Saturday, June 26, 2010

Less Wealth = More Poverty: Why Don't Obama's Sheepsters Get It?

American progressives commonly complain that the U.S. uses more than than our share of world resources--all the while remaining stubbornly oblivious to the fact that the U.S. translates many of those resources into more than our share of technological enhancements that hugely benefit medical care, food supplies, and quality of life around the world.

From the Investors Business Daily:  
The truth the left has a hard time accepting is that America has made the world a better place. Where would it be without the strength of the U.S. economy? What would have happened these last 200 years without the American ideals of liberty and law that set a lofty standard and provided a clear model for others to follow?

While Jimmy Carter supervised the country's decline into its late 1970s malaise because he missed the American exceptionalism all around him, Obama seems to be offended by it.
Obama is not the only one offended by the fact of American exceptionalism. Opponents of American exceptionalism are precisely those who campaigned for Obama and who voted him into office.

Many of Obama's sheepsters operate under the mistaken impression that rallying for the decline of the U.S. is, in some way, going to help the poor people of the world. It won't. And I am not hopeful that opponents of American exceptionalism will even wake up to the fact that their efforts to bring down the United States will hurt them personally.

As the debt grows, sabotage of American businesses continues, and the economic picture worsens, many soft-hearted leftist sheepsters will continue to try and make things better but, of course, today's problems will grow and worsen. And there will be fewer resources available to help, meaning less medical care, food, and technologies.

Will the sheepsters ever figure out that is what they wanted in the first place?



  1. Good post. There is no understanding progressives because everything they want/do is in direct contradiction to what they say. That's why we are in a constant state of confusion. At rock bottom, they don't give a rat's patootey about anyone in the world, poor, minority, woman, or otherwise. They don't care about poor people, the sick, the oppressed. We can't keep pretending otherwise (as a nation, not us, we get it) . . . it's the same thing as BO pretending that jihad is a good thing and terrorists are misunderstood and oppressed. We can't fight an enemy when we imbue them with values and morality that they don't possess, when we assume--despite all of the evidence to the contrary--that they are even slightly interested in any goal other than absolute power.

  2. I have a few friends from New Zealand that view America as the great evil of the world. I ask them if it would be better if China ran things. They look at me confused, having no concept of how global politics really work. They think I am crazy to amuse that if America were not the dominant power someone else would be. This ignorance is the root of hatred towards America.

  3. @ Fuzzy - Lib silence over so many issues that were screamingly important to them during Bush's presidency (closing Gitmo and firing Gen. Petraeus [Betray Us] leap to mind) demonstrate to me that their loyalty (such that it is) belongs to being labeled "liberal," not to the liberal "causes" themselves.

    @ Trestin - Yes, hating the U.S. is a knee-jerk reaction that people around the world haven't thought through. Those who follow how their economies function are starting to get the message, if they haven't already. Europe is trying to talk Obama out of "stimulus." And, just a couple of days ago, the Aussies got rid of their socialist prime minister after he called for a 40% tax on their mining companies. That woke some Australians up.