Obama's visit to China is occurring at the same time, Putin has decided to visit his Communist counterparts, as well. File this under "Out-smarted . . . . . again."

<<<  You should know that Putin is in China,  at the same time as "Smiley."  And, Putin has made a huge energy deal with China,  a deal that will trump the "sanctions" Obama has imposed against Russia,  an action that renders Obama as even more irrelevant than he was before his China visit.  Does anyone think that China and Russia do not understand that Obama was soundly rejected,  on November 4?  Or,  that he is not a lame duck,  with no future beyond 2016?  

BEIJING — President Barack Obama vowed Monday to stand up for American values in exchanges with China about the ongoing democracy-related protests in Hong Kong, but the president was careful to couch his remarks in terms less likely to offend his Chinese hosts.

“Our primary message has been to make sure that violence is avoided as the people of Hong Kong try to sort through what the next phase is of their relationship to the mainland,” Obama said in response to a question during a meeting with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott at the U.S. Embassy here. It was the first time he’s publicly spoken on the issue.

“There are certain things that the United States believes. We believe in freedom of speech. We believe in freedom of association. We believe in openness in government as befitting our traditions and our way of life,” Obama declared.

“I think it would be unrealistic to expect that we set those concerns aside,” he continued. “People have aspirations for freedom and dignity in countries all around the globe.”

Editor's notes: the One Toothers at Weasel Zippers,  for example,  think Obama is selling out Hong Kong,  with these words.  I don't.  

Understand that Hong Kong,  Taiwan and Israel should not expect any help from Obama,  but that is not centered in a lack of words, on his part.  In fact,  that is the problem with Obama.  He thinks people listen to him apart from what he is unwilling to do,  apart from his duplicity,  apart from his hypocrisy.   

I mean,  look at what he actually said and try to reconcile those words to what is demonstrable in his life.   How can he really mean what he says when he speaks of " . . .   openness in government as befitting our traditions and our way of life,"  when his wife has described his intentions for this country  (our country - not his country) with these words spoken in 2008:  

   MICHELLE OBAMA, speaking Puerto Rico: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."

Or these words of Obama, himself, speaking of a new world order, four months before he is rejected in a midterm, national election:  

A similar statement was presented on 7/23/14, at a DNC event in Seattle, and found here,  saying much the same thing as the above:  

“Part of people’s concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity, that’s based on economies that work for all people. … But here in the United States, what people are also concerned about is the fact that although the economy has done well in the aggregate, for the average person it feels as if incomes, wages just haven’t gone up; that people, no matter how hard they work, they feel stuck.”

All of this talk identifies Obama as a revolutionary and his politics as the politics of Occupy.  He is first, an anarchist,  then a reformer,  and I say that because you cannot reform before,  first,  tearing down existing structures.  

Understand that if the U.S. is our house,  he has broken a few windows,  and torn the wall board out of a room or two,  but he has not effected change.  He does not know how to do that.  He is not a reformer, only a wishful thinking anarchist.  In order words,  he is a gigantic pain in our backside.  He has been neutered,  but does not yet understand that reality. 

The notion that he can effect systemic change on his own,  via executive orders and repressive regulations,  is childish fantasy;  it is very similar to standing outside the house and wishing the remodeling to be done.  

So we must hang on until he is gone. To be sure,  he will leave his mark (i.e. "scares"),  but his Utopian wishes will be soon forgotten,  and we can get on with the American Experiment,  the only one of its kind in this evil world.