We have had Obama in the White House (rather golf course) for a little over two years now (though it feels like a decade!). His choices have been questionable at best, disturbing and frightening at worst. Remember this man barely finished his inaugural photo-op before he began a world-apology tour on America’s behalf (did he ask us?). A year later he slipped under a closed-door Obamacare (yet the majority of our country did not and still does not approve). He decided on a war with out passing it by congress, yet he has damned Bush for the war during Bush’s term (yet Bush handled it through proper channels). Add all the other blame games Obama has run his presidency (as well as campaign) on, nothing is his fault, nor his responsibility, alas I have discussed that one to pains, so onward…
Let’s review a few things, Steve Chapman, talks asks why did Democrats choose Obama to run in 2008. He highlights a few points:
- He had less experience in office than many of his rivals.
- He was not as well-known.
- He had the potential electoral liability of being black.
- No one knew if he was tough enough to stand up to Republican assaults in a nasty campaign.
So what accounts for his success? More than any other reason, he won because he had opposed the invasion of Iraq — which Clinton and others had endorsed.
Even though the war in Iraq may have been a winning point for Obama, (looking at Libya) his supporters still support him. How can they? What has Obama done that they still could support? Ok he maintained a skin tone that is not white, which makes any closet racist feel good about supporting him (and calling anyone who does not support obama racist, since they are oblivious to all the reasons we do oppose him). That is the ONLY thing I can come up with.
Remember Obama also received a Nobel Peace Prize, for what? Nothing. But then again remember Jimmy Carter & Al Gore also received Nobel Peace Prizes, again for what? Also just for a joke someone nominated Adolf Hitler, but at least the committee had a clue back then… sadly the prize has obviously lost all meaning. Will Obama take the higher ground and perhaps return this ill received prize?
Yes there have been murmurs of disapproval among Democrats, but there should be waves of descension instead. In fact think of Wisconsin protests, Obama should be experiencing those types of protests from those people who adored him. This for me proves the influence still exists, the brain washing has yet to receive a rinse cycle.
The combination of Afghanistan and Libya could bring a bitter end to the romance between Democratic liberals and Obama. Many of them were already disappointed with him for extending the Bush tax cuts, bailing out Wall Street, omitting a public option from the health care overhaul, offering to freeze domestic discretionary spending and generally declining to go after Republicans hammer and tong.
Perhaps we might witness Democrat disapproval if we see some people run against him in 2012. We should see something soon, I hope!
Now talking about the Libya decision, does this confirm Obama’s happy world bubble has finally burst? Did he finally receive a reality check? Did he finally wake-up? Is his fantasy over? I figure he surely must have been in a deranged state of fantasy land, when he believed Muslims were our friends. Unlike wishing away an imaginary friend, you can not wish away a terrorist/terrorist threat.
Austin Hill talks about the “Collapse of the Obama Worldview” , that is a great title. He discusses Obama & the Libya action..
But this fact remains: after spending the first two years of his presidency insisting that the values of America and the Muslim world are consistent with one-another, now President Barack Obama was ordering bombs to be dropped on a predominantly Muslim country.
Also remember Obama supports, promotes and shoves socialist values over American values.. Just as naive as his view on Muslims is Obama’s view on our economy, and his “distribution of wealth”. This is an ideology of a child. It might sound happy and wonderful this “share” thing, but examine it further. Realize the focus is those who do will be required to give to those who don’t. I had received a great email recently that gave a perfect comparison, student #1 get’s A’s, works hard.. student #2 does not do anything and is failing.. if they “share” the grade, the student who works hard will give to the one who does not do crap. Is that fair? Is that realistic? The eventual result is the loss of effort from anyone, there would be no point to aspire, to create. Our society would decline, decay and die.
Austin Hill looks at the 3 schools of thought that has run Obama’s (fantasy world) “collectivism, relativism and internationalism”…
(proponent of economic collectivism) “the group,” if you will – is more important than the economic rights and liberties of the individual. His push to make healthcare a “basic human right,” his attempts to raise taxes on the wealthy so as to better fund “middle class” programs, and his stated desire to “spread the wealth around” (the goal he famously uttered to the “Joe The Plumber” character in 2008) are all consistent with this philosophy.
And so much of what Obama utters turns to blame on Bush.. heck (in Obama’s eyes) terrorism was Bush’s & American’s fault: (Obama’s pre-white house campaign)
(relativism) Barack Obama made it clear that there was nothing objectively bad or wrong about the propensity towards terrorism of the Muslim nations, but rather, Muslim terrorism had to be understood in the context of American “hostility” and President Bush’s aggression.
Expanding on Obama’s share the wealth, and his other views…
(internationalism) This is the assumption that global wellbeing is more important than the interests of any one, particular nation, and that global good is achieved only when individual nations operate in concert with one another.
Yes countries should work together, but they also need to defend their own selves too. In other words, global focus should definitely NOT have more importance, but again this just expands on Obama’s fantasy, his delusion of the world. He is naive and inexperienced, and is proving it with every thought, word and action.
Just to hammer on the naive part again, only a person who has been sheltered would believe in the hug-your-enemy philosophy that Obama embraces. He has hugged them, he has offered US aid.. and how do they feel about us? Has their impression changed?
…an effigy of President Obama was stamped on and beaten in the streets of Tripoli last week
Kabul Afghanistan: Protesters Burn Effigy of US President Barack Obama
Think about Obama’s response for foreign issues, think about his response to Gaddafi, MuBarak.. Obama thought he could just close his eyes and all will be better when he reopens them. The happy-happy hippy perspective is simply not realistic.