Reagan and Obama – NO COMPARISON

With President Obama’s non-pivot to the center, the Left is claiming that Barack Obama is really the second coming of Ronald Reagan. TIME magazine even featured a picture of Presidents Reagan and Obama photoshoped together, with the caption “Why Obama loves Reagan.”

Any comparison of Obama to Ronald Reagan is patently absurd. The two men are diametrically opposed on just about every issue.

The best example of the difference between the two presidents is their admiration for the United States:

Ronald Reagan saw the United States as a “shining city on a hill.” As president, Reagan told the rest of the world of the greatness of his country, extolling the American values of freedem and liberty. On the other hand, Barack Obama has gone around the world trashing his country, and heaping praise on every tin pot dictatorship in sight. President Obama even denigrated the idea of American Exceptionalism in a foreign country. Jimmy Carter would be a more fitting forefather for Barack Obama.

Can anyone imagine Ronald Reagan bowing before foreign autocrats?

Will Egypt Be The Next Iran?

Is Barack Obama destined to be the next Jimmy Carter?

In 1979, ‘students’ flooded the streets in Iran to protest the repressive regime of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. While the Shah was not perfect, he was a valuable ally of the West’s. Moreover, he lifted Iran into the 20th century. However, the Iranian people were unsatisfied with the tactics of the Shah’s police state, and they demanded ‘change.’

Carrying out the greatest blunder in American foreign policy history, President Carter refused to stop the Iranian revolution. Instead of saving a strategic ally, Jimmy Carter let the Shah fall. Because of Jimmy Carter’s ineptitude, today Iran is ruled by radical Muslims and is the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world.

The lesson of Iran is pertinent to the current unrest in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood, an organization who’s stated goal is: “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house,” is following the same playbook the radicals did in Iran. Unfortunately, President Obama and other Western leaders appear to have learned nothing from the miserable failures of the Carter regime.

In her 1979 essay, Dictatorships & Double Standards, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick explained the United States’ unfortunate habit of letting allies fall:

The pattern is familiar enough: an established autocracy with a record of friendship with the U.S. is attacked by insurgents, some of whose leaders have long ties to the Communist movement, and most of whose arms are of Soviet, Chinese, or Czechoslovak origin. The “Marxist” presence is ignored and/or minimized by American officials and by the elite media on the ground that U.S. support for the dictator gives the rebels little choice but to seek aid “elsewhere.” Violence spreads and American officials wonder aloud about the viability of a regime that “lacks the support of its own people.” The absence of an opposition party is deplored and civil-rights violations are reviewed. Liberal columnists question the morality of continuing aid to a “rightist dictatorship” and provide assurances concerning the essential moderation of some insurgent leaders who “hope” for some sign that the U.S. will remember its own revolutionary origins. Requests for help from the beleaguered autocrat go unheeded, and the argument is increasingly voiced that ties should be established with rebel leaders “before it is too late.” The President, delaying U.S. aid, appoints a special emissary who confirms the deterioration of the government position and its diminished capacity to control the situation and recommends various measures for “strengthening” and “liberalizing” the regime, all of which involve diluting its power.

The emissary’s recommendations are presented in the context of a growing clamor for American disengagement on grounds that continued involvement confirms our status as an agent of imperialism, racism, and reaction; is inconsistent with support for human rights; alienates us from the “forces of democracy”; and threatens to put the U.S. once more on the side of history’s “losers.” This chorus is supplemented daily by interviews with returning missionaries and “reasonable” rebels.

As the situation worsens, the President assures the world that the U.S. desires only that the “people choose their own form of government”; he blocks delivery of all arms to the government and undertakes negotiations to establish a “broadly based” coalition headed by a “moderate” critic of the regime who, once elevated, will move quickly to seek a “political” settlement to the conflict. Should the incumbent autocrat prove resistant to American demands that he step aside, he will be readily overwhelmed by the military strength of his opponents, whose patrons will have continued to provide sophisticated arms and advisers at the same time the U.S. cuts off military sales. Should the incumbent be so demoralized as to agree to yield power, he will be replaced by a “moderate” of American selection. Only after the insurgents have refused the proffered political solution and anarchy has spread throughout the nation will it be noticed that the new head of government has no significant following, no experience at governing, and no talent for leadership. By then, military commanders, no longer bound by loyalty to the chief of state, will depose the faltering “moderate” in favor of a fanatic of their own choosing.

In either case, the U.S. will have been led by its own misunderstanding of the situation to assist actively in deposing an erstwhile friend and ally and installing a government hostile to American interests and policies in the world. At best we will have lost access to friendly territory. At worst the Soviets will have gained a new base. And everywhere our friends will have noted that the U.S. cannot be counted on in times of difficulty and our enemies will have observed that American support provides no security against the forward march of history.

Besides the influence of the Soviet Union, Kirkpatrick’s analysis reads like it could have been written today. Letting allies, even unsavory ones, fall is doubly harmful to the United States. First, there is the fall of an ally, and the rise of an enemy. Second, every time the united States allows an ally to be overthrown, America’s other allies witness the United Sates’ lack of resolve.

Make no mistake, a revolution in Egypt will not end well. There are no moderates in the Muslim Brotherhood. On CNN, Protesters in Alexandria explained their motives:

Woman #1 sets the stage for Woman #2:

“All the people hate him. He’s supporting Israel! Israel is our enemy. We don’t like him…Israel and America supported him. We hate them all!”

Woman #1 then explains that they will accomplish the removal of Mubarak by “revolution.”

Then the guy that follows them takes it up a notch by explaining that when the people in Egypt are finally free they will be able to “destroy Israel.”

In 1979 President Carter’s UN representative, Andrew Young, said that in time, Ayatollah Khomeini would be viewed as “some kind of saint.” The Carter administration’s motto was “we can work with Khomeini.” That has not exactly worked out the way the Carterites thought it would.

The UK Telegraph reported this week that the United States has been actively supporting Egyptian ‘activists’ since President Obama has come to power. While president Obama’s democratic intentions are honorable, the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak at this time would be calamitous.

Mohamed ElBaradei, who the Muslim Brotherhood yesterday recommended as a go-between to negotiate a transfer of power, fits Kirkpatrick’s description of a moderate critic of the regime perfectly. ElBaradei’s elevation will set up a transfer of power to the worst elements in Egypt.

While some of the protesters in the streets in Cairo may be pro-democracy advocates, tired of being unemployed in a police state, should the Mubarak regime be toppled, the pro-democracy dupes will be enslaved in a radical Muslim tyranny, far more brutal than the darkest days of the Mubarak reign.

In the coming days President Mubarak will do all he can to remain in power. President Obama will have to make a decision: will he support an imperfect ally, or allow the devil we know to fall? Whatever Obama’s plan of action is, it will have far reaching consequences; forty years ago Iran was a resolute ally.

The Presidency is too Big for Barack Obama

In the 1970s Jimmy Carter spoke of a “crisis of confidence.” Carter’s infamous ‘malaise’ speech was a fitting way to cap-off the most depressing decade in American history. For the first time in history, Americans believed they would leave their country worse off than the way they found it. Many people came to believe that that Presidency was too big for any one man. When Ronald Reagan was elected, people discovered that the Presidency was just too big for Jimmy Carter.

Like his ideological forefather, Barack Obama too is to small a man to be President of the United States. Like Carter, Obama’s lack of belief in his country is exceptionally depressing.

Today, 63 per cent of people think the country is heading in the wrong direction, compared to only 31 per cent who think the United States is heading in the right direction. A full 50 per cent of Americans believe they will leave their children a country that is worse off than the one they inherited.

There is a reason Americans are worried about the future. Unemployment is stuck near 10 per cent. For young Americans it’s even worse: 53 per cent of citizens aged 18-29 are out of a job.

Americans are out of work and inflation is poised to make an ugly return. The President’s response has been abysmal. His so-called stimulus, which came at a price of $787 billion, only stimulated the government. After the people expressed their disgust with out-of-control government spending, the Democrats rammed through a trillion-dollar healthcare law that was opposed by 60 per cent of Americans. Somehow, this latest government boondoggle  was supposed to reduce the government’s expenses.

Of course, the President had some confidence inspiring advice for the American people. First, there was Obama’s revelatory slip that “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

The President, who likes to keep the Oval Office at 77 degrees, then told his fellow citizens: “we can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” (since when does the United Stated depend on other countries okaying their actions?) One can only hope that this White House sponsored diet doesn’t interfere with wagyu steak Wednesdays at the home of Dear Leader. It would be a real travesty if the First Family and all their friends were deprived of a taxpayer funded, $100 per serving, delicacy.

This is also the same President who admonished his fellow Americans that the United States cannot continue to consume 25 per cent of the earth’s resources. As if it is President’s job to tell Americans how ro run every last detail of their lives.

Barack Obama believes in a future of limited possibilities, with an America stuck in a state of perpetual decline – just like the ‘experts’ and Jimmy Carter believed in the 1970s. Contrast that view with that of Ronald Reagan who told his fellow citizens “we have every right to dream heroic dreams… after all why shouldn’t we, we are Americans.” The United States is too great a nation to be shackled by an inept and pessimistic leader.

Under President Obama the nation is suffering from a crisis of confidence, and rightly so. Today’s crisis of confidence is the same as the one that befell the country in the 1970s. It is not a lack of confidence in the United States, it is a loss  of confidence in the man behind the Resolute Desk.

Freedom’s Enemies See Weakness in Obama

This week I have written a lot about defense spending, and the need to ensure that the United States maintains the world’s premier fighting forces. “If we know anything, it is that weakness is provocative,” as Secretary Rumsfeld said. President Obama has demonstrated the validity this axiom time and again.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that North Korea has been aggressively pursuing their nuclear weapons program. Today, North Korea fired artillery shells at the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong, in the most serious military action in Korea sine the 1950-53 war.

The bottom line here is that Freedom’s enemies see a weak American president and they want to capitalize on this opportunity. President Obama has been gutting the military (Michael Auslin’s article on the hollowing out of the Air Force is frightening), pandering to dictators, and snubbing allies. The logical result of Obama’s actions is a challenge from America’s enemies.

The last president to look as impotent as Obama was Jimmy Carter. If you are looking for a single person to blame for the current regime in Iran, you can look to Jimmy Carter. President Carter’s asinine handling of the the Shah of Iran and the jihadist revolution is the reason that Iran is ruled by a genocidal death cult, as opposed to staunch Western ally. The incompetence of one president can change the geopolitical map forever.

Enemy regimes see the Obama presidency as an opportunity to advance their goals and fill the power vacuum the United States is creating. What will Obama do about the North Korean’s actions? Denounce them in at the next United Nations meeting? Nothing scares maniac dictators more than a mildly worded letter threatening future, more sternly worded letters, from a bloated and worthless bureaucracy.

China is North Korea’s enabler. They keep the despotic regime afloat. The Chinese see a pesky North Korea as a valuable distraction to be used against the United States. While the United States is focused on North Korea, the Chinese have been able to expand their power and influence within Asia.

Knowing that North Korea is dependent upon China for essentially everything, North Korea would have had to clear today’s military actions with the Chinese. What if this is a rehearsal to gauge President Obama’s resolve? The attacks on South Korea could just be about Korea, or it could be about China preparing to move on Taiwan.

The ChiComs have coveted the Republic of China since the United States abandoned the free Chinese in favor of the communists after World War II. What would Obama do if China moved on Taiwan? Could the United States do anything that would anger their financier? Obama is weak and the world knows it. The Obama presidency will prove to be one of the most disastrous decisions the American electorate has ever made.

Strictly Right Radio with Pamela Gorman

On this Strictly Right, Andrew and Ari chat about political correctness in the healthcare system, Obama’s ‘big lie’ when it comes to healthcare, and whether or not Obama is Carter 2.0. All this and a great interview with Senator Pamela Gorman!

You can listen to this episode online here or subscribe to the podcast in iTunes.

Obama vs. the People

Today’s Drudge Report feature reads “CREDIBILITY CRISIS,” over which looms a picture of the President. Obama faces a revolt from within his own party. Democratic governors are pleading with Eric Holder to drop his “toxic” law suit against Arizona. The country is on high alert, with citizens across the Fruited Plane all coming to the same conclusion: that an unqualified incompetent is behind the Resolute Desk. This is what it must have felt like when Jimmy Carter was president.

The latest CBS News poll shows just how far the President’s standing has fallen among the American people. 24% of respondents believe that the effects of the Obama recession will last another two years, while a staggering 51% believe the effects will be felt for more than two years. Only 25% of American believe the economy is improving. One must assume that this 25% works in the government. 82% said that the condition of Obama’s economy is “bad.” And as for Obama’s policies, only a minuscule 23% of respondents said that the Porkulus helped the economy and an even smaller 13% said that Obama’s economic policies overall have helped in any way. President Obama’s overall approval rating on the economy according to CBS: 40%, compared to a 54% disapproval rating. Just last week a poll conducted by former Clinton hack James Carville revealed that 55% of Americans view Barack Obama as a “socialist.” Add these poll numbers up and they spell doom for the Democratic Party.

As more and more Americans leave the the workforce all together, President Obama continues to claim that his policies are working. How out of touch can he be? Democrats are poised to lose control of the House of Representatives this year, and the Senate is looking as though it may be in play, an astounding reality given the seats that are up, as well as the fact the the Democrats controlled 60 seats after election-night 2008.

While Obama’s policies have been an unmitigated disaster, what has been equally striking is his complete and total inability to lead. According to Rob Shapiro, a former Clinton official, all these poll results reveal that “Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership.” If even Democrats are being forced to acknowledge this, things are bad for the President. The Financial Times is reporting that off-the-record, Obama White House officials are almost uniformly negative in their outlook for the President’s future. The American people see a socialist, and they do not like what that entails.

Barack Obama continues to govern against the will of the people. He passed Obamacare, opposed by over 60% of Americans. He passed the Porkulus bill, $787 billion down a rat hole. Now, the President is on the verge of signing a fatally flawed financial regulation bill that most Americans either don’t care about, as they are part of the over 14% of the country that are unemployed, or they have looked at the bill and again do not like the statism they see. Seeing this trend, what do the Democrats say? According to John Fund at the Wall Street Journal, after the Democrats lose this November, the plan on pushing through union ‘card-check,’ cap and tax and a whole host of other unpopular measures. In response to a vote of no confidence from the American people, the Democrats will make a final effort to impose their statist agenda on the country. It truly has become a war between the voters, what the Constitution describes as “We the People,” and Obama administration.

Would Any Other President Do This?

Barack Obama has been gallivanting around the world, apologizing for the horrible, horrible country that elected him. He has apologized to Europe, the ‘Muslim world,’ China and I think Swaziland is next week. Now foreign leaders feel emboldened. They know that they can come to the United States and criticize the country.

Mexican President Filipe Calderon and Chairman O held a joint press conference at the White House today. At the event, President Calderon said, “such laws as the Arizona law, which is forcing our people to face discrimination.” The President of a foreign nation felt comfortable trashing the United States in front of the President of the United States, at the White House. Not to worry, surely Obama stood up for his country, right? Wrong. Instead, O piled on, saying “We’re examining any implications especially for civil rights because in the United States of America, no law abiding person — be they an American citizen, illegal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico — should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.”

There are so many things wrong with what Obama said it is difficult to know where to start. First, Barack Obama is the President of the United States of America. It is unprecedented and unacceptable for a sitting President to join a foreign leader in trashing the United States. Second, based on Obama’s comments I’d ask if he has even bothered to read the Arizona law, but I know the answer to that question. For the 1000th time, the law forbids “suspicion simply because of what [someone] looks like.” Third, by definition no ILLEGAL immigrant can be a “law abiding person,” hence the prefix “illegal.” There can be no doubt – President Obama hates America. Can you imagine any other president criticizing the United States and American citizens like Obama does on a regular basis?

…….besides Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter II

In Ronald Reagan’s autobiography he recounts how the Shah of Iran assured his supporters that Jimmy Carter and the United States would come to the rescue and that there was no need to crack-down on the Islamic terrorists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini. The Shah held that despite all his faults, he had been a loyal ally to the United States. We all know how that ended. Sadly, the pathetic Carter administration let the Shah fall. As a direct result of Jimmy Carter’s criminal incompetence, Iran went from being a strategic ally to the world’s foremost enabler of terrorism. 30 years after the Carter debacle America is plagued with an equally incompetent president: Barack Obama.

In a chilling article in The Australian Greg Sheridan details how Obama has accepted the inevitability of a nuclear Iran. Think about what you have just read. General Petraeus recently explained to congress that Iran is training Taliban leaders and is co-operating with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran is developing a missile program to carry nuclear warheads that can already strike Europe. Mahamoud Ahmadinijad, the Hitler of the Middle East, has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel of the map. He hosts a ‘Holocaust didn’t happen’ conference. He is a fanatic supporter of a splinter death-cult that believes the 12th Imam will be revealed only after the world has descended into widespread chaos. Ahmadinijad went so far as to widen the streets of Tehran in anticipation of the return of the 12 Imam. Taking all of that into account, President Obama has decided that he can accept this country obtaining nuclear weapons.

According to Sheridan, Obama was hell-bent on embarrassing Israel, and specifically Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in order to make it impossible for Israel to act unilaterally in defending herself. From Sheridan’s article:

By so isolating Israel, by irresponsibly unleashing a global wave of anti-Israel sentiment, especially in nations which normally support Israel, Obama has made the possibility of Israel considering unilateral action against Iran much more unlikely. The Israelis would weigh such action very carefully. There are many pluses and minuses. By creating the impression of Israel as a besieged, isolated and reckless nation, which the wildly disproportionate reaction to the East Jerusalem apartments accomplished, Obama has made the potential cost to Israel of action against Iran much greater.

The Obama administration no longer says “all options are on the table.” Instead, Obama touts his “I don’t want to meddle in domestic affairs” line (a courtesy NOT granted to Israel when it came to building in the nation’s capital). Hillary Clinton, the darling of the most recent American Israel Public Affairs Committee, will not mention the military option anymore. Instead, Hillary said “our aim is not incremental sanctions, but sanctions that will bite.” However, the Wall Street Journal reported just a week after Secretary Clinton reassured her faithful that “the U.S. has backed away from pursuing a number of tough measures against Iran in order to win Russian and Chinese support for one more U.N. sanctions resolution.” By the time that support arrives there will be a radioactive crater where Israel once was.

Even if, God willing, Obama is replaced by an adult in 2012, his reckless actions in the international sphere will have long-term repercussions. America’s credibility will be shot. Allies, already weary due to the signs of weakness conveyed by the United States, will see that the country let one of her loyalist and most important allies fall in the fruitless and discredited pursuit of appeasement. In December of 2001 Osama Bin Laden said “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” Will anyone consider Barack Obama’s America the stronger horse?

Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter’s second term. Carter began the disaster in Iran and now it appears as though Obama is going to finish the job. Democrats cannot be trusted. They throw loyal allies under the bus and appease the enemies of freedom. This is what the United Sates used to say about appeasement when the adults were still in charge: