Pres. Obama doesn’t exactly “punch above his weight” with our “strongest allies”

I couldn’t resist posting this, for your entertainment:

Technorati Tags: ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, Lighter fare, SESSIUNCULA and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Pres. Obama doesn’t exactly “punch above his weight” with our “strongest allies”

  1. Phil_NL says:

    As a citizen of a country that ‘punches consistently above its weight’, I hope and pray we’ll be doing that with a different POTUS come January…

  2. Scott W. says:

    That’s the great orator for you.

  3. Elodie says:

    Wow. Is the Obama bloom really wearing off in Europe? Or, is this guy just Denmark’s ‘alternative media?’

  4. wmeyer says:

    TO borrow a phrase, in the coming election, it’s hope and change we desire. ;) Hope for the future, and a change from the current occupant of the oval office. The first will be a challenge without the second.

  5. Elodie: It’s produced by Denmark’s analogue of NPR/PBS, if that says anything.

  6. Cantor says:

    wmeyer – I think it would be great if, at all of the Republican campaign stops, they’d pass out signs for everybody in bright red that said simply: CHANGE!

  7. Supertradmum says:

    Obama is not respected in Europe at all. Period.

  8. wmeyer says:

    Obama has earned no respect in any venue. Nice to know that Europe sees what he is.

  9. acardnal says:

    I saw this video about one month ago and forwarded it to the RNC and Karl Rove’s SuperPAC in the hope they will use it in their election campaign to show how silly looking Obama is.

  10. frjim4321 says:

    So what did Junior say in the same settings?

  11. Scott W. says:

    So what did Junior say in the same settings?

    Probably something of the same caliber of silly. What of it? Just because Obama is an unmitigated disaster, doesn’t mean those of us who recognize it are in the tank for the GOP. Not everyone is like you frjim.

  12. JARay says:

    I’m afraid that the ABC (the initials stand for the Australian Broadcasting Commission) is Obama’s lap dog. They constantly pour out pro-Obama retoric. Only last night I saw an “expert” here on the ABC predicting an Obama win at the forthcoming election which I believe you are going to have. He did say that if Israel attacks Iran, that picture could change!

  13. frjim4321 says:

    Not everyone is like you frjim.

    I should say so! I am one of a kind!

    Just because Obama is an unmitigated disaster, doesn’t mean those of us who recognize it are in the tank for the GOP.

    He’s far from perfect, I’ll admit that. But Bill Clinton couldn’t run again, and he’s the next best the Dem’s had. Frankly I voted for Hilary in the ’08 primary and to this day think she would have been better.

    I see Obama being re-elected and Hilary in 2016 . . . but by that time we could all have our own planets and Jesus will have returned to the cinderscape of Jackson County, Missouri.

  14. frjim4321 says:

    Oh nuts, caps off!

  15. JARay says:

    If I might do a little tub-thumping for my own country, Obama may well have got one of his repeat comments right when he is seen telling Julia Gillard that Australia punches above its weight. We have just had three soldiers shot in the back by an Afghan soldier last Thursday and another two killed in a helicopter on the same day. Maybe our TV doesn’t report Swedish, Norwegian or Dutch soldiers being killed in Afghanistan, but it does mention American and British soldiers being killed in such attacks. I wonder why that is!!!!
    Also, those of us who remember WW II may also remember that it was at the hands of Australian soldiers that Japan suffered its first defeat on the ground, in Papua New Guinea on the Kokoda Trail and Rommel gained a real fear of Australian soldiers in the Western Desert.

  16. frjim4321, we all know Hilary was calling the shots when Bill was in office ;)…by the letter of the law she’s eligible, by the spirit of the law, not so much :D

  17. frjim4321 says:

    frjim4321, we all know Hilary was calling the shots when Bill was in office ;)…by the letter of the law she’s eligible, by the spirit of the law, not so much :D

    We really don’t know any of that at all. And even if it’s true, so what? It still resulted in the best republican presidency of the 20th Century. And, arguably, Nancy Reagan was the power behind the throne in the years when Ronald Reagan was already showing signs of dementia, and I don’t hear any republican complaining about that.

    And since when does anyone around here care about the “spirit” of anything?

  18. Southern Catholic says:

    frjim – Again, I ask why are you Catholic and a priest if you are support pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage candidates?

  19. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    Three months in Vienna this summer does NOT make me an expert in Euro-politics, but from what I saw on German and French TV, they are tired of him, and he comes across as a lightweight. The POTUS Polish gaffs really made a lot of news over there. Romney’s so-called Olympic gaff played no where but in Britain, and was forgotten. or so it seemed to me.

  20. EXCHIEF says:

    Most Europeans see Obama for the empty suit he is AND since some countries elsewhere in the world spent generations escaping the very sort of political philosophy Obama is pushing they don’t much like that either. Add to that his narcissistic personality, his insults to non-Muslim world leaders and his almost pathological dishonesy. They do not respect him and most important they do not trust him. Neither do I.

  21. Phil_NL says:

    @ Dr Peters, others: you’re absolutely right that Obama is not respected here. In a sense he never was, around mid-term it went from absolute adoration to ‘well, he’s an American, of course’.

    What we shouldn’t forget though, is that Europe, at a 80% ratio outside the media and 100% within it, is even more in the tank for the Dems than Fr. Jim. Nothing, absolutely nothing could convince my fellow Europeans that a Republican would be a better choice. After all, the only thing most Europeans want is the US to become much more like Europe – probably to quell a very real fear that we’re going over the fiscal cliff first, not to mention our ludicrous EU-federalism and insane immigration policies. And the only party that will ever move the US to EU-style socialism are the Dems. For many in Europe, the D’s could get away with mass murder of adults rather than unborn, and still be their darling pet party across the ocean.

  22. VexillaRegis says:

    Here in Europe President O. is considered dangerously ignorant of the rest of the world.

  23. cathgrl says:

    VexillaRegis, that’s interesting, since to many in America, President O. is considered dangerously ignorant of America.

  24. vetusta ecclesia says:

    It must be said that in Europe most Americans are considered ignorant of the rest of the world.

  25. VexillaRegis says:

    Cathgirl and vetusta: Hehe!

  26. Supertradmum says:

    vetusta ecclesia, sorry, disagree, as most Americans I have met in Europe are very cosmopolitan and up on American and world politics. I have had more excellent discussions here about such than in the States, to be honest. But, the Europeans can be prejudice. I have found Americans actually more on top of such topics than Europeans, who are more and more cynical, and therefore, less interested even in politics in their own countries. Cynicism has not hit America y

  27. Supertradmum says:

    opps yet got cut off at the end (???)

  28. robtbrown says:

    Obama might be re-elected, but I think Hillary is probably finished with electoral politics even though Bill might wish otherwise. She be almost 70 in 4 years, and she is not very good at (and doesn’t seem to really like) campaigning. Combine that with the Sec of State job being a killer that usually satisfies any lust for power. Further, she’ll be occupied with writing the memoirs of her 4 years and collecting big speaking fees.

    I have spent 11 years of my life in Europe, and generally the Euro opinion of a US President hangs on his interest in Europe and whether US policy benefits Euros. That includes whether the Pres is willing to let Euros decide where and when the US military is deployed.

    I was in Rome when the Soviet Union fell. The immediate reaction among Germans tended to be elation that the US military would leave Germany. Then they began to understand that US occupation meant millions poured into the German economy.

  29. VexillaRegis says:

    Good points, STM and robotbrown. There are ignorant people everywhere, aswell as really knowledgeable ones.

    It’s rather bewildering though, that the president of USA doesn’t think anyone checks what he says when he is visiting abroad, and compares his statements. Is he a fool or does he think we are? Hmm.

  30. frjim4321 says:

    frjim – Again, I ask why are you Catholic and a priest if you are support pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage candidates?

    (1) Because if having an anti-abortion president would stop abortions they would have ended with Bush Jr. The rate of elective abortions is influenced by many things, and as I’ve argued here before that actual abortion rate is more important than abortion rhetoric. Add to that RNC candidates who easily bend the truth as we saw Thursday and Friday night.

    (2) I have no problem accepting the fact that the Catholic Church cannot and will not accept same-sex marriage as valid. I have no desire to see that. However personally I believe the question of civil marriage between persons of the same sex is a matter of equal protection under the law.

  31. Johnno says:

    frjim4321 gets it right in point 1). We’ve had plenty of pro-life presidents/prime ministers, but nothing has been really done. By and far most efforts in the U.S. have been successful at the state level. Rhtoric is meaningless. Best to limit the power of the POTUS.

    But for point 2, frjim, laws can be changed to be valid such that underaged, incestous, polygamous and other marriages can also be made lawful in the spirit of the secular human law. But that being besides the point, as a Catholic priest you are called to serve a higher (correct) law, and do whatever you can to present obstacles from encouraging people to enter into dangerous and sinful lifestyles. Certainly I don’t believe legislating morality works, but any impediment to preventing people from going to hell is worth taking advantage of.

  32. Sissy says:

    frjim4321 said: “I believe the question of civil marriage between persons of the same sex is a matter of equal protection under the law.”

    Are you an attorney, Fr. Jim? Could you enlighten the rest of us with your legal theory on this matter? If the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution grants homosexuals the right to marry each other, how is it that 30 states have constitutional amendments forbidding it?

  33. wmeyer says:

    frjim, sissy, I would contend that the problem begins with the government empowering itself to license and perform marriages. Had they used a term like “civil union” from the outset, then the debate today would likely not exist. Churches would perform marriages; city hall could sanction civil unions. The two would not be seen as identical.

    Instead, and fueled by the nonsensical arguments over separation of church and state, we have the government thinking it controls the definition of what a marriage is. Hence the raging debate.

  34. Mary Jane says:

    Know anyone with low blood pressure? A simple home remedy that now almost anyone can do: read frjim’s comments, sit back, and wait. Your blood pressure is sure to rise in no time at all! ;-)

  35. Sissy says:

    wmeyer, I have to disagree with you. Civil unions are not at all what the homosexual agenda demands. They could have had that with ease. This fight is over something much more sinister – the drive to thoroughly corrupt our culture and convince people that what is abnormal is normal. The APA is already discussing the fact that pedophilia might not be a perversion, but just a normal variation in sexual appetite. The state has a legitimate interest in marriage, and therefore, has every right to regulate marriage. It is the redefining of the word marriage through which antisocial elements are attempting to undermine our most important institutions.

  36. wmeyer says:

    I see Obama being re-elected and Hilary in 2016 . . . but by that time we could all have our own planets and Jesus will have returned to the cinderscape of Jackson County, Missouri.

    Should this come to pass, I see the end of our republic, and the decline of our country into a socialist totalitarian state. And I note in passing that socialism has been condemned–I see no wiggle room on that.

  37. wmeyer says:

    Sissy, I agree with you. What I was attempting to discuss was an alternate reality in which the distinction had been made from the beginning of our country, between marriage (a religious union) and civil union ( a state contract.)

  38. frjim4321 says:

    frjim, sissy, I would contend that the problem begins with the government empowering itself to license and perform marriages. Had they used a term like “civil union” from the outset, then the debate today would likely not exist. Churches would perform marriages; city hall could sanction civil unions. The two would not be seen as identical.

    My goodness, I agree entirely with wmeyer.

    Instead, and fueled by the nonsensical arguments over separation of church and state, we have the government thinking it controls the definition of what a marriage is. Hence the raging debate.

    Ditto.

  39. Sissy says:

    wmeyer, I’m not sure I understand your point. I’m unaware of any historic legal entity called a “civil union” which served as an alternative to marriage prior to Vermont enacting one in 2000. Governments have always had an interest in marriage, and “marriage” was always defined as a union between a man and woman. The state’s regulation of marriage isn’t the issue here; the problem is people who think the way Fr. Jim does – that you can make the word “marriage” mean anything you want. It’s only after you redefine the word “marriage” to mean “any old thing I like” that governmental regulation becomes problematic.

  40. Scott W. says:

    I know there are conservatives and Catholics running around with the idea that “You secular guys go over there and have your version of marriage (call it unions if you would pretty please), and we’ll have our version of marriage over here and never the twain shall meet and peace will reign in the land.” It’s very appealing and tempting. But in fact, the Church has already ruled this out. See: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html Executive summary: Whether one calls them marriage or unions, the State has a common-good duty in promoting traditional marriage and rejecting other arrangements and moreover, where same-sex relations have been legally rubberstamped, opposition is a duty. Part of the bafflement among conservatives and Catholics blogger ZippyCatholic identified:

    –This willful blindness manifests itself in the language used under libertarian auspices. How often do we hear the issue of enforcing contracts between sodomites-qua-sodomites phrased as “allowing gays to marry?” The passive libertarian language of “allowing” deliberately conceals the reality; for what is advocated is not mere passivity. What is advocated at the most basic level is for society to enforce certain kinds of legal contracts, even though those legal contracts are grossly immoral. The passive language “allow gays to marry” is a lie. Enforcing contracts is an activity of government (not a passivity), and it is impossible to decide what to actively enforce and what not to actively enforce without making substantive judgements about the good. Substantive judgements about the good will necessarily discriminate: every function of governance, including contract enforcement, is an authoritative discrimination of some kind resting on some substantive concept of the good. What makes liberalism (including libertarianism) different from other political views is that liberalism has to make authoritative discriminations resting in a substantive conception of the good while at the same time denying that it is doing so. What makes liberalism different is that it has to lie about itself in order to invoke its own justifying principles, that is, nondiscrimination (equality of rights) and freedom from substantive discriminating authority.

    We don’t “allow” – that is, actively enforce with police, courts, and jails – just any sort of contract whatsoever, and we shouldn’t. We also shouldn’t allow language to abused that way, because active enforcement of contracts is anything but the live-and-let-live passivity implied by the lying word “allow”.–

  41. wmeyer says:

    Sissy, that is my point: the problem is that both government and church claim title to the union called marriage. But they disagree as to form.

  42. Sissy says:

    wmeyer, I don’t see how either Church or state disagree as to the form of marriage. The law of the land is DOMA. In addition to that, 30 states have enacted constitutional amendments enshrining DOMA.
    Here’s my point: permitting civil unions in every state wouldn’t stop the homosexual lobby from agitating for “marriage rights”. Vermont enacted a civil union law in 2000, and the lobby there immediately began clamoring for “marriage”. Now that they have it, no one bothers to enter into a civil union. The homosexual lobby isn’t interested in civil unions (and I don’t think they are interested in “marriage rights”, either).

  43. wmeyer says:

    OK, clearly I have not expressed well what I was trying to say. Rather than take yet another try, I will simply agree that the lobbying will continue until the disordered and perverse are made legal and legitimate.

    However, DOMA aside, the Church does assert that marriage is between a man and a woman, and the government appears to prefer catering to the very noisy small minority.

  44. Sissy says:

    Ok, sorry if I misunderstood you, wmeyer. I’m quite sure we come down on the same side of this issue!

  45. Absit invidia says:

    That’s just the master B.S. artist doing what he does best. Typical lawyer.

  46. frjim4321 says:

    Scott, thanks for the document reference. I think it is over reaching quite a bit, but then they did not ask my advice. I guess I would personally and respectfully question the logic inherent in the statement.

  47. SKAY says:

    “The homosexual lobby isn’t interested in civil unions (and I don’t think they are interested in “marriage rights”, either).”
    I agree Sissy–but I do think they are very interested in adoption.

    Thank you for the link,Scott. I assume that the gay lobby will want to remove the relevant parts of the Bible that are mentioned in the document also.
    It has also become clear that this administration wants to tell the Church what it can and cannot teach — a tactic used before and during WWII by the Nationalist Socialist Party.
    Along with that Obama is now saying that if he is re-elected he will just have to go around the Congress to achieve what he wants if they don’t agree with him.
    What Constitution?
    There are none so blind as those who WILL not see.

  48. SKAY says:

    http://www.bibleprophecyblog.com/2012/03/americas-most-biblically-hostile-us.html

    Interesting list of actions taken by this administration. What will four more years add to this
    list?

  49. Southern Catholic says:

    So by electing pro-abortion politicians the “actual” abortion rate will go down? It is really sad that catholics believe this nonsense. Let’s not forget the current administration has increased its spending for planned parenthood and rescinded the Mexico City policy that allows federal money to fund abortion in other countries.