Filed under: Capitalism, Foreign Policy, Freedom, National Security, The United States | Tags: Cuba's Castro Brothers, Russia's Vladimir Putin, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez
When Governor Romney criticized President Obama’s “Apology Tour,” and quoted Obama’s apology for “dictating to other countries,” he gave one of the most memorable lines of the debate: “America does not dictate to other nations. America has freed other nations from dictators.”
Oddly enough, in spite of all the apologies, from Moscow to Caracas to Havana, real dictators with long records of enmity towards the United States are endorsing Barack Obama for president.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, after his own rigged re-election declared “If I were American, I would Vote for Obama. He is my candidate.” This was his second endorsement in a week, and then he went off on his plans to increase Venezuelan socialism.
Mariela Castro, daughter of Cuba’s ruling chief Raul Castro, Fidel’s brother, told CNN “As a citizen of the world I would like for Obama to win. Obama deserves a second chance and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects which I believe come from the heart.”
Vladimir Putin, once and still president of Russia said “Obama is a genuine person who really wants to change much for the better,” in what the Moscow Times said was widely viewed as his most direct endorsement of Obama. He’s apparently waiting till after the election when Mr. Obama “can be more flexible.”
That prominent gathering of dictators, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights warned Americans that a vote for Mitt Romney was “a vote for torture,” an “indirect” endorsement of Obama.
The Gulf Times, a newspaper closely allied with the autocratic rulers of Dubai endorsed Obama, significant because the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a part, was found to be financing “Promised Land,” a Hollywood film starring Matt Damon with the mission to discourage fracking in the U.S. which would cut back on U.S. consumption of Gulf oil.
Chinese cash has been illegally flowing into Obama’s campaign coffers through the Chinese website Obama.com.
There was a sudden declaration reported by Iran’s mullahs last weekend of “peace talks” soon to be held if Americans vote for Obama — which Obama denied.
Nations that regard America as an enemy prefer a weak America that they can manipulate. That’s just the way the world works.
6 Comments so far
Leave a comment
American Elephants 
Vladimir Putin was also a great fan of George W. Bush.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRNTyRDX9FcqdQejK3H7MxBoJeFMfy2S4ZNvLBtEYIPt6VIb-f0Q8H-wVQs
LikeLike
Comment by Subsidy Eye October 24, 2012 @ 2:09 amFunny picture. Do you have evidence besides the picture? Bush had good relationships with most other international leaders. I remember that most were terrified of Reagan, expected him to be very difficult.
LikeLike
Comment by The Elephant's Child October 24, 2012 @ 3:11 pmTell me you really don’t remember.
George and Vladimir really hit it off early on in Bush’s first term, and later the U.S. President invited the Russian President for a cozy retreat at his ranch.
The Russian leader said he regarded the US as a partner.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1392791.stm
Later, in his memoirs, Bush backtracked on his support for Putin, saying that Putin had changed. (Uh huh)
However, Putin still spoke warmly of Bush.
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2010/12/vladimir-putin-says-george-w-bush-is-a-very-decent-fellow-with-a-very-good-family/
LikeLike
Comment by Subsidy Eye October 24, 2012 @ 11:13 pmI liked George W., still do. My memory is not encyclopedic. I do have to look things up. Bush’s relation with Putin was not high on my must remember list. Don’t like Putin, for many reasons.
LikeLike
Comment by The Elephant's Child October 24, 2012 @ 11:30 pmWell, when people start attacking Obama because Putin sings his praises, I think a lot of people will recall the Russian President’s special relationship with the previous, Republican, U.S. President.
LikeLike
Comment by Subsidy Eye October 25, 2012 @ 12:10 amCould Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias?
Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias on the Premise members are Militants and Belligerents that pose a threat to National Security?
Recently the Obama administration stated to Federal Judge Katherine Forest that under (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 the President had authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely. That they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Pres. Obama could use NDAA provisions to order U.S. Military Forces to round up without evidence, millions of Americans including militias by alleging they are belligerents or a threat to National Security. Many observers believe Obama intends to extend NDAA to imprison U.S. Citizens in Indefinite Detention not involved with or associated with enemy forces.
Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Almost immediately after the German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens and confiscated their guns without probable cause or evidence; delegated powers to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.
The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament and the Supreme Court insuring his laws could not be rescinded.
During the Obama Administration’s recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Obama Administration—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under vague provisions of NDAA, the President could accuse anyone of being (directly aligned with militants by way of any political or other association; activity, statement, writing or communication with an individual or group government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.
NDAA 2012, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees enforces censorship; refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in NDAA 2012 keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.
You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act lends itself to Government / police corruption; the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.
Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.
Under NDAA 2012 it should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.
LikeLike
Comment by Rwolf November 2, 2012 @ 5:15 am