Obama’s First 100 Days: Progress? Like Beauty, I Guess It’s In The Eyes Of The Beholder
Obama’s First 100 Days: Progress? Like Beauty, I Guess It’s In The Eyes Of The Beholder
by
Ken Eliasberg
Progress.- In the case of Obama’s first 100 days, progress, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. If you favor central planning (SOCIALISM) and appeasement — i.e. if you are a radical — you have never seen this kind of progress in America. Obama has done more for the Socialist cause in 100 days than the New Deal and the Great Society combined. Obama is FDR and LBJ on steroids. And that’s understandable: FDR had an economic crisis; LBJ had society-rending war — Obama has both! And, as Rahm Emanuel observed, a crisis is an opportunity, and you want to take advantage of it. And Obama is certainly trying to do just that. Is that progress? It is if, as noted, you are a devotee of the welflare or nanny state. Also, from a national security perspective, it is progressive if you are a member of the unilateral disarmament crowd — you know, the guys who argue that peace is achieved through appeasement and surrender; that war is a terrible thing and the way to avoid it is to either (1) refuse to acknowledge its existence, or (2) having been forced to acknowledge its existence, just refuse to fight it! The bottom line for lefties. RADICALS REJOICE!!
From another point of view — mine in particular — these first 100 days have been an absolute disaster, launching us on a course that will, in all likelihood, bankrupt us, set capitalism back 50 years, if not crush it entirely, and leave us completely vulnerable to the already gathered threat of Radical Islam (or, in the words of Janet Napolitano, those makers of a “man caused disaster”). The bottom line for those who want America to remain America — BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID!!
Or, if I had to describe Obama’s policy in 3 words, they would be the 3 words that I used to describe the real philosophy of the Democratic Party that I noted in the headline of a column that I did for this paper in June of 2007 (6/14/07) SOCIALISM AND SURRENDER. And Obama’s efforts in his first 100 days have been in furtherance of those policies which implement that philosophy. Always remember that Obama learned under Saul Alinsky and furthered his education with the guidance of Bill Ayers, an admitted small “c” communist (I’m not entirely sure what, if any, comfort we can derive from the small “c”).
Permit me to elaborate. We have taken a brief, and very superficial, look at Obama’s approach to domestic policy, which, in summary, consists of placing our children and grandchildren in so much debt that they will never see daylight, while, all the time making certain that he refused to make any demands on his favorite special interest — organized labor. Were Obama not so devoid of principle and so lacking in a particle of courage, he would have forced the auto industry into bankruptcy, thereby freeing it from onerous labor contracts that serve as a financial anchor, assuring the industry’s ultimate failure (and ironically, as a consequence, that of Union members as well). And, in fairness, it is necessary to note that Bush initiated this unfortunate approach to faltering industries, a fact that Obama will use for cover no matter what happens, i.e. at no point, no matter how fool hardy Obama’s policies may prove to be, will he take responsibility for the ultimate failure; the story will always be that he “inherited this problem,” and, if the economy fails, he could not help it. On the other hand, if the economy turns around, rest assured that he will take credit for it. How do you explain this? Simple! Being a Democrat does not mean never having to say you’re sorry; it means never having to admit that you have done anything for which you need feel sorrow, i.e. never taking responsibility for failure, but always ready to take credit for any success (no matter how little you had to do with it).
We have touched (again, only briefly and superficially), on Obama’s foreign policy, which we can bottom line as appeasement on the way to complete capitulation — the surrender part of the equation.
I don’t think that I can improve upon Charles Krauthammer’s effort in this regard in the Washington Post on April 10, 2009 under the title It’s Your Country Too, Mr. President, relevant portions of which read as follows:
“In his major foreign policy address in Prague committing the United
States to a world without nuclear weapons [an assertion so bizarre as to boggle the mind of a sentient human being], President Obama took note of North Korea’s missile launch just hours earlier and then grandiloquently proclaimed:
‘Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response.’
A more fatuous presidential call to arms is hard to conceive. What ‘strong international response’ did Obama muster to North Korea’s brazen defiance of Chapter 7 - - ‘binding,’ as it were - -U.N. resolution prohibiting such a launch?
The obligatory emergency Security Council session produced nothing. No sanctions. No resolution. Not even a statement. China and Russia professed to find no violation whatsoever. They would not even permit a U.N. statement that dared expressed ‘concern,’ let alone condemnation.
Having thus bravely rallied the international community and summoned the United Nations - - a fiction and a farce, respectively - - what was Obama’s further response? The very next day, his defense secretary announced drastic cuts in missile defense, including halting further deployment of Alaska-based interceptors designed precisely to shoot down North Korean ICBMs. Such is the ‘realism’ Obama promised to restore to U.S. foreign policy.”
Again, it is difficult to better capture the gist of Obama’s paper-tiger approach to the defense of America.
In addition, we have ended the war on terror by redesignating it as an Overseas Contingency Operation (OCT). That’s one way of ending a war — refusing to acknowledge that one exists. That should make us safer. In addition, we no longer have terrorists. We have magically eliminated them by the simple gesture of characterizing them as fellows engaged in “man caused disasters.” Boy that should scare the hell out of those bad boys. This is truly amazing; the notion that by refusing to call a bad guy (evil guy, but the word “evil” is a clear no no) a bad guy, somehow we will effect a change in his behavior. Enough of this P.C. madness — we are engaged in a war with Radical Islam, and it’s time that the nonradical portion of Islam made some serious, substantial, and concrete effort to rid itself of these murderous monsters if we are to take seriously the assertion that Islam is indeed a religion of peace. It is also time for Obama to realize that leadership is about principle, not popularity.