Obama: We are the world . . .

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - David Lim­baugh

Po­lite con­ser­va­tives grow ner­vous when their less in­hib­ited brethren sug­gest that Pres­i­dent Obama does not feel warm and fuzzy when con­tem­plat­ing pre-Obama-inau­gu­ra­tion Amer­ica. But con­sid­er­ing the mount­ing ev­i­dence, the bur­den of proof has cer­tainly shifted to the po­lite group to demon­strate oth­er­wise.

Mr. Obama should not get off the hook in just one short news cy­cle for the shots he took at this na­tion in his shame­ful first speech to the United Na­tions Gen­eral As­sem­bly.

In his open­ing salvo, he said, “For those who ques­tion the char­ac­ter and cause of my na­tion, I ask you to look at the con­crete ac­tions we have taken in just nine months.” Then he pro­ceeded to tick off those “con­crete ac­tions,” such as pro­hibit­ing tor­ture — as if to sug­gest that prior to his as­cen­sion, it had been of­fi­cial U.S. pol­icy.

Note that he didn’t say, “For those who ques­tion Amer­ica’s char­ac­ter, I cite to you our record of in­ter­na­tional phi­lan­thropy, benev­o­lence, peace­mak­ing and peace­keep­ing, lib­er­at­ing na­tions from bru­tal dic­ta­tors, pro­mot­ing democ­racy through­out the world, and lead­ing the world in tech­no­log­i­cal in­no­va­tion and the very ad­vance­ment of civ­i­liza­tion.”

In­stead, he made it clear that he shares the view of the world’s left­ist crit­ics that Amer­ica has acted “uni­lat­er­ally without re­gard for the in­ter­ests of oth­ers,” “ar­ro­gant” and “some­times dis­mis­sive.”

But if you ner­vous types still be­lieve it is “over the top” to sug­gest Mr. Obama is not par­tic­u­larly fond of Amer­ica’s found­ing prin­ci­ples and free­dom tra­di­tion, could you at least con­cede that he dis­dains Amer­i­can ex­cep­tion­al­ism and prefers that this na­tion not be the world’s sole su­per­power? Or that he be­lieves Amer­i­cans pos­sess an im­moral amount of the world’s wealth and is not es­pe­cially pro­tec­tive of Amer­ica’s na­tional sovereignty?

Mr. Obama isn’t con­tent merely en­gag­ing in a scheme to rad­i­cally re­dis­tribute the in­come and wealth of Amer­i­cans in­ter­nally (to the tune of some $1 tril­lion from the top 30 per­cent of in­come earn­ers to the lower 70 per­cent through his pro­pos­als on taxes, health care and the en­vi­ron­ment, ac­cord­ing to the Tax Foun­da­tion). He also be­lieves Amer­i­cans should be com­pelled to re­dis­tribute their re­sources to the world’s poor, as well.

Is that over the top, too? Well, do you re­mem­ber when Mr. Obama said the fol­low­ing in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2007? “In the 21st cen­tury, progress must mean more than a vote at the bal­lot box; it must mean free­dom from fear and free­dom from want. We can­not stand for the free­dom of an­ar­chy. Nor can we sup­port the glob­al­iza­tion of the empty stom­ach. We need new ap­proaches to help peo­ple to help them­selves. The United Na­tions has em­braced the Mil­len­nium De­vel­op­ment Goals, which aim to cut ex­treme poverty in half by 2015. When I’m pres­i­dent, they will be Amer­ica’s goals. The Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion tried to keep the U.N. from pro­claim­ing th­ese goals; the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion will dou­ble for­eign as­sis­tance to $50 bil­lion to lead the world to achieve them. In the 21st cen­tury, we can­not stand up be­fore the world and say that there’s one set of rules for Amer­ica and an­other for every­one else.”

True to his word, though barely re­ported, Mr. Obama made this state­ment in his U.N. speech: “We have fully em­braced the Mil­len­nium De­vel­op­ment Goals.” I’m not sure where he got the au­thor­ity to make that uni­lat­eral dec­la­ra­tion, but he none­the­less made it. I guess now that he’s pres­i­dent, he can some­times just is­sue fi­ats in­stead of hav­ing to deal with the cum­ber­some leg­isla­tive process — such as when he had dif­fi­culty as se­na­tor get­ting his Global Poverty Act passed. That bill would have com­mit­ted the U.S. to spending 0.7 per­cent of the U.S.’ gross do­mes­tic prod­uct on for­eign aid, amount­ing to $845 bil­lion more than the U.S. al­ready spends.

So why do you sup­pose the evil Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion op­posed the in­nocu­ous-sound­ing “Mil­len­nium De­vel­op­ment Goals”?

Well, how about its mul­ti­pronged as­sault on Amer­ica’s na­tional sovereignty? It commits par­tic­i­pat­ing na­tions to be bound by the In­ter­na­tional Crim­i­nal Court treaty; sup­port re­gional dis­ar­ma­ment mea­sures for small arms and light weapons; and press for the full im­ple­men­ta­tion of the Con­ven­tion on Bi­o­log­i­cal Di­ver­sity, which Wikipedia de­scribes as “an in­ter­na­tional legally bind­ing treaty” that in­cludes among its goals a “fair and eq­ui­table shar­ing of ben­e­fits aris­ing from ge­netic re­sources,” the Con­ven­tion on the Elim­i­na­tion of All Forms of Dis­crim­i­na­tion Against Women, de­scribed as “an in­ter­na­tional bill of rights for women,” and the Con­ven­tion on the Rights of the Child, which pur­ports to be a “legally bind­ing in­ter­na­tional in­stru­ment” that gives chil­dren the right to ex­press their own opin­ions “freely in all mat­ters af­fect­ing the child” and re­quires those opin­ions be given “due weight.”

The Mil­len­nium Dec­la­ra­tion also af­firms the U.N. as “the in­dis­pens­able com­mon house of the en­tire hu­man fam­ily, through which we will seek to re­al­ize our uni­ver­sal as­pi­ra­tions for peace, co­op­er­a­tion and de­vel­op­ment.”

In­deed, un­der Pres­i­dent Obama, “We Are the World.”

David Lim­baugh is a na­tion­ally syndicated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.