Posted on 09/20/2009 3:32:10 AM PDT by kingattax
Are they agendas for the betterment of America? Or are they agendas for the betterment of the rest of the world?
I’m referring to President Obama’s policy agendas. Despite how much he reasserts that we “must” embrace this or that policy simply because it is “the right thing to do,” it’s becoming increasingly difficult to claim that Obama’s stated plans and intentions advance any sense of American wellbeing.
In this regard, Rush Limbaugh recently articulated what many of us have been thinking on this subject (as he often does). Noting last week that he began this year saying that he hopes Obama fails, Rush went on to say “I’m actually wondering…I’m asking myself…is it maybe that Obama wants America to fail, so he can rebuild it and remake it?”
That’s a legitimate question. With as much as Barack Obama has sought to “change” America, it’s fair to ask “so what’s the real intention here?” Nobody can truly know his internal thoughts and ambitions. But we, the people, can scrutinize the policy agendas. We need to be doing this on an on-going basis.
On the economic front, President Obama repeatedly reminds Americans of the hardship that he faces having “inherited” a $1.3 trillion deficit from the former President. Yet he spent more than half that amount with the so-called “stimulus” bill during his first six weeks as President, and then went on to implement a federal budget that spent about $3.6 trillion more.
Now, of course, he is seeking a government take-over of the medical profession and the healthcare industry. He insists that his approach will provide universal, top-quality health care for every American without imposing health-care rationing, without raising taxes on the middle class, and without adding anything to the national deficit. He has even insisted that nationalizing healthcare is necessary for the nation’s economic health. Yet he has not demonstrated how government will provide a greater quantity of a better quality healthcare service to a greater number of consumers at a lower price. He won’t demonstrate that, because he cannot demonstrate that. It is economic non-reality.
Yet he insists that he is “right.”
On the foreign policy front, it is also difficult to argue that the President is advancing the interests of the United States. Obama campaigned on a promise to repair relationships between the U.S. and the rest of the world, relationships that he claimed President Bush had so horribly damaged. Yet on his economic proposals, alone, foreign governments are reacting with shock and horror to our new President.
China, the largest holder of U.S. federal debt, has repeatedly expressed concern over America’s growing inability to pay its bills, and has suggested that it may be time to switch to a new global currency, and to abandon the American dollar. And Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, addressing the European Union last Spring, described Obama’s approach to the current economic crisis as “a way to hell” and predicted bad things for America’s economic future (could it be that this man who once lived under Communist rule knows something about the problems of ‘big government?”).
Now President Obama has successfully alienated a good bit of Europe, especially the Czech Republic and Poland, by capitulating to Russia’s desires and abandoning a Western European missile shield program. The Obama Administration insists that a different approach to shielding the European nations from potential threats is a “smarter” way to go, and is also betting on Russia responding in-kind with assistance in containing the growing threat of Iran.
Yet the Administration seems tone-deaf on how these latest moves compromise one of the most important strategic relationships that the U.S. has ever known – the supportive transatlantic relationship between our country, and a free Europe. It’s as though the current President of the United States doesn’t understand that Europe fears the resurgence of a dictatorial, thuggish Russia, about as much as we fret over a nuclear Iran.
On these two fronts alone (economic and foreign policy), it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that President Obama is “strengthening” the United States. Even congressional Democrats are finding it difficult to embrace Obama-styled “change” (hence, his inability to unite his party around nationalized healthcare).
So if Barack Obama is not strengthening America with his execution of the office of President of the United States, what is he doing? Is America remaining in a generally static, “neutral” condition under President Obama’s leadership, or is it being weakened?
I raised this question here in this column last spring. At that time I was treated to outrage, shock, and horror from readers who couldn’t believe that I would even contemplate such a terrible thought about any U.S. President (and, of course, I received the obligatory “racist” accusations as well). Now, nearly nine months into the Obama presidency, the question is begging to be revisited.
It’s no mystery that some liberal Americans believe the U.S. has risen to worldwide prominence by ill-gotten means, and that other countries suffer because we succeed.
Is President Obama one of those liberals?
Yes!
Is President Obama one of those liberals?
That's an obvious YES.
It's just so egregiously awful. Terrible.
So far I havent seen Obama forward anything except job opportunity for his Communist friends.
I think this goes way beyond "liberals," although the poor fools were probably used by him and the radicals behind him to put him into power.
None of the things he is doing is an accident. He wants to collapse us. He seems himself as being on some kind of mission from the Third World. What American blacks don't realize is that while he is using them, he actually doesn't see himself as one of them, either. He sees himself as an avenger from Africa and Muslim Asia, the worst of the Third World, sullen, dysfunctional countries that blame all of their ills on the West and the US in particular.
He was shaped by the Third World wanna-be Marxism of Ayers and his circle at Columbia, who admired the Black Panthers as radicals but really wanted to get back to the roots of black radicalism and identify with the Frantz Fanon style of Third World revanchism and Soviet-dominated Marxism.
The Third World is too dysfunctional to make it on its own, but requires the resources of the US (which he is busy handing over to them) and the intellectual or administrative control of a Marxist-based dictatorship, which is what Russia is fast becoming again. Note that not only is he trying to destroy our own economy, he is trying very hard to hand over dominance to Russia, as we saw last week.
He has adopted the concept used by liberals for decades of ‘dumbing down’ the education system to appease the unteachable.
He is bringing our financial power down to the level of the rest of the world’s failing economies, the problem with that is the weaker we get, the weaker the rest of the world’s economies become.
This doesn’t bother obama, in the least, he just wants America to be brought to it’s knees and feel what it’s like to be poverty stricken, destitute with the ONLY hope for the masses is “The State’.
For those of us who were unfortunate enough to have seen the Star Wars Episode I, we were presented with the following scenario posed by Qui-Gon Jin when he introduced Anakin Skywalker to Yoda. Jin claimed that Anakin would bring "balance to the Force." At that time, there were hundreds of (presumably good) Jedi and only 2 of their enemies, the Sith. To me, "balance" would imply that either the ranks of the Sith swell to match those of the Jedi, or, all but 2 of the Jedi are killed. Both scenarios are "bad" from the Jedi perspective, but "good" if you want to achieve fairness.
Of course, had Yoda simply told Jin to get bent, instead of agreeing to let him train Anakin, we would have had a much better movie.
No! Just more dangerous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.