(/\ /\ Click above to go Home, or Back to MainSection, or to the other numerous Wednesday Updates) 

----------

Wednesday Update

What we want to continue doing in some of these Wednesday Updates is begin to look at major events in the news in their larger historical context.... And maybe even how some things will be viewed in 50 years, 100 years or even 500 or 1000 years...

Subject: President Obama's First 100 Days...

(Wed., April 13, 2009)

(approx. 4065 words, 7 pp.)

This means, quite possibly, the question arises...

To continue from last time, with this Part 2...

Obama's supposed moral idealism is not just utopian, but represents terribly poor judgment and without question a certain antipathy toward America, time and again, because of our terribly "mixed" past, domestically and internationally. This is seen for Obama not just in America's domestic racist, sexist, and homosexual discrimination past (he says) but in America's terrible exploitation of developing countries over the last 50 to 200 years. This is yet another standard leftist/ Marxist canard for the most part, a very standard "wretched of the earth" argument, if you can really call it an "argument."

One example, among what seem to me to be endless examples in the book, is on pages 330 and 331 concerning Indonesia and other countries around the world where he makes sweeping anti-American, leftist generalizations without really giving any specific examples of our "mixed" ideals of the last 200 years in denying time and again "the legitimate aspirations of other peoples" around the globe. We have such a "mixed" record! Standard Obama here! He does not want to embrace the outright radical position, because he concedes that we have had at least some ideals that we were consistent to in the past, but tragically on the whole not nearly enough, etc. etc. And, therefore, the world "mistrusts" us, etc. etc.

Please note, this is not a traditional liberal view of a Carter or Danforth or even of a Bill or Hillary. The liberal is not on board that we have a serious 200 year history of denying people around the world their "legitimate aspirations." Classic radical left, Marxist nonsense. In fact, there is an entire body of literature which goes beyond traditional Marxist class exploitation by Europe, America, and Japan to ethnic exploitation of the colored peoples of the world, a la Jeremiah Wright's black liberation theology (that is, racial Marxism) or, again, "The Wretched of the Earth" (and all that business). Is there some truth to it? Yes, but not enough to form an entire foreign policy of accommodating one third world dictator after another! Totally ridiculous?

Obama's release of American interrogation techniques is consistent with his view that the key to America's future is to admit what he sees to be our great sins of the past, which, he feels, have alienated world opinion about us for centuries, etc. etc. This is one confusion on top of another, all based on his unusual far leftist view of American history. But to be fair, yet again, in his book (pages 92 & 93) he states up-front that he is in disagreement with American policy on the limits of interrogation. Fine, but that does not mean that actual war crimes are taking place, which is, in essence, Obama's position. But, again, this anti-American nonsense is pretty common on the far left. In truth, we have to have some guidelines, clearly, but where we draw them is a matter of dispute, not crimes against humanity, as it were!

What the release of the information really did was just the opposite of what Obama thought, namely, it showed the world that we do have scrupulous limits on how far we go! And many if not all the techniques we use to interrogate are used on our own soldiers in training, no less, to prepare them for a possible capture, etc. This is widely reported on some news. Further, Abu Ghraib was not torture but rather, in my opinion, a complete breakdown of military discipline that did not serve our cause well in that war to win hearts and minds! Some female general assigned to a task above her abilities, or at least it was also so reported on the news.

In any case, the release of the interrogation techniques and exposing the limits of our techniques was opposed by both liberals and conservatives in both political Parties (as has been widely reported) but not by the far or radical left or Obama. The problem here is once you start down a possible "war crimes" path against American political opponents within our own country over legitimate policy disputes, you are opening a can of worms that is better left closed and is unprecedented to say the very least? However, our adversaries around the world have been wanting to do this for years, and now Obama appears prepared to do their dirty work. Indeed, he made this move, you will recall, just after his now infamous consultations with various Latin American leftist dictators! (A bit weird if not interesting one must say?)

What form should the prosecutions take? Perhaps a Nuremberg II, as some in the Obama camp have suggested? Look, Obama is a legal scholar, I am not! But if he is convinced that true war "crimes" have been committed and must be exposed to the world community to maintain our good name around the world and restore our image in history, then prosecutions must be done? And justice must be had? Maybe we could do a Nuremberg II in Geneva or Johannesburg and have a world tribunal to try the obvious Nazis-type war criminals Bush, Cheyenne, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, etc.

Just think how this could, at last, unite the world in peace, love and justice! And with America leading the way! And with Obama leading America! What a visionary leader we have! This is an opportunity that we may never see again for America to be liked around the world, and to show unprecedented world leadership, and to establish peace on earth in our time! Of course, some Americans hold another view and see President Obama to be something of a confused camper and a highly misguided one at that, while seeking his own total power, which is often a problem with such "visionary" leaders?

It is America's ideal that we are from our founding "the world's last, best hope," as Lincoln said specifically. Americans prior to Obama have seen this as our legacy, you might say whether we really are or not, but I personally think it is the case and it can be argued convincingly, because of the phenomenal and unique nature of our founding in all history.

However, we have hardly been "perfect"! And because of this Obama clearly indicates he has a love-hate relationship with America, and her "mixed" past, which he simply cannot get over, try as he might because of his insightful understanding of our many tragic flaws. However, again, someone like Jeremiah Wright has a simple hate relationship with America, which Obama refuses to embrace, to his credit, though he understands the Wright position and why Wright feels the way he does, understandably.

Obama outlines explicitly and implicitly America's failings as moral failings, and he sees himself to be achieving and even outlining, outright, a morally superior position to all who came before him in America because no one previously has had his particular "citizen of the world," radical multicultural, redistribution vision for hope and change for changing the very foundations of America that will begin with his administration, and so on, and so on. He is not only up front about this; it seems to me to be the very point of his book, and indeed his entire Presidential campaign. "Yes we can, yes we can ," etc. etc.

To Obama's credit, there is no deception here. This particular political rhetoric of endlessly outlining America's real and more often than not imagined sins of the past makes millions of people's hearts on the left go pitter-patter, pitter-patter while millions of conservatives listen in shock and dismay, and even fear that he really believes all this radical leftist, postmodern, radical multicultural, atheist/humanist cant. "Yes, we can" what? No one seems to know what this visionary’s vision is! But traditional American "conservatives" and "Christians" are the bad guys! That is all we can know for certain!

There was much to do about the report which came out in the first 100 days which labeled pro-life people, and Bible Christians who believe in "the end times," and people who believe in states' rights and limiting federal power as in the tenth amendment, and some gun owners, etc., as potential terrorists. Does this surprise me? Not if you read Obama’s book. On page 46 (to name one place) Obama sees conservative Christians to be, in essence, intellectually deficient and virtual nutcases, and this is just one example among many of his not-to-favorable views on conservative Christians.

I think, again, he is being honest, and he truly sees conservatives and libertarians, and Bible Christians to be misguided, uneducated, highly prejudiced and potentially even violent and dangerous, and possibly even plotting counter-revolution and all that baloney. In my view, this probably is not mere political rhetoric to satisfy his radical political base, but it might be? Clearly, this is not the view of the traditional liberal but it is a common view of the radical or far left, which Obama is simply a representative of, just as Carter and Danforth for their part are representative of Christian and political liberalism.

I think Obama has really thought about things; his book is over 400 pages long! But his faulty thinking and cloudy moral vision is almost always in terms of his given, tragic life experiences as a child (which he himself outlines) and a so-called "politically correct" 1980s academic training, both of which he is a victim of, in my opinion. As the expression goes, "The philosophy of the classroom in one generation, becomes the philosophy of the government in the next generation." Regardless, in truth, much in Obama's book is at least somewhat standard far left stuff of the 1980s universities, and definitely not standard liberal stuff. And this also explains much of his prejudicial views of conservatives in general and Bible Christians in particular.

He has very little good to say about traditional Christians in his book, and on page 116 he associates, if not equates, pro-life picketers with animal rights terrorists who blow up buildings. This means the Report on Right Wing Terrorist Extremists, etc., should come as no surprise. In the long run all of this clear confusion and "vision" by Obama might do little more than wake up the sleeping giant of the church into galvanized opposition to him and the Democrat Party generally. Labeling one's political opponents, as in effect, potential violent enemies of the state is a really stupid idea, but I think he does it, as in the Right Wing Terrorist Report, because he "must," I think, and because he thinks it is true, and because he is being true to his convictions, etc. etc. Prepare for massive government surveillance? But not much to find among any "conservatives" and "Christians" I know...

How will this play out politically? Who knows!

It is my personal opinion that Obama has little to fear politically from conservatives, and conservatives are certainly not on the verge of violent revolution. He should have let sleeping dogs lie there. However, the Right Wing Terrorist Report will allow him to do legal surveillance and wiretaps presumably, which also, presumably, is his goal. The truth is there is no upside for Obama in all of this. Mother Teresa is not about to blow up the Pentagon in my opinion. But what do I know? She may have left behind detailed plans for her followers? You can't be too careful about these "pro-life Christians"?

In my opinion, Obama's real potential problem politically is if he alienates the moderate left, then he and the Democrats are both toast in 2010, big time. But that is hardly his only problem, politically! This would mean the real threat to Obama is not from conservatives outside the Democrat Party, but potentially from opponents from within his own political Party. Why? Millions see Obama to be a messianic figure, of course, but I can assure you professional Democrat politicians are not [I previously left out the "not" on this, a central point; how many times have I done that over the years? Too many, but regardless...] laboring under any such delusion. It is my personal opinion, or speculation at least, that Bill and Hillary are sitting around just waiting for Obama to self-destruct, which he is quickly doing with incredible and unprecedented speed?!

I would even go so far as to say if the hardball Democrats see Obama to become a truly serious liability to themselves and to their entire political Party, they, themselves, will go nuclear and push the citizenship/ birth certificate thing (or something similar) in order to take him out? In short, the whacked out Democrats may let Obama lead the country over the cliff, no problem! But if they think he is leading the Democrat Party over the cliff, he is "gone," hasta la vista, in my opinion. They will not let him take them down in historical terms, but maybe they will go down with him if he continues down his radical path?

Obama says his mother was an atheist, and that he would have remained as her, a non-religious "citizen of the world," if the "black church" (specifically) had not been involved in political activism, which is why he joined it. (pp. 241 to 246) These are relatively brief passages, though key ones, on his core beliefs on God, religion, America, conservatives, and world history. This, to my mind, is any extremely "strange" thing to put in one's autobiography, but, again, an honest thing, and, again, to his credit. He says he did not join "the black church" for spiritual reasons so much as for black political activism reasons, and that was, in truth, many people's suspicion, and he simply and openly and honestly confirms it.

One must respect him for this, but this means, do the math, he joined his church not in spite of Jeremiah Wright but because of Jeremiah Wright. How interesting. But once it came out what was actually being taught in that church, Obama then said he had no idea what was being preached, though in his autobiography he had already said he joined that black church because of its black political activism. Again, how interesting? And, perhaps, a bit troubling for some? In any case, Obama's take on religion does not, again, represent a standard liberalism whether religiously or politically, as seen in typical (religious and political) liberal figures such as Jimmy Carter and John Danforth.

Without any question, from his own remarks (again, no one made him write the book), Obama has issues with the Christian Church in general, though he goes out of his way to exclude the black political activist Church (specifically) from his criticism, and the white liberal Church (whether Protestant or Catholic). As many atheists and humanists Obama may be driven by irrational, almost even pathological anti-God passions, but they seem reasonable, normal, even insightful to him from his leftist education, and he occasionally even makes some pretty good points in my opinion. Still, he is a product of the 1980s education system, and his past, of course, as we all are, but his was a troubled one, tragically; he says in his autobiography.

There is no love of God, nor even real belief in God in his book, nor positive view of the traditional Church, all of which is typical of the humanist, of course, and this is just as there is little or no evidence of a love for America, which is equally typical of the far left. In fact, the hate speech movement, generally, of the far left and of the postmodern/ homosexual left is aimed specifically at Christians as is well known, but curiously Obama's wanting to allow only 28 cents on the dollar for charity tax deduction, etc. is also aimed most specifically at the church, big time. It is clear whom he sees to be his political opposition? This is again typical of the far left and not the moderate or merely liberal left.

Traditionally Dewey, humanists, radicals, community organizers, Marxists , etc. hate the church, and openly express such sentiments, though Obama clearly does not. In fact, the (self-avowed) humanist Obama has brilliantly made a pact with the black church in particular and more generally with the white liberal (theologically apostate) church in order to create a winning political force in American politics, which I think will continue to be successful until he eventually alienates the moderate left economically, socially, politically, and virtually every other way! Give most people enough rope, and they will eventually hang themselves? But in this case things seem to me anyway to be unfolding with a weird and even uncanny speed? This is why I think if the Republican cannot win in 2010, 2012, 2016, and so forth, they should get out of politics!

There are times where Obama does not tell the truth, and he seems to go out of his way not to, for some reason. He spends 4 trillion dollars and at the same time talks about cutting spending. Why bother? Either spend the money as important and necessary or don't, but do not spend the money and then go on to talk about it as really being "cuts." This makes no sense to me. Or, Obama talks about spending the 4 trillion, which is 4000 billion while saving 100 million in office supplies, which is a tenth of a billion. This is like spending $4000 while saving a tenth of a dollar or 10 cents. All a bit crazy and hard to figure out, as is his stand on Iraq?

The primary focus and momentum for Obama presidential campaign (as he has acknowledged) was an anti-Iraq policy, and that only he of all the major candidates had foreseen the failure that the Iraq war would prove to be. Again, only he had had the greater vision, and understood that all we would do is continue to alienate the rest of the world, as we have so much of the time over the last 200 years, etc. etc. Iraq, indeed, may have been a stupid idea, but so what at this stage in the game?

Interestingly, now that that war seems somewhat "won," no one has commented on the fact that Obama has quite a bit of egg on his face, and further, and even more interesting, now that he is President his actual policies are almost identical to the literal great war criminal himself, George W, Bush! The policy? A slow draw down of troops over the coming years as circumstances allow? My goodness, who would have thought it! Not one major commentator could see this flip-flop coming! Only good ole Rush who called this completely at the very beginning of the Democrat Primary, no less! Life and politics are really crazy these days? What we really have going on here, in my opinion, is not politics, but a fundamental clash and complex interaction of three basic worldviews: conservatives, moderate (spiritual) liberals, and the radical far left (humanist/atheists).

There is huge difference between Jimmy Carter's political and religious liberalism and Jeremiah Wright's black liberation theology (which is little more than a self-professed racial Marxism). Obama sees himself to be in the middle of these positions not wanting to openly embrace the moderate liberalism of Carter nor an extreme leftist position of Wright, but in the end due to the influence of his mother and his ethnic background, he says, he comes down closer to Wright, and I think that is true. Look at it this way. Carter and Danforth do not embrace or champion, say, homosexuality but they want to "tolerate" it in order to maintain social unity and oneness, etc. and the same could be said of their view of Jeremiah Wright and the far left generally, where Carter and Danforth do not want to embrace or champion the far left but merely tolerate it, as well.

The far left is not merely amoral (as most modern humanism), and as Carter and Danforth, but rather the far left is openly hedonist and postmodern, and, hence, generally radically multicultural, and often even anti-American. I can pretty well assure you that neither Carter, Danforth, nor Bill Clinton is not staying up burning the midnight oil trying to figure out whether to go with George Washington and the founders or Jeremiah Wright and the radicals, as Barack Obama says he does. And, of course, this is just as the radical multicultural and postmodern Sartre, who cannot decide between Hitler and Mother Teresa! (Poor guy! Another tough call for many!)

In any case, the conservative does not want to "tolerate" nor "embrace" the radical, he wants to "denounce" both hedonism and radical leftist politics as wrong, simple enough? Just three different views, take your pick? Philosophically, clearly, which of the three camps is Obama in? The far left, postmodern one, without any question, and he champions their causes, big time, big mess? The problem is clearly not Obama as such, he is just a representative of the far left position. The problem is the shift in these three worldviews represents the decline and fall of the American culture, education, politics, and civilization, with alarming speed, since the 1960s though the seeds were sown in the 1920s and 1930s with the rise of modern humanism in education and spiritual liberalism in religion. Modern humanism in education and spiritual liberalism in religion tend to be amoral and are not overtly pro homosexual, pro radical feminist, pro abortion, outright hedonistic, etc. as so-called postmodernism, which is also radically multicultural and unable to say one cultural is really any better than any other.

Look, the decline and fall of the Roman Empire was a long, slow process, as many have pointed out. And it was a moral decay from within that eventually weakened it to such a degree that it was not able to defend itself from invaders, but, by the end, the Empire was pretty much a mess and not doing very well anyway. Eugene Weber has a great line in his Western Tradition video series; he says that many ask, "Why did the Roman Empire fall? The better question (he says) might be "How did it last so long?" Whether one accepts traditional Western values or simply Biblical ones, or not, from both of those historical and philosophical perspectives, America has been in extreme spiritual, moral, social, cultural, intellectual, political and legal free-fall since the 1960s. All agree.

The disagreement is over whether this is good or bad, or not! Postmodernists (that is, radical multiculturalists) and traditional, rational moral theists disagree here! Still, given previous patterns of history in, say, the Roman Empire, a culture and civilization can decline and fall for generations and even centuries. And, hence, such may continue to be America's fate for the next 50 years, or even 100 years. On the other hand, there are examples in history of "sudden destruction," as it were, by natural disaster, disease, invasion, etc. or a combination of these things. Frequently, such "sudden destruction" is often associated with the Judgment of God, whether in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, or in the Babylonian captivity, or in Sodom and Gomorrah. Is such a thing possible for America and even the world? In my opinion, yes, for a variety of reasons. But to consider the reasons for that opinion on "the end times" we will have to wait for the final Part 3 of this Wednesday Update miniseries, "With a Heavy Heart," coming Wednesday, May 20, 2009, as planned now, anyway, after which we can resume A Just Republic series... (There are only so many hours in the day for the kid, who is also doing 4 videos a week at this time!!!)