It would appear in the last few days his naive approach to foreign policy has actually backfired.
So now we have an economic recovery that ranks last by any objective standard and a host of foreign policy blunders that are glaring.
Obama thought by sanitizing words related to terrorism and radical Islamists he could extend a hand that would not be bitten. Wrong
Obama thought by closing down a detention facility it would result in a lessening of attacks on our troops. Wrong.
Obama thought by releasing some of the detainees at Guantanamo they would not renter battle. Wrong.
Obama thought by going to Egypt and apologizing for America's history it would result in a reset by radicals towards our country. Wrong.
Obama thought by acceding to Putin's demand not to build a missile defense protecting our allies it would result in friendlier relations. Wrong.
Obama thought by evening the playing field and distancing himself from Israel it would result in the establishment of peace between Palestinians and Israel. Wrong.
Obama thought undercutting Mubarak would free Egypt. Wrong.
Obama thought receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for no reason other than he spoke in platitudes he would become a white knight saving the world from conflict. Wrong
Obama thought trying terrorists in Federal Courts and allowing them privileges entitled to American citizens would signal America was kinder and gentler. Wrong.
Obama thought attacking Arizona for his own administration's failure to protect our borders would
protect our borders. Wrong.
Obama thought by allowing weapons to fall into the hands of Mexican narcotic cartel members it would serve as a dye leading to their capture. Wrong.
Obama thought appeasing radical Islamists would work. Wrong.
Obama thought negotiating with Iran and placing sanctions on them would result in their renouncing their nuclear program. Wrong.
Obama thought Afghanistan was the proper war and he could withdraw more quickly from Iraq without consequences. Wrong.
Obama thought making our space program acknowledge the role of Muslims in space he would gain their friendship. Wrong.
Obama thought he could re-set our relationship with Russia. Wrong.
Obama thought we should stand in the rear of the room, not be confrontational and it would result in less world tension and slaughtering of Syrians. Wrong.
Obama thought appeasement and bowing to heads of states whose governments are radical should be a necessary component of our foreign policy and would pay big dividends. Wrong.
Obama thought he could replace water boarding with drone attacks and it would be as effective as the intelligence gained from the former. Wrong.
Obama thought returning the bust of Churchill and rebuking Britain for Colonialism would please Islamists and lower their hatred of America. Wrong..
Obama thought killing Osama and walking away from the Pakistanian informant was the moral thing to do.Wrong.
In virtually every instance Obama's naivety and wrong headed judgement has proven costly, wrong and made our nation appear weak and feckless.
Obama's forwardness has produced consistent backward results. America now finds itself less feared, less respected and less loved. Not a resounding record justifying his rehiring. Were Obama a corporate executive, I daresay, his board of directors would have fired him after his first year.
Now it is up to voters some four years later to dispense the appropriate justice and fairness Obama so often professes he seek for the middle class.
Were it not for Obama handmaidens in the press and media covering for him, defending him, protecting him, adoring him, circling the wagons for him he would be so far down in the polls he could never recover. But he is their messiah, his philosophy aligns with their innate contempt for our nation and its policies. Consequently, Obama continues to ride the Hawaiian waves standing erect while surfing through his presidency. (See 1, 1a and 1b below,)
---
Obama's second term has consequences and will remove America from the world stage. (See 2 below.)
---
Thank G-d we have a female Secretary of State who is so sensitive to the feelings of terrorists and other radicals of the Muslim faith. (See 3 below.)
---
My friend Kim suggests Romney's biggest mistake is fearing he will make a mistake and climbing back into his cautious mode. (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)Obama Twisting in the Wind Like Carter
What a difference a day makes! Just 24 hours ago, the "informed" commentariat was telling us President Obama's foreign policy was going to be a big plus for him in the election. In the wake of assaults on US diplomatic compounds in Cairo and Benghazi, and the State Department apology for our freedom of speech and basic values, Obama is starting to look a lot like Jimmy Carter twisting in the wind as Iranians held hostages in Tehran in 1979.
All of this turmoil is the direct result of Obama's backing of Muslim Brotherhood backed forces overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt. Without American and NATO air power, Gaddafi would still be in power, a crazy to be sure, but a crazy who had given up his nuclear program, paid restitution to the victims of Pan Am 109, and who protected foreign diplomatic facilities.
Yesterday morning, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and President Obama all made statements on the death of Ambassador Stevens. To my eyes and ears, Romney was by far the strongest, expressing his disgust over the embassy response in Cairo, which he properly noted was the Obama administration response. In diplomacy, an embassy speaks for the president. If the Obama administration cannot control and coordinate its displomatic apparatus, it is too incompetent to be trusted with national security.
Only Romney had the guts to take questions from the press, which were nearly all hostile. He stood his ground, and looked strong. Obama sounded scripted, and walked away as reporters shouted questions. So far as we know, we are still borrowing money from China to give to Egypt. I hope Romney comes out and challenges Obama to cut aid to Egypt.
Obama tells his story through his personal medium really well: writing best-selling biographies before he was 40, making himself a senator on the strength of these stories, and then president on the strength of a speech. The upside of this is that he portrays himself beautifully. The downside is that this seems to be all he can do.
In the Illinois state Senate, he voted "present." In the United States Senate, he sponsored little in the way of real legislation. As president, he has failed so badly to do what he promised that he has been forced to downgrade his slogan from "Yes, We Can!" to "No One Could Have Done It," to "Maybe We Can't Do It Yet."
Also, it became clear in the course of his tenure that he cannot sell much else besides himself. A year or so after his stunning, spectacular victory, he failed to sell Creigh Deeds, who lost badly to Bob McDonnell for governor in Virginia. He failed to sell Jon Corzine, who lost to Chris Christie in New Jersey; and Martha Coakley, who lost to Scott Brown in Massachusetts. In 2010, at the height of the wars over health care, he assured queasy House Democrats who feared a reprise of their catastrophic losses in the 1994 midterms that this couldn't happen, as this time he would be was there to protect them. The wipeout turned out to be even worse.
Obama could not sell his programs either. His stimulus package is widely perceived as a failure, and the more he flogged his health care proposals, the more politically toxic they grew. He failed to change this center-right nation into a center-left, much less a left, one. And in most of the cases where his theories of government ran into the right-wing (or Tea Party) model, the Tea Party cleaned his clock. After his 2010 "shellacking," the Left threw all that it had at Wisconsin's Scott Walker, who not only survived his recall election but improved his 2010 showing. In short, since 2008, Obama has lost every battle, and every election in which he has not personally been on the ballot. The scary thing for Democrats is that this is indisputable. The scary thing for Republicans is that this time, he is on the ballot.
Complicating this is the fact that the man running against him is a turnaround artist with a great business record whose short suit is selling himself. Mitt Romney has a persona, but it doesn't come over in public. He has an inspiring, up-from-rags story, but it is his father's story. He is proof that one can be born at the top of the tree, and still climb higher through relentless hard work. Where Obama is the hip sort of male who began to emerge in the mid-1990s, Romney is Dad in a prior-day sitcom, of the sort created in the mid-'50s before father stopped knowing best.
Mitt seems to know best about tuning the engine, whereas Obama has done little well but market his own presence. Can the man who has failed at all except self-promotion now promote himself one last time?
Examiner Columnist Noemie Emery is contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families."
1b) Which Is Melting Faster: America's Position in Middle East or MSM's Position in America?
By Hugh Hewitt
If an American consulate had been attacked and four Americans including the ambassador slaughtered on George W. Bush's watch --on 9/11, no less-- the outrage broadcast over the nation's elite media would have been intense and round-the-clock.
Had George W. Bush then responded to those events by jetting to Vegas for a fundraiser and campaign rally marked by a rote and emotion-less nod towards the victims and a callous transition to the difficulty of campaign life for political volunteers, well, the hysteria that would have followed would have melted wires.
Because Barack Obama is the MSM's favorite president ever; however, when these events followed that outrageous attack on Wednesday, the Manhattan-Beltway media did not even pause from their unremitting attack on...Mitt Romney, of course.
When the President compounded the day's fiasco by announcing to a stunned foreign policy elite via Telemundo that Egypt was not an "ally," much of the MSM didn't even bother to note the pratfall, nor the fact that it was juxtaposed with the President's chest thumping dismissal of Mitt Romney as as "shoot-first, aim later" candidate.
It was as though Jimmy Carter had campaigned on his hostage release negotiation skills in 1980, or Bill Clinton on a chastity platform in the mid-terms of 1998.
Perhaps the pressure on American media from declining ad sales and dwindling circulation and viewership has caused a collective crack-up. The elite media have always been left but rarely have they been so collectively delusional.
By Thursday night the MSM's effort was underway to validate their shared embarrassment by proclaiming that Mitt Romney was "toning down" his criticism of President Obama even though the Republican nominee blasted away at the President's assault on defense spending in the day's one open media event. CNN, NBC, Politico all relayed their "toned down" judgment despite the obvious compounding of Wednesday's display of bias transmitted thereby.
It is a collapse. A complete collapse. As Mark Steyn said on my show Thursday (the full transcript of that interviw is here), the MSM is "acting like a deranged, drugged up mob."
And everyone but the media knows it.
Meanwhile the Arab world is in a spasm of violence that the President seems almost indifferent to, so remote is his demeanor. "No drama Obama" is looking more and more like Chance the Gardener Obama, the "Being There" president in fact being only in campaign mode and detached from even the most pressing aspects of his job.
I can only conclude that he took his already-evaporated convention bounce as a predictor of the November vote and a ratification of his own immense self-esteem. Fine by Team Romney which must be clinking glasses at the president's cluelessness and the media's enabling of his spiral into retirement. The likely voter polls show a dead heat nationally, and the map is full of Romney paths, with Wisconsin heading Romney's way and Obama's alleged lead in Ohio gone in the last Rasmussen survey (and never existing in the Columbus Dispatch poll.)
Obama threw everything at Romney, including hundreds of millions in negative ads, Bill Clinton in prime time, and all of the Manhattan-Beltway media, but it is a tie and the disaster in the Middle East is just sinking in.
The President appears certain that he will not have to leave the White House next January, so assured is he of his charm and competence. But like his speech in Cairo long ago or his appeal on behalf of the Chicago Olympics, the president is nothing if not overly generous in his own estimate of his own abilities.
The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860. This statement is not hyperbole. If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.
The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama's first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of "transforming America" in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party officeholders.
The most significant accomplishment of Obama's first term is to make Congress irrelevant. Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potential dictatorial presidency.
During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelming controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama worshipping stupor, a myriad oflaws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.
The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulationsthey and not Congress would subsequently write.
For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something and more than 200 times when they "may" take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.
The same is true in the 2,319 pages of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act which confers nearly unlimited power on various agencies to control by fiat the nation's financial, banking and investment sectors. The bill also creates new agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not subject to any oversight by Congress. This overall process was repeated numerous times with other legislation all with the intent of granting unfettered power to the executive branch controlled Barack Obama and his radical associates.
Additionally, the Obama administration has, through its unilaterally determined rule making and regulatory powers, created laws out of whole cloth. The Environmental Protection Agency on a near daily basis issues new regulations clearly out of their purview in order to modify and change environmental laws previously passed and to impose a radical green agenda never approved by Congress. The same is true of the Energy and Interior Departments among many others.
None of these extra-constitutional actions have been challenged by Congress. The left in America knows this usurpation of power is nearly impossible to reverse unless stopped in its early stages.
It is clearly the mindset of this administration and its appointees that Congress is merely a nuisance and can be ignored after they were able to take full advantage of the useful idiots in the Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010 and the Democrat Senate in the current Congress.
Additionally, Barack Obama knows after his re-election a Republican controlled House and Senate will not be able to enact any legislation to roll back the power previously granted to the Executive Branch or usurped by them. His veto will not be overridden as there will always be at least 145 Democratic members of the House or 34 in the Senate in agreement with or intimidated by an administration more than willing to use Chicago style political tactics.
The stalemate between the Executive and Legislative Branches will inure to the benefit of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists.
The most significant power Congress has is the control of the purse-strings as all spending must be approved by them. However, once re-elected, Barack Obama, as confirmed by his willingness to do or say anything and his unscrupulous re-election tactics, would not only threaten government shutdowns but would deliberately withhold payments to those dependent on government support as a means of intimidating and forcing a Republican controlled Congress to surrender to his demands, thus neutering their ability to control the administration through spending constraints.
Further, this administration has shown contempt for the courts by ignoring various court orders, e.g. the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium, as well as stonewalling subpoenas and requests issued by Congress. The Eric Holder Justice Department has become the epitome of corruption as part of the most dishonest and deceitful administration in American history. In a second term the arrogance of Barack Obama and his minions will become more blatant as he will not have to be concerned with re-election.
Who will be there to enforce the rule of law, a Supreme Court ruling or the Constitution? No one. Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will be unchallenged as they run roughshod over the American people.
Many Republicans and conservatives dissatisfied with the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee for president are instead focused on re-taking the House and Senate. That goal, while worthy and necessary, is meaningless unless Barack Obama is defeated. The nation is not dealing with a person of character and integrity but someone of single-minded purpose and overwhelming narcissism. Judging by his actions, words and deeds during his first term, he does not intend to work with Congress either Republican or Democrat in his second term but rather to force his radical agenda on the American people through the power he has usurped or been granted.
The governmental structure of the United States was set up by the founders in the hope that over the years only those people of high moral character and integrity would assume the reins of power. However, knowing that was not always possible, they dispersed power over three distinct and independent branches as a check on each other.
What they could not imagine is the surrender and abdication of its constitutional duty by the preeminent governmental branch, the Congress, to a chief executive devoid of any character or integrity coupled with a judiciary essentially powerless to enforce the law when the chief executive ignores them
Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party and Mitt Romney must come to grips with this moment in time and their historical role in denying Barack Obama and his minions their ultimate goal. All resources must be directed at that end-game and not merely controlling Congress and the various committee chairmanships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Mrs. Clinton and American Sensibilities
By Shoshana Bryen
In an effort to protect the delicate sensibilities of Egyptian rioters who invaded the American Embassy and tore down the American flag, Secretary of State Clinton accepted at face value the claim that the rioters were just so outraged and horrified by an anti-Muslim movie that they couldn't control themselves. While rejecting violence in a pro forma way ("There is never any justification..."), she went on to apologize for her nasty countrymen and to deplore them. "We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." Later, on the State Department Twitter feed, "The U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." And, "Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation."
As does our Constitutional commitment to free speech, including and especially speech that offends someone. Americans should have two words for Secretary Clinton: "Piss Christ." If you can't make yourself say them, try "Skokie."In 1987, American Andres Serranno produced a photograph of a plastic crucifix in a glass of his own urine. His work was funded in part by the U.S. Government's National Endowment for the Arts.
A decade earlier, members of the National Socialist Party wanted to march in full Nazi regalia in Skokie, IL -- home to a large number of Holocaust survivors. In a series of court actions, Skokie lawyers argued that, for Holocaust survivors, seeing a swastika was the equivalent of a physical attack. The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed, calling the swastika a symbolic form of free speech entitled to the protection of the First Amendment.
"Piss Christ" and Skokie are metaphors for the First Amendment right to hurt people's feelings. Americans are told to suck it up and shut up. "Sticks and stones," "If you don't like it, lump it," and all that.
As a practical matter, Secretary Clinton's acceptance of the movie as instigator of the riots reeks of naiveté. Did it not occur to her that a purported offense against Islam might be a smoke screen for well-planned violence? Later press reports suggest that to be the case. Did she think radical Muslims don't know that Americans generally hasten to be seen as sensitive to the feelings of others? The best defense is a good offense -- "You Americans insulted us." They read her like a book.
Did it not occur to her that the anniversary of 9-11 would be a great time for Islamic enemies of the United States to launch another attack on a symbolic American target? They can't reach New York perhaps (thank you, NYPD and the Patriot Act), but an American Embassy is sovereign American soil.
Of the killing of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans, she said, "This is an attack that should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world." Muslims included, no doubt, but why only "people of faith?" Can't an ethical atheist be horrified?
Ambassador Stevens' murder should infuriate Americans, who must at a minimum be wondering why U.S. Embassies in post-revolutionary Muslim countries were not better protected. The last time we were in that situation, 52 Americans spent more than a year imprisoned in the Embassy in Iran. What rules of engagement did the Marines guards have?Secretary Clinton has an unfortunate habit of trying to ingratiate herself with Muslims who can't seem to control themselves. In one of her earliest trips in 2009, she told an audience in Indonesia, "I am a Christian... Through the centuries we have had many people who have done terrible things in the name of Christianity. They have perverted the religion."
It was a rookie mistake -- her religion and her opinion of its behavior are irrelevant. The government she represents is as deeply grounded in the separation of Church and State as it is in freedom of speech. Just as her religion is officially irrelevant, so is the religion of those with whom she interacts on behalf of the government. When mobs invade the sovereign territory of the U.S. abroad, when they tear down our flag and replace it with the slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood, when they murder an American Ambassador and members of the Embassy staff, they are our enemies.If they are Muslim, so be it Mrs. Clinton.
Obama tells Americans the terrible things the Republican will do to them. The Republican remains silent about what he would do.
By Kim Strassel
In the classic 1968 film "Once Upon a Time in the West," a villainous Henry Fonda shoots one of his lackeys, in part for the sin of wearing both a belt and suspenders. How do you trust a man, muses Fonda, who "can't even trust his own pants?"
Mitt Romney is slipping in the polls because, when it comes to his own policies, he is once again wearing a belt, suspenders, and even some elasticized waistbands. The bold Romney who picked Paul Ryan as a catalyst to run on ideas has been ousted by the return of the careful Romney who wants this race to be about Barack Obama. And America is unwilling to trust a man who seems unwilling to trust his own agenda.
The re-emergence of the well-belted Romney began at the GOP convention, where he delivered a speech that had been pared away to nothing but a fleeting reference to his policies. It was on vivid display, too, in Mr. Romney's Sunday appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," in which he managed to use 30 minutes of prime time to talk mainly of flotsam, as well as (news flash!) how bad Mr. Obama had made the economy.
As for how he would create "more jobs" and "higher income," Mr. Romney wasn't saying. His references to his "tax policy" served mainly to explain what it doesn't do. He vowed to replace ObamaCare with his "own plan"—which is? He explained he had "big policy differences" with the president on Afghanistan. Those differences are "important." So important that he moved to the next question.
Credit for this fog goes to that inner circle of Romney advisers who never liked the Ryan pick and have reasserted their will over a candidate who is naturally cautious. In the la-la land where adviser Stuart Stevens presides, Mr. Romney wins by never saying a single thing, ever, that might rock a single boat, ever. Just keep the focus on Mr. Obama. After all, no president has ever won with an economy like this.
One problem: Mr. Obama is winning. The August unemployment numbers are horrid; the president increases his national lead. Labor-force participation hits a 31-year low; Mr. Obama moves up in swing states. Prices spike; the president takes Michigan out of contention. No doubt Part 39 of the Romney attack on Mr. Obama's welfare policies will propel the Republican to a blazing lead. Though, failing that, Mr. Romney might consider that the pure referendum strategy is a bust.
Voters know that things are rotten; the GOP needn't spend $100 million telling them so. What they don't know is how we got here. (Was it Bush's fault? So says Mr. Obama, while Mr. Romney says nothing.) And they don't know how Mr. Romney proposes to fix it.
Well, that's not entirely true. They are getting an idea of Romney policies—courtesy of the president. Mr. Obama may himself have no ideas, but he is an expert on the Republican's plans. Mr. Romney will raise middle-class taxes. Mr. Romney will take away health care. Mr. Romney will strip seniors of programs. In the absence of Mr. Romney explaining his reforms—and how they work—why not believe the president?
The tragedy is that Mr. Romney isn't a blank; he has a hearty reform agenda. Yet his decision to go "safe"—to be Crouching Romney, Hidden Mitt—keeps him from harnessing the American hunger for political change.
One painful example: Mr. Romney's NBC interview was remarkable for his deliberate avoidance of the (apparently scary?) term "tax reform." Yet if there is one thing that Americans agree epitomizes failed government, it is the tax code.
Rather than defensively protesting that his "tax policy" won't hurt the middle class, would it be so dangerous for Mr. Romney to explain that he's proposing a grand tax overhaul? Instead of talking blandly of "loopholes," to spell out the special-interest tax breaks (mortgage-interest deductions for yachts, Hollywood tax boondoggles, renewable-energy credits) that he'd cut to make the code fairer to average Americans? To explain, finally, that it is by getting rid of these handouts that he can lower rates for everybody, which frees up dollars for investment and the jobs he promises? Say it, Mr. Romney: Tax reform, tax reform, tax reform. Say it because it is true and good.
Americans respond well to A-B-C explanations of valuable reform. (Here is what is wrong. Here is my policy to fix it. Here is how it works, with three examples. Here is the good that comes of it.) Were Mr. Romney to apply this formula to health care, entitlements, food stamps and college loans, he'd be winning.
The press embarrassed itself this week by flaying Mr. Romney's criticism of the State Department while giving a pass to the policies of a president who, after announcing the death of four diplomats, flew to a campaign event in Las Vegas. The press doesn't care. Its goal was to let Mr. Romney know what's in store for him should he consider mounting more than a mediocre campaign. If he gets spooked by that, he's done.
America isn't going to trust a candidate who doesn't trust his own pants. Unhitch, Mr. Romney, and earn the votes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment