When We’re Not The Biggest Power On The Block?
By Jim E. Reames (03/17/03)
Bill Clinton showed his true colors when he spoke at the 92nd Street YMCA on the upper East Side of New York this week. That was where he, once again, broke protocol (as a non-sitting president) to publicly criticize the White House…and its foreign policy, and even worse at a time when the United States is on the brink of war. It is just more evidence the liberal left makes up their own rules as they go along.
They are willing to do anything, to break or make any rule---to set any precedence, to exploit any national fear---to justify the means for placing another Democrat into power. Clinton’s remarks are proof of how ruthless he truly is. Once again it appears he is far less interested in the United States of America than he is at building a global power upon the foundation of the very United Nations he wants to someday rule.
According to Bill Clinton, the U.S. should be strengthening the UN and other “mechanisms of cooperation,” Clinton said, “We need to be creating a world that we should like to live in when we are not the biggest power on the block.” Is this to suggest our ex-president can foresee the day when the United States is less powerful than other nations? Apparently, it does. And if so, who might that country be? China? Or will it be a consolidation of nations that establish a global semi-tribunal of economic and legal precedence? Will it be a variant of both? If that is Clinton’s belief: Then it certainly explains the loss of advanced nuclear warhead technology from our nuclear labs in New Mexico. It explains the sale of rocket technology to the Russians. It explains everything, mainly that the Democratic Party appears to be saturated with a few who want to embellish a one world government that can only be a success when the military and economic power of the United States is reduced to a pile of ash and rubble. It explains the promotion of a FBI agent who refused to wear a wire to investigate the terrorist activity of a brother Muslim. It explains the extreme solidarity of Hollywood to the Democratic Party. It explains the almost equal soldiery of the liberal left news media to liberal elitists. It explains the 1990s politically correct promotion of liberals to the highest ranks of federal civil service, even when many were not professionally qualified. It explains many of the decisions of our prior Secretary of State and our prior Attorney General. It explains the gridlock of present White House appointee approval. It explains a lot of things that have occurred since the 1990s, like the deliberate locking up of rich coal deposits in the West by presidential signature.
The lie of the liberal left would rather see the financial destruction of American farmers than the loss of a fish or of a spotted owl. Does that even begin to make sense? Yes it does, if the long-term objective is the economic collapse, military weakness, and the onslaught of voter apathy.
It gaul’s me when the liberal news media and the liberal elitists are so quick to grandstand that because of the wisdom and leadership of Clinton America saw its most wealthy days. Does no one study economics anymore?
America’s wealth in the 1990s was more a crescendo, the economic climax of thousands of technological advancements, that started at the end of WW-II than it was the brain child creation of just one White House Administration. It took decades for all the pieces to come together, beginning with the advancement of automated data processing. Clinton was just at the right place at the right time. His claim of economic brainpower is a complete fabrication. America would have lurched into financial power during the 1990s regardless of what partisan power was in the White House back in the 1990s. Towards the end of the Reagan and Bush years much of the so-called financial richness the Democratic Party likes to claim ownership of was nothing more than inflated figures. It evolved to the level of “Cooking of the books” and the false bubble on Wall Street because of Dot-Com speculation. It laid foundation of a capitalist greed, the likes of which, the world has never before witnessed. The political grandstanding was all just smoke and mirror lies. Anyone can be made to feel rich after borrowing money to spend, or if they incorrectly believe the ledger statements of a liar, in this case the speculation of Wall Street. So America wasn’t as rich as it first believed. However, will any liberal who hates George Bush ever come to that reality? Not, likely because it is easier to hate and to mistrust than to look at facts.
The true color of Bill Clinton is now exposed, again. His “…when we’re not the biggest power on the block” statement may, well, explain all the false frenzy of prior presidential policy on the environment, the protection of forests that are (today) kindling for massive forest fires, and other policies that have given power to the UN, always at the expense of the United States. Lest, we forget Bill Clinton hated everything the United States stood for during the Vietnam Era. His recent speech is the suggestion he still does. It is from his rank and file that the American flag burners came. It is from the anti-American street demonstrations of the Vietnam War era that today’s Democratic Party finds origin, birth, and identification.
To sort of quote a colleague of mine at work, there is a saying in the Bible, in the Twenty-third Book of Psalms that reads, “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil…..”
I like to think there is no fear of evil because the person who first spoke those words of encouragement and wisdom is the meanest, toughest, sward-swinging dude in the valley. Of course, he fears no evil. He conquered the grave, just as Bill Clinton appears skilled at manipulating the truth.
The day the Untied States of America loses its hold on total and absolute military power and economic wealth will be the day we will all see mandatory surrender of private arms, and the day we see a global power like the UN telling us what to think, believe, and do. In the novel I authored back in 1991 I labeled it the power of DC International, an acronym meaning “Direct Conflict.” Bill Clinton and many of the present suggested policies of the liberal left are no friend of truth or justice. They are not friends to the United States of America. They are the enemy of things pure, true, and just.
It saddens me to see the New York City Council passing a city ordinance that opposes the war in Iraq. Did these New Yorkers learn nothing from 9-11? All of this debate about our war on terrorism is really nothing more than the continuation of the debate that was started in the streets of the world (by asymmetric warriors) back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Peace at any price is not peace. It is surrender.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Jim E. Reames
