Tuesday, December 07, 2010

A Canadian View of President Obama - Answered!

This was sent to me by a friend, and I just have to share it with everyone.

Anyone with an active e-mail correspondence periodically gets one of these: a letter forwarded by a friend from a friend from a friend... Often, the ones that come from outside the US are supporting one or another political view of events here in the US, and this one is no different. But sometimes, the forwarded document is so blatantly wrong that it demands a response. This is such a one. I've removed any names or references that could identify anyone in the chain, and then put my own response in italics after each paragraph or section.

Sometimes, it takes an astute outside observer to show people what they are doing to themselves. This was forwarded from a Canadian friend ...
I just received this last night from a dear friend. Why is it that the rest of the world can see what is happening in the US, but people here are so blind? I thought this was well worth sending on to all of you.
With love, XXXX

America - He's your President for Goodness Sake!
By William Thomas
Posted: Friday, October 1st, 2010

There was a time not so long ago when Americans, regardless of their political stripes, rallied round their president. Once elected, the man who won the White House was no longer viewed as a Republican or Democrat, but the President of the United States. The oath of office was taken, the wagons were circled around the country’s borders and it was America versus the rest of the world with the president of all the people at the helm.

Suddenly President Barack Obama, with the potential to become an exceptional president has become the glaring exception to that unwritten, patriotic rule.

How incredible that Mr. Thomas sees Mr. Obama "with the potential to become an exceptional president" - exceptional in what way? In his "preparation?" In his "past experience?" In his writings? In his management skills? In his military background?
Not only that, but exactly how is Mr. Obama "the glaring exception?"

Four days before President Obama’s inauguration, before he officially took charge of the American government, Rush Limbaugh boasted publicly that he hoped the president would fail. Of course, when the president fails the country flounders. Wishing harm upon your country in order to further your own narrow political views is selfish, sinister and a tad treasonous as well.

Clearly Mr. Thomas did not bother to listen to Limbaugh's actual words (readily available on-line in many places) or to Limbaugh's explanation of what he said (which has never changed since that January 16th, 2009 broadcast). Nor is it appropriate to call it "boasting." Limbaugh explained that the President-elect's campaign platform, his political appointments, his actions before inauguration (no other president in the history of the United States has EVER created an organization the size of the "Office of the President-Elect" (much less a seal for a podium with that boastful phrase) before he took office), and Mr. Obama's own writings made it clear that he intended to transform America into a new entity little resembling that America of the past, and for that reason he hoped that he failed. Mr. Williams seems to have bought the line of the likes of Ed Schulz and other far-left, transnational-progressives. As for "when the president fails the country flounders," I have to make two comments. First, the country was already floundering in January 2009, and had been for a year or more. Second, American history has continually demonstrated that the "failure" of a president has always in the past been easily overcome and the Union has continued: whether we are talking the first Harrison, the first Johnson, Grant, Wilson, Harding, Hoover, Nixon, Ford, or even Clinton. Even though Mr. Williams may not agree with Limbaugh's views, he should (and could have) surely recognized that in Limbaugh's own eyes, his political views ARE for the good (not harm) of the country - his "sinister" and "a tad treasonous" is just adding insult to injury.

Subsequently, during his State of the Union address, which is pretty much a pep rally for America, an unknown congressional representative from South Carolina, later identified as Joe Wilson, stopped the show when he called the President of the United States a liar. The president showed great restraint in ignoring this unprecedented insult and carried on with his speech. Speaker Nancy Pelosi was so stunned by the slur, she forgot to jump to her feet while clapping wildly, 30 or 40 times after that.

Sadly, Mr. Thomas understands neither the United States Constitution nor its customs nor the value we place on honesty. The "State of the Union" address is a MANDATORY Constitutional obligation of the President to report to the Congress. It is NOT a "pep rally" and it is NOT the Queen's Speech to Parliament, NOR is the President a monarch by grace of God. Would that more Congressmen had had the guts and honesty to stand up not just at this speech but many others! Of course, Mr. Williams has to insult Rep. Wilson, branding him as "unknown," as if ANY M.C. is "unknown." Of course, the last sentence of this paragraph makes me wonder if Mr. Williams is actually being incredibly sarcastic.

Last spring, President Obama took his wife Michelle to see a play in New York City and republicans attacked him over the cost of security for the excursion. The president can’t take his wife out to dinner and a show without being scrutinized by the political opposition? As history has proven, a president in a theatre without adequate security is a tragically bad idea.
Remember: “Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?”

Once more, Mr. Thomas twists the comments for the sake of making his argument. The attack by the GOP (and others) was not about "security" costs but about the total cost of that little excursion. Abe did not take Mary to the play by having the government hire a train to and from NYC, and the regiment of troops that was used to protect him on the road. And as a result, Mr. Williams misses the entire point (maybe he is so much a Monarchist that he believes that Barack and Michelle need to be treated as if they WERE Elizabeth and Phillip), that Mr. Obama has acted more like Nero or Caligula or Louis XVI than the elected leader of a free and republican nation.

At some point, the treatment of President Obama went from offensive to ugly and then to downright dangerous.

Of course, this may have been more because of how Mr. Obama's treatment of the American people and his political opponents (whom as I recall he calls "enemies") went from disdainful and condescending to arrogant and overbearing and even dictatorial.

The health-care debate, which looked more like extreme fighting in a mud pit than a national dialogue, revealed a very vulgar side of America. President Obama’s face appeared on protest signs white-faced and blood-mouthed in a satanic clown image. In other tasteless portrayals, people who disagreed with his position distorted his face to look like Hitler complete with mustache and swastika.

Again, Mr. Thomas seems to forget the long tradition of American politics and political lampooning - and especially the fact that Mr. Obama's immediate predecessor was treated exactly the same way (of course, the "satanic clown" image was taken from Heath Ledger's protrayal of the Joker in a movie that came out in July 2008 - else portrayal of GWB would have used the Joker imagery far more than they have. Hitler? Actually, I think virtually EVERY American president since FDR has been called Hitler by someone at some time. When your policies and your attitudes bear some resemblance to National Socialism or its tactics or its cult of personality, this should be no surprise..

Odd, that burning the flag makes Americans crazy, but depicting the president as a clown and a maniacal fascist is accepted as part of the new rude America.

Distasteful as the GOP, the Tea Party activists, and many Libertarians doing this is to me, I have to again point out - it is not the FIRST president to be so treated, and if Mr. Thomas thinks we are rude now, he would go into shock if he had seen how Americans behaved during (to name just a few) the election contest of Jackson vs. Adams in 1828, Jackson vs. Clay in 1832, the four-way race in 1860, or the three-way race of Wilson, Taft, and Roosevelt in 1912. But Mr. Jackson apparently thinks that America should follow the Roman system of making our head of state and government into a deified god.

Maligning the image of the leader of the free world is one thing, putting the president’s life in peril is quite another. More than once, men with guns were videotaped at the health-care rallies where the president spoke. Again, history shows that letting men with guns get within range of a president has not served America well in the past.

Oh, please, Mr. Thomas, how foolish can you be? For every man who ever fired or attempted to fire a shot at a president of the United States, there have been literally HUNDREDS of thousands of men and women carrying firearms within range of a serving (or do you prefer "reigning," Mr. Williams) president. Indeed, the presence of peaceful free citizens bearing arms in defense of themselves and others actually probably makes the president safer. Your blue nose is showing, Mr. Williams; remember, Canadians were once free subjects of Her Majesty with a Englishman's traditional (and God-given) right of self-defense by bearing arms, but that was in the past.

And still the “birthers” are out there claiming Barack Obama was not born in the United States, although public documentation proves otherwise. Hawaii is definitely part of the United States, but the Panama Canal Zone where his electoral opponent Senator John McCain was born? Nobody’s sure.

I now see that not only is Mr. Thomas unfamiliar (or willing to ignore) even common basic law (law which we share with Canadian provinces), but he is willing to not just twist but ignore the truth. Whether or not Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims or not, what is a matter of public record is that HE has taken action, through various means, to prevent the release of this "public documentation" Mr. Williams refers to - while attempting to foist off a variety of other documentation which has been demonstrated to be meaningless. This is entirely Mr. Obama's fault - he could have completely undercut the "birthers" by simply releasing his REAL birth certificate or authorizing the State of Hawaii office to do. (Assuming, of course, that he WAS born where he and his handlers say he was.) As for Senator McCain and the Panama Canal Zone, I cannot believe that Mr. Williams does not know that the PCZ issue WAS raised even before Senator McCain won the nomination and that he DID release a real birth certificate issed by Gorgas Army General Hospital and that the courts have repeatedly determined that the PCZ was as much a part of the United States at McCain's birth as was the Territory of Hawaii, Territory of Alaska, or District of Columbia. [Indeed, MOREso - because the US not only bought the PCZ from Columbia AND from the new Republic of Panama, but they bought every square inch from a private landowner as well. The Congress didn't pay Maryland a dime for what is now the District of Columbia.]

Last month, a 44-year-old woman in Buffalo was quite taken by President Obama when she met him in a chicken wing restaurant called Duff’s. Did she say something about a pleasure and an honour to meet the man or utter encouraging words for the difficult job he is doing? No. Quote: “You’re a hottie with a smokin’ little body.”
Lady, that was the President of the United States you were addressing, not one of the Jonas Brothers! He’s your president for goodness sakes, not the guy driving the Zamboni at “Monster Trucks On Ice.” Maybe next it’ll be, “Take Your President To A Topless Bar Day.”

Well, Mr. Thomas, you really can't blame the entire nation - or even a large section of it - for a woman who is either a flat-out liar or has really, really bad taste. Her inappropriate words remain her responsibility, and perhaps to some degree blame can be laid at the feet of her parents and the popular (check-out stand) media. But she obviously assumed that the president would accept her "compliment" based on his own actions - his "beer summits" and his comments about various people (including comments made on popular cable shows) and the mere fact that he was at a place called "Duff's" in a town like Buffalo. (Not that New Yorkers are exactly polite, but Buffalo has the misfortune of being both in New York AND very, very close to Canada.)

In President Barack Obama, Americans have a charismatic leader with a good and honest heart. Unlike his predecessor, he’s a very intelligent leader. And unlike that president’s predecessor, he’s a highly moral man.

At this point, words fail me. Charismatic Mr. Obama is - he is an accomplished demagogue (at least when he has a teleprompter available). But his actions both before his term began and since that term began lends very strong evidence that his heart is neither good or honest. Volumes have been written about his lies - and not including his "misstatements." His mastery of Chicago politics, and his adherence to the political philosophy of progressivism, are strong arguments that it is a vile slander to call him "good." If a man is judged by his companions, his allies, and his supporters, this characterization is even more at odds with his real character: from ACORN and the SEIU to Raum Emmanual, Jesse Jackson, Wright, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, he is known by the company he keeps. As for whether he is more intelligent than George W. Bush, well, we don't really know, do we? Bush's scholastic and military records we can see and review; Mr. Obama has made sure that his school and college records are sealed, and of course, he HAS no military records. As for whether he is more "moral" than William Jefferson Clinton - well, I shall leave that to the Lord to decide, but I have my suspicions.

In President Obama, Americans have the real deal, the whole package and a leader that citizens of almost every country around the world look to with great envy. Given the opportunity, Canadians would trade our leader, hell, most of our leaders for Obama in a heartbeat.

Oh please, BE MY GUEST. I've known a few Canadian leaders, and I think I'd even be willing to accept Pierre Elliott Trudeau, much less a McDonald or a Harper. I've certainly not seen (at least not since the election of 2008) the mass appeal of Mr. Obama in the UK (which he has insulted repeatedly), Germany, France, and certainly not Korea, China or Japan. Indonesia does seem to like him, but then, he was one of them for a while; Kenya seems to really take after him - for the same reason, I guess. The fact that Canadians (according to Mr. Thomas - many of my friends in Canada would not agree) would trade for him demonstrates more of the shortcomings of the Canadian electorate (and political leadership) than the merits of Mr. Obama.

What America has in Obama is a head of state with vitality and insight and youth. Think about it, Barack Obama is a young Nelson Mandela. Mandela was the face of change and charity for all of Africa but he was too old to make it happen. The great things Obama might do for America and the world could go on for decades after he’s out of office.

Mandela is such a WONDERFUL role-model, isn't he? (Sarcasm intended.) Yes, Mr. Obama has youth, and he has physical vitality: his political vitality is just a wee bit enervated these days. As to insight, well, as Chicago politicians go, yes, he has insight. As far as REAL insight into anything: government, politics (outside Chicago and Democratic backrooms), the Constitution, economics, freedom, liberty, military affairs, foreign affairs, or how to treat people... I guess I'm from Missouri, Mr. Williams: Show me. As for his continuing "value" for decades after his out of office - well, we've learned from Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton just how painful THAT is; I don't think even many of Mr. Obama's supporters are looking forward to that.

America, you know not what you have.

Oh if that were only the case. But thanks to both his own machine, the Democratic Party, talk shows, the daily news, and bloggers, we know all too well what we have. Like I said, "be my guest." I'm sure that Ottawa will soon be trying to give him away to Bermuda or Jamaica or Kenya or someplace...

The man is being challenged unfairly, characterized with vulgarity and treated with the kind of deep disrespect to which no previous president was subjected. It’s like the day after electing the first black man to be president, thereby electrifying the world with hope and joy, Americans sobered up and decided the bad old days were better.

I agree, Mr. Thomas, that some of the challenges and characterizations are unfair, since Mr. Obama is reaping the lashing back of eight years of progressive/liberal and Democratic attacks on his predecessor: his opponents figure that they can use the same tactics used against one of their people. But you obviously were in isolation between 2001 and 2009 if you do not believe that previous presidents have never received this kind of treatment. To say nothing of your lack of knowledge of such presidents as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Richard Nixon.

President Obama may fail but it will not be a Richard Nixon default fraught with larceny and lies. President Obama, given a fair chance, will surely succeed but his triumph will never come with a Bill Clinton caveat – “if only he’d got control of that zipper.”

No, at least for now, what Mr. Obama and his minions are stealing is being done "in accordance with the law" - however immoral their actions might be. But the lie part is already there - a long list of usurpations and abuses is tied with outright lying and shading of the truth that resembles graffiti on a railroad car more than it does the tones on a pencil sketch or painting. And given the obvious size of Mr. Obama's ego, I'd not think you wise to place any bets on him NOT following in Clinton's steps.

Please. Give the man a fair, fighting chance. This incivility toward the leader who won over Americans and gave hope to billions of people around the world that their lives could be enhanced by his example, just naturally has to stop.

Mr. Thomas, it is clear that we are fighting Mr. Obama for the heart, the soul, and the future of America and our liberties; when the stakes are that high, to paraphrase that great American Bill Cosby, "we ain't gonna play fair, and we ain't gonna give 'em a fighting chance. You Brits wear red jackets and march in straight lines and wear shiny brass and fire in volleys; we'uns will wear buckskin and hide behind trees and sneak around in the dark and bushwack you with every dirty trick we'un can think of. So there." Ditto for a transnational progressive elitist. The hope of the billions of people of the world rests in liberty and freedom which leads to peace and prosperity and a future worth living in. And America won't help reach for that hope if Mr. Obama continues to pretend to be the leader of this nation and of the free world. If they follow HIS example, may the Lord have pity on them in their chains and poverty.

Believe me, when Americans drive by the White House and see a sign on the lawn that reads: “No shirt. No shoes. No service,” they’ll realize this new national rudeness has gone way, way too far.

I won't even be able to respond to this last sentence, because you just aren't making sense, Mr. Thomas. But then, looking back at your writing, you didn't really make that much sense from the start. I am glad that so many Canadians don't agree with you.


I do applaud Mr. William Thomas' willingness to sign his name to this strange little article. I assume, though, that there are enough William Thomases in the BC phonebook to give him that luxury. But don't worry, here in the United States we still have (for now) and still honor (for now) free speech. I understand you used to have that in Canada, too, another of those legacies of being Englishmen.

Here ends my friend's commentary. I have deleted his name and address, just as he did for his correspondents, because I know how much trouble he is in already and don't want him to get into more for speaking the truth about this American President and refuting the claims of this British Columbian writer.

No comments: