea from the ’50s. Other bold new ideas include using international institutions like the League of Nations, ahem, the United Nations, to stop new wars from starting.

Anyone who wants an example of the “leadership” and “strength” of the Undoctrine should look at Iran. That’s not some nasty Republican sneering at the Undoctrine.

It’s Obama’s assertion in his address.

After admitting that any nuclear agreement with Iran is a long shot, he says of his appeasement, “This is American leadership. This is American strength.”

Obama’s idea of American leadership and strength is being repeatedly humiliated and led around by the nose by a bitter enemy determined to obtain nuclear weapons in order to destroy the United States.

If that’s Obama’s idea of leadership and strength, just imagine his idea of weakness.

Then there’s NATO. He describes it as “the strongest alliance the world has ever known.” That would have sounded more impressive before NATO staked out Ukraine for the bear and went home.

And if you want something more effective, try the UN. While Obama cuts the military to the bone, he will be “investing” more money in UN peacekeeping operations.

If we’re going to spend all that money on a military, it should be one that doesn’t run away at the first sign of trouble. That way we would at least be getting some bang for our buck. But maybe a small army of child molesters spreading cholera that runs away at the first sign of trouble embodies the Undoctrine.

“I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being,” Obama declared. “But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.”

Or as his nursery school teacher probably put it, “You’re special. Just like everyone else.”

This mess of contradictions is the Obama Undoctrine. It stands for everything and nothing. And it has accomplished nothing.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Judahlevi

    “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being”

    This is another lie. The only exceptionalism he believes in is himself – and that is a delusion.

    It would be such a breath of fresh air to have a president who actually loved his country instead of one who is constantly apologizing for it. Any legitimate leftist does not love America, and Obama is definitely a true leftist.

    What the country needs are exceptional leaders – exactly what we don’t have at the present time. West Point – and the rest of the country – deserve better.

    • Moa

      Ted Cruz is an exceptional leader, and intellect. He may be a runner as he has just visited Israel and understands what Islam really is (not the fiction that many Westerners delude themselves with instead).

      • BagLady

        He comes over as a subjective, self-promoting warmonger. Not a good sign.

        • Habbgun

          You come off as a narrow minded, racist little Fabian Socialist self satisfied Brit. How is that a good sign?

        • Americana

          Yes, it’s rather strange given Cruz’ policy recommendations so far he’s not seen for what he is — a strongman wannabe w/a high possibility of failure inherent in his suggestions.

    • ApolloSpeaks

      Right. Among US presidents Obama is so exceptionally weak, incompetent and foolish he can only be compared to himself.

      • BagLady

        Hopefully, he is fighting his conscience. This would be his only salvation in my eyes.

        • Leah

          He has no conscience to fight…

    • Myrtle

      I think he does love America and is preparing her for takeover by the Muslims for their god Alla, casting out our GOD, THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY WHOM HE HATES, and we are doing nothing to stop him, instead he has chosen the enemy on every occasion to assist him in his evil works… He has not missed one chance to do something to harm her to bring her down. He has done nothing in six years that was good, to build her up. Nobody could be this inept, stupid, not making one decision in her favor, from ignorance. With the rule of averages, something would work out for the good, instead of bad. The damage has been planned and his ego is out of bounds. He takes orders from Satan and knows just what is needed at every turn to destroy.

    • Americana

      America was given an opportunity unrivaled in the history of the world to create a country that would not suffer from the flaws of other countries around the world. Other countries have lived through one flawed moment after another because they’ve been formed over time, w/each new manifestation of political progress having supplanted a previous form and whose discarding may have come at the expense of being paid in blood.

      America is exceptional because of the great gifts that came with our founding: political ideals and passions that were couched in some of the most powerful political documents ever written that evinced sincere appreciation for the individual within the unity of the whole body politic; a richness of resources unrivaled in much of the rest world; a geography that absorbed waves of immigrants and dispersed them in aid of our country’s progress. We are exceptional only because of what we were given as an opportunity, not because we are unique among mankind.

      Our founding documents were inspired by what Europeans obsessed w/their national flaws were obsessing over, we were not an immaculate conception. We were the confluence of rivers of thought and blood that flowed out of Europe to American thinkers who took those political concepts and formed a new nation.

      • truebearing

        America wasn’t given anything. It was built from the ground up. People died on the way here. They died after they got here. They died fighting the most powerful nation on earth, at the time. They worked themselves to death to prosper and be free. Nothing was “given” to anyone. They didn’t have a welfare state back then.

        The “gifts” that America recieved were the inspirations that came to brilliant men who were humble before God. There was no precendent for the truly revolutionary ideas contained in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. It was the first time man created a political structure based primarily on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The operant principle behind the justice protected by the constitution was “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” as opposed to the leadership in America today which operates according to the evil principle: “the ends justify the means.”

        “We are exceptional only because of what we were given as an opportunity, not because we are unique among mankind.”

        America has always been exceptional because of what we have believed and how we have acted in accordance with those beliefs. Obviously, that makes Americans unique among mankind, or the rest of the world would have enjoyed the same success, and defended the same principles we always have. To suggest otherwise begs the question: then why is it that only America became such a great nation?

        Your explanation for why America became an exceptional nation is convoluted to a fault and lacking in specificity to the point of meaninglessness. Your last sentence is completely incoherent.

        • Americana

          Obviously, you consider the Declaration an Immaculate Political Conception that OWES NOTHING to its European contributors. Our nascent Americans wrote up European ideas from the Enlightenment.

          Of course, the nascent Americans were “given something” to start with — a BLANK GEOGRAPHIC SLATE — that had everything settlers could desire. The continent lacked for NOTHING except infrastructure like housing. You must have forgotten I’m from Massachusetts and I’m thoroughly acquainted w/what the first settlers faced, I spent days running around w/family from one pioneer settlement to another. I’ve entered every home in Deerfield, MA the “suburban town” of its day that survived a full-blown Indian attack. I’ve lobstered and fished in the very same bays as the first Americans. I’ve got friends who own some of the original pioneer farms in Wellesley and Lincoln and Wayland. I’ve rebuilt some of their pasture fencing that were the original rocks that settlers turned up w/their very first plowing of those fields. I’ve walked through what were original CLEAR-CUTS downed by those first settlers and that have regrown but they aren’t old growth forest yet.

          We were exceptional because we didn’t fall into the same cultural abyss that faced Europeans as they fought tiny wars for generations and then moved on to fighting consolidation wars and then moved on to even bigger consolidation wars followed by continental wars based on philosophical pipedreams. We very nearly wrecked our nation because one group of states decided another group of states shouldn’t retain their slaves. We fought over that. Our biggest source of pride is also one of our biggest sources of shame. We are human. We act like humans do everywhere but we have behaved better than many cultures only because we have been both exceptionally blessed w/our nation’s natural resources and we’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded to always opt, in the end, for the best, most ethical outcome.

          You think my last sentence is incoherent and inaccurate? Is this another sentence that’s just a little too much for you to handle? Do I need to call in a translator? Off to get a few sources for you about the Europeans active in the Enlightenment whose ideas the first Americans like John Quincy Adams and Benjamin Franklin and John Hancock ripped off that served as the basis for the Bill of Rights and served as the philosophical underpinnings for the Declaration of Independence.

          • Americana

            Here’s a little “Enlightenment” for you, true bearing! I’ll go over there and copy the whole text so there’s no question in anyone’s mind about what the content is.


            The Enlightenment was crucial in determining almost every aspect of colonial America, most notably in terms of politics, government, and religion. Without the central ideas and figures of the Enlightenment, the United States would have been drastically different since these concepts shaped the country in its formative years. Both during and after the American Revolution many of the core ideas of the Enlightenment were the basis for monumental tracts such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Concepts such as freedom from oppression, natural rights, and new ways of thinking about governmental structure came straight from Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke and forged the foundations for both colonial and modern America. All aspects of life, even religion, were affected by the Enlightenment and many key figures from American history such as Thomas Jefferson were greatly influenced by the movement.

            The American Revolution and many of the events to follow was a culmination of many of the ideas of the Enlightenment. The Revolution came about after a series of unfair taxes upon the colonists by the British government who needed this extra income to help them recover from their wars abroad. Until this point, the colonists were only paying taxes that would go to support localized projects and these taxes, most notably the Stamp Tax and the taxes on tea, were seen as completely unwarranted. Using the Enlightenment principles of freedom and reason, the colonists declared these taxes unfair and stood up against oppression. These early Americans wished to have their own government that was based on Enlightenment principles and thus the Revolution occurred. Locke’s conception of natural rights for all of mankind was being violated by British oppression and it became necessary to draft a government and code that was conducive to guaranteeing everyone natural rights under law.

            One of the first steps in the formation of the United States that was based upon Enlightenment ideals was the creation of the Declaration of Independence. This sought to promise personal freedom to all citizens and this was to be guaranteed by means of a new form of government, one that was based on the people’s right to have a say in their government. As the country moved toward the drafting of the Constitution, the ideas of several Enlightenment philosophers shaped the direction American political leaders tool. For instance, Montesquieu’s idea about the balance of power between three branches of government was explicitly used just as Rousseau’s ideas about the power of democracy and consent of the people were in the formation of the new government.

            Another way that the Enlightenment helped to shape the colonies was in terms of religion. With the Great Awakening came a new understanding of America’s early relationship to God and the Church. Instead of one all-powerful church that almost required membership, Protestant ideals based on Enlightenment principles of free will and freedom from institutions allowed people to choose membership in a church rather than be forced into one. Although during the Enlightenment there was a very secular focus, in America this was not the case. The colonies were still very religious but they used the ideas of their freedom to choose that were based on the Enlightenment. Instead of being tied to one religious authority, there were many choices in the colonies and people had a right to choose how to establish and maintain their connection to God.

            Key figures in the founding of the United States such as Thomas Jefferson were greatly influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment which meant that the country was as well. Jefferson was a perfect man of the Enlightenment as he was both classically educated and trained in the humanities as well as very practical and empirical. As the author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson shaped the country by solidifying the ideas of natural rights in terms of government and religion. In addition, he understood the importance of education in making these ideals work in the new nation and founded the University of Virginia. In many ways, Jefferson represents the way Enlightenment ideals could be put into practice in the new colonies. Other men, such as Benjamin Franklin for example, were similar and since they had such a hand in formulating many of the institutions and tracts the country is based on, their Enlightenment ideas live on

            Without the Enlightenment as the philosophical basis of this country, one can only imagine how different would be today. Important guarantees of human and natural rights, expressions of freedom and the rights of citizens to have free choice and practice religious freedom are all vital aspects in America still. Locke, Newton, and other Enlightenment thinkers put forth ideas about liberty and personal will that went on to be key aspects in the most important documents in America such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

          • truebearing

            Don’t blame me for interpreting your comment the way I did. You never mentioned the Enlightenment, or how it influenced the founders. You went off on a vague polemic against American exceptionalism, or at least that is how I read it. Why didn’t you make specific, intelligble points in your first comment, as opposed to this undecipherable comment:

            “Our founding documents were inspired by what Europeans obsessed w/their national flaws were obsessing over…”

            What is that supposed to mean? How is anyone to glean from writing like that that you are trying to point out the importance of the Enlightenment as a major influence on our founders? Your convoluted, vague writing is simply impossible to follow at times.

            Hancock, Franklin, and Adams “ripped off” their ideas from enlightened Europeans? Is that your position? And where did the Enlightenment get its impetus? How about Martin Luther, who fought the Catholic monopoly to reform Christianity? Without Luther and the Protestant Reformation, there may well have never been an Enlightenment, or at least not for many more years. And if we talk about Luther’s impact, we have to talk about Gutenberg, who made the Enlightenment possible with his invention of the printing press. These things occurred in the Late Middle Ages.

            The reason people left England to come to America was for religious freedom. They wanted to escape the injustice of being told what to believe. They were Christians, and Christianity was by far the greatest influence on not only the pilgrims, and all who followed them, but also those great thinkers you cite from the Enlightenment who influenced the founders. The greatest revolution in human culture was the changes brought about by Christian ethics. The foundation of Christian ethics was Judaism and the Ten Commandments.

          • Americana

            Listen, I don’t need writing coaching from you. Got it? You are off my communication list. Don’t comment on my posts and I won’t comment on yours. We certainly wouldn’t want our particular level of miscommunication to become an ongoing fiasco. (This is what’s known as the Pax Americana in my family.)

          • truebearing

            It is a comment section. Everyone is subject to criticism or questioning. Everyone gets some, too. it isn’t just you.

          • Americana

            Pax Americana or Dux Americana between us from now on. That’s it, that’s your choice. No more soft-soaping and no more undeserved politesse from me. We’ve crossed the Rudicon (sic).

          • BagLady

            The reason people left England to come to America was for religious freedom”

            True, a small handful did emigrate for religious reasons but most were hungry adventurers looking for sustenance.

          • truebearing

            Blah, blah, blah. I don’t know where you got your idiotic “Declaration of Immaculate Political Conception” from, but it wasn’t from anything I argued. I can tell you that the Enlightenment, unlike most of your thinking, didn’t happen in a vacuum either. It was the result of a number people, ideas, and events from the Late Middle Ages, and earlier periods. Luther and Gutenberg were essential to the Enlightenment, to name just two, and they were from a period humanists inaccurately call the “Dark Ages.”

            Anyone who tries to deny Christianity as the primary influence on the founders will first have to separate Christianity from the ideas of Christians like Locke and all of the other influential Christians of the Enlightenment. Good luck.

        • trickyblain

          The last sentence is perfectly clear to any who have studied the Enlightenment/colonial America/the founding of our nation.

          The US is exceptional, unique, in that it was founded on the philosophical tenet of natural rights. We were a blank slate upon which the founders created a masterpiece that could be perfected and corrected with time and wisdom.

          • truebearing

            “We were the confluence of rivers of thought and blood that flowed out of Europe to American thinkers who took those political concepts and formed a new nation.”

            I know the US is exceptional, but are you agreeing that a confluence of thought and blood flowed to thinkers? The blood flowed from some of the thinkers when the British caught up with them.
            And what was in that confluence of rivers? There were lots of ideas in Europe that the colonists were trying to escape, too, so to make a sweeping statement like that means essentially nothing. What were the ideas that were inspirational, and what ideas where worth dying to oppose? The confluence started long before Europe, if you want to be accurate. It started with Judaism, Christianity, Classical Greece, etc.

          • trickyblain

            The blood means that the Founders were descended from European linage. They had European blood, they had liberal European educations at the time, but they could put these ideas into actual practice: They were free to break away from entrenched political structures because they were geographically removed. Can’t speak to Americana’s thoughts when writing, but I’m guessing he/she wasn’t talking about rivers of blood in the warlike sense.

            There were confluences, indeed. There were at four major British folkways that separated the colonies (covered in Albion’s Seed — great historical read). They came together. Eventually, a conservative and Puritanical Massachusetts found common ground with the fairly secular, commerce-oriented, oligarigarial Carolinas. Of course this wasn’t always a happy marriage, as the bloodiest war in our history testifies. But eventually, it worked.

            Judaism was around for something like 3,000 years before the founding. Christianity almost 2,000. Aside from a modern Sharia society, I can’t think of a worse place to live than a medieval Christian enclave. The Founders were not using Christianity as a model to govern — they were rebelling against it. They were, by no means, rebelling against the teachings of Jesus, they were rebelling against imperfect men greedily using his name to govern.

          • BagLady

            By their very nature they had to be rebels and adventurers. However, given the structure of British society at the time, they would have still been drawn from the ‘upper classes’ and nouveaux riches, and suffered the same upbringing and classical education.

            They may have re-shaped politics in an attempt to include the people but I doubt dear George, descended from Henry VIII as he was, could totally escape his own indoctrination and the changes on the ground were more tiptoe than giant steps for mankind.

          • Americana

            Oh, my, what a CAUTIOUS and CYA sorta reply DESIGNED TO LET the web site and truebearing off the hook as far as Americana’s grasp of American history goes!!!! I guess I don’t need to post the following then for truebearing, do I? Or maybe I do just because the man didn’t recognize just how OVER THE TOP RUDE he was and has been!!! Hmmm, my widdle finger is right on the button….. Oooops, I couldn’t help myself because I’m up to here w/the rudeness and the GENERAL SNOTTINESS of the intellectually bereft. I’m not going to fight teeny tiny word battles w/punkass nitwits every day in every other post, I’d rather get the major battle over and DONE and leave it at that. Oh, and if you all ever wondered just how tough I could get w/my wordplay and my wisecracks above and beyond the use of “doodledork,” now you’ve discovered what I’m like when I let myself off the leash. Yes, I’m over 30 and “doodledork” is my go-to lingua franca for someone like you-know-who. I’m sure you all would prefer I stick w/that shorthand from now on, right? Everybody sure they’re following my sarcasm here? Anybody unsure about whether or not I can actually write sarcastically or not? tagalog, are you clear that this is sarcasm?

            (Sorry, Mum! But I’m sure she’ll understand my rudeness given the circumstances.)

            (For truebearing)

            OMG, here you are w/your intellectual peeshooter (sic) trying to pretend to respond to this little lesson in American history as it’s presented by another poster! Because he wrote it out soooo much more clearly than Americana did#$!#$! Seeing you pretending to respond as if you were all flummoxed by my writing so you’ve got to regurgitate it is pretty darn funny!!! Guess you must be afraid to attempt, once again, to PISS all over my American heritage, huh? This little lesson in American history came to you, FREE, courtesy of La Ragazza Americana. That’s right, it’s a FREE MINI-TUTORIAL from a fellow American whom all you ULTRA-Americans tried, and are STILL TRYING, so hard to pretend is NOT All-American. Oh, and guess what, I plagiarized it from a web site!!! But, to my credit, it’s not **real Cliff Notes plagiarism.** I wasn’t trying to pretend it was my writing or to avoid writing it all out in my own thoughts. I just thought it’d be better received by you if, you know, a REAL American wrote it so the language was all hunky dory and comprehensible and not confusing and very digestible. Plus, you wouldn’t be so likely to question its contents if I weren’t the author.

            You EVER try to give me a lesson in American history (or American EXCEPTIONALISM) again in this rude manner as if you’re dealing w/a 14-year old, I’m gonna chew you off some much bigger pieces of American history. You either shape up and have some gosh-danged politesse or I’ll have you and your brainiac comments for breakfast, lunch and dinner every day of the week. Chewing your concepts up and spitting them out will be haute cuisine (maybe that should be HATE cuisine) for me at this point. This would never have started if you had any (________) at all. You could have ended even this episode w/a simple apology. (I’m half British after all!) However, to fail to apologize and to continue w/this uproarious intellectual pretense of being all confused about the metaphors in my writing, or, even funnier, trying to critique my writing so as to improve its clarity. Sorry, no joy. Ciao.

          • trickyblain

            LOL, what?

          • Americana

            Please, take no offense yourself, trickyblain! It’s a diatribe just shot off into the general FPM stratosphere. I want this little pissing contest w/truebearing to stop and I needed a fall guy. You provided a nice hook because of what you’d written. ;)

          • trickyblain

            Very, very hard to offend me Americana. So no worries there. But your “fall guy”? Get a grip. If I want to provide you a hook, I’ll send a contract.

          • truebearing


          • truebearing

            He never mentioned the Enlightenment in his convoluted comment, but did attempt to make the case that America isn’t an exceptional nation. If you can decipher his ramblings then we should perhaps hire you as a translator.

            i disagree with the notion that all of the DNA of the American Revolution came from the Enlightenment. Events and ideas from previous periods were stepping stones for those during the Enlightenment. The Protestant Reformation and the theology of Martin Luther was a huge influence, as were ideas from periods earlier than that.

          • BagLady

            Australia was even more exceptional, unique, in that it was founded by criminals and the hapless poor, dumped there with nothing. By the time the wealthy Europeans decided to ‘give it a go’, the poor had prospered, built a system and had power. This is why, unlike Europe and the US, Australia has no class system.

        • BagLady

          Obviously, that makes Americans unique among mankind, or the rest of the
          world would have enjoyed the same success, and defended the same
          principles we always have”

          Now you have become ridiculous. You have the same mix of genes as Europeans, Australians, Canadians et al. Perhaps you see the aforementioned as somehow deficient in both success and principles.

          We have moved around the planet since the Stone Age and have had to build countries from scratch. Each endeavour has been unique and involved many exceptional people, but this is a universal truth so, whilst I commend your patriotism, most everyone feels their own country exceptional.

          • truebearing

            Now you are being dense. Has Canada or Australia led the world in every imaginable way, won two wars simultaneously in WWII, or spread freedom throughout the world, or have they benefitted from following our example?

            American Exceptionalism is an empirically proveable phenomenon. Your ideological perspective is insignificant.

          • BagLady

            Repeat that to an ‘Ocker’ on Anzac day and he’d set his ‘roo on you.

            Which two wars did America ‘win’ during WWII pray? I thought it was on war made up of various battles with multiple players involved. Russia turned the tide not the US nor the UK.

            ‘Freedom’. A word made unholy by first Bush and now Obama. What exactly does it mean? Who is that owes his ‘freedom’ to these men’s ambitions? I look around the world and I see crumbling cities and dying innocents. I see my personal world shrinking as more and more countries become off limits to Whitey thanks to NATO’s aggressive onward march.

            My perspective maybe insignificant but your empirical evidence to the contrary is non-existent.

      • Habbgun

        Yes but…..The French failed to follow the American example and their revolution was a terrible bloodthirsty mess. We know what the Communists and Fascists accomplished. More death and misery.

        Then we had the enlightened EU which is nothing more than an international kleptocracy posing as an alternative to war. Like we needed another United Nations. The UN was a perfectly good expensive failure.

        America is not just exceptional in word. It is exceptional in its deeds and execution. Face it pal.

        • Americana

          Based on the above, we all need to read your exceptional interpretation of the Civil War. You’re ignoring the fact we were willing to indulge in that supremely bloody national disaster because the South couldn’t see how to manage itself economically without slavery. With that war, we proved we’re just as capable of politically screwing up and screwing our countrymen as any other nation if we fail to arrive at appropriate compromise. Revolutions and internecine war may not be the equivalent in your mind but, to me, they indicate a similar capacity for human fallibility.

          The way the French Revolution rolled out has NOTHING to do w/what the original Americans took from French and European intellectuals in order to craft our founding principles and documents. Claiming that we’re exceptional because we have NEVER FACED what Europeans have faced, w/wars raging back and forth across their nations and continent, and that’s PROOF POSITIVE that we’d never do anything similar is simply not logical. The fact we only killed X-number of British soldiers during our fight for nationhood and that this means that our “revolution” was exceptionally ETHICAL is a no-brainer. But that minimal bloodletting was only true because there WEREN’T any huge numbers of dissenting British citizens and British soldiers on U.S. soil who were willing to put up a fight. Americans are just as fallible in their humanity as any other nation or culture. We may only have needed to experience that horrific lesson of our Civil War once, but we DID experience it.

          • Habbgun

            “The way the French Revolution rolled out has NOTHING to do w/what the
            original Americans took from French and European intellectuals in order” – That only applies if you think intellectuals are the guiding force of a country and not the day to day citizen. Sorry. Europe owns it national failures and it casts its light on European civilization.

          • Americana

            I’m not even going to touch on intellectuals vs the Everyman since there are far more Everymans in any culture than intellectuals. To me, the intellectual may light a torch but it’s the Everyman folks who decide whether it’s a torch worth carrying and whether it’s worth dying for. Modern day EU failures aren’t anything to do w/what the U.S. owes the European intellectuals who gave us such profound ideals.

            Questioning what is wrong w/the European Union is pretty much another, very different discussion! My point is that what our American intellectuals took from the European intellectuals was the basis for American national ideals.

            True, there was no event in American history that involved Americans executing Americans for political crimes that would be precisely comparable to the ‘Reign of Terror.’ However, the fact the Civil War occurred is proof that similar sociological drivers of social paranoia influence political decisions in this country just as they do elsewhere around the world. My claim is we would be just as likely to be easily politically and sociologically subverted by the social stressors involved in something like the French Revolution were it to befall us on our homeland’s soil, not that our Civil War was identical in nature to the French Revolution.

            My points, as I stated previously, are listed fairly inclusively in the Wikipedia entry that follows. What drove the furious slaughter of the ‘Reign of Terror’ were the sociological and psychological tensions between the two political parties behind the French Revolution and the antagonists they faced both within France and without. There were individuals accused of disloyalty who were trying to save their own lives by turning in others as well as those parties directing the Revolution who turned on each other under the stressors of facing outside enemies who were trying to extinguish the French Revolution. People are people. If they weren’t, there wouldn’t be quite so much conspiracy theorizing.

            From Wikip:
            The Reign of Terror (5 September 1793 – 28 July 1794),[1] also known simply as The Terror (French: la Terreur), was a period of violence that occurred after the onset of the French Revolution, incited by conflict between rival political factions, the Girondins and the Jacobins, and marked by mass executions of “enemies of the revolution”. The death toll ranged in the tens of thousands, with 16,594 executed by guillotine (2,639 in Paris),[2] and another 25,000 insummary executions across France.[3]

            The guillotine (called the “National Razor”) became the symbol of the revolutionary cause, strengthened by a string of executions: King Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, the Girondins, Philippe Égalité (Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans), and Madame Roland, and others such as pioneering chemist Antoine Lavoisier, lost their lives under its blade. During 1794, revolutionary France was beset with conspiracies by internal and foreign enemies. Within France, the revolution was opposed by the French nobility, which had lost its inherited privileges. The reactionary Roman Catholic Church did everything to discredit the Revolution, which had turned the clergy into employees of the state and required they take an oath of loyalty to the nation (through the Civil Constitution of the Clergy). In addition, the First French Republic was engaged in a series of wars with neighboring powers intent on crushing the revolution to prevent its spread.

            The extension of civil war and the advance of foreign armies on national territory produced a political crisis and increased the rivalry between the Girondins and the more radical Jacobins. The latter were eventually grouped in the parliamentary faction called the Mountain, and they had the support of the Parisian population. The French government established the Committee of Public Safety, which took its final form on 6 September 1793 in order to suppress internal counter-revolutionary activities and raise additional French military forces.

            Through the Revolutionary Tribunal, the Terror’s leaders exercised broad powers and used them to eliminate the internal and external enemies of the Republic. The repression accelerated in June and July 1794, a period called la Grande Terreur (the Great Terror), and ended in the coup of 9 Thermidor Year II (27 July 1794), leading to the Thermidorian Reaction, in which several instigators of the Reign of Terror were executed, including Saint-Just andRobespierre.

        • Americana

          The French had a totally different size of population as well as a totally different size of standing army that were the determinants for how the French Revolution played out. I’m sure there was also the fear that unless the HEREDITARY LANDED NOBILITY were eliminated by execution, they’d resurface w/armies or mercenaries they’d hired and keep waging war until they retook France and their personal holdings and chateaux. Bloody as the French Revolution was, I can understand how it happened in that manner. The situations of the American Revolution and the French Revolution are NOT COMPARABLE in the sense you’re comparing them. The U.S. didn’t have a large citizenry, nor nobility that controlled all the land and kept tenant farmers in penury over centuries.

          As for whether or not the U.S. has ever approached a national ethical question on the scope of the French Revolution and failed the test, I’d say the American Civil War demonstrates that we are just as fallible as any other human culture in our politics. We killed MILLIONS of our fellow Americans because the Southern states didn’t believe they could economically survive being dispossessed of their slaves. That fratricide war proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have the capacity to make political errors just as grievous as many other nations have made.

          • Habbgun

            Nice try. After a full on Civil War the South and the North reintegrated and slavery was permanently tossed aside. There was no reign of terror on the Southern leaders in the mode of the terror of the French revolution although you can be sure there were those who feared that.

            Modern Europe can’t even make the EU a functional alternative rather than a corrupt bureaucracy and yet by WWI the US was on its way to becoming a modern super power and the Civil War was way behind.. Why don’t you be at least be honest and rename yourself Europeana. The Europhile outlook IS your style.

          • Americana

            You can’t possibly pretend to overlook the reality of the Civil War or its aftermath. Or maybe you can… Regardless, I don’t need to pretend that American exceptionalism had a virgin birth nor do I need to pretend that we’re so much better than the rest of the world when we’ve NEVER BEEN TESTED in precisely the same way the rest of the world has been tested. We’ve never had famines in this country. We’ve never had internecine warfare that erupts every few decades. Maybe you claim that’s because of our politics, I’m sure it’s got a lot to do instead w/the fact that we’ve got a country that allows most of us to survive the major and minor calamities that afflict our society.

            Hahahaha, nah, I’m not the Euro type. I’m a farm kid all the way. Farthest I’d go in identifying w/Europeans are the permaculture farmers, the artists, the cheese makers, the fashion designers, the musicians… Yeah, the same folks we’ve got running around here in the U.S.

          • Habbgun

            I don’t want to go on this forever so this is it.. Your idea of American exceptionalism is a straw man. I’m Jewish so I don’t really think about virgin births all that much. American exceptionalism is simply the acknowledgement that it succeeded where so many failed and it is a good bet to continue to succeed where so many fail.

            Tocqueville had a pretty good grasp of the significance of America and he laid it out beautifully along with the insightful criticisms. His best insight is that equal ideas and Constitutions don’t lead to equal results. It is the quality of the average citizen and the overall society that matters. You on the other hand play with loaded dice. We haven’t failed so lets minimize success. Of course the failure would mean we would look a lot like Europe. Balkanized, tribal, socialist and weighed down by permanent self serving bureaucracies. Unfortunately we might just become Europe on the Pacific.

          • Americana

            My concept of American exceptionalism is no more a straw man than yours is. America has succeeded thus far because it STARTED w/a CLEAN SLATE. That’s my whole point about A/E. That simply because we were given the starting point we were given, we are NOT yet comparable in any regard to what the rest of the world has faced. We are too young as a country, and we’ve never faced the diverse hardships that have faced the rest of the world. We BELIEVE that we will always do better but that’s not a CERTAINTY YET. Much as I admire what we have achieved thus far, as far as I’m concerned, we have many more generations that must perform up to and beyond past generations to secure American Exceptionalism on a true legacy timeframe. This must be because we simply don’t currently face the hardships that much of the world faces.

          • gray_man


          • Habbgun

            Last one because we at least got somewhere. America did not start with a clean slate. It started under colonial conditions with a mix of religions, nationalities, economies, etc. It had to create its institutions from scratch. It could have failed badly under the Articles of Confederation but it adapted. The idea is not whether we jingoistic it is whether we will use a moral equivalence and decide we are equal to all societies. Not a good idea especially now. Consider there are probably plenty of societies or institutions less tested and are failures. The EU comes to mind.

          • Americana

            You didn’t get somewhere that I can see. The EU didn’t start from a clean slate as the nascent United States did. The U.S. had the rarest opportunity of any country ever in the world by being born when it was born under the individuals who were present at its birth. There were a VERY LIMITED number of nationalities present at the birth. The nascent U.S. had to create its institutions from scratch but it had the entire history of European political history from which to draw upon and select its institutions and form of governance. It was also the time of the European Enlightenment and every single major American political figure spent time in Europe and had exposure to the novel and current European ideals about natural rights and human liberty as well as meeting and conversing w/the greatest European politicians and philosophers of the day.

            You cannot even begin to compare the EU’s birth w/that of the U.S. when the EU was a mash-up of European countries many hundreds of years old and it was started w/ALL THE FINANCIAL ENCUMBRANCES of the countries at the moment they signed on w/the EU. The EU then failed to properly monitor all the countries so that a country like Greece, which was determined to fly under the EU’s radar, managed to lie its way into monumental insolvency. No, the U.S. had a special birth at a special moment in time and we’ve remained on a solo peak ever since.

          • gray_man


      • ricpic

        Americans didn’t tug their forelocks when “the quality” rode by. And most Americans still don’t. That’s American exceptionalism in a nutshell. Too simplistic for a deep thinker like you. But the troof whether you like it (you don’t) or not.

        • Americana

          DOH, ah, yes, very, very deep thinking, ricpic. In fact, it might fill a nutshell. A small nutshell. It’s such a small and inconsequential nutshell it’s regularly ridiculed by the 1 per centers because the economic reality is exactly otherwise (for the 1 percent) and that economic reality profoundly influences what is written about the 1 percent on this site. But keep trying to sell me on the whole not doffing your hat concept being the key to American exceptionalism. My understanding is that it incorporated a whole helluva lot more than that but maybe someone (Sarah Palin?) has reduced it to this. That idea of equality among men was also one that we ripped off from the Europeans so just because the Europeans weren’t able to escape their past doesn’t mean they didn’t understand the value of suggesting equality among all men.

          We had hundreds of indentured servants in the homes of the original American settlers who’d made enough money to buy their indentured service and they’re as close as we ever came to the “quality” society you’re talking about. You’re also choosing to forget the slaves doffing their hats and saying “Yes, Massah.” We’ve had some brushes w/the issue of social tiers and they’re not done yet. In fact, if Americans weren’t so keen about European nobility titles, why is it that sooooo many American debutantes from the wealthiest American families went running off to Europe to marry nobility? They’re still doing it to this day.

          • gray_man

            more nonsense.

          • Americana

            You’re a silly, cautious man who can’t — more likely WON’T — write more than two words together because he isn’t willing to subject his thinking to criticism.

          • gray_man


          • Americana

            I find it terribly interesting that I don’t remember you being in this conversation yet here you suddenly are in all your very, very grey glory… Just a grey presence spelling out “Nonsense” to fill the voids. I also find it terribly interesting that the thread seems to have changed in several spots.

          • gray_man

            “I find it terribly interesting that I don’t remember you being in this conversation ”

            More nonsense.
            Everyone is in this conversation, that is why it is called the comments section.

    • CosmotKat

      “It would be such a breath of fresh air to have a president who actually loved his country instead of one who is constantly apologizing for it.”
      Obama has a visceral hatred toward American and it’s middle class such that he calls half the country his enemy and labels them terrorists. He loves the idea of an America that fits his leftist world view and he is hell bent on creating that world.

    • BagLady

      Ah so, big fish from a very small pond eh? Just like the old days.

  • William_Bradford

    To further illustrate Daniel’s point consider and compare the comments of an actual American hero to those of Obama: Admiral William McRaven’s commensment speech given to UT – Austin, last week (it’s short, and memorable) –

    Bear with me – I was unfamiliar with Admiral McRaven, and his speech made me curious about just who Admiral McRaven was, and is. To that end I found a short film done by the OSS Society (Offices of Stategic Services the predicessor of the CIA) regarding Admiral McRaven and his background –

    The film may be viewed as having two parts. First, 1.) The background of Admiral McRaven, and the place held by our military, specifically the Special Operations Forces as they evolved from the OSS (Office of Stategic Servics) in WW-II, and the Cold War. And the second part of the film to visually illustrate Daniel’s point. The second part of the film 2.) permits all to compare Admiral McRaven (and those who keep us safe) with and to the useless, self-absorbed, self-serving POS currently running the USA.

    • John Barleycorn

      Hell Yes !!!

    • bigjulie

      I can’t thank you enough for posting this video. I heard it a few days ago but seeing Admiral McRaven deliver it, in uniform, was inspirational beyond words to me, and I am nearly 80!
      He, with this speech, replaced all of my “wishing list” for the people I would hope would run for President in 2016!
      “Where do we get such men?”

      • Americana

        Wasn’t he impressive! So genuine! He’s a SEAL through and through to the very core of his hypothermic body… Such great lines. “Sugar cookie,” “going down the obstacles head first.”

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Where do we get them?

        They volunteer, from a profound sense of duty and love of country. This is what I did, in 1967, and I also volunteered for duty in Vietnam. Please note that I’m not trying to favorably compare myself to Admiral McRaven, in any sense. He’s far and away a better man than I.

        Although most of the men in Vietnam were draftees, those men were my heroes. They didn’t want to be there. They were dragged from their homes, families, and jobs, and sent to country to fight in an unpopular war. They died, in their thousands. But yet, they didn’t run to Canada, or sit in antiwar demonstrations with Hanoi Jane. They were my heroes.

        I would vote for the Admiral, in a heartbeat. This nation needs men and women like him.

        • bigjulie

          Wolf, the quotation is from a movie about the Korean War…it was the commander of the aircraft carrier from which the hero was flying who said it about his pilots. (Too damned old and forgetful to remember its name or the actor’s) but I never forgot the quote because of the way it was delivered.

    • Americana

      William B., you’ve now caused me to look at EVERY SINGLE video on Admiral McRaven as well as a few other videos on the SEALs. He’s an exemplary military man w/all the passion and ethos you’d want in someone w/his responsibilities. I’m glad he’s survived such a risky military career choice to help direct our country through this frenetic period of learning how to cope w/interdicting jihadi terrorism.

  • ApolloSpeaks


    Appease Apologize Retreat Decline Diminish

    Replace the Pax Americana with a New World (dis) Order.

  • gdnctr

    “There isn’t a single element of Obama’s foreign policy that has proven successful. Instead it’s been one international disaster after another.”

    Dan Greenfield: you’ve got it exactly wrong. It IS very successful in 0bummer’s twisted commie mind. It’s EXACTLY what he’s wanted to happen. He’s a stone-cold Marxist, and not as stupid as he looks and seems.

    • flappdoodle

      I was going to say that.

    • Dan Mesa/AZ

      “Obama takes credit for troop removals, rather than outcomes”.
      This example of Obama success = surrender.
      The worlds greatest actor (Obama), along with his writers and producers (Jarret, the MSM) are scripting the greatest flop of all-time as we Americans sit and watch.

      • Lynx Eye

        Actually, it needs to be kept firmly in mind that Valarie Jarret is the Voice of the Muslim Brotherhood, that makes their wishes known to Dear Commissar. Hopefully, if it comes to that, that treacherous witch gets to be first against the wall.

        • bigjulie

          “first among the wall”?? How about first AGAINST the wall!!

          • Lynx Eye

            Quite right, I will correct that little matter. Out, Damn Spellcheck! :) Thanks for pointing it out, and God bless.

    • Habbgun

      I think you give Obama far too much credit. So much of what Democrats do is what they do on the local level. There is not much difference between a cheap party machine president and a cheap party machine mayor.

      Thick of foreign policy as urban crime policy. The political machine democrat doesn’t fight crime. He has statements about crime, he has public forums about crime and he hopes that the nonviolent, honest working population adjust their lives and stay home at night, applaud when their school aged children are watched like they are the actual criminals (because if they acted like normal kids they’d meet up with a nasty element).

      The machine politician has a goal. The biggest slush fund for the least actual output. Crime prevention gets in the way of that and is a visible marker for the health of a community. We all know what a bad neighborhood looks like starting with the graffiti.

      Foreign policy is to Obama what crime is to Rahm Emmanuel. Something to be managed away and minimized. Democrats created the concept of the “inner city”. Better mayors removed the inner city and returned them to be the working class communities they actually were. Obama is trying to create an inner city mentality in foreign policy and bragging that America is a giant gated community.

  • DogmaelJones1

    “Obama’s speeches come from a world that exists only inside his own teleprompter.” This would be true had Lenin or Stalin teleprompters, and it would be true had Hitler a teleprompter. They’d have spouted to their Party conclaves and the starving, destitute Russians and Germans: “Industrial production is up 75%! Our people are blessed with an abundance of agricultural products from our farms! Our people have more money to spend on more things! We are winning the war against our murderous enemies!” If you never understood George Orwell’s device of “doublethink” in his novel, “1984,” you have a real-life example of it in Barack Obama. Reality must conform to his agenda, not the other way around, and his reality changes to suit the sound-byte of the moment.

  • windy132

    Another way to put it, tolerate everything, stand for nothing.

  • Douglas J. Bender

    “The address is an expanded version of his 2002 anti-war speech as a Chicago state senator that first brought him to the attention of his future backers.”

    Actually, George Soros and Bill Ayers were actively and strongly supporting Obama as far back as at least 1995, when Obama stood on a large stairway in Bill Ayers’ home, looking sort of Messianic, for a photo op with a bunch of political and activist types. There in that photo were Bill Ayers, and, lo and behold, George Soros.

    • liz

      Yep, all planned from the very beginning. His job has been to just keep lying. They know they can count on the collaboration of the media and the perpetual stupidity of their voters to keep it going, so the lies don’t even really have to sound plausible.

      • truebearing

        Obama knows the media will back him up, regardless of how blatant and ridiculous his lies get. They are too committed to his presidency to turn on him and tell the truth, and most of the talking heads or writers for the leftist media can’t see through their own delusions well enough to recognize the truth. Even if they can see the truth, they won’t speak it because they are terrified of the consequences. The media is goose stepping right along with the Left’s conspiracy…or should I say coup.

        • Drakken

          The question becomes, are we too far gone to fix and right the ship gain? Or our we rearranging the chairs on the Titanic? I am a glass is half full type, but events playing out as they are, it is tough slogging.

  • Douglas J. Bender

    “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being”

    The teleprompter screwed up. That line was supposed to be,

    “I believe I am an exceptional American with every fiber of my being.”

    Or maybe,

    “I am an exceptional American in every fiber of my being.”

    Or perhaps,

    “I don’t believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.”

    • Americana

      “I believe in American exceptionalism w/every fibre of my being. And I believe that some Americans should eat lots and lots of fiber for the sake of…”

    • Ace

      Fibroid Americans are especially credible?

  • John Davidson

    Looks to me like Obama better find another subject to promote. Is there one left he hasn’t screwed up is a mighty big question, though.

    • Douglas J. Bender

      Colorado has legalized marijuana. Protections for Islamist terrorists and militants are increasing here in America. Pressure against “anti-Islamic speech” and “Islamophobia” are ramping up here as well. Obama is at least partially successful in making the future safe in America for more “Choom Gangs” and Islamists, and seeing to it that it does “not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”.

  • james connolly

    You state “The worse things are, the bigger the party he throws to celebrate his victories.” OF COURSE he does because it all contributes to his deliberate intention to weaken our country and make it less safe, more despised and vulnerable, and ultimately a deplorable wasteland. His extremist “HOPE AND CHANGE” agenda is right on schedule as he wishes it to be. Even if he lives in a fantasy world, he knows exactly what he is doing.

    Many delusional Americans still believe Obama wants what they want. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    • Lynx Eye

      Sadly, diehard members of the Commiecrat/RINO axis, both politician and voter, also follow his twisted vision. That’s how he and his poisonous fellow travelers get, and stay, in office in the first place.

  • gg

    Obama’s foreign policy is very simple: (1) Enrage and dump all Western and/or capitalist allies (2) CLONE IRAN!

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    “Anyone who disagrees is engaging in partisan politics. Or reading statistics.”

    We who disagree are labeled racists.

    • truebearing

      And proud of it! (based on the new PC definition of “racist,” which varies according to the Left’s need)

      Don’t call them narcissists or sociopaths, though. That is “labeling” and it is unfair.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        True ‘dat …

  • antiliberalcryptonite


  • nimbii

    The MSM has one objective: Protect this guy, no matter what.

  • El Cid

    Very well said. . Either people must have voted for him because it was a protest against any and all government, or because they are truly deluded. I am not disappointed or disillusioned because I listened to him when he spoke. He stands for nothing. Obama is nothing. There is nothing to expect from nothing. The only fear I had was that he would be allowed to destroy the country faster than he has. The American people are very resilient.

  • John Barleycorn

    Yep . . .Obama the fraud .

  • Americana

    The premise is that American power is reflected in our ability to militarily and diplomatically control what happens around the rest of the world. But the fact is, the U.S. can control what happens for X-amount of time when our forces are present as overseers and after that it’s up to those living in that region or country to control what happens. America has NEVER HAD the ability to control what happens around the rest of the world. What has given us the ILLUSION that we were in control was more passive populations or more settled populations around the world. We could spend insane amounts of money trying to keep these Muslim terrorist movements in check by our military deployments and we would never find ourselves ahead of their moves and their recruitment.

    The U.S. system of maintaining peace in regions where it mattered to our national security was to install a dictator or we backed a dictator who was already in position, we gave those guys support, and we called it a day. That will no longer be true in every case going forward. The world is a political powder keg and instantaneous connectivity allows terrorism and political dissent to grow powerful overnight. I recognize that no President is going to find it feasible to claim there is no reason for the U.S. to worry about Islamic terrorism for the foreseeable future. We have not settled the Palestinian question. But for us to pretend that the U.S. is threatened by the Tamil Tigers or the Bangladeshi Brigade is just not an accurate portrayal of the threat to the U.S. nor a prescription of what foreign policy will meet the challenges these foes represent.

    • bigjulie

      How many “niceties” do you suppose Josef Stalin or Mao Tse Tung contemplated in their climb to the top? They were both anti-human, ruthless, no-good bastards, but gee…miracle of miracles…they rose to the top!! Why?? Mao defined it very succinctly…”All political power stems from the barrel of a gun!”
      Despite the egotism of so many, especially on the left, that the Human race has “improved” and “civilized” since Homo Sapiens Sapiens emerged on the planet, the bottom line is still persuasion by the application of overwhelming brutal force to entities who do not desire to “think like us”. If it were otherwise, we would not need police forces or armies to maintain the lifestyle and customs “most” of us agree upon. Even in our own “enlightened” country (America) we have government agencies “arming up” with SWAT forces! Do you suppose those forces have been created in order to enforce the “agreed upon” rules of how the country will be conducted? Sorry! They are there to enforce the rules as the Government thinks they should be enforced, and the hell with what YOU think!!
      We no longer “run” our own country! We play at “politics” to put puppets in Washington, DC who will act out the essentials of a democratic Republic but we are actually being run by a cabal of secret organizations whose actions are beyond the control of our elected officials, called the NSA, CIA, FBI, et cetera! Their “control” is exercised by what they know about us through their spying efforts…but if that fails, there are always the SWAT teams and…(shall we all say it together?) “massive, brutal FORCE!!”
      It will take a lot more than college professors or preachers to change this ethic, because it has been thus since the dawn of the history of Homo Sapiens Sapiens!
      Good luck with your “enlightened” views!

      • Americana

        Sadly, bigjulie, I do agree that the ramping up of our internal police forces is related to many situational fears in our government about our future being at risk because of various threats. But at least HALF (if not MORE like 7/8) of what our government has done in its ramping up of its capabilities has been done, I believe, for the sake of heading off any major terrorist attack or series of attacks across the U.S. Many of the Search and Rescue groups I deal with are affiliated w/FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Assoc.) in order that we can be dispatched in readiness for any major event. When you become involved on the individual level, perhaps it becomes more transparent and, as a result, is less intimidating.

        I believe this based on interviews I’ve done w/agents from the Dept. of Homeland Security as well as those police dog handlers I meet through my Search and Rescue training. The citizens’ initiative which Pres. George Bush began after 9/11 was based on the fact he wanted as many Americans to be involved with emergency response as possible. Two other emergency response initiatives were also begun about the same time — Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) and Critical Incident Stress Management Teams (CISM). These organizations are all attempting to provide your community w/TRAINED INDIVIDUALS who can provide you w/a level of medical care that will enable you to survive a terrorist event. I can tell you more if you’d like but if you’d prefer to read on-line links, I’ll put those up instead. I’ve taken many, many courses through the FEMA and the federal government on Search and Rescue training to achieve the core competencies they demand that we have before we can be dispatched into the field. Our dogs must past national certification tests and we must pass national certification tests. Those very same tests are available to EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN.

        • bigjulie

          I disagree! While I appreciate all you and others might be doing to help us through emergencies brought on by “terrorist” attacks, SWAT teams working for the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Education are intended, IMO, to protect the government from it own citizens, not as investigative or action entities intended to fight terrorists attacking from without. Recall in July of 2008 one of Obama’s campaign speeches in which he called for a “civilian security force” at least as large and equal in power to our uniformed military services. That was not for protection of the civilian population…that was a PYA force intended (IMO) to give someone planning on establishing a dictatorship here the power to fight dissident elements in the uniformed military who would rise up against such an attempt and could not be trusted to “follow our great leader” to the completion of his possible plans.
          Sadly, our Supreme Leader has now managed to replace many of the General grade officers who, as patriots first, might lead a revolt against such an attempt, with a bunch of “yes men” who would blindly follow “orders”. (How many of the rank and file, also saturated with patriots, who would also “follow orders” would still be a major problem, hence the “need” of such a “civilian security force, trained, of course, by agents of the Supreme Leader.
          The architects of a strategy that would allow such a thing to happen have committed many of their strategies to writing. Mao’s, Hitler’s, and even Saul Alinsky’s writings are available to the public. They all caution “wannabees” to move very slowly and carefully in the establishment of such a “new order”. There is much less appreciation now for what the Founding Fathers established here in 1789 in our schools. The attempts to establish a “world government” through the UN are on-going The left’s continuous attempts to establish what was founded here as “illegitimate” in the minds of young people. In general, there is much less emphasis on loyalty and patriotism than ever before in my lifetime in this country. Take a look at what is being attempted with “Common Core”, which is aimed specifically at grade school kids. And don’t forget the ongoing efforts to separate us from our guns!
          I can find no “innocent” or “patriotic” explanations for “Fearless Leader’s” actions and the preposterous numbers of bald-faced lies he tells regularly. A surprising number of them would, however, fit the plans of someone who might be deciding that we as a group are just to damned stupid to run our own lives and affairs and are in sore “need” of an “Ubermench” to show us how it should really be done!

    • American Patriot

      You think the Tibetan independence movement is a threat to Communist China and/or to its ally, neo-Communist Russia? If you do, then you are repeating Communist propaganda.

  • Americana

    No American President has control over foreign policy such that another country performs as desired at all times. It’s an ILLUSION. If’s also a PERVERSION of political thought to believe this is the case.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      or at any time, ever

      Every foreign policy initiative Obama touches has gone wrong in the worst possible ways

      • Americana

        Describe several failures and what would have been the smarter course. It’s a given you’ll mention the Iranian situation on which I’ve got my private opinion and I might eventually share that.

        • CDM

          I’ll give you one. Why did we intervene in Libya? For all that the left howled that Iraq was an illegal war (it wasn’t), they were pretty much silent when it came to a real illegal war (50 USC 1541-1548).

          Aside from that, why was this a bad thing? Because in 2003, we cut a deal with Gaddafi where we would not undermine him and, in return, he would come clean on his WMD’s, stop supporting international terrorism, and generally behave himself. Nobody would say he was a choirboy, but he did hold up his end of the deal, more or less. What’s the problem then about what Obama did? Because nobody else in the future will take the US’s pledges as more than just so much hot air. And can anyone say that the situation there is better than when Gaddafi was in power? I think not.

          This is the basic misunderstanding of simple-minded leftists (redundant, I know). In foreign policy, it’s rare to have a good choice and a bad choice. More likely, you have to choose between a bad choice and an even worse one. Sometimes you have to choose between bad choices and it’s hard to figure out which is worse. Batista in Cuba may have been bad, but Castro was worse. Somoza in Nicaragua may have been bad, but the Sandinistas were worse. Thieu in Vietnam may have been bad, but was Ho Chi Minh better? Two million Vietnamese boat people disagreed with the American left’s opinion on that one.

          • Americana

            We make our choice between bad FP choice and worse FP choice far harder for ourselves when we don’t make despots toe an acceptable line w/the governance of their populations. What if the U.S. had insisted Pres. Battista didn’t execute and kill his political opponents? What if we’d insisted on him choosing some different approaches instead of simply letting him carry on as he wished? There are all sorts of ways we could have dealt w/some of these issues but the paranoia of the Cold War era stymied us.

            Libya would have gone down regardless. It’s been in the throes of nascent civil war for at least a decade and when all hell broke loose in the Middle East, Libya under Col. Gaddafi was a goner. Could Gaddafi have forestalled things by liberalizing his regime while reserving the crucial power broker elements for the army and himself? I certainly think if I’d been him that would have been my first step, but he decided to offer up far too little, far too late. You seem to believe that the U.S. can maintain all these various despots in the Middle East region just because we’re the big guns. American firepower only works for a certain length of time. Beyond that point, you’ve got to develop the people you think can lead the country. Look at just how odd the career trajectories of some of the world’s politicians are! There are citizens of these hellholes that somehow manage to creep through all the sectarian minefields and they advance to their countries’ highest offices.

          • American Patriot

            You don’t get it, do you? The United States opposed Batista. The Eisenhower administration had an arms embargo against Batista and aided anyone, including the Castro brothers and their “July 26th movement” who was seeking to get rid of Batista, you Stalinist/Maoist. Not only that, but it was former US Ambassador to Cuba Earl T. Smith who flatly told Congress in 1960, “We put Castro in power”. According to the Cuba Archive, which records every politically-motivated death in Cuba since 1952, Batista’s regime was responsible for no more than 3,000 deaths, most of which were directed against radical militants like the members of the July 26th movement. The Castro brothers are responsible for over 100,000 deaths since the Communist dictatorship took power in 1959. Regarding the Middle East despots, I noticed you failed to mention the dictatorships supported by the Soviet Union/neo-Communist Russia, Communist China and Islamist Iran. All three despotic regimes back the Baathist dictatorship of Bashar Assad in Syria. The Assad family dictatorship has ruled Syria with an iron fist since the Soviet-backed coups during the 1960s. You are an anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-human rights, pro-Communist totalitarian Stalinist/Maoist. Learn from facts.

          • Americana

            That’s not quite as I’ve read the history books on Cuba. So let’s cut the bullpuckey about who’s an anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-human rights, pro-Communist totalitarian Stalinist/Maoist because there are some folks who aren’t ANY OF THOSE DESIGNATIONS will insist on publicizing facts so that facts can be ultimately distinguished from fictions.


          • American Patriot

            Batista was corrupt politically, but he didn’t affect anyone’s social nor economic lives in Cuba. Humberto Fontova, a well-known Cuban American author, pundit and intellectual, has written books on how the Castro brothers took over Cuba and destroyed that country’s standing in the world, as well as in many other different factors.

          • Americana

            Interesting, American P. I’ve always wondered what the world might have faced viz political situations if the Russian and Chinese revolutions didn’t determine how Communists and assorted other revolutionaries would have subsequently attempted to take power.

            (Unintentional double post because of a cat walking on my keyboard. I’ll leave this one cuz it’s worded differently.)

          • Americana

            Interesting, American P. I’ve always wondered if the Russian and Chinese revolutions had been less bloody and didn’t set the world on edge wondering about the next country that was going to fall to Communism, would places like Cuba have undergone a more gradual political change.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Iran, Syria, Libya, Israel, Egypt, Tunisia, etc…

          China keeps escalating in Asia. Russia is doing what it wants in the Ukraine. The EU is in turmoil despite Obama’s hamfisted efforts.

          Al Qaeda is setting its sights on taking over entire countries.

          Should I go on?

          • Americana

            Ah, so you’re going to remain playing the bird’s eye view pundit and **not** offer any solutions. As I stated in my original post, I said state several failures, then offer your own SMARTER COURSE for the U.S. to take to prevent those failures from occurring.

            I don’t believe that ANY American President is going to be able to solve those issues in the Middle East. They are well beyond the financial and military containment our country is able to provide. Hopefully, we’ve educated their various armies enough they can begin to stabilize themselves. In the interim, we’ve got a very sophisticated new surveillance system that will help our CIA personnel to keep track of the region’s terrorists.

            As for Russia’s seizure of the Crimea, it was obvious (to me) Russia was interested only in taking the Crimea. Which, considering it gave the Crimea to Ukraine upon its independence from Russia, makes it more understandable that it would insist on taking it back for food security and all sorts of reasons. I’m OK w/Russia taking Crimea since it’s one of those highly volatile regions that have been traded back and forth between countries. You may not feel that’s acceptable but, to me, it’s one of those insoluble geographic/nationalistic questions best left to those directly involved. Of course, if you would willingly have sent off American troops… You’d better state that. Yes, China is escalating its actions in Asia and the American response under Obama has been to CHANGE the American military stance to a more Pacific-oriented readiness stance as well as to INCREASE SURVEILLANCE capability against economic espionage by Chinese hackers, even to the extent of tracking down a cell of Chinese army hackers and communicating to China that the U.S. will pursue them legally. This type of economic espionage is also something that is being addressed in the TransPacific Partnership treaty. Shall I continue?

          • bigjulie

            Good thing you are not running the CDC! There is an “infection” threatening every human being on the Earth! It is the essence of pure, unadulterated evil and it is an infection that guarantees “death” to all of us, if it is NOT defeated totally and completely. Any kind of “immunity” will be eventually defeated by its continued existence! It is a gutter philosophy that exists on pure intimidation and threat of violent retribution if not “obeyed” completely, even if that “obedience” is ill-defined and at odds with those in a position to define it, depending on where those “definers” live! It was foisted upon its first “believers” through the threat and actuality of depraved violence if they did not “submit”. It’s name is the Arabic word for “submit”! Its name is Islam!
            You would attempt to negotiate or seek rapport with a virus? Good luck with that, but attempts to do so since the 7th century have only resulted in either succumbing to the virus or dying from it! The results of succumbing have rendered entire countries to be populated by miserable, ill-educated, unskilled slaves completely dominated by a cabal of powerful elites who rule in perpetuity whilst their subjects conduct continual war with each other and not even understanding why they do it!
            It must be completely stamped-out…eliminated!! Only then will we still be able to save the few who desire to be cured, and proceed apace to create an enlightened new population, willing to try to exist in harmony with its fellow human beings.
            They are working mightily on their own “conversion” solution, which will be about 20 megatons in a choice variety of places. Our quickest solution will be a “persuasion” solution, about the same size and strategically placed, that has already been proven to have absolute power to change minds of those who survive.
            IT is our choice! We either “persuade” or “convert” There will be no “negotiated” cure!

          • Americana

            bigjulie, I’ve got faith that the most doctrinaire Islam that is prevalent in the Middle East now is going to be kicked to the curb and altered in substantive ways by some of its current practitioners. I don’t believe for one moment that Islam will survive its Reformation w/those horrific sharia laws and its jihad philosophy still part of the religion.

          • Drakken

            Islam is only going to change when we kill it, anything else is wishful thinking and inane stupidity. Islam will never go through a reformation EVER! Unless and until we put our collective boots down upon it.

          • Ace

            We can start by enacting a law that makes any imam who issues a fatwa for the death of any person guilty of a felony. Strip federal courts of jurisdiction to invalidate it. Then fight for that same provision in all infidel nations.

            Same for apostasy. Exclude and deport any Muslim in any infidel land who does not swear in writing that the Koran is in invalid where it authorizes slavery, plunder, death for apostasy, death for infidels, taquiya, or anything other than total subordination of shariah to local law.

            Anything short of this is madness.

            Deport, deport, deport. No segregation, no peace.

          • Ace

            Hear, hear!

          • American1969

            For starters, it might help if we had a president that went around the world extolling the virtues of America rather than tearing them down and insisting that we be like the EU.
            It might help if Dear Leader wasn’t arming our enemies while slapping allies like Israel in the face.

          • Drakken

            What color is the sky in your little world? Because it is obvious that your are naïve and believe anything coming out of Comrade Obummers mouth. Your the typical low information voter Obummer and company rely and depend upon.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            stop aiding America’s enemies would be a good start

            stop making threats you don’t intend to carry out

            start putting American interests, not domestic political beliefs, first in foreign policy

          • American Patriot

            What Russia needs to do is go back to the Yeltsin years. Under Yeltsin, Russia was a Western ally. Unfortunately, many Communists still had some influence over the government and when Putin came to power in 2000, Russia went back to what is now a neo-Communist foreign policy. What Yeltsin and the Russian democrats should have done is expel every Communist and neo-Communist from power, knowing that one day, they were going to be a huge problem in Russian politics and the world stage, since the neo-Communists are possessed with hate and vengeance instead of compromise and reconciliation. The neo-Communists, by the way, are members of the United Russia Party, which is the modern-day Communist Party of the Soviet Union. But we also need to have a strong Tea Party leadership in Washington following the 2016 elections.

    • truebearing

      Obama has so little respect or leverage that no nation ever performs as desired, but does the opposite.

      • Americana

        That’s hardly true. Look at what happened w/the resolution of the EU monetary crisis. Look at the environmental initiatives in South America that the developed world has been offered. Look at the TransPacific Partnership treaty. You are basing your opinion on what has happened in the Middle East and, even there, where it’s like herding rabid cats, there has been groundwork laid for future successes. The fact Malala Yusufsai, the Afghan schoolgirl who was shot, is a beacon for her fellow Afghans (she was also mentioned by that Admiral in his commencement speech) tells me that there are Afghans who have been empowered to fight back against the Taliban. Saudi Arabia insisted that we withdraw from our Saudi bases. Why? Because there is enough underground political ranting going on about having Americans in Islam’s most sacred places by al Qaeda that the Saudis were afraid of maintaining its American bases. So, what did we do? We made an arrangement w/Qatar to move our largest bases there.

        • truebearing

          More failures. Thanks for reminding us.

        • CDM

          So much delusion in one paragraph. EU monetary crisis resolved? More like swept under the rug for now. The TPP started under Bush II, after the Democrats threw as many monkey wrenches as they could at the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Afghanistan will probably go back to all-out civil war as soon as we leave, that being the historical norm there. As for your assertion of success in Saudi Arabia, I guess Al-Qaeda can call that one a win.

          • Americana

            The EU monetary crisis, just like the U.S. monetary crisis, is only soluble over the long term. That’s the problem w/macro economic problems when they’re allowed to reach maximum scale before tackling them. I believe the EU has learned some strategic lessons and Chancellor Angela Merkel kicked some serious Irish and Greek butt by not allowing the EU to soften its austerity position. The Irish have worked through much of their economic issues but the Greeks will be in the throes of theirs for the foreseeable future thanx to their gratuitously selfish (non-EU friendly) socialist choices in their governance.

            The U.S./Korea Free Trade Agreement was too limited w/the large number of developing Asian economies that were/are coming on line. Why sign a trade treaty if it’s not going to address the full scope of the economic issues in 5 years?

            If you think allowing Saudi Arabia to begin to lay the groundwork for civil war by the U.S. insisting on American bases and troops remaining in the “holiest lands of Islam” is a wise move, more power to you. The Saudi al Qaeda movement would have had a field day w/the U.S. remaining in those bases. I’d prefer the Saudis remain vigilant and catch as many of those Saudi al Qaeda suckers as they can find and that the Saudi royal family keep things locked down there. This was the choice of the Ibn Saud family and it was a family decision for a reason.

          • Ace

            The TPP and any other free trade initiatives need to be resisted. The last thing we need is more globalist nonsense. We need to give that a rest for a long time. When we get the Chinese to quit undervaluing their currency I’ll begin to have a smidgin of faith that “our” trade negotiators are worth their salt.

  • bigjulie

    Thanks, Daniel…yet another spot-on analysis of what is ailing us when we are in desperate need of real “leadership”. Obama will pass, but I hope, with all my heart, the “lessons” of how easily millions of Americans, with the best of intentions, can be so easily duped by a concerted effort of professional opinion-creators, working not for pride and patriotism, not for idealism but only for money. May we all look, much more carefully, into the backgrounds of those desiring to lead America next time, BEFORE we vote!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I’m not sure most people have learned anything

      • truebearing

        Isn’t that the scary truth. Most Americans think voting is about “making history” instead of electing the most effective leader. That kind of stupidity has an immense amount of inertia.

        • Ace

          ALL stupidity has immense inertia.

          Momentum, more properly, perhaps. Immense effort is required to stop or deflect it, in the absence of which it hurtles on.

          Think “propositional nation,” “nation of immigrants,” “living constitution,” “lead from behind,” “responsibility to protect,” “racism,” “privilege,” “underprivileged,” “99%,” “General Welfare Clause,” “far right,” “extremist,” “social justice,” “reparations,” “gun control,” “undocumented immigrant,” “progressive,” “choice,” “patriarchy,” “gender,” “gay marriage,” “deconstruct,” “Common Core,” “refugee,” “religion of peace,” “Kosovo,” “shariah,” etc.

  • James Foard

    Diary of a Mad Housewife/President:
    Washington Post, August 18, 2011
    Syria’s Assad must go, “Obama says President Obama and European leaders called Thursday for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to resign, after months of his violent crackdown on protesters. The rhetorical escalation was backed by new U.S. sanctions designed to undermine Assad’s ability to finance his military operation.
    ‘The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way,’ Obama said in a written statement. ‘For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.’”

    Apparently, Assad wasn’t listening, so on October 22, 2012, ABC news reported “President Obama Confidant ‘Assad’s Days are Numbered'”

    Assad must be really hard of hearing though, so during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 20, 2013, Obama once again stated emphatically, “More broadly, as I said in
    my opening statement, I believe that the Assad regime has lost all credibility
    and legitimacy. I think Assad must go — and I believe he will go.”

    Well, sounding like an angry housewife who has had enough, Obama really put his foot down that time. Are you listinening Bashar? You have to leave!
    It is now 5/29/2014, 12:02 PST as I write this, and I don’t see any signs that Bashar al-Assad is getting ready to pack his bags.

    Perhaps Obama should hire Bob Larson, a well known exorcist, to attempt to cast Assad out if he won’t leave on his own.

  • truebearing

    Great distillation of Obama’s unspeech, Daniel. You nailed Obama to the wall with this one.

    Definition of doctrine (n)
    Bing Dictionary
    [ dóktrin ]

    rule or principle: a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy
    ideas taught as truth: a body of ideas, particularly in religion, taught to people as truthful or correct

    If “doctrine” forms a basis or foundation of belief, theory or policy, what does an “undoctrine” do? The opposite, of course. It tears down belief and removes any foundation.

    If “doctrine” is a body of ideas intended as truth, what is “undoctrine” intended as? Lies that confuse and dissipate truth.

    Obama’s UnDoctrine is a perfect name for his speech, but also his primary purpose as the president of the United States, which is to undermine, erode, diminish, divide, subvert, demean, and ultimately defeat American exceptionalism and sovereignty.

    Doctrines are building blocks of national policy and international relationships. They are commitments. They are powerful, direct statements of intent. UnDoctrine is corrosive acid, eating, eroding, and destroying the foundation of past doctrine. It isn’t going forward, it is destroying what was achieved in the past. It is nihilistic in its passivity and self-contradiction, Obama’s hallmark. Obama’s UnDoctrine speech is also a powerful statement of intent, but it is decptive, dishonest, and subversive intent.

  • Libslayer

    The Obama doctrine is simple:
    Weaken America at home and abroad.
    Ruin the economy
    Ruin the military
    Get revenge for slavery and colonialism
    And support Islamic expansionism world wide and in America.

    • Ace

      It is not possible to improve on that.

  • Richard Nieves


  • American1969

    Excellent article Mr. Greenfield! You once again nail it on every point. Kind of hard not to do when Obama gives you so much material to work with!

  • Anamah

    Daniel this puppet is going as was planned… so unbearable and toxic as offensive …and however why it hasn’t be stopped yet?

    Could you take a look on this 100 years old plan of Progressives?
    Chesterton described the absurdity so clear!
    Why in the world are we obeying this nonsense? Are we suicidal?

  • tickletik

    The long legged Mack daddy!

  • BagLady

    “The truth of our age is this and must be this: open and
    competitive commerce will enrich us as a nation. It spurs us to
    innovate. It forces us to compete. It connects us with new customers. It
    promotes global growth without which no rich country can hope to grow
    wealthier. It enables our producers, who are themselves consumers of
    services and raw materials, to prosper.” [Clinton… er…. B]

    Hoo-bloody-ray for the shareholders.

    Hoo-bloody-ray for cheap labour.

    • Habbgun

      Sayest the racist, sad little Fabian.

    • Drakken

      No matter how many times you bloody communist try communism, it still ends up with stacks of dead bodies, you people never ever learn. When I see Britain today, Churchill must be rolling in his grave at what has become.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      it sure connected Bill Clinton to a lot of foreign donors and the Democratic Party to foreign voters and workers

      • BagLady

        Bill n Hillary, Gen Patraeus, Robert Zoellick, Shimon Perez, Tony Bliar, Gerhard Schroder, Strauss-Khan, Bill Richardson (shale-gas) and other interested parties gathered at Yalta 2013 to push the Free Trade Agreement between Ukraine and the West. Victoria Nuland followed through, kicking Angela Merkel into touch with her “F— the EU” remark. Angela favoured an ex boxer, Klitschko but Nuland wanted the pro NATO/IMF Yatsenyuk.

        So there we have it. Ukraine will be flooded with US goods and their huge public debt will rise.

        Enter Christine Lagarde to strip the country of its assets in lieu of debt repayments and NATO forces will take one step closer to China.

        In the meantime, western media urges us to think of Putin as the reincarnation of Hitler as he ‘expands’ to protect Sevastopol and his fleet in the Black Sea.

        “The truth of our age is this and must be this: open and
        competitive commerce will enrich us as a nation. It spurs us to

        Such a shame that, whilst the US enriches itself with not very innovative uncompetitive commerce, struggling countries must go to the wall.

  • c0mm0ncenz

    The lying prez says “But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international
    norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through
    our actions.” What a joke. That sure is NOT confirmed by his actions against Israel. He’s ordered Israel to cease building homes in Israeli land. He doesn’t seem to get it that the Arabs don’t want a third of Israel, but 100% of Israel, and now that Hamas is – not surprisingly – joining the PA, he still wants us to negotiate with a legally declared terror organization. If this is respecting the rule of law, I’d hate to experience his idea of the DIS-respect of law. Obama is insane; He can’t fix his messing up of the US so he also is trying to mess up the only democracy in the Middle East by favoring the bullies. This will not end well for the US.