Part Two: The Fiction and Non-Fiction of Obama
Posted on May 13, 2012 at 4:46pm by Tiffany Gabbay
In Part I of this report, we examined President Obama’s earliest role models and the influence each likely had on him as he shaped his worldview. With an anti-colonialist father, a mother who rejected Western society, a communist mentor, a domestic-terrorist benefactor, and an anti-Semitic preacher, the reasons behind Obama’s past and present actions come more sharply into focus. Below, we navigate through just some of the president’s questionable political positions. “Brave” enough to order the killing Osama bin Laden…but had a back-up memo to blame the military in case it went wrong?
The entire Obama administration along with the American left has heaped praise on the president for his “daring” and “brave” decision to send a Navy SEAL team into an Abottobbad compound to assassinate 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden. In fact, Obama has even used the accomplishment as the crux of his latest campaign ad — a move even liberal mediaite Arianna Huffington deemed despicable. Yet in April it was revealed that then-CIA Director Leon Panetta drafted a memo that included an escape clause for the president should the operation go awry [emphasis added]: “The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.”
In plain-speak, Obama chose to blame the military, through a patsy — in this case, Admiral McRaven — should the mission to kill bin Laden fail. Does this sound like something a Commander in Chief would or should ever do? The Wall Street Journal adds:
Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.
While it comes as no surprise that a politician might go to great lengths to protect his or her own image, a wartime president overseeing one the most redemptive moments for America in the wake of 9/11 (and who surely took the credit for all the glory) while at the same time plotting to use the military as a scapegoat in the event bin Laden’s takedown was botched, is beyond the pale by just about anyone’s standards.
Disdain for troops or plain indifference?
Considering Obama’s OBL-escape clause memo, it seems clear the value he places on military is questionable. While a U.S. president serves many roles during his or her term in office, their greatest responsibility lies in being “Commander in Chief” of the nation’s armed forces. It is perhaps for this reason more than any other, that the president’s gaffes, flubs, and insults where America’s servicemen and women are concerned are so egregious. Recall that nearly one year ago, speaking to the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, the president announced that a soldier (who had died serving in Afghanistan) was in fact alive. In his speech, he recalled a time when he awarded the first Medal of Honor to someone “not receiving it posthumously.” However, the deceased Jared Monti did receive the medal posthumously. Then, back in 2009, Fox contributors Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer criticized the president’s lack of leadership and reverence for soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan when they revealed that in a 20-minute long speech, the president did not use the word “democracy” once even though America established “the only functioning democracy among the 22 Arab states.” The two also noted that the Commander in Chief did not treat soldiers as warriors, bur rather as “victims.“ ”We lost a lot of good men and women in order to establish a democracy,” Krauthammer said. “And he, as commander-in-chief, did not even acknowledge that.”
There was another gobsmacking incident where the president displayed what even mainstream networks dubbed a shocking display of insensitivity. During a press conference to address the 2009 Fort Hood shooting in which 13 people were killed and another 29 injured by an Islamic ideologue, the president set aside compassionate eloquence to “give a shout out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.” He spoke for some three minutes before ever mentioning the shooting or those who paid the ultimate price.(Related: Do You Know Anybody Like Obama? Beck’s Latest Expose Could Go Down in History)Obama also came under fire after refusing to visit wounded troops, presumably because there was no photo-op in it for him.
Scrubbing the term “Special Relationship” from the lexicon
Now recall that Obama’s father was a staunch anti-colonialist. With this in mind, it might make sense that the president insisted on returning to Britain, our staunchest ally, the bust of “pro-colonialist” Winston Churchill — even though the move was an insult of epic proportions. The bust had been a loaned gift in the wake of September 11, meant to show the U.K.’s solidarity with America in a most grievous time. But this was not the only time Obama snubbed Britain. In fact, the Telegraph’s Nile Gardiner pointed out that this “world-class ‘statesmen’” has delivered no less than 10(11 if you count the embarrassing iPod for the Queen incident) beyond-the-pale insults to the nation with whom we supposedly shared a “Special Relationship.” Below is a list of how the ever-diplomatic Obama has handled that special relationship:
- Sending then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown a “gift” of improperly formatted DVDs that could not be played on DVD machines outfitted in the U.K. This of course was after Brown was denied a Rose Garden press conference, as well as dinner with the president when he was stateside. Gardiner said the move “would have shamed the protocol office of an impoverished Third World country.”
- Refusing to personally meet with Brown after no less than five requests while proceeding to “give him the run-around at the UN General Assembly.”
- Declaring neutrality over the Falklands dispute, a move dubbed “the most brazen betrayal so far of a US ally” especially considering 255 British soldiers died retaking the islands from Argentina in 1982.
- Downgrading Special Relationship by “not mentioning Britain once” in any major policy speech and expunging the term from use by administration officials fullstop.
- Undermining British influence in NATO by pandering to France. This was done by giving Parisa lead role in the NATO alliance at Britain’s expense, granting it one of two supreme NATO command positions – Allied Command Transformation (ACT).”
- Refusing to recognize Britain’s sacrifice of 250 servicemen and women in Afghanistan, as well as its stationing of 10,000 soldiers in the warzone. Gardiner writes that in contrast to George W. Bush, “who frequently thanked the British armed forces and people for their role in the War on Terror, Obama has spectacularly failed to do so.”
- Allowing White White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to belittle British press by stating that if it’s “truthful news” you want, Britain is not the place to look. “This kind of attack would normally be made against the likes of the North Korean or Iranian state media,” quipped Gardiner.
- Reducing the United States’ greatest ally to “nothing special.” This was reflected in the words of a senior State Department official following Brown’s chilly reception at the White House: “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”
It is difficult to think of another president who has ever treated Britain in such a disdainful way — but this is likely a nod to the influence of Obama’s father. Some speculate that Obama blamed Churchill for suppressing Kenya’s Mau Mau rebellion in which Hussein Onyango Obama was allegedly tortured. However, author Diana West notes that Churchill didn‘t become prime minister for the second time until the end of 1951 and that the Mau Mau Rebellion didn’t begin until the end of 1952, “one year after Obama‘s grandfather’s release.” She added that returning the Churchill bust likely indicates a “more an open breach in the Western continuum out of which a new orientation toward the Third World will become increasingly apparent.” In other words, Obama seeks to strengthen the U.S. relationship with the Third World while downgrading the relationship shared with other world powers — particularly ones viewed as colonialists like Britain.
Breaking with Israel
Following his lead with U.S.-Britain relations, President Obama has been no friend to Israel either.Friends with those who consider the Jewish State the “biggest obstacle to peace” in the region, the president snubbed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in much the same way he snubbed brown when refusing to share dinner with the Israeli leader. This of course seems small in comparison to the monumental sell-out that occurred when Obama’s declared to the world that Israel should “return” to its “1967 borders.” Nevermind the fact that there are no such borders but rather armistice lines, and that in either case, they are equally indefensible.
Of course, no mention of the president’s stance on Israel would be complete without mentioning his former instructor and friend, the late Edward Said. The pro-Palestinian activist and Columbia University professor openly condemned Israel, which he considered to be an illegitimate, colonialist state. There is that word again: “colonialist.” Said frequently bemoaned the “plight” of the “oppressed” Palestinians and was even a member of the PLO’s Palestinian National Council throughout the 1970s and 80s. He inevitably stepped down in 1991, allegedly in protest to the Oslo peace accords and to what he considered Yasser Arafat’s unduly moderate stance toward Israel. In 1998 Obama attended a speech by Said in which the scholar called for a campaign “against settlements, against Israeli apartheid.”
Given Obama’s apparent animus towards nations he deems “colonizers,” it comes as no surprise that he has abandoned one of America’s greatest ally, indeed the greatest ally in the Middle East. When examining the president’s view on Israel it also becomes clear why his administration supports the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood — a group whose own cleric recently declared that it was sending an army of martyrs to establish a Caliphate in Jerusalem. Ironically, administration official James Clapper infamously declared that the Muslim Brotherhood is in fact “secular.” Meanwhile, a new barrage of rocket-fire into Israel has begun emanating from the Sinai. But perhaps that is just a coincidence.
Voting against legislation that would ensure life-saving measures were taken to aid infants born alive after botched abortions
Outside of foreign policy, Obama’s actions at home are equally puzzling. It sounds like a line from the trailer of a horror movie, yet a September 2000 report from the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee observed that physicians at Christ Hospital in Illinois used induced labor as a means of aborting healthy late-term fetuses and infants “with non-fatal deformities” and that many of these babies ended up surviving the procedure only to be left to die. “Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with appropriate medical assistance,” nurse Jill Stanek testified.
Another nurse, Allison Baker, testified that these live-born infants were being deposited in “soiled utility rooms” where they were left to expire and Stanek recalled when an infant “was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.” The testimony continued in much the same gruesome fashion, after which a piece of legislation was introduced that would require physicians administer all life-saving measures possible when these botched abortions occur. MCCLPAC explains the bill:
Legislation was then introduced to require appropriate care for abortion survivors. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) defined as legal persons “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Further, “born alive” was defined as “the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.”
While this all sounds reasonable, Obama was the sole opponent of the legislation — not once but twice, the second time was during the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002. His reasons for voting against the bill, as laid out in an article by Stanek, include that it would: add undue burden to the mother; is a legal trick to define a fetus as a person (if a person then the aborted infant would be subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution); it would interfere with a doctor’s judgement; that there was “no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony”; it was all a ploy to derail Roe v. Wade. Regardless of his reasons, it bears repeating that Obama was still the only person who voted against the legislation. When one thinks of the Complete Lives System of Obamacare, this stance, too, might make sense.
Changing his stance on gay marriage nearing the election
Another of Obama’s contradictions stems from his stance on same-sex marriage. He claims to be a practicing Christian, and that his faith shaped his view that marriage is something that can only be shared between a man and a woman. Obama has since changed that tune — several times in fact — the latest instance being his declaration that same-sex marriage should be legal. Examine the inconsistency: The Blaze’s Billy Hallowell reported that in 1996 the then-state senator candidate affirmed his “unequivocal support for gay marriage.” “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” But by 1998 Obama, during another election cycle said he was “undecided” on the issue. Then, during a senate campaign debate in 2004 with Alan Keyes, Obama said that marriage is between one man and one woman and that he does not support gay marriage. Hallowell adds:
In 2004 (yes, another election year), Obama took a more middle-ground route, as he publicly supported domestic partnerships and civil unions. He also took the opportunity to say that, unlike his statement in 1998, he did not support gay marriage. “I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws,” he said. “I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about primarily just as a strategic issue.”
By the second year of Obama’s presidential term, he then hinted that a change of heart could be in store yet again:
“I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage,” he said. “But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”
During his announcement in May, 2012, Obama cited his gay and lesbian friends, soldiers and staffers as inspiration for the change of heart. He also explained that it was his Christianity that helped him to see that people in committed relationships should be allowed to marry. To the contrary, many believe the president was motivated by politics, rather than faith, especially given the suspect timing of his declaration.
Other anomalies and contradictions
During his expose, Beck noted a series of other seemingly unfathomable acts committed by either the president, his friends or members of the White House. From the administration member who declared that NASA’s primary goal should be ”Muslim outreach” to a first lady who once said that she was never proud of her country until her husband was elected president; from the president saying that the U.S. Constitution needs to become a “photo-negative” in order for it to make sense in today’s world, to an administration official declaring that our enemies are “not terrorists” nor jihadists — the list reads like something out of a fiction novel. And indeed that is what Beck said: Obama’s life is a “work of fiction”.