This blog has regularly featured my 89 year old mother, in the context of her growing up in the Great Depresson. This experience has caused her to have an abiding hero worship of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and an abiding hatred (not too strong a word) for Herbert Hooever. But my mother believes that the Democratic Party, and especially Barack Obama, has/have abandoned the principles of FDR that she liked. She insists that FDR made peoople WORK for what they got, and was nto all about giving people things free. Here is my mother's devastating, one-sentence description of Obama: "He wants to give peole things free, and tell people what to do." I am ashamed that I have never come clse to describing it that wel, and that concisely. But this article is about President Obama's continued trips overseas, includng the present trip to South America. What does this have to do with my motehr and Herbert Hoover? (By the way, I am not so sure as my mother that FDR would oppose Obama policies TODAY, if he lived, but my motehr is absolutely right that FDR oPPOSED public employoee uninois--not to mentin that he was a STRONGER leader than Barack Obama ever thought of being. My mother, after all, DID live to see both men, while I have only had the misfortune to see Obama.)
What do Presdietn Obama, Citizen of the Wrold, and Herbert hoover have directly in common? You wouild know if you listened to your mother give tirades against both Hoover and Obama, with George W. Bush thrown in for good meaure (here I larfggely agree with her, although not to the extremes she goes with Bush). I talk to my mother on the phone almost every day, which means that I hear about Obama and Hoover amsot every present day of my life. No, I don't see my mother in person that often, becakuse I can't drive (eyesight), and she lives on the other side of twon (not driving either). So I talk, on the phone almost every day, to my mother, and get to hear all about Herbert Hoover. God help him, if there is a God and she ends in Heaven with Hoover.
What is it about Herbert Hoover that remains as fresh in my mother's mind as if it happened yesterday, beyond the fact that she blames Hoover for not having enough to eat? What my is it that makes my mother HATE Herbert Hoover so strongly all o f these years later? What is it that my mother REMEMBERS most vividly abuot Hoover? What my mother remembers about Hoover--rightly or wrongly, as I was not there--is that Herbert Hoover went TO OTHER COUNTRIE$S to "save" them, without showing all that much concern that my mother DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO EAT. This probably explains why my motehr has taken some two hours to eat her entire life, to the exasperaton of her five male children (shades of Ann Romney, and it shuold be no surprise to you that my mother strongly suppports Romney). This is what my mother CANNOT FORGIVE about Herbert Hover. I get the impression that she coululd forgive him being President when the Great Depressoin started, causing her not to have enough to eat. But my mother CANNOT FORGIVE Herbert Hoover showing mroe concern for people in otehr countries than for HER (and peoople like her) in this country. No, myu mother CNNOT FORGIVE that every same thing that she sees in Barack Obama. More obviously taan with Herbert Hoover, my mther is right with regard to Barack Obama.
From the very beginning, Barack Obama has CAMPAIGNED, in the world, about the ARROGANCE of the United States. He apologizes for the United Satates. He acts like he wants the aPPROVAL of people of the world as much, or more, than he wants the approval of people in the United States. And he TRAVELS. He travels to other countires more than any Presdient in my lifetime. He even went to the OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, overseas, to try to get a bid for Chicago. Is this because Obama is "wroking hard" at things imortant to this country? Not a chance. It is because of the GRANDIOSE (even more than Newt Gincrich) way in which Obama sees himself. He does NOT "accomoplish" anything in these trips, beyond some kind of personal "approval" from people of OTHER COUNTTRIES (the very thing my mother HATED abut Herberrt Hoover). What Obama hets out of these foreign trips is to pllay the BIG SHOT. As this blog has correctly told you, Obama does not like the JOB of being President (which would mean a lot of READING, private meetings an dphone calls with OTHER PEOPLEfrom here at home, so that THEY can pursue the hard groundwork necessary for REAL accomplishment). The WORK of being President is not all of these trips where you get all of this "adulation". The WORK of being President is mainly staying here at home, setting htings lup so that any foreign trip ACCOMPHISHES someting. My entire life, before Obama, it has been recognized that a personal "summit" has NO PURPOSE unless lyou lay the groundwork for real accomplishment ahead of time. Obama is not about "groundwork", or real acomplishment, either abroad or here at home (awhere he really is not interested in anything but campaign trips and showy state vistis here). Doubt me? Never, ever do that.
Look at Korea. About a month ago, Obama made one of his historic "announcements" about a new "agreement" with North Korea. in fact, did not Obama go to KOREA in one of those showy trips? Did he not go to South Korea? I am asking the question because these trips have become so regular that they merge in my mind. But I remember Obama in Seoul. What happened to taht new "agreement" with North Korea, that Obama announcced with so much fanfare? This is the most DISTURBING thing, to me, about North Korea's FAILED test of a new rocket. North Korea, in essence, REPUDIATED Obama's new "agreement/understanding" that North Korea was going to put a moratoriummm on advancement of things like ICBMs and nuclear weapons. What PURPOSE did the Korea trip serve.
Then there is this South American trip. What PURPOSE is it serving, other than President Obama wants to bask in "approval", as he probably, implicitly applogizes for the USA yet again? Oh, Obama might think it helps his re-election, which seems to be his ONLY present purpos. Certainly, Obama is not interested in the JOB off being President., as he never has been. Bht now he has abandoned all pretense. But my mother wanted to know what Herbert Hoover was doing for HER, while he showed such concern in other countries. Here, we have to go to the Anti-American, Despicable Associatgted lPress (complete,official name, which I have neglected to use too often lately).
Yahoo "News" featured an article from the despicable AP this evening saying that Obama was going to South America to "palay defense", as the countries in Latin America OPPOSE United States ositons on most of the "issues" that will be brought up. Yep. The Anti-American AP stronlyl suggested taht the LATIN AMERICAN positions are the CORRECT positons, and the USA positions the (rightly) "unpopular" posiitons--even though the desicable AP takes pains to make clear that Obama remains PERSONALLY "popular" in Latin America. Latin America, by the way, includes not only South America, butMexico, Central America and the Caribbean. If you WONDER waht Obama is donig at a LATIN AMERICAN "summit", you may have company. Now this "summit" may be abot all of the AMERICAS, which would include Canada. In fact, if Obama is going, so shuld the leader of Canada. The United States has no bsness at a "Latin American" summit But maybe Canada is invited. Maybe it is about ALL of the American countries. The AP was too concerned about the ANTI-AMERICAN pint of view of its article to talkabout anything other than the "concerns" of the Latin American countries.
Cuba? The AP said that the U.S. had the "unpopular" positoin, including the position that Cuba not be PART of his "summit". In fact, part of THIS summit is evidently a push to make CERTAIN that no such event occurs again without Cuba. Drug legalization? This, of course, is the MEXICAN postioin that drug cartel viiolence in Mexcio, and Latin America, is the FAULT of tdrug laws in the United States, and the USA "war on drugs". Agian, the AP called this an UNPOPULAR plicy. Falkland Islands (dispute between our major ally, Great Britian, and Argetina)? We are aginn on the "wrong" side, from the Latin American point of view (according to the AP). The AP directly says that OBMAMA is popular in the region, but that OBAMA POLICIES are not. Then the AP mentinos 'electin year" politics (implying that Obama would be oepen to ABANDONING American polieis, if not for the effect at home on his re-election) making it impossible for Obama to get aywhere. The despicable AP even mentions "immigration", n passing, as if AMERICAN immigration laws are a subject fo such a "summit" (if not for election year politics). You might expect Obama to APOLOGIZE for Congress here, adn adopt this ridiculous "position". But this is where the AP proves my motehr is right about Obama showing mroe concern about Latin America than about his ouwn country, and shows that it truly is an ANTI-AMERICAN organization. This is the sentence, as close to verbatim as I can get it:
"President Obama may be able to charm Latin American leaders, bt he whill have to convince them how the USA is relevant to them and their citizens." .
Say waht? The desiocable AP--obviously thining it is reflecting the entire Obama "citizen of teh world' philosoophy--really said taht an American President "has" to show why the USA is RELEVANT to the "concerns" of Latin American leaders and their citizens. Why? I am seriuos. WHY? Presdient Obama is NOT president of Latin America. He is NOT President of the WORLD. This is EXACTLY the thing that made my motehr HATE Herbert Hoover FOREVER, and I don't think Hoover was this bad (although I was not around). No. Presien t Obama is usposed to REPRESENT the interests of the USA. His main job should be to "CONVICNE" Latin American countries that there are REASONS for American politices, and that they have to take some RESPONSIBILTY for their own problems (such a s LAW AND ORDER, anf fighitig TYRANNY).
'Skip, did you just say that we should IGNORE Latin America, including Mexico, and not listen to them." Nope. That is exactly what I did NOT say. What I said was that our goal--despite teh ANTI-AMERICAN AP--canoot be to be POPULAR with people like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, or with a country (Mexico) which has FAILED to the pint that drug cartle murderers control portioons of the ocuntry. Sure, an American Presdient should LISTEN to suggestins. But he shouuld also be LISTENED TO. Taht is exaclty what the AP FAILS to do: tell lus what Obama is going to ask people how OPPOSE our polcies to LISTEN TO.
Fact: The United States is, by far, teh economic engine that URNS THE WORLD'S ECONOMY. The AP, beyond being ANTI-AMERICAN, is STUPID. No American President has to "convince" anyone why the USA is RELEVANT. It is President Obama who FALSELY says that the time that the USA "dominates" the world is "over". The effects of the . S. economy stil DOMINATE the world. Nope. It is simly not ture lthat a U.S. President has to "convince" anyone that the U.S. is RELEVANT.
What a U.S. Presdient needs to do is CONVINCE "leaders' in Latin America that HE is relevant: that HE (the U.S. Presidetn) is willing to ASSERT the positions and values of the USA in a way they must RESPECT. This does nto mean "running over them", as in days of yuore. But it does mean that the American President should be advancing US INTERESTS. That is why he is President. That usually means finding a basis to advance EVErYONE'S interests, as that is the kind of thing that makes for successful economic negotiations. But the idea that an American Preisdent is going to a "summit" to gain the GOOD OPINION of both leaders and peole in countries wwho often do not even share our basic values is absurd.
Q.E.D. The Anti-American, Despicable Assiciated Press is anti-American, and Presdient Obama deserves to be associated in my mother's mind with her memory of Herbert Hoover.
Oh. OIL. How do Presdient Obama and his APOLOGISTS try to justify this rip, where the AP is essentially saying that Obama is toing to a summit where he, and this country--or maybe just this country--are going to be ABUSED, without accomplishing anything? OIL. I can't vbveven make this stuff up. After we--the United States of America--helepd LOAN a Brazilian group some two billin dollars to DrILL OFFSHORE FOR OIL (off the Brazilian coast), Obama now says he wants to "make a deal" for BRAZLILIAN OIL. This is after President Obaama has done his best to KEEP companies in this country from developing our own oil resources. Talk about Herbert Hoover, and my mother being RIGHT!!!!! Obama is more concerned about BRAZILIANS makng money off of oil than he is about AMERICANS making money off of oil (and gasoline). You might remember the Keysone Pipeline, where Obama stuck a finger in the eye of our ALLY (Canada). It jsut does nto get any worse than this: where the EXLANATION of how this is supposed to "help" the USA merely emphasizes how little concern our Presdient has for the people of this coutnry. No. I do NOT see that HISPANICS should like this. Why should Hispnaic citizens want an Ameerican Presdient to SELL THEM OUT any more than non-Hispanics? Absurd. That is how LEFTISTS think, and it can almsot be regarded as a mental disease. There is NO reason for AMERICAN Hispanics to want an AMERICAN President to PREFER foreign Hispanics over the United States f America. My Hispanic daughters don't think that way. Their Mexican-American mother does nto think that way (even if she was smart enough to divorce me). The only peole how think this way are LEFTIST ACTIVISTS, who really do tink that ALL fo the people of the world should be EQUALLY MISERABLE--especially if that means that peole in the United States of America no longer live so well.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). Tomorrow, I will probably get back to my SHAME of coming out of the closet yet again as a FE MINIST--difficult as it is for me to do. I did it briefly this morning, but had to take a break before getting into the meat of the Ann Romney expsure of LEFTIST WOMEN as LEFTISTS FIRST and "feminists" at some lower place on the list.