About a year ago President Barack Obama was caught on an open mic saying to then Russian President Medvedev that he, Obama, would have more flexibility after the election. What the Russian leader heard of course was – Russia will have more flexibility if Obama is re-elected. And so they have. And so has Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt and the whole Muslim Middle East.
Fifty two Americans were held hostage for 444 days during Jimmy Carter’s presidency. The day Reagan was sworn in replacing Carter as President, Saddam Hussein knew he had lost his flexibility and immediately released all hostages. Less than a week after Obama’s re-election Syria launched rockets into Israel’s Golan Heights. It is the same Golan Heights that Syria invaded and started the 7 Day War in 1967. Now Assad knows all he has to fear is a demand from the U.S. that he stop annoying Israel and a request for negotiation. America isn’t the only nation that lost the election; Israel lost too.
President Obama often asks the voters to understand that he inherited a very bad economy, and he did. But in many ways it was not as bad as the economy Reagan inherited from Carter.
On Reagan’s Election Day in 1980, unemployment was at 7.5 percent and headed for 10.8 percent; inflation was at 12.5 percent, headed for 13.6 percent, and interest rates were at 15.5 percent, headed for 21.5 percent by Christmas, well before Reagan was sworn in.
Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent and no inflation problem. Inflation was only 1.1 percent in comparison to the crushing 21.5 percent left by Carter. By the time Reagan was sworn in in January business men, farmers and home buyers (if you could find one) were paying 23 to 24 percent interest rates on loans.
Reagan wasted no energy on blaming Jimmy Carter. He approached the problem by lowering marginal tax rates in gradual steps over three years. He eased the regulatory burden on businesses, making it simpler to open or expand a business. His infectious optimism reminded people “the best is yet to come.” America was still “the shining city on the hill,” and Reagan reversed the country’s mood from a Carter-induced “malaise” to a can-do spirit.
In stark contrast, Obama did just the opposite with predictable results. He increased the regulatory environment increasing the cost and difficulty of opening or expanding a business. He introduced new law burdening business with new costs that are significant and beyond measurability at the same time. He fought for a return to higher taxes before acquiescing. Obama made his belief clear that America never was a shining city on a hill; it was a country in need of complete transformation. For America’s leader to wear a flag pin on his lapel was to honor a nation that was undeserving of such respect, a country that was in no way exceptional.
Reagan’s policies worked. By the end of his first term, inflation was down, employment was up, the economy was in good shape again and the mood of the nation had gone from morose to bright and cheery. In the bid for a second term, Reagan won every state with the sole exception of Minnesota.
Today we are where we are because of the president we picked in 2008, not because of what he inherited.
This post was adapted on an article by Peter Hegseth.
For Veterans of the U.S.Navy (Veterans spelled with a capital V for respect) are familiar with those three words. When “Now hear this” was broadcast throughout the ship over the squawk box you knew some significant announcement was about to take place. It didn’t have the urgency of the raucous man-your-battle-stations alarm, but it usually was something important like “The number two evaporator is back on line so the showers will be operational again from oh six hundred to oh six thirty tomorrow morning.” Or it might be the announcement of the name of the movie that would be playing in the mess hall that night. Whatever it was, it was usually something you wanted to know.
Now hear this. Andrew Klavin may be seen, actually we should say may be read, on the internet right now. Best known for his entertaining message filled films and video productions, Klavin is no slouch with a pen either. His prose production is entitled A Fantasy Election, an Imaginary Man and the tagline is Barack Obama has always been less real than a dream—a media dream. It’s about an empty man in a real chair.
The Army has a phrase too; it’s “Listen up!” which is usually followed by a command. So whether you are a soldier of the earth or a man of the sea, listen up and now read this. It’s not an order but it’s better than most of the movies they play in the mess hall.
This post continues the series of chapter by chapter summations of the book Radical-In-Chief by Stanley Kurtz.
The Obama Administration
The modern socialist movement in America has abandoned its open and militant ways of that were so evident in the sixties. That approach might work to bring the sought after revolution and change in an impoverished nation but not in a democratic, free and prosperous country like the United States. Socialist scholars like Saul Alinsky and Michael Harrington convinced other movement leaders a long time ago that the only workable strategy for transforming the United States into a Marxist socialist government is a combination of stealth and incremental advance. That’s the course followed by Obama and his administration today.
Stealth was evident in the way the health care plan was handled. The stakes were high because single payer health care would bring 16 % of the national economy under government control. That was Obama’s real objective. Every measure was taken to avoid scrutiny which is why there was such a rush to get the bill passed as rapidly as possible. The “public option” originally proposed was designed to lead to single payer, government only, healthcare over time… Obama denied the single payer objective claiming the public would always have a choice; the government would simply be offering an additional option in fair competition with private insurance companies. It should be obvious to anyone that private industry must remain profitable to survive and cannot compete with government that, supported by taxpayers, can operate indefinitely at a loss.
Barack Obama ran his presidential election campaign on promises of a post-partisanship and an open style administration. Once in office, it turned out to be quite the opposite. He stirred controversy, for instance, by attacking the Fox News network, calling them illegitimate and attempting to bar them from press conferences to which the other networks were invited. He attacked the Supreme Court while speaking as President of the United States before the entire Congress and to the entire nation by television. These are not steps toward healing; they are overt acts of division.
Naive voters may think the increased partisan hostility is a failing. But, to a trained community organizer it is an objective. The generation of animosity and division is the ground work laid for the conditions that prepare people to accept, even demand change.
To a community organizer, polarization is a strategy. Creating division is the first step in the path to transfer of power.
First it was a spontaneous eruption by a few members of a group of demonstrators and it was mere coincidence that the raid happened to occur on the 11th day of September. The Libyan people were horrified and even helped carry Ambassador Chris Stevens to the hospital, so said Hillary Clinton in the Secretary’s first public statement about the attack. Then the details morphed a few times until now we are at “Al Qaeda did it” and the ambassador’s body was paraded through the streets in triumph. What was so difficult about saying this was an operation planned for September 11th and carried out by a brand of Islamic extremists whose work is all too familiar to us?
It would not reflect well on Islam, of course. It would place full responsibility for the atrocity on certain elements from the Muslim world and not hold the United States in any way accountable for the overrunning of its Libyan embassy and the murder of its own ambassador. Any other administration would have said something like that. But not this one.
The bombing of trains in Madrid, subways in London, a night club in Bali and the World Trade Center in New York are atrocities in plain sight. They cannot be denied. And these may be the least of it if you add up all the local killings by Islamists that have occurred over the years in schools, airports, markets and even on military bases. If such inhumanities are not acknowledged as an element of the Muslim world, then the only alternative is they must be the Muslim world. That of course is not the case.
Obama’s father was a Muslim. Obama spent some his early formative years in a Muslim country attending Muslim schools. It is understandable that he would be sympathetic to the plights and beliefs of Muslim believers. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact he is in a unique position to bring some understanding between people of the Muslim and Western worlds. But it has to start with acknowledgement and unqualified severe condemnation of Islamic militant Jihad and terrorism. Only then can understanding begin. Sadly, Obama won’t do that.