First Crisis Arizona
To that end, Obama filed suit against a state of the union, subsequently reporting that state (Arizona) to the United Nations Human Rights Council. Arizona's hauling before the U.N. (an act never before perpetrated by a president on a state of the Republic) stemmed from that state's actions to enforce their own immigration policies at a time when illegal immigrant crimes against the populace of Arizona had skyrocketed to record numbers. Federal attention to the crisis, in contrast to Obama's campaign promises during campaign 2008 and likewise regardless of repeated pleas from the Arizona Governor, was appallingly nominal. Forced to act alone in the interest of its citizenry, the legislators of Arizona passed measures to deal with the crisis and began implementing policies to crack down on the unrestrained crime that included steeply rising accounts of murder, rape, drug trafficking, human smuggling, and kidnapping ~ the last of which had become so rampant that Phoenix, Arizona had become known as the kidnapping capitol of America.
Obama's handling of the FIRST Arizona crisis was a disturbingly morally worrisome act of obvious pandering to his Hispanic base that should have been immediately recognizable to the very citizens Barack was feigning support of. Failing to act on his campaign promise (another empty vest attempt to garner votes) to "preserve the integrity of our borders", acting instead to deflect this responsibility through insidious charges of racism on the international stage against his own countrymen as well as a state of the Republic, is not the act of a great leader. Presidents do not divide and isolate the citizenry to fortify their votes or the popularity of their party. Obama drove a wedge into the state of Arizona in the name of votes, and the people of the state would never be the same again.
Don't ask, Don't tell-- Gift the GOP never intended
Further pandering by Obama in 2010 would witness number forty four exploiting that portion of his base most comfortable for him to play hero to. Obama's campaign promise to repeal DADT shored up the gay and progressive liberal vote in 2008 for then-Senator Obama even though his predecessor Clinton had made similar promises during that liberal's dual terms, failing to deliver based on strong opposition from not only Congress, but the military as well.
Military leaders long opposed to the repeal of DADT voiced strong opposition to openly gay soldiers in the military as the actions of sexually promiscuous military personnel threaten the cohesiveness of platoons embedded in action. Others in the military and Congress have pointed to General George Washington's court marshalling of an openly gay soldier for "conduct unbecoming"; considering any decisions worthy of the Founding Fathers' military suitable for the American military of today. Whether the reasonings have been based on moral, safety or other factors, DADT has remained the policy of the American military for decades. And no matter the number of attempts to liberalize the armed forces, conservative thought and rationale has won out and ruled the day.
Enter Obama, and his agenda towards securing his base of voters. Is it cynical to consider Obama's move to repeal DADT pandering? Certainly not. Obama made this issue a cornerstone of his campaign in 2008. Yet it would not be until October of 2009, in a speech to the Human Rights Campaign, after a full year of inaction on this most pressing issue from his campaign the previous year, that he would once again vow, before a crowd of 3,000 guests at a gay civil rights advocacy group, to "end don't ask don't tell."
Interestingly, during that speech, Obama ~ the same man who had travelled the globe apologizing to one nation after another on behalf of the United States for what he perceived as this nation's shortcomings and evils; the same Obama who would sue his own countrymen for some self-perceived racism ~ would conjure up visions of patriotic gay men and women charging into battle as he claimed "We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country, we should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage ... especially when we are fighting two wars." Patriotism, it would seem, is appropriate for Obama when the time comes for rallying the voters.
A timeline for the repeal of DADT would not be offered that night in 2009, however. Nor would one be signaled when Obama took to the stage again in early 2010, in Obama's State of the Union address. One line, quite brief in its scope, was all the progressives would receive that night. After all, there were no crucial votes in the waiting, no liberals up for re-election in the coming (immediate) months, nothing to do at the moment requiring the rallying of the leftist troops. Back in the trunk went DADT for the year; and not a word worth mentioning would be covered by the liberal media.
And then November, 2010. Lame-duck 2010. Possibly the most egregious, lop-sided, never before witnessed lame-duck session in history. Fourteen and half dozen (174) GOP legislators lining up at the counter to partake of the most disastrous "deal" yet agreed to by so-called Conservatives under the Obama tenure. The "New Tax Deal" agreed to by these unscrupulous Republicans would not only saddle the American people and their progeny with nearly a trillion additional dollars worth of unfunded debt and ridiculous pork as well as pet projects, it would additionally pave the way for Obama's OTHER projects; to wit: the repeal of DADT.
Once the GOP acquiesced to the progressives on one iota of the left's agenda, it was all over! The liberal floodgates were opened. Obama proclaimed one victory after another. And his base grew ever more strengthened. Even though Obama couldn't have cared one bit less about the people so driven by the issues such as DADT ~ it's your votes he's after folks ~ the failings of the GOP re-energized Obama's faithful. Seeing the proverbial forest for the trees meant nothing for the proponents of the repeal, in their eyes, a promise made (though broken continuously until Barack could find a way to selfishly advance his socialist agenda) had finally, come hell or high water, been kept.
The Jewish constituency--Obama vs. Netanyahu
Quoting erstwhile articles as well as modern day columnists and commentators, it was once said that for a United States presidential hopeful to have the greatest potential at success, he was required to travel abroad for visits to Ireland, Italy and Israel. For progressives in particular to have a shot at the office and longevity, it was noted, the 3 I's were mandatory on the itinerary.
Since as long as there have been Democrats, in other words, there have been minorities important to the base. Long considered a vital sector of the Democratic constituency, Jews have played a role since this author's maternal grandparents and long before. Rarely trusted by American Hebrews, Republicans were viewed in the past centuries as keepers of the country club. Jews being outsiders in these upper crust locales, our forefathers migrated to the Democrat Party out of a sense of belonging, among other reasons, and rarely crossed the aisle. Son followed father, progeny rarely questioned reasoning, and American Jews more often than not continue today to comprise a relatively large portion of the left's base.
But what of the treatment of Benjamin Netanyahu? What of the actions, deeds and spoken words of Barack Obama? Surely in the history of the office, there can be no one single president who has done more to insult, belittle and isolate this country's greatest Middle Eastern ally, Israel, than the 44
th president, Barack Obama.
From the moment of his arrival to the White House, when he would return the Churchill Bust to Great Britain, to the snubbing of Netanyahu during the Prime Minister's visit in 2010, to routine and continued alignments with Abbas, Obama consistently and without remorse calculates his callous treatment of Israel, and by extension the Jewish people of the United States.
Obama, in his own words, as then-Senator Obama, sanctimoniously decried President Bush's actions in the Middle East, seemingly portraying himself as an ally of the Jew,
"The Bush Administration's failure to be consistently involved in helping Israel achieve peace with the Palestinians has been both wrong for our friendship with Israel, as well as badly damaging to our standing in the Arab world."
When nothing could have been further from reality,
"...I will stand with them (Arabs and Pakistanis) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama
Calderon pays another visit
Now, 2011, and the obfuscations begin anew. Only this time, reality needs to set in. These actions are no longer simply pandering, Obama is exploiting people.
To begin, Calderon is once again called to the White House, the week of March 3, 2011. The drug wars, led by the entrenched, murderous cartel in Mexico have been raging uncontrolled for more than four years. So long have they raged, so unable is Calderon to deal with the issue that the leader has suggested a return to
tolerating the drug gangs. This from the same leader who stood before the American Congress in 2010 and
blasted Arizona for "racial profiling". Once again the question begs asking, precisely who is this
anti-American Calderon speaking to when he (again at Obama's beckoning) addresses the American public after criticizing this nation's policies as being "notoriously insufficient"? And why is Obama inviting THIS leader (out of all the leaders in the free world) to visit America during times of crisis?
The Middle East is literally on fire. The EU is in turmoil. Israel is being threatened at each of its borders (perhaps the question of why that nation's leader hasn't received an invitation has already been addressed; it certainly will be again momentarily). Quite literally any of the major allies to the United States are deserving of a summit to one degree or another. Lives have been lost, people are dying, and economies are in a state of panic. WHY? Why Calderon? Is it cynical, once again, to posit the position that Obama is taking the opportunity to twist to his advantage a crisis? Absolutely not. Obama has brought Calderon here for one purpose: votes!
Just as Obama did with the Arizona crisis (number 1) when he paraded Calderon before the American public towards garnering votes from the Hispanic population, Obama is once again seizing this moment to manipulate liberal Mexican American voters (and every other liberal progressive voter with a television set or access to the internet) into thinking that Barack is the savior of South America.
Why was it necessary for Calderon to mention Obama's future visits to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador during a summit to discuss drug cartels and Mexican trucking? It wasn't. Calderon did so as a quid pro quo for Obama's lifting of sanctions on Mexican truckers. Obama continues to claim illegal immigration is down (a fact due solely to poor economic times in the States and far fewer jobs for EVERYONE, including migrant workers), promises free access to America for Mexican truckers, vows more money for Calderon's efforts and in turn Felipe tells the world how much Barack loves the South Americans. It's all smoke and mirrors, but the faithful can't see the perpetuation before them.
Obama's shocking definition of the Gay community--DOMA on the ropes
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) spoke out this week (March 2011) on the shocking move by Obama regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by Democrat president Bill Clinton (for the record Mr. Krauthammer, this move officially negates your on-going rhetoric that Obama is moving to the center) and legally defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. The Act also permits each state to ignore unions between same-sex partners according to that state's laws; same-sex partners considered "legally married" in one state are not necessarily considered "legally married" in other states, per law. The Act was approved by an overwhelming majority in both houses prior to its signing. In other words, the people of the United States, through their duly elected officials in Congress, spoke as to their unanimous decision as to their desire for this Act and subsequent law.
In late February of 2011, without interpretation from, nor involvement of the courts, in direct violation of the separation of powers as mandated by the Constitution as well as in violation of the mandated establishment of three distinct branches of government (wherein laws are challenged by the judiciary branch, NOT arbitrarily set aside or abolished at the whim of the executive branch), Barack Obama ordered the Attorney General of the United States to cease defending DOMA. Imagine that fellow Americans: the president, because he just decided to do so, elected to negate the law of the land ~ which YOU unanimously voted for! What's next? Term limits for presidents are no longer valid?
Obama, through Eric Holder (he of infamous: 'The Black Panther case isn't that egregious, 'cause
White people haven't suffered enough to understand racial injustice' line of thinking) has concluded that because DOMA has not been sufficiently scrutinized to determine if the groups affected by the Act are: "politically powerless", have an "ability to perform or contribute to society", or "whether the characteristics distinguishing the group have little relation to legitimate policy objectives"... the executive branch has determined to cease defending the constitutionality of the 15 year old law.
Let us explain that to the gay rights' activists who are fawning over Obama (who, by the way, does
NOT believe in gay marriage, and who also, by the way, defines marriage the same as does DOMA ~ or so he says). Obama is pandering for your vote, indeed exploiting you. And he's doing so by violating not only the constitution but also by circumventing the American legal system. And here's his basis for reasoning. You are, in Obama's letter to Congress:
- Politically weak, naive and flaccid,
- Non-contributing members of society; the scorn of the American populace, and
- Orientated in such a way that you can be manipulated towards a particular policy objective.
And must, therefore, be sheltered by his administration by any means possible. Obama took an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States of America when you elected him. It is his job, as your president, to enforce the law. Liberal, Conservative, Left, Right, Center must all obey the laws of the land. How then is it any different for the president? Let the answer be without delay: there is no difference; Obama's job is to uphold the law, protect the constitution and defend the nation.
Perhaps Newt Gingrich said it best earlier this week when interviewed by
Newsmax:
"I don't think these guys set out to create a constitutional crisis. I think they set out to pay off their allies in the gay community and to do something that they thought was clever. I think they didn't understand the implication that having a president personally suspend a law is clearly unconstitutional."
DADT was one thing. Suspending a law, constitutionally mandated for the president to uphold is something else. Pandering is one thing. Exploitation is a far different topic. The base may not see the fire started by this, but perhaps the insulting rhetoric entered into the record by Obama as his excuse for this measure will become public. And once public, perhaps Pride will move those, who look simply to be recognized as equals, to define Obama for the exploiter he has always been.
Israel, Jews, Middle East--Let's not be fooled again
Finally, the unrest in the Middle East is perhaps more troubling today than at any time in several generations. First there is Egypt, where a people who have dealt with their many forms of tyranny are reliving ancient history. Muhammad Ali ascended to power in that country after the expulsion of Napoleon by the Ottomans, with Ali's ruthless tribe of Albanians finally taking control. Ali would selfishly annex his own people's farmlands, install a monopoly on trade and production through overt taxation and use the proceeds to amass great personal wealth and a powerful, self-serving military. Through wars and conquests, Ali would become the expansionist of his time, ruling from Sudan to Syria and from Saudi Arabia to Turkey to include other parts of Asia.
European rule would end Ali's conquests, establishing a protectorate over Egypt after Ali's progeny defaulted to the British and Europeans on debts for the building of the Suez Canal. Angered at their new rulers, dissatisfied at their plight as well as their King, the people of Egypt would rise up, in 1952, overthrowing the government and monarchy to establish their first seemingly democratically run legislation. The RCC, as it was known, while outlawing the Muslim Brotherhood, was rife with its own chaos and nefarious members. Murder, bigotry, racism and ethnic cleansing ensued throughout Egypt, and it would not be until the election of Sadat, in 1970, that Egypt would finally breathe a momentary sigh of relative peace.
Obama's foreign policy ineptitude and isolationism towards the Middle East has done much to foster unrest in the region. From the comparatively civil maneuvers in Egypt where Mubarak (a man who, even with his shortcomings did much to foster stability in the region as well as peace with Israel for 30 years) was removed from his post, to the staunchly disparate scenes in Tripoli where a madman is literally murdering his own countrymen, as well as the tumultuous times in Iran where Ahmadinejad continues his run up to the procurement of nuclear weapons, Obama has remained as neutral in these catastrophes as when the world witnessed Turkish mercenaries en route to Israel. Throughout his tenure, Obama has established a very clear agenda regarding the Middle East in general and Israel specifically: these are Netanyahu's problems. As long as Bibi stays put in his slice of land, so seems to go Obama's rationale, Israel will have nothing to worry about.
The land of Israel was established by the twelve tribes. These twelve tribes represented the descendants of Jacob (who was renamed Israel, meaning, "to persevere with God"). What is today called Gaza was encompassed within the land of
Judah. Israel has always been the Holy Land, promised to the Hebrews by God, and settled by the Patriarchs of Biblical time. Jacob's first clan of 6 dozen resided in Egypt under the Pharaoh's rule during the time of Joseph and would increase in number to more than 600,000 in four generations.
Liberated by Moses, with the assistance of Joshua, Jacob's descendants returned to Canaan. Each of the sons, having been blessed by their father Jacob with their inheritances, established their tribes as bequeathed by their father. Joseph (ca. 1562-1452 BC) received the greatest holdings in all of Jacob's (Israel's) land. Judah received the second most prominent holdings in Israel's land. Together, these two sibling's inheritances comprised the mass of Biblical Israel.
Obama, however, as a student of Black liberation theology (the teachings of Rev. Wright) as well as due to his Muslim upbringing, as not only never been exposed to the historical facts as they pertain to Israel's rightful ownership to the land surrounding Jerusalem, he has also reportedly never set foot in the Holy Land. Perhaps these factors would explain an ongoing position that it is Israel's responsibility to make concessions to the Palestinians towards a lasting peace in the Middle East. Perhaps if Obama took a moment to research historical facts as they pertain to settlements prior to the Philistines he would realize Churchill's sentiment, "[the Jews are] in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance..." On the other hand, perhaps Obama understands the sentiment full well and bases his Churchill Bust return precisely on that statement...
Digressing aside, Israel has rights to the land she demands. Obama's slighting of Netanyahu and continued insulting of Jews worldwide, compounded by yet another
unfounded, naive, borderline hostile statement that the situations in the Middle East are going nowhere until Israel "shows seriousness on peace", continue a policy established the day he set foot in the Oval Office.
Here's hoping that Jews in America (as well as Gays, Hispanics and others) are realizing Obama's motives. During campaign 2008 it was all about pandering. Obfuscation became the name of the game in 2009 and in 2010. Now it's just plain 'ol snake oil salesman exploitation.
Are folks really falling for it? STILL?!
