Obama's Three Premises
Based on President Obama's actions of the past seven years, one can surmise that his worldview is based on three major premises. His economic perspective is deliberately aimed at weakening the United States. Thus, despite the disastrous past history of mandated government directives that forced banks to provide sub-prime loans, Obama and company are at it again forcing banks to engage in risky loans. In "separate new reports to Congress, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reveal Obama regulators are pressuring them to back high-risk home loans for 'very low-income' borrowers." Both mortgage companies are being "forced to accept mortgages with as little as 3% down."
And most telling, they must "[y]ield disparate results based on the race of the borrower." If that were not enough, one learns that the government is allowing "lenders to use unemployment benefits as source of income." And these mandates will not expire until 2019.
So here is a recipe for unmitigated economic disaster.
Another of the downward economic spirals produced by Obama and his minions is the looming student loan crisis, which is being manufactured and perpetuated by this White House. Twenty-seven percent of student loans are delinquent, of about one trillion dollars of student loan debt owed to the federal government. And while Obama continues to harangue about the difficulties that students have concerning mounting college costs, the real problem is that "in 2010 Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program," which "let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates." But as with everything that Obama touches, now there is only one place to get a loan -- big government. Consequently "federal direct student loan debt has climbed by more than $100 billion." But Obama, the compassionate, has made it increasingly easier for students to avoid paying back student loans in full; thus, it is a problem that American taxpayers will have to shoulder -- along with the $18 trillion+ debt, courtesy of Obama.
Obama's second premise is that America must pay mightily for its success and its hubris. To that end, Obama concedes all safety precautions that a leader would insist upon in dealing with "Death-to-America"-chanting Iran. But one need only consider Obama's reaction to the 9-11-2001 attacks to understand his moral compass and his antipathy to the United States. On September 19, 2001 a storyran in the Hyde Park Herald containing then-State-Senator Barack Obama's response to the 9-11 events. Obama had this to say of the heinous actions of that day
We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.
So with 3,000 Americans dead, and with fears of more terror to emerge, Obama was concerned with the murderers' "despair." Not once did he use the term "terrorism." Not once did he speak of an ultimatum response towards the jihadists. Instead this Islam-educated man seeks compromise and a meeting of the minds with people who in twenty minutes just changed the entire landscape of this country. Instead Americans are supposed to "imagine the sufferings" of murderers.
Are we then surprised when only a decade and half later, Marie Harf parrotsher boss and asserts that America needs,
"in the medium and longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups." One root cause, she went on to explain, was a lack of "gainful employment."
That shouldn't be too difficult with the porous southern border that Obama continues to exploit with his unconstitutional maneuvers on illegal immigration. And, courtesy of the American taxpayer, Obama is flying in more illegals.
Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, confirmed that under the State Department program, the Obama administration will fly children at taxpayer expense into the U.S. as refugees, and the ones who don't qualify as refugees are going to be admitted under parole.
What it amounts to is that President Obama just gets to admit whoever he wants to let into the country.
But the leader of the free world has the temerity to castigate those who question Loretta Lynch's confirmation as U.S. attorney general even while she admits she will not adhere to federal immigration law, but will merely be the latest in the line-up of Obama's minions for whom the Constitution is an impediment. It is high time for the Liar-in-Chief to be embarrassed. But shame and embarrassment occur only when there is the awareness of having done something wrong or foolish. Obama's worldview is not consistent with the foundational heart of America's founding. He sees nothing wrong whatsoever in his actions. Thus, his opprobrium against America continues because we, as a nation, are wrong. Our values are distorted; our strengths are our weaknesses; our foundations are ill-begotten and need to be dismantled. His contempt for the nation is the correct reaction for Obama.
And thus, we find Obama will agree to a "phased-in relief to sanctions" for Iran with absolutely nothing in return but empty gestures. In other words, Iran has merely to sign a piece of paper and, voila, it will "gain access to these funds [between $100 billion and $140 billion]. As Lori Lowenthal Marcus writes, "[t]hink of it as a signing bonus given to desired major league players just for agreeing to come join the team, without ever having to even pick up the ball to play." Consequently, in 2015 with the Middle East being overrun by ISIS, Obama is concerned with Iran saving face as long as he can claim that he made a deal.
Although rational people cannot comprehend the madness that is emblematic of Obama's dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran and other enemies of America, it is critical to understand that this is exactly in line with Obama's perspective. He has no problem with the anti-American stance, the antisemitism of the players and the visceral hatred of freedom that mark these groups' ideologies. He appears to be indifferent about the murderous terrorist regime that wishes to spread across the world; he will not acknowledge the bestiality of ISIS because after all sin-filledChristian and Jewish America must continue to wallow in guilt and accept a punishment that is long in coming. Furthermore, from his worldview it is a righteous reaction to imperialistic America, notwithstanding the Islamic jihadist imperialists-on-steroids that bring true destruction and terror. Consequently, the words of veteran Brian Kolfage, fall on deaf ears because Obama sees what he is doing as a success, not as a failure.
The third part of Obama's triad of ideological premises is the one that seeks to demoralize America. He has set in motion painful policies like Obamacare that adversely affect far too many Americans. The IRS and Benghazi scandals continue to be hidden. The wrong doers are never punished. Furthermore, sneak that Obama is, the most potent effects will not be felt until after he has completed his term. Thus, when Republicans are in the majority and the full brunt of Obamacare policies hits like a ton of bricks, the mewling press will continue the screed that it is the racist, women-hating Republicans who brought this onto the public. Cause and effect simply do not matter as the nattering fools of the mainstream media. No one will connect the dots back to Teflon-coated Obama and his rather masterful machinations of the past two terms.
Natan Sharansky, former political prisoner of the Soviet Union, writes "the real reason for the U.S. stance [with Iran] is not its assessment, however incorrect, of the two sides' respective interests but rather a tragic loss of moral self-confidence." In the past "U.S. administrations of all stripes felt certain of the moral superiority of their political system over the Soviet one. They felt they were speaking in the name of their people and the free world as a whole, while the leaders of the Soviet regime could speak for no one but themselves and the declining number of true believers still loyal to their ideology."
Obama does not believe in the "superiority of liberal democracy." His core belief is to degrade America and American law in every way possible
Thus, there has been no surrender on the part of Obama because what is happening is what he always wanted to have happen.
Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment