Monday, April 06, 2009
Obama gave a speech yesterday in Prague calling for the global elimination of nuclear weapons because of the danger they pose. It was perhaps one of his most specious and absurd speeches he's ever given (and he's given quite a few worthless speeches in his young political career). Basically, he called on all countries to disarm themselves because having nuclear weapons is dangerous to the world. Does he really think that Britain's stockpile is dangerous to the world? Or ours? Or France's? Or Israel's? Those stockpiles make the world MORE safe, not less. Here's a particularly galling part of his speech: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause.And yet, this is all hot air, since he has utterly failed to do anything about Iran and merely yawned when North Korea tested their missile this weekend. He wants the "good guys" to put down their guns while trusting that the "bad guys" will just play nice. Thanks but no thanks, Neville Chamberlain.
...
Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response -- now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course.
Which brings me to my second point: to a radical leftist like Barack Obama (and who can still deny that he is a radical lefty; why, he makes Bill Clinton look like a conservative), nuclear weapons are to global politics what gun control is to local American politics. Liberals won't give up until the only ones with either nuclear weapons on the macro level or guns on the micro level are those who intend on using them to kill innocent people. As Dennis Prager said today, liberals don't hate evil, they hate weapons.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
You have to read between the lines here. This is New World Order/global governance speech. And yes, this is at the far left end of the spectrum. But don't be fooled into thinking that George Bush, both father and son, did not make their contribution to this effort to consolidate world power and undermine national sovereignty. Here is another quote from Obama's New World Order rhetoric in the speech:
"But now this generation -- our generation -- cannot stand still. We, too, have a choice to make. As the world has become less divided, it has become more interconnected. And we've seen events move faster than our ability to control them -- a global economy in crisis, a changing climate, the persistent dangers of old conflicts, new threats and the spread of catastrophic weapons."
If you have been following the "global economic meltdown" you will have noticed the proposals to regulate the financial system globally. This is what the G20 meeting is really all about - control of the world's wealth through the IMF and Wold Bank, eventually leading to a system of supranational government usurping the sovereignty of nations.
Sorry, I just can't help myself. Here is another excerpt and a prime NWO propaganda:
" To renew our prosperity, we need action coordinated across borders. That means investments to create new jobs. That means resisting the walls of protectionism that stand in the way of growth. That means a change in our financial system, with new rules to prevent abuse and future crisis.
And we have an obligation to our common prosperity and our common humanity to extend a hand to those emerging markets and impoverished people who are suffering the most, even though they may have had very little to do with financial crises, which is why we set aside over a trillion dollars for the International Monetary Fund earlier this week, to make sure that everybody -- everybody -- receives some assistance."
Oh, I agree. Though I believe Obama is much more principled and ideological about this than either Bush ever was, or for that matter, Clinton.
As Prager and Medved said yesterday, the great thing about Clinton and the worst thing about Clinton is that he stood for nothing. So from a conservative viewpoint, he wasn't likely to ever cause serious harm to the country. Obama stands for a lot, and as we're finding out, it's quite radically leftist.
Yeah, there's plenty to the speech to abhor.
"...Though I believe Obama is much more principled and ideological about this than either Bush ever was, or for that matter, Clinton."
I don't know whether he is any more principled or ideological, but he is certainly more overt about it. I see this as being more indicative of the times in which we live than Obama himself, although he is quite good at what he does.
At this stage in history, our government is completely sold out to the central banks. Its been a long time coming, but we are definitely here now. When Obama gave that speech in Berlin prior to becoming president, he let the powers that be know that he was on board with the concept of global government. Here is an excerpt:
"I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world...Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity. That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand."
Whenever you see the use of the term "global citizenship", be aware that you are the targeted recipient of New World Order propaganda. This is what I was speaking about before the election, when I said that Obama had the power of world elites behind him. This is the kind of language that makes you a popular guy with the IMF, the CFR, the UN, the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg etc. Its no mistake that Mr. Kissinger said of Obama,
"He can give new impetus to American foreign policy ... I think that his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a 'new world order' can be created. It's a great opportunity. It isn't such a crisis."
Post a Comment