Forbes magazine named Russian President Vladimir Putin the most powerful man in the world on Wednesday, October 30th,
ranking him ahead of U.S. President Obama.
But Obama is a cute little President.
As an introduction to what has been happening, here is a Trifecta video from September 11th.
The Forbes ranking of Putin at first place and Obama at second was explained in this way:
The criticism of Forbes dropping Barack Obama to the number two spot behind Vladimir Putin as the most powerful man in the world misses two big points.
One is confusing the power of the U.S. with the power of our President. The U.S. is many times larger economically and militarily than Russia. There’s no disputing that. Our survey was a ranking of people, not countries or companies. [Emphasis added.]
The second and far bigger point is that Barack Obama is weak internationally by choice. At home he’s amassing immense, unprecedented powers over the economy. If Congress won’t pass one of his desired pieces of legislation, he’ll try to achieve his ends through decrees, a.k.a. executive orders, or unprecedented and sweeping regulatory rulings. The niceties of the law have never stopped this White House from doing what it desires. The Obama Administration routinely ignores adverse court rulings. Brazenly lying to the public is no barrier, as the President’s oft-repeated pledge that people could, if they wished, keep their health insurance policies and doctors demonstrates. From the get-go ObamaCare wanted to destroy the market for individual medical-care policies and to obliterate the practices of sole medical practitioners. Hardcore socialists have long understood that it’s much easier to regulate people when they’re herded into collectives. [Emphasis added.]
President Obama’s domestic as well as foreign policies are weakening the United States, grossly. Many — but not enough — in the United States sense this and apparently more overseas do. The international “charm offensive” with which He began His first term is now another of His many failed policies. He did not know what He was talking about in 2009 and still appears not to know. He does not much care whether He lies and may not even be capable of distinguishing truth from falsehood. Roger L. Simon posted a pretty good article on November 1st at PJ Media on His propensity to lie. This summarizes it:
He never had a moral basis for honesty. Lying, from the Choom Gang through Reverend Wright and beyond, was his lifestyle. And he had the consolation that he was lying for a better good. No one ever told him otherwise. If that goes on for long enough, you lose contact with truth. It becomes almost a non-existent phenomenon, an irrelevancy.
We needed — and need even more now — an adult President with the wisdom to understand what he knows as well as the strength and humility to realize that he is ignorant in other areas. We do not need a President whose “smart policies” more resemble a Maxwell Smart farce than anything helpful to the United States.
Some experience in, and knowledge of, foreign policy and what other nations do and intend to do are essential. Although any President needs to lie occasionally about some national security matters, doing so should be neither integral to his lifestyle nor a matter of policy for him. The President we need should feel at least a small twinge of remorse when he has to lie and refrain from it as much as possible.
Instead, we have an ignorant man-child who resorts to temper tantrums when He fails to get His way and who attacks any convenient targets for the consequences of His own incompetence. When that does not work to His satisfaction, He invents distractions. His November 1st Executive Decree on climate change is the most recent such distraction.
“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the Nation. These impacts are often most significant for communities that already face economic or health-related challenges, and for species and habitats that are already facing other pressures. Managing these risks requires deliberate preparation, close cooperation, and coordinated planning by the Federal Government, as well as by stakeholders, to facilitate Federal, State, local, tribal, private-sector, and nonprofit-sector efforts to improve climate preparedness and resilience; help safeguard our economy, infrastructure, environment, and natural resources; and provide for the continuity of executive department and agency (agency) operations, services, and programs,” the order states.
It makes no difference that the alleged consequences of anthropomorphic climate change — His Executive Decree does not purport to deal with non-anthropomorphic climate change — have been debunked repeatedly.
The Grand Meme is what’s important to Him because it is self-sustaining and may help to sustain Him as well.
Whatever is happening in the great outdoors regarding actual climate, inside, truly inside, in the minds of men that is, overwhelming evidence indicates that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a self-sustaining narrative that is living off our mental capacity, either in symbiosis or as an outright cultural parasite; a narrative that is very distanced from physical real-world events. The social phenomenon of CAGW possesses all the characteristics of a grand memetic alliance, like numerous similar structures before it stretching back beyond the reach of historic records, and no doubt many more cultural creatures that have yet to birth.
His decree will soothe His faithful and the rest of us will be stuck with paying for it and otherwise suffering the consequences.
The rest of this post
I have written many articles about the international decline of the United States under “our” Dear Leader. A few recent articles at my blog are here, here and here. The remainder of this post provides excerpts from recent articles posted elsewhere on the decline — and eventual fall — of the United States should the Obama Administration continue to work its will. I have placed what I consider the most relevant portions in bold face type but have added little of my own commentary; the excerpts are generally sufficient to make the point.
US President Barack Obama views lies as legitimate political tools. He uses lies strategically to accomplish through mendacity what he could never achieve through honest means. [Emphasis added.]
Obama lies in both domestic and foreign policy.
On the domestic front, despite Obama’s repeated promises that Obamacare would not threaten anyone’s existing health insurance policies, over the past two weeks, millions Americans have received notices from their health insurance companies that their policies have been canceled because they don’t abide by Obamacare’s requirements.
. . . .
Obama’s mendacity is not limited to domestic policy. It operates in foreign affairs as well. Several commentators this week recalled Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez’s angry response to the Obama administration’s attempt to block Senate passage of sanctions against Iran in December 2011. Expressing disgust at the administration’s bad faith to the Senate, Menendez noted that before the White House tried to defeat the legislation, it first forced senators to water it down, making them believe that the White House would support a weaker bill. In the end, despite the White House’s opposition, the Senate and House passed the watered-down sanctions bills with veto-proof majorities. Obama reluctantly signed the bill into law and then bragged about having passed “crippling sanctions” on Iran. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
As was the case with Obamacare, the White House knows that most Americans won’t support its policy of doing nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. So the White House never says that this is its policy. Obama and his advisers insist that preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power is a central goal of the administration. But their actions move US policy in the opposite direction. And if they get caught on the lies after Iran gets the bomb, well, Obama won’t be facing reelection, so he will pay no price for his duplicity. [Emphasis added.]
Israel is fuming with the White House for confirming that it was the Israeli Air Force that struck a military base near the Syrian port city of Latakia on Wednesday, hitting weaponry that was set to be transferred to Hezbollah.
Israel has not acknowledged carrying out the strike, one of half a dozen such attacks widely ascribed to Israel in recent months, but an Obama administration official told CNN on Thursday that Israeli warplanes had indeed attacked the Syrian base, and that the target was “missiles and related equipment” set for delivery to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Israel’s Channel 10 TV on Friday night quoted Israeli officials branding the American leak as “scandalous.” For Israel’s ally to be acting in this way was “unthinkable,” the officials were quoted as saying.
A second TV report, on Israel’s Channel 2, said the leak “came directly from the White House,” and noted that “this is not the first time” that the administration has compromised Israel by leaking information on such Israeli Air Force raids on Syrian targets.
There have been many such “leaks” in the past and one must wonder what the Administration is up to and why. It hardly seems to be an acceptable way to treat a thus far firm ally.
The U.S. is “gambling” on staunch alliances in the geopolitically strategic oil-rich Middle East that have long been bedrock components of the affairs of the region and the entire world.
This will definitely backfire on the U.S., the so-far unrivaled creator of the world’s politics and economy.
The talk here is mainly about the emerging shake-up in America’s relationship with some of its most-longstanding allies in the Middle East, mainly Saudi Arabia and consequently Jordan, UAE and the rest of the Gulf states, that resulted from Washington’s inaction over the Syrian crisis and its softening stance on Tehran. [Emphasis added.]
No doubt, other factors, including America’s involvement in large-scale spying activity on European and Latin American allies and its economic downturns, will all contribute to weakening the image and “soft power” of the U.S. and thus its long-preserved status as the world’s leader. [Emphasis added.]
What is so remarkable in the whole scene is that even Israel, the U.S. closest Middle Eastern ally, is seemingly unhappy with Washington’s change of policies and its pulling back of partnerships with other regional allies.
. . . .
With nothing tangible so far done by President Barack Obama to resolve the Syrian dilemma, except maybe for sentiments advocating a political solution to the 31-month-old conflict, coupled with a growing conviction that America has in fact no stake in Syria, the long-held omniscient presence of the U.S. in the Middle East can now be said to be on shaky ground.
That is of course as opposed to the bold, daring and unaltered endeavor of the Russians to secure influence in the strategic yet volatile region. [Emphasis added.]
The Obama administration’s “easy” abandonment of their heavy-weighted ally in the Middle East, ousted Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and their desertion of Egypt’s new rulers because of angry at Mohammad Mursi’s ouster – as opposed to Russia’s relentless and unwavering support of its allies – has had an impact on its reliability as a longstanding strategic partner. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
Dismayed, probably convinced with the unreliability of relying on the U.S. as an everlasting ally, or in a bid to balance their alliances, some Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan and the UAE, have decided to build partnerships with Russia.
Russian partnerships by the two Arab countries can be seen in Abu Dhabi’s announcement in September to invest up to $5 billion in Russia’s infrastructure and Jordan’s recent decision to have its first ever nuclear plants built by the Russians.
Reports on Egypt now looking to Moscow for arms after America’s aid freeze are just examples of the new political adjustments of some Mideast countries to cope with new world realities. The U.S. is no longer alone there.
Egypt, UAE and Jordan, in not confining their strategic alliances solely to the U.S. resemble to a large extent a country’s pegging of its exchange value of its money to a basket of currencies rather than a single currency, as a method of lowering risks.
A danger now is the already-dismayed Saudis deciding to completely – or even partially – shift alliances away from America.
Leaving aside the petroleum factor, such a breach can have serious economic consequences for the U.S.
The real risk to come will be a Saudi decision to increase that break between the two countries and completely shift alliances to Moscow, Europe or China.
Will America then tolerate seeing Saudi Arabia, said to be ploughing much of its earnings back into U.S. assets, shifting away to Moscow or Beijing, taking into account that the Saudi central bank’s foreign assets are in U.S. dollars?
. . . .
Following the several-day government shutdown, lots of countries have called for finding substitute currency to replace the reign of the dominating U.S. dollar as the world reserve.
. . . .
U.S. can’t leave the Middle East for another country to come in and be a rival in oil pricing and sales. However, China is already there – awaiting a vacuum left by the U.S. in the Middle East to step in on oil supply.
Can Washington allow that when there is already a China-U.S. dollar dilemma?
The Obama Administration seems to have embraced Iran’s peace and charm offensives.
When the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington released a report last week saying that Iran has the ability to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb within weeks, one could almost hear U.S. President Barack Obama’s heart sink.
His despair was not due to the findings of the report. Rather, it was because of the effect they would have on his ability to persuade Congress to ease up sanctions on the Islamic republic, to give diplomacy a chance. [Emphasis added.]
Not only that. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been making it difficult for the fabulists on Capitol Hill to tout Iranian President Hasan Rouhani as a moderate — which, of course, he is not. What he is, as Netanyahu has pointed out, is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” [Emphasis added.]
The ISIS assessments, then, are highly inconvenient for the Obama administration, which keeps assuring Netanyahu and members of Congress who believe that sanctions should be increased that the U.S. will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry attended a nuclear disarmament gala in Washington, where he reiterated his administration’s belief that Rouhani’s willingness to engage in talks constitutes “an opportunity to try to put to test whether or not Iran really desires to pursue only a peaceful program, and will submit to the standards of the international community in the effort to prove that to the world.”
He also made a veiled dig at Netanyahu’s repeated warnings about Iran’s use of dialogue as a cover for stepped-up centrifuge activity. The U.S., he said, would not let “fear tactics” interfere with its intention to give Iran the benefit of the doubt.
President Obama is displeased because reality may overwhelm hope and hype, thereby making the changes He wants more difficult to achieve.
Meanwhile, Iraq has become or is becoming a client state of Iran.
The Los Angeles Times (hat tip Jihad Watch) is formally acknowledging what I began warning about in 2004, and maintained was well underway by 2006. In a March 28, 2013 analysis with the eponymous title, “Ten years after Iraq war began, Iran reaps the gains,” reporter Ned Parker proffers these summary conclusions:
American military forces are long gone, and Iraqi officials say Washington’s political influence in Baghdad is now virtually nonexistent. Hussein is dead. But Iran has become an indispensable broker among Baghdad’s new Shiite elite, and its influence continues to grow.
Parker cites these two pathognomonic examples of the abject US policy failure in Iraq—which has clearly empowered Iran—the second despite ongoing, feckless American pursuit of our ostensibly “vital role” in mollifying “tensions” between Iraq’s sectarian Shiite and Sunni factions, and the inexorable spillover effect of this Shiite-Sunni animosity into the Syrian civil war:
The signs are evident in the prominence of pro-Iran militias on the streets, at public celebrations and in the faces of some of those now in the halls of power, men such as Abu Mehdi Mohandis, an Iraqi with a long history of anti-American activity and deep ties to Iran. During the occupation, U.S. officials accused Mohandis of arranging a supply of Iranian-made bombs to be used against U.S. troops. But now Iraqi officials say Mohandis speaks for Iran here, and Prime Minister Nouri Maliki recently entrusted him with a sensitive domestic political mission.
American officials say they remain vital players in Iraq and have worked to defuse tension between Maliki and his foes. During a visit to Baghdad on Sunday, however, Secretary of State John F. Kerry was unable to persuade Maliki to stop Iranian flights crossing Iraqi airspace to Syria. The U.S. charges that Iranian weapons shipments are key to propping up Syrian President Bashar Assad; Maliki says there is no proof that Tehran is sending anything besides humanitarian aid. Kerry’s visit was the first by a U.S. Cabinet official in more than a year.
The Iraqi military, like the Iraqi Government, is dominated by Iran.
Fifty-four days have passed from the day the Iraqi forces attacked Camp Ashraf. On September 1, Iraqi forces, doing the Iranian regime’s bidding, savagely murdered 52 residents. In the course of the same attack, the assailants abducted seven of the Camp’s residents, including 6 women. Reliable documents and accounts given by eyewitnesses at the scene indicate that the attack was conducted by Iraqi forces, who were acting upon the orders of the Iraqi Prime Minister and at the behest of the Iranian regime.
Since September 1, several hundreds of Liberty residents have been on a hunger strike demanding the immediate release of the seven Ashraf hostages and protection for them in Camp Liberty.
Despite all assurances and guarantees given by the United States officials and the United Nations regarding the protection of the residents, none have been fulfilled to date. Even the minimum means of protection that were promised by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones to the Mojahedin leadership were not implemented by the Iraqi government. [Emphasis added.]
The residents believe that their current situation is a byproduct of trusting the United States.[Emphasis added.]
When Iran gets nukes, so likely will other Middle East states.
Initially, they will be only for “peaceful purposes,” such as electricity generation. However,
[T]here is a history of countries that started with a “peaceful” nuclear program only to expand and turn it into a nuclear weapons program as well. Iran, which signed the NPT in 1968, is nevertheless widely believed to be developing nuclear weapons.
North Korea joined the NPT in 1985 with what was supposed to be a peaceful program, only to go on to kick out International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and withdraw from the NPT in 2003 and announce that it had carried out an underground test in 2006.
And regarding India and Pakistan, both began their programs as “peaceful,” only to later produce nuclear weapons. New Delhi set up its Atomic Energy Commission in 1948 to develop its peaceful program. In 1956, India established its Apsara reactor with the assistance of Britain. Then, in 1974, India conducted its first nuclear explosion test underground, known as the “Smiling Buddha.”
Pakistan began its peaceful use of atomic energy in 1956 by setting up the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, and in 1972, the country set up its first nuclear power station with Canada’s help.
After India’s nuclear explosion in 1974, Pakistan raced toward the bomb, launching a secret program run by Dr. A.Q. Khan and conducting a nuclear test in 1998.
Hence, the proliferation of peaceful nuclear programs in the Middle East comes with many dangers.
“It’s much more likely that Iran would try to build nuclear weapons in a secret enrichment plant than one of the safeguarded plants,” said Gary Samore, who was the White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction during President Obama’s first term. “If they tried to use one of their safeguarded plants it would be detected in a matter of weeks. It’s much safer for them to do it secretly. Once they have built a couple of nuclear weapons they would be in a position to test one to show the world and there is not much we can do about it.” [Emphasis added.]
President Obama appears to be enchanted with and motivated by two things: His own superior competence and the wonders of Islam. His eminence grise Iranian born Valerie Jarrett to the contrary notwithstanding, both are fantasies.
The Clarion Project reported that Elibiary, not only says that America is “an Islamic country” but that he also continues to argue that the Muslim Brotherhood is comparable to Christian evangelicals, despite the crack-down and persecution of Christians in Egypt and in other regions, by the Muslim Brotherhood.
How consistent is that with American values? Truth? With the Grace of President Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood’s substantial presence in the United States, might they become the new American values?
We are almost certainly stuck with President Obama until January of 2017 and so is the rest of the world. Our allies, wavering allies and former allies are distressed and even diplomatic language does not conceal it. Our enemies are gleeful; they should be.
Like it or not — and increasing numbers seem not to like it — the Government does bad stuff because it can — because “we” let it.
I do not know who will be the principal presidential candidates in 2016. However, it seems reasonable to assume, at least for now, that the Democrat candidate would perpetuate and perhaps even exacerbate the Obama madness if elected. That means that if we want “change we can believe in” — and our nation needs such change now more than at any time in our history — the Republican Party must find and nominate someone with the intelligence, drive, humility, propensity to be truthful and the wisdom to turn the mess around.
If not in 2016, when?