From Broader View Weekly, April 10, 2009
In the rush to bring about the change promised throughout his long two-year-long campaign, President Obama has sought to differentiate his policies from those of his predecessor. We don’t have to look very hard to find evidence of this effort. Almost every news headline concerning Obama (and there are plenty as our American news media plays along at his heels, leaving tongue tracks on the carpet like a slobbering lap dog) exposes another “new” concept that when studied, shows nothing new.
“The Redefinition Express” leaves the station at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue each morning with a fresh load of freight. The freight consists of news releases and internal memos that are intended to present an image of a new administration that is entirely different.
It started with Obama re-packaging the Bush surge doctrine that worked successfully in Iraq, and applying it to Afghanistan. However, in the all the news stories about this surge of U.S. troop levels, the word “surge” has been purged. Why? Well, the answer is in the internal memos between Obama’s people and Senate leader, Harry Reid. Reid agreed to go along as long as that evil ‘s’ word was not mentioned.
In another silly example of Orwellian newspeak Obama’s people have been ordered to refer to our defense against the Islamic terrorist’s declared war upon us as anything but a “war on terror”. It seems we were wrong to assume the intent – of those who strap bombs to themselves and wander into populated areas, or to commandeer jets full of passengers and fuel – was to initiate terror. They were merely attempting to manufacture a “man-caused disaster”. We were the mistaken ones if we became terrorized while watching our fellow citizens and emergency workers buried unceremoniously beneath a mountain of concrete and steel.
I do not disparage Obama for trying to point out valid differences between himself and Bush. However, I do believe that words carry weight. If the terrorists declared war on us, then our response to their attack should be designated as part of that war. Likewise, if we are sending a surge of troops to Afghanistan, call it a surge.
Now, concerning the G-20 Summit and Obama’s capitulation to the foreign leaders whose interests clearly are not our interests, I must defer to one who holds more credibility than I when it comes to foreign affairs. I recently found this correspondence between two former presidents:
Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe. Our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs. America…has a set of interests distinct from those of Europe, and peculiarly her own. She should, therefore, have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe. While the last is laboring to become the domicil of despotism, our endeavor should surely be, to make our hemisphere that of freedom.
I agree with the above statement and while this was written 185 years ago from the desk of Mr. Thomas Jefferson to President James Monroe in October of 1823, its main points are as relevant today as are those of his most famous writing – The Declaration of Independence.
As I watched and read the words of our current president I saw a departure from that spirit of independence that compelled Jefferson and his compatriots so many years ago. Obama seemed intent upon weakening our position as a sovereign state among the nations. Obama conceded that Wall Street was the source, not only of our nation’s economic troubles, but also of the global economic turmoil, as if he is in agreement with the Marxist who sees capitalism as the root of all evil. His words of concession diminish our superior status and seek to relegate us to just another nation on the global stage.
As Obama seeks out advice from, and agreements with Russia, China and other socialist nations, he will certainly accomplish his goal of change. The increasing talk of a global regulatory body that will oversee all major banks and financial institutions – especially those on Wall Street – and a new global currency to replace the dollar is indeed a change. But this change holds more significance and more danger than merely a change in definitions.