Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Lordrobot (89.90)

Democracy good; Obama bad

Recs

11

January 30, 2011 – Comments (8) | RELATED TICKERS: C , BAC , AAPL

In the midst of the Egyptian uprising and as a backdrop, Egypt is a country that wants Democracy. They are smart able people. When I was in Arabia, the Egyptians were the labor backbone. And they were no different than any blue or white collar worker in America. They were not zealots but decent people. 

The silence of Obama and the idiotic comment by Joe Biden that Mubarak is not a Dictator shows not only stupidity but weakness. In spite of Obama's roots as an on again off again Muslim, his notion of self determination is flawed. The citizens under Fidel and Chavez have self-determination established by their strongman dictatorships. Obama is good with this kind of self-determination. 

When Iran was exploding with dissidents in the street over those egregious "fair elections", Obama took the side of the dictatorship. 

Most striking about the claim by the US Gov. second in command that Mubarak is not a Dictator is the rapidity with which the internet was shut down. Even now the Obama administration is trying to work on a "kill switch" to shut down the internet in the USA in the event of some catastrophic condition. Liberal politicians continue to push for a fairness doctrine so that each word about democracy can be met with a kind word about totalitarianism.

At least Hillary Clinton, once you get through the maze of double talk let it slip today that she favors Democracy but wants a slow orderly transition... presumably with Mubarak leading the way... just as he has led the way by jailing political opponents.

While I do not like the use of American force in protracted wars, it is becoming more obvious every day that the Democratization of Iraq, though imperfect, has given the mature Muslim and Persian nations a glimmer of hope for their own chance at self determination. While 40% of all American voters stay home during elections, more Iraqi voters go to the polls and they know that they risk their lives with some human suicide bomber but they still vote rather than stay home.

I know Egypt and I know Arabia well. The internet is popular in Egypt. Self-determination the Democratic variety not the Obama Chavez variety is a strong motivating force. Egypt has no oil but they are a center of commerce and they are the workforce for most of Arabia and Persia.

It doesn't surprise me that Egypt will go democratic nor that Jordan will go democratic. The idea that these nations will fall into democracy is absurd. People want self-determination and capitalism. They want a share of the good life.

Democracy is a stabilizing event. I am a Conservative and I am not fond of either of the Bushs, Bush I or II. Nevertheless, Iraq is a foothold in Democracy which is spreading across the Middle East. These oppressed people are feeling the moment. The last time something like this happened, Ronald Reagan gave powerful verbal support to the world when he gave his famous Berlin Wall speech, "Tear down this Wall!" That was all it took for the Eastern Europeans and they brought that wall down. Nobody would dispute today that Eastern Europe has not benefited from Democracy and Capitalism. Obama has instead kept his cagey silence and preferred to have intermediaries send out his spineless message of support to the Dictators. 

Great men rise to great moments and this is one of those moments. Lincoln did it at Gettysburg, Reagan at the Berlin Wall.

The White House is now occupied by a true lightweight, a guy that thinks Fidel and Chavez and Ahmadinejad are the definitions of self-determination. In each instance these dictators shut down TV stations, shut down the internet, shut down newspapers in favor of their state propaganda. When Ahmadinejad first appeared on the scene, the liberal press in America fawned over him. Mike Wallace called this dictator "an impressive" guy. Barbara Walters wanted to sleep with him, now that would have been impressive. 

While hedge funds try to make the most out of the unrest and raid the equities with short selling, Democracy is not destabilizing; it is the opposite. From one small burning ember started by French Democracy that spread to Colonial America, the flame of self-determination lives and Egypt, a grand country... deserves Democracy. And the United States deserves a vastly better man in the White House than this friend to all dictatorships who is trying to place his own hand on the Democratic kill switch.  

 

8 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 30, 2011 at 7:06 PM, tomlongrpv (79.63) wrote:

And you think the alternatives to Obama would have been more favorable to democracy?

It will be interesting to see what happens in Egypt.  Now let's try to recall, how many democracies are there in large Arab countries?  Or small ones for that matter?  Can you name even one Arab democracy? Perhaps Lebanon, but I am not sure that's the model we want Egypt to follow.

Report this comment
#2) On January 30, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Lordrobot (89.90) wrote:

Iraq is a democracy. They have a democratic government and fair elections. The nuances they choose are up to the people. 

Anybody could do a better job than Barry Sotoro even Hillary Clinton; she is much stronger than he is. She has actually said the word "Democracy" today. Obama hasn't. He and Joe Bite me only said that Mubarak is not a dictator. So if Mubarak is not a dictator... Tomlnogpv, then what is he the Tooth Fairy?  

Report this comment
#3) On January 30, 2011 at 7:40 PM, OneLegged (< 20) wrote:

You lost me with the "on-again off-again" comment.  Please stick to the facts.  You'd sound much more credible.

Report this comment
#4) On January 30, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Lordrobot (89.90) wrote:

OneLegged... Normally I would agree with you however, I have a very strong suspicion that Obama went to colleges claiming Muslim religious status and that he became a Rev. Wright styled "Christian" when it in fact benefited him politically. At present he leads Muslim prayers from time to time but has not offered equal treatment to his Christianity. There is of course the separation of Church and State which is appropriate but the outward appearance is that he favors Muslims who by the way all get Obamacare waivers whereas only Jehovah witnesses and the Amish get exemptions. Granted it is subtle but it is continuous.

Further, liberals were sold on the idea that Obama's Muslim roots would somehow translate into better relations with the Middle East and nothing could be further from the truth. American credibility was lost over Iran and now over Egypt.

I am clearly not an Obama partisan but I believe I have posted a fair rendition of the administration with their middle east dealings which have been anything but productive. As always, he looks like a guy that is clueless so he hides.  

Report this comment
#5) On January 31, 2011 at 10:43 AM, tomlongrpv (79.63) wrote:

That's funny!  Iraq a democracy.  Of course a small price has been paid to get it there.  Want to pay the same price in Egypt?  And no Iraq is not a democracy.   In the elections there you vote for a party by symbol not for the candidates by name (they are afraid to show their names and with good reason) and the process is highly sectarian and not exactly free from doubt as to the fairness of the elections.  But if I give you the benefit of the doubt the Iraq "democracy" isn't more than a few years old and is propped up by outside forces. 

We supported the Shah in Iran.  It seemed like a mistake because it wasn't democracy.  But then we saw what the real alternative was.  Sometimes 17th century absolutism is better than 9th century barbarism--if that is the choice.  The Afghans were way better off under Communism than under the Taliban.  But we didn't understand the real choice there either.  Sometimes the real choices are not particularly good ones.  And even more often the choice is not ours at all but rather that of those in the country--as it should be. 

I am no fan of Mubarak, but the assumption that the alternative is "democracy" and that it will be "better" than Mubarak is just that--an assumption--not supported by history.  It is hard to establish democracy in countries that have no tradition of it.  Sure Egypt "deserves" democracy and yes our leaders should try to encourage it.  But we also have to be mindful of what is really happening and prepare for the possibility that democracy may not emerge.  And we have to work hard to make sure we in the US don't get what we "deserve"--that would be a real problem.

Report this comment
#6) On January 31, 2011 at 12:55 PM, djemonk (< 20) wrote:

I have a very strong suspicion that Obama went to colleges claiming Muslim religious status and that he became a Rev. Wright styled "Christian" when it in fact benefited him politically. At present he leads Muslim prayers from time to time but has not offered equal treatment to his Christianity.

This leads to three questions:

1)  Why does this matter?

2)  People still believe this kind of ridiculous stuff?  Are we still asking for his birth certificate?

3)  No, seriously.  Why does this matter?

Report this comment
#7) On January 31, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Harold71 (28.93) wrote:

Democracy???

Why in the world does the US want to spread democracy?  The US itself isn't one.

 

...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands

And the Republic was obviously lost long ago.  Enjoy the plutocracy 'til the US revolts. 

 

Report this comment
#8) On January 31, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Lordrobot (89.90) wrote:

djemonk, probably pointless to explain to you the semantics of the question asked to me, you strike me as a liberal clown. 

First off there is no birth certificate. There is no hospital record of his birth in Hawaii. This is astonishing because 1) the nation was told otherwise by Hawaii certifying the election process and they lied and 2) Obama claimed to have been born at one of the two hospitals which is also false.

The remainder of the evidence suggests that his grandparents filed for a certificate of birth after the fact. That covers all of the other aspects of the birth certificate controversy. You can wade into that on your own when contemplating the Constitutional requirements for the presidency. 

Secondly, the issue came up as to whether Obama was a Christian or Muslim. And why this matters is because Obama claims he is a Christian and his best evidence of that is his visiting a racist Black church with Rev Wright a guy who preaches racism not any form of known Christianity. 

Obama would not have been elected if he was a Muslim. And thats tough. So Obama instead decided to wear the mantle as a Christian even if his church was racist. So he did it for convenience rather than conviction.

Yet we know he was a practicing Muslim. His school records would likely shed light on this since he may have used Muslim status to enhance his diversity status for Harvard. He certainly didn't outscore me on the LSAT. So it should bother the public when a guy seems to have no conviction and seems to do everything out of convenience. I think it is fair to say that the public deserves disclosure. They can decide for themselves if his being a Muslim or racist is of any importance. Certainly it was of no importance to the black community that voted for him with 96% of their vote.

I think in total, the Obama disclosures across the board indicate to me that his character is insufficient for public office. The disclosure by Hawaii that the actual birth certificate never existed though they claimed it existed is a very serious breach of the public trust.

And why is proof of national birth important? It is the express Constitutional requirement to hold the office of the Presidency. If that escapes you, then you are an empty headed moron and my first sentence applies.

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement