Dictatorship, George Soros, Globalization, International Order, iran, military, New World Order, Nukes, obama, Power Grab, Progressivism, RUSSIA, Soros, Sovereignty, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, Tyranny, U. S., U.S. Sovereignty, US Military, USA, West Point
For years, I have attempted to engage friends and associates in discussions about our nation becoming party to a “new world order.” Each time, I could not help but notice the denial and skepticism of those I engaged, the raised eyebrows and the need to change the subject.
Fast track 2010, there is an elitist in the White House issuing proclamations of this new international order. Appalling is the impudence of this tyrant to inform the world of its existence at a commencement speech before this weekend’s graduation ceremony at West Point.
“President Obama is facing criticism for his declaration over the weekend that he would seek a new ‘international order,’ with some questioning how much U.S. sovereignty the administration is willing to cede in exchange for more global cooperation.
President Obama is facing criticism for his declaration over the weekend that he would seek a new ‘international order,’ with some questioning how much U.S. sovereignty the administration is willing to cede in exchange for more global cooperation.
Obama, delivering the commencement speech Saturday at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, said that ‘stronger international standards and institutions’ and stronger alliances can ‘resolve’ challenges ranging from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to climate change to economic decline.
‘Our adversaries would like to see America sap its strength by overextending our power,’ Obama said. ‘So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation.”
Talk about a dictator feeling his oats. It is so Chavez-like, don’t you think? ‘an international order,’ ‘new world order.’ Before you answer, note that a rose by any other name is still a rose.
“The president added that efforts by America’s armed forces need to be ‘complemented’ with greater diplomatic engagement ‘from grand capitals to dangerous outposts,’ more humanitarian assistance to needy nations, better communications among intelligence agencies, first responders to act after earthquakes, storms and disease and ‘law enforcement that can strengthen judicial systems abroad, and protect us at home.’
‘America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of cooperation; we have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice — so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don’t,’ he told the graduating class at the military academy.
‘This engagement is not an end in itself. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times — countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds,’ he said.”
What happens when Obama realizes that Americans do not share George Soros’ Barack Obama’s predilection for this new world international order? Will it become the assigned task of future West Point graduates to set us down and put us in check?
“Thomas Jefferson established an academy at West Point because he wanted an institution to train Army officers which would be beholden to no political party. Cadets learn their responsibility is to live the academy motto—‘duty, honor, country.’ That said, it is unfortunate that President Barack Obama chose to make the centerpiece of his remarks at West Point last week a partisan diatribe—with another dose of “anything but Bush” rhetoric. Even more disappointing, the President outlined the main elements of the Obama Doctrine:  greater reliance on international institutions; substituting soft power for hard power; and a more subdued and less self-reliant America – a scheme designed more to manage American decline than to ensure its people remain safe, free and prosperous.
President Obama’s dream for a new international order has informed virtually all of his administration’s foreign policy initiatives. And almost all of them demonstrate just why sacrificing American sovereignty and security at the altar of global bureaucracy is such a terrible idea. Both Russia and China continue to manipulate US efforts to impose sanctions on Iran in the UN Security Council to their own ends. For instance, it wasjust reported  last weekend that the Obama administration further undermined its already terribly weak Iranian sanctions resolution by allowing Moscow to sell advanced air and cruise missile defenses to Iran….
…the worst thing about the speech was that the President made it in front of the men and women who will have to live with the immediate consequences of his actions.”
Soros must be swollen with pride for his poster child.
As for those who reflected upon the “new world order” theory as nothing more than a hypothesis, how say you now?
No matter what Obama’s proclamations are for a new world international order, the agenda for this new world international order has naught to do with Al Qaeda and the war on terrorism. Such rhetoric is nothing more than tainted realities intended as a diversion away from the truth.
Moreover, this administration is incapable of uttering the phrases Islamic radicals or Islamic jihadists. Not to mention, their support and connections to CAIR and similar organizations used as cover for Islamic terrorists. It simply does not get any more radical than that.
And so it surfaces with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between Russia and the U.S.; removal of sanctions against three Russian organizations previously accused by the U.S. of assisting Iran in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons; the undertaking of the dissolution of U.S. sovereignty; and diminishing the preeminence of our nation and our military in the eyes of the world.
And what about the validity of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rest of the founding documents? Think about it.
Is it reasonable to entitle this schema for a new world international order, the Obama doctrine?