Blog Archives

Obama is a very successful president – to the detriment of the country

The U.S. pollsters on citizen’s satisfaction/dissatisfaction with their life in the country:

Only one quarter of the U.S. population is satisfied with their life while three quarters are dissatisfied.

About 80-85% of the population believe the government has been incapable to resolve the country’s domestic and international challenges.

President Obama’s on the U.S. domestic affairs:

He proposed an unprecedented increase in additional taxation of all citizens by $1.759 trillion over ten years that will come in the form of a couple large tax changes, numerous small tax changes, and new fees. His actions bought an unprecedented increase in the budget deficit from $9 trillion to over $19 trillion that everybody would be forced to pay in the near future. All that and myriads of business-constraining regulations were done in the name of narrowing the nation’s income inequality – and, although it was not openly pronounced, of narrowing the income inequality between the USA and the developing countries.  

Senator Josef Lieberman on the U.S. foreign affairs:

The simple fact is that there is more instability in the world today than at any time since the end of World War II. The threats come from emboldened expansionist powers such as Iran, Russia and China, and also terrorist aggressors such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. In short, the enemies of freedom are on the march.

At the same time, the United States, which assumed global leadership after World War II to protect our domestic security, prosperity and freedom, has chosen this moment to become more passive in the world.

Thus, we are failing in domestic and foreign affairs, our taxation burden is growing and our people are nervous. If it is so, how Obama can be considered a very successful president?  

Success or failure of a president, or any other elected or non-elected public figure, should be judged by assessing how far a president or any public figure has advanced his/her declared goals. If the declared president’s goals of Obama were to have most of the citizens satisfied with the state of their life, then his presidency should be considered a failure.

However, Obama had different goals and his goals have been clearly pronounced in his famous June 2009 Cairo speech. Here they are, extracted from the original text.

  • The Western civilization is in debt to Islam. It was Islam that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. … Let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America.
  • Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. However, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
  • America’s strong bonds with Israel are based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

And here is how Obama has advanced his goals.

  • In the U.S. and abroad, President Obama has never reminded his audience that the foundation of the Western civilization is the Judeo-Christian, Bible-based moral principles, and Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment are based on these principles. Probably, he does not believe that is the case. Moreover, he has been trying to suppress wherever is possible the appearance of anything considered to be Christian in the government activities and he has never attended a true Church service. His withdrawal from the Islamic Middle East has created a tsunami of Muslim immigration to Europe that may indeed remake the Western civilization from the Judeo-Christian, Bible-based one to the Islamic, Quran-based one.  He has increased the Islamic immigration to the USA as well.
  • Although the fact is that the Muslims – in the name of the Islamic laws – have committed almost all terrorist acts in the USA, Europe and the Middle East he has directed the government to fight the “intolerant gun owners” instead of fighting the “tolerant Islamists”.  (Those “tolerant Islamists” just recently killed the Islamic governor of Punjab province in Pakistan over his call to reform strict blasphemy laws that carry a death sentence for insulting Islam.)
  • Although he did not phrase it that way, his language suggests that a position of the “partial BDS” or “Zionist BDS” that was considered beyond the pale just recently is now apparently mainstream enough for him. Why? Because in his view the creation of the Jewish state of Israel was not the result of fulfilling the Judeo-Christian prophesies, as the true Jews and Christians believe, – it was just the result of “tragic history”.

Thus indeed, President Obama is a very successful president since he has been able to move the country and the world along the lines of his goals – of course, to the detriment of the country as the public opinion polls have clearly demonstrated.

All US and Israel misfortunes are not Obama’s blunders – he has intended to do so

Many critics of Obama are explaining the decline of domestic and foreign fortunes of the USA during the Obama presidency by his inexperience in everything – in business, in politics, in management, in diplomacy, etc. His inexperience, the critics say, leads to his strategic mistakes in domestic and foreign affairs.

Here are some of Obama’s foreign-affairs “mistakes”:  

Helping, sometimes unsuccessfully, to bring Muslim Brotherhood to power in Middle East countries such as for example Egypt and Libya. 

Alienating Washington’s traditional American allies in the region such as Israel or Saudi Arabia.   

Not restricting Iran from obtaining nuclear weaponry in spite of Iran’s strategy of “Death to Israel and America”, and alienating anti-Persian Arab countries by not preventing Iran from becoming the hegemon of the region.

Encouraging dictatorial tendencies of Erdogan of Turkey who is reshaping Turkey from a democracy to a Muslim autocracy.

Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely, dooming the vast American investment in those two countries.

Not resisting Russian attempts to expand its autocratic sphere of dominance.

His domestic-affairs “mistakes” are impressive as well:

Increasing social polarization of American society (blacks vs. whites, females vs. males, immigrants vs. citizens, police vs. blacks, rich vs. poor, Republicans vs. Democrats, House of Representatives vs. Senate, etc.).

Sharply increasing national debt.

Using IRS and other government agencies to suppress political adversaries.

Disrespecting the US Congress as a constitutionally equal branch of government.

If one thinks the Obama’s strategic goal from the very beginning of his presidency was to preserve and strengthen the uniqueness and greatness of America in domestic and foreign affairs, then all in the above are just innocent mistakes – he honestly intended to do Good in everything in the above but due to his immaturity the result turned to be Bad.    

Unfortunately, that is not the case. From the very beginning, Obama’s strategic goal, as he stated it many times in his books and speeches, of course in a double-speak language, was not to preserve and strengthen the uniqueness and greatness of America.

His strategic goal was an opposite one – to diminish the uniqueness of America since, in the Obama’s vision of the world, America is an impediment to a “better, as some may say Islamo-socialist world”.

How do we know about his strategic goal?

Immediately after the election victory, Obama proudly stated on many occasions that his goal is “to fundamentally change America”.   What are “the fundamentals” of America needed to be changed? They are well known and based on the Constitution and the after-WWII dominant role of USA in world affairs. Those fundamentals are:

  • The American-style democracy is a true democracy where the people, not the authoritative rulers of all kinds, govern the country.
  • The governance of the country is based on Judeo-Christian principles.
  • The country takes upon itself a noble mission of defending and strengthening the Judeo-Christian Western World.

What are evidences that Obama has been trying to “fundamentally change” the American-style democracy?
Just listen to his anti-democratic, autocratic language: My administration, My council, My advisers, Upon my order, I can do (whatever I want) by executive orders, and much more of the same nature.

Just remember his encouraging speeches, actions and even gestures about dictatorial countries like Turkey, Saudis, and Russia, and dictatorial ideologies of Koran and Sharia.

Just remember he is the first American president who has not been acknowledging the uniqueness and greatness of America in his speeches.

What are evidences that Obama has been trying to “fundamentally change” the Judeo-Christian principles of governing?

Just remember his spiritual mentors, advisers and friends who helped him create his spiritual vision of the world – all of them were ideological haters of Judeo-Christian America, such as Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, Frank Davis, Jeremiah Wright, and many more of the same anti-American mindset.

Just remember his admiration for Islamic tradition, religion and culture and never for anything Judeo-Christian.

Just remember his dislike of the State of Israel, miraculous rebirth of which was strengthening the Judeo-Christian foundation of our civilization.

What are evidences that Obama has been trying to “fundamentally change” the American mission of defending and strengthening the Judeo-Christian Western World?

Just remember his removal of American anti-missile defense systems from the countries of Eastern Europe, such as Check Republic or Poland, aimed at protecting the new Western Judeo-Christian democracies from Russian dictatorial threats.

Just remember he has frequently been reminding us about the real or alleged historic Christian atrocities and about the Israeli perceived sins related to “illegal settlements” while never mentioning the name of real perpetrators of the contemporary anti-Christian, ant-Jewish and anti-Israel atrocities that is Islamic terrorists and warriors of Allah who commit their crimes under the slogan “Allah Akbar”.

All in the above are the undisputable facts that support the feeling of many that the result of most of Obama’s actions that the people’s majority do not like are not the consequence of his inexperience – that is the outcome that he envisioned from the very beginning and achieved it.

Finally, a precise diagnosis of anti-Israel, anti-Western and pro-Muslim mindset of Obama

I have been writing on this topic for long time. However, this precise diagnosis is not in my formulation. That is in formulation of Michael Goodman in his article “Israel: be aware of Obama” at

First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet.

He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.

Now he’s coming for Israel.

Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?

Against the backdrop of the tsunami of trouble he has unleashed, Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, he is hinting he’ll also let the other anti-Semites at Turtle Bay have their way. That could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse. Read the rest of this entry

The advocates of two-state solution should realize it cannot be possible without settlements

Prime-Minister of Israel Netanyahu is accused for changing his mind – before he was against the two-state solution, now he is for this solution.

Those accusations are groundless – Netanyahu is interested not in “a solution” – he is interested in the true security of Israel. He may accept any solution if it brings the true security for the state of Israel and its citizens. So the question we should be asking is “can the two-state solution bring the true security for Israel”.

The true security has two major components. One of them is physical security that is the living in peace with the neighbors. The other one is spiritual security, and the spiritual security for many Jews is to live and worship peacefully in all places of the Promised Land even if parts of the Promised Land are governed by a non-Jewish authority. So the answer to the question “can the two-state solution bring the true security for Israel” is – may be if the Palestinians, the Arabs and the so-called international community reverse their approach on the Jewish settlements in the territories of a Palestinian part of the two-state solution.

The history has proven, and has proven with no uncertainty, when a country or a community is trying to get rid of Jews living among them it spells pogroms – from little ones like the desecration of everything Jewish to large ones like “broken windows” or “holocausts”. Read the rest of this entry

Now Israel has only one option in securing its future with Palestinians and Iran

Palestinians have changed their negotiating strategy with Israel. They have finally understood that Israel would not agree on any “final solution” that may allow Palestinians, with collaboration of the new anti-Semites of the post-WWII world, to eliminate the Jewish nature of the State of Israel. Therefore they have begun to act unilaterally with the help of an anti-Semitic UN, with an encouragement of some in Europe, and with anti-Israel Obama administration. That has left Israel with no other option but creating and implementing its own unilateral solution with a clear understanding its unilateral solution will be met with great resistance in Europe, in an Obama’s White House, and hopefully with no substantial resistance in a post-Obama USA. It looks like in the late 1970th and early 1980th the situation for an Israeli unilateral solution was much better. Read the rest of this entry

%d bloggers like this: