With word coming from The White House that President Barack Obama is open to meeting with Iran’s new President, Hassan Rouhani, the President’s recent Syria debacle, the Edward Snowden-Russian asylum fiasco, among other foreign policy blunders, now is the perfect time to jump into the way-back machine and revisit a post on ThinkFY from May 2012:
On Friday, I posted this piece about President Barack Obama’s record on foreign policy, specifically his record of accommodation and appeasement with the Russians and the Communist Chinese. I noted at the end that there was much more to President Obama’s foreign policy record that should be of concern to Americans.
Little did I know that The Washington Post would publish a story only two days later touching on another very serious issue: Afghanistan. Before I get into the Post’s story and some other tid-bits, consider what Obama said at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in August 2009.
As the Presidential election kicks into high-gear, foreign policy has been brought to the fore with the one year anniversary of the killing of terror mastermind and al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. With some tit-for-tat going back and forth between President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney over whether Romney would have ordered “the raid to capture Osama bin Laden last year,” I began to think about President Obama’s record as Commander-in-Chief. The more I thought and the more I dug into his record, the more I couldn’t help but think about Ronald Reagan and a few choice words he had to say:
Listening to President Barack Obama’s press conference yesterday concerning negotiations with Republicans over raising the debt ceiling, I was struck by something he said:
“And it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involve some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors, but make sure those programs were there for not just this generation but for the next generation; that it is possible for us to bring in revenues in a way that does not impede our current recovery, but is fair and balanced.” (“President Obama’s News Conference On Deficit Reduction,” The White House, 7/11/11)
Wow, not much for me to do here but let you read for yourself what President Obama’s top political adviser said yesterday regarding whether voters will hold the Obama Administration responsible for the economy:
White House Political Adviser David Plouffe: “The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers.” (Julianna Goldman, “Unemployment Rate Won’t Hobble Obama’s Re-Election, White House Aide Says,” Bloomberg, 7/7/11)
Interesting. That’s some incredible spin when you consider this:
For decades, throwing money at education has been the cure-du-jour for America’s educational ills. In 1979, the Democrat controlled Congress passed the Department of Education Organization Act establishing a Cabinet-level department for education in the federal government. President Jimmy Carter, America’s greatest one-term President, signed the legislation into law and the U.S. Department of Education (ED) began operating the following year, in 1980.
For its first year in operation, Congress appropriated $14 billion to the new bureaucratic entity. Nearly 30 years later, the budget ballooned to $68.6 billion (2008 appropriations), a 390% increase in federal spending. Overall, appropriators have spent over $1 trillion of taxpayer money through ED alone. This figure does not include local and state spending, just the federal portion.
A new “Contract with America” is in the offing. Yesterday, freshman Representative Aaron Schrock (R-IL) said the Republican Party would be unveiling a new version of the “Contract with America,” likely this summer. Later, original Contract architect Newt Gingrich called on Republicans to offer a new vision, saying the Party needs to be more than just a Party of No.
President Ronald Reagan was fond of saying to the Russians, “trust, but verify.” President Reagan was referring to relations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It was meant to convey to the Russians that the U.S. believes you, but we’re going to make sure you’re telling the truth. It was the kind of hard nosed diplomacy that Reagan used to defeat the Russians.
Well, that’s all gone now. We won’t be verifying what the Russians are doing when it comes to their nuclear weapons, specifically the manufacturing of new intercontinental ballistic missiles.
“The United States Is About To Lose A Key Arms-Control Tool From The Closing Days Of The Cold War -- The Right To Station American Observers In Russia To Count The Long-Range Missiles Leaving Its Assembly Line.” (Nicholas Kralev, “Exclusive: U.S. To Stop Counting New Missiles In Russia,” The Washington Times, 12/1/09)