Obama Has Lost The World: Why We Need Sarah Palin

Liberal pundits mock the rough and ready style of conservatives like Reagan, Bush or Palin in world affairs, but what they fail to realize is that the over-educated naivete, trendy cosmopolitanism and buzzword rich approach of a Kerry or Obama come off as laughably pathetic on the world stage.

Republicans might be hated, but they can’t be ignored. Democrats on the other hand are catspaws and pawns, fools who are so sure of their cleverness and determined to embrace every culture in the way that only the graduates of Ivy League institutions can, that any Third World vendor could twirl them around his fingers.

~ Daniel Greenfield

By Gary P Jackson

Writing for Eurasia Review, Daniel Greenfield has written an absolutely blistering take on Barack Obama’s inability to lead and his status as a joke worldwide. Greenfield also points to Sarah Palin, along with Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan as the sort of tough leaders who garner respect on the world stage.

Greenfield is a columnist born in Israel and currently living in New York City. He is a contributing editor at Family Security Matters and writes a daily blog column on Islamic Terrorism, Israeli and American politics and Europe’s own clash of civilizations which can be found at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.

Here’s a taste of what he has to say:

After the 2010 elections, it’s not exactly news that Obama has lost America. But in a less public referendum, he also lost the world. Obama’s cocktail party tour of the world’s capitals may look impressive on a map, but is irrelevant on a policy level. In less than two years, the White House has gone from being the center of world leadership to being irrelevant, from protecting world freedom to serving as a global party planning committee.

Even the Bush Administration’s harshest critics could never have credibly claimed that George W. Bush was irrelevant. He might have been hated, pilloried and shouted about– but he couldn’t be ignored. However Obama can be safely ignored. Invited to parties, given the chance to show off his cosmopolitan sophisticated by reciting one or two words in the local lingo, read off a teleprompter, along with some cant about the need for everyone to pull together and make the world a better place, and then dismissed for the rest of the evening.

As a world leader, he makes a passable party guest. He has a broad smile, brings along his own gifts and is famous in the way that celebrities, rather than prime ministers and presidents are famous. On an invitation list, he is more Bono than Sarkozy, Leonardo DiCaprio not Putin. You don’t invite him to talk turkey, not even on Thanksgiving. He’s just one of those famous people with a passing interest in politics who gets good media attention, but who has nothing worthwhile to say.

The only countries who take Obama seriously, are the ones who have to. The leaders of Great Britain, Israel and Japan– who have tied their countries to an enduring alliance with America based on mutual interests and values, only to discover that the latest fellow to sit behind the Oval Office desk no longer shares those values and couldn’t give less of a damn about American interests. It’s no wonder that European leaders ignore him as much as possible. Or that Netanyahu visited America, while Obama was abroad. Or that Japanese politics have become dangerously unstable.

On the enemy side, the growing aggressiveness of China, North Korea, Iran, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda can all be attributed to the global consensus that no one is at home in the White House.And if no one is at home in the White House, then that’s a perfect time to slap the big boy around the yard. China is doing it economically, the rest are doing it militarily. They’re all on board with Obama’s Post-American vision of the world. But unlike him and most liberals, they have a clear understanding of what that means. The America of some years back, which actually intimidated Libyan dictator Khaddafi into giving up his nuclear program, without lifting a hand against him is long gone. So is the Cedar Revolution. Syria and Iran are back in charge in Lebanon. And in Afghanistan, the Taliban are laughing at our soft power outreach efforts.

Obama’s soft power approach emphasizes the ‘soft’ and forgets the ‘power’. It neglects even Clinton era understandings about the role of America in the world, and reverts instead to a Carter era sense of guilt that bleeds into hostility toward American interests and allies. While the rest of the world puts their own interests first, they act like a cog in some imaginary global community, turning and turning toward the distant horizon of international brotherhood. While China, Russia and most of the world walk down their backs and up their jellyfish spines, laughing all the way. And America’s allies gird themselves and prepare for the worst.

There is much, much more here.

Greenfield is spot on. Obama is more like an international jet-setting “playboy” than the President of the United States, a position that was also formally known as the Leader of the Free World. Obama is just the opposite. His ideology, a socialist-communist mix that centers around being a victim in need of “social justice” is a poor fit for the position of leader [in any capacity] but most especially the leader of all free peoples.

Obama doesn’t even grasp the fundamentals of our own Constitution, one of the most important, and enduring documents ever created. He has professed on may occasions that it is a “flawed document.” If this man finds our Constitution, a covenant between the people and government, guaranteeing our God given rights to Liberty and Freedom from an oppressive government, how can he be expected to lead the entire world, standing up for Freedom and Liberty everywhere?

We’ve talked a lot about Michelle Obama’s crusade on fat. The reason being is it is the perfect example of the totalitarianism progressives believe in. The entire progressive philosophy centers around a command and control centralized government that has total domination of it’s citizens, down the the most minute levels. It’s no wonder Obama seems to identify more with our enemies, who run brutal regimes where their people have absolutely no freedom. They are so close to the progressive utopia that Obama and his fellow travelers envision for America.

We watched in horror as Obama stood by and did nothing while Freedom and Liberty seeking Iranians, finally summoning up the courage to protest their tyrannical and oppressive government, were slaughtered in the streets. After years of President George W Bush telling the Iranian people our quarrel wasn’t with them, but with their leaders, and we would support them, when the time came for America to stand with these brave Iranians, Obama hid out, and then when he finally surfaced, he sided with the Iranian regime, not the Freedom and Liberty seeking Iranian people.

It was a pathetic performance by an even more pathetic man.

Sarah Palin has long spoken out about Obama’s inability to lead. She talked about this during her Vice Presidential nomination acceptance speech in 2008, and has since written policy papers and op-eds dissecting the Obama foreign policy disaster. What she calls enemy-centric, is quite simply, Obama’s want to coddle our enemies, while dismissing our allies worldwide. In my opinion, it’s because Obama admires our enemies more than our allies, but that’s just me.

Sarah Palin has demonstrated that she knows the difference between friend and foe, and has a solid grasp on how to deal with them. Her latest was taking Obama and most of Congress to task for wanting to sign the START treaty, a horrible document that ties our hands.

Obama and Senate leader Harry Reid jammed that treaty through the advise and consent process without a single hearing or meaningful discussion. It was so “important” that it just HAD to be ratified before Christmas, no matter how terrible it is. We NOW know the Russians are still going through the process of vetting and approving it. Who would have ever thought the Russian Parliament would be more careful and thoughtful about things than the so-called “world’s greatest deliberative body” the United States Senate!

Sarah is right, of course. She had been speaking out against START since Obama took office. She was one of the only ones who saw the dangers. As we all know, Sarah, as Governor of Alaska, had the care and feeding of America’s missile defense system on her plate. She took the Obama regime on as they tried to gut that system. Some “comedians” make jokes about Sarah and Russia [which she's taken to embracing, just to tweak the libs] but the fact is, Alaska and Russia are incredibly close to one another. The Alaska Territory was actually part of Russia until it was purchased at the urging of Secretary of State William H. Seward in 1867.

The Alaska Air National Guard, of which Sarah Palin was Commander-in-Chief, routinely escorts Russian aircraft out of Alaskan air space. In fact, on Sarah’s watch, the 176th Wing received the United States Air Force Outstanding Unit Award for, among other things, maintaining North American air sovereignty and prosecuting 22 Russian bomber intercepts. These would be the Tu-95 “Bear” bombers.

Sarah knows first hand the dangers the United States and our allies face on a daily basis. She also understands the real evil that exists in the world, while Obama and his ilk tend to assign a moral equivalency to it all.

We look around, and Sarah Palin is the only potential presidential candidate that is standing up and speaking out on foreign policy. She’s the only one of the bunch who seems to get it. It’s not for nothing that Greenfield places her alongside tough leaders like Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, who had solid foreign policy.

Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot. The Soviet Union went bankrupt as they tried to develop countermeasures for a defense project that only existed in Reagan’s head!

As Greenfield pointed out, thanks to Bush’s no nonsense policy, taking out the leadership in Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya’s Khaddafi, a big sponsor of worldwide terror himself, was so afraid he was next, he gave up all of Libya’s nuclear weapons without protest. This was the direct result of the U.S. invading both Afghanistan and Iraq.

So far the only thing Obama has managed, is weakening our own nuclear capability, while allowing rogue states like Iran and North Korea to run wild.

Thanks to Obama’s lack luster ability, Iran is shipping nuclear capable medium-range missiles to Venezuela. Not only will this destabilize the entire region, these missiles are capable of reaching targets within the United States.

It’s the Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids, and we have no indication that the Obama regime is even trying to stop this. Nukes in Venezuela, with a crazed dictator in charge, would be a disaster for the entire world. But Obama’s golf game is improving, and really, isn’t that all that matters?

Sarah Palin has the temperament, experience, and good old fashioned common sense that we as a nation need in a Commander-in-Chief. Under Obama’s inept presidency, exactly like under Carter’s, the world has become a much more dangerous place. We needed Ronald Reagan to take charge after Carter. He was the only logical choice for that time. Today we need Sarah Palin to take charge, as she is the only logical choice for our time.

About these ads

21 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

21 responses to “Obama Has Lost The World: Why We Need Sarah Palin

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Obama Has Lost The World: Why We Need Sarah Palin | A Time For Choosing -- Topsy.com

  2. B Atkinson

    Again, G.W. Bush deserves respect? You mean the guy who doubled the U.S. national debt in 8 years? The guy who led the U.S. into the worst recession since the Great Depression? Thanks for the comedy!

    • Gary P

      You silly person, Bush didn’t cause the recession. You can trace this mess back to one James Earl “Jimmy” Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act. This scam, fueled by ACORN, and then supercharged by William Jefferson Blythe Clinton is the cause of the meltdown. You can’t loan people money to buy houses when they have absolutely no possibility to pay them back. It’s a pretty poor business model!

      Carter, our second worst President in history, only created this mess. Clinton allowed Wall Street to sell derivatives full of these junk loans. Brokers made billions, while their companies went bankrupt.

      The Bush administration and Republicans in Congress tried more than 30 times to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 17 times in 2008 alone, but the democrats trotted out the usual suspects claiming racism, and Barney Frank, whose boyfriend was an executive at Fannie Mae, lied his ass off as well.

      The only blame you can put on the Republicans is they actually care that a bunch of lying democrats call them racists!

      John McCain also introduced powerful reforms that would have averted this mess, but the democrats blocked it all.

      Fannie and Freddie funneled millions to democrats, including Barack Obama. Franklin Raines, who briefly worked for Obama’s transition team, and ran Fannie Mae for a time, cooked the books and stole $90 million from Fannie Mae himself, through a scam he created. He’s never been held responsible. BTW, he was one of the ones screaming the loudest when Republicans wanted to reign Fannie and Freddie in. It’s no wonder, as he had 90 million reasons to do so!

      The democrats took control of Congress in 2007. Unemployment was less than 5% and and the economy was growing at a robust clip. As soon as the dems took control of Congress, and domestic policy, the economy started crashing.

      As far as the national debt, are you kidding me?

      Barack Obama spent more money and created more debt, in just his FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE, than every President from George Washington to George W Bush COMBINED. Where we used to talk about debt in the hundreds of billions, we now speak of it in the tens of trillions!

      In fact, the Obama regime lied and cooked the books. They claim the 2010 deficit is $1.2 trillion when it is actually $2.1 trillion. Our nation debt is conservatively figured at $13 trillion. Our entire yearly GDP is only $13.9 trillion!

      The democrat party and fiscal responsibility have never met.

      Of course, this post isn’t about fiscal policy, is it?

      Like most democrats, you can’t defend Obama on his inability to lead, or his dangerous foreign policy. And when I say dangerous, I mean dangerous for the entire world.

      No wonder you poor devils are trying desperately to change the subject!

  3. Pingback: bay of pigs invasion, freedom fighters, john f kennedy, fighter pilots, cuban freedom, u s air force, bay of pigs, Invasion, u s air, Kennedy, John, Pigs | nuclearmissile.net

  4. Joy

    Good for you, Gary – Bush’s “compassionate Conservatism” was NOT the point of Greenfield’s essay – he was talking about so-called “tough-guy” GOP leaders; and say whatever you like about Bush and his domestic policies, on foreign affairs and his response to 9/11, he certainly was “tough” and stuck it out through a whole boatload of criticism about the War in Iraq, until the surge policies began to turn things around.

    • Gary P

      The left tires me out with their nonsense about the debt and who caused this mess.

      First it’s completely laughable they would care about debt under Bush, especially when Obama has gone on a spending spree we can never pay for.

      It also makes me laugh how they totally re-write history to exonerate their failed socialist polices that got us in this mess to start with. This is why I wrote the other day that I though Mitch Daniels was a joke by declaring a “truce” on social issues. It’s these social issues, the democrats’ social engineering, that put us in this mess.

      What the democrats will never come to grips with is both Ronald Reagan and George W Bush had to ramp up military spend after both Carter and Clinton gutted the defense budgets declaring a “peace dividend.”

      This nonsense is how a radical Iran and eventually al Qaeda came into being under Carter, and the first World Trade Center bombing, that basically went unanswered, and 9/11 became a reality under Clinton. Thanks to these geniuses, the world got more dangerous on their watch.

      There’s not been a democrat president in my lifetime who could be trusted to keep America and the world safe. They gut the military, then when a real leader takes office, and sees the mess they inherited and MUST raise defense spending, they cry about that.

      My real concern right now, besides Iran itself, is those missiles going to Venezuela. Put nukes on them and it’s game over. So far Obama is doing nothing about it.

  5. B Atkinson

    Or how about a quote from the “great” Ronald Reagan: “The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor.”

    Or this one: “History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.”

    • Gary P

      What you are referring to is Reagan’s peace through strength philosophy, which was the right one.

      You make the price of war so high, the enemy sues for peace, or as the Soviet Union did, collapse under it’s own weight. This is the policy Sarah Palin has taken on numerous occasions. It’s a solid one. But your bark must be matched by your bite. else-wise there is no deterrent to war.

      This is why we are seeing rogue nations around the world doing all sorts of dangerous things. The know Obama is lame, limp, and impotent.

      One of the reasons our enemies feared Reagan, Bush, and will fear Palin is our own idiotic, corrupt media made them out to be “loose cannons” and “cowboys” Hell, even squishy country club Republicans were screaming that if Reagan was elected the first thing he would do is start a nuclear war. It wasn’t much better with Bush, but mostly from the left. They already think Palin would do this.

      Frankly, as stupid as it is, our enemies buy it. Makes them wonder. Think a bit.

      Really, just who do you think Putin would rather deal with, a wimp who has no clue and is so naive he thinks he can charm the world with his smile, or a tough woman who is a better shot than he is, and has nerves of steel? Like most little communist dictators, Putin goes out of his way to look like a manly man. Staging photo ops, looking tough. Palin has lived that life for real since she was a kid!

      Now I’m sure you are trying to use you continued rants to bash Bush, but remember, the United States was attacked, not once, but twice by al Qaeda, who were based in Afghanistan and being financially supported by the Iraqi and Libyan governments.

      The first time Bill Clinton treated the bombing of the World Trade Center as you would the crime of shoplifting, and nothing more. After 9/11 there was only one course of action. Al Qaeda, and Iraq, had been at war with us, we just weren’t paying attention.

      There is no such thing as a “good war” but there is the such thing as a just war.

      Thanks to George W Bush, and coalition forces from around the world, 50 million people are now free that weren’t before. Most had never known freedom. And they wanted it. The Iraqi and Afghan people voted in far greater percentages than the American people ever have, and they voted under the threat of death in both nations.

      I have no idea of the point of your rant, except you wish to bash everyone and everything, as usual.

      Feel free to take your business elsewhere.

  6. Bloodhound

    I have been loyal and had respect for every serving president since I was born. I served under Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan honorably and would have followed them to hell, They were my Presidents! But the current Worldly Citizen has no American qualities, no American sense of what it means to be raised as an American, and certainly, no Patriotism towards our country. His leadership is a total failure. Obama has made America more unsafe than it has been in years, is trying to ruin our military by turning it into a social experiment, and has made America the laughing stock of the world! Western leaders have lost all trust and respect for him by his shunning them, and our adversaries are laughing at him because they can see how weak a person he is. The only way Obama could win in 2012 is by Fraud, unless the sheepish masses fall for his Lies again. We need someone strong, that has Common Sense, and will not bow down to our adversaries and that person is Sarah Palin!

    • honestyingov

      ” His leadership is a total failure. “… I would agree. Uhhh..

      You were talking about Dubya,.. Right..? The one who let 9-11 happen on his watch. Thought so.
      ” Mission Accomplished “

      • Gary P

        Dude, worn out left wing talking points don’t work here. Our readers are better informed.

        Thanks to Clinton’s ineptness, as well as one of his appointees, Jamie Gerelick, no one could see 9/11 coming. Gerelick, a typical idiot liberal, who worked in the Justice Department, decided like all idiot liberals, that terrorism is a crime, like pickpocketing, instead an act of war. In order to protect the rights of terrorists, and a possible criminal case, Gerelick set up a wall between all of the intelligence agencies, forbidding them to talk to one another and share information. All of the info was there to put it together, but no one could talk to one another.

        The Bush administration was still trying to sort out the entire mess Gerelick made, when 9/11 happened.

        Worse yet, when the 9/11 Commission was formed, Gerelick, instead of being in custody, and grilled, was actually a member of the panel!!!

        Wise up. 9/11 happened because of Clinton. He should have taken out al Qaeda and Iraq on his watch instead of using the military as a Meals on Wheels program in Bosnia.

  7. Joy

    Thanks again, Gary, for doing battle for the rest of us! You have a good command of the basic facts – and, in fact, bring up some pretty uncomfortable truths re 9/11 and the history leading up to it and then the can of worms that it subsequently unleashed.

    We’ve been happy here in our heretofore Lib-free zone of truth and “honesty in Government” (THAT troll should get a new moniker, IMO!), so we’re a bit put out that some trolls have crossed the drawbridge from their never-never-land of useful idiots.

    I have a feeling that the Left, as they did with Nixon (dig him up only to bury him again & again), will never let it go with Bush. They never forgave Nixon for exposing that commie, Alger Hiss, in the early 50s (and, prior to that, beating their commie favorite, Helen Douglas, for his first Congressional seat in the late 40s); and they will never forgive Bush for striking back against Islam in the ongoing war that Islam has proclaimed on the West.

    The sad outcome of all this confusion re Islam has been the very UN-holy alliance between the Idiot Socialist Left and Islam. And if this alliance is not torn assunder and defeated, it will be Islam that will be victorious – and the Libtard trolls that annoy us now will be in line with everyone else to submit or die.

    • Gary P

      Thanks Joy.

      We try to research what we talk about here. Obviously there is a lot of opinion in blogging, which is kind of the idea in the first place, but one has to have a basic understanding of the facts to get it done. It does no one any good to publish things that aren’t factual.

      As tiring as it can be dealing with the left, I’m always brought back to a favorite Ronald Reagan quote:

      “It’s not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it’s just they know so much that isn’t so.”

      That kind of sums it up.

  8. B Atkinson

    Goerge H.W. Bush could have taken out Iraq when he as in power, but didn’t. Is he an idiot liberal, too?

    • Gary P

      For once we actually agree on something. Of course, just like Operation Iraqi Freedom, the first Gulf War was a coalition of many nations, and no one had the stomach for what should have been done. No telling how different world history might have been if they had took out Saddam back then.

      Saddam was a big sponsor of terror world wide, most notably paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel $25,000 a piece every time one of their kin went and blew himself up, and killed a bunch of Israelis. You notice, since Saddam has achieved room temperature, you aren’t seeing many suicide bombing in Israel.

      BTW, the word is PROGRESSIVE, not liberal. Progressives co-opted the word “liberal” after the world figured out what the word really meant. True liberals are decent folks, true liberalism is akin to both conservatism and libertarianism. Progressives are a mix of communism and socialism, with a radical and often violent bent. They are totalitarian extremists, wanting to control every facet of one’s life. They are anti-Constitution and Anti-American.

      We have em in both parties. The must be run out of politics forever.

      Bushs 41 and 43 are both progressives, though 43 is a lot closer to a Conservative than his dad. [and neither are as bad as a democrat progressive]

      One of these days, if I ever get caught up, I’ll do a little history on all the evil progressive democrats have unleashed on the world. It’s no wonder they changed their name to “liberal” to get away from their history.

      Of course, all of us are guilty of calling them liberals, if for no other reason because that’s what most people know them as, but it’s not the correct term.

    • Joy

      Adding to what Gary said, my take on this unfortunate policy goof by Bush 41 was that, numero uno, he made a deal with his oil buddies, the Saudis, to clear out and clean up Kuwait and even the border areas with Iraq, but to NOT march on to Baghdad. PERIOD. And that deal was sealed with all the other Coalition partners as well. As it turned out, Gary is right: No one seemed to have the stomach for an expansion of the First Gulf War – neither the Coalition Partners nor the American public. We may never know what Schwartzkopf thought in his heart of hearts, nor Colin Powell, for that matter; but Powell was grateful to be able to quite while he was ahead (i.e., few American or Coalition casualties, but a good trouncing of Saddam’s vaunted Republican Guard).

      My further (conspiratorial) thoughts on this suggest that Bush 43 was really directed (by some of the so-called “powers-that-be”) to finish up what Bush 41 left unfinished. By then – 12 years later – Saddam had rebuilt his forces even more strongly, PLUS there was serious evidence that he was moving toward nuclear weaponry – and, in fact, was a bit too far along for comfort. (Seeking yellow cake in Nigeria – contrary to that self-serving liar, Joe Wilson – which was subsequently discovered in large quantities in Iraq by the American forces and, in 2005, sold en massse to Canada for their own nuclear energy programs & purposes.)

      Whether the American public will ever really know the full truth, no one can say now, but I do firmly believe that Bush 43 did not act alone in his ultimate – and fateful – decision to invade Iraq. More & more it was becoming obvious that Saddam was challenging us at every turn, flying in the no-fly zones and violating (with the aid of the UN, of course) the embargo via the so-called “Food for Oil, ” etc. etc. But the rogue character of his regime, coupled with the possibilities of nuclear and biological weaponry, forced the USA’s hand – and Bush 41, although publicly silent on his son’s decision, was part of a very inner-sanctum group that directed Bush 43, Rumsfeld et al, to proceed with “clearing up” what Bush 41 and the Coalition failed to do 12 year earlier – all the while as Iraq was becoming – outwardly, at least – increasingly more dangerous.

  9. B Atkinson

    Oh yeah, the “great” Ronald Reagan was pretty close with Saddam Hussein, wasn’t he?

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

    Another one of those facts that don’t conveniently fit into your “rightist” ideology, and will therefore be censored.

    • Gary P

      This kind of idiocy is why a lot of you posts never make it past moderation. Like the one using an Eisenhower quote to equate George W Bush to Hitler.

      Yes, the United States backed Saddam against Iran. Remember, under Carter’s watch, radical Iran was created. Instead of backing the Shah of Iran, Carter, who has since proven to be sympathetic to Muslim terrorists of all stripes, allowed radical Muslims to gain control of Iran, holding American hostages for over a year.

      BTW, these hostages were freed at the exact moment President Ronald Reagan was being sworn in, because the Mullahs were convinced Ronnie would unleash a nuclear armageddon on them, if they didn’t!

      As for helping Iraq, the enemy of our enemy is our friend. That’s been the case since the beginning of time.

      BTW, how do you feel about the fact FDR embraced brutal dictator Joseph Stalin, who he referred to as “Uncle Joe” as the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union fought together to defeat Nazi Germany?

  10. Pingback: Sarah Palin The National Security President | A Time For Choosing

  11. Pingback: Sarah Palin The National Security President « Sarah Palin Information Blog

  12. Pingback: Sarah Palin The National Security President « The Ghostfighters

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s