Authored by William Robert Barber
In an effort to engender some insight into the “cognitive being” of President Obama’s ideological temperament one must have an understanding of his founding social, economic, and political predeterminations. Obviously, the president is an outré’-liberal and a dedicated believer in the ideological doctrines of progressivism; nevertheless, his electoral appeal is what distinguishes the man. Firstly and principally the president is a politician of the left. Secondly, he is a Svengali extraordinaire; thirdly, he is a very flexible conniver. However, most of all, for white Americans ridden with guilt Barrack Obama offers a means of absolution for the despicable legacy of slavery and generations of “Jim Crow” discrimination.
The president challenges American exceptionalism as a myth and reverently believes that those that espouse such beliefs only aggrandized illusionary deceptiveness. It therefore follows that America must not assert but enjoin; it must not lead instead America should follow along shoulder-to-shoulder with co-equal allies. The president insists on a collective approach to American foreign policy. He is a firm believer in appointing the United Nations as the ultimate arbitrator of disputes; the president is an American second; primarily, he is a citizen of the world.
Of course, our president and his cadre of progressive-thinkers are not the first to conjure thus. In President Obama’s case, his political ideology has suppressed the palpable on-the-ground-reality and replaced such with a wistful regard for contrary empirical evidence. Although he strives to stay above the fray of the day-to-day chaos he instead, manages to unite wistfulness with an enigma of cautious hesitation so he responds by NOT arming the Ukrainian military, by mismanaging the Israelis, and until recently denying arms to Egypt.
Regretfully, President Obama is but one of many within American leadership that have governed by unconstitutional edicts and amazingly poor judgements : Eisenhower’s decisions to consider the Russians our allies and therefore condemning fifty-million peoples to Stalin’s whim and discretion. Prompted by the fear of Russian engagement Truman decided to allow and let stand China’s invasion of S. Korea, Eisenhower as a presidential candidate pledged to end the war in Korea instead of winning the war. If the Russians would remove, their missiles Kennedy declared Cuba would forever be free of American invasion. The bungling of N. Korean nuclear weaponry by the Clinton administration has produced a nuclear-armed gangster nation that threatens our S. Korean and Japanese allies. The Bush administration’s silliness of nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan has inflicted an intolerable price in blood. Obama’s decision not to leave sufficient combat troops in Iraq costing thousands of innocent lives and now promoting the idea that Iran can be trusted respective of their history of deceptions, lies, and bamboozling. The preceding is a short list of infractions brought on by naïveté inserted into incompetence.
When the naiveté (persons such as President Obama and Secretary Kerry) analyzes an event, issue, policy, or situation they presuppose that their counter-parties are rational and reasonable. The naiveté continue to presume that since reasonableness is the basis of their rational it follows that such a basis of thoughtful methodology applies to their counter-parties. Domestically the president’s broad answer to all knowledgeable problems are to deny, abate, or contradict the individual exercise of freedom and to enlarge the power of the central government. Thanks to the constitution we have an election every two years…