I listen to Bill Bennett's Morning in America every chance I get. Bill is the calm, optimistic voice of the reformed liberal turned conservative who is knowledgeable and positive about American politics. He has been a firm proponent of the idea that President Obama need only learn the lessons of his actions to rise up to the challenge of performing the job within the parameters that the American public see as proper: Belief in America, protecting American interests and advancing an America centric agenda. The detail of how those basic parameters are implemented is what separates one President from the next. But in the abstract they remain fundamentally unchanged.
Though slow to come to this conclusion, Bill is beginning to show a frustration that the President is not learning the lessons that he should, or at least not acting on them. This seems to be written off due to Obama being either naïve or not so bright.
And a lot of Americans are coming to the same conclusion. Obama must be blindly naïve.
Let me address this.
Every president is expected to do three things: Believe in the America he represents, protect America, and advance American interests. Each president sees these things differently, but at least abstractly this has always been the standard by which a president was judged. People are waiting for President Obama to begin displaying some understanding of this. But he isn't. He continues to down play America's interests on the world stage. He doesn't seem to understand the importance of maintaining the value of the dollar as a world standard for currency. He doesn't care that he is cozying up to our enemies and insulting our allies. These are actions that would appear to prove that the man is politically stone deaf, or naïve.
Here is a young man with only minimal experience at anything other than running for office who conquered America with promises of Hope and Change. No details, no facts, just vague promises. Now you can say he is politically tone deaf to his actions, but I argue that the American people are acting naïvely. Obama promised change but never defined what change he had in mind. It is hard to argue that President Obama is politically naïve when he convinced a majority of the voters to give him control on vague promises of hope, and undefined promises of change. It isn't Obama that is politically stone deaf.
It is time we stop asking why Obama doesn't see the error of his ways and start asking: What might WE be missing?
That's right. WHAT MIGHT WE BE MISSING?
This is where we get to that dangerous “group think” problem. We elected a president and we expect him to begin to adapt to our desires in how he behaves. And now that he hasn’t, those same people that pointed out he was being evasive are whining and are complaining that there is something wrong with Obama’s thinking.
We all know the adage hope for the best and plan for the worst. But the question is, what is your definition of the worst? An incompetent president that bumbles along for two years until we can replace a big chunk of congress? Is that your idea of worst case scenario? After all even if Obama is not very smart, he would still put the interest of the US citizens first, right?
But he isn’t - so what might you be missing?
I propose that President Obama is a bright, impressive guy. I respect and admire him, but do not trust him at all. I do not believe he is naïve, or stupid. About the American voter being naïve or stupid, I am not so sure. If President Obama isn't changing his approach, I figure he is getting the results he wants. I figure he is smart enough and savvy enough to conquer America, then he is smart enough to know what he is doing to America. So what are we missing?
How about this:
“No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.” – President Barack Obama to the United Nations September 24, 2009
President Obama envisions a new world with a vastly reduced America as a part, and a vastly increased United Nations at it’s core.
Why don’t you believe him?
If Obama doesn't defend the dollar, we will end up like Great Britain, just another over indebted industrialized country that used to be a world power. We will end up having to make all kinds of concessions to "world opinion" just to borrow enough money to stay afloat. With health care, social security and 46% of the population depending on government paying their bills, the entire government would be forced to accept terms and it is that kind of concession that destroyed the British Empire in 1946:
Here are a few examples of “loan conditions” that could be imposed.
- Change in the world currency standard.
- Changes in American market advantages.
- Forced to sign the Oslo accords.
- Submit to UN supervision of our courts and political processes.
- Give up the death penalty.
- Pay reparations for the damage we have done to the environment including accepting responsibility for global warming.
- Accepting restrictions on our consumption of natural resources.
- Force citizens to disarm.
- Disbanding our military.
Of course, we don’t have to accept those kind of conditions but the option would be to default on our debts and not pay senior citizens, union government employees or health care.
The way the Washington is printing money in two years if China says “We want to change the terms on which we will buy up the trillions of dollars that Pelosi and Reed spent” what will we do? Take the terms or default.
But remember, if you don't take China’s terms, the people depending on government for health care, social security and a paycheck will vote in someone that will accept any terms. That could be everyone.
Why China might even demand we Obama President for life, or we cut you off and then what are we going to do about it?
Now let me ask you again - WHAT MIGHT WE BE MISSING?
Disagree? Fine, but make sure it isn't because you just know we couldn't have elected someone who can picture a world without superpowers, in which all nations are equal. That is Dangerous Group Thinking, and may prevent you from hearing President Obama describe the future of America in his own words.
Cross Posted at www.Freedoms-light.org