See if this sounds familiar:
The Administration took several steps to improve American relations with other countries. In one instance, the U.S. reached out (with what the president thought of as an unclenched fist) in recognition to a government that had been in place for a while but was resistant in dealing with this regime because of the strong disagreement many Americans had with its brutal policies. However, the President believed that reinstating diplomatic relations was in America’s strategic best interest. Two immediate and practical reasons were behind the move. First the U.S. hoped that this nation could eventually become a lucrative trading partner. Second, America believed that better relations with this nation would positively influence and lead to a cessation of differences and hostilities in that regime’s region of the world.
Am I talking about Iraq, Iran, or Pakistan? Nope! Let’s go back to the pre-war 1930s:
The Roosevelt Administration did take several steps to improve American relations with other countries. In 1933, for instance, the U.S. gave official recognition to the Communist government of the Soviet Union that had been in place since 1917. America had resisted offering legitimacy to the Communist regime because of the strong disagreement many Americans had with Communism. However, Roosevelt believed that replacing diplomatic isolation with normalized relations was in America’s strategic best interest. Two immediate and practical reasons were behind the move. First the U.S. hoped that the Soviet Union might become a lucrative trading partner. Second, America believed that better relations with Russia might help stop Japanese aggression in Asia and the Pacific.
When diplomatic recognition was being discussed between Russia and the U.S., the Soviets promised to stop pro-Soviet propaganda in America. However, Russia proved to be an unreliable friend. The propaganda did not stop. Moreover, no significant trade developed with Russia. In addition, among the complicated treaties and alliances leading up to World War II, Japan and Russia signed a mutual non-aggression treaty.
Now, see if this is recognizable:
The President pursued an easing of relations with other nations in the Western Hemisphere. He backed away from the role of policeman and moved toward being a neighbor and a partner with the nations of the Caribbean and Latin America. The U.S. withdrew some forces and installations from a Caribbean island nation, signed a promise not to intervene in the domestic affairs of Latin America. This change was seen as noble principle with practical necessity. The United States wanted to increase trade with its hemispheric neighbors to help alleviate the effects of a world economic crisis. In addition, the U.S. hoped better relations would lessen the risk of the countries in the Americas aligning themselves with other dictatorial powers that were gaining strength.
Do you think this is about Cuba and Guantanamo Bay or Chaves in Venezuela? Wrong again:
During the 1930s, President Roosevelt also pursued an easing of relations with other nations in the Western Hemisphere. He backed away from the role of policeman and moved toward being a neighbor and a partner with the nations of Central and South America. The U.S. withdrew its troops from Haiti, signed a promise not to intervene in the domestic affairs of Panama, and gave up the Platt Amendment which had allowed American intervention in Cuba. This change combined noble principle with practical necessity. The United States wanted to increase trade with its hemispheric neighbors to help alleviate the effects of the Great Depression. In addition, the U.S. hoped better relations would lessen the risk of countries in the Americas aligning themselves with the dictatorial powers that were gaining strength in Europe.
Cuba eventually fell to communism, many South American Countries aligned themselves with the Axis, and there are still banana republics today that just don’t seem to know what they are doing. We gave away the Panama Canal. So how effective was Roosevelt in all of that?
And what about this?
In a heatedly contentious election, one political party was overwhelmingly victorious, gaining control of the executive and legislative branches of government. The previous administration was decried in the media and by its detractors as ineffective, and the country had not apparently gained much from its involvement in an unpopular war. In actions that have become the pattern for what happens in many countries, the president demonstrated shows of feigned strength and was seen by many as the nation’s savior; and many of the people endorsed his actions of power. The government started taking over aspects of business and life in the nation, and all opposition to this president was portrayed as prejudice and treason. The people at first cheered this man’s rise, but soon they started to become victims themselves of his lust for greater power.
Hmmm….Who could this be? Barack Hussein Obama? Sorry:
Benito Mussolini seized control of Italy in 1922. The previous Italian government had been ineffective, and the country had not gained much from its involvement in the Great War. Mussolini called his approach Fascism, from the Latin word fasces, a bundle of rods that was a symbol of strength in ancient Rome. In actions that became the pattern for what happened in many countries, Mussolini demonstrated a show of strength and claimed to be the country’s savior; and the people endorsed his seizure of power. The government under Mussolini took over almost every aspect of business and life in Italy, and all opposition and dissent were ruthlessly oppressed. Italians at first cheered Mussolini’s rise, but then they became victims themselves of his lust for greater power.
The point here, folks, is that the stuff Barack Obama is implementing today, is stuff that has failed time and time again. Stop letting those who are elected to SERVE get power to RULE because once it’s gone, the only way to get it back is through bloodshed!
That piece of crap still stinks. Or in a quote from someone I respect. “That dog just won’t hunt.”
* With all due credit and respect to Ray Notgrass