In his news conference following the London G20 Summit on April 2, Obama said this:

In terms of local politics, look, I’m the President of the United States. I’m not the President of China, I’m not the President of Japan, I’m not the President of the other participants here. And so I have a direct responsibility to my constituents to make their lives better. That’s why they put me in there. That accounts for some of the questions here, about how concretely does me being here help them find a job, pay for their home, send their kids to college, live what we call the American Dream. And I will be judged by my effectiveness in meeting their needs and concerns.

Observe how far down the road to socialism/fascism/Nazism America has come: Many Americans would find no fault with Obama’s paragraph above. Many Americans evade the fact that the government tries to help them find a job by forcing other Americans to provide such a job, helps them pay for a home by forcing others to pay for the home, and helps them send their kids to college by forcing others to pay for that college.

The real responsibility of an American President is to ensure that government protects Americans’ rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Obama continued with these words:

But in an era of integration and interdependence, it is also my responsibility to lead America into recognizing that its interests, its fate is tied up with the larger world; that if we neglect or abandon those who are suffering in poverty, that not only are we depriving ourselves of potential opportunities for markets and economic growth, but ultimately that despair may turn to violence that turns on us; that unless we are concerned about the education of all children and not just our children, not only may we be depriving ourselves of the next great scientist who’s going to find the next new energy source that saves the planet, but we also may make people around the world much more vulnerable to anti-American propaganda.

Here Obama echoes British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s altruist/socialist/fascist call, delivered on March 4 to the joint US Congress, for American sacrifice to the world. (After all, echoing Obama in turn, much of America’s middle class is in the world’s wealthiest five per cent.) But Obama has added a couple of wrinkles to Brown’s altruist argument.

One wrinkle is a crass, cowardly—and common—argumentum ad baculum: If we don’t sacrifice for foreigners, they may commit violence against us. Indeed, Obama is insulting foreigners, in effect saying, “We will help you so that you don’t murder us.”

Is this the lesson you would teach your own children? “Johnny, remember those strangers who don’t give you a handout; when you grow up, you have an excuse to kill them.” This is the lesson that the self-proclaimed champion of better education is teaching to children in America. It is a lesson that Obama himself seems to have accepted.

Evidently, Obama believes that “anti-American propaganda” and even violence against Americans is excusable. After all, why help people, even children, who are so immoral that they would commit inexcusable acts of violence? Moreover, if consistent, Obama must believe that past terrorist acts committed against Americans by those in poor countries have been excusable. So much for our Commander in Chief.

Of course, Obama’s policy toward foreigners will make Americans less safe. By looting America’s rich to help the foreign poor, Obama will embolden evil foreigners to follow suit. Indeed, the explosive growth of the American welfare state, beginning in the 1960s, is the main cause of the higher crime rates (roughly three times what they had been previously) that America has suffered since.

Another added wrinkle is Obama’s invoking of the term “interdependence.” Secretary of State Clinton invoked this word too during her Nomination Hearing To Be Secretary of State, January 13, 2009:

By 1999, the rise of more democratic and open societies, the expanding reach of world markets, and the explosion of information technology had made “globalization” the word of the day. For most people, it had primarily an economic connotation, but in fact, we were already living in a profoundly interdependent world in which old rules and boundaries no longer held fast—one in which both the promise and the peril of the 21st century could not be contained by national borders or vast distances.

Economic growth has lifted more people out of poverty faster than at any time in history, but economic crises can sweep across the globe even more quickly. A coalition of nations stopped ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, but the conflict in the Middle East continues to inflame tensions from Asia to Africa. Non-state actors fight poverty, improve health, and expand education in the poorest parts of the world, while other non-state actors traffic in drugs, children, and women and kill innocent civilians across the globe.

Now, in 2009, the clear lesson of the last twenty years is that we must both combat the threats and seize the opportunities of our interdependence. And to be effective in doing so we must build a world with more partners and fewer adversaries.

America cannot solve the most pressing problems on our own, and the world cannot solve them without America. The best way to advance America’s interest in reducing global threats and seizing global opportunities is to design and implement global solutions. This isn’t a philosophical point. This is our reality.

The President-Elect and I believe that foreign policy must be based on a marriage of principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideology. On facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice. Our security, our vitality, and our ability to lead in today’s world oblige us to recognize the overwhelming fact of our interdependence.

The pragmatist, anti-ideological—i.e. unprincipled—argument of Clinton and Obama amounts to this: When people are free, they benefit from trading with each other. Since they benefit from each other, they depend on each other. Since they depend on each other, they must not be left free. And since crime exists, that gives us even more of a right to deny freedom.

What Clinton and Obama evade is that free people are free to select their trading partners by mutual consent, to mutual benefit. They are not forced to trade with individuals whom they choose not to trade with. They are not forced to make trades that would harm them. They are not forced to give things away.

In a free, prosperous society, individuals offer and accept—and refuse—trades with other individuals according to their own, independent judgment.

The “interdependence” argument is equivalent to this: Sex is good; therefore, government-mandated rape is good.

In his weekly address yesterday, Obama explained where this worldwide rape scheme is going:

Ultimately, the only way out of a recession that is global in scope is with a response that is global in coordination. That is why I’m pleased that after two days of careful negotiation, the G20 nations have agreed on a series of unprecedented steps that I believe will be a turning point in our pursuit of a global economic recovery. All of us are now moving aggressively to get our banks lending again. All of us are working to spur growth and create jobs. And all of us have agreed on the most sweeping reform of our financial regulatory framework in a generation – reform that will help end the risky speculation and market abuses that have cost so many people so much.

The “risky speculation” that Obama refers to is the buying and insuring of securities created by the government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The mistake that businesses made was to trust the government. (Would America’s economy be any better off if AIG had not sold insurance on the lousy mortgages created by government?)

Obama’s participation in the G20’s “most sweeping reform of our financial regulatory framework in a generation” is not a change in principle, but it is a significant extension of the socialist/fascist ideas that have taken hold of America (the world’s last holdout against these ideas) over the past century: more sacrifice by America to more people, and more sweeping control over all people.

Moreover, Obama’s acceptance of these “unprecedented steps” is a further step toward the surrendering of America’s sovereignty. Former President George W. Bush had already stepped far along that path in the realm of defense. In emergency situations, such as the conflicts between Israel and Hezbollah, Bush had adopted the practice of consulting with the UN before Congress. Now, in order to make it more difficult for businesses to escape the oppression of any one nation, Obama supports a single, global regulator.

Soon, we might as well allow all people around the world to vote in American elections.

It is very possible that Obama will be the last American President, as our former sovereign nation becomes a province of the global community.

Who will become the official leader of this global community? Look for power luster Bill Clinton to make a play for that office.