Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Prosecutors Gone Wild: The Inside Story of the Trial of Chuck Panici, John Gliottoni, and Louise Marshall" and also, "The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers"

Monday, February 25, 2008

The Perverted Geopolitical Vision of Barack Obama

A confluence of events this week got me thinking about Barack Obama's foreign policy vision. First, Fidel Castro resigned. Here is what the Obama campaign said in response.






Accordingly, I will use aggressive and principled diplomacy to send an important message: If a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. That message coming from my administration in bilateral talks would be the best means of promoting Cuban freedom. To refuse to do so would substitute posturing for serious policy -- and we have seen too much of that in other areas over the past six years.

This isn't the first time that Obama has shown a willingness to sit down with one of our enemeis. Obama has already indicated that he would have unconditional talks with rogue leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His top foreign policy advisor recently met with Bashar Assad in Damascus. Since Obama doesn't specify what will and won't be said, I can only assume that trade will be a topic. In fact, I suspect trade would be an important part of any bilateral talks between the heads of nations. By showing a willingness to meet with our enemies, and not taking trade off the table, Obama has shown a willingness to tacitly move towards normalizing trade relations with our enemies.

This is an important thing to keep in mind because the Obama campaign was in Ohio bashing NAFTA this past week.






Said Obama, "One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have."

NAFTA is of course not the only free trade agreement that he has bashed. Barack Obama has consistently been against all trade with Latin America and our other neighbors. Thus, when it comes to our own neighbors and immediate geographic allies Obama would like to use trade to weaken our geopolitical relationship. He wants to do the exact opposite with our main enemies. Thus, on the topic of free trade, Obama has a geopolitical vision of subsequenty punishing our neighbors and rewarding most of our biggest enemies.


This is important to keep in mind when you consider Obama's generally open borders stance on illegal immigration. This means a President Obama would generally try and cut off trade with countries like Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, and he would also invite folks of those countries to come across a generally wide open border. It doesn't take much intuition to predict the disaster that combination would be.

Thus, A President Obama would be criss crossing the Continents stopping in Damascus, Tehran, Havana, and possibly even Pyonyang. While he is doing that, he will subsequently practice nativist and protectionist trade policy with our nearest geographic allies. At the same time, he would open our borders wide for all the folks whose economies he just ruined when he cut trade off with their home nations.

His geopolitical views much like his economic views are disjointed, naive, and totally without any logic or reason. It's clear to me that the only reason that Obama is against NAFTA, CAFTA, and other free trade agreements like them is because his base of union support is against them. He appears to be for unconditional face to face meetings with our enemies because that is something Bush refused to do. I am not sure why he is open borders though I could come up with dozens of motives. None of these reasons have anything to do with making good policy. This sort of policy based on pleasing a base, or demagoguing a political enemy, or any other politically opportunistic motivation usually leads to exactly the sort of perverted vision that this one does.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

You assume all of these countries are enemies. Have we declared war on anyone that I was not aware of? Since the answer is no, then they may have an adversarial position to ours, but they aren't enemies. Furthermore, many of these "enemies" only have adversarial positions to the out-of-whack Bush global stances. Once Bush and like thinkers are not controlling foreign policy, those "enemies" will have a more cordial stance toward the USA.

mike volpe said...

I don't assume they are enemies, but rather I look at what they have done. Iran commits an act of war regularly by training and arming the Shia militias in Iraq. They have taken British soldiers hostage, and they continue to maintain a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Their agenda is the total control of the Middle East and creating a Shia dominated totalitarian regime.

Syria is looking to dominate the region as well and they have allied themselves with Iran. They continue to house most of the terrorist groups in the region in Damascus: Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.

Cuba has run a totalitarian regime for years and its leader has openly proclaimed his opposition to the U.S. Castro hasn't expressed opposition to one or two of our leaders, but rather to our way of life.

You, much like Obama, are under the naive impression that these folks can be reasoned with. They can't they are sociopaths that have an agenda, and that agenda is counter to our own.

Anonymous said...

This article is crap. First you jump to the conclusion that Obama will be flying around the world for the purpose of knocking out trade deals, when there are much more pressing issues he will surly be discussing. Secondly his attacks on NAFTA and CAFTA are based on the lacking environmental and labor standards, he is not against free trade with Latin America as you say. He recently helped pass trade relations with Peru that included such standards. He is for amniesty, not open boarders.

mike volpe said...

Let's address a few things. First, Obama isn't merely for amnesty. He is for driver's licenses for illegals which he lead in promoting when he was a State Senator in Illinois. He voted for the DREAM Act and then the next week against an amendment that would have cut off funding to so called sanctuary cities. He has spoken at La Raza and characterized himself as standing shoulder to shoulder with the illegals. He isn't just for amnesty but for open borders.

Zooming around the world was obviously meant to be provocative. Obviously, we don't know what Obama will give priority because Obama hasn't been specific in defining his agenda. He has shown a tendency toward wanting to meet our enemies with no conditions. Thus, I can only assume that he will make a commitment to it.

He isn't against free trade for environmental reasons. That is a load of bull.

He paints these free trade agreements as creating a phenomenon known as jobs outsourcing, and he is in every state, like Ohio, that has lost jobs blaming NAFTA.

Anonymous said...

Obama's contradictory stance on immigration and free trade is simply a mirror image of the standard Republican stance (which is one of the reasons McCain is so unpopular).

Democrats demonize the idea of outsourcing our jobs to poor countries. Republicans (generally) demonize the idea of people from poor countries coming here and taking our jobs.

Both positions are equally shortsighted. However, I personally think the Republican position is somewhat more slanted towards favoring the rich and multinational corporations.

Here's why: If you stifle free trade, but permit poor people to come to our country to work, small businesses have access to cheap labor. It's true that basic low-skill laborers have more competition, but that's really the only downside, other than entitlement drains.

On the other hand, if you take the xenophobic Republican stance of late, and lock up our boarders while allowing the wealthiest of us to freely wander the globe in search of cheap labor, you don't just hurt laborers. EVERYONE other than the very rich suffer. Laborers suffer because their jobs are exported. Small businesses suffer because they can't compete with the big companies that can get cheap labor overseas. Medium-sized businesses can't compete for the same reason.

Personally, I prefer the Democrat's irrationality, while I hope that they eventually recognize that free trade benefits us all, as long as the "free" goes both ways (cheap labor comes into our country, and so do cheaper goods).

But then again, I'm not one of the very rich. If I was, I might really like the idea of denying my mom-and-pop competitors the ability to hire cheap immigrant labor, while at the same time, outsourcing my manufacturing and customer service outside the country.

mike volpe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mike volpe said...

That is a very sly backhanded attack on the Republicans. Of course, most open borders folks like yourself try and frame those that want to control and eliminate illegal immigration as nativist and being against cheap labor, and even sometimes you will accuse us of racism.

The crux of the matter is the rule of law. In order to work and live in the country, you must enter it legally. That is what proponents of aggressive illegal immigration policy really want, for the folks in this country to follow the laws of this country.

You, and this is typical and not new, have framed the issue as those against illegal immigration as being against cheap labor.

What you don't say is that this so called cheap labor is against the law. Not only are these folks not allowed to work here, but they are usually paid less than minimum wage.

I am all for legal immigration. I am a legal immigrant myself, however we didn't sneak across the border. My parents and I endured two years of ridicule and despair in the Soviet Union while our application made it through the bureaucracy.

The folks that you are supporting didn't enter this country legally and they aren't documented. This is what so called Republicans are against, not cheap labor as you insinuate.

christmasghost said...

Well written and right on point. People need to start using their brains and actually look at this candidate for the naively dangerous man he is.

Anonymous said...

This comment isn't crap, it's just funny. :)

Anonymous said...

Mike Volpe, as to the defense of anti-illegal-immigration based on the idea that it "breaks the law" well, here's a former Republican leader in Washington who thinks that argument is just an excuse. I agree with him.

http://reason.tv/video/show/183.html

mike volpe said...

The
" former Republican leader in Washington who thinks that argument is just an excuse. I agree with him."

is Dick Armey. I didn't know that he was suddenly an authority on illegal immigration. If the Republicans are doing it for any reasons but rule of law they are doing it foolishly.

You may agree with him however at this point his view is slightly more relevant than yours.

Anonymous said...

Mike, your comments are so off-base that they hardly worth arguing about. Obama is not against trading with Latin America or anywhere else. No American politician is opposed to trade\, including Obama.

mike volpe said...

If they are so off base, why do you provide no evidence of how they are off base?

He is against NAFTA and CAFTA, and he has long preached that free trade has cost jobs. Those are his words.

If you have any evidence of how I am off base please share it.

Rory said...

This whole open border, amnesty crap is a slap in the face to those of us immigrants who suffered through the hundreds of hours on hold with immigration, years of legal process, thousands in legal fees, living on hold because we didn't know if we would be denied that visa renewal or not take that promotion because it cancels our greencard process and we start all over again after 5 years in process. Obama and anyone who wants that need to come to immigration some day and stand in line for hours with those doing the process the legal way. Life and citizenship in this country is cheapened by illegals and there supporters!!!! Oh by the way, Obama is the male version of Oprah, a fraud.

mike volpe said...

I am an immigrant myself and I came over here when I was six years old. My parents and I came over from the Soviet Union, as it was still called then. It took us roughly two years to get through the bureaucratic process and we suffered greatly and yet we did it legally and you are right it is a slap in the face of those like my parents, however the issue is about much more than who it offends.

You simply cannot have millions running around with no record. If you provide blanket amnesty, you simply encourage more.