Any Truth in This?

[Werewolf]

Long article about Obama's relationship with the country he now leads.

A buddy sent me the link. I am not familiar with the Canada Free Press and have no idea how credible it is - and with out credibility any source of information is of no value; for example I pretty much ignore most everything that comes out of WND and trash anything sent to me that uses it as a source.

Though I do not disagree with the sentiment of the article I am hesitant to attribute any credibility to the many examples regarding obama in it since I know little about the Canada Free Press.

The gist of the article is that Obama's constant public criticism of the USA, especially those statements made while in foreign lands, is tantamount to treaon. Some of the statements made in the article are, if true, quite damninig.

Here are some of the more radical things stated in the article:

...Yet in my decades of commenting on the political scene, I cannot recall a single leader of any country or regime who has ever spoken negatively of his country or tolerated others speaking ill of the land or the people he represented

Until now
Bizarre and, yes, repugnant as it is to our essentially centrist country, America now has a president who has broken that time-honored tradition. Barack Obama, on the campaign trail and as the leader of the free world is the first U.S. president to proclaim to anyone within earshot that he, like his wife, is not proud of his country, and is all-too-willing to offer serial apologies – for America! – to Americans and foreigners alike.

As Ed Lasky writes: “We know that during the campaign [Obama] warned that criticism of his wife was `off-limits’. But criticism of America – well, that is fine.”

In just the first 100-days of his tenure, Obama’s words and actions have demonstrated that he is no friend of the country he leads. This is only a smattering of what happened on his recent three-continent trip abroad and to Mexico:


In France, Obama told his audience that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.

In Prague, Obama – in true utopian-kindergarten fashion – pledged “with conviction” that America will “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” In other words, destroy big bad America’s ability to defend itself!

In London, Obama made clear that the world’s financial wealth was no longer made by those inferior leaders Roosevelt and Churchill, effectively ceding America’s leading role in creating and sharing wealth to nations that have never measured up to our country’s bountiful generosity or spirit of free-market entrepreneurship.

In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama sat passively while the Marxist Chavez handed him an American-bashing book and delivered another revile-America speech, while never once rising to defend our country.

In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama again sat passively while the Marxist Ortega blamed the United States for a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America, again emitting not a whisper of defense on our country’s behalf.

In Turkey, Obama said – incredibly and inaccurately – that America was not a Christian nation.

And in his recent trip to Mexico, Obama said that the escalating border violence was essentially America’s fault.

Scan you memory. Can you think of any other leader in world history who so consistently badmouths his own country, or fails to defend it? I can’t.

Any truth to those contentions?

Abandoning allies, Embracing enemies:

“If you are a longtime enemy of the United States, count on a grand reception from the Obama administration. All is forgiven and, worse, forgotten,” write Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. “But if you have a track record as an ally or friend, you won’t get the right time of day.”

Of course apologists for Obama & Co. point to “progress” in our foreign policy, ignoring, as Caroline Glick points out, that “America’s betrayal of its democratic allies makes each of them more vulnerable to aggression at the hands of their enemies – enemies the Obama administration is now actively attempting to appease.” Glick lays out the cold hard facts:

Obama abrogated America’s strategic commitment to the defense of our ally Japan when his administration reacted to North Korea’s ballistic missile test by saying the U.S. would only shoot the missile down if it targeted U.S. territory.

Obama slapped our ally India when he refused to make ending Pakistan’s support for jihadist terror groups attacking India a central component of its strategy for contending with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Obama failed to assure our ally Iraq that democracy and freedom will be secured before U.S. forces are withdrawn next year.

Obama de facto abandoned our allies in Eastern Europe when he announced his intention to forge a new alliance with Russia. “The Czech, Polish, Georgian and Ukrainian governments,” Glick says, “were quick to recognize that Obama’s strong desire to curry favor with the Kremlin and weaken his own country will imperil their ability to withstand Russian aggression.”

Obama “is sacrificing the U.S.’s alliance with our ally Israel “in a bid to appease the Arabs and Iran by supporting the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state,” which, Glick warns, “requires Israel to commit national suicide in exchange for `peace.’” Obama also made clear “that from the administration’s perspective, an Israeli strike that prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power is less acceptable than a nuclear-armed Iran.” In addition, Obama sent Hamas $900 million of foreign aid, “channeled through the UNRWA, a United Nations front filled with Hamas operatives”

Obama slapped our ally England when he returned the bust of Winston Churchill to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Obama slapped our ally Colombia and its president Alvaro Uribe when he refused to submit the free trade deal with Bogota to the Senate.

“What a great time to be our enemy!” Glick exclaims. “What a terrible time to be our friend!”

That is quite disturbing if true.

And here's a summary by one writer of the Obama Administration:

NY Post writer Ralph Peters, a former military intelligence officer, sums up the hate-America core tenets of the “Obama Doctrine” as follows:
(1) We’re to blame,
(2) Problems can be negotiated away,
(3) Problems that can’t be talked out can be bought off,
(4) Islamist terrorism doesn’t exist,
(5) It’s all our fault,
(6) Israel’s the obstacle to Middle East peace,
(7) Our nukes threaten world peace and we need to get rid of them,
(8) Our military is dangerous,
(9) Our intelligence services are even more dangerous than our military,
(10) It’s only torture if we do it, and
(11) Blame President George W. Bush.

The article continues in the same vein - it makes some sense in a weird kind'a way.

BUT is the article credible? Is the source credible?

Comments...

[longeyes]

Isn't the real question what Obama has said and done?

Draw your own conclusions.

[Standing Wolf]

Isn't the real question what Obama has said and done?

Not much of a question, really. Half a century hence, historians are going to be astounded America elected such a failure to the presidency.

[Jamisjockey]

Isn't the real question what Obama has said and done?

Draw your own conclusions.

Huh, what?
That doesn't make any sense.  Clairfy it.

[longeyes]

I'll clarify it.

The OP asks if there is any truth to the contentions.  We have a historical record here of what Obama has said and done. 

Whether what he has said and done rises to the level of [fill in the blank] can be debated; what he has said and done cannot be.

For me there is no doubt we've elected a man who has serious misgivings about not only this country's recent comportment but its philosophical essence.

[Jamisjockey]

Works for me, thanks, and I'm in agreeance over Obama's record of fact, vote, and statements.



I'm curious, too, though, as to the truth of the actual statements.

[Matthew Carberry]

I would, in general, based on what I have read of him (some military novels and some articles in professional journals) assume credibility on the part of Ralph Peters.

Can't vouch for anything else.

[Waitone]

The beauty of the internet is Joe and Martha Sixpack have unfettered access to whoever can put stuff up.  It gives one access to perfectly good opinions which in the past have been unavailable.  It also gives one access to really half-baked wacko stuff.  It is up to the reader to be the skeptic. 

WND puts out some really good stuff.  Then again I've read really head-shaking reports and opinions.  Some of its writers are highly credible; others not so much. 

I know nothing of the author of the article you mentioned other than what was posted in her bio.  She cites one Ralph Peters.  Study up on him and you'll find a highly credible and well-respected writer on issues of national security and intelligence issues.  Victor Davis Hanson is another well-respected writer.

Canada Free Press?  Haven't a clue.  I'm in the process of assigning credibility to the publication.  So far it is free of flying sauce stories.

Before the internet we pretty had to evaluate what we read only on its face.  Today we can drill down and find more of the output of any given writer. 

[coppertales]

I watched Dick Morris say what he did.  I believe it was on the Hannity show......chris3

[HankB]

Virtually everything Obama says or does is wrong, whether its budget policy, foreign policy, appointments to the administration, whatever.

If it were Bush - or, for that matter, any Republican - blundering this badly every day, the media would be apoplectic with rage, rather than smiling benignly and even applauding as they are today.

And when BHO does happen to get something right, it appears to be a case of "broken clock syndrome."

Nobody is infallible, but would - no, perhaps we should ask could - an intelligent man do the wrong thing as a matter of course, if he truly wanted what was best for this country?

 

[Balog]

Hank: our idea of "best for this country" and his are very different.

[Werewolf]

Hank: our idea of "best for this country" and his are very different.

And there in lies the rub...

obama's vision for the country is indeed very different from that of the founders and he is exercising the power of his office to make his vision reality.

BUT?

Does that make him a traitor?

[Seenterman]

We wouldn't have elected such a "newbie" if the former administration hadn't have epically failed at all levels of operation. As much as you want to say "You can't blame Bush anymore", well in l33t speak some would say

"Bush set Obama up the Bomb!!!!!!!"

If you didn't play Counter Strike you probably wont understand that. . . .

[longeyes]

I'm no defender of the Bush admin but we are deceiving ourselves if we really think that Obama was elected only because of Bush's deficiencies.  Obama was the "accident" that was waiting to happen for four decades.  Destructive trends in the culture--in education, the media, entertainment, demographics, even technology--account for Obama and Obamaism.  We have been moving away from the empowered, rational individual and the values that support and embrace such a citizen for a long time.  Bush was just another enabler in that process.

[CNYCacher]

We wouldn't have elected such a "newbie" if the former administration hadn't have epically failed at all levels of operation. As much as you want to say "You can't blame Bush anymore", well in l33t speak some would say

"Bush set Obama up the Bomb!!!!!!!"

If you didn't play Counter Strike you probably wont understand that. . . .

You think that comes from counterstrike?

PS. +h15 15 1337 5p3/-\|<

[Seenterman]

You think that comes from counterstrike?

PS. +h15 15 1337 5p3/-\|<

Probably didn't originate from CS but it sure as hell was the popular meme when I played. Like Chuck Norris jokes late at night on World of Warcraft. I swear to gosh that game was the reason those jokes got so damn popular. And I didn't think anyone would actually understand me if 1 \/\/40+3 0/\/1y 1/\/ l33t $p3/-\|< @/\/|) 1+ +@|<3$ f043\/34 +0 +yp3.

[DittoHead]

If it were Bush - or, for that matter, any Republican - blundering this badly every day, the media would be apoplectic with rage, rather than smiling benignly and even applauding as they are today.

The media isn't making any noise because they don't believe Obama is blundering badly ever day. They elected him because they are as clueless as him in believing he is doing the right things. They're not covering up or ignoring his ineptitude, they just can't see it.

[CNYCacher]

Probably didn't originate from CS but it sure as hell was the popular meme when I played. Like Chuck Norris jokes late at night on World of Warcraft. I swear to gosh that game was the reason those jokes got so damn popular. And I didn't think anyone would actually understand me if 1 \/\/40+3 0/\/1y 1/\/ l33t $p3/-\|< @/\/|) 1+ +@|<3$ f043\/34 +0 +yp3.

Origin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us

Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4AuN6pN1kY

[Jocassee]

Zero Wing FTW.

"All your Obama are belong to us!" ~George Soros