Obama's fundamental change of America

By Jim Killebrew

[February 17, 2015]  The President promised to fundamentally change America when he was running for President in 2008. Of course most people thought he was talking about the usual things like lowering taxes, keeping Americans safe, increasing jobs, maintaining or boosting the American dream for the next generation to succeed in life, boost the quality of education, and help the poor. So Americans were taken with Mr. Obama's articulate speeches, his moving statements calling for "hope and change" while down casting the war in the Middle East, insisting it be ended because it had been a too long engagement.

Consequently the media jumped on-board with feel-good tingling running up their legs as they swooned to his smooth oratory. In fact, they even failed to vet the new candidate regarding his birth, young life in Indonesia, his school days, his college days, or any of his days for that matter. He was virtually a newcomer who emerged seemingly from nowhere. He was given a pass, accepted for what people wanted him to be, and hoped he would be. So, the press and most liberal media were drawn in as a moth to a flame, jumping on the bandwagon to carry his message to Americans in every city, town, and village. His message of fundamental change and growing the economy "from the bottom up" resonated with the poor, believing they would be positively affected by the "redistribution" of the money held by the wealthy as it was taken from them and given to the "rightful owners" (the poor).

As the would-be President stood amidst the Greek Columns in the giant arena with the complete darkness being chased away with the flood of spotlighting zeroing in on him as he stood alone on the stage, one had a sense of good will coming and better days ahead. There were even some chants of "Messiah" coming from the corners of the left, knowing their choice had been elected and would likely bring the progressive agenda they longed for. When elected, Mr. Obama was armed with a democrat Congress in both Houses that promised to give the new President everything he desired.

Even the world was taking note. From the very beginning the new President was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, not for accomplishing anything peaceful, but for just being him; the perceived "Messiah" and a promise for the good he was expected to accomplish as he began his journey toward ending racial barriers, bringing total peace to the world, ending the recession, dismantling the "aggressive" U.S. military, making things right for the American Middle Class and the poor. Promising the most "transparent" Administration ever, the new President began his "Hope and fundamentally change for America" with mostly good will from those who voted for him and many of those who did not bother to vote at all.

Then came the "apology tour" with the new President travelling to countries around the world telling them that America was essentially the problem that was bringing the misery to the world. America was a superpower that had essentially misused that power, and days ahead would be better under his leadership. We are now six years hence into the President's first full term and half of his second.

During the tenure of the President's Administration there have been many who have lived through the past six years who have lost faith in the President's willingness or ability to lead. Many have charged he is "leading from behind." If we jump ahead from the time he was elected the first time to our present day we can see there have been dozens of foibles in the Administration that has caused many to distrust him. Without going through the list of past scandals and issues, it would be safe to say the President would no longer be as revered as he was on that night he stood on stage with the Greek Columns as his backdrop. Nor would he be referred to now as a possible Messiah; in fact, there have been instances where he has been referred to as the opposite of a Messiah.

From our current perspective and world-wide situation we might reconsider the notion from some that the President seems inept, or unable to lead. Especially, as he wanted to in the past by bringing about a fundamental change in America. Some might even say he has failed to do that. I wonder if perhaps we should not be too quick to make that determination. After considering the changed landscape of the world from yesteryear to this year, there has been a fundamental change in the world order. We should consider perhaps the President has been more successful than what we might give him credit for.

When we examine very closely the changed dynamics of the nations in the Middle East and Northern Africa, especially with the development and the movement of ISIS, we can see there has been a fundamental change around the world. In our recent history we have seen the attacks in Denmark and the most recent beheadings of 21 Christians by the ISIS forces in Libya. That has been accompanied with the Egyptian government defending themselves as they carried out a reprisal against ISIS in response to the 21 Christian men being beheaded.

For sure, the early withdrawal, with some saying premature withdrawal, from the fighting and training in Iraq helped with the formation of ISIS. The "redlining" the President issued during the so-called, "Arab-Spring" in the Syrian war, and then backing down from that red line after he called for the defeat of al-Assad, actually set in motion the development of ISIS in Syria, helping them to establish a caliphate in Syria and Iraq. With the overthrow of the government in Egypt during the Arab Spring and the ultimate take-over by the Muslim Brotherhood actually did effect a "fundamental change" in the Middle East conditions.

So now we are hearing on the news casts that Egypt wants the backing from the United States with money and materials to fight back ISIS. That puts the United States in a direct line of building up the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt with American treasure and war materials. While the President only talks of "Containment" of ISIS and the fighting in that part of the world, we are hearing each day how that fighting force is now spread out over a dozen countries in that region. Meanwhile, the President is not accepting the "war powers" established in 2002 after 9/11, and has called Congress to initiate another war-powers act to fight ISIS only on a limited scale. This also seems to be a "fundamental change for America."

While ISIS is mobilizing across Syria and Iraq, and attacking in places in many other countries in the world, the President insists the American people are "overreacting" to the ISIS threat. In fact, the President, and his Administration, have absolutely refused to identify ISIS and the debauchery they represent as "radicalized, Islamic terrorism." It wasn't too long ago that the President called that group the "Junior Varsity" and he intoned that Al Qaeda had been "decimated." Many throughout America, including past Secretaries of Defense, have charged the President with not having a plan to actually repel the ISIS fighting forces. Some are fearing there is no leadership from America and it is putting the allies of America in a quandary as to how to respond. The response from America has been tepid in the aftermath of American beheadings, the Jordanian pilot being burned alive, and now the Libyan 21 Christians being beheaded. While the Jordanian King orders retaliation attacks against ISIS strongholds, the President finds the nearest golf course or another vacation or fundraiser. With the 21 Christians being beheaded, the President is again on the golf course while his wife and family vacation in Aspen on a skiing holiday.

So, perhaps the American people are slowly coming to a conclusion that the President has not fully failed to bring about a "fundamental change in America." Perhaps it is not his "mistakes" or "ineptness" that has caused the lack of leadership. Perhaps we should look at what has actually happened and see if we can see a pattern of the growth of radicalism around the world with the accompanying lack of leadership from the President of the United States, sometimes against the advice of the military brass, and wonder if we need to worry about just on which side of the fence our President is living?

[By JIM KILLEBREW]