Didn’t the serial Apologist-in-Chief just get finished trumping the birthers by authenticating his natural American born, eligible-to-be-President-of -the-United-States bona fides, or is that a different super man:
After recently undertaking a journey to walk — not fly — across the United States in the “Grounded” storyline and reconnect with the country and everyday Americans, Superman appears to be taking another step that could have major implications for his national identity: in Action Comics #900…
…Superman announces that he is going to give up his U.S. citizenship.Despite very literally being an alien immigrant, Superman has long been seen as a patriotic symbol of “truth, justice, and the American way,” from his embrace of traditional American ideals to the iconic red and blue of his costume.
Barack Hussein Obama II’s long-form birth certificate confirms my long-held view that the greatest threat to U.S. sovereignty are not assimilation-challenged, illegal Mexican immigrants, but rather, United States natural-born-liberal-Democrat citizens whether they trace their ancestors to the Mayflower or the Kansas wife of a Kenyan.
Consider the judgment of the gullible, yet naturally born to Illinois Republicans, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with superiority-at-3am-to-Obama smarts, that Syria’s Bashar al-Assad is a “reformer.”
A regime that has massacred its political foes in private for decades and served as Iran’s terrorist arm in killing Americans in Iraq, couldn’t wait until a Good Friday to snub Hillary’s endorsement and take its massacres public, in its own streets.
Liberals are consistently gullible in their travels
But give the female leader of the Liberalputians (since she escaped the administration she married into that favored rendition the water-boarding of terrorists and the ECHELON of all library card checkers and phone tappers of same, but I digress…) some credit for consistency.
The public praise of the House of Assad by the Obama-Biden Administration began long before the post-Tunisia/Egypt pursuit of Post-Bush Iraq-like happiness stirrings in the Arab Street. The One we had been waiting for, with Vice-President patiently-in-waiting for the youngster’s inevitable international tests, re-established diplomatic ties with the Syrian area of Iran’s Bush-depleted Axis of Evil soon after taking office over two years ago.
Speaking of which, Gullible’s recent travels (that only a Ring Lardner could fully appreciate) in the world her Superman prepared with world tour bows to Communist and Muslim dictators; silence in the face of freedom-seeking Muslims in Iran; and START treaties with Russia paid for with UK secrets found disrespect from allies and outright contempt from enemies. None of that prevented Egypt’s young yearning to breathe free from snubbing the former First Lady.
Even fellow foe of “illegal” Israeli buildings in Jerusalem, Fatah (covert Palestinian terrorists wearing neckties) leader on the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas thumbed his nose at President Obama by partnering with Hamas (open-collared, overt Palestinian terrorists). The same Hamas with whom erstwhile “ally” Turkey recently thumbed their noses at B. Hussein in the Mediterranean.
Worse than innocents abroad
But who isn’t thumbing their foreign noses at Obama these days, much as the weakness of other liberal Democrats has invited aggression against this country since at least their abandonment of the Hmong and South Vietnamese in 1975. It took the anti-Gullible Reagan to stop the Soviets march around the world despite only “inordinate fears” entertained by Democrat Jimmy Carter, whose Iranian hostages were freed the second the Ayatollah had The Gipper (Republican) to fear.
Democrats favored the Communists over the freedom fighters in Nicaragua and the nuclear freeze-the-Soviet-ICBM-advantage-in-place. Then Senators Obama and Clinton twice voted against funds for the armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Historian George Weigle also sees the pattern in his recent How Democrats see the World:
Criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the current Libyan crisis, following hard on the heels of similar criticisms of its approach to the dramas of Tunisia and Egypt, has tended to focus on the president’s personality and his alleged incapacity for global leadership. There’s doubtless an element of truth in this, but the problem is likely far worse. The dithering, indecisiveness, feckless multilateralism, and lack of strategic vision that have been on sad display in recent weeks are the logical, if very dangerous, by-products of a cluster of ideas that have come to dominate the Democratic foreign-policy establishment.
Those ideas have a precise and definable origin: They first emerged when the New Left challenged the Truman/Acheson/Kennedy/(Scoop) Jackson Democratic consensus during the Vietnam War. In softer forms, they then became the new orthodoxy among Democratic foreign-policy mandarins like Cyrus Vance and Warren Christopher. Despite the fiascoes to which these ideas led during the Carter and Clinton administrations (cf. the Iran hostage crisis and the American inability to prevent genocide in the Balkans), and despite the efforts of some in the old Democratic Leadership Council to change the intellectual template of Democratic foreign-policy thinking, these bad ideas have shown a remarkable resilience. They remain operative at all levels of the Obama foreign-policy team; they explain a great deal of what otherwise seems inexplicably stupid over the past several weeks; and they must be challenged by any 2012 Republican presidential candidate serious about American leadership in the world.
In briefest compass, eight ideas have shaped the foreign-policy perspective of today’s Democratic establishment. Different leaders will emphasize one or another of these ideas, and circumstances will dictate the ways in which these ideas are applied to real-world situations. However, anyone wanting to dig into the subsoil of the incompetence, ineptness, and just plain bad judgment currently on display had better be prepared to reckon with these eight ideas — and with the fact that people in power actually swear fealty to them:
- Conflict is not the normal political phenomenon that it was assumed to be for millennia.
- Peace is not a matter of a rightly ordered and law-governed political community; rather, “peace” is a state of mind that can be willed into being.
- The notion that the United States should actively seek to shape world politics is pernicious, not for the old isolationist reason that it’s bad for us, but because we tend to be bad for the world.
- The use of armed force is almost always a bad idea and reflects, not the intractability of certain situations to other forms of conflict-resolution, but a failure of imagination and will on the part of U.S. policymakers.
- The present state system should be replaced by some form of international governance, in which multilateral and international bodies play the leading role.
- The primary responsibility of U.S. policymakers is to advance the construction of a multilaterally organized and run international order, not to defend and advance the interests of the United States.
- With the Cold War (which was in no small part Harry Truman’s fault) now over, there is no power, group of powers, or ideology that poses any grave threat to the United States.
- We are not the indispensable nation. There is nothing morally or politically distinctive, much less special, about the American democratic experiment in ordered liberty. So there is no distinctively American approach to world politics, and the United States ought not seek any distinctive role in 21st-century world affairs.
The problem didn’t begin with Obama, but, birth certificate-liberated or not, he still seems a stranger in our midst and an alien in the White House mainly because he rejects American exceptionalism and chooses our decline as a superpower at home and abroad.
Do our allies abroad trust us? Do any of our enemies fear that Obama would take significant action against them abroad? He has alienated our Pakistan and Afghan allies not to mention the Saudis and Brits. He is mocked in France and Germany. China came here and played a song mocking America inside the White House while Obama and Gullible rocked to the same beat. Their Liberalputian toe-taps answer the questions.
Democrats do for free what our enemies would pay them to do
Moreover, he intentionally cripples our energy industry at home with BP oil spill “crisis” (after all, nature cleaned up the worst spill in history in less than 12 months) inspired, court-order violating, deep-water oil well drilling moratoriums; and government regulations by fiat against drilling, power plant building and the building of anything with non-union labor beginning with Boeing jets.
Yet, he fosters future U.S. dependency on socialist-friendly Brazil by promoting their oil industry. Well, if our Super-Berlin Citizen of the World-man ever should seek to renounce what was memorialized in Honolulu, maybe Rio would be a receptive and appreciative host for his final vacation and third autobiography.
Finally, at least the fictitious unnatural born, infatuated with Lois, Man of Steel sought to embolden his non-violent protest against violent Iranian mullahs by going “international”.
Ironically, another work of fiction, Ahmadinejad Meets Obama, by Amil Imani predicted the appeasement (and even Members-only-jacket-ejad’s debate challenge) and the obvious answer to the burning question of what market Action Comics seeks to exploit by trashing Superman’s “American Way”.
Who in America would think that non-violence could move Mullahs and cripple Clark Kent sans krypyonite to beat up the bad guys? Republicans? Don’t be ridiculous.