Rotating Header Image



Dot-Red Yesterday, I wrote about Barack Obama’s offensive bragging that, so he claimed recently, boastfully, in an interview with CNN’s Ed Henry, that we’ve (meaning, he has) restored America’s standing in the world. Later in the evening, I watched O’Reilly’s broadcast on FOX News and he stated (I paraphrase), “the stats do support that Barack Obama has improved our standing in the world”.

I thought I’d explore just what the “restor(ation)” is as to the “standing of the (the U.S.) in the world“. I have no research staff at my disposal and I make no attempts to counter O’Reilly’s statement as to the “stats” he’s referred to in acknowledging Obama’s remark. However, it’s a curious area of inquiry: what it means, specifically, for the U.S. to be “restored” as to some speculative understanding of “world popularity” such that “America’s standing” has been “restored”.

To understand the declaration, one must first assume that where we were versus where are we now is presumed to be (or has been) modified in some “once not whole, now whole” or “restored” fashion as per Obama’s boast. Whatever he’s referring to, then, it’s limited to himself since it’s his declaration.

So it suggests deceit — certainly a subjugation of the United States of America to his lone personality — because the declaration is offensive to a Republic, particularly from someone sworn to represent and not “rule” over. Obama’s problem is his misperception of his relationship in the nation and as a President with the nation.

Here in the U.S.A., Barack Obama is sliding faster than a granite block in a warm lake among the American voters who elected him to office (ACE describes Obama’s falling condition as “radioactive” because the biggest falloff of support for Obama is in Democrat-laden areas — the rest of us have not deemed him “popular” at all, nor supported his politics nor goals [nor associates], so the noticable loss in Obama’s support is from among those who once did support him, just one short year ago). The sizzle he presented in campaigning is revealing itself to not be from steak but that of mere crackly sounds that stopped a few days after he was inaugurated.

Dot-Red ACE is far more candid about this than I (and this site makes an edit [“*”] for content):

So he lied.

Greg Gutfeld (was up late last night) noted the bowing controversy and called it, using Andy Levy’s phrase, a “blog issue.” By which he meant a topic that gets predictable heat on blogs, but when you try to discuss it in the “real world,” the reaction is “ehhh.”

That may be so. To be honest, I had a bit of trouble drumming up a lot of passion about this. My real beef here isn’t that what Obama is doing is wrong.

My actual beef is that the crap Obama is doing is irrelevant. No one gives a flying f*ck if you bow to them, or you say nice things about “working together to reach our collective goals,” or this ridiculous conceit that just because of Obama’s “personal presence” — a historic presidency, drenched in drama, topped with butter-baked crumbs of hope — is going to make a lick of difference. Nations pursue their own policy goals — period. You change the goals a nation might pursue by offering carrots and sticks, by buying them off or making it so costly to pursue a particular goal they refrain from doing so.

“Diplomacy” is merely a polite manner of announcing these carrots and sticks.

So my point, then, is that what Obama is doing is perfectly trivial, and to get all outraged about it actually invests his empty and feckless symbolism with a power it doesn’t have. Obama’s bowing to a Saudi king does nothing to improve our relations with the Islamic world. And neither, frankly, does Cheney shaking his hand as an equal. Neither matters — and the problem here is that Obama is convinced these things not only matter, but are well-nigh determinative.

This malignant narcissist thinks that nations will change their fundamental national goals based simply on the (purported) fact that Obama is charming, nice, and awesome.

Dot-Red I agree with ACE in those statements. My interest in this issue is mostly fascination with the extent to which Barack Obama is, quite literally, lost in his mind, like there are actual spaces in there where he exists and then shouts-out from the enclaves of distant, far-removed reality. Because Obama continues to be the source of bizarre, tenuous to a point of snapping, reality, as are those he “surrounds” himself with. As if they’ve been hatched from a source other than our nation. Or, rather, hatched from a source contrary to what our nation is, like mold grown on the backstairs: from the source but antithetical to the source.

Obama’s self-promoting this week (that he’s “restored America’s standing in the world”) appears to refer to that he’s gone around the world, somewhat, and affirmed with and been affirmed by others on our planet that “America” as he calls this nation, is, indeed, needy of being liked.

Dot-Red Obama is engaged in the use of words that are contrary to what most everyone else defines by those words, so the message is confused and often sneaked into another context: what he’s “improved” is a denigration of — or affirmed a low estimation of — the U.S.A. and that’s being interpreted as “us” being “popular”. We’re standing now because Obama affirms elsewhere that the U.S.A. is awful. Obama seems eager to affirm that perception to and with other nations: presto, we’re “standing” (or “popular again”) in that backwards-forwards-upside-down-downside-up tricky sorta’ way. As long as Obama agrees elsewhere and in self-promoting acts that the U.S.A. agrees that we’re awful, that affirms that opinion maintained elsewhere, so they “like” Obama more because he affirms that opinion. Easy! Popular!

Good relationships are beneficial, certainly. But the Left’s needs to be “popular” is based upon an equal need to declare the U.S. “not popular”: you have to be functioning of the perspective that “America isn’t” inorder to advocate that “America needs”.

If we’re criticized or deemed “unpopular”, the Left’s response is “it’s because the U.S. is bad” or otherwise, inevitably wrong or to-be-blamed. The Left then uses this perspective to ridicule the United States as it does and has done, incessantly, about all Republican Presidents.

Ronald Reagan and George Bush were the biggest targets for this line of denigration by the Left. It might be declared that, because President Bush was strong on national security, that he was also the most highly criticized by the Left, but in my experience, all said and done, Republican Presidents (and Congressional majorities) are criticized the Left using this line of denigration (“we need to improve our standing in the world” and “we lost our popularity” with the implication then being, “and you caused it” — so followed to the conclusion, then, doing away with the Republican/s will then do away with our “loss of popularity” or so the Left so often alleges).

So I don’t assume that it’s the War on Terror (since replaced with “Objections to Man Made Disasters” or something or other by the “mustn’t say ‘terror’ or ‘war’ Leftwing) or, before that, the Reaganomics (“trickle down economics doesn’t work,” the Left criticized, while human nature and history proves that it does, and so did Ronald Reagan and a Republican majority in Congress); I don’t assume it’s these overall, big-ticket goals and engagements by Republican Presidents, but that they are Republican. In other words, the Left ignores the goals and achievements (including all the benefits) involved with the realization of these goals by Republican Presidents, and various other cultures and nations “don’t like America” and such because they oppose the goals and benefits FOR THE U.S.A., too, being Leftwing themselves.

It’s not our nation or people “the world” likes, to some in this world, it’s the idea that Obama is on the scene now and is affirming that the U.S. admits we’re the bad guys, we did it, it’s our fault, we’re needy, please like us again, so we have “standing”. Because that’s Obama’s message (‘Adulate him, Forget the U.S.A.’), but it’s not the message of this nation, nor represents our “need” — Obama’s ongoing and increasing disapproval ratings prove such.

In a land where, in 2009, “68%” of the population thinks that suicide bombing is a supportable activity (referring to Iran), Obama’s popular.

To a Communist dictator who has murdered his own people numerous times over — among many other bastardizations of civilizations, too numerous to enumerate here — Fidel Castro is a big fan of Barack Obama’s.

It’s not that Obama bows to other governments (though I do have a problem with Obama saluting the flags of other nations during the performances of their national anthems — specifically, Russia’s and China’s — while he refuses to do so in the U.S.A. for ours), it’s that he’s so obviously not present for the United States of America in any secure fashion. As in, he appears impervious to the fact that the job of the Presidency is service to the nation, to “America,” — that nation he places at a distance from himself — that the nation does not exist to adulate Barack Obama. I doubt the world does, either.

C O M M E N T S : now closed