The Titanic

I‘m not a fan of President Obama. Don’t care for that Michelle either. Have no opinion on the kids. Seem cute enough.

I understand how this character got elected in 2008. The economy was in free-fall, and it was easy to think it was all Dubya’s doing.* Plus McCain and Palin didn’t present an attractive alternative.

Obama publicly backs Argentina in its ongoing dispute over the Falklands in spite of Great Britain’s being one of America’s most faithful allies, in spite of the Falklands being British since 1833, in spite of 70 percent of the inhabitants being Brits. The rest are not Argentine but European. The language is English.

The Falklands are more British than Hawaii is American, so why does Obama side with Argentina, snubbing American allies? Because he will always side with non-Anglo-Saxons. He is a PC person obsessed with race and ethnicity.

Though Obama does not publicly embrace the Venezuelan despot Hugo Chávez, he is a fanboy. This is because Chávez spouts revolutionary phrases and pretends to support the oppressed. PC people are obsessed with “the oppressed.”

Obama has never visited Israel, another of America’s faithful allies. Instead, he is sweet on the Palestinians because, of course, they are “oppressed” people.

All this is why the far-lefties love him. They too are obsessed with “oppressed” people. I put to you that many “oppressed” people simply are disorganized and can’t get their national acts together. Sad-sack Palestinians are a classic case.

Two groups of Americans support Obama, and combined they make up a distressingly large, though still minority, percentage of the population. First, the far-lefties. The second, and far more numerous, group is made up of the clueless.

These two often exist in the same suit of clothes.

This second group are people who simply don’t follow current events or politics much, know very little of history, and feel that supporting the incumbent is the right thing to do. He seems sincere and, anyhow, disliking him is “racist.”

Can’t have that.

* * * *

Just two months ago, Edward Klein, former editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine and former foreign editor of Newsweek, published a book titled The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House.

Part of Amazon’s advertising blurb:

(Klein) pulls back the curtain on one of the most secretive White Houses in history. He reveals a callow, thin-skinned, arrogant president with messianic dreams of grandeur supported by a cast of true-believers, all of them united by leftist politics and an amateurish understanding of executive leadership.

* * * *

Hugh Hewitt recently published a book titled The Brief Against Obama: The Rise, Fall and Epic Fail of the Hope and Change Presidency.

Part of Amazon’s advertising blurb:

Hugh makes the case that Obama’s has been a disastrous presidency, a fiasco in fact, and reveals the president to be a wholly unprepared and incapable-of-learning ideologue whose nearly every move has been wrong and whose almost every decision has been ill-conceived and poorly executed.

But for the SEAL’s dispatch of bin Laden and the military’s removal of al-Awalki and other terrorists — whom the president still seeks to remove from Gitmo to domestic courts in the United States  — Obama would be wholly without anything to claim as an achievement of his time in the Oval Office.

* * * *

Recently, I read of a bumper sticker that says, more or less: Re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic’s striking the iceberg, then backing up and ramming it again.

* * * *

Please note that today’s anti-Obama rant failed to mention even once (till now) the vituperative “Pastor” Jeremiah Wright or the Peace Prize absurdly awarded by a moonstruck Nobel Committee just 12 minutes after Obama’s inauguration.

Thanks for listening. The Moon will soon return to its normal programming.

* * * *

* Actually, it was the doing of both parties encouraged by the American people.

29 thoughts on “The Titanic”

  1. I think we can recycle your silly Titanic statement into why would we put another Republican in the highest office after the wreckage the last one left? You can name call as much as you want, call me an idiot, uneducated, unread, water off a duck, policy matters to me and your boy is only going to take care of the 1%. Just like the last Republican.

    Like

    1. Settle down now, Norm. I did not call you an idiot or uneducated or unread, nor would I do so. I would put you in the first of the two categories who like Obama: the far-lefties.

      I believe most far-lefties mean well. I just believe they are excessively idealistic and unrealistic.

      PS: If you can find even one instance of my name-calling anywhere on the internet, I’ll kiss your keister on Main Street on the day of your choosing. You can invite your friends to watch.

      Doesn’t happen.

      Calling someone a Lefty does not qualify. It’s simply a political stance. Clueless is not name-calling either. Some people are. Some people are not. To be clueless is to lack information on some issue or all issues. It’s a polite form of ignorant but, as I said, you are in the first category, not the second.

      Like

  2. Why does Mr. Obama support Argentina in the dispute over the Falklands?

    For the same reason that he ruled in favor of Mexico on an immigration issue…

    And because he feels everyone has a right to healthcare…

    And for many other reasons…

    My dear Felipe, it is your perogative to express your feelings, especially on your own blog…

    But, I believe it is time to undo some of the past injustices and level the playing field…

    Why?

    Because as the President of the United States of America has said time and time again…

    “Because it’s the RIGHT thing to do,”

    Like

    1. PS: I think most everyone would agree that doing the right thing is, well, the right thing to do. Alas, the right thing is not always an objective truth. It can be a matter of opinion.

      Like

    2. Mr or Ms. Merida: Thinking more on your comment. I wonder if the British citizens on the Falklands would think turning their land over to Argentina would be the “right thing” to do? Kinda doubt it.

      I doubt there are any Argentines living in the Falklands, so what would be the reason to give the Falklands to Argentina? Physical proximity? A little internet search reveals that Argentina has never been the owner of the Falklands. They did once have a settlement there eons ago, but so did Spain and France along with England.

      What Argentina has long done is simply claim the Falklands. They say it’s so.

      I imagine that both Argentina and you think it should be Argentine due to physical proximity. Perhaps Alaska should be given to Canada to which it is connected. Of course, Hawaii should be returned to the native Hawaiians because Hawaii is so far from California. I think descendents of the old royal family still exist there. It could be a monarchy again. And the western third of the United States should be returned to Mexico. That would certainly give the latte-sipping folks in San Francisco a wake-up call.

      All of this is silly, of course, as is Obama’s support of the Falklands being “returned” to Argentina. Does he know that the Falklands have never been Argentine? Where is your “past injustice” in this situation?

      Obama’s stance is bad on a number of levels. One thing is that there is zero chance that the Brits will give the Falklands to Argentina. It simply ain’t gonna happen. So why would Obama even open his mouth, especially against one of America’s staunchest allies? It makes no sense whatsoever, and it illustrates beautifully what Edward Klein sees as Obama’s amateurish understanding of executive leadership.

      Like

      1. Felipe… we should have stuck with “We’ll have to disagree…”

        Perhaps you can’t find records of the Falklands belonging to Argentina because they are called by a different name: (Las Islas Malvinas) in Latin America

        But for such a far-away little outcrop they have caused lots of friction. They were first “discovered” in 1520 by Esteban Gómez (Spanish). John Davis was the first Englishman to tread there in 1592. And the first volleys between the Spanish and the English got underway… Actually old Dutch maps show both countries as the sovereign nation. In 1740 an actual naval battle between the two showed no clear victor and the French moved in until 1766 when Spanish protests forced the French to release their claim to the archipelago.

        The islands were then under Spanish rule and yet England established Port Egmont on the Isla de Trinidad – the Spanish sent them packing and then evacuated the islands as well, until 1820 when the Argentine government (now no longer a Spanish colony) sent a delegation to establish Argentina’s claim to Las Malvinas as part of the succession from Spain. In August of 1829 Luis María Vernet founded “Puerto Luis.”

        The tariffs that Vernet charged the international whalers who used the island eventually irritated the USA who sent the “Lexington” to destroy the Argentine settlement. In 1833 the British frigate “HMS Clio” under the command of Captain James Onslow claimed the islands for the King of England. The impoverished Argentine presence in Las Malvinas was in no position to retaliate and the islands fell under British occupation, and that is how the situation remained until 1982 when the Argentines tried to reclaim (yes, re-claim) their territory.

        My own tenuous tie to Las Malvinas is through my grandfather. He was a Dutch geologist and in those days, the oil exploration teams traveled on whalers in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. In his diary, he makes mention of having stopped for a period of weeks at the islands in 1915.

        Please don’t attribute sentiments to me that I do not hold. I do not claim that Alaska should be part of Canada (that territory once belonged to – ye-gads – Russia!) Nor do I believe that the southern USA should revert back to México (although the very mention of that idea really gets the right wingers going, doesn’t it?)

        Centuries of imperialism has left us with a fine mess that I fear will never be straightened out. Especially since it continues still…

        And by the way it is “Señora”…

        http://www.writingfrommerida.wordpress.com

        .writingfrommerida.wordpress.com

        Like

        1. Señora Merida: Oh, I know the Argentines call the Falklands by another name. Doesn’t matter. The history is the same. It’s been British since 1833. The culture and language are English. Nobody who lives there wants to be part of Argentina. The notion of making it Argentine is patent nonsense, and Obama should know that. Just one example of his cluelessness.

          I was not attributing sentiments to you about Alaska, Canada, etc. I simply see no real reason for thinking the Falklands should go to Argentina aside from physical proximity, and from there you can find all manner of related situations around the world.

          Centuries of imperialism have not really left us with a mess at all. It has left us with the world in which we live. Boundaries have changed everywhere always, and they always will. It’s the human condition.

          Like

    1. Señor Calypso: I had not heard of the book till yesterday. I bought it last night, and will read it posthaste. The other book I mentioned I will not read because I think it will be a case of preaching to the choir. I am already a believer, to put it mildly. But Klein’s book appears more of a look into the Obamas’ lives and inside the White House. Should be very revealing and interesting.

      Like

  3. Felipe, you are indeed a Rooster in fine form. Wonder if you’ll give your take on the gun reforms in the Good Old USA given what has happened in Colorado. That should indeed cause a dust storm of major proportions.

    Like

    1. Bob: I have long been a fervent advocate of extreme gun-control laws, one of my Lefty stances, but I have just recently begun to think more on it. It’s not that I don’t want guns controlled, but more that I think it’s pretty much impossible to do and that perhaps other approaches to the problem are more intelligent.

      My change of heart has nothing to do with that crackpot in Colorado, however.

      Like

    2. The US should just adapt gun controls like the UK and Australia did, not working out too good for them. Figure out a way for criminals to not have them, and problem solved.

      The US already has way too many gun laws as it is. What’s lacking is enforcement.

      Like

  4. Great post, just the right amount of quotes from sources the left will go into a tizzy after.

    Just the amount of opaque transparency is cause enough for a change. Really doesn’t matter right or left, just time to pull the handle and hear the whooshing sound.

    Several friends that have been hard left in my circle have even jumped ship on this guy … I guess Carter wasn’t bad enough, this kinda makes Carter look good.

    Like

    1. Tancho: Already had a couple of Lefty tizzies up at the top.

      I never really objected to President Carter. He simply was in over his head. He should have stuck to peanut farming. He was an accidental president as is Obama. Both happened to be standing at the right place at the right time, for them.

      Obama is in over his head too, but it’s far worse than that. He, like his wife and his Pastor Wright, is genuinely anti-American, which is stunning in a president, and he actually sides with America’s foes and thumbs his nose directly at America’s friends, Great Britain being a fine example.

      Like

  5. Good post Felipe. I will never understand the lefties mindset. There’s much I could rant about Obama but I won’t. Did read something interesting about the charitable giving of Romney, Obama and Biden.

    Romney-20% of his income
    Obama- less than 1% of his income
    Biden-$300.00

    I think this speaks to the character of these men.

    Like

    1. Thanks, Jackie. The 300 bucks from Biden is funny. Maybe it’s even true. One can find any “facts” on the internet these days. Who knows about that one? The 20 percent from Romney perhaps is so because the super-rich do tend to do that. At least, some of them do. Others no.

      Like

    2. Revolutions, especially in the last two centuries, have come almost exclusively from the left. Rightists prefer coups, and are less interested in “improving society.” Their goals are more short-term and personally greedy, which ain’t good, but they’re far nicer than what the lefties, the Utopians, do.

      The famous leftist revolutions went very bad: The Chinese, the Russian, the French (and even the Cuban but to a lesser extent) revolutions caused immense suffering and death.

      Beware people who want huge social “improvements.” You’ll usually end up being one of literally millions being killed in the process of improvement.

      Like

      1. I share your distaste for utopianism, amigo. Utopian thinking is characteristic of fascism, communism, and intolerance in general. It is antithetical to what Karl Popper called the “Open Society”. Does this mean I have to vote for Romney?

        Like

  6. Far-lefties and clueless. I would not characterize myself as either.

    What do we call those of us that the Republicans have alienated due to the far-right moralistic stances on what I view as human rights issues?

    I am not a die hard Democrat or Obama fan. For many years, I did typically vote the Republican agenda. I am however not going to vote for Republicans that choose Palin as a running mate and who are chipping away constantly at right-to-choice for birth and marriage, etc. I think it is a matter of prioritizing the issues and making the vote align as best you can.

    Frankly I am in the group that has no party or candidate to really identify with …

    Like

    1. Ms Mommy: Religion, especially the hard-nosed variety, is the fly in the conservative ointment, often causing problems and distractions.

      I have no idea how it can be resolved, how we can pluck the fly out.

      I was going to vote for McCain last time, which would have been my first-ever Republican vote, until he nominated Palin. I then decided to not vote at all. I had a pretty good hunch about Obama, a hunch that turned out to be quite accurate.

      My vote decision was made moot, however, when my absentee ballot never showed up in my PO box.

      Like

        1. McCain really shot himself in the foot with Palin. However, I now would vote for Ms. Palin for president, not just VP, in a heartbeat were she up against Obama.

          Like

Comments are closed.