The President Who Cried Historic

The President Who Cried Historic



In the run up to President Obama’s address to the United Nations, administration officials began to bill this speech as a historic event. Unfortunetly everything the president does wether it be eating a cheeseburger or killing a fly is billed as historic, and there is definitly nothing historic about this President delivering a speech, and much like the boy who cried wolf the adjective has lost its desired effect. Unless of course you define historic as a bloviating amalgamation of every speech he has given since 2007. I almost expected the President to reassure the U.N. delegates that if they like their current health insurance they could keep it. Like all of the Presidents speeches it was nothing more than a bunch of self serving fluff and meaningless platitudes. The President said;

“I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted — I believe — in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems.”

This statement tells me the President is believing to much of the network media press. I also find it interesting that it is the President and politicians of his progressive ilk that seek to define people by their differences, wether it be race, religion, wealth, the entire progressive political strategy seems to be based on separating people into groups and placing them in constant conflict with one another. It is also impossible to not be outpaced by your problems considering you don’t know you have one until the negative effects of it are realized.

“ I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.”

What misperceptions? What misinformation? What is wrong with acting unilaterally? Since when are we or any nation for that matter expected to sacrifice their own interest for the interest of France or whomever? By this rational, can we ever seriously resolve conflict? Can we ever really make demands of a country like Iran. Who seem to believe very strongly that it is in their interest to develop nuclear weapons. Wouldn’t our interest that they do not be invalidated by not only their desire but that of another country that supports Iran’s nuclear aspirations? Wouldn’t this lead to the “collective inaction” that Obama seeks to eliminate.


“Like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests.”

This is a safe bet, being that the President is not real keen on policies that actually favor American interest.

“The religious convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or tear us apart. The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever darken it. The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it. What happens to the hope of a single child — anywhere — can enrich our world, or impoverish it.”


We can turn on the light, or we can turn it off. We can open the door, or we can close it. And we can decide to have coffee and cake, or tea and cookies. Choices we get it.

“We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems — it will take persistent action.

This coming from a President who has done nothing but give speeches and has been on a perpetual campaign since he entered the U.S. senate.

“So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.”

Let’s accept Obama’s premise here for a second and say that George W. Bush’s eight years in office was the worst event in American history. Does that somehow disqualify two-hundred and thirty plus years of advancing individual liberty, innovation, technology and global prosperity? Yet somehow his election and subsuquent nine months in office is our sole act of redemption.

“After all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and to point fingers and stoke division. Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anyone can do that.”

The President has shown us how easy this is, considering he repeatedly blames his predecessor, the media, bloggers, his opposition and on and on. This president is an astute finger pointer.

“No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.”

It is this world order that has survived since man entered into civil society. To believe human nature would allow anything to the contrary is extremely naive.

“Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. This is not about singling out individual nations — it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation’s demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.”

Somehow Iraq is exempt from this, being that they repeatedly thumbed their nose at U.N. weapons inspectors for years not to mention their violation of numerous resolutions. Obama objected to the Bush administrations citing these violations as a reason for action. But more recently the revelations of Russia, Iran Venezuela working together to further their nuclear ambitions flies in the face of this rhetoric. Not to mention the actions of North Korea. The Presidents goal of U.S. disarmament will only invite more proliferation; countries that have been protected under our umbrella of nuclear dominance will create their own weapons, or ally with nations that are building them in an effort to protect themselves. Despite the Presidents wishes the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and there is no way to put it back in.

“We will permit no safe-haven for al Qaeda to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation.”

This sounds like a strong statement but curiously there is no mention of the Taliban. Which would make sense being that during the President’s recent Sunday media blitz, he wondered wether fighting the Taliban is necessary. Unless the President has information about some type of fallout between the Taliban and al qaeda, I don’t see how you can fight one and not the other.

“The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied, and our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders.”

I would think this goes without saying, considering if there were some type of global climate catastrophe, it would by definition affect the whole planet. Unless of course Obama was referring to that alternate universe known as the U.N. assembly.

“Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. Future generations will look back and wonder why we refused to act why we failed to pass on intact the environment that was our inheritance.”

The human race has survived for more than two hundred thousand years, we have adapted to a number of real climatic changes, and our society has continued to advance despite this. To imply that we have somehow lost this innate ability is absurd.

“Those wealthy nations that did so much to damage the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead...
any effort to curb carbon emissions must include the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth...It is hard to change something as fundamental as how we use energy. It’s even harder to do so in the midst of a global recession. Certainly, it will be tempting to sit back and wait for others to move first.”

This is Obama’s attempt at getting tough with Russia, India and China. But it is actually very revealing, Obama is admitting that climate change legislation is a detriment to economic growth, as many critics have charged.

Historical, not so much, this speech was however an excellent example of Obama’s dangerous inexperience when it comes to international affairs.

Anthony D Dolpies