Land of Os


I find the President’s power to con his fellow lefties amusing. So delighted, are they, by lofty prose and deeper meaning that they don’t notice they’re being hustled.

Its a subtle speech. He asserts the Just War theory, but he immediately also says its not enough anymore. He says that violence is a condition that we human beings are condemned to, but he says we have to change that and leave it behind.

I share with you the response of Boston Globe writer James Carroll, speaking Thursday evening on PBS in Boston – whose glowing review of the President’s Nobel speech reveals the danger of being smarter and better educated than the rest of the world – your eye becomes so tightly pressed against the microscope that you can’t see what’s in the room.

He rejected the old dicotomy between realism and idealism and in a way, what I heard in this speech was, and this is what makes it unusual, an idealistic critique of realism from within.

Ah. Obama’s promises about ending the war in Iraq that got him elected, but he’s now ignoring – those weren’t deceptions, he’s just so thoughtful and deep that he’s overwhelmed by the contradictions!

So, when you get a president who’s just deployed troops to the battlefield asserting that war is not just tragic, it’s folly, and we have to move in our lifetimes to end it as a way of resolving international conflict, then you have something very powerful, and in my experience, very unusual, maybe unprecedented.

So if George Bush had announced that it was folly to invade Iraq just before he did so, liberals would have been so impressed that they would have supported the invasion? His mistake was invading with confidence?

I wish he had made a different decision about Afghanistan, but that too goes to my point because I appreciate the complexity of the position out of which he is speaking. President Obama has declared his authority as someone who’s waging war as someone who’s therefor is in a position to profoundly reject war. It’s a contradiction, it’s a paradox, but there’s a core of wisdom there.

How exciting! But here’s the part of Obama’s speech that should scare the crap out of normal people (while pleasing liberals, of course.) The President declared plainly, it seems to me, his status as an internationalist, as one willing to move us in a direction that will mean ceding U.S. sovereignty to the U.N.

“I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something.”

He’s talking about having an international police force powerful enough to force any nation on the planet to follow the rules as laid out by others.

Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.”

When the world stands together as one. One World. World Government. Consider this idea from a Canadian newspaper.

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

Too many people means too much Climate Change, now doesn’t it? What more rational response to rising tides could there be than forcing all nations to stop procreating so that civilization can be saved?

The world’s other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity’s soaring reproduction rate.
How can the planet be saved without a world government to compel rogue nations to follow Warming Birth Laws? “Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable.”

The message of Obama at Nobel was classic Obama – give a little something to everyone, leave plenty of room to argue that you misunderstood what he was saying even though he was being quite clear, and putting enough perfume on the smelly stuff so it goes unnoticed. As he leads us toward the liberal dream of undoing our sovereignty, he is lauded for the loftiness of his prose.

The Boston Globe observes:

President Obama took the occasion of his Nobel Peace Prize speech to let the world, including doves and hawks, know that he is primarily a realist, eager to build up institutions to advance peace but also willing to use force when necessary.

Which makes him primarily a politician – constantly threading the needle on issues not of primary importance to him in order to please as many people as possible.

The anti-war crowd that demanded him over Hillary because she was too much the politician to end the war quickly doesn’t seem to notice they’re being used. They’re too blown away by his style.

2 Responses to “Land of Os”

  1. 1 Jim

    That makes me think of something.

  2. 2 Brian

    I’m less concerned about manipulation of the leftist twits by TOTUS/POTUS than T/P’s manipulation of ordinary voters. The enthralled media-academic-movie crowd is a write-off, but they don’t matter as much every two years in the voting booth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: