Monday, June 2, 2008

Obama seems to put World Order over America, and that's what scares me the most about him

I want to explain to you today the #1 reason why Obama scares me. And this is just me talking here of course, but Obama scares me because I wonder about his Patriotism. I wonder if he really, honestly has the best interest of the U.S. on his agenda.

Allow me to expound.

I'm scratching my brain at who said this, I have the book around here somewhere, when I find it I'll give this man credit for it, but the idea goes something like this: Over the past 50 years a war was fought between capitalism and communism/socialism, and capitalism won. That was is now over.

I could expound on that, but that would get me off track with the point I want to get across today. That war today, the war of the 21st century will be -- is -- a war between the idea of the nation state versus the idea of a World Order.

Are you a strong patriot of the U.S., or are you a believer that all country's can and should unite and solve all problems as a collective body.

You guys know what it is to be patriots, because I believe most of my readers fit into that category, but I imagine some of you might be on the side of the World Order. Allow me to give some examples of the World Order:

1) World Court: Some people want this court to judge over all the world

2) U.N. Security Council: Some people believe only this body can decide when to go to war

Bill Clinton and George Bush were both against the world court on the grounds that if we signed onto it, it would mean forgoing the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution.

Bill Clinton and George Bush were also both willing to wage war against the will of the U.N. when U.S. interests were at hand. The idea against the U.N. security council is that there are nations among that group who harbor terrorists.

Bill Clinton and George Bush were both patriots. They were both uniters. And they were both closer politically than most people think.

Clinton was a lot more conservative than most conservatives will give him credit for, as NAFTA, capital gains tax cuts, and welfare reform prove. Bush was more liberal than most liberals would give him credit for, as No Child Left Behind, Amnesty, the Prescription Drug Program for Seniors and the lack of a veto on any spending bills proves.

That's a pretty major claim I know, considering the country seems to be so strongly divided along partisan lines. But I honestly believe it to be true, and the reason is because they both are patriots who want to do what's best for their party. (I'm sure you guys might argue this, probably on the grounds that both Bush and Clinton were being political by signing things they didn't necessarily agree with. We'll set that idea aside for now for the sake of this discussion.)

That in mind, I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would stay on the side of the nation state. I think, despite what many of my readers might believe, that she is a true patriot like her husband. And I think that she would be willing, when it is to the benefit of the nation state of the U.S., to cross party lines.

McCain is an obvious patriot. I don't think I need to go there.

Obama on the other hand, I believe he is on the side of the World Order. And, if you bare with me, I think this kind of explains what his wife said a while back. "For the first time in my life I am proud of my Country." She was not proud of her country because all the presidents up to now in her life have been selfish nation staters who put the U.S. interests over the interests of the rest of the world. There was nothing for her to be proud of until now.

I believe Obama's (now former) pastor Rev. Wright was a believe in the World Order, which would explain why he'd talk to poorly of the U.S. I think Obama agreed with him for the 20 years he was a member of his church, but he wouldn't dare admit that, for fear it would hurt his candidacy.

With her husband Obama running for president, a man who places the U.S. in perspective with the rest of the world, Hillaray has something to be proud of.

Remember back when Obama refused to wear a lapel pin with the American flag on it? How about the time he failed to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance? If I am right in my thinking here, his view as wanting to lead America toward the World Order, and hailing the World Order over the U.S.A would explain these actions.

If you remember from a previous post I wrote, 45% of democrats say they do not consider themselves to be proud of America (Click here for story). Likewise, I believe it is this 45% who believe that it is possible to create a perfect world, where there are no bad guys.

That is why they believe it is okay to talk to thugs like Amadinajad and the leaders of terrorist organizations (see Jimmy Carter). They honestly believe in the bottom of their hearts that there is good in these people, and that the good will stand out. In fact, they believe that that "good in everyone" is how this World Order will come to be.

The rest of Americans, the 80% of republicans and 55% of democrats who consider themselves true patriots, believe in a more idealistic world, where there will always be thugs. And there will always be thugs that cannot be trusted, like Kim Jung lll in North Korea. Thus, you will remember Jimmy Carter too with the help of Bill Clinton in a deal where the U.S. would give N. Korea aid in exchange for N. Korea scrapping it's nuclear program.

Well, we all know how that went. North Korea now has nukes. In this New World Order, where we trust one another, you can see how this might lead to a thug nation playing along until one day it's leaders break the news that they have been developing nukes and a space program in an attempt to take over the world. This new naive World Order would be stunned.

The reason that a World Order will not work is because there will always be people out there who will be thugs, and who will only have there self interest at hand, i.e. terrorist thugs, totalitarian dictator thugs, terrorist harboring nation states who must not be given any credibility by silly visits to their nation.

I honestly believe Obama believes in the World Order. He wants to carve a big chunk off the U.S. in order so that we are no longer considered a Super Power. He wants to tear down our military. He wants to stop investing in space military defense programs. He wants to get rid of all our nuclear weapons.

He said all that in a 2007 speech. He said that because he wants America not to be America anymore, but a part of the World Order. That scares me more than anything in the world.

He will endorse the KYOTO treaties in the name of protecting the environment, which would give the World Order the right to regulate all industries, including those who fall under the U.S. Constitution. This in effect would not give these U.S. industries protections granted by that Constitution.

This in effect would ruin the U.S. economy. It would push us back. And you know what would happen. China and India do not give a damn about the World Order. All they care about right now is growing their economy. At present, they have no intention of buying into the KYOTO treaties, and thus their economy will keep growing, and they will catch up with the U.S., and eventually surpass us.

The World Order will not work because there will always be some nation like China and India right now who won't abide by it. Who will take advantage of the lackadaisical naivety of the rest of the liberal world to build up their own nation, and what good or bad will that result in. Will China become the next Super Power and force Communism again on everyone? Will North Korea become the dominate power and force their totalitarian views on us? Imagine if Iran joined forces with those two and formed their own World Order. We could have a war of the World Orders.

Gosh, this sounds like a book. Too bad I can't write a novel. (I've tried, I suck at it.) But do you see what I mean? We, the U.S., with our dominant economy and military, are the safeguards of the world right now. We donate more money to charitable causes around the world than all the other nations combined. We protect the world from thugs by our mighty military (see Kwait 1990), while the U.N sits idly by while genocide occurs in other nations.

I do not want that to happen. I want the U.S. to remain the Super Power of the world. I believe in the idea of the sovereign Nation State, as pretty much most of the West has believed in this idea since the fall of Ancient Greece. There you had cities within one nation fighting against one another, hence Sparta and Athens.

Just imagine what greatness could have occurred in Ancient Greece and what longevity would have occurred if only those city states could have gotten along, and were united as one Nation State. This leaders of Ancient Rome realized this, and that is why they created the Nation state of Ancient Rome, and preached Roman Pride, and they built up a strong economy and a mighty military and never hesitated to destroy or at least hold back their enemies, because they knew there would always be enemies.

Yes, the idea that all Nation States can get along and live in a free world sounds wonderful. I would love it if that were possible. But what the Europeans want is not necessarily what we want here in the Michigan, U.S.A. That is why the rules that the world order would make (abortion legal, no prayer in schools, no bible in courts, no "In God We Trust" on our coins, Gay marriage legal everywhere no matter what local people think, and all the protections provided under the Constitution will be overruled as the World Order wishes.)

Do you want that? Yes, I am exaggerating to some extent here to make my point, but I am 100% against the World Order. Gosh, the World Order could force us to have a chip implanted under our skins when we are born so they always know where we are, what our criminal history is, what our medical history is, etc. Now I'm getting into "1984" by George Orwell territory.

America is one nation to be proud of. Despite our mistakes, we have done more good for the world than any nation ever in the history of the world. And while we will fight to defend any other nation who lives in peace as we do, we also have come to the aid thug nation states around the world time and again (i.e. the earthquake in Iran). We even went to war and didn't kill the enemy soldiers when we won the battle (see Iraq 2003).

I am a proud American, a true patriot, a believer in the Nation State, and I absolutely do not want to even trial the idea of a World Order. I believe we as a nation should work together with other nations to maintain peace around the world, but we must remain vigilant of thugs, and try to destroy them as opposed to appeasing them and negotiating with them and granting them any form of credibility. We must maintain our sovereignty provided under the U.S. Constitution (which liberals think is old and obsolete).

That is the way to world peace, if it's even remotely possible. The World Order might sound good on the surface, but it will never work. And that is why I am scared of Barack Obama. I see him as that great communicator who convinces his country to do something they might not otherwise consider, and make decisions their grandchildren may never forgive them for making (I hate to make the Hitler comparison because I don't think Obama wants to hurt people the way he did. Obama is more of a Happy Fascist.)

Granted I could be wrong about all this. But that's just what I've been thinking lately, and I've placed all the cards on the table. If he is elected I will be happy, and I will not leave the country. I will respect him as president. I will agree with him on this blog when he does something I like, and I will disagree with him when he does something I think is stupid.

But I will always give him the benefit of the doubt as our leader, just as I did and still do with Clinton and Carter, because I honestly think those guys mean well. And there is always the possibility that I, as Ben Franklin once said, "Could be wrong in my vision for this country."

I think my dad says it best when he said, "I don't care what they do in the political world, so long as they don't take this away from me. As long as they let me stay retired, golf every day, have happy hour every day at 4:00, enjoy time with my kids whenever I want, and simply be happy all day all the time. I don't want them to take this away."

I love that attitude. And I think the same way. I would rather take my chances with McCain or Hillary over Obama. I don't trust Obama. I don't trust that he will put my interest ahead this World Order, which just might make a rule forcing me to pay more taxes for some world cause I don't agree with.

I just don't like his vision for this country. And that's my opinion, and please don't attack me personally in your comments because I do have control over the Delete button.

On that note, have at it. Rip into my theory here. Tell me where I'm wrong. I will respect your opinion, and I may even change my mind, as I have done that too from time to time, as I think any intelligent person would. But keep in mind I do not hate Obama, I merely think he has a scary world view, and he has his priorities in the wrong order (no pun intended).

Thank you for reading. And that is the thought of the day. A deep thought, but a thought indeed. Whew.

For part 2 click here.


Anthony Palmer said...

Hi Freadom.

I think more people are drawn to Obama's message of unity and changing the tone of our politics than his actual liberal philosophies.

For example, when Bush ran against Gore in 2000, one of his biggest applause lines was "restoring honor and dignity to the White House." I think that after the scandal-filled Clinton years, voters were yearning for a "decent" president, and not necessarily a conservative one. Maybe the conservatism was a big draw for him too, but I really think his humility and the idea that he wouldn't embarrass the nation by getting involved in sex scandals was his biggest selling point.

This campaign is teaching me more and more than policies matter less than presentation. The more cerebral candidates (Paul, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Hunter) all lost early while the "message" candidates survived the longest. I don't think it's an endorsement of their political philosophy, but rather the level of comfort they make voters feel with their persona.

Freadom said...

Yes, and I agree with you completely. I think people are so caught up in message mode that they fail to look at what a guy is "really" all about. And it's scary. I think people are excited about a message, and all a message is is "just words."

I know I shouldn't say this, but I THINK the reason is because most people don't follow politics close enough, and that's why a message is more appealing than a bunch of boring policies.

That's why, IMO, guys like Obama and Bush become party nominees instead of more qualified candidates as those you mentioned.

As much as I find myself disagreeing with McCain on many of the issues, I think he actually was the most qualified republican, and that might be his downfall come November.

What do you think?

Nikki said...

Awesome post Freadom. I agree with all of your assessment. Hillary to me would be similar to her husband and scares me much less too. Obama also has global poverty initiatives that would tax us even more to end global poverty. This may in his eyes make us more acceptable in the world because he will propagandize his giving the world our money...Americans already give a lot to the world in charity and support. Bush has forgiven many a debt to third world countries and I don't see any love being thrown to him. I think Obama is exactly as you say. A globalist. excellent post! :)N

Anthony Palmer said...


You are right in that voters simply can't be bothered to do their homework before they go to the ballot box. So a lot of voting is done for superficial reasons. But my vote against Obama, for example, on ideological grounds has the same power as the vote for someone who just refuses to vote for Obama because he has a funny sounding name. It's sad.

I wrote about this shortly before the Iowa caucuses here. Think about it. Quality political shows like Capital Gang (CNN) and Tim Russert (MSNBC) either get canceled or have low ratings. We want to see Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann vent. And even more of us would rather watch American Idol or Desperate Housewives instead of a debate between aspirants for the highest office in the world.

Rightwingsnarkle said...

Dude, you've got some serious paranoia rattling around in your head, to complement your disordered thinking and wrong-headed 'analysis.'

But if you're gonna go on about this bullshit, at least have the presence of mind to call it the New World Order.

Anthony Palmer said...

Ahhhh, I guess my original response got eaten by the server or something. Oh well. I'll try again.

Freadom, I think most voters don't bother with boring details like the candidates' actual platforms. Politicians don't spend a lot of time going into specifics because voters tune them out when that happens. Voters criticize Obama in particular for being short on specifics, but how is his slogan of "bringing change to Washington" any different from McCain's slogan of "we will not surrender in Iraq"? Both candidates should be faulted for not putting any meat on their rhetorical bones.

Regarding voters, why do good shows like Capital Gang and Tim Russert (not Meet the Press; his other show) either get canceled or suffer from low ratings while shoutfests like Hannity and Colmes get far better ratings? It's not the stations' fault. It's the audience's. Until we demand more from our politicians, they will give us what we accept.

Freadom said...

Sorry Anthony, I just like to moderate my comments becaue I've had a bad expreience with personal attacks on another website I used to write for, so you other comment is up now. I've been on vacation the past few days with the fam, and enjoying the Redwings Victory (Woo hoo). It's good to have something other than politics to think about.

Freadom said...

That aside, I agree with you 100%.