Friday, September 25, 2009

Personal Aside: Obama’s Dangerous UN Speech Points to a Disastrous Road for the U. S.


Barack Obama’s UN speech…largely puffed up as an isolationist address by the compliant mainstream media (don’t count on the U.S. to interfere unduly to solve all your disputes, he said) points the way to a dangerous road by America which can lead only to disaster and capitulation to the forces of terrorism.

While as with all Obama’s speeches, the basic sentiment is unassailable, the implications are far different: he has served notice through stealthy but soft implication which pleased our enemies greatly of two unrealistic things…that we have abdicated our role as a world leader determined to oppose gangster nations like Iran…and that we will rely on the United Nations which is nothing more than a debating society and utterly impotent to enforce its will on anyone.

Is it powerful? Powerless, you mean. Hell, it couldn’t even control Muammar al-Gaddafi’s speaking time. He ran an hour and a half and when handed a paper instructing him his time was up, crumbled it into a ball and tossed it away. This phony parliament of nations…a forum for tin-pot dictators like Gaddafi to swell their chests and feel important… was forced to listen to his raving: that’s how meaningless it is.

Hugo Chavez insulted George W. Bush and flattered Obama, saying that Bush had given the rostrum the odor of sulfur and Obama the fragrance of hope. Any self-respecting chamber of commerce would have gaveled a speaker down who insulted a duly elected former head of state—but not the United Nations.

Reason: it’s more than institutional timidity. Basically the United Nations is a concoction consisting largely of U. S. enemies and anti-Semites who rejoice in lording themselves in New York courtesy of our money, propagandizing their evil to the generally sympathetic U.S. mainstream media rooting for their country to be humiliated. They are the best reason to resurrect the age-old trumpeting of the Old Right: “The U.S. out of the United Nations and the United Nations out of the U. S.”

Be that as it may, it was the shocking performance of Obama that frightens me. For the first time since the UN was formed in 1945, a U. S. president has covertly joined the collection of Third World brigands. Eight points.

1. The highly publicized…via our willfully liberally malevolent mainline media…that endorses what the Associated Press calls “a sweeping strategy aimed at halting the spread of nuclear weapons and ultimately, eliminating them to usher in a world with `undiminished security for all.’” Not stated in any of the effusive stories was that the resolution was a toothless aspiration with no enforcement. The fact that the media touts this as an Obama victory is sickening. And even more sickening was the sight of 89-year-old George Shultz, Reagan’s secretary of state trilling that “Ronald Reagan looking down at us is smiling today!” Reagan would be first to note that the resolution means nothing and is as valueless as the note rushed up to the rostrum to tell Gaddafi to stop talking. But the effect is not just wasted motion: it emboldens our enemies to believe…rightly it seems…that the United States is a sophomoric, peace-at-any-price concessionary, decadent, luxury-loving power with no guts to resist.

2. Match that with Obama’s statement in his speech that “no [one] nation can dominate another.” Pardon me? What does he think Russia is doing to Georgia? What utter nonsense and weak drivel.

3. Later in the speech this Third World-sympathizing president blistered the concept of “alignments of nations that are rooted cleavages of the Cold War.” Pardon me? What does that make NATO…a useless relic? It’s a “cleavage of the Cold War.” What does that make the European Union which is a “cleavage of the Cold War”? What does it make our alliances to Eastern Europe, with Taiwan, with Korea and the Philippines?

4. Not only is the speech filled with Wilsonian dream-stuff, it is far more serious that just a lofty statement. This Third World creature is out to unravel our alliances which will hand victory over to the forces of radical Islam. And don’t think that’s happenstance. That’s what I’ve meant when from the outset I said this is the first president who is not a patriot, this is the first president who by his actions is unconcerned with the threat of Third World revolutionaries consisting of radicals in the United States and fascists throughout the world.

5. Which means that while there’s an alignment between Iran, Russia and Cuba as well as an alignment of Venezuela’s Chavez with Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, we…thanks to Obama…are signaling to them that we regard our alliances as part of the “cleavage of the Cold War” and hence redundant. If he were a professed enemy, he could not be more effective than he has been with the UN speech.

6. Then we turn to Afghanistan and hear our president say that he is reexamining our commitment there because he has discovered corruption in that country. Pardon me? Corruption in Afghanistan has always been endemic: where’s he been? The question is whether he’s going to follow the wise recommendation of the very general he put in charge of Afghanistan…the question is whether he’s going to follow through with his campaign statement that Afghanistan was the right war. The answer is this: if he can get away with it, he’ll listen to that peerless pundit Joe Biden who wanted originally to divide Iraq into three until he was almost laughed out of the Senate.

7. By his counsel of weakness, Obama is telling our allies…like India, Columbia, the government of Iraq, eastern Europe, France, Germany and others that they have been fools to have sided with us thus far.

8. Finally, do you think this one-man wrecking crew that is our “president” is doing this just out of incompetence? How simplistic can you be? I said originally he’s not a patriot, didn’t I? He’s declared this country is not exceptional, didn’t he? He’s declared this country is no longer Christian, didn’t he? Now the speech at the UN where he has broken faith with all past presidents who have been involved in the world struggle. Snap, poof: over. Just like that. What more evidence do you need? He regards the truth as serviceable only as a temporary expedient. Conclusion: He’s not a friend.


  1. If Obama is killed in office, you will never get the blood off your hands.

  2. e.a. shame on you. Mr. Roeser does not advocate violence. He criticizes Obama as is his right. Answer his criticisms if you can and don't waste your time trying to smear him.