It’s bad enough that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is giving short shrift to American manufacturers and our economy by ordering extravagant new crystal stemware from Sweden to make the crystal cabinets in America’s embassies sparkle impressively, but now we learn that Barack Obama has told the U.S. relief forces in Haiti not to fly the U.S. flag over its own military compounds. He says that it will “send the wrong message.”
Never mind that all the other nations have their flags proudly flying above their military relief installations in Haiti. Even Croatia has its coat of arms flying outside its base. Yet not the U.S. Army. No U.S. flag flies anywhere despite that we are far and away the largest force and have supplied the most relief supplies and money to the earthquake recovery effort.
According to USAID, as of January 19, 2010 the U.S. had spent $130,864,571 on aid to the Haitian people to help them recover from the devastating earthquake. By Jan. 25 that number had already increased to $179,883,065. It is only going up from there.
So why did the Obama administration forbid flying our own flag in Haiti?
“We are not here as an occupation force, but as an international partner committed to supporting the government of Haiti on the road to recovery,” the U.S. government’s Haiti Joint Information Center said in response to a query about the flag.
If it is so important to be seen as just another member of that international force, then why are all the other nations still flying their flags? Oh, I remember now… unlike the U.S. they don’t have a president that is more comfortable apologizing for his country than being proud of it, even when it is engaged in saving lives through relief work.
As far as Obama is concerned, we should be ashamed of our nation even when we are digging children and the aged out of mounds of crumbled ruins, even when we are feeding the hungry, and administering life saving medicines — all for free mind you. Even those efforts aren’t good enough for us to be proud to fly our flag above them, apparently.
The NavyTimes.com report reveals a craven attempt by the Obama Administration to pin this no-flag decision on our troops, too. Obama’s Army flak, Colonel Billy Buckner, spokesman for Joint Task Force-Haiti — “a group representing various Obama administration agency heads” the NavyTimes.com report tells us — says that our commanders are “smart” not to fly the flag.
“Our commanders are smart and intuitively understand their mission here in Haiti, and clearly the sensitivities that come with supporting the mission,” Buckner said. A U.S. flag went up at a temporary consular station set up in the first few days on the airport tarmac, according to Charles Luoma-Overstreet, a State Department spokesman in Haiti.
“Apparently, the prime minister (Jean-Max Bellerive) saw this” and thought it appeared as if the United States were taking over the airport, Luoma-Overstreet said.
He said Bellerive said something to U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Merten, who agreed that flying the flag wasn’t a good idea and told the consular officials to take it down.
Notice how it went from “the commanders” being “smart” enough to understand the situation to Obama’s Ambassador to Haiti ordering the flag be removed? In other words, despite the Colonel trying to make it seem as if the commanders on the ground are all for this dearth of Old Glory, it really ends up being a political decision by Obama and his cohorts who are ashamed of America and willing to let anyone denigrate her.
Does anyone really think that PM Bellerive would have persisted in his loose observation that the U.S. was an “occupying force” amidst all the aid flowing into his country? And even if he did, so what? The aid we were supplying is obviously far more important than a cheap political maneuver by Bellerive.
Still, this shows the lack of spine Obama has when standing up to foreign criticism. Even this offhanded comment from Bellerive was enough for Obama to slight his own army and his own countrymen by removing Old Glory from sight in Haiti.
If Obama is this much of a linguini-spined sort of a leader, what will happen to us if he faces a real foreign crisis?
LEAN being the times Americans will face, MEAN is the method of implementation of great hardship on America, and GREEN is the radical environmental agenda sold to the world as the shill to implement the aforementioned two. Green also relates to the vast billions that a hierarchy of global elites plans to pocket specifically from Americans. So, why is President Barack Obama so obstinately determined to get his versions of Health Care and Cap-and-Trade into law over the overwhelming objection of Americans?
President Obama insists that America must be “transformed.” The President’s educational mentor, Saul Alinsky, writes that in order to gain true power to make those “transformational changes,” you must first “destroy the middle class.” That includes small businesses, farmers, elimination of individual rights and property rights, nationalizing land to protect the environment and nature, abandoning a Constitution that protects the people from tyranny, and retaining power at any cost. There also must be mass redistribution of wealth. Legislation must be enacted to bend the people to the will of government, specifically through “mandates” in Health Care and Cap-and-Trade, all of which will be enforced by fines and penalties of imprisonment. Heavy regulations are to be enforced on corporations and people alike to reduce carbon emissions. This all-too-familiar formula to regulate and control populations, pointedly Americans, appears right out of Barack Obama’s playbook. It summarizes the Progressive ideology that originated with the President — Obama’s transformation of America by his own design, right?
Wrong. It is also the blueprint set out in the “Green Charter” of the United Nations whose goal is to redistribute global wealth in order to control energy, population and power. Is it mere coincidence that Obama appears in lockstep with the U.N.’s agenda to subjugate Americans to international law and global mandates? Congress knows the plan. Members of both parties have signed on to it. A courageous few members of Congress are rising to stand against it. They rise up only because the people of this great nation are themselves rising up. This war began before most Americans knew we were engaged in it. Under attack is the sovereignty of America as a Constitution based, free market society that imbues both personal and property rights to its citizens. Forces against the American Republic have increasingly gained power over the course of the last 80+ years and now stand ready to strike a lethal blow.
Clearly, for the U.N.’s Green Charter to work (under U.N. Agenda 21), Americans must come under the jack-boot regulations of Health Care and Cap-and-Trade legislation that, when enacted, will destroy the American economy. The U.N.’s goal is for Americans to use less energy, water, food supply and other natural resources that can be shifted to the third world. That the President’s agenda appears aligned with the U.N. indicates a higher calling for the President beyond America’s best interest. For the most part, the U.N. is supported politically primarily by third world dictators, Arab nations, and international players, such as George Soros, who know if you can control energy and health, you control everything.
This socialist-globalist agenda also explains a great deal about the people with whom the President surrounds himself. Obama’s handpicked appointments include his initial “Green Jobs Czar,” Van Jones, a self-described communist who held powerful oversight as “green jobs” advisor to the President. A 9/11 Truther, Jones advocated redistribution of wealth and accused “white polluters” of steering poison into minority communities. Obama’s Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom states, “We agree with [Communist Dictator] Mao that power comes largely from the barrel of the gun” and “We know that the free market is nonsense.” Obama chose Diversity/Media Czar Mark Lloyd who openly admired Hugo Chavez’ socialist revolution in Venezuela. Czar Cass Sunstein wrote a radical environmental view that “animals could be plaintiffs and sue humans in court,” Science Czar John Holdren wrote of putting steralents in drinking water to control human population, political strategist Anita Dunne claims irony when she stated Communist Dictator Mao (who killed millions to stay in power) was “one of her favorite political philosophers.” There is globalist Harold Koh, Obama’s Chief Council at the State Department who represents the U.S. in matters of international law. Koh has reportedly stated a preference for the international rule of law over the U.S. Constitution, whereby Americans and the American military would be tried in international court for violations. Koh, meanwhile, entertained the possibility of Shariah (Islamic) Law’s place in America’s legal system. Then, there is the President’s political ally and Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who has said on-camera that he considers the 1st Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion “to be highly over rated.” The list goes on. Putting people in power with communist, socialist and globalist backgrounds indicates to Americans that maybe this President’s motives are not pure.
From average citizens to news analysts, Americans are puzzled by the inexplicable. Americans are perplexed at how the Obama administration finds unprecedented ways to drain the U.S. treasury, while on-camera the President declares straight-faced, “We have to finds ways to cut spending.” Unable to contain the waste and corruption erupting out of his own current TARP and Stimulus plans, how can Obama be trusted to track down half a trillion dollars in Medicare fraud? If he turns a blind-eye to reports that TARP money, that was to be returned to tax payers, is reportedly being used as campaign slush funds to elect members of his own party – can he be taken at face value? This president, in reality, is not a chameleon though he seemingly changes at will. He has a goal. Is Obama’s desired legacy to be the President, the consequential historical figure that “changed America,” unhinged it from its founding…no matter the consequences? In the face of this “change,” Americans need to do a lot more than “hope.”
Part Two: LEAN, MEAN & “GREEN”: Takedown of America by Sharon Sebastian follows.
Also see: Previous article OBAMA & THE UN: Agenda: 21
Sharon Sebastian (http://www.DarwinsRacists.com) is an author, writer and contributor for various forms of media including broadcast, print and online websites. Her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, addresses the global “evolution vs. creation” debate highlighting both the impact of Social Darwinism on America’s culture today and its influence on current policy coming out of Washington. Website:DarwinsRacists.com
Barack Obama, it was claimed, would “repair” our reputation both with our enemies and our friends. So how has he done? Let’s take Britain for example. Has he “fixed” our special relationship with the British Isles? Well, if by fixed you mean he has fastened that relationship to a negative track, well then “fixed” it is.
Let’s review some of the slights that Barack Obama delivered to our closest allies, the British.
In February, immediately after he entered office, President Obama summarily rejected the most famous bust of Winston Churchill in England loaned to the U.S. for display in the Oval Office by the people of England. The bust was sent to us by the people of the U.K. as a gesture of solidarity and friendship in the aftermath of 9/11. Despite their generosity, Obama returned the generously loaned statuette without alerting the Brits that he intended to do so, blindsiding Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government.
Then in March Obama slighted the British once again by refusing to meet PM Brown at the airport in the previously arranged welcome-to-America press conference when the Brown’s came for a state visit.
During that same visit Obama callously gave Brown, a man who is nearly blind, a set of American DVD movies as an official gift from the U.S.A., movies that won’t even play on English DVD machines (America is “Region 1” while England is “Region 2” in DVD formats). To add insult to injury Mrs. Obama gave the Brown’s boys a few cheap toy helicopters from a Washington gift shop — likely made in China. On the other hand PM Brown gave some significant and thoughtful gifts to the Obama’s and our nation.
For his part, PM Brown gave two symbolic gifts and one that expressed national pride. Brown came bearing a pen holder carved from the timbers of the sister ship of that which gave the wood to create the famous “Resolute Desk,” the desk that has been in America’s charge since 1880. He also gave Obama the framed commission for that famous ship, the HMS Resolute. His third gift was a seven-volume biography of one of England’s greatest leaders, Winston Churchill.
Also during this state visit at least one person in Obama’s administration denigrated the famed “special relationship” that the U.S. and the U.K. have had since WWII. When Brown’s aids tried to interact with Obama’s, one of Obama’s aids reportedly said that there was no special relationship and that the Brits would be treated like any other nation in the age of Obama. Not very diplomatic that.
During March, British officials began to complain that Obama’s administration was neglecting the diplomatic phone calls that British officials were making to try to coordinate international policies. Apparently no one was picking up the phone in Washington when the Brits rang.
Later in April, the Obama’s showed an utter lack of protocol when visiting the Queen of England. Obama’s wife broke protocol by placing her hand upon the Queen’s back, a definite no-no. Michelle, it seems, was entirely too casual about her appearance before the Queen and the British were appalled by Michelle’s lack of respect. By itself this incident might seem small, but taken with all the others it seems apiece with how unimportant the Obama’s consider the British. Even long-standing protocol isn’t important enough to observe as far as the Obama’s are concerned.
It should be remembered that the D-Day incident occurred around the same time that Obama was bowing in supplication before the Saudi King showing the world that Obama would pay more deference to a repressive regime than any western democracy.
By June the British press was beginning to wonder why Obama hated them so much. Even the New York Times worried that, “on a more basic level, there is a sense that the Obama administration is ignoring the needs and counsel of longtime allies.” And so, during June several other western democracies were pronouncing their disgust at how they were being mistreated or ignored by Obama and his administration. Along with the British, the Germans, the French, and the Israelis were also becoming miffed at their treatment at Obama’s hands.
We should contrast these slights with how Obama had been bowing and scraping (both figuratively and literally) to Saudi Kings, North Korean madmen, dictatorial Iranian regimes, and South American strong men throughout this entire time. Obama was also seen in November bowing nearly to the floor before another national leader, this time before Japan’s Emperor Akihito. The Brits must have really been confused by this one. He bows to a Japanese Emperor — whose predecessor was an enemy to the U.S. — but shows little interest in their Queen — who was herself one of our longest allies and fought with us during WWII?
And now Obama’s upturned nose is again shown England as she fights to retain control of the Falklands. Instead of supporting the Brit’s assertion that the Falklands are their lawful possession Obama ignored the whole question, saying nothing, and leaving the British to twist in the wind lending Argentina’s claims upon the Islands more credence than it otherwise would have had if the U.S. had officially upheld the Brit’s rights to them.
The word in London is that Obama is punishing the British for having released sensitive U.S. intelligence on a terror suspect recently. In retaliation Obama has refused to uphold the U.K.’s long-held sovereignty over the Falklands.
This wasn’t the only punishment Obama dealt the Brits over this incident. Last week Obama also abruptly canceled a planned conference to celebrate 60 years of the two nation’s intelligence sharing arrangement.
In the final analysis it seems that Obama can act tough with the British, can callously dismiss the French and the Germans, but goes all soft in the face of murderous regimes like Iran, the Saudis, and North Korea. One would suspect that Obama hasn’t the spine to deal with real problems but, like the cuckolded hubby, lashes out where he knows its safe to do so but not where some lashing out would do some good.
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!
We’ve been through this Somali Humanitarian Refugee situation before, many times, and it did not turn out well for America. Nevertheless, we’re doing it again.
I was browsing at Refugee Resettlement Watch, and found an article about this new batch of Somali’s coming to America in September.
According to The New Vision, a Uganda website, we are taking 5,800 Somali refugees from Nakivale Refugee Camp. It appears the UN worked this bit of magic. A reason for bringing them to the US was provided by the United Nations:
Explaining the reason of resettling Somalis to the US, Katura said Somali refugees have failed to integrate with other refugee groups living in Nakivale and with the local communities because of their unique language and culture.
So, Somali’s displaced to Uganda after warring in their own country, cannot communicate with other African nations, of which Somalia is one. They also do not like other cultures. They all speak a different language – but will get along much better in the US where it is already proven they do not assimilate and learn only rudimentary English, if that.
The United States resettles refugees largely according to country of origin as well as the urgency of the situation.
Even though the US remains the world’s largest country of resettlement, its refugee admissions have been steadily declining over the last decade, particularly since the September 11 terrorist attacks. The number of refugees admitted went down from 132,000 in 1992 to about 28,000 in 2003.
Resettlement patterns in American states are generally dominated by certain ethnic communities. Many Somali and Ethiopian refugees have been resettled in Minnesota.
Can you believe it? We are in the worst recession since the Great Depression; refugee agencies are scrambling everywhere to take care of the refugees they have. Just yesterday the Department of State released the news that they are doubling the per head payment (from taxpayers) for each refugee entering the US.
You’ll also find contact at the information to express your displeasure to Homeland Security and the Secretary of State at the above link.
Two more important posts on Somali’s at Resettlement Watch.
