Obama’s Ideology of Decline

ABC's Diane Sawyer asked the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, whether Obama would sometimes "sit and confront your own doubts." Obama answered haltingly. "You know, I -- I would say that when I -- the one thing I'm clear about is that I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." Image Credit: Jim Treacher - The DC Trawler

Obama’s Ideology of Decline

Make no doubt about it, Barack Obama, the man elected to be the 44th President of the United States, is an ideologue.

Many argue that with his statements on Hope and Change centered on the redistribution of America's wealth, along with his documented understanding and teachings of radical political operatives like Saul Alinsky, Cloward/Piven, and Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste", that Barack Obama is a Communist ideologue. The truth is actually more troubling than even this assumption.

Political commentator Charles Krauthammer joined Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio for an interview and what Charles is able to articulate about the policies that the Obama Administration have pursued during its first full year in office points out that Barack Obama is an ideologue, alright ... he has embraced an ideology of decline.

This excerpted and edited from David Horowitz's Newsreal -

Charles Krauthammer Nails Down Ideologue Obama Perfectly
by Michael van der Galien, NewsReal Blog - 2010 February 2

Appearing on Frank Gaffney’s show on Secure Freedom Radio earlier today, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer delivered the ultimate smackdown of President Barack Obama.

The conservative columnist proved he understands Obama completely. As I argued yesterday, conservatives are making a tragic mistake by mistaking the man for a pragmatist. He is not, he’s a leftist ideologue.

Krauthammer understands that perfectly. He reminded Gaffney that Obama truly reveled in the praise of the world’s most feared dictators and the standing ovation they gave him when he spoke to them at the United Nations, where he apologized for every single thing America had ever done.
----
Another good point Krauthammer made about Obama’s political views, is that he’s an adherent of “declinism,” as all progressives are. This ideology of decline says that the U.S. has peaked and that things can only go down hill from here. China will – somehow logically – become the world’s next superpower, while the U.S. will lose most of the power and influence it has today.
----
Lastly, this president has an unquestionable faith in the United Nations. The UN, Obama believes, can solve every major crisis in the world. Again facts don’t matter. History has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that while the UN may be a nice debating club, you’re mistaken to believe that it can get anything done. Whenever a serious crisis occurs, “the international community” bails out at the last moment and America – together with some loyal allies – is forced to clean up the mess. This is how it has been ever since the UN was founded. Obama’s refusal to accept this rather obvious truth, is yet more proof that he’s nothing more or less than a leftist ideologue.

I’m happy to see that Krauthammer understands what kind of politician Obama is and what this means for his domestic and for his foreign policy. The more people nail this ideologue down, the better. After all, you can’t fight an opponent you don’t understand.
Reference Here>>

Obama's "Sign Of Progess" hand salute. Image Credit: Moonbattery

And this excerpted and edited from Jonah Goldberg -

Obama Appears Blinded by His Own Ideological Biases
The president isn’t a pragmatist, no matter how often he claims to be one
Jonah Goldberg, NationalReviewOnline - February 3, 2010 12:00 A.M.

‘I am not an ideologue,” President Obama insisted at his truly refreshing confab with the Republican caucus in Baltimore last Friday. When he heard some incredulous murmurs and chuckles from the audience in response to the idea that the most sincerely ideological president in a generation is no ideologue, he added a somewhat plaintive, “I’m not.”
----
It’s clear from interviews that he is fond of the notion that he is above ideological squabbles and is a clear-eyed appraiser of facts and adjudicator of political disagreements. He’s described himself as a “pragmatist,” even a “ruthless pragmatist,” countless times.
----
Obama routinely insinuates that all of the facts are on his side. He invokes a confabulated consensus of experts to suggest that there is no legitimate reason for anyone to disagree with his agenda. After all, with the eggheads and “facts” in his corner, only the other side’s ideological blinders — or stupidity — could account for any dissent.
----
Ideologies don’t require blinding yourself to the facts; rather, they help you prioritize what you are going to do with the facts. Indeed, the very question of deciding what to be pragmatic about — this but not that — requires applying an ideological test.
----
A truly “ruthless” pragmatist might opt for summarily executing enemy combatants after torturing them with hot pokers. He might abandon anyone who can’t afford health insurance. He might ban abortion on the grounds that Social Security needs more young people or eliminate college football entirely as a needless distraction and a drain on resources.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in 1909 that if everyone becomes a pragmatist, then “ironclads and Maxim guns must be the ultimate arbiters of metaphysical truth.” Russell’s point was that there’s nothing within pragmatism to delineate the proper and just limits of pragmatism. We must look outside pragmatism for that.

Our values, customs, traditions, and principles provide insulation against the corrosive acid of undiluted pragmatism. When you bundle these things together, it’s often called an ideology, and there’s no reason to apologize for having one.
Reference Here>>

Get hip to Obama’s ideology of decline as we struggle to survive life here in Carter's Second Term. After all, as stated before in this posting, one can’t fight an opponent one doesn’t understand.

One-Party Rule Does Away With Transparency

Maybe it's just because she is the first female speaker of the house...who knows -- but Nancy Pelosi's wardrobe has been getting a ton of attention of late with most of the discussion revolving around her signature strand of South Sea Cultured Pearls, which are estimated to cost around 80k!! Caption and Image Credit: diamondvues.com

One-Party Rule Does Away With Transparency

Be afraid, be very afraid – Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Party Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, fearing nothing in terms of expense to political capital or a push back from a Democrat Political Party controlled Executive Branch when Barack Obama take office on January 20, 2009, will seek to dispense with a few of those pesky openness and legislative transparency rules that govern the law making procedures that currently guide the way our elected representatives in the House of Representatives do their business.

What this means is that many of the processes that were once open to scrutiny from the public (you and me … voters), rebuttal from factions with a different viewpoint, and those just plain caring for more democracy and debate rather than less will have less influence upon how things get done in our government.

In the most simple of terms, Nancy Pelosi plans to reduce the freedoms of a majority of Americans making the processes in the 111th session of the House of Representatives one where the Nation of citizens serves the acts of the House of Representatives as opposed to the concept that the House of Representatives serves for the acts of the Nation of citizens.

America the free will turn a corner where this is no longer a nation by the people, for the people …

In Article I of the U.S. Constitution, "all legislative powers" were "vested in a the House of Representatives of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." The House of Representatives has the responsibility to debate and create the laws under which our country operates. Image Credit: crapo.senate.gov

This excerpted and edited from U.S. Constitution Online –

Constitutional Topic: The Preamble
This Topic Page concerns The Preamble. The first paragraph of the Constitution provides the context for the Constitution - the "why" of the document.

The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.

The newly minted document began with a grand flourish - the Preamble, the Constitution's r'aison d'etre. It holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done. Its words are familiar to us today, but because of time and context, the words are not always easy to follow. The remainder of this Topic Page will examine each sentence in the Preamble and explain it for today's audience.

We the People of the United States

The Framers were an elite group - among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king - it was created by the people.

[not elite leaders who seek less openness in the way the transact their daily business]

in Order to form a more perfect Union

The Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.

establish Justice

Injustice, unfairness of laws and in trade, was of great concern to the people of 1787. People looked forward to a nation with a level playing field, where courts were established with uniformity and where trade within and outside the borders of the country would be fair and unmolested. Today, we enjoy a system of justice that is one of the fairest in the world. It has not always been so - only through great struggle can we now say that every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment, and even today there still exists discrimination. But we still strive for the justice that the Framers wrote about.

[Pelosi’s move seeks to make this process less transparent, less fair, and strives for less justice in the process of the House of Representatives]

insure domestic Tranquility

One of the events that caused the Convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers knows as Shays' Rebellion. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the system. The keeping of the peace was on everyone's mind, and the maintenance of tranquility at home was a prime concern. The framers hoped that the new powers given the federal government would prevent any such rebellions in the future.

provide for the common defence

The new nation was fearful of attack from all sides - and no one state was really capable of fending off an attack from land or sea by itself. With a wary eye on Britain and Spain, and ever-watchful for Indian attack, no one of the United States could go it alone. They needed each other to survive in the harsh world of international politics of the 18th century.

promote the general Welfare

This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.

[by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE - not billions of collected tax money by the government, for the government to expand its holdings in industry, investment in junk mortgages, and land - as in houses]

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Hand in hand with the general welfare, the framers looked forward to the blessings of liberty - something they had all fought hard for just a decade before. They were very concerned that they were creating a nation that would resemble something of a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. And more than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future generations of Americans would enjoy the same.

[The House of Representatives seeks to become more tyrannical and less open]

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

The final clause of the Preamble is almost anti-climatic, but it is important for a few reasons - it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we the people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this document, and it restates the name of the nation adopting the Constitution. That the Constitution is "ordained" reminds us of the higher power involved here - not just of a single person or of a king, but of the people themselves. That is it "established" reminds us that it replaces that which came before - the United States under the Articles (a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time).
Reference Here>>

The Preamble according to the new, 111th House of Representatives:

We, the House of Representatives, in order to promote ourselves over the scrutiny of the common man, dispense with these rules of openness in procedure and debate so that we can grasp even more power (with less shared power and input), as we seek to establish a ruling class without the insight and rancor from the masses. We do ordain and establish these changes in our rules for the Democrat Political Party to the detriment of all other points of view and justice for the common man ruled by this governmental body.

Thank you Democrat Political Party and it’s Majority Leader, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

Kiss liberty and the pursuit of happiness here, during this time of one-party rule / Carter's Second Term, GOODBYE!

A Secretary Of State For Carter's Second Term

Richard Danzig gives keynote speech at Red Herring conference, October 2000. Image Credit: PHC DOLORES L. PARLATO, USN

A Secretary Of State For Carter's Second Term

The more the things in our political landscape change ... they remain the same.

Barack Obama preaches change but many in his organization are high position retreads from the Bill Clinton Administration.

Take, for example, one Richard Danzig, foreign affairs consultant and aide to the Obama campaign for President nominated by the Democrat Party. Danzig served as Secretary of the Navy under Bill Clinton and may be tapped as National Security Advisor or even Secretary of State in a Barack Obama Administration.

In a speech delivered to the Centre for New American Security, Richard Danzig saw fit to evoke images from the book "The Complete Tales Of Winnie-The-Pooh" to illustrate a point he was trying to make – the point is irrelevant but the fact that he wants people to take him seriously through the references he sites – Is Relevant!

"The Complete Tales Of Winnie-The-Pooh" book cover - Image Credit: Amazon

It gets worse - this excerpted from the Telegraph (UK) -

Barack Obama aide: Why Winnie the Pooh should shape US foreign policy
Winnie the Pooh, Luke Skywalker and British football hooligans could shape the foreign policy of Barack Obama if he becomes US President, according to a key adviser.
By Tim Shipman in Washington - Last Updated: 2:04AM BST 17/06/2008

Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else.

Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”

He spelt out how American troops, spies and anti-terrorist officials could learn key lessons by understanding the desire of terrorists to emulate superheroes like Luke Skywalker, and the lust for violence of violent football fans.
----
Mr Danzig spelt out the need to change by reading a paragraph from chapter one of the children’s classic, which says: “Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it.”
----
In a briefing which will inform Mr Obama’s understanding of terrorists, Mr Danzig said he learnt much from recent interviews with jailed Aum Shinrikyo terrorists who released sarin nerve gas on the Tokyo underground in 1995.

He said that even people who are relatively well off and successful can feel like failures and become alientated from their societies. He said one terrorist told him: “We have been raised on a theory of superheroes. We all want to be like Luke Skywalker.

"When we’re doing mundane things, we lose track of our ambition but when someone comes along, like Asahara, the head of the cult, and presents himself as a messiah and gives us a picture of progress that is ordained by heaven and that we are carrying out a saintly mission on earth that is for us extraordinarily evocative.”
----
He said that another lesson about terrorists can be learnt from studying violent football fans. “One of the best books I’ve read on terrorism in recent years was not about terrorism at all,” he said. “It’s Bill Buford’s book Among the Thugs, which is a description of soccer violence in Britain.

“Buford became absorbed by soccer violence. He describes the most appalling examples of soccer violence by fans against fans. But he describes with relentless honesty how he finds sickening things attractive. He says violence lets the adrenaline flow; it’s like sex, you live in the moment.”
Reference Here>>

This is, pretty much, how serious a Barack Obama foreign policy would look after he assumes office. If one thinks the United States might be looking weak in the view of the rest of the world ... NOW ... just think how we would look under an Obama Administration with Richard Danzig as, say, Secretary of State (this would not be Jimmy Carter's second Secretary of State, Edmund Muskie ... but the first Secretary of State in the second coming of a Carter Administration which given policies and outcomes of the philosophies of Barack Obama, if implemented, we would certainly suffer)!

Whatever happened to being informed from books and materials that are delivered to us from the world's of NON-FICTION!

Again, this is the guy who advises Barack Obama, no wonder Barack is gaffe ridden, he’s nothing without a teleprompter and he is even less with the type advice he gets.

I can not believe that the Soros Left sold this puppet to the Democrat Party and they all BOUGHT IT!

Barack Obama does not know what he Doesn't Know and that makes him very dangerous.

Folks, we are just flyin' down the highway toward "Carter's Second Term"!