Monday, September 21, 2009

Peacemaker Obama Heads For the U.N.

Taking a rest from from lobbying Americans twenty-four hours a day for national health care, President Obama is preparing for his debutante ball at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. Given his propensity for accommodationism, one-worldism, and self-promotion, it is likely that he will receive a much nicer welcome from the organization than he has been receiving at home of late.

Obama's reputed ability to walk on water, turn water into wine, and turn money into smoke still seems to be admired by the tin-pot dictators and kumbaya crowd at the U.N. Of course the successors of Nikita Khruschev have taken note of the President's agenda as well. So far, they like it. The picture above is a 1963 American IRBM in the ready position during the Cuban Missile Crisis brought on by John Kennedy's weak performance in Vienna two years earlier.

The General Assembly: Obama's predecessor first spoke to the General Assembly about international security and terrorism in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. Obama will speak on climate change, nonproliferation and development in the less productive parts of the world. Topics before the world body which he may also address include the world economy, education for girls, peacekeeping, curbing sexual violence and streamlining the U.N.'s ability to accomplish absolutely nothing worthwhile while spending billions.

Obama's coming-out party will kick off with a meeting on climate change (formerly known as global warming) in which he will talk to the "leaders" and foreign junk scientists about reducing carbon emissions and other man-made gases which play next-to-no part in global climate change. But they do play a huge part in making money for corporations designed to enrich the eco-elite at the expense of impoverishing the developed world. He might even try to convince the first and third-largest pollution producers, China and India, to give up their industrial and economic advances in order to allow America time to catch down with them. Kyoto, hell, we're preparing to go the Copenhagen conference in December to ruin our economy with or without China's and India's help.

Also on Tuesday, Obama will speak to sub-Saharan African countries about job creation for young people, creating a better trade and investment atmosphere, and to mobilize African agriculture to create jobs and help feed the continent. Well, that's never worked before, but now he can send in platoons of unemployed ACORN workers who will organize the communities to pursue those activities and make the continent bloom. It is unclear how much the President expects the Africans to do for themselves or how they're going to do it in the middle of civil wars, mass murders, slavery, and tribal warfare.

The formal ball begins on Wednesday at the official opening of the General Assembly's "working" year. Following Secretary-General and Spendthrift-in-Chief Ban Ki-moon and President Lula da Silva of Brazil, the U.S. President will step to the podium. It's somehow appropriate that since Obama's policies are quickly turning American into a third-world nation that he should speak third.

The enthusiasm among the delegates is palpable. The Palestinian Authority (that Hamas/Fatah hybrid) expressed its love for a U.S. President who will not use Mr. Bush's lecturing tone, but instead have an attitude of open-mindedness. It is considered "open-minded" to call terrorists "freedom fighters" and mass-murderers "liberators." Ghana's delegate wants to hear the speech because "he [Obama] is very supportive of the U.N. agenda." Well, that's true. The U.N. agenda is to weaken America into insignificance. France, Libya, and Lebanon have also expressed admiration for Obama's open-mindedness. I think someone forgot to tell these people that too much open-mindedness leads to everything spilling out of the head and onto the ground.

Other things that thrill the U.N. are Obama's apparent willingness to support the International Criminal Court (in complete disregard of the Constitution, that trifling parochial American document), and his executive order putting the United States back on the U.N. Human Rights Council, formerly chaired by civil libertarian Moammar Qaddafi, and shunned by President Bush. U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice explained that the United States has joined the HRC "fully aware of its many flaws, but we recognize that we can't fix it or contribute to fixing it simply by carping from the outside." Sounds like "if you can't lick 'em, join 'em" to me, but what do I know?

Obama is also assuring the delegates that he will resubmit a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing to the Senate. That will make him even more beloved by the international body which is incapable of enforcing anything. Says one U.N. nuclear proliferation expert: "If the U.S. signs a treaty--even if we know it won't get through your Senate--it will trigger other nations to join it." Yes--Iran and North Korea will rush to sign it, and have no intention of abiding by it. But once a Chamberlain-like President signs it, only to have it rejected by the Senate, American can once again be marginalized for not being in the spirit of good nuclear policy. Obama becomes a hero and the United States becomes a pariah. What's not to like?

Once Obama has made his unchallenged predigested messiah-like speech on peace and "all of us just getting along," he's off to the diplomatic balls and receptions. There he will flash that toothy grin, accept the accolades of the peace-loving world community, and feast on caviar. He will once again be told how brilliant, how Christlike, how intelligent and brave he is. And the slightly-deflated and slightly shopworn ego (from being disrespected by all those boobs in America) will be once again inflated to the size of the Bullwinkle balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade.

The Security Council: A President who just loves to be worshiped for each of his "firsts" will have another one on Thursday. He will be the first American President to preside over a meeting of the Security Council. As far as my research goes, I believe he's the first President even to attend a Security Council session. Without fanfare, he ordered his U.N. ambassador to alter the original agenda so that the subject is "nonproliferation" where the original agenda included direct references to Iran and North Korea, their violations of U.N. resolutions and shrugging-off of the weak and unenforceable U.N. sanctions. An Arab ambassador, who spoke not for attribution to the press said "I think he is very smart. President Clinton-smart, not just book-smart." When Clinton's popularity dropped below 50%, he had the "smarts" to recognize that it's not wise to push an agenda opposed by 50% to 60% of the American people. Obama continues to do so. So I beg to differ with the Arab delegate--on the record.

I covered this Security Council session and its agenda in some detail earlier, and if you would like to take a look at what Obama is planning, it's here: Obama at the Security Council.

Obama, The U.N. Security Council, and the European Missile Shield that Isn't: Did any of you think that the scrapping of the European anti-missile defense shield was a sudden decision? Anything's possible, but the two main issues to be discussed at the originally-proposed session on Thursday were nuclear non-proliferation (with specific reference to Iran and North Korea), and the delivery systems which accompany nuclear capability. The specifics of non-proliferation were deleted by Ambassador Susan Rice over two months ago at Obama's order, and the delivery systems were cut from the agenda entirely. So we will be treated to another happy-happy discussion of how naughty nukes are, and how we should all hold hands together and hope they go away. And in order to do so, Obama has proposed a nuclear disarmament treaty which doesn't specifically address Iran or North Korea. Kumbaya!

Now I understand fully that concurrence is not causation, but I have to be mighty suspicious of Obama's motives in tossing out the European missile defense system almost immediately preceding his second coronation at the United Nations. I have heard some crazy justifications for crazy actions by previous crazy U.S. administrations, but this one is the craziest. Justifying the scrapping of the plans to deploy anti-missile weapons in the Czech Republic and Poland, Obama National Security Adviser James L. Jones says that it was done because "Iran is further along than previously thought in developing medium-range missiles that could strike Western Europe and the Middle East with nuclear warheads."

If Jones had said that Iran was be
farther behind than originally thought, I would have considered it overly-optimistic, but at least there would be some flawed logic justifying terminating, or at least delaying, the deployment. But determining that the threat is not only real, but more immediate, the Obama administration decided to scrap the project that could counter that threat. Did I miss something here?

So here's the justification: Jones says "We think they are heading toward weaponizing these missiles, which obviously we want to dissuade them from doing." That means we're going to dissuade them by eliminating our ability to stop the missiles before they can hit their targets. Alice--bring your looking glass! Jones also says there's an "ancillary benefit" of improving relations with Moscow (at the same time making Press Secretary Gibbs look unusually foolish because Gibbs said that the change was not about Russia the day before). "The fact is, there is clearly a relationship here in all of these issues. We are trying to reset the relationship with Russia, based on one of mutual respect and mutual interest." Old crocodile Russian President Putin is smiling with all his teeth showing. And just to put the frosting on the cake, Putin made it clear "we gave up nothing to obtain this change in American policy." It would have been a lot easier, more efficient and a lot less dangerous if Obama had just told Secretary of State Clinton to call Putin and Medvedev and tell them to push the red re-set button she gave them as a gift.

Under Obama, America is quickly becoming the "pitiful, helpless giant," or the "paper tiger" analogy that previous dictators used to describe America's unwillingness to use its military might to defend itself. And now our allies have been given the mucky end of the stick. Poland and the Czech Republic are already reconsidering their alliances with the United States based on their belief that America is not trustworthy and their proximity to a resurgent imperial Russia makes it dangerous to cast their lot with a weak and vacillating ally.

The final piece of illogic used by the Obama administration is that the shield was designed to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States, and the Iranian missile are intermediate range ballistic missiles capable of reaching only Europe and points in the Mideast (Israel, anyone?). Well, let's throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of modifying the plan by adding IRBM anti-missile defenses to the mix, just throw out the whole plan. Brilliant.

I may be guessing wrong, but I am seeing a coordinated effort by the Obama administration to weaken America militarily, to tolerate Iranian bellicosity, and to mollify Russia in hopes that the former head of the KGB will take this so kindly as to give up his irredentist and expansionist plans. And all of this is underscored by Obama's unprecedented step of presiding over a Security Council session which will advance that effort.

25 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

Good article. Too bad the UN can't keep THE ONE.

Writer X said...

The UN's popularity among Americans is probably at its all-time low. Kow-towing and worshiping at the alter of this phony organization doesn't seem like the best idea, especially as President Obama's approval numbers are plummeting and our economy is spiraling. I really don't get the President's all-consuming desire to constantly be the Homecoming Queen.

BevfromNYC said...

Wonderful article. Do you think that Obama & Co. will ever understand the difference between coming from a position of strength and from weakness? Reagan understood it and Bush understood it. Who does Barry think has kept Israel from going nuclear all these years?
He will have small victories like getting North Korea to release faux journalists from prison, but what did he give up for that?

I don't want a President the world likes and who is a patsy for every two-bit tyrant. I want one that calls tyrants by name and is perceived as threat.

As a side note: Qaddafi and Ahmadinajad are having a hard time finding some place to stay in NYC. None of the hotels will accommodate them and they have been relagated to their respective Missions.

Qaddafi wanted to pitch his tents in New Jersey. The town said "NO" and then in Central Park and NYC said "NO". Then he tried to book hotels and they all have said "NO".

LawHawkSF said...

Joel: Wouldn't that be great? Just leave him there to bask in the sunshine of useless words and unearned praise, while we get on with the business of running a great nation.

WriterX: I'm no psychologist, but I would tag him "pathological narcissist with delusions of adequacy."

StanH said...

“Barry the Witless,” he will be known from this day forth. His name will be forever held in the Pantheon of failed leaders and other assorted nin-come-poops, Chamberlain, Carter, etc. All hail the Barry the witless wonder, king of the 57th State, parasite herder extraordinaire, …wow! Just “wow” again, Lawhawk.

LawHawkSF said...

Bev: Obama's one of those half-assed pseudo-intellectuals from professor land. Everything is theory, nothing is real. He thinks the whole world is a classroom. So he sees "strength" as talking the enemy into submission then dazzling them into loving us. "Weakness" is using primitive, unintellectual brute force to accomplish a goal that should be "thought-through" carefully.

The last professor/president we had also spoke in lofty tones, theorized about world organizations to maintain world peace, pontificated while the enemy built his armed forces, then sleep-walked us into World War I. And then, after millions of deaths, he decided that the world needed a single peace-keeping super-agency. Hence, the League of Nations. America has the good sense not to join that loser, but still bought into the international arms-reduction that dictators ignored. Thus, World War II and the subsequent creation of the equally useless United Nations.

Did I mention that Qaddafi is scheduled to speak at the General Assembly right after Obama? And he'll be sitting five seats away from the President in the Security Council session. I wish all three of them would do what the nineteenth century expression said: "Fold up their tents like the Arabs, and silently steal away."

HamiltonsGhost said...

Lawhawk: Maybe he'll also show off his language skills by speaking in some of the other languages of the U.N. For example, l'etat c'est moi or Allahu akbar.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, just popping in during a break my jury duty. Still waiting to see if they're going to seat me or not...

Nice article. I hope people pay attention to this issue. The UN is without a doubt not good for our country and it distrubs me that the left is so in love with that corrupt institution.

CalFederalist said...

LawhawkSF--Obama's ability to ignore the Constitution really worries me when he starts playing footsy with the dictators, peaceniks and bureaucrats at the United Nations. The International Criminal Court lacks most of the guarantees for defendants that we take for granted in our founding document. Yet it is possible that we could surrender both American sovereignty and American constitutional safeguards by treaty. I hope the Senate maintains what little sanity it has left and rejects any attempts by Obama to involve us in that international kangaroo court.

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: I couldn't agree with you more on Clueless Barack. What I'm really looking forward to is the MSM review of the speech. Here's my prediction: they will praise this in a way that compares to their euphoria over his "racial healing speech" from way back when. And they'll do it without seeing the irony in how that speech turned out to be absolutely wrong, and how Obama's approach to race has left us more bitterly divided than at any time since the civil rights battles of the 60s.

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: The UN is one of the most colossal failures in all of the history of attempts at world peace. It fails on every score. And at times, it even participates in the barbarism it's supposed to guard against (killing of civilians in non-battlefield areas, and the rapes committed time and again in African peace-keeping operations).

What concerns me most about this round is that after the grandiose speech before the General Assembly where he can't do any real harm, he will go into a session of the Security Council for the very first time a president has ever done so, and that's where serious damage really can be done.

Courtroom advice: All criminal defendants are guilty, all civil plaintiffs are liars. You'll be home by early afternoon. LOL

LawHawkSF said...

CalFederalist: There does remain the question of whether a treaty joining the ICC would be "self-actuating," which would determine whether the US has the ability to pick and choose which laws it will follow and which ones it can choose to ignore. But at its best, this is a very dangerous move. The ICC doesn't have to wait to get jurisdiction, it can simply decide it has it, choose the defendants, and order the trial. It can use rules which haven't been decided on by anyone other than the court itself. It can act ex post facto, and by its very nature, it creates "bills of attainder." These are all massive exercises of power that the Founding Fathers found so tyrannical that they forbade or restricted them in the articles themselves, or within the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights). That we would even consider allying with such a body is an affront to American jurisprudence and an insult to American concepts of ordered liberty.

LawHawkSF said...

HamiltonsGhost: I wonder if he's learning Farsi so he can say "Israel must cease to exist?"

CrispyRice said...

This is scary stuff, ugh.

Bev said - "I don't want a President the world likes and who is a patsy for every two-bit tyrant. I want one that calls tyrants by name and is perceived as threat." I couldn't agree more, Bev!!

LawHawkSF said...

CrispyRice: I'm with you and Bev. Obama's nuances are going to get a lot of people killed. I forgot to look to find out if Chavez will be coming to town for another smooching session with Obama. I do know that the legitimate president of Honduras won't be there for the love-fest. Obama has proven that he has no respect for at least two constitutions--ours and Honduras's.

StanH said...

I had an intemperate thought as I was digesting your brilliant dissertation. If we send ACORN workers over to Africa. They could have a dual purpose, in some of the nations they could wind up as dinner, you know like Soylent Green or Feed the Hungry but different.

I would guess leftist myrmidons across the land are getting their prayer rugs ready, for the big speech.

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: It'll be like a Twilight Zone episode. Millions of Obama worshipers, glued to their TV sets, slack-jawed and vacant-eyed, absorbing the words of their great peacemaker. They'll take in a few sentences by electronic osmosis, and later quote him as if it came from holy writ. I've never seen anything like this in my lifetime. Trite, meaningless phrases will again replace analytical thought and genuine meaningful action.

HamiltonsGhost said...

Now that Obama has eliminated the specific references to Iran and North Korea, how likely is it that he'll find a way in the Security Council to take another direct slap at Israel while continuing the false moral equivalency between Israel and the Palistinians? From what the article said, nuclear nonoproliferation wouldn't cover it, but disarmament would. I don't think Obama is above trying to get the U.N., and particularly the Arab states to come down hard on Israel to cement his image as a "peacemaker" (aka dhimmi).

LawHawkSF said...

HamiltonsGhost: I can't say either way. But procedurally, any subject can be addressed on a motion and majority vote of the Council. The rotating members (like Qaddafi) might just try for two reasons. First, this is the most pro-Arab, anti-Israel administration in history. And second, with Obama as chairman, a vote of the United States would be far more devastating than a vote by the U.S. ambassador, which the president can override. Obama's tin ear for what Americans think could contribute to a major mistake like that.

Skinners 2 Cents said...

My personal experience with the "open minded" among us is that while they're very open minded they have the narrowest of vision.

The UN is the bench mark for everything a Democrat believes in. The highest of platitudes for the worst among this world.

Personally I would like to see it dismantled here in the US and sent to just about any other region of the world.

It's completely useless and a mockery of human decency.

Ever since Bolton left you could put everyone there together and still not have enough vertebra to complete a spine.

LawHawkSF said...

Skinners2Cents: The other side of that problem is that there are some strong people in the U.N., and they don't represent us. Bolton was one of those rarities who looked them in the eye, told them what America's interests are, and refused to play make-nice with tyrants. As far as I can remember, there hasn't been a strong American ambassador to the UN from the Democratic Party since Truman's presidency. The Kennedy administration was terrified of what Adlai Stevenson might say during the Missile Crisis, and almost replaced him. Fortunately, he came through, but it was more of a miracle than a pattern.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone think that Dear Leader Obama might try for Secretary General of the United Nation after he leaves the White House? He certainly seems to be trying to curry favor with all the socialist nations of the world. And that would allow him to continue spending billions of dollars of others people's money. I would not be surprised.

LawHawkSF said...

Anonymous: He'll have to fight Bill Clinton for the job. Cool--another Clinton-Obama donnybrook.

patti said...

fear can be a good thing. i liked it when other countries feared us. i fe;t safer then. yet, i've never given a crap when they've disliked us.

barry is only feared by the folks at home as he systematically disables us in the world.

LawHawkSF said...

Patti: Fear (or at least respect for power) can be a great motivator. The dictators hate us and the Euro-weenies envy us. And like you, I say "so what?" Europe will never be able to defend itself again, and the dictators know it. Without the Anglosphere, led by the superpower United States, the freedom of the world is a goner. Obama doesn't understand that. The Europeans admit it (in private), and the dictators, Islamic jihadists and communists play him like a harp. Unfortunately for Obama's future, the American people know it too. They gave him a chance, and he blew it. Weakness and airy fairy peace pabulum impress no-one except Obama himself. His visit to the U.N. is only going to make things worse.

Post a Comment