And now, Obama is bowing to the "Emperor" of Japan, for no good reason whatsoever.
His International Apology Tour is yielding less good will than George Bush's "Your either for us or against us" speech.
Obama is a disaster on a scale even Jimmy Carter could not have competed with. America can no longer be counted on by our friends, and they know it.
So, if America is no longer the leader of the Free World, then who is?
From IMAO:
It’s an old term with origins during the Cold War: Leader of the Free World. And it has always meant the president of the United States.
There were three worlds: the Free World, the Communist World, and the Third World (nations not aligned with either of the other two blocs, in case you didn’t know the origin of that phrase).
The Free World, the nations aligned against the threat of communism, referred to the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, West Germany, and other U. S. allies.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, the Cold War isn’t what it used to be. But some of the terminology remains. Including referring to the president of the United States as “Leader of the Free World.”
But is that accurate any more?
No.
The Leader of the Free World doesn’t bow to other leaders.
Obama has abandoned the role: he is not the Leader of the Free World.
So, who is?
Certainly not the leader of any communist country, or any dictatorship. And, I’m thinking a leader of the Free World should be the leader of a country with a major presence on the world stage.
No offense to our friends in Australia, New Zealand, or Canada, but those countries just aren’t major players. Certainly, they are more so than, say, Luxembourg or Iceland, but they’re not at the top of the pyramid.
So, who?
Let’s look at the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: the Unites States, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China.
Obama has already relinquished the title, so the leader of the U.S. is out. Four to go.
China? China is communist. Free World? Just the opposite. Two down, three to go.
Great Britain? They have a queen. A queen? A non-elected monarch? As leader of the Free World? Three down, two to go.
So, who’s left?
Russia and France.
Who’s the president of Russia? Vladimir Putin? Actually, no. It’s Dmitry Medvedev. Former president (and current Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin might be running the show, but Medvedev is president, elected by the people. Forget all the other problems with Russia, the leader isn’t the person elected by the people. So, four down, one to go.
That leaves: France.
Yes, France. The president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, is leader of the Free World.
France, despite all the jokes we throw her way, has a long, storied military history. The Franks took Gaul from the Romans, Charlemagne controlled much of Europe and the Mediterranean world, France helped the American colonies win the Revolutionary War, Napoleon led France to nearly conquer the world in the early 19th century…
You get my point, I hope. France isn’t a pushover.
The French government, though, has been a problem. It was the French government, not the French people, who were defeated by Germany in World War II. The people, most of them, kept fighting.
And, in recent years, the rise of the left in France has caused the French government to take weak stands against opponents of freedom.
Sarkozy defeated a Socialist Party candidate to assume the presidency in 2007, and has shown himself to be more of a leader on the world stage than Barack Obama.
True, that’s not saying a lot. But, for now, the president of France is the Leader of the Free World.
And that’s a damned shame.
13 comments:
Pastorius,
Although I don't see Briton as the leader of free world, today the British Monarchy is little more than a figure head. Under modern British Law, the Monarch has little real political power.
According to Wikipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constitutional monarchy is another key principle, summed up in the maxim that "the Queen reigns, but she does not rule" and the often-quoted saying that the monarch acts only on the advice of his or her ministers. This principle can be traced back to the Restoration, and was most famously articulated by the Victorian writer Walter Bagehot. On very rare occasions, the monarch does play an active role in politics: for example, in deciding which party leader to ask to form a government when an election has produced a hung Parliament, as in February 1974.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Constitution of the United Kingdom
Pastorius,
Also America still has the strongest Military in the world.
What free world?
All I see is a disorganized effort to keep a low profile.
The only organizations I see comparable to the free world we understood to exist during the cold war, is one hysterical group trying to stave off the disappearance of polar bears and Lapland, and another meeting a few times a year to avoid an economic dark age by figuring out a way to make more debt available to American consumers to buy more crap from China
Damien is right. The monarchy is irrelevant in this. Come to think of it the monarchy is irrelevant period.
As for France being leader of the free world - piffle.
France WERE the surrender monkeys of WW2. The free French forces even had Churchil sinking their Navy because they could not be guaranteed not to join the Nazis.
They also sent their Jews to the gas chambers with a certain amount of enthusiasm.
If it wasn't for Brown and his government I would have put Britain near the top.
The truth is that the free world is leaderless if viewed from the aspect that Obama is a disaster.
"Napoleon led France to nearly conquer the world in the early 19th century…"
And who stopped him from conquering the world? Admiral Lord Nelson at Trafalgar and the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo - with help from the Prussians, Dutch and Belgians.
Damien,
You said: America still has the strongest Military in the world.
I say: That is worth something, but not much under a leader who does nothing with it, except paint it pink.
Good thing is once we get rid of Barack Obama we can go back to being the leader of the Free World, if we elect a better leader.
Epa,
You said: What free world?
All I see is a disorganized effort to keep a low profile.
I say: Yep, that sounds about right.
Ray,
You said: The monarchy is irrelevant in this. Come to think of it the monarchy is irrelevant period.
I say: I agree. I didn't write that part of this post, you know. It's basically just a cheap shot at the UK.
But, let's face it, Gordon Brown is NOT the leader of the Free world.
Ray said: s for France being leader of the free world - piffle.
France WERE the surrender monkeys of WW2. The free French forces even had Churchil sinking their Navy because they could not be guaranteed not to join the Nazis.
They also sent their Jews to the gas chambers with a certain amount of enthusiasm.
If it wasn't for Brown and his government I would have put Britain near the top.
The truth is that the free world is leaderless if viewed from the aspect that Obama is a disaster.
I say: I think that is kind of the point of this guys article. If France is the leader (because Sarkozy is the strongest leader of the bunch) then we have no leader. That was the sly point.
However, that being said, I think Merkel is a better, stronger leader than Sarkozy.
Gordon Brown will soon NOT be the leader of anything.
Amen, Ray.
I only hope we can do the same beginning next year
Post a Comment