Tag Archives: cuba

Understanding President Obama.

I have lived under the Chicago Machine for most of my life.  I personally know many of the key players who brought Barack Obama out of obscurity to the presidency.  Perhaps this analysis should have been made several years ago.  But, better late than never.

I am way not the conspiratorial theorist type.  I never bought into the Obama birther theory.  I never thought of him as some sort of Manchurian candidate.  I do not believe Obama is member of the Muslim faith – not after attending a Christian church, such as it is, for 20 years.  Is it possible that the President is really a nice guy who believes he is doing good for the United States and the world?  I think it is possible.  BUT, just because he might believe that does not mean it is true.

There has to be some explanation for his six years of seemingly inexplicable presidential behavior – at least as measured against his 42 predecessors.  Why has Obama become arguably the least trusted President in American History?  Why has his patriotism been questioned by so many?  And, don’t give me the “because he’s black” excuse.  One of his greatest benefits in becoming President was his skin color.  God knows, it was not due to his record and experience.  Being black has insulated Obama from scrutiny and proper vetting – and given his sycophants and a fawning news corps a racist mantra to deflect justified criticism.

I have come to the conclusion that the problem with Obama is that he is the first un-American president.

By that, I mean he has a completely different core of knowledge and value structure than the vast majority of Americans. He was not raised in an American culture.  He never learned American history in depth.  He does not understand the American culture – and what he thinks he understands, he does not like.

As a child, he was raised in Muslim traditions by his father, then an uncle and a family mentor who, more importantly, all harbored negative viewpoints about America.  He attended a Muslim school in a nation highly critical of America. His mother, though not Muslim, was a lifelong critic of America, its culture, its politics and its economic system.   He attended American colleges where criticism of America reigns supreme among students and faculty.

He spent most of his life subjected and devoted to a politicized anti-American version of Christianity in the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  As a community activist in Chicago’s University of Chicago neighborhood, he worked in a pseudo-intellectual cultural enclave that exaggerates American racism and demonizes free market capitalism.  It is a tightly knit community best personified by its local iconic leaders, such Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright.

His formative political experience comes from his association with the Chicago Democrat “Machine.”  It can explain his contempt for Republicans – and even contempt for any opposition and accommodation.  It may also explain his belief in authoritarian “boss” governance, where the executive is the primary source of public policy.  His Chicago experience would lead him to believe that role of a legislative body is to endorse — rubber stamp, if you will — but not to challenge.

In many ways, Obama is the product of his two closest advisors, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett.  Axelrod represents the thuggish Chicago Machine’s strident partisanship, with its allegiance to an autocratic boss figure.  He personifies what could be called the Daley wing of the Democratic Party, operating more like a “banana republic” than what the Founders had in mind.

Jarrett represents the far left ideological wing of the Democratic Party – also autocratic.  Under the first Mayor Daley, these were warring factions.  Under the second Mayor Daley, the factions united in the person of Barack Obama.

Since both factions are autocratic, Obama represents the worst of them in terms of the American republic.  Both factions place government rule by an elite over the historic American concept of governance by the people.  With a belief in and tendency toward autocratic power, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the intoxicating power of the presidency has introduced a sense of megalomania.

Obama came to office believing America is an imperial power guilty of shameful acts.  That is why his first overseas junket as President was widely described as “an apology tour.”  That is why he is so quick to draw moral equivalencies between us and every other nation – and more recently, between the maniacal brutality of today’s Islamic extremists and the Christian Crusades of 1000 years ago.

That is why he relegated American Exceptionalism to nothing more than nationalistic pride. Obama sees America as no better than any other nation, and to think otherwise is arrogance.  He does not believe in the need or importance of America’s economic, military and moral leadership, so, at every turn, he withdraws us from it.  Since he cannot make other nations as strong as America, he seems determined to make America as weak as them.  He seems to think that world leadership, itself, is arrogance.

His disdain for the traditional American culture extends to allies who share that culture.  It is why his foreign policy realigns America away from historic allies in favor of relationships with even current enemies, such as Cuba and Iran.  His preference for third world countries is evident in his refusal to not only secure the American border, but to encourage illegal migration and acceptance on an every growing level.

He has created a deceptive language to explain his governing philosophy, with such oxymoron’s as “leading from behind” as an excuse for not leading, or “patient diplomacy,” as a euphemism for doing nothing.  As with all autocrats, he is capable of the most audacious lies.  He talks of our victory over al Qaeda and ISIS as relatively harmless “junior varsity.”  He takes pride in ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan even as they accelerate. He claims Gitmo promotes terrorism, but claims the release of terrorists is in our national interest.

He takes victory laps for ending our economic crisis even as millions of Americans continue to suffer from unemployment and under employment.  His infamous “you can keep your doctor” promise now rates with President George H. Bush’s “read my lips” as an iconic presidential betrayal.

The President is a left wing globalist, who not only surrenders American leadership, but American sovereignty.  He promotes agreements and treaties that give international bodies authority of our lands, our international policies, our guns and even our elections.

He has no frame of reference to understand the nature of the American republic, in which the people govern.  Rather, he subscribes to the authoritarian philosophy that a government run by self determined enlightened people must rule over the masses for their own good.  He sees the federal government as the necessary regulatory authority over every aspect of our personal lives.  He relegates America’s several states to mere Chinese-style provinces, and redistributes wealth according to his political agenda.

We have seen this in his preference for personal power over the shared power of three branches.  His go-it-alone policy is not born out of strong leadership, but is the result of an all too obvious contempt for the people’s Congress as an equal branch of government.

He came into office promising change.  His meaning was not the change Americans had every reason to assume.  It was to change the very nature of the American government from a republic based on the autonomy of the people to an authoritarian regime where dependency replaces opportunity as the dominant characteristic.  He would change our successful free enterprise system to a controlled central economy where the market forces are replaced by government manipulation, regulation and redistribution of wealth.

The Founders risked life and property “in order to form a more perfect union.”  It was ours to preserve through “eternal vigilance.”  In recent generations, we have failed in both regards, and may now be reaching a point of no return.

When you look at the critical education and emotional development of past presidents, Democrat and Republican, none has been so devoid of traditional American education and understanding.  Obama operates the way he does because he knows no other way.  He is not anti-American, but I think he is un-American in his intellectual foundation.  And that is the problem.

The General Election of 2016 may well determine whether our historic culture has truly changed as we the people decide either to continue down the path of subjugation to Washington, or will we rise up to re-establish the great American Dream based on American Exceptionalism that made this nation the most successful democracy in history?  We will determine whether to leave a nation and a world to our children that is greater and safer than we found it, or we will condemn them to lesser status with fewer opportunities under an oppressive regime in Washington.

Advertisements

Why does President Obama give brutal dictators a break? Cuba is the latest.

Since November, I had been telling people that they have yet to see the worst of Obama.  With no more elections in the future, no control over Congress and no Harry Reid to block legislation from reaching his desk, we will see a succession of autocratic directives coming from the White House.  In many ways, he is bitter and lashing out at a country that took him down from the pedestal upon which he placed himself.  In the worst of the Chicago tradition, it is payback time on the America the radical left loathes.

His private deal with Raul Castro is another in what will be a long string of hard core left-wing dictates to be coming from the Oval Office.  Whether you agree that normalizations with Cuba is a worthy goal or not, this is not the time or way to do it.

For decades, Cuban leaders have longed for a deal with the United States that would bring untold advantages to their struggling economy and more power to their brutal regime.  While sanctions failed to topple the two-headed Castro regime, they did prevent the dictatorial duo from becoming popular – an important leverage for both the United States and eventually the welfare people of Cuba.

Once again, Obama uses past precedents that are not true examples.  The administration cites China and Russia as two adversaries where we benefited by normalizing relationships.  Where Obama is typically deceptive is that normalization with those nations came on OUR terms, with great benefits to world trade and free enterprise.  In the case of China and especially Russia, we were open to negotiations AFTER we put their economies on the road to collapse.

In Cuba, Obama is giving benefits to the dictators without any discernible benefits to the United States.  Sure, we got the release of one American hostage, but the Obama trade was typically disproportionate.  And, despite his grand announcement, there are elements of the trade that are beyond his power.  He is again tip toeing to the edge of abuse of power.

Obama only offers some vague hope that things will get better with Cuba in the far future.  There is no quid pro quo addressing Cuban civil rights abuses, crushing opposition, supporting international terrorism, confiscation of American property and undemocratic policies.  In other words, for a public relations victory among his radical left-wing base, Obama has strengthened the grip of the totalitarian Castro brothers and their Communist successors.

It is said that the Obama-Castro deal was brokered by the Pope.  It seems to be so.  To me this makes the Pope just another hard core left-wing leader, who holds America in contempt.  Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan formed an alliance to bring down the Soviet Union.  Obama and Francis have formed an alliance to bring down American power and influence.  I predict his narrow political views will exacerbate the loss of membership in the Catholic Church.  I already know a few who heading out the door.  I also expect that Francis will be the first Pope to be welcomed to the United States by demonstrators opposing his reign.

Cuba is another example of the Obama doctrine that suggests that a weak America is better for the world.  For six years, he has sided with America’s traditional adversaries over long time friends.  He has bowed figuratively and literally to despotic leaders who would be thrilled to see American influence in the world diminished to the point of irrelevancy.  This is why he chokes up when ever asked about American Exceptionalism.

Hang on to your seats.  The last two years of the Obama administration is going to be bumpy.  At this point, we can only try to limit the damage he does.

DAILY OBSERVATION: Dictators are no friends of mine

I have come to believe that entirely too much public opinion and public policy is based on myths.  That has led me to start a book on political myths (but more about that another time).  I was reminded of one of the most common myths – the existence of right wing dictatorships.

We all know that the political continuum goes from right to left, with those of us on the right fighting for limited government, lower taxes and more citizen authority.  Starting on the extreme right is anarchy … libertarianism … mainstream conservatism … economic conservatism … etc.

Coming in from the left extreme is dictatorship … oligarchies … socialists … progressives … etc.

I am sure you can see where this is going.  We, on the right, NEVER like too much government – and dictatorships are state-of-the-art “too much government.”  We believe in what President Reagan once said.  “Government is not part of the problem, it IS the problem.”

Let me make it clear.  We conservatives do not like authoritarian government – not ever.  We may have to deal with them in a complex world, but we favor democracies and republics.  Liberals, too, must deal with dictatorships according to their relationship with the United States.  That is just international politics.

The record shows that in conservative administrations, dictatorships are more challenged and often overturned.  The Reagan foreign policy encouraged more nations to shift to participatory governance than any time since the Founders began a world trend toward global democratization.

Liberals are more accommodating to dictatorships.  They oppose “imposing” democracies on other nations.  They seem to not even understand the concept.  America does not “impose,” but rather helps remove the shackles of totalitarianism so that the people can “impose” their own government.

You see the liberal view in Washington today.  Obama is impotent in dealing with the brutal dictatorships spreading throughout the Middle East today.  He plays na na na boo boo with North Korea.  He bails out a failing brutal dictatorship in Cuba.  He gets into rope-the-dope negotiations with Iran.  After “I’m going to kick your ass” threats to Syrian despot Bashar al Assad, Obama cuts and runs.  After conservative Republican policy faced down the Russians and crushed the “evil empire,” Obama does nothing in the face of the re-emerging “evil.”

Domestically, it is the progressive mentality that believes that a powerful government must solve problems for a less apt or willing public.  They believe that the public, as Jonathan Gruber put it, is stupid.  Thanks to liberal thinking, our federal government, which should have the least influence in our daily lives, is suffocating the constitutional rights of the several states, and, in the process, our individual personal rights.

That is not to say that grass-roots American liberals want a dictatorship.  No. No. No.  It is their tendency, however, to support the shift of more and more power to the government that is most distant and least responsive to public influence.  That is so obvious, it is beyond refutation.  In doing that, they do tip-toe along the edge of a very dangerous slippery slope.

So, let’s have no more talk about right-wing dictatorships.  They do not exist.