Much fuss is made nowadays of 'questioning' someone's patriotism. Spineless politicians squirm and equivocate when asked if they question anyone else's patriotism, regardless of how anti-American that person's statements or actions may be.
I am not a spineless politician.
I not only question the patriotism of Barack the Obamessiah, I deny it exists altogether. Allow me to explain. First, let's define patriotism (according to the dictionary, not political correctness):
Now, he has renovated his campaign jet, removing the American flag from the tail and replacing it with his own symbol. He will probably take that non-American jet to Switzerland for his overseas fundraiser next month.
The Obamessiah appears to have done away with all personal loyalty to the United States of America, and is clearly making a play to be a man of the global people. His radical narcissism has apparently led him to believe that he is the savior of the entire world, and is therefore simply using the Presidency as a stepping stone to his soon-to-be-global reign.
He has given up all pretense at wanting to be a proud American first, defend the Constitution and defend America from her foreign enemies, and proudly strive to preserve American greatness and world leadership.
Do I question his patriotism? Absolutely! He has proven by his own words and actions that he is incapable of American patriotism.
The real question is this: with the Obamessiah's stated goals of blaming America first for the world's evils, re-making America into a new Europe, allowing our enemies to have their way, and subjugating America to U.N. control, when do we start talking about treason?
As an FYI, here's the definition of treason:
There's my two cents.
I am not a spineless politician.
I not only question the patriotism of Barack the Obamessiah, I deny it exists altogether. Allow me to explain. First, let's define patriotism (according to the dictionary, not political correctness):
Patriotism: pa·tri·ot·ism [pey-tree-uh-tiz-uhm] devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyaltyNow, let us count the ways (just a few of them) that Barack the Obamessiah has turned his back on American patriotism. First, he refused to wear an American flag lapel pin. At the time, he said it was because he wanted to show 'true patriotism' which meant that a lapel pin wasn't necessary. His supporters ridiculed those of us who questioned this small thing as a sign of a bigger attitude problem. Then, he pledged to negotiate directly with terrorists and terrorist states, saying it was because we couldn't ignore our enemies. His followers ridiculed those of us who said this wasn't sufficient action to defend America, and that his pledge was a naive signal of weakness to those enemies. Even now, when the Iraq war is essentially won, he won't admit that the U.S. military was the driving force behind the victory. Then, he went to Berlin and spoke as a citizen of world rather than a man who wanted to be President of the United States, apologizing for the evils America has wrought upon the world. The only bill of note that he has sponsored in the Senate is the Global Poverty Act, which would amount to a tax on America for the benefit of the rest of the world while submitting American sovereignty to U.N. control.
Now, he has renovated his campaign jet, removing the American flag from the tail and replacing it with his own symbol. He will probably take that non-American jet to Switzerland for his overseas fundraiser next month.
The Obamessiah appears to have done away with all personal loyalty to the United States of America, and is clearly making a play to be a man of the global people. His radical narcissism has apparently led him to believe that he is the savior of the entire world, and is therefore simply using the Presidency as a stepping stone to his soon-to-be-global reign.
He has given up all pretense at wanting to be a proud American first, defend the Constitution and defend America from her foreign enemies, and proudly strive to preserve American greatness and world leadership.
Do I question his patriotism? Absolutely! He has proven by his own words and actions that he is incapable of American patriotism.
The real question is this: with the Obamessiah's stated goals of blaming America first for the world's evils, re-making America into a new Europe, allowing our enemies to have their way, and subjugating America to U.N. control, when do we start talking about treason?
As an FYI, here's the definition of treason:
Aside from that mention of assassination, it seems pretty dead on to me.
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
There's my two cents.
9 comments:
Do YOU wear an American flag pin wherever you go?
C'mon, now, what are we expecting of our political candidates? Red, white and blue striped socks?
***
Tomorrow night I'm attending a Barack Obama meeting at a colleague's house ... I'll let you know what information comes of that!
Kate - thanks for your comment!
No, I don't wear an American flag pin wherever I go. I'm also not running for President. As I've blogged about before, the flag pin itself isn't that big of a deal, but when taken in context of all these other things, I think we have a firmly established pattern of very un-American behavior. That's my point. For someone seeking to lead the country, shouldn't they be proud of and firmly in favor of the country? I think so. Putting yourself out there for such a high-profile position automatically changes the rules in certain ways, and this expectation of big-time American cheerleading is one of them.
Please do come back and let me know what you find out at your meeting - I'm very curious!
Happy to cross post. Nice article.
Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth
Done.
Obama takes money from Palestinians and other things that questions his patriotism
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/08/obama-takes-money-from-palestinians-and-other-things-that-questions-his-patriotism.html
1. The flag pin--irrelevant. Totally. Not a qualification to be president. Not a disqualification from being president. 100% irrelevant.
2. Negotiating with terrorists--not unpatriotic. It's a strategy. You may disagree with the strategy, but it's not unpatriotic. Reagan committed to talking with the USSR, was he unpatriotic? Donnie Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein (after knowing about the chemical attacks on the Kurds), was he unpatriotic? We supplied weapons to the Taliban in 1980s, was that unpatriotic? Or were they questions of strategy? If you're honest with yourself, you know the answer.
3. Citizen of the world--not unpatriotic. I am both a citizen of Wichita, Kansas, America and the world. Does that mean I hate all but one of those places? Plus, the idea that any of us are not citizens of the world is SOOOO 18th century. We tried isolationism before...it didn't work out. Our world is more connected and integrated than ever before...in fact, I would bet you have more foreign-made material on your person right now than American. You must really be anti-American. Obama did not say he was not a citizen of America. He said he was a citizen of the world...nothing, NOTHING, wrong with that. We need to start acting like we're part of the community rather than acting like we're above/insulated from it. The problems of the world will quickly (and have) become our problems unless we start recognizing, in the immortal words of High School Musical, "we're all in this together." Does not mean you hate America to acknowledge that you are also a citizen of the world.
4. Global Poverty Act--not unpatriotic. How is it unpatriotic to share our resources with other countries, even through some UN oversight? I can understand (even though I disagree with) your policy concerns about that policy, but it doesn't seem to be anti-American to advocate that policy. Or, is the standard now "any policy that's not conservative is unpatriotic"?
5. The jet--see flag pin, above.
Finally, let me say your insinuation of treason is ABSURD. I mean that, no sugarcoating. ABSURD.
First, your "evidence":
***The real question is this: with the Obamessiah's stated goals of blaming America first for the world's evils, re-making America into a new Europe, allowing our enemies to have their way, and subjugating America to U.N. control, when do we start talking about treason?***
You must produce evidence of this, from OBAMA's OWN MOUTH (not some conservative blogger's spin on Obama's words). That means, quotes where Obama "states his goals" of:
1. Blaming America for all the world's problems ("stated" implies that he has actually said that his goal).
2. Re-making America into a new Europe.
3. Allowing our enemies to have their way.
4. Subjecting us to the UN's control.
You will not be able to find such quotes (and I mean quotes where he advocates EXACTLY the things you accuse him of advocating--unfiltered), because they don't exist.
Second, your definition of treason:
***1.the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2.a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 3.the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.***
When has Obama acted to OVERTHROW his government? How is trying to be the leader of one's government overthrowing it?
When has he violated his allegiance to America? He's led the Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance before, is that enough?
Whose trust has he violated (besides a bunch of conservative bloggers)? As an aside, McCain's positional flip-flops have probably violated trust too...is he a traitor?
Again, the treason thing is ABSURD. There is no other way to characterize it. None. You disagree with him on policy. That does not entitle you to call him a traitor. Just as it does not entitle him to call you a traitor.
Well, I don't see my two comments, but for the record... I absolutely agree with your post. I have never believed that Obama had America's best interests at heart.
We get mocked when we say anything about his middle day ( or first or last name for that matter ), but I truly believe he has sympathies toward the Palestinians and that he believes it when he says "I am a citizen of the world."
When Zogby or anyone else asks me if I am a citizen of my local community, the US, or the world... I always say I am an American citizen.
You did a great job. I'm happy to cross post and hope others will also.
Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth
Michael -
No, it's not totally irrelevant. You're missing the forest for the trees. The pin itself is a small thing, yes, but the attitude that causes him to ditch the pin is critical. He has redefined patriotism to mean disagreeing with Bush and Republicans, consequences be damned. It is this attitude that is dangerous to America.
The breakdown in your comparison between Reagan/USSR and Obama/Iran is that it truly was a stalemate between the USSR and America. We were pretty much equals, and one of us had to blink; we both had much to lose if a nuclear war actually broke out. With Iran, the scenario is completely different. They have nothing to lose (I recently mentioned this mindset, which is the key thing to understand when dealing with radical Islam), and therefore negotiations serve no purpose other than to delay action on the part of Iran's enemies. Thus, all attempts at negotiation are harmful to America because it will ultimately bring harm to Americans. That is the decision which Obama has made. Rummy/Hussein is also different because of the disparate power level - while the SecDef is a major player, he is not the President. It still conveys the message that Iran has not yet reached equality. Obama committed to personally sitting down with Ahmadinejad, foolishly granting the power of the Presidency to an Iranian station that does not warrant it. This may not seem like a big deal to most normal people, but it is one of the...let's say nuances...that makes politics work.
I see your point about strategy, though, so I will retract the blanket statement about negotiating with terrorists. I concede there may be times (like with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 80's) where it may be necessary to deal with the lesser of two evils. General point withdrawn; specific point against Obama/Iran remains firmly in effect.
Regarding your 'citizen of the world' and Global Poverty Act points, this is a question of prioritization. Yes, obviously, we are all citizens of the world while also being citizens of America. The question at stake here is: which is the priority for Obama? His constant looking to Europe as being correct (as in the bilingual flap), and his apology for America's evils (as in his Berlin speech) are just two immediate examples that I can think of that indicate where his priorities are. He clearly views America as being the problem and needing to be fixed. His socialist policies indicate that he believes that fixing should re-make America to look more like Europe. As a believer in American exceptionalism, I take offense at the suggestion that we're broken and need to be re-made into Europe's image. Obviously, there are plenty of things wrong with this country, but the way to fix them is NOT to mirror Europe. They have a failed economic state that is drowning under their own entitlements, their unchecked immigration is causing violence and security nightmares, and they have almost totally capitulated to Islamic law, and yet they sniff down their noses at us and think we're the backwards ones! It would almost be funny, if it weren't so potentially damaging. The last thing we need is to become more like Europe.
What we need is to unleash good old-fashioned American ingenuity and freedom on our problems. Health care? Let the free market determine prices, and let people get plans from out-of-state. This introduces competition, which always results in better products and services for lower cost. Education? How about we re-introduce concepts like math, reading, and science rather than the agenda-driven curriculum of the NEA, which seems far more interested in promoting the homosexual agenda, condom usage, and protecting the feelings of others. For crying out loud, kids can't even play tag at recess because that means some of them will lose! *gasp* Life is all about how you handle your losses, and we're raising an entire generation of spoiled brats who've never had to work hard at anything and who can't handle conflict or losing. It's a bad sign for the future, if you ask me. I could go on, but the point is that America has always fixed its problems using freedom, ingenuity, and a hard work ethic, and there's no reason to abandon that process for European nanny-state control.
Have you ever stopped to wonder how we've attained such immense wealth and achieved such incredible things (i.e. putting a man on the moon, nuclear power, etc.) in just over 230 years with a population of only 300 million? No civilization in the history of the planet has been able to do what we've done with any amount of time or people. So how did we make it happen? Freedom. The freedom to succeed if we're willing to work hard and fill a need in the marketplace (of course, this means we have the freedom to fail, too, but that's part of the game). It's the American way. It's American exceptionalism, and Barack Obama has turned his back on it in his policies, his statements, and his actions.
Now, you are, of course, correct that we're 'all in this together'. As you say, isolationism isn't realistic anymore. I never said we needed to go to that extreme. My point was that we need to prioritize, and the Global Poverty Act is a perfect example of that. I explained a lot of this in the post I referenced, so I'll be brief here. This act would do two things. First, it would implement a tax on being American. That should offend you. This would be akin to implementing a tax on being black or a tax on being male. It's ridiculous on its face, and it's offensive at its core. It would also send a big chunk of money straight out of the country (which is NOT what we need during a shaky economic time) to poor nations, and it would accomplish precisely squat. No significant effect. On the other hand, that tax money would equate to almost $3,000 a year per American (not per household, per person). Do you think people should simply burn $250 of their paycheck each month? That's essentially what this tax would do, since it accomplishes nothing. Actually, that's not true...we're sending it to poor nations, many of whom hate America. So, the proper question would be: do you think people should send about $250 of their paycheck each month to people who hate them? Again, it's ludicrous, and it's a matter of grossly mis-placed priorities. The President needs to be America's biggest cheerleader and defender first, and then worry about the rest of the world. Look at it this way - when you have kids, should you pay more attention to them, or my kids? Should you be forced to send me money for my kids' college tuition? While it would be really nice for me to get the extra dough, it's a clear matter of mis-placed priorities on your part, especially if you sending money to me results in a shortfall of college money for your own kids. See what I mean?
The second thing is that we get put under U.N. control on matters like the world court, environmental issues, and economic issues. These are terrible things, again because most of the U.N. is populated with petty thugs and dictators who hate America. Do you honestly believe that an American would get a fair trial in a world court? I do not. Do you believe that America's Navy should be restricted from certain coastal waters because a particular sea creature lives there, when those waters happen to be one of the biggest naval bases in the country? Are we really supposed to leave that base undefended? That's been attempted off the coast of San Diego (the LOST treaty), and if the U.N. had its way, our Navy would be prevented from conducting maneuvers there. Do you really believe this global warming thing? It's a complete and total hoax, and is being used as a vehicle to stick the wealthiest countries with massive global taxes. Well, scratch that...only some of the wealthiest countries...others, like India and China, are exempt. I wonder why? Doesn't seem terribly fair, you know.
And that's exactly the point. By giving up American sovereignty, we open the floodgates of lawsuits, global mandates, and the like, which will do nothing but destroy America, piece by piece.
No, any policy that's not conservative isn't unpatriotic. Any policy that doesn't put America's needs before the world's needs is.
The jet - I agree, see my reasoning above. By itself, not a big deal; taken in context, it's yet another sign of his attitude, in this case saying that he's above being an American.
The treason is a bit over the top, perhaps, I'll give you that. In fact, I used that word deliberately to see what kind of reaction I would get. :) But, it's not quite as absurd as you might think. Those quotes do exist, so here you go:
1. Obama already blamed America - he did that in Berlin:
"I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions." Spoken to an international audience, this was in especially poor taste.
2. His policies, as discussed above, are European in essence. If you want a specific example, let's do the language thing:
"Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English, they will learn English. You need to make sure your child can speak Spanish." He is saying that Europe has it right because they speak multiple languages and we don't.
3. Again, as discussed before, his stated policies regarding Iran will do absolutely nothing to stop them from attaining nuclear power...Iran gets their way, almost certainly to our detriment. If you want a different example, how about terrorism in general? He said, “I have confidence that our system of justice is strong enough to deal with terrorists.” This means he looks at terrorism as a law enforcement problem rather than a military problem. Who else viewed terrorism that way? Bill Clinton. How many attacks did the U.S. suffer under Clinton's policy? Several, culminating in 9/11 (Osama bin Laden himself said that Clinton's inaction was one of the main reasons he attempted something as audacious as 9/11). The fundamental problem with this policy against terrorism is that it's a purely reactionary policy - the terrorists attack first, then we go in and arrest them. The terrorists get their way.
4. Read his bill here. A key excerpt:
"To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."
Now, there's a lot of stuff tucked away in the Millennium Development Goal, which can be found here. It's not just about poverty. It includes things about preferential rights to some people, allowing open immigration, universal education, and one-world government type stuff. And, there are these specific measures:
Submitting American sovereignty on finances: "To introduce binding codes of conduct for transnational companies and effective tax regulation on the international financial markets, investing this money in programmes for poverty eradication." And, "To explore the feasibility of a legally binding convention on overcoming poverty, to be drafted in effective consultation and partnership with people living in poverty themselves."
Submitting American sovereignty on defense: "To carry out the objective of moving towards the abolition of war by practical means, the United Nations Secretariat and interested Governments, or a separate group of Governments, should develop a draft proposal for global disarmament to be discussed in a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament." And, "To establish a commission at the United Nations to devise ways of stopping the technological development of new and more advanced weapons that create new imbalances in global power relationships." I wonder how many millions of people now live free because the United States developed new weapons and created an imbalance of power in their favor?
Submitting American sovereignty on individual rights: "To expand the United Nations arms register in order to show the production and sale of small arms and light weapons. It should include specific names of their producers and traders." Last I checked, we had a right to bear arms per our Constitution without regulation by the United Nations...
The list goes on. These aren't specific statements by Obama, but this is his bill. If you want sources on how the U.N. is corrupt and anti-American, I can provide plenty, but I assume you will stipulate that fact. As such, why would we hand over the control of things like our finances and defense to the U.N.?
I would interpret his blatant efforts at submitting American sovereignty to the U.N. as an overthrow of our government. Would you not? If the U.N. has the final say on the things mentioned above, what else of substance do we have left? We have lost our self-determination, and that means our government (i.e. authority) has been overthrown. When Barack Obama seeks world approval and control rather than American sovereignty, I would say that he has submitted his allegiance to America to his allegiance to the rest of the world. Yes, he has violated the trust of just about everyone (though, in defense of your point, that's nothing new in most politicians).
Yes, I vehemently disagree with him on policy. But, I believe that a reasonable assesment of his history, policies, statements, and proposed goals warrant the question at least being posed. As for treason, aside from being caught red-handed stealing CIA files or some other such spy game, there is really no way to know for sure. But, when I contemplate what he seems intent on doing, it would essentially destroy this country. To me, that's treason. How have pretty much all major civilizations throughout history faded? Not by being defeated from the outside. They grow corrupt, and treasonous forces from inside tear them apart.
I certainly hope my suggestion proves to be unfounded, but what if it doesn't? It'll be too late to change anything, and I think 'I told you so' would seem pretty hollow at that point.
Thanks for your comments!
I'm glad you were able to prove me right...the quotes of Obama's where he lists his "stated goals" of blaming America for ALL the world's problems, re-making America into Europe, allowing our enemies to have their way, and subjecting us to the UNs control DON'T EXIST. The examples you provide are not UNFILTERED (like I requested) and do not state EXACTLY that those are his goals. They require logical leaps, assumptions, and insinuation (all of a conservative bent) to reach your conclusions. So, again, I say, you have NO EVIDENCE for "treason." Barack Obama's "stated" goals are not what you accuse him of (again, stated implies that he has directly said what you accuse him of...you have not proven that).
Just for fun, though, I will address the quotes you do provide:
1. Your quote that "proves" Obama blames America for "all the world's problems" =
***"I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions." Spoken to an international audience, this was in especially poor taste.***
How does saying we're not a perfect country (which even you must agree with) equate to blaming America for all the world's problems?
Don't his phrases "at times" and "there are times" when we've messed up necessarily imply that he thinks we don't mess up all the time?
You have to agree that his final statement is true, don't you, that there have been times when we haven't lived up to our best intentions? Right?
2. Your "evidence" that his "stated goal" (again, "stated" means he has said that exactly) is to remake America into Europe 2.0
=
***His policies, as discussed above, are European in essence. If you want a specific example, let's do the language thing:
"Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English, they will learn English. You need to make sure your child can speak Spanish." He is saying that Europe has it right because they speak multiple languages and we don't.***
First, you didn't accuse him of having policies that are "European in essence." You accused him of having a "stated goal" of turning America into Europe. So, any European-essence policies ARE NOT evidence that he has a stated goal that you accuse him of.
Second, the quote you provide is not a policy. Plus, he's right. Instead of whining about whether or not every single Mexican kid in the U.S. can speak English, we ought to use that energy to encourage and prompt our kids to speak more than one language.
You have to concede that being multilingual is on balance more beneficial to an individual than being unilingual, right? If not, why not?
3. Your "evidence" that he has a "stated goal" (again, stated = exactly stated) of letting our enemies do whatever they want =
IRAN
***Again, as discussed before, his stated policies regarding Iran will do absolutely nothing to stop them from attaining nuclear power...Iran gets their way, almost certainly to our detriment.***
You are expressing an OPINION about the effectiveness of his policies. You are NOT providing direct quoted evidence from Obama where he says "Iran can do whatever they want." Opinions are fine to have, but disagreements with opinions do NOT equal treason.
TERRORISM
***If you want a different example, how about terrorism in general? He said, “I have confidence that our system of justice is strong enough to deal with terrorists.” This means he looks at terrorism as a law enforcement problem rather than a military problem. Who else viewed terrorism that way? Bill Clinton. How many attacks did the U.S. suffer under Clinton's policy? Several, culminating in 9/11 (Osama bin Laden himself said that Clinton's inaction was one of the main reasons he attempted something as audacious as 9/11). The fundamental problem with this policy against terrorism is that it's a purely reactionary policy - the terrorists attack first, then we go in and arrest them. The terrorists get their way.***
Again, this is not evidence that Obama's "stated goal" is to let terrorist's run wild. He thinks the justice system is strong enough to deal with them. Again, you obviously disagree (maybe even rightly so), but that is an OPINION, not evidence of treason or a "stated goal." You ought to occassionally read some thinktanks, blogs, news organizations that disagree with you on this...there are, actually, arguments to be made for the justice system (arguments made by people smarter than you or I on both sides of the issue).
4. Your "evidence" that Obama's "stated goal" (again, stated...well, you get the idea) is to subject us to the UN =
POVERTY ACT
***Read his bill here. A key excerpt:
"To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."
Now, there's a lot of stuff tucked away in the Millennium Development Goal, which can be found here. It's not just about poverty. It includes things about preferential rights to some people, allowing open immigration, universal education, and one-world government type stuff. And, there are these specific measures:
Submitting American sovereignty on finances: "To introduce binding codes of conduct for transnational companies and effective tax regulation on the international financial markets, investing this money in programmes for poverty eradication." And, "To explore the feasibility of a legally binding convention on overcoming poverty, to be drafted in effective consultation and partnership with people living in poverty themselves."
Submitting American sovereignty on defense: "To carry out the objective of moving towards the abolition of war by practical means, the United Nations Secretariat and interested Governments, or a separate group of Governments, should develop a draft proposal for global disarmament to be discussed in a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament." And, "To establish a commission at the United Nations to devise ways of stopping the technological development of new and more advanced weapons that create new imbalances in global power relationships." I wonder how many millions of people now live free because the United States developed new weapons and created an imbalance of power in their favor?
Submitting American sovereignty on individual rights: "To expand the United Nations arms register in order to show the production and sale of small arms and light weapons. It should include specific names of their producers and traders." Last I checked, we had a right to bear arms per our Constitution without regulation by the United Nations...
The list goes on. These aren't specific statements by Obama, but this is his bill. If you want sources on how the U.N. is corrupt and anti-American, I can provide plenty, but I assume you will stipulate that fact. As such, why would we hand over the control of things like our finances and defense to the U.N.?
I would interpret his blatant efforts at submitting American sovereignty to the U.N. as an overthrow of our government. Would you not? If the U.N. has the final say on the things mentioned above, what else of substance do we have left? We have lost our self-determination, and that means our government (i.e. authority) has been overthrown. When Barack Obama seeks world approval and control rather than American sovereignty, I would say that he has submitted his allegiance to America to his allegiance to the rest of the world. Yes, he has violated the trust of just about everyone (though, in defense of your point, that's nothing new in most politicians).***
If you honestly think that any politician will cede the entirety of our sovereignty to the UN on things like weapons, etc., then you have reached a point where evidence no longer matters.
The quotes you cite above do NOT talk about ceding sovereignty. They talk about things like establishing commissions and tracking international production and distribution of small arms (which, actually, is NOT a constitutional right--at least not internationally) and trying to stop the development and spread of new weapons technologies and end war (a very ignoble goal) (and yes, I realize it's not realistic--please don't attack my credibility on that). Again, I would suggest you see that there are actually smart people who really like America who disagree and debate both sides of this issue. Again, this is an OPINION of yours, it is NOT evidence of a "stated goal" to give all our sovereignty to the UN.
You even concede as much when you say "I would interpret" his actions toward the UN as an overthrow of government. Your interpretation.
5. Finally, your conclusion:
***Yes, I vehemently disagree with him on policy. But, I believe that a reasonable assesment of his history, policies, statements, and proposed goals warrant the question at least being posed. As for treason, aside from being caught red-handed stealing CIA files or some other such spy game, there is really no way to know for sure. But, when I contemplate what he seems intent on doing, it would essentially destroy this country. To me, that's treason. How have pretty much all major civilizations throughout history faded? Not by being defeated from the outside. They grow corrupt, and treasonous forces from inside tear them apart.***
Again, you prove my point by saying things like what he "seems intent on doing" or "to ME, that's treason." You have opinions of his policies. You do NOT have evidence (unfiltered) from his mouth of his "stated goals" (as you accused him of having). Your analysis of his policies/speeches/history/etc. is not reasonable, it is clouded with bias. Every time you reach a fork in the proverbial thought road, where the paths are "Obama probably means something evil or anti-American or unpatriotic" OR "Obama probably means something innocuous or a policy with which I disagree," you follow the former path. Your conclusions require assumptions about Obama's character, assumptions about his intentions, and assumptions about his words. And you know what they say about assumptions, right?
Oh, boy...
Based on your arguments, you must be a lawyer or something! ;)
Okay, I think that the crux of our disagreement lies in the context. You said you wanted quotes that were 'UNFILTERED' and that state 'EXACTLY' the things I said. You're correct that those don't exist, but not for the reason you suggest. They don't exist because what you're asking for is a quote without any context whatsoever. That just isn't possible, unless you're willing to have the quote itself lose its meaning. You simply cannot strip the context away from any quote of anyone or anything and still expect to achieve a reasonably accurate interpretation of that quote. Allow me to demonstrate.
"Your teeth are as clean as a flock of sheep. Their wool has just been clipped. They have just come up from being washed. Each of your teeth has its twin. Not one of them is alone."
Huh?! What do teeth have to do with sheep, and who would think sheep are clean? Even if they were, why would anyone say that, anyway? It makes no sense unless you consider the context that this was said thousands of years ago in an ag culture when healthy, well-reared sheep were a direct indication of wealth and privilege (and they didn't have things like toothpaste to really clean their teeth). Studies have shown that beauty is generally considered greater when the face and smile are symmetrical, so this quote would also indicate physical beauty along with the wealth and good hygiene. This passage is a high compliment when you put it in context!
"But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun."
Um, what's soft here? Based on the 'EXACT' quote, we have no idea. How can the light breaking through the window be a cardinal direction, and what does that have to do with Juliet being the sun? Once again, without the proper context, this makes no sense. But, when you realize that this was written in a play hundreds of years ago describing a man smitten by love and comparing his woman favorably to the light of the sun, it makes perfect sense.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life."
What the heck does that mean? The way to what...the grocery store? the moon? enlightenment? And what truth are we talking about? What life? It makes no sense at all, unless you put it into the context as being the words of Jesus Christ speaking about salvation in God's eyes.
What you're demanding that I provide are quotes that completely ignore their own context. You're correct - those kind of quotes don't exist for...well, for much of anything. If that's the sum total of your argument, you win.
While I'm sure your argument would make for a tight, winning legal brief, it isn't as neat and tidy in the real world of gray areas, vague notions, and political double-speak. [Side note: please know that I'm not trying to run down the legal profession here, I'm just saying it's a different way of thinking, as is my world of computers, as is the world of medicine, as is the world of accounting, etc...]
Here's another way to illustrate what I'm saying. Let's take a famous quote, like when Ronald Reagan once challenged Gorbachev to 'tear down this wall'. Now, do we really think that Reagan was simply asking that the wall be torn down? According to your strict definition of 'stated', yes, that is the only conclusion we can reach since that is 'EXACTLY' what he said. However, in the real world of politics, anyone with a clear understanding of history and the dynamics of the day understands that what Reagan was really saying was to tear down the devastating barrier of totalitarianism that prevented freedom and prosperity from reaching the people of Communist nations. Sure, the wall itself needed to go, too, but the wall in question wasn't even in the USSR! It's rather ABSURD (to use one of your terms) to ask the leader of the USSR to tear down a wall in Germany, isn't it? Under your strict definition of 'stated', Reagan's challenge makes no sense. But, when one considers the context, one understands that Reagan was really challenging Gorbachev to bring freedom to his people and the people living under his Communist influence. You only get that meaning by looking at the quote in terms of its real world context.
Steven Covey shares a story (and I'm paraphrasing from memory, so don't consider this a quote) about a time when he was riding on a subway. A man and two children boarded at one stop, and the children promptly began running around, yelling and screaming, and disturbing the rest of the passengers. The father just sat there, staring off into space, doing nothing to stop them. Eventually, Covey approached the man and gently suggested that his children might need to calm down a little bit. The man apologized and explained that they had just come from the hospital, and that his wife (the kids' mother) had just passed away. Covey's contextual understanding of the situation instantly changed.
I believe you're getting so laser-focused on the symantics here (in particular, the single word 'stated') that you are missing my point entirely. We simply cannot disregard context if we are to accurately assess the meaning of statements or quotes, but that is precisely what you're trying to do.
Stop and think about how critical context is to every conversation you have throughout every day. If we were to look purely at the 'EXACT' words that we speak and eliminate all context, we would completely miss things like body language, background understanding of a person or situation, regional aphorisms, cultural differences, and any number of other factors that are critical to correct and accurate communication. There's a difference between simply speaking words and actually communicating, and that difference is context.
When examining a political candidate, in particular, we must take all of those things into account to gain a measure of the character and motivations of that person, which will ultimately give us the best indication of how we think that person would function in office. For example, Hitler signed a peace treaty saying that he wouldn't invade Czechoslovakia...and then he invaded Czechoslovakia the next day. The appeasers in Europe at the time looked at ('EXACTLY') what he said in the treaty and nothing more. They missed (or ignored) the fact that Germany had been rearming and gearing up for war for the previous five years. That was the context that they sorely needed in order to accurately determine that, for Hitler, the treaty was merely a facade and a farce. (Does this sound familiar, like perhaps our current situation with Iran...?)
This concept of context is the basis of all the other rebuttals I've been presenting. My assertions about Obama viewing Europe as correct and America as being to blame, etc. are all based on the context in which Obama makes those statements and the sum total of what we know of his public life, past voting records, and policy positions. If, however, you are unwilling to accept any context at all, there is really no point in continuing the conversation.
A brief response to your comments about assumptions. Yes, I'm making assumptions about Barack Obama. So are you. So is anyone who isn't actually Barack Obama! I'm also making assumptions about you, about my wife, about my co-workers, about the mailman, and about almost every single thing that happens to me every day. Life is a string of assumptions because life is a string of encounters with people who I am not, and situations I have not been in before. And yes, those assumptions are clouded with bias. Could it be any other way? Everyone begins their assumptions from their own particular bias because an assumption is, almost by definition, reaching a conclusion based on too little factual information. When we lack facts but still need to address someone or something, we have to start somewhere, so we automatically start with our own bias. In my case, yes, it's conservative, and yes, it is rarely in favor of Obama. I have reached that bias because I have studied Obama, his policies, and his past history. The facts I have found have led me to my particular bias of him. When I encounter new facts about him, I interpret those facts based on my current bias of him and in relation to the facts I already possess about him.
How hard is it to overcome a bad first impression? Very hard. Why? Because the initial impression is what establishes the other person's bias (the basis for their assumptions) about you. Sure, you can do it, but only if an overwhelming number of newly discovered facts run contrary to the original impression (or bias).
As humans, there's another concept that we really should apply more often: wisdom. Wisdom is 'knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action'. In simpler terms, I would say it is the correct application of knowledge based on our experience. We all have our own sense of wisdom; you can call it an opinion or whatever, but it all boils down to offering our best judgment on a thing based on what we have seen and learned about that thing. You seem to be suggesting that my assumptions are a violation or substandard way of addressing Barack Obama. On the contrary, we all have our assumptions and biases, and they are a very valid way -- indeed, the only way -- of beginning to assess new people or situations. Whereas my bias runs against Obama, yours may run for him. That doesn't make your bias any more or less correct than mine; it is simply a different starting point in how we assess the facts we learn about him. But don't kid yourself that you're not applying your own assumptions or bias when debating mine.
One final thought...if we follow your strict definition of 'stated', then you cannot accurately say that I ever presented evidence for treason since I did not 'EXACTLY' say "I have evidence of Barack Obama's treason and here it is". This fact renders our entire discussion essentially moot.
But it was fun, don't you think? :)
Post a Comment