Blog Home |  Email Author  |  About this Blog       Welcome to Community Server Sign in | Join

It's Hemmer Time


Obama doesn't stand up for America.

By Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer
Tuesday, Apr 21 2009, 11:50 AM

 Yet another questionable performance by President Obama at the Summit of the Americas.  This comes from April 18, 2009 at the opening ceremonies.

 From http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/18/obama-endures-ortega-diatribe/

"President Obama endured a 50-minute diatribe from socialist Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega that lashed out at a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America and included a rambling denunciation of the U.S.-imposed isolation of Cuba's Communist government."

Does anyone wonder, besides me, how the President of the United States could have sat and listened to a Marxist Dictator like Daniel Ortega lash out at America and NOT DO ANYTHING?  Obama, if he had any guts or wished to express the disapproval of America, could have stood up and walked out.  Yet, he sat and listened.  Maybe he was waiting for the opportunity after Ortega's tongue-lashing to go and shake the guys hand... or ask for an autograph...or better yet -  another photo op!   Or worse....maybe Obama was in agreement with Ortega.....

 During one point of his rant, Ortega mentioned the Bay of Pigs incident.  Ortega stated that Obama could not be held responsible for that, since Obama was only an infant.    Obama's response:  ā€œI’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.ā€  (Hmmmmm, isn't there a bit of an irony here, when white people are STILL being blamed for the ills of slavery in America, yet none of us existed when slavery was around?....but that's another blog entirely.....and yet more proof of the hypocrisy of the left.)  Now, back on topic...

Hey, even France got up and walked out at the recent U.N. conference on race relations once Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began to speak about  the Holocaust, claiming the West used it as a pretext for aggression against Palestinians.  Many European diplomats (yes, even wimpy France as I just mentioned) showed enough class and sense of duty (actually, sense of right and wrong)  to stand up and walk out while Ahmadinejad was going off on his tirade.  They did not approve of what Ahmadinejad was saying.  They spoke with their feet - and good for them!!!  Wonder what our President would have done if he would have been in the audience.  Is it a sure thing that he would have stood up and walked out in protest, too?  One has to wonder... 

I personally find it highly doubtful that Obama would have walked out at the U.N. conference, given the fact that  President Obama sat passively and didn't do a darn thing while his own country was being ripped to shreds in a speech by Ortega at the Summit.  All Obama had to say when asked to comment on what Ortega said was that he found "the speech to be 50 minutes long."   I swear I cannot make this stuff up.  Couldn't Obama have offered a real rebuttal?  Something with maybe a hint of outrage or disgust?  Could Obama have gone after the source - Ortega?  Could he have possibly praised America for something....just anything?  Or maybe Obama couldn't think of anything to praise his own country for....  Needless to say, Obama did NOTHING.

What kind of leader is Obama?  What kind of leader is the President of the United States?    What kind of man seeks to embrace and desire the approval of thug dictators and Marxists, and refuses to stand up and defend America?  Obama had many opportunities at the Summit of the Americas.  Yet, he chose to instead go for friendly handshakes and  warm and fuzzy photos. He chose to ignore all the anti-American speeches directed at his own country.  Do Americans out there feel short-changed by the representation of our so-called leader?

Americans SHOULD be offended by Obama's behavior!  Obama's performance spoke volumes about what he thinks about the country the President is supposed to represent.  Obama doesn't seem to think too highly of America.  His own words and actions of the past few days clearly show as much.

Shameful.

Comments

Dustin Klein   

Amy, how do you think George Bush or Bill Clinton would have handled that situation. (honest curiosity)
April 21, 2009 12:03 PM

referee33   

English refresher course for neo-cons 101: Diplomacy - 1. the art and practice of conducting negotiations between countries. 2. skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility. (tact) Courteous - 1. marked by polished manners, gallantry 2. marked by respect for and consideration for others. Polite - 1a. of, relating to, or having the characteristics of advanced culture. 2a. showing or characterized by correct social usage. 2c. marked by a lack of roughness or crudities. Arrogance - 1. an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner. Obstinate - 1. perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments or persuasion.
April 21, 2009 1:24 PM

David Otto   

Amy what is offensive is your complete ignorance of the injusitce Latin America has endured under most American regiems. If they did not like a elected leader, they created a coup. When a country failed to accept a unnecessary loan from the American IMF or CIA their leaders were systematically assasinated. American corperations, with government help set up facsists regeims through out central America and when it appeared that Argantina was becoming an economic power on par with the states the USA flooded it's economy with counterfit currency. Or do you agree with those policies?
April 21, 2009 2:44 PM

Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer   

referee33:  What kind of diplomacy do Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega practice?

David Otto:  You have drunk waaaaayyy too much Kool-Aid for me to help.  Sorry.

April 21, 2009 7:14 PM

referee33   

Amy: Do you change the type of person you are - civil, polite, courteous - just because the person you are dealing with is an obnoxious @$$? I would hope not. Although it is sometimes very difficult to maintain your "cool", I think that in the long run, you accomplish more by remaining calm rather than reacting to the taunts. I myself would never be able to tolerate the abuse, and I would have been gone, but would that have been the most productive action for the future. I'm sure I would have felt good for leaving, and many would have said - good for you - but is it possible that others watching your reaction - staying and listening - might have thought - maybe this person is someone we will be able to talk to.
April 21, 2009 7:35 PM

Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer   

Dustin Klein:  President Bush would have never let such a situation present itself.  Given that Chavez acted like a spoiled child at the last Summit of the Americas that Bush attended in 2005 (by threatening to "sneak up on Bush and scare him"), and is in fact a thug dictator, which Bush recognizes, Chavez and Bush didn't meet.  Chavez vowed to disrupt Bush's attempts at the "Free trade areas of Americas" proposal.  Bush, on the other hand, met with  presidents of countries that are part of the Central American Free Trade Agreement while at the Summit.  Of course there were the usual protests regarding Bush even being present at the Summit, which Chavez went to speak at.  The White House and Bush chose to ignore Chavez and his antics.  Bush made no overtures towards Chavez - because as our president  recognized that Chavez despises America and is no friend to our country.   Chavez has made his desire to see the end of America and even said so just a few weeks before Obama saw fit to seek him out and shake his hand.  Argh.

I sincerely doubt Bush would have sat through any speech given by any marxist dictator denouncing America without getting up and leaving.  I also think Bush would have had some harsh rhetoric regarding any such incident if he was present.  

As for Bill Clinton, I have no clue how liberal minds work.  For the most part, there seems to be no logic or reason involved, so your guess is as good as mine as to what he would have done if someone like Daniel Ortega had started ripping America while Clinton was present...

referee33:  Are you saying you understand what it is like for me to be a blogger and have to listen to leftie retorts that are obnoxious and have no factual basis?  To tolerate the taunts and abuse? WOW!!! Thanks for your compassion!  

If, on the other hand, you are referring to our President doing nothing while thugs slandered and trashed the United States, and a dictator gives you a book on the evils of America, and you sit and grin looking stupid.....well, then I just don't get how you think one is going to win the enemy over by acting like a spineless moron.

April 21, 2009 8:29 PM

David Otto   

Amy, are you aware of the stiuations I spoke of, or are you just atacking me because you have no real rebutal? By the way I want none if your "help" I like living in reality not American drunk glasses. For the last time both President Chaves and Ortega are not dictators, socialists but democratically elected. If only el diablo Bush could say that.
April 21, 2009 8:48 PM

jmark   

The President needs to learn how to trash talk. Maybe a bit of the "I am the decider/axis of evil" rhetoric would put those naughty dictators in their place. After all, worked amazingly well for getting Iran and North Korea to toe the line. Come on Barack! Get tough!
April 21, 2009 9:23 PM

Dustin Klein   

Another question I have for you is regarding the term you've thrown out there. What is wrong with the ideas of Marxism? Specifically what do you oppose about it? Not in history, but in theory?
April 21, 2009 9:39 PM

Victor Ponelis   

By demonizing certain people, you are able to dismiss them (Castro, Chavez....I'll concede you Kim Jong Il....dude's "checked out", knowwhatImean?)...hence, talking with them is besides the point. That is a dangerous position to talk vis a vis IR. As for Obama...no, he doesn't have the statesman thing down perfectly, but Obama does stand up for America....he recognizes the world can and has changed, and right now honey as opposed to vinegar is what's needed to treat with these bees.
April 22, 2009 6:14 AM

David Otto   

Dustin, great question. Here is what I believe their answer would be. 1) because I was told it was bad and rather than really thinking and studing the theory I just repeat what I've been told. 2). I've looked into marxisism and it scares me to death to think that the prolitariate could be a ruling class some day it my resources and no one will tell me what to do with them, society be famed if it affects me in any way. I on the other hand believe that most of the theory is correct however I do have someres reservations in regards to it's effectivnes in such a Capitol driven world market. Hope thy helps.

April 22, 2009 11:54 AM

Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer   

Dustin Klein:  Marxism may sound like a compassionate way to run a country on paper, but it doesn't work.  Why do the leaders of communist/marxist countries live like kings, yet the common people live in squallor?  Is that "fair?"  (I know a key operative word for liberals is "fair!").  The populace must live off of what they are allowed.   What they are given by the state.

If you don't like having your own things, you'll like marxism.  If you like working for the same pay as everyone else, with no regard to the type of work you do, you'll like marxism.  If you like to see individuality disappear and be replaced by zombies that cannot protest against the state, you'll like marxism.  Marxism doesn't allow for spirituality, and with spirituality comes free will and the rights of an individual to worship. Freewill doesn't exist with marxism.   If you like having absolutely no ability to create your own wealth, you'll like marxism.     Marxism and communism punish success by taking away from the populace and redistributing everything as a few see fit.  Does that sound like the type of world you would like to live in?  Then you'd like Marxism.   Marxism and communism kill the human spirit.  

I prefer the good ole' United States of America - where people have the freedom to do what they want and become what they want.  What I don't like is the direction I see our country heading under Obama -towards socialism.  Redistribution of wealth - or in reality - redistribution of income.

Victor Ponelis:  You comment:  "By demonizing certain people, you are able to dismiss them (Castro, Chavez....I'll concede you Kim Jong Il....dude's "checked out", knowwhatImean?)...hence, talking with them is besides the point. "  Exactly!  You got it!  Chavez and Castro are bad men.  Kim Jong II is a bad man.  President Bush at least recognized them for what they were and refused to legitimize them and how they chose to lead their countries.  They are dictators.  Their people live in poverty.  They silence opposition.  They are enemies of America.  Why must Obama feel it necessary to try to kiss up to them?  They aren't doing the same - and both Chavez and Castro seem to be in charge, manipulating the President of the United States.  Obama is in the dark.  For a sitting President to behave as he did at the Summit of the Americas is reprehensible.  He allowed America to be trashed and he did nothing.  His silence is deafening.  

April 22, 2009 1:58 PM

American citizen   

Simply amazing how the left thinks nothing of Obama coming across as a total ignoramus (Chavez was right on that one).  Leader?  No.  America used to be a major leader in the world.  A country that others looked up to.  Our current Administration seems more concerned with being liked than being respected.

April 23, 2009 11:24 AM

jmark   

The ludicrous amount of hyper-ranting over one stinking handshake is really unbelievable. Then again, considering the not-all-together folks who are making all the noise, maybe not. Carry on wing-nuts!
April 23, 2009 7:57 PM

Carl Hicks   

Why is Hugo so hated ...just because he decided not to renew oil leases from us oil companies? Why would he hate the U.S....just because we have tried to asassinate him? .....we don't know how to mind our own business , cause the whole worlds got to be just like us...
April 23, 2009 10:10 PM

American citizen   

Carl Hicks: You really need to do some research into Hugo Chavez. And I don't mean just listening to what Obama, CNN, and MSNBC tell you. Lefties love the guy. They seem to love all socialist dictators for some reason or another. To give you some useful information, rather than the garbage you've been fed from the liberal Hugo Chavez fan club, here goes:

 1) Even though he campaigned on an anti-poverty platform, Venezuela ranks near the bottom when it comes to poverty. Thor Halvorseen (the Human Rights Foundation leader) was quoted as saying "Chavez loves the poor so much he wants to create as many of them as he can."

2) Chavez didn't like what his country's press was reporting, so guess what? He clamped down on the media. What if something like that would happen in the United States? (One good thing would be we wouldn't be bombarded with Obama-love reports everyday, but that's not the issue.) Under Chavez's rule - any insult directed at the President of the Republic constitutes slander, injury, and vilification." The media group - Reporters Without Borders has followed a campaign of legal harassment and physical violence via private militia groups that Chavez calls "community groups." People who signed a petition asking for a recall of Chavez in 2004 were made targets, subject to harrassement, denied jobs, and loans.

3) Chavez has undermined his country's rule of law by stacking the supreme court with loyalists. The government branches are no longer independent and the power of the national executive (Chavez) is large and far-reaching. There are armed civilian groups and death squads which conduct their activities under the direction of Chavez. Political oppostion is silenced. The news media is silenced. Anti-Americanism is promoted.

4) Chavez also supports Bolivian Evo Morales as well as Fidel and now Raul Castro. Chavez actually gave Castro the right to have Cuban judges and security forces to have jurisdiction in Venezuela to help Chavez control the populace of his country.

5) Chavez also provides support to the Marxist terrorist group FARC (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia). He furnishes supplies and sanctuary to this organization.

6) Chavez hopes for the demise of America.

7) Chavez made a fool of the President of the United States at there recent Summit of the Americas. But I don't think Obama really cared. He was too much in awe of Chavez.

Mr. Hicks: When did the United States try to assassinate Chavez? As I recall, Pat Robertson made an off-the-cuff and stupid remark saying so. I don't know of any actual attempt to assassinate Chavez - do you? So I will wait for your reply on what a great guy Hugo Chavez is, Mr. Hicks. This should be interesting.

April 24, 2009 1:23 PM

Carl Hicks   

I never said I liked the guy.I won't argue points 1 thru 6 since they are true as far as point 7 goes , that seems to be a matter of opinion. And as far as when did we try to assasinate him , the CIA makes these attempts and/or gives out millions of our tax dollars trying to recruit others to do their dirty work all the time, even under doh!bama. Just as they have to many other unwanted leaders all over the planet
April 24, 2009 9:10 PM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

About Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer

Amy Geiger-Hemmer has lived in Merton since 1992 with her husband and three children, who all attend Merton Intermediate and Primary Schools. She enjoys family activites, volleyball, reading, and bike riding. During the school year, she works as a substitute teacher/instructional assistant, and also volunteers with the Merton PTO. She is proud to be a conservative Republican.