wow! In the Wapo no less!
Ive refrained from commenting on President Obamas address to the United Nations General Assembly because the speech made me angry. And most postings -- or letters, or e-mails -- written while angry are better discarded or deleted.
But this address grows more disturbing on further reading. Some major presidential speeches deserve to be remembered, quoted and celebrated. Some deserve to be forgotten. A few deserve to be remembered and criticized, because they dishonor the history of presidential rhetoric.
Obamas rhetorical method in international contexts -- given supreme expression at the United Nations this week -- is a moral dialectic. The thesis: pre-Obama America is a nation of many flaws and failures. The antithesis: The world responds with understandable but misguided prejudice. The synthesis: Me. Me, at all costs; me, in spite of all terrors; me, however long and hard the road may be. How great a world we all should see, if only all were more like me.
On several occasions, Obama attacked American conduct in simplistic caricatures a European diplomat might employ or applaud. He accused America of acing unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others -- a slander against every American ally who has made sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan. He argued that, America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy -- which is hardly a challenge for the Obama administration, which has yet to make a priority of promoting democracy or human rights anywhere in the world.
The world, of course, has its problems, too. It has accepted misperceptions and misinformation. It can be guilty of a reflexive anti-Americanism. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the worlds problems alone. Translation: I know you adore me because I am better than Americas flawed past. But dont just stand there loving me, do something.
I can recall no other major American speech in which the narcissism of a leader has been quite so pronounced. It might be compared to Gen. Douglas MacArthurs I shall return -- which made it sound like MacArthur intended to reconquer the Philippines single-handedly. But MacArthur, at least, imagined himself as embodying his country, not transcending it. He did not assert that while the Japanese invasion was certainly excessive, America had been guilty of provocations of its own -- and now, in the MacArthur era, things would be finally different.
Twice in his United Nations speech, Obama dares to quote Franklin Roosevelt. I have read quite a bit of Roosevelts rhetoric. It is impossible to imagine him, under any circumstances, unfairly criticizing his own country in an international forum in order to make himself look better in comparison. He would have considered such a rhetorical strategy shameful -- as indeed it is.
At the United Nations, Obama set out to denigrate American goodness so he can become our rescuer. The speech had nothing to do with the confident style of Democratic rhetoric found in Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. It insulted that tradition. And no one is likely ever to quote the speech -- except to deride it. that was delicious. Barack Hussein Obama. Mmmm - mmmmm - mmmm
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/27/2009 14:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Israel is looking like the new leader of the Free World. The previous leader, the United States, resigned this role last week at the United Nations to take the position of global community organizer. This was made plain by President Obama in his speech, titled "Responsibility for Our Common Future," in which he heralded "a new chapter of international cooperation." By contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a blunt and forceful call to action in the central challenge facing free people today. This is the struggle of "civilization against barbarism" being fought by "those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."
Mr. Obama's address was the predictable mix of criticism of the past policies of the United States, self-praise for correcting said policies and vague calls to united action on matters of collective interest. It sought to ingratiate rather than offend. But Mr. Netanyahu chastised the United Nations for its "systematic assault on the truth." He spoke truths that Mr. Obama would never whisper regarding the regime in Iran, which is "fueled by an extreme fundamentalism" and an "unforgiving creed." Mr. Netanyahu rebuked those members who countenanced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's diatribe before the same world body, rightly calling it a "disgrace."
Mr. Netanyahu repeatedly paid tribute to the blessings of liberty and "the allure of freedom." He marveled at the technological advances freedom made possible. He asked if the international community would support the Iranian people "as they bravely stand up for freedom." He envisioned a future of Israel and Palestine, "two free peoples living in peace, living in prosperity, living in dignity." Mr. Obama, meanwhile, touted the imperative of responding to global climate change and mentioned as an afterthought that democracy should not be an afterthought.
Israel stands out because it understands the central challenge faced by the civilized world and by its willingness to take action. Israel is readying to stem the tide of barbarism and stand up to the threat of a nuclear Iran. In return, it asks only for moral support. "If Israel is again asked to take more risk for peace," Mr. Netanyahu said, "we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow." He challenged the countries of the world with a clear-cut test: "Will you stand with Israel? Or will you stand with the terrorists?"
Mr. Obama said in closing that "we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people deserve." But people only deserve what they have earned. Mr. Netanyahu called on the civilized world to "confront this peril, secure our future, and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come." Sometimes the future doesn't come without a fight.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/27/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I would call this article "A voice in the wildness".
And shame, at the same time. When will this foolish little man remove the "Kick Me" sign from his back and start acting like the leader of the free world?
Oops, silly me. There is no "free world" anymore. Sorry for being arrogant. Won't happen again, nyet, nikogda, kommandeer.
#3
In a June 2007 speech Obama said Whatever we once were, were no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation and a nation of nonbelievers
#4
The full implications of Obama's election were not apparent to most of the electorate last October. Obama and his ilk have been tolerated by them as a legitimate part of our political debate for far too long. One beneficial outcome to this period will be if the scales fall from the eyes of the electorate and they see the Obamanation for the enemy of American ideals it is.
#7
I fear "the full implications of Obama's election" are still not apparent.
Unfortunately, I agree. People don't like to be fooled and they really don't like having to admit it.
It means that they weren't paying attention to the signs and warnings that many of us recognized without having to read between the lines. The bastard telegraphed his intentions loud and clear and those now feeling somewhat swindled may be willing to believe the whitewashed lies of the MSM rather than their own eyes.
#8
In a June 2007 speech Obama said "Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation and a nation of nonbelievers"
He has given variations of that meme in speeches on at least three separate occasions. Of course, he realizes that population-wise, this is a Christian nation (76% according to Pew). Given his agenda, it's in his best interests to undermine the Christian-Judeo values upon which we were founded.
I'm old enough to have witnessed many of this nation's leaders lead us in prayer throughout our difficult times, or at the very least, appeal to a higher power for guidance.
I won't hold my breath waiting for any such appeal from the Kenyan.
#9
In a June 2007 speech Obama said "Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation and a nation of nonbelievers"
This is actually the Left's corrupt and debased definition of democracy, much closer to the old "People's Democratic Republic". It's a democracy of special interests where in each interest is equal in voice rather than each person. Thus small factions have as much power and standing as large factions. Each block has 'equal' say in the process regardless of the classical definition of democracy.
DID it surprise a single Post reader that Iran's been hiding a big nuclear weapons development facility? It stunned our president when he learned about it months ago. Then he kept it secret from you.
Obama didn't want you to know how much progress Iran had made. It's an embarrassment.
And it raises the pressure on the White House to act -- something this president's squirming to avoid. But the Iranians have now realized we know, so they tipped it themselves.
Obama had no choice but to come clean.
Yesterday, he interrupted the G-20 summit to go public -- before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did. Flanked by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain's dead man walking, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, our president offered more uselessly vague rhetoric in response to proof of a major "covert Iranian enrichment facility" and its implications.
Obama's statement amounted to, Ooooh, I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down . . . maybe . . . eventually . . . but not really . . . let's talk . . .
Only Sarkozy made a serious attempt to get the Iranian leadership's attention, stressing the consistent failure of negotiations and the need for action. He understands that a decade of talking with Tehran brought zero results.
Obama cringed.
Shouldn't we be ashamed that a French president's leading the fight to protect Israel and the free world?
To be fair, Obama's overwhelmed.
Fatally confident of his powers of persuasion, he's bewildered that he hasn't been able to convince the Iranians (or the Palestinians, Russians, Venezuelans, Chinese, etc.) to do what he wants them to do.
So Washington delays. While Iran races toward a nuclear arsenal.
Not only has Iran's known program moved ahead despite our cajoling, now comes the news that far more dangerous facilities have been missed for years by our intelligence services (to their credit, though, they ultimately found the Qom installation). Who knows how many more we haven't found?
Additionally, an Iranian exile group opposed to the theocrat thugs in Tehran claimed this week that Ahmadinejad's government operates two secret plants that fabricate detonators for nuclear weapons.
One of those sites is in an east Tehran suburb, another in that enormous city's exurbs. The major enrichment site that embarrassed our president sits near Qom, Iran's holiest city.
Ahmadinejad's boys know what they're doing. They've dispersed their nuclear program across urban areas and deep underground. The network is not only hard to hit -- it's impossible to strike effectively without inflicting thousands of civilian casualties. Not our fault if the Iranian leadership puts their people in the crosshair. Personally, I would consider dead Iranians a feature, not a bug.
These new sites raise the stakes higher still: Attack the plant near Qom and we'll be seen by Shia Muslims as violating a holy city. Strike those Tehran detonator factories and you get severe collateral damage -- plus the probable spread of radioactive material, an instant "dirty bomb." And the problem with that is???
Yet, after all this, there's still resistance in Washington to the conclusions that Iran's determined to develop nuclear weapons and then use them. What amount of evidence will it take?
Iran's faith-crazed president appears before the UN, denying the Holocaust and damning Israel. He has openly and repeatedly professed an apocalyptic religious vision that requires chaos on earth to bring about the return of the "hidden imam," the Shia version of a messiah. He never misses an opportunity to call for Israel's total destruction.
And Washington insists he's joking. (Yeah, they're belly-laughing in Tel Aviv right now.)
Appeasers also blather that "other states have had nukes for years," but haven't used them. And mutually assured destruction (MAD) actually did keep the peace between the superpowers for six decades (another lesson our president doesn't get).
The arguments don't hold up. Even the North Koreans, the other entry in the rogue-state nuclear-arms race, don't want to die. They want earthly power, not a sacred apocalypse.
The new and immeasurably dangerous factor in play is religious fanaticism. The doomsday-lust avowed by Ahmadinejad and his supporters shatters every deterrence equation.
So now what? Obama will try more talks. We may see half-hearted sanctions -- which will be violated right and left. Russia, which profits hugely from dirty trade with Iran, can slip goods across the Caspian Sea or through Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/27/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
French offered major military support to Israel long before the USA did. '67 war fought with Mystere jets and other frog equipment. Not until '69 when Nixon delivered the F-4 Phantoms did major US military hardware arrive. Will history repeat itself?
#2
IIRC in the 50s and early 60s Israel was heavily aligned with the left, which is why France supported the early stages of the Israeli nuclear program and why the US was cautious.
#3
If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists - to protect them and to promote their common welfare - all else is lost.
Barack Obama
#5
Lest we fergit, IRAN > has already made it clear that it will consider ANY ATTACK BY ISRAEL AS AN ATTACK BY THE USA, which Tehran reserves its right to respond either via Military-led response andor TERRORISM AGZ US-ISRAELI-ALLIED WORLDWIDE INTERESTS.
* RADICAL MULLAHS > EITHER ISLAM = ISLAMISM RULES OR WINS, OR NO ONE WILL [aka MUTUAL DESTRUCTION espec vee INDUCING "GREAT POWERS" MILPOL CONFRONTATION BY PROXY + ultimat GLOBAL NUCWAR].
ISRAEL > AIR, NAVAL MISSLE STRIKES alone taint enuff. ISRAEL will need DIVISION/CORPS-SIZED COMMANDO FORCES to not only attack, overwhelm, and destroy Iran's known N-sites but more impor to verify curr Intel and discover unknown factors or changes to Iran's NucDevProgs, and destroy same, THEN TO LEAVE OR EXTRACT THEMSELVES AFTERWARDS.
The only other REALISTIC OPTIONS IS LET IRAN HAVE ITS BOMB [read, NUCLEAR ISLAMISM = NUCLEAR MILIT-TERRORISM]; or initiate a FULL-FLEDGED US = US-ALLIED INVASION + OCCUPATION OF IRAN.
Anything else in the interim only means IRAN = ISLAMIST MILTERRS > MIGHT BE DELAYED IN GETTING THEIR NUKES, BUT EVENS WILL STILL GET IT.
GWOT + ISLAMIST UNIVERSAL JIHAD > among other, 'tis "WAR TO THE DEATH". Any rhetoric to the contary is just fancy schamncey frills + fluffy bunnies.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi berated town hall and tea party protesters this month, tearfully warning they'd incite violence. Well, there's been violence all right, at Pittsburgh's G-20. But it wasn't the tea partiers.
It takes gall to characterize ordinary Americans, freely exercising their rights of speech and assembly in civic forums, as "mobs" while ignoring a pack of leftist thugs now smashing a U.S. city. But that's what Pelosi did, directing her righteous tocsin to the Norman Rockwell-like gatherings of Americans who opposed her expansion of government this past summer.
"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw ... I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Pelosi said, choking up, her eyes brimming with tears.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/27/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
In the late-1960s and early-1970s, it was not unusual to hear about young men and women from privileged backgrounds breaking off ties with their families, catching a train to some god-forsaken place in Bihar and then going underground. When I joined Delhis St Stephens College, unquestionably a citadel of both excellence and privilege, in 1972, there were many who viewed all imports from Calcutta as potentially suspect and contaminated with the Naxalite virus. After all, too many bright sparks had abruptly disappeared into the countryside in search of the class war that would finally liberate India and elevate Chinas Chairman into our Chairman.
Mercifully, such puerile manifestations of impatience with the old order yielded little fruit. The majority of those who packed a pair of jeans and tried to persuade poor peasants that they should hack the local landlord into pieces and feed the jackals, returned dejected and traumatised. Most of them had done nothing really purposeful during their underground stint but there were a few who had taken the perverted prophet Charu Mazumdar at face value. Some had indeed killed hapless traffic policemen, ageing vice-chancellors and third-rung politicians.
These amateur criminals posed a problem both for their parents and those in charge of stamping out the Naxalite movement. Fortunately there is one law for the aam aadmi and one law for those who have connections. Thanks to an astonishing show of flexibility by the authorities, the PLU murderers were given a way out. Their parents were advised to send the deviants to a foreign country and make sure they didnt return in a hurry. Most never did. The US in particular hosts a large number of law-abiding people of Indian origin who were banished from the mother country for heinous crimes. In the old days, criminals in England were transported to Australia and French criminals suffered on Devils Island. Four decades ago, we sent off our political criminals to taste life in the heartlands of capitalism. It was the most agreeable punishment devised by an otherwise brutal state.
Needless to say, this punishment was reserved for some. The Indian state came down hard on the less fortunate. Few of them have lived to reflect on their misguided past.
The ones who went underground for a lark returned to their normal lives after hunger and dysentery overwhelmed their Maoism. The few who were truly agonised over the plight of the poor joined the Human Rights and Civil Liberties groups. It was a prudent change of tack since these bodies have been generously funded by angst-ridden Europeans (if only to show that India is at the core a rotten Third World country) and have evolved into overground service centres for every conceivable group that is waging war on the Indian state. In hindsight, Charu Mazumdars investment in the brat pack of the 1960s has paid off. Today, in the guise of protecting civil liberties, they operate as ideological covers for any group that wants the disintegration of India.
It is necessary to provide a background to the contrived tear-jerking that is being witnessed in the English-language media over the arrest of one Kobad Ghandhy, an ideologue and Politburo member of the outlawed CPI(Maoist). Normally, the arrest of a senior Maoist leader doesnt lead to every cub reporter shedding tears. But Ghandhys advantage is that he came from a rich Bombay family, went to Doon School, bummed around London in the 1970s, was a leading light of the Human Rights industry and, finally, went underground to service a group of armed murderers. Of course, Ghandhy has probably never killed someone personally or planted one of those deadly mines that have led to the deaths of policemen and para-military forces in Chhattisgarh. For that matter, he was probably never personally around when his comrades turfed poor Adivasis out of their homes for the crime of refusing to acknowledge the power of the Red Flag. No, or so the argument goes, Ghandhy was a good man because he felt for the poor, spoke good English and had eschewed his inheritance. He was a good man because he cut a romantic figure.
The campaign to paint a halo around Ghandhy has begun in right earnest. In time, we may even witness countless intellectuals and even Nobel Prize winners sign petitions calling for his release, perhaps on medical grounds. It is even possible that an orchestrated campaign may lead to the courts ordering his release on bail on compassionate grounds the paediatrician Binayak Sen was granted bail on grounds of ill health. But does a spirited campaign by bleeding hearts necessarily absolve Ghandhy?
A man who occupied a top leadership position of an outlawed organisation that has assaulted the sovereignty of the Indian state cannot claim with any degree of credibility that he was oblivious of the military wing of his party. The armed struggle is an integral part of the CPI(Maoist) and its military operations have been sanctioned by the political leadership. Obviously, Ghandhy may be unaware of the operational details of the arson, murder and extortion in the deep forests of central India. But these operations have been sanctioned by people like him. His supporters cannot whitewash his culpability.
The law doesnt make a distinction between those who can speak English and those who are better versed in the vernacular. Over the past two years, many of the so-called ideologues of the Students Islamic Movement have been arrested. They preached the idea of jihad and motivated many earnest Muslim youth to kill innocent people for the sake of a larger cause. But these ideologues never actually carried out the bombings; they left it to the more daring and resourceful.
If Ghandhy is to be released, the top leadership of SIMI (also a banned outfit) should be feted by Human Rights-wallahs in five-star hotels and invited to meaningful seminars underwritten by the European Union. Would that be a sign of Indias enlightenment or Indias stupidity?
Posted by: john frum ||
09/27/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Jeeze, I think we are on our own. Can anyone tell me how long have we got until the I-A-Toll-A drops a "peaceful" NORK dirty bomb on US Troops in Afa-Gan-e-Stan ?
This is an e-mail I received this morning (from a friend who actually runs a business), so there's no link. Mods, delete if you need to.
I know the e-mail's not real, but would that it were....
Letter from Grandpa
John G. is 63 years old and owns a small business. He's a life-long Republican and sees his dream of retiring next year has all but evaporated. With the stock market crashing and new taxes coming his way, John assumes now that he will work to his dying day.
John has a granddaughter. Ashley is a recent college grad. She drives a flashy hybrid car, wears all the latest fashions, and loves to go out to nightclubs and restaurants. Ashley campaigned hard for Barak Obama. After the election she made sure her grandfather (and all other Republican family members) received a big I told-you-so earful on how the world is going to be a much better place now that her party is taking over.
Having lost both roommates, Ashley recently ran short of cash and cannot pay the rent (again) on her 3 bedroom townhouse. Like she has done many times in the past, she emailed her grandfather asking for some financial help. Here is his reply:
Sweetheart,
I received your request for assistance. Ashley, you know I love you dearly and I'm sympathetic to your financial plight. Unfortunately, times have changed. With the election of President Obama, your grandmother and I have had to set forth a bold new economic plan of our own..."The Ashley Economic Empowerment Plan." Let me explain.
Your grandmother and I are life-long, wage-earning tax payers. We have lived a comfortable life, as you know, but we have never had the fancier things like European vacations, luxury cars, etc. We have worked hard and were looking forward to retiring soon. But the plan has changed. Your president is raising our personal and business taxes significantly. He says it is so he can give our hard earned money to other people. Do you know what this means, Ashley? It means less for us, and we must cut back on many business and personal expenses.
You know the wonderful receptionist who worked in my office for more than 23 years? The one who always gave you candy when you came over to visit? I had to let her go last week. I can't afford to pay her salary and all of the government mandated taxes that go with having employees. Your grandmother will now work 4 days a week to answer phones, take orders and handle the books. We will be closed on Fridays and will lose even more income.
I'm also very sorry to report that your cousin Frank will no longer be working summers in the warehouse. I called him at school this morning. He already knows about it and he's upset because he will have to give up skydiving and his yearly trip to Greenland to survey the polar bears.
That's just the business side of things. Some personal economic effects of Obama's new taxation policies include none other than you. You know very well that over the years your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in cash, tuition assistance, food, housing, clothing, gifts, etc., etc. But by your vote, you have chosen to help others -- not at your expense -- but at our expense.
If you need money now sweetheart, I recommend you call 202-456-1111. That is the direct phone number for the White House. You yourself told me how foolish it is to vote Republican. You said Mr. Obama is going to be the People's President, and is going to help every American live a better life. Based on everything you've told me, along with all the promises we heard during the campaign, I'm sure Mr. Obama will be happy to transfer some stimulus money into your bank account. Have him call me for the account number which I memorized years ago.
Perhaps you can now understand what I've been saying all my life: those who vote for a president should consider the impact on the nation as a whole, and not be just concerned with what they can get for themselves. What Obama supporters don't seem to realize is all of the money he is redistributing to illegal aliens and non-taxpaying Americans (the so-called "less fortunate") comes from tax-paying families.
Remember how you told me, "Only the richest of the rich will be affected"? Well guess what, honey? Because we own a business, your grandmother and I are now considered to be the richest of the rich. On paper, it might look that way, but in the real world, we are far from it.
As you said while campaigning for Obama, some people will have to carry more of the burden so all of America can prosper. You understand what that means, right? It means that raising taxes on productive people results in them having less money; less money for everything, including granddaughters.
I'm sorry, Ashley, but the well has run dry. The free lunches are over. I have no money to give you now.
So, congratulations on your choice for "change." For future reference, I encourage you to try and add up the total value of the gifts and cash you have received from us, just since you went off to college, and compare it to what you expect to get from Mr. Obama over the next 4 (or 8) years. I have not kept track of it, Ashley. It has all truly been the gift of our hearts.
Remember, we love you dearly....but from now on you'll need to call the number mentioned above. Your "Savior" has the money we would have given to you. Just try and get it from him.
Good luck, sweetheart.
Love,
Grandpa.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/27/2009 11:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I knew it was phony when I read the words "flashy hybrid car".
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/27/2009 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Ummmm, guys? The e-mail is obviously "phoney" - i.e., written to make a point. The phrase "I know the e-mail's not real, but would that it were...." highlighted at the beginning gives a hint.
But apparently I was unclear - my small business friend forwarded the e-mail to me. I have no idea where it originated (and he probably doesn't either), but I think it makes a good point.
I hope it begins to happen for real to some of the leeches in this country. The screaming would be wondrous to behold - but I've got extra-strength earplugs. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/27/2009 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Although the email may not be real, it nonetheless probably represents reality for a lot of families. I saw two young college students on Hannity the other night defending the people who were out busting up stuff in the streets and protesting at the G20 conference in Pittsburg. One of the two girls was a Ph.D. student and the other one either an undergrad or grad student. For two supposedly well-educated students, I've seldom seen such a blatant display of ignorance and naivete.
#8
I got the same email (or a version of it) a couple of months ago. Sad to say, there are several in my family who could well be the recipients of the sentiments expressed (the well is dry, look to your 'savior'), although they can't say they weren't warned.
#9
Shouldn't this filed under Fictional/Fantasy right wing crap? Or is that section full?
A real grandpa might say...no I have no money but you can have dinner with us if your hungry...call us anytime because we love and we've been through this during the great depression and we made it by helping each other when we had that Democrat for so many years....we still love no matter who you voted for.....
But this grandpa is a political nut who must choose sides rather than love his own offspring.
BTW...Who got us into this DEBT before Obama came along?
Note to the news media: this is what violence at a political gathering looks like ...
The inevitable mobs showed up in Pittsburgh, Pa. to protest against the members of the G-20, that is, the heads of state of the twenty major economies. As usual, the brunt of the attacks is against the President of the United States of America, whoever he might be. The faces of those that are in the mobs and the methods that they use are well-known in meetings of this nature or in situations such as the one taking place now in Tegucigalpa, Republic of Honduras.
The agitators who handle these mobs are responsible for all the crimes that are committed. It is easy to identify the quality of the people who participate in these criminal acts by their rock throwing, breaking of windows and assaults to businesses in defiance of the authorities in charge of public order. Most of these mobs are portable forces at the service of communism that go from one city to another when it is necessary. Thus, it is known that those elements that say they speak on behalf of freedom and justice that throw rocks, and burn tires and automobiles, have no serious message and even less a responsible message. What freedom and what justice can they defend? Normally, all those who are concerned with human behavior know how to identify the social and delinquent category of these elements who claim to be defending supposedly noble causes, when they are the denial of human decency, of social peace and of civilized coexistence. Elements who behave in this way have no moral authority, nor anything like it, to speak about justice, to condemn any socio-economic system, or to speak about freedom. These elements constitute the denial of all those values that they purport to defend.
Therefore, it is fitting that journalists and TV and radio commentators, place the importance of these events in their true dimension, without assigning to them an importance that they do not deserve and do not have, although they are important from the point of view of disrupting public order with possible dead and wounded. To this must be added always the destruction of private property.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/27/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The picture shows a young man about to throw an ignited Molotov cocktail. When I was a police officer in the late 60's=early 70's, that was assault with a deadly weapon and I would have shot him dead!
We simply cannot look at the use of violence as something that is permissable, particularly since I sense an utter absence of alarm on the left for this kind of violence, but Nancy Buttbrain fears the "Nazi" violence on the right because we carry mean signs! Talk about hypocracy...
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Israel is looking like the new leader of the Free World. The previous leader, the United States, resigned this role last week at the United Nations to take the position of global community organizer. This was made plain by President Obama in his speech, titled "Responsibility for Our Common Future," in which he heralded "a new chapter of international cooperation." By contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a blunt and forceful call to action in the central challenge facing free people today. This is the struggle of "civilization against barbarism" being fought by "those who sanctify life against those who glorify death." 
