Obama at UN: Current Nationalist and Populist Uprisings are No Good for Our World
In his last speech delivered to the General Assembly of the United Nations, President Obama left no doubt as to how he feels about the resurgence of nationalism and populism in countries of the world thought to be fully in the camp of the globalists.
Equating globalism with progress, Obama, in his address, bemoaned the ���alternative visions��� that have recently found life and are now presenting a distinct challenge to those who would lead the charge toward a fully consummated New World Order:
���Alternative visions of the world have pressed forward, both in the wealthiest countries and in the poorest. Religious fundamentalism. The politics of ethnicity or tribe or sect. Aggressive nationalism. A crude populism. Sometimes from the far left but more often from the far right.���
So, apparently, the ���religious fundamentalism,��� ���politics of ethnicity,��� ���aggressive nationalism,��� and ���crude populism��� to which Obama obviously so clearly objects are the manifestations of rightists in wealthy nations.
About which country do you suppose he was principally speaking?
If you have any doubt, note that Obama also made three references in his speech to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump���s vow to build a wall on America���s southern border:
���Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself.���
And, just after that, there was this:
���The world is too small for us to simply be able to build a wall and prevent it from affecting our own societies.���
And, once more, this time in the context of the threat from the Zika virus:
���Mosquitoes don���t respect walls.���
Was the president really delivering an address at the United Nations, or stumping for Hillary Clinton?
At one point, he said the following:
���The world is too small. We are too packed together for us to be able to resort to those old ways of thinking.���
And just what ���old ways��� are those, Mr. President? Wherein nation-states act in their own best interests, and see the promotion of their values and the safeguarding of their people as being more important, more righteous, than the agenda of universality?
Just asking.
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
