The Break Up Of America : Obama’s Demolition

En Garde In The Bunker

En Garde In The Bunker

Victor Davis Hanson is one of the brilliant minds of his day, whose insight is sought by all those who would do business around the globe. As a matter of fact, I shared some of his expertise in Chapter Twenty Five of America on the Cusp of God’s Grace relating to the divide and conquer he describes so well in his own book Mexifornia. So why wasn’t he the first appointment of Obama back in January of 2009 or earlier? An excellent question. Dare we say that we have a Manchurian Candidate plant in We The People’s’ Mansion? An unknown shadowy character devoid of background, family, identity, education, qualifications and character. The perfect IED for disaster, especially the “fundamental change” to be wrought on America? The break up of America.

In the piece I am about to take us in to, VDH lays out exactly why a strong America (economically, militarily, philosophically, politically and internationally) is of vital importance in the way that the world is operated and governed. Somebody needs to be the head of the pack, the leader and director of peace and prosperity among nations, the “international policeman” to hunt down and bring to justice those who would dare to bring death, destruction and mayhem upon nations seeking such peace and prosperity. Which would hardly lead to the break up of America.

What happens then, when America shows up with “the enemy within?” A tyrannical plant hell-bent on pulling apart the very structure that made America great? What then? How can this President be so incompetent in virtually every foreign policy decision? You would think the odds favor an occasional sound decision in policy at least by accident but I can think of none. Which makes me wonder if it’s really incompetence or by design. Is he falling on the sword of Presidential legacy for the sake of taking down this once great nation? It’s hard for Americans to imagine any President who dislikes his own country, but by his public apologies on our behalf and his foreign and domestic policies that weaken rather than strengthen our place in the world, with Obama, we have to wonder; wonder about the break up of America.

Consider the Barack Obama under the wings of avowed Communist Frank Marshall Davis, the demonic influence of Saul Alinsky, the Weather Underground of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the caustic preaching of Jeremiah Wright, and the Islamic Jihadist Terrorist influence of Valerie Jarrett and her Muslim Brotherhood Cabal, and you want to “fundamentally transform” the United States. The quickest and easiest way to do it is to create instability within and outside our borders. Political instability; social and cultural instability; economic instability – all are just means to the end, which is classic Alinskyism. Then you wait for the crucial moment of maximum disorder before you push hard on the Archimedean lever, perhaps an assumption of emergency powers, suspension of habeas corpus … well, you take it from there. Classic Cloward and Piven influence leading to the break up of America.

You don’t know what you’ve got ’till it’s gone. Obama was raised on virulent anti-colonialism and anti-US propaganda, his mentor a Communist Party puppet and petty publisher, and his adult spiritual leader an anti-white demagogue. As far as he’s concerned we are the ‘Great Satan’ and he’s now the special fellow of the correct skin color who can quietly take us down a few notches. Unfortunately the people of the world have depended on our sometimes unreflective national commitment to world order, trade, territorial integrity, and a sense of justice for weaker nations next door to stronger ones. Giving that up will unleash forces no one can control. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind, leading to the break up of America.

VDH nails it, again. Could Obama not have found even ONE person to staff his administration with such clear-headed reasoning and understanding of geopolitical reality? Instead we get Clinton, Kerry, Rice, Jarett, Holder, Donilon, Carney, Rhodes, Vietor, Plouffe, Axelrod, Hagel, Brennan, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Rangel and all the rest of the lawless Politburo … perfect compliments to his domestic policy yes-men apparatchiks capable of the break up of America.

Now on to Victor Davis Hanson and Obama’s World Disorder… 

Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson

Amid all the talk of the isolationism that supposedly characterizes the Obama administration’s foreign policy, we forget that since World War II, the global order has largely been determined by U.S. engagement. The historically rare state of prosperity and peace that defined the postwar world were due to past U.S. vigilance and sacrifice.
Germany in the last 150 years has been at the center of three European wars, winning one, losing another, and destroying much of Europe and itself in the third. Yet present-day Germany has the largest economy in Europe and the fourth largest in the world. It is a global leader in high technology and industrial craftsmanship. For seventy years Germany, even after its second historic unification in 1989, has not translated such economic preeminence into military power, much less aggression. In fact, the strategic status quo of postwar Europe—with Britain and France, and their relatively smaller and weaker economies, as the continent’s two sole nuclear powers—remains mostly unquestioned.

That strange fact is due almost entirely to the U.S.- led NATO’s determination to protect the Eastern flank of Europe from potential enemies, to reassure Germany that it need not rearm to enjoy pan-European influence, and to quietly support the European nuclear monopolies of Britain and France. While the U.S. has always talked up the American-inspired United Nations, its first allegiance has always been to assure liberal democratic states in Europe of unshakeable American support. Any weakening of the latter might send Europe back into the tumultuous twentieth century.

A similar paradox exists in Asia. Pakistan and North Korea are two of the weakest economies and most unstable political systems in the region. Yet both nations are nuclear—despite rather than because of U.S.-led efforts at nonproliferation. In comparison, by any logical measure, far wealthier and more sophisticated states like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and perhaps the Philippines should all be nuclear, given their expertise, dangerous locales, and the looming shadows of three proud, and sometime aggressive nations—China, India, and Russia—in their midst. Yet none have. That fact too is largely because of American security guarantees.

Why, then, has the Obama administration sought to negotiate nuclear arms reduction agreements solely with the Russians? The latter does not have any responsibilities resembling the host of American dependents and clients in Asia and Europe that could become nuclear, but choose not to, only because of U.S. guarantees of their strategic security.

Economically successful but non-nuclear Asian nations claim a portion of the U.S. deterrent force as critical to their own survival. Any failure to reassure our Asian and Pacific partners that our own nuclear forces are pledged to their survival would lead to a sizable increase in the world’s nuclear family.

In addition to protecting postwar Europe and the Pacific, the United States has traditionally sided with historically persecuted and vulnerable peoples, who, in the calculations of realpolitik, might not otherwise warrant such staunch friendship. U.S. security guarantees to Israel—a mere 7 million people, until recently without oil reserves, and surrounded by a host of more numerous and oil-wealthy enemies—for a half-century have assured the viability of the Jewish state.