What Bizarro parallel universe is this again?
Before I start my normal rant, I wanted to take a moment for reflection. I am thankful that more people were not killed or injured in the explosion at the Con-Agra Foods plant in Garner this past week. In my years in emergency response, I have never personally been to such a large scale conflagration, for which I am also grateful. I have a friend who was in the facility at the time, as I am sure may be the case with other readers, as well. Fortunately, my friend was unharmed. Other families and individuals were not so fortunate. As I continue to thank my God that my friend was alive and well, I also thank Him that there were not more people seriously injured or killed in that explosion than was the case. I invite you to join me in those prayers of thanksgiving and for the recovery and comfort of the victims and their families.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming, already in progress.
I often ask the question, "What Bizarro parallel universe is this again?" I have been reading the headlines of various news outlets and am scratching my balding, sun burned, shaking head.
People often think that the nation of Iran just plain hates the United States. There are, however, many freedom loving people in that country. Just this past week, there was an election in which there was obvious fraud, and freedom lovers have been protesting the election results. A dictator never relinquishes power willingly. As Vladimir Lenin so eloquently put it, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
People are willing to risk their lives to simply express their outrage about their government's actions in Iran. Dissidents are being beaten, tortured, arrested, and suppressed. Links to the outside world and media are being severed. And yet citizens there by the thousands are willing to continue to let their outrage be made known.
Cross the ocean to America, the supposed bastion of freedom in the world. We saw a few "tea party" demonstrations. We had some "Take Back Our State" rallies. People are indeed demonstrating, but I do not see the level of disgust, passion, and outrage seen in Iran. We have watched our freedoms diminish incrementally. We have seen election fraud. We have seen outright scandal and cronyism, especially at the state and federal levels of government. And yet the outrage seems to be a dull roar compared to what we are seeing in Iran. Something just seems backwards to me.
On one news web site, I just read had this headline: "Former President George H.W. Bush: 'There's too much government intervention into everything...too much spending…'"
All I can say is, "Wow, George…ya' think??" Where was your advice when your son was running up our spending and national debt? Sure, debt and spending are far worse now than when Junior was in office, but a lot happened under the younger Bush's watch. In the breeze, I hear the faint echo of "Read my lips…no new taxes." Hypocrisy only goes so far. What parallel universe is this again?
I was astonished with another of today's headlines. Apparently, we have released four prisoners who were detainees at Guantanamo Bay and flew them to Bermuda for release. Let me get this straight. We took four men captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and released them in a tropical paradise. Instead of dumping them from an airplane with no parachute in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, we dumped them upon the people of Bermuda so they can swim in a tropical resort and potentially become British subjects with travel privileges. What Bizarro parallel universe is this again?
When the health care industry boos the proposed health care (read socialized medicine) plans under the Obama Administration, they are simply dismissed as "fear mongering". I would think that the ones who have worked in the best health care system in the world (regardless of what director Michael Moore has to say) would know better than a man who has never held a real private job in his inexperienced life. Eh, what do doctors know? Professional politicians know better. What Bizarro parallel universe is this again?
The only thing that has made much sense lately is the dismissal of a nepotism receiving public leach like Mary Easley from her over compensated, do nothing job with NC State University. Then again, having worked there for several years when I first moved to North Carolina, I saw a lot of over compensated, do nothing employees at that institution.
There has to be a trans-dimensional portal around here somewhere to get us back to our own parallel universe. But where to find it?
Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2009
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Column for June 5, 2008
Holy cow! I actually agree with Obama on something...sort of.
I will admit that I would rather be stabbed to death with a plastic fork than vote for Barack Hussein Obama. The same for Hillary Clinton, for that matter. I am almost that way about John McCain, as well, though my feelings about his candidacy are not quite as visceral. I find him repugnant to my sense of decent government nonetheless.
Imagine my surprise when I found something about which I agree with Obama…well, almost. I believe in equal opportunity critique, and find just as many problems with so called conservatives as I do with liberals. One recent issue that came up was whether or not our President should be willing to sit down and have discussions with representatives of other nations deemed to be our country's enemies.
A couple of weeks ago, Barack Hussein Obama was quoted as saying "I want everybody to be absolutely clear about this because George Bush and McCain have suggested that me being willing to sit down with our adversaries is a sign of weakness and sign of appeasement." He believes that a President should be willing to sit down and have diplomatic discussions with adversarial regimes. Personally, I believe that he is 100% correct.
Thomas Jefferson had the same viewpoint as Obama, just with a slightly different end goal, I suspect. The United States negotiated The Treaty of Tripoli with several nations in 1797 in an attempt to end the Barbary Pirate conflict. Prior to finally voting for Lee's Resolution for independence on July 2, 1776 and the initial signing of the Declaration of Independence two days later, the Second Continental Congress drafted and sent The Olive Branch Petition to King George III of England in 1775. I have taught extensively on and love that portion of US history.
Obama said that sitting down and talking was the method of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, and he is correct. The 1986 Reykjavík, Iceland summit between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in comes to mind. There were Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty talks (SALT) in 1969 in Helsinki, Finland. There was SALT II in 1979. We also had START I and START II (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) in 1991 and 1993, all with the Soviets and later with what became Russia.
The United States has a long history of having talks with our adversaries. I find it amusing that as much as the Republican presidential candidates kept referencing Ronald Reagan during the debates, they refuse to follow his lead in dealing with nations such as Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. I only wish that Reagan took that lead with other nations, as well.
Having dialogue with your adversaries does not show weakness nor legitimize their positions. It shows your willingness to be reasonable while being strong enough to stand for your convictions. That is, provided that you do not acquiesce.
For over 50 years, the US has had a failed policy of cutting off Cuba with a futile embargo. We have nixed all travel by US citizens to the island nation, as well as all trade. While we maintain the position that trade with China will bring about reform and a penchant for our way of life and freedom, we still snub Cuba. Personally, I believe that if we showed them freedom, American goods and ingenuity, and exported our values, then there would come reform from the bottom up. Instead, we have helped that nation remain in the 1950's. I heard one reporter describe his recent visits to Cuba as being "a scene right out of The Godfather, Part 2". I am very familiar with that movie, considering that The Godfather is my all time favorite movie, and I have seen the trilogy many times.
Here is where I differ from Barack Hussein Obama on his position of dialogue with our adversaries. I do not believe for one minute that Obama has the best interest of the US in the forefront of his mind. I believe that he is an appeaser with a soft spot for Islamic terrorists. From my readings and hearing, Obama believes that our own nation is inherently the source of evil in this world while he is soft on Islamic nations who perpetrate violence on the rest of the world. He has already had meetings with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran. I doubt that his meetings had the same tone they would have if I was the one meeting with him.
The difference between Obama's example of Ronald Reagan and myself is that Reagan "carried a big stick" into his meetings and spoke from a position of power and confidence. I personally have no problem with letting someone like Ahmadinejad know that if he messes with us or our troops in Iraq, that I would not hesitate to turn the sands if Iran into a sea of glass and bomb all of Persia back into the Stone Age. Sure, a good portion of that backwards, Third World nation is there already, but I would oblige further should he attack or meddle with the United States.
Though I agree with Obama that we should always be willing to talk with our adversaries, I do agree more with the Teddy Roosevelt philosophy when he quoted loosely from an old African proverb. In 1901, Roosevelt said we should, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." I do not necessarily agree with his foreign policy of "Big Stick Diplomacy" as it was used (I will not get into a long winded discussion of The Monroe Doctrine or Roosevelt's Corollary), but I do believe that we should always negotiate from a position of authority, power, confidence, and with a perspective that will always put our own nation's interests first. I doubt Barack Hussein Obama has that capability.
I will admit that I would rather be stabbed to death with a plastic fork than vote for Barack Hussein Obama. The same for Hillary Clinton, for that matter. I am almost that way about John McCain, as well, though my feelings about his candidacy are not quite as visceral. I find him repugnant to my sense of decent government nonetheless.
Imagine my surprise when I found something about which I agree with Obama…well, almost. I believe in equal opportunity critique, and find just as many problems with so called conservatives as I do with liberals. One recent issue that came up was whether or not our President should be willing to sit down and have discussions with representatives of other nations deemed to be our country's enemies.
A couple of weeks ago, Barack Hussein Obama was quoted as saying "I want everybody to be absolutely clear about this because George Bush and McCain have suggested that me being willing to sit down with our adversaries is a sign of weakness and sign of appeasement." He believes that a President should be willing to sit down and have diplomatic discussions with adversarial regimes. Personally, I believe that he is 100% correct.
Thomas Jefferson had the same viewpoint as Obama, just with a slightly different end goal, I suspect. The United States negotiated The Treaty of Tripoli with several nations in 1797 in an attempt to end the Barbary Pirate conflict. Prior to finally voting for Lee's Resolution for independence on July 2, 1776 and the initial signing of the Declaration of Independence two days later, the Second Continental Congress drafted and sent The Olive Branch Petition to King George III of England in 1775. I have taught extensively on and love that portion of US history.
Obama said that sitting down and talking was the method of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, and he is correct. The 1986 Reykjavík, Iceland summit between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in comes to mind. There were Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty talks (SALT) in 1969 in Helsinki, Finland. There was SALT II in 1979. We also had START I and START II (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) in 1991 and 1993, all with the Soviets and later with what became Russia.
The United States has a long history of having talks with our adversaries. I find it amusing that as much as the Republican presidential candidates kept referencing Ronald Reagan during the debates, they refuse to follow his lead in dealing with nations such as Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. I only wish that Reagan took that lead with other nations, as well.
Having dialogue with your adversaries does not show weakness nor legitimize their positions. It shows your willingness to be reasonable while being strong enough to stand for your convictions. That is, provided that you do not acquiesce.
For over 50 years, the US has had a failed policy of cutting off Cuba with a futile embargo. We have nixed all travel by US citizens to the island nation, as well as all trade. While we maintain the position that trade with China will bring about reform and a penchant for our way of life and freedom, we still snub Cuba. Personally, I believe that if we showed them freedom, American goods and ingenuity, and exported our values, then there would come reform from the bottom up. Instead, we have helped that nation remain in the 1950's. I heard one reporter describe his recent visits to Cuba as being "a scene right out of The Godfather, Part 2". I am very familiar with that movie, considering that The Godfather is my all time favorite movie, and I have seen the trilogy many times.
Here is where I differ from Barack Hussein Obama on his position of dialogue with our adversaries. I do not believe for one minute that Obama has the best interest of the US in the forefront of his mind. I believe that he is an appeaser with a soft spot for Islamic terrorists. From my readings and hearing, Obama believes that our own nation is inherently the source of evil in this world while he is soft on Islamic nations who perpetrate violence on the rest of the world. He has already had meetings with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran. I doubt that his meetings had the same tone they would have if I was the one meeting with him.
The difference between Obama's example of Ronald Reagan and myself is that Reagan "carried a big stick" into his meetings and spoke from a position of power and confidence. I personally have no problem with letting someone like Ahmadinejad know that if he messes with us or our troops in Iraq, that I would not hesitate to turn the sands if Iran into a sea of glass and bomb all of Persia back into the Stone Age. Sure, a good portion of that backwards, Third World nation is there already, but I would oblige further should he attack or meddle with the United States.
Though I agree with Obama that we should always be willing to talk with our adversaries, I do agree more with the Teddy Roosevelt philosophy when he quoted loosely from an old African proverb. In 1901, Roosevelt said we should, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." I do not necessarily agree with his foreign policy of "Big Stick Diplomacy" as it was used (I will not get into a long winded discussion of The Monroe Doctrine or Roosevelt's Corollary), but I do believe that we should always negotiate from a position of authority, power, confidence, and with a perspective that will always put our own nation's interests first. I doubt Barack Hussein Obama has that capability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
