Canada Free Press
In 2008, the Democratic Party hoped that Americans were insecure enough and unhappy enough with the way things were in Washington D.C., that they would buy the “Change” brand, sight unseen. But it’s 2010 and the American People are quickly waking up to the real price of change.
The American People had thought that “Change” meant responsible management and a wake up call to the establishment. Instead, it proved to be the ad slogan that greedy and partisan Democrats used to fool the public long enough to claw their way and start spending money like drunken sailors. This alone might have been bad enough, though the public has become all too used to congressmen and presidents treating the US Treasury as if it was play money. But ObamaCare was one straw too many, because it was not just another decimal in the national debt anymore, it was a burden placed directly on the taxpayer, it was a tax added directly to household income, it was an attack on the health care system designed to benefit the people who voted for Obama because they thought he would pay their bills for them.
The “Trust” is gone now and the “Change” brand means something else than it used to. Today, Change means getting the Democrats out of D.C. And while the Democratic plan is still to run as the Candidates of Change, they are the candidates that the average voter wants to change. The Democrats have lost crossover Republicans. They’ve lost Independent voters. And they’ve lost a lot of Conservative Democrats too. The Change brand is gone. All that’s left is Hope, the hope that the shrinking number of their supporters will even bother to turn out in favor of the incumbents.
Roger L. Simon thinks Obama’s deranged, and Roger’s the son of a good psychiatrist, so he knows what he’s talking about. I don’t doubt that our president has his issues–just look at his nutty mother, consider the impact of being abandoned by dad–but I don’t think that just putting Obama on the couch is the best way to understand him.
Put him in the classroom instead. Because he’s the stereotypical American undergrad at a stereotypical Ivy League college in the age of political correctness.
He doesn’t much like America or Americans, or the “former colonial powers” like Britain. Like so many would-be intellectuals, he admires lefty writers and screenwriters and actors and actresses. He likes the downtrodden, like the Palestinians, but he’s overcome with awe for the occasional cool (non-Western) monarch or emperor (whether Arab or Chinese). He probably has a Che tee shirt tucked away in a drawer, don’t you think?
He doesn’t know much history (he thinks Muslims invented printing), geography (his America has 57 states), or economics (he believes you can reduce health care costs by adding millions to the public rolls).
The most important thing to this president is how you feel and what you say, not all those annoying facts (50 states, the Chinese invented printing, and you increase deficits when you spend more). And, like most students, when the debate goes badly for him, the president makes fun of his critics–when he actually lets them talk a little bit. Remember when he hosted a few Republicans in the White House so he could listen to what they might say about health care…and then talked twice as much as they did?
As a typical undergrad, Obama loves to talk, and loves to talk about peace and justice. You know, the really important things. His new nuclear policy is right out of a college bull session: “Why don’t we just promise not to use them?” Nukes are bad, ugly things. Doesn’t everyone agree that the world would be better off without them?
Well, grownups don’t necessarily agree. It all depends how you get there, and what the others do along the way. We do have real enemies, but our undergrad-president understands their ire and shares their pain. It’s up to us to make things right. And so he apologizes, worrying more about our nukes (about which he has done something) than Iran’s (we haven’t done a thing).
Finally, he doesn’t seem to realize what a mess he’s making. And when he gets his grades, he blames the professors (we the people, in this case) for being unfair.
That’s the sort we’ve been graduating for a generation or more, isn’t it? Did you really think we’d never get one as president?
Counterterrorism officials said on condition of anonymity that Obama’s advisors plan to remove terms such as “Islamic radicalism” in the new version of the document, which is still being drafted.
The US National Security Strategy is a document prepared periodically by the executive branch of the government for Congress. It outlines the major national security concerns and the methods to deal with them.
It currently states, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”
According to the officials, the move to rewrite the security strategy is part of an effort by the Obama Administration to send a message to Muslim countries that the US does not link them with terrorism.
Since taking office, Obama has purported to seek reconciliation with the Muslim world. During his landmark speech at Cairo University in Egypt in June 2009, Obama said that the US did not have any enmity with the Muslim world.
“The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims,” Obama claimed, adding that American Muslims have contributed to US development.
But it remains to be seen whether the omission of few words in the text of the new security strategy would ease the growing concerns of the Muslim world about the global intentions of the US that seem to target Muslims as major security threats.
Muslims are constantly reminded of the US conduct during the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan which involved many incidents of indiscriminate killing, torturing and detaining of many innocent civilians. The all-out US support of the Israeli regime and its military offensives against the Palestinians and the Lebanese is yet another reason for wide-spread Muslim suspicions against the United States.