Tuesday, November 20, 2012

President Obama Backs Israel’s Right to Defend Itself, Sends Clinton on to Middle East, the Dem Base is Furious – Obama stance more to the Right than the Middle. Analysis





President Obama Defends Israel's Right to Self-Defense - image: bellenews.com

On Sunday, November 18, President Obama took a firm stand on Isreal’s right to defend itself (See Washington Post – Video of Press Conference) Further, the President has sent Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to the region to visit with Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and leaders from Egypt and Palestine to attempt diplomacy. However, President Obama placed the blame for the conflict in context, a statement issues by his deputy national security adviser, and suggested that the “crisis was precipitated by Hamas rocket fire from Gaza into Israel.”. (AFP via Google News)

To those in the middle and to the right, that stance is a turning point in viewing Barack Obama’s second term as regards to foreign policy, as more right leaning than left, and has won him kudos from hard-line, non-talking head, conservatives. What has been seen as the President’s base, however, is not at all pleased as they see Israel as the aggressor in the conflict, and as the “Palestinian Cause” is a hot topic on U.S. University Campuses where students are taught to ideals not reality. This has brought about some backlash on blogs and twitter over the President’s support of Israel. (Bloomberg)

Perhaps the President sees through the doctors photographs from the Palestinians (they do need Photoshop lessons), or knows that the Palestinians (back by Iran) are firing rockets into Israeli Civilian neighborhoods from playgrounds and heavily populated areas in the Gaza Strip. Perhaps, just perhaps, the President has seen the rising conflict as out of control and as aggressive towards the west, including the U.S., regardless of Israel’s involvement or not. Perhaps he has recognized we have one ally against those that are bent on world domination through the proliferation of radical Islam, and that ally is Israel.

It is the rhetoric that one must cut through, that deeply ingrained distrust of a man who is, literally, an elected, (or hired) official, who is attempting to do the best that he can. In that vein, one begins to understand that mistakes will be made, and that with a second term, perhaps he would be able to rectify the mistakes. One must also take into consideration that the President’s education and his belief structure may have been under the guise of those same radical elements that are teaching one’s sons and daughters – in other words, he is a victim of the left, no more or no less than one’s children or grandchildren. Perhaps, just perhaps, he is seeing things differently and is going to take the opportunity, not to side with one party or the other, but to do what he sees as the best course, without caring one bit if the stance is left center, or to the right.

What can we watch for, those of us in the middle or to the right, besides the apparent change in attitude (as suggested by all media) of the President’s stance on Israel’s right to self-defense? Perhaps it is the fiscal cliff that looms with no end in sight and a call by some in the administration to just continue to raise the debt ceiling. The Bush Tax cuts expire, and millions of middle and lower income individuals will be pinched by less take home pay, when the economy is still wobbling. One might suggest the President will insist that the tax cuts remain, tell Harry Reid to shut up, and stop stalling and pass a budget, and actually act more like a Tea Party Conservative than the leftist moonbat, elitist, that, for all intents and purposes, has defined the President from the right.

He has the mouthpiece (so far, that may change) of the Media, all of it, and has the ability to shout to the rooftops of the nation that he cannot get either party to move an inch. He may end up being the leader, the CEO, who started out without the credentials or the knowledge, and grew into the position.

Perhaps this is wishful thinking, and most likely one might note that one right move does not negate “Obamacare”, or the Czars, or the long litany of complaints, some reasonable, some not. It is true, that he took the Carter playbook and ran with it, but again, one must look at the educational system in this nation that lauds Carters as a great President – blinded by the type of Progressive Socialist ideology that continues to deny the fall of the Soviet Union.

What if, he sees the forest through the trees, understands that in his last term he has an opportunity to try and fix the mess this has become, and for his children, and all children, the rich and the poor, he changes his stance on everything from taxes to Healthcare, to defending those nations that need defense, while demeaning those that are the true aggressors. What if he is concerned that his legacy will actually end up being like Jimmy Carters? (In the real world, not the world of the College Campus Professors, who spout drivel (and by the by, know they are doing it - as suggested by one professor in particular, who noted that the masses could be controlled by the textbooks written to exclude facts they were not able to handle, as they were not “elite”.). He has access to books, and Historian’s opinions, and news clippings from the past, just as we all do, the President may finally find himself on the side of Reagan!

Then what would those who are partisan to the teeth do?


Final thought, when G.W Bush entered his second term, he was considered by his “base” to be more liberal than they preferred, as time went on, he became overtly “liberal” in his “compassionate conservatism”, creating new spending programs, putting an emphasis and the nations tax dollars into Aids Research, and his relationship with Mexico and the NAFTA agreement, got his face plastered to a Mexican Dollar Bill from those on the right. It’s all perception. When one stands on a side not often perceived as “right” or in the case of President Obama as “left”, and walks – squarely down the middle with some sanity present – they are vilified.

The solution – going backwards rather than forwards.


Our lives should be less about Republican’s and Democrats, and more about what we can do as a nation, as a people, to do what is right, morally right, for the poor, for the homeless, for the working class, for the middle class, rather than just believe in a political party. The political parties were not approved by our founders for good reason. (Read the Federalist Papers) The reasoning that Parties, rather than government would have the control, and the needs of the political party would supersede the needs of the people, corrupted on all sides by men’s natural inclination to turn a Representative position into a powerful position, for themselves, for their party – it is what truly is wrong with this nation. It’s past time, long past time, to hope for a leader that kicks the Party to the Curb, regardless of which Party it might be, and lead as though the Constitution were the only document that mattered, and that the individual was beholden not to a party but to the people, all the people.

Perhaps it is age, advancing rapidly, that allows for recall of a time when, regardless of Democrat or Republican, a President was, in truth, all the people’s President, even if they were Democrat, Republican, it mattered not. What mattered are a people united for one cause, or another, and concerned with helping one another, joined by a leader who understood that all constituents were just that. It was a time of naiveté perhaps, but holding President up to esteem, rather than glorification, was the norm.

One might hear that it is far too late, to make any changes, now, and that the United States is on a course of decline, as the middle class is destroyed, and those who do not want nor care to work, want “free stuff”, while the educators preach politics rather than math or science – there is, in effect, no turning back.

One can also disagree, and do whatever one can to right the wrong that one’s children have been taught, or to educate themselves or reeducate themselves away from those Progressives who teach a class system. They are the problem, and a serious problem, fanatics who turn out teachers, doctors, lawyers, and politician’s, all believing that on the basis of a 4 year or better degree, they are suddenly “elite”, that those blue collar workers, are beneath them, and those that do not have a job or are blue collar – are the “masses” who are not entitled to, nor able to, hear or understand the “truth”. That is the problem, the fact that our children and their teachers (or anyone who was educated after 1970) are endangered by this progressive system, and being denied access to a full education and the ability to become anyone. Fire them, and replace them with individuals who are able to teach the subject at hand, regardless of what that subject may be. Fire the unions, which are driven more by political power and the Progressive think than the Professors themselves. Imagine a classroom where basics are taught, along with respect, and every student understands that they have the ability to become anything they choose, even the President of the United States.

On The Class System:
“In Robert E. Weir’s, “Class In America , the so-called American Class system is discussed in detail – from the First Estate (Mayflower Decedents, regardless of wealth) to the Second Estate (the Robber Barons’), families that garnered great wealth and influence in the United States during the late 18th and 19th century (Included: familiar names such as Roosevelt, Carnegie and Kennedy), followed by the Upper Middle Class (the elite who have amassed large sums of money), the Middle Class (those who hold a 4 year college degree and therefore, can consider themselves to be “elite”), the Lower Middle Class (those who do not hold a four-year degree – and are considered “blue collar workers”), the Lower Class (those with no discernible education and/or skills). The later two often referred to as “the masses”. Outside of the halls of “higher education”, this is not discussed in detail, or brought up at all. (The "masses" could not "handle the knowledge") The “fact” that this nonsense of a "ruling class”, made up of individuals such as the Kennedy’s, is preached at a Colleges and Universities across the nation by those Progressive professors who are wedded the theories of Karl Marx and company, boggles the mind. It follows, therefore, that this “theory” allows for a certain sense of “entitlement” from those who are members of an “upper class”, and the certainty of those “newly minted elite” who have been taught (and bought into the bunk) that this nonsense of class systems is “acceptable”.

No comments:

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address
Subject
Message