Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Obama's Bow And How Pat Buchanan And Obama Agree

When I first heard of Pat Buchanan's book America, A Republic, Not An Empire seven years ago, I immediately thought, what a great treatise against the United States as world policeman and the New World Order agenda.

After actually hearing and reading more excerpts from the book, it became clear to me that Pat, despite his most honorable service and patriotic record, did not have the same vision as many conservatives - by a long shot. Pat presented himself as so pro peace that he believes the U.S. wasted its time and lives in fighting WW II, Korea, Vietnam, and any number of other wars because such actions exalt America to the ranks of a Roman Empire.

Can no one recognize that unless the U.S. had promoted the winning of the 1940's European conflict, we would not had the forwithal to become the industrial and economic giant which engineered the boom since the 1950's? Devalue America's military and social strength and kiss the power of the dollar (In God We Trust, though)goodbye.
But, "Europe will hate us," they say. That spite goes with the territory, not that we are perfect, but I pray that we are better than what the American Obamacrats think of us.

Germany was not a threat and Soviet Russia was the worst of allies, because George Washington made the famous "foreign entanglements" proclamation, IOW avoid any sort of interference. Would that mean no treaties with other countries, or absolutely no trade with other countries? Should we always run surpluses and never defend other countries in war or help with foreign aid? President W Bush was once asked why he did offer aid (yes, I agree too much)to countries which had their freedom challenged or were just plain starving, and he replied, "To him who has been given much, much is required."

Even Teddy Roosevelt should not be considered as having been a war mongering, hawkish president (BTW Hawks only charge after innocent prey, and Saddam was not that innocent - like Brittany Spears).

We were never the world's police man, but we have intervened, sometimes in dishonorable covert ways, in the world when injustice threatened the life and liberty of our worldly neighbors - and ourselves. America has been involved in only a fraction of the many world dust-ups, such as the current Islamo Terrorist threats which are wreaking havoc in about 25 countries around the world. Liberals have often taunted conservatives about this "world policeman" thing, not recognizing that there exists NO OTHER POWER in the world which has had the morality to come to the financial and military aid of other countries. Not Europe, not Russia, not China or other members of the G-20 or United Nations which consistently vote against the United States. We have stood alone - until Obama. Now, they love us. But why?

Just as Pat Buchanan overly deplores America as an empire likened to Rome or the Brit Empire, Obama has been apologizing, grovelling, bending over frontward, and otherwise ingratiating himself before the world community in order to demote the United States' political, social, economic, and military standing, so that the world will love us.

I agree that the United States should give preference to American workers (but, we are so expensive) and should eliminate deficits (but, can't do it with such huge entitlement and other government spending).

Since George Washington's time and before people have always looked for lower taxation and cheaper goods - which were motivators for the American Civil War. We, however, can never stop world trade, and will always be entangled to some extent with other countries that have things we need or want.

So, as with Obama and Buchanan, America should shed its "imperial" status and give homage to the next empire which will rule as the superpower in not quite as charitable a way - Communist China.