Sunday, November 4, 2012

The Worst President Ever? Certainly the Most Radical.

* Obama, one of our greatest Presidents? So said a friend and reader. June, 2003, Obama said: I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program." But in 2009: I have not said that I was a single payer supporter." Obama, 1996: "I favor legalizing same sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." During the 2008 campaign he said, as a Christian, he felt that marriage was the sacred union of a man and a woman. Now, wanting to maintain his left-wing base, he favors same sex marriage again. Early on in the last campaign he favored public financing of elections and was committed to it. Until he wasn't.

* Obama has presided over the worst economy since the Great Depression. Over 8% unemployment his entire term except for the last two months (7.8% and now up to 7.9%). Higher than when he entered office. As a consequence, food stamp recipients up from 32 million to 47 million; and social security disability recipients now number 8.3 million. In 2008 Obama complained that Bush's adding 4 trillion dollars to the national debt in 8 years was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic." In 4 years Obama has added 5 trillion to the debt. Upon taking office in January, 2009 the price of gas was less than half of what it is today. But forget about drilling.

* Obama decided not to support a manned space program for NASA. Cutting the size of our Navy's ships to the lowest number since WWI. Air Force fighters will decrease by more than half - 3602 to 1512). Wants to reduce our 5000 nuclear weapons to 1500 and then 300. Opposes next generation nukes. Missed more than half of his national security briefings. (Not nearly as much fun as Letterman, the View, JayZ, golfing or trips with Michelle.) Cut or put on hold 50 different new weapon systems, including the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter.

* Obama promised the most open and transparent Presidency ever. All legislation would be posted online before any vote on it. Neither he nor the Dems in Congress even read the Affordable Care Act. Still refuses to answer questions about Benghazi. Our annual growth rate (GDP)? 2010 - 2.4%, 2011 - 1.8%, first nine months of 2012 - 1.7%. Anemic? No, pathetic! When Bush had 3.4% the Dems were apoplectic over it.

* Promises to be a unifying President of "all" the people. Ended up in one term managing to be the most divisive President in memory (ever?). Sides with the violent and ill-behaved "Occupy Wall Street" movement; talks about the 1% versus the 99%; constantly complains about the millionaires and billionaires; disrespects the religious; disrespects the very peaceful "Tea Party" movement; tells Republicans they will have no input into his healthcare bill because "I won the election;" and, of course, "you didn't build that (business), somebody else made that happen."

* Israel? Militarily, aid has continued, after an initial bump in the road. Politically? A disaster. Dislikes (despises?) Netanyahu. Has yet to visit Israel, although visited numerous Arab/Muslim countries. First phone call? To Palestinian leader Abbas. First speech? From Cairo (where he invites members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend, an insult to our then ally Hosni Mubarak, who was still in power) speaks to the Muslim world. Calls the West Bank "occupied" territory, the term used by the Palestinians. Says Israel must return to the indefensible 1967 borders. Says Israel must give up part of its Capital city, Jerusalem. Refuses to tell Palestinians they can not have a "right of return" to Israel, which would effectively make it yet another Muslim country. Does not object to the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank if Israel does agree to give up that land - even though Palestinians say no Jews would be allowed. Given the above, it is no surprise that Israeli Jews see Romney as more supportive (57.2% to 21.5%). Also not surprising, Israeli Arabs favor Obama by a 3 to 1 margin.

* The Muslims? In 2009, Obama says it is his responsibility to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam." In one of his books, wrote that "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." The White House - an open door for radical Muslims. Abdurahman Alamoudi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, publicly denounces terrorism. Then privately praises Hamas and Hezbollah, and expressed regret that more Americans were not killed in African embassy bombings. Says Muslims must turn US into a Muslim country, even if it takes 100 years. And, as we know, Huma Abedein, Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton, has family members in the Muslim Brotherhood. As noted in this blog, our defense establishment and other federal agencies have allowed the Brotherhood to eliminate what they deem to be offensive terms from our training manuals. Terms like "jihad." Of course, recall that Obama's National Intelligence Director described the Brotherhood as "secular." And remember what NASA's primary goal was? To make "Muslim nations feel good about their historic contribution to science...and math and engineering." Clearly, NASA's job is not space travel! And, in a sign that could easily make one suspicious that he is still a Muslim, he bows to the Saudi King.

* Benghazi? Were it not for Fox News, we would not know half of what we do now know. Fox News - the outlet that many on the left would like to see shut down. (As an aside, if Obama was the President during Watergate, with the current media, we would have never heard of "Watergate." We would not know it is a hotel in D.C. or the story behind the break-in. There would be no investigative journalism. No challenge to what government does or says. That would be - just like today. Today's LA Times? Not a single story in the first section on Benghazi. The NY Times? Puts the story on today's front page with the headline: "Libya Attack Shows Pentagon's Limits in Region." The entire gist of the article is to defend the Obama Administration's lack of action to save our Ambassador and other Americans. The article, quoting government sources, says: "An examination of these tumultuous events undercuts the criticism leveled by some Republicans that the Obama administration did not try to respond militarily to the crisis." But since when, in an incident of this significance, does the media simply accept at face value what government leaders are saying on the record? Only Fox News has dug deeper. But maybe you don't think it matters that Obama and his team lied for weeks about the attack occurring because people were upset by an anti-Muslim video. He said he would side with the Muslims. And calling it a terrorist attack did not fit with his narrative - Al Qaeda is done since Bin Laden is dead.

* So what did happen in Benghazi? According to Fox News, the CIA account that no request for aid was made until 9:40pm local time, has been disputed by others on the ground there. They also dispute the claims that there were no assets in the area - no armed drones, no F-18s, no AC-130 gunships. Fox says British sources said they had more people on the ground than the US did - but never got a call to assist. This was the anniversary of 9/11. Multiple requests were made beforehand for greater security. Al Qaeda and its affiliates were NOT dead, even though Bin Ladin was. And Obama will discuss none of this before the election. And the mainstream media will not ask. But we have not seen any photo-ops of everyone in the White House Situation Room that day coordinating a counter attack.

* A Marxist? Remember in 2008 Obama told Joe the plumber that "it's a good idea to spread the wealth around." More recently he said: "if you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." Well, this is something he has believed for many years. In 1998, Obama said: "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure everybody's got a shot." Except that the American way is to give everybody a shot - called "opportunity" - through economic growth; you know, capitalism! But Obama told us he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to our country. Think all the radical affiliations are an accident? Rev. Wright. Van Jones. Anita Dunn (remember Mao is her favorite political philosopher - none of the great (traditional) liberal democratic thinkers). Valerie Jarrett. Cass Sunstein. Samantha Power. And the list could go on and on.

* In 2008 Obama mostly hid his true agenda. He did mention, almost in passing as if testing the waters, things like "fundamental change" and "spreading the wealth around." Then, many people were tired of Bush and war. So they voted in the most radical President in our country's history. Four years later, overseeing one of the worst economies in history, I believe he will lose to Mitt Romney. While I will celebrate that victory, I take no joy in knowing that nearly 50% of the the American people are willing to vote for this obvious Marxist. While Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY Times about how far to the right the Republican party has moved, it is simply not true. The Republicans stand for what used to be considered fundamental American values: things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the Democrats who want to undermine every traditional institution in this country - including the very basic one of capitalism. A Pew poll reported that only 47% of Democrats viewed capitalism in a positive light, 53% did not. 44% of Democrats saw socialism as positive. Either we return to those fundamental values or we on the right will suffer the same consequences that those on the left unwittingly will bring upon themselves.