Understanding Obama: Part 04

Although historians should not attempt to psychologically analyze the individuals of the past, they nonetheless can investigate a person’s childhood for clues about the factors which shape a person’s character, thoughts, and motives.

The poet William Wordsworth’s statement remains true even if often repeated: “The child is the father of the man.”

In the case of Barack Obama, one of the themes of his childhood is abandonment. His father abandoned him and his mother quickly after he was born - so quickly, in fact, that young Barack had no memories of his father. He was raised, then, primarily by his mother and by his maternal grandparents.

Eventually, his mother would have a series of other men in her life, none of whom, however, assumed any type of paternal role in Barack’s life.

Obama only saw his father once, at the age of ten.

The pain of having been raised without a father made a deep impression. “I only remember my father for one month my whole life, when I was 10,” Obama said in a television appearance. The pain of abandonment motivated him to try to be a good father:

His absence, I think, contributed to me really wanting to be a good dad, you know? Because I think not having him there made me say to myself “You know what? I want to make sure my girls feel like they’ve got somebody they can rely on.”

Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, was his primary caregiver. She was greatly aided by her parents. Obama’s maternal grandmother was the vice-president of a local bank, and had both wealth and influence to support young Barack. She was able to pay for exclusive private schools, so that Obama didn’t attend public schools. He never attended a public school in the United States, and attended an exclusive public school in Indonesia for one year. The rest of education was in private schools.

His formal education began in a Roman Catholic school, St. Francis, in Indonesia, which he seems to have attended for the first three grades of elementary school. Real estate agents in Indonesia organized a special public school for wealthy families; Obama attended that school for one year.

The rest of his education took place in the United States. He attended prestigious private school in Hawaii for grades five through twelve. The school had very few African-American students. As a high school student, Barack went to parties for nearby university students, because he wanted to meet other Black people. For the same reason, he sometimes socialized with people at Hawaii’s military bases.

In fairness, it should be noted that, although historians routinely cite Obama as the first ‘Black president’ or the first ‘Africa-American’ president of the United States, it is perhaps more accurate to list him as the first ‘biracial’ president. He wrote that his mother was as “white as milk,” and that his father was as “black as pitch.”

After high school, Obama went on to study at three exclusive private institutions: Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard.

Obama’s early years were shaped by the fact that his father abandoned him, by the fact that the series of men who moved through his mother’s life did not provide any paternal stability, and by the fact that his grandparents financed his life of exclusive privilege in private schools. This meant that Obama could not relate to that which African-Americans call their “Black experience.”

Subsequently, Obama’s notions of race were rather abstract and academic, which led to some clumsy and clunky moves by his administration, as David Limbaugh writes:

The expansion of race preferences in school admissions is a key goal of the Left, and this administration has worked hard to further it as well. In March 2010, the Obama administration filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, supporting the University of Texas’ use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions. In the brief, the administration advocated preferences not just at the university level but also from kindergarten through high school: “In view of the importance of diversity in educational institutions, the United States, through the Departments of Education and Justice, supports the efforts of school systems and post-secondary educational institutions that wish to develop admissions policies that endeavor to achieve the educational benefits of diversity in accordance with [the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision upholding the use of preferences by the University of Michigan law school].”

From the time that young Barack was around ten years old, he was raised primarily by his maternal grandparents. His mother travelled widely and globally, while he remained at home in Hawaii.

With various men, she entered into a series of relationships, none of which lasted long. It was the grandparents who provide a sense of stability for Obama during his childhood and teenage years.

From his early childhood in Hawaii, to his middle childhood in Indonesia, to his late childhood and teenage years back in Hawaii, Obama was surrounded by people who were white American, Indonesians, Japanese, Chinese, Polynesian, and Hawaiian - but not Black. He was in many situations the only African-American.

His childhood playmates and teenage friends were of every race and ethnicity except Black. This must have shaped his self-perception.

Because his maternal grandmother was the vice-president of a bank, he was accustomed to a world of wealth and privilege. His standard of living and his social circles were above average. This may have made it difficult for him to empathize with those who struggle financially; one example, as David Limbaugh writes, was Obama’s interaction with California’s farmers:

One of the biggest, yet least publicized outrages in recent memory is the Obama administration’s assault on California farmers. Environmental regulations purporting to protect endangered species of fish resulted in tens of billions of gallons of water being diverted away from mountains close to Sacramento and into the ocean, greatly exacerbating drought conditions and ruining hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland - a crushing blow to California agriculture.

Obama’s persona has been characterized as cold, distant, and aloof. His attempt at being folksy are clumsy and affected. His manner was shaped by the fact that his father abandoned him, by a lifestyle of privilege among elites, and by the fact that his family kept him apart from his Black peers.

Between Obama’s election in 2008 and his reelection in 2012, the number of African-Americans who voted for him declined. What did they perceive about Obama?

Understanding Obama: Part 03

Historians are often tempted to speculate about the internal mental states of individuals - what a person thought, believed, or wanted. But historical methodology general forbids such speculation.

In reviewing the presidency of Barack Obama, then, a historian may only consider Obama’s recorded words and actions. Such only such verifiable evidence can count was what Obama may have thought, believed, or wanted.

Analyzing Obama’s words, the reader can conclude that he engaged in a political tactic of moving his agenda forward by leveraging it against an identified political opponent. The metaphor of lever is accurate: the negative pressure created by Obama’s attacks on various groups was equal to the forward moment it generated for his goals.

He created energy for his proposed tax reforms by accusing “lobbyists” and “special interests” of having manipulated the tax code - this, despite the fact that Obama, as a self-described “community organizer” had been both a lobbyist and a representative of special interests.

Same technique is seen in his effort to reduce incentives for employers to move jobs out of the United States, as historian David Limbaugh writes:

Obama’s assault on the private sector began early in his term. His main tactic was pitting people against people and groups against groups with unprecedented stridency. He couldn’t just push for a “fairer” tax system; he first had to vilify lobbyists, “special interests,” the wealthy, and corporate America. When he called for an end to tax breaks for U.S. corporations doing business abroad, he blamed “a broken tax system, written by well-connected lobbyists on behalf of well-heeled interests and individuals.”

Obama was not successful in his attempt to motivate companies to move jobs or capital invests back into the United States.

Consistently, he demonstrated that he did not like, understand, or trust the country, its people, or its Constitution. His efforts manifested a lack of respect or esteem for the ordinary citizen of the United States. As a self-identified progressive, his actions displayed an ideology in which government experts override the ballots of the voters.

Obama’s expertise, however, failed to deliver. Even when much of his agenda was put into place, either by legislation, or by executive order, the results were disappointing, as David Limbaugh reports:

President Obama has repeatedly acknowledged that he expects to be judged on his economic performance, and that if he does poorly the people will not re-elect him. So let’s take a look at his record. On February 17, 2009, Obama signed into law his $868 billion dollar stimulus bill, promising it would “save or create” — a ludicrous, immeasurable metric — 3 to 3.5 millon jobs by the end of 2010 and keep employment below 8 percent. In fact, unemployment greatly exceeded that the entire time, often surging past 9 percent.

The Constitution orchestrates a system in which decision-making is deliberately slowed, and in which the power of the government is limited. Laws tells citizens what they may not do, but the Constitution tells the government what it may not do.

Obama’s vision of government tolerated no limits. In his inaugural speech in 2009 , he claimed that the government could “heal the planet.” He could not endure a worldview in which government was limited so that society could act freely, and so that individuals could enjoy their personal political liberty.

Indeed, in some cases, Obama’s ideology called not only for government to overrule individual liberate and the organic functioning of society, but even for the diminishing of society. To that end, his policies were in some cases designed to reduce the standard of living in the United States.

Typically, a leader is expected to act in the best interests of his nation. Yet Obama was willing to inflict hardship on American voters, as measured by rising prices, falling wages, lower per capita net worth, and government-created shortages of various commodities.

A Quicker Way to Become a U.S. Citizen

The United States continues to be the most popular country in the world for immigration. People leaving other nations are more likely to travel to the U.S., and settle permanently there, than to any other nation in the world.

These immigrants often eventually desire citizenship, and are eager to find a way to accelerate that process.

According to journalist Stewart Smith, “every year, more than 8,000” people who are not U.S. citizens join the U.S. military. This represents a fast track to education, employment opportunities, better incomes, and eventual citizenship in the United States.

Recruiters find that “there is great interest from all over the world from foreigners wanting to serve in the United States Military.” Individuals want to join the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard for a variety of reasons — educational opportunities and improved income among them — and “they know it can be a pathway to citizenship.” Smith adds that military members often “have an expedited process.”

Put simply, “a non-citizen can enlist in the military,” and “can go to the U.S. military recruiter of the branch of service” she or he might desire — like citizens, non-citizens can choose from among the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard — and also, National Guard and Reserves.

The government has procedures “to allow military members from foreign countries to have an accelerated path to citizenship.” Smith explains the details: “In 1990, in the early days of Gulf War One, President George H.W. Bush signed an executive order which allowed any military member (active duty, Reserves, or National Guard) to apply for citizenship, without any residency requirement. This saves the military member five years” as compared to other applicants “for citizenship.” In other words, “the military helps” the applicant to “accelerate the process.”

Smith goes on to summarize: “Since July 3, 2002, under special provisions in Section 329 of the INA, President Bush signed an executive order authorizing all non-citizens who have served honorably in the U.S. armed forces on or after Sept. 11, 2001, to immediately file for citizenship. This order also covers veterans of certain designated past wars and conflicts. The authorization will remain in effect until a date designated by a future presidential executive order,” and is in fact still in effect.

In many cases, not only can a member of the military be on a fast track to citizenship, but her or his spouse can receive similar benefits, as Stewart Smith explains:

Special provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) state: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may expedite the application and naturalization process for current members of the U.S. armed forces and recently discharged service members. Qualifying military service includes serving in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and National Guard. In addition, spouses of members of the U.S. armed forces who are or will be deployed may be eligible for expedited naturalization. Other provisions of the law also allow certain spouses to complete the naturalization process abroad.

The exact text defining these benefits is found the U.S. Code, at 8 USC 1440.

Clinton Orders Massive Bombing of Iraq

In 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered the U.S. military to undertake a large-scale aerial attack on Iraq. This offensive was provoked by Sadaam Hussein’s multiple offenses: as the dictator of Iraq, he’d violated human rights, he’d developed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and he’d arrogantly defied UN requests to inspect his weapon-producing facilities, despite the fact that he’d previously agreed to allow such inspections.

Although the Iraqi people were not of themselves violent, Iraq under the tyranny of Sadaam Hussein was a threat to neighboring nations, having already attacked and invaded Kuwait, causing thousands of deaths in the 1990/1991 war, as historian Gregory Ball writes:

In response to Saddam Hussein’s continued refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, the United States Government planned Operation DESERT FOX in the fall of 1998. The primary mission of DESERT FOX was to strike military targets in Iraq that contributed to its ability to produce, store, maintain, and deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The U.S. government expected to achieve several goals with the operation. First, it would degrade Iraq’s ability to create and employ WMD. Second, the attacks would diminish Iraq’s capability to wage war against its neighbors. Third, the operation would impress upon Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international agreements, including allowing United Nations inspectors unfettered access to Iraqi sites. The United States and Great Britain launched Operation DESERT FOX on December 16, 1998, after U.N. Chief Inspector Richard Butler notified the U.N. that Iraq had failed to provide full cooperation during inspections.

Although Operation Desert Fox was short in duration, lasting only a few days, it nonetheless inflicted massive destruction and numerous casualties on Iraq. President Clinton was able to demonstrate his willingness to engage in warfare, and his commitment to serving the United Nations and to implementing the consequences which Sadaam Hussein brought upon himself for violating UN agreements — agreements to which Hussein had committed himself.

Understanding Obama: Part 02

The axiomatic property of the Obama administration was that Obama did not understand, like, or trust the United States, the American people, or the Constitution. Built into Obama’s presidency was therefore an essential irony: he did not like the people who elected him, and did not trust the constitutional system which put him into the White House.

The checks and balances which the Constitution built into the structure of the government are designed to slow the process of legislation. This was conceived as a safeguard to protect the people from the government.

There is a natural temptation to want a strong government. It is assumed that a strong government could and would quickly address and fix problems and crises.

Yet there is great danger in a strong government. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” In other words, the government can only do things for you in proportion to what it can do to you.

A weak government is the surest way to protect individual political liberty and personal freedom. But protecting freedom and liberty was not among Obama’s goals. As historian David Limbaugh wrote in 2012:

President Obama has repeatedly revealed his impatience with our Constitution’s separation of powers and its checks and balances, lamenting that democracy is sometimes messy and frustrating. He just wants the other branches to get out of his way, because he can’t allow a silly inconvenience like the Constitution to obstruct his utopian vision for America.

Obama subjected the nation to great risks: shortcutting constitutional processes in one circumstance would allow eventually for shortcutting them in other circumstances. Eventually, due process and equal standing before the law would be endangered.

It is telling that many of the voters who elected Obama in 2008 and 2012 were the voters who chose to vote for President Trump in 2016. This was a telling rejection of Obama’s methods by the very electorate who placed him into the White House in the first place.

Understanding Obama: Part 01

What happened in the United States in November 2008? And what happened in the United States between January 2009 and January 2017? The election of Barack Obama and the presidency of Barack Obama constitute a shocking narrative: the country’s president did not like, trust, or understand the nation or its constitution.

To parse the verbs, the reader will note that Obama expressed a distaste both for the people of the United States and for the Constitution of the United States; he placed no confidence in, and refused to rely upon, the nation or the process which the nation codified into its constitution; and he demonstrated a lack of insight or comprension regarding the very people who voted for him and the very constitutional system which put him into the nation’s highest office.

The irony will not be lost: the president did not like, trust, or understand the citizens who voted for him and the constitutional process which made him president

Further irony lies in the fact that Obama was at one time paid to be a professor of constitutional law at a university.

In any case, historian David Limbaugh notes that “the destructive policies and actions of the Obama administration” form “Obama’s broad-based assault on the American republic.” Obama conducted a “war on our Constitution and our political economic liberties,” and an “assault on America’s economic, social, cultural, national security, business, and industrial institutions.”

The net result of Obama’s presidency is that many - millions - of voters who enthusiastically cast their ballots for him were dismayed enough, after observing his behavior in office, to vote for President Donald Trump.

The election of President Trump - whether the reader loves or hates him - is the ultimate fruit of the Obama administration.

Obama’s performance in office - from his appointment of corrupt and incompetent individuals like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, to the 1.7 billion dollars he wasted trying to start a healthcare website - drove citizens to vote against the candidate who seemed to be a continuation of Obama’s policies.

The reader should not, however, hold Obama responsible for the failure of his presidency and his administration. The culpability lies rather with his handlers - the people who found and groomed him, directed his campaigns and political career, shaped his policies and wrote the speeches he delivered. Obama was, in some ways, a victim of a political machine which used him as a mouthpiece and as a frontman.

Winning a War with Dollars Instead of Bullets: Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative

The Cold War was a decades-long period of tension which shaped the second half of the twentieth century. Although there were periods of violence and bloodshed — like the Korean War and the Vietnam War — many of the Cold War years were times of tense and anxious peace.

The ‘peace’ which filled many of the Cold War years was not a pleasant peace. On the ‘western’ side, the United States and its NATO allies developed high-tech weapons. On the ‘eastern’ side, the Soviet Socialists and their Warsaw Pact allies did the same.

The stress and apprehension of these ‘peaceful’ years were caused by the knowledge that terribly powerful weapons were being stockpiled. Had these weapons been used on a large scale, the results would have been disastrous.

Peace was preserved by the fact that neither the United States nor the Soviet Socialists truly wanted to use these weapons. Leaders on both sides wanted to intimidate their opponents by owning these weapons, but they knew that using these weapons was an action to be avoided.

The Cold War was ‘cold’ because, rather than fighting and directly engaging their armies with each other, both sides wanted to pressure the other side by simply manufacturing these weapons.

The Cold War and its end were not about physical combat, but rather were ultimately about economics. Which side would be able to afford to develop and build the most terrifying weapons?

So it was that, upon taking office in January 1981, President Ronald Reagan began one of the most ambitious, and one of the most expensive, defensive systems ever conceived. In March 1983, President Reagan publicly announced the “Strategic Defense Initiative” (SDI), as historian Robert Maginnis writes:

By the mid-1980s, the economic strain of Russia’s very expensive military overreach was especially tough, a major reason to end the Cold War. The strain increased significantly once the newly minted President Ronald Reagan committed the US to increased resources for defense and introduced his bank-breaking “Star Wars” initiative, an expense the Kremlin was unprepared to match.

The SDI would make most of the USSR’s missiles useless. If the Soviet Socialists launched missiles at the United States, most of them would never reach their targets, because the SDI would stop the missiles in flight.

In order to overcome the SDI, the Soviet Socialists would have to develop an entire generation of sophisticated missiles. Such an effort would require billions of rubles or dollars.

The Soviet Socialists simply could not afford to develop offensive missiles which could successfully attack the United States. Missiles which could break through the SDI’s defensive shield were plainly too expensive.

The Cold War ended, then, because the Soviet Socialists ran out of money. The United States, rather than outfighting the USSR, merely outspent the Soviets.