Obama Blog - Geskiedenis

Obama Blog - Geskiedenis



Obama -blog

<body> <!––blank ––></body>

Obama, D ’Souza en anti-kolonialisme

Ek het nog nooit die ervaring gehad om 'n film te sien gebaseer op die idees van 'n vriend nie, wat ook die filmvervaardiger, skrywer, mederegisseur en ster op die kamera is. Die vriend is Dinesh D ’Souza en die fliek is �: Obama ’s America. ” Dit is 'n bietjie minder as 90 minute lank en dit volg meestal die pad van D ’Souza ’s 2010 boek “The Roots of Obama ’s Rage. ”

Die pad is tegelyk sielkundig en histories. D ’Souza vertel ons dat hy Obama se optrede wil verstaan, wat volgens hom nie volg uit die Amerikaanse droom van die stigters of uit die burgerregteverhaal van Selma, Birmingham, Brown v.Raad van Onderwys en Martin Luther King ’s “I have a dream ” speech. Volgens D ’Souza is die droom wat Obama van plan is om te verwesenlik, die droom van sy anti-kolonialistiese vader, Barack Obama Sr., wie se invloed op sy seun se lewe, miskien paradoksaal, des te groter is omdat hy afwesig was die twee ontmoet slegs een keer, toe die toekomstige president 10 jaar oud was.

Anti-kolonialisme, soos D ’Souza dit definieer, word onderskryf deur 'n oortuiging dat Kolonialisme 'n stelsel van seerowery is waarin die rykdom van die gekoloniseerde lande stelselmatig gesteel word deur die koloniseerders en dat die Verenigde State tans , oorspronklik 'n kolonie self, is die belangrikste neo-koloniale mag, wat sy gebrekkige geskiedenis van inheemse Amerikaners, Mexikane, Hawaii en die Filippyne tot in die 21ste eeu onderwerp. “ My argument, ” sê D ’Souza in “ The Roots of Obama ’s Rage, ” “is dat dit die anti-koloniale ideologie van sy Afrikaanse vader is wat Barack Obama ter harte geneem het. &# x201D As ons eers die ideologie verstaan ​​en as ons Obama werklik ken, sal ons 'n stel beleide verstaan ​​wat, volgens enige ander verklarende model, teenstrydig en onenig lyk.

Rocky Mountain Pictures, via Associated Press Dinesh D ’Souza onderhoude met George Obama in Nairobi, Kenia, en#xA0 in 'n toneel uit �: Obama ’s America. ”

D ’Souza slaan die kyker nie oor die kop met hierdie argument in die fliek nie. In plaas daarvan verlig hy dit deur te besin oor die buitengewone parallelle tussen sy lewe en Obama se twee mans van gemengde ras en vergelykbare velkleur wat in dieselfde jaar gebore is, het in dieselfde jaar by die Ivy League -kolleges aangesluit, afgestudeer dieselfde jaar en het onwaarskynlike suksesse behaal (D ’Souza is 'n universiteitspresident sowel as 'n topverkoper-outeur van veelvuldige volumes, 'n opvallende kultuurstryder en nou 'n outeur), gegewe hul beskeie begin.

Maar dan verskil die twee. By Dartmouth word D ’Souza 'n entoesiastiese voorstander en bewonderaar van entrepreneurskapitalisme in Amerikaanse styl en 'n gelowige in Amerikaanse uitsonderlikheid. In teenstelling met die eens glorieryke maar gevalle ryke waarvan hy onthou dat hy as kind in Indië, Amerika, gelees het, is hy 'n unieke leier van ideale en individuele regte, keusevryheid, opwaartse mobiliteit beperk slegs deur u bereidwilligheid om te werk moeilik en die feit dat die nasie nie altyd sy ideale gestand gedoen het nie, is 'n bewys van die krag wat hulle uitoefen, selfs al word hulle oortree.

In teenstelling hiermee word Obama, eers in Columbia en later by Harvard, beïnvloed deur linkse onderwysers soos Edward Said en Roberto Unger, verdiep hy hom in tekste van marxistiese, feministiese en ant-kolonialistiese skrywers en vervul dus die afstammelinge van “his father & #x2019s derde wêreld se kollektivisme. ”

En so eindig die immigrant en die inheemse Amerikaner, op soveel maniere, ook ideologies teenoorgestelde posisies wat daartoe lei dat hulle verskillende sienings het oor 'n aantal kwessies en skuld, olieboorwerk, gesondheidsorg, die Midde-Ooste, Egipte, Libië, kernontwapening, aardverwarming, finansiële regulering, hooggeregshofaanstellings, noem maar op. In elk geval word Obama se siening deur D ’Souza verduidelik as 'n logiese uitbreiding van 'n antikolonialistiese begeerte om geld, goedere en wapens weg te neem van die Verenigde State en hul bondgenote en dit te gee die het-nots, na arm lande in die algemeen en Moslem-lande in die besonder. Eerder as om te probeer om die Amerikaanse oorheersing te behou en te verhoog, is Obama, sê D ’Souza, besig om die speelveld gelyk te maak sodat geen nasie beheer oor die wêreld se hulpbronne sal hê nie en in staat is om die deuntjie te bel.

Byvoorbeeld, Obama (D ’Souza verduidelik) skryf die energiekrisis toe aan Amerika ’s Verslawing ” aan olie, en sy reaksie op die verslawing — dat ons 'n onproportionele deel van die wêreld se energie -reserwes inneem ’ x2014 is om 'n beperking en handelsbeleid voor te stel wat daarop gemik is om Amerika te belas en van die geld te gebruik om die ellendiges van die aarde te subsidieer. van sake doen vir die koloniseerders om 'n ekonomiese voordeel te gee aan die gekoloniseerde ” (“ The Roots of Obama ’s Rage ”). (Kortom, 'n geopolitieke vorm van regstellende aksie.)

Maar wat is daarmee verkeerd?kan iemand vra, en D ’Souza sou antwoorde hê: jy gee die winkel weg eerder as om 'n rentmeester daarvan te wees, en jy gee dit aan mense wat minder in staat is as ons om dit goed te benut. In die film maak die halfbroer van Obama, George, vir D ’Souza ingenome deur te sê dat hy glo dat dit beter sou gewees het as die Britte langer in Kenia gebly het, want dan sou die land meer ontwikkel en beter toegerus gewees het om sy eie gang te gaan as wat dit nou is. As jy gekoloniseer word, suggereer D ’Souza, is dit nie so erg nie.

Dit is maklik om sterk besware teen die argument voor te stel, maar dit is nie die argument wat Sousa dit stel en dit sentraal stel nie. Die argument wat hy wel voorop stel, sal nog sterker besware uitlok en deur baie as aanstootlik ontvang word, want dit is glad nie 'n argument nie, maar 'n beskuldiging: Obama se beleid is nie bloot kontraproduktief nie, dit is nie-Amerikaans.

Hierdie beskuldiging was implisiet in baie wat onderweg gesê is, maar 25 minute voor die einde van die film neem dit oor. Die stelling van die skarnier is D ’Souza se verklaring dat Obama se ideologie 'n afstand tot Amerika is. ” Daarmee kan hy eenvoudig bedoel dat hy 'n paar van sy idees gekry het van plekke buite hierdie land, van Kenia (sy pa) of Palestina (gesê) of Brasilië (Unger).

Maar die opmerking, wat ook geld vir die stigters, wat baie van hul idees van Locke, Diderot, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Spinoza, Milton en Aristoteles gekry het, is relatief anodyne. (Die plek of tradisie waaruit u u idees put, is onafhanklik van die gebruike waarvoor dit gebruik word.) Deur 'Remote', beteken Souza iets ernstiger verdoemend: Obama se idees is ver weg in die sin dat hulle is vreemd, hulle het op ander grond gegroei en hoort nie in Amerika nie; hulle is teenstrydig met die Amerikaanse gees. Hulle is inderdaad anti-Amerikaans, 'n oordeel wat in die film uitgespreek is deur Daniel Pipes, wat reguit sê dat Obama nie van Amerika dink nie en dat die president se idees, eggo D ’Souza, los van mekaar is Amerikaanse gedagte. ”

Ons het dus 'n keuse, sê Douwou Souza, ten slotte, tussen die droom van Amerika en die droom van Obama en die droom van Obama, of meer presies, tussen die droom van Amerika en die anti-Amerikaanse droom van Obama. Ons het die keuse in 2008 gemaak sonder om te weet dat dit anti-Amerikanisme is wat ons kies. Nou weet ons (want D ’Souza het ons vertel), en ons het beter om vinnig in 2012 op te tree, want as ons nie die wêreld sou doen nie, sou dit in 2016 'n eng plek kon wees. ”

Dit is teleurstellend. Terwyl 'n kyker beslis nie saamstem met die ontleding van D ’Souza se ontleding van die ontstaan ​​en opkoms van Obama se sienings nie, is dit tog 'n analise waarop 'n mens in die gewone gees van intellektuele debat sou kon reageer deur dinge te sê soos “you ’ve iets weggelaat ” of ”ie gevolgtrekking kom te vinnig. bring D ’Souza naby posisies wat hy verwerp. Hy verwerp byvoorbeeld birtherisme, die bewering dat Obama in Kenia gebore is en dus nie 'n Amerikaanse burger is nie, maar hy vervang dit met 'n agterdeur, of metaforiese, birtherisme as hy Obama as 'n vreemdeling kenmerk, as 'n vyfde kolom 'n partytjie van een wat voorgegee het dat hy 'n Amerikaner is, en dit tegnies een is, maar eintlik iets anders is.

Die argument stigters oor die dwaling om te aanvaar dat die byvoeglike naamwoord 𠇊merican ” 'n vaste betekenis het waarmee almal, of almal wat regdenkend en patrioties is, saamstem. Maar die betekenis van Amerika word voortdurend betwis in essays, boeke, agterplaasgesprekke, talkshows en, veral, in verkiesings. Daar word dikwels gesê, en dit is waar, dat die opponerende partye in 'n verkiesing verskillende visies vir Amerika het. Daar is baie maniere om die alternatiewe visioene wat ons in 'n jaar soos hierdie bied, te beskryf, maar een daarvan beskryf as on-Amerikaans en die voorstander daarvan as 'n buitelandse indringer, is dit nie 'n verdere bespreking nie, maar om dit af te sluit en die wedywering van idees te vervang met die retoriek van demonisering. (Demokrate was net so skuldig hieraan as enigiemand anders.) Obama het moontlik 'n visie vir Amerika waarvan jy nie hou nie, maar dit is 'n visie vir Amerika wat deur 'n Amerikaner voorgehou word. As u nie daarvan hou nie, stem dan teen hom, nie in die naam van Amerikanisme nie, maar uit die naam van die idees en uitkomste wat u, ook 'n Amerikaner, verkies.

D ’Souza gaan teen hom stem, en dit is wat verkeerd gaan met die laaste derde van sy film. Die partydige begeerte om punte en mode -slagspreuke te behaal (𠇊merica ’s droom of Obama ’s droom ”) oorweldig die moeite om te verduidelik en toe te lig. Terwyl die film eindig, flits die titel op die skerm en daaronder lees ons “Lief hom/haat hom. Nou ken jy hom. ” Die voorstel is dat D ’Souza ons die inligting gegee het wat ons dalk ontbreek het en dat ons nou kan besluit wat ons dink. Dit was eintlik die manier waarop my vrou op die boek gereageer het. Sy het vir D ’Souza — gesê dat hy verbaas was dat die lees daarvan haar in staat gestel het om duideliker te sien wat sy van Obama hou, dat dit die persoon is wat in werklikheid gesê het wat daarmee verkeerd is?

Die soort reaksie word nie aangemoedig deur die film wat in 'n lang en uitgebreide veldtogadvertensie verander word nie. As 'n advertensie vaar dit baie goed en presteer dit beter as sommige somerblokkies. (Demokrate neem kennis!) Alles ten goede vanuit 'n partydige perspektief, maar steeds 'n nadeel vir die vrae wat D ’Souza wettiglik gestel het, en vir die film self, wat beter verdien is deur die enigste beginner.


6 Inspirerende leierskapseienskappe van Barack Obama

Barack Obama was nog altyd 'n leier in 'n ware sin. Selfs voordat hy die 44ste Amerikaanse president geword het en twee ampstermyne in die kantoor beklee het, was Obama 'n produktiewe politikus en word hy deur die Amerikaanse publiek vereer, veral uit sy tuisstaat Illinois en Chicago, waaruit hy ook as senator verkies is. Dit was om betrokke te raak en die gemeenskap te help wat hom 'n openbare figuur gemaak het en later 'n politikus wat oral in die VSA bekend was.

Om die magtigste posisie ter wêreld te beklee, as president van die Verenigde State van Amerika, was geen prestasie nie. Alhoewel presidente wel die steun van sy kabinet, adviseurs en hulpverleners het, is die openbare gesig altyd die president en neem hy al die lof vir alles wat positief is vir die land of die ekonomie. En dit is natuurlik altyd hy wat die woede en woede van die publiek in die gesig staar in die geval van 'n ongeluk of iets negatiefs op politieke of ekonomiese front.

Barack Obama versterk kwaliteite en gewoontes van effektiewe leiers, wat hom 'n staatsman en 'n leier met die hoogste reputasie oor die hele wêreld gemaak het. Selfs lande wat nie vriendskaplike betrekkinge met die VSA het nie, bewonder Obama baie. Daarom het ek besluit om ses leierseienskappe van Barack Obama voor te stel wat hom 'n uitstekende politikus maak en 'n nasie vir 8 jaar lank lei.

Oortuiging en volharding

Die slagspreuk van Obama vir die presidensiële veldtog van 2008 toe hy vir die eerste keer tot president verkies is, was "Verandering waarin ons kan glo." Verandering sal later as 'n aparte aspek bespreek word, kom ons bespreek sy oortuiging en oortuiging en wat hy aan die algemene publiek oorgedra het.

Obama het altyd 'n vaste oortuiging dat as iets reg is en as u dink dat u op die regte pad is, u ook ander kan beïnvloed en u boodskap kan oordra. Dit sal tyd neem, maar uiteindelik sal u slaag.

Toe hy standpunt ingeneem het oor baie aangeleenthede, soos onlangs oor 'n VN-resolusie oor Israel-Palestynse konflik, het almal geglo dat hy 'n geldige punt het en dat hy die Amerikaanse volk en die wêreldgemeenskap nie as vanselfsprekend aanvaar nie. Hy het met logika gepraat en sy werk goed geken om mense en ander leiers te beïnvloed, sodat sy standpunt verstaanbaar was.

Verander

Almal het begin praat oor verandering nadat die Obama -veldtog suksesvol geword het. Dit het die gonswoord geword en is feitlik deur elke persoon wat oor transformasie, revolusie, ensovoorts gebruik het, gebruik. .

Obama het net nie die woordverandering vir sy veldtog gebruik nie. Gedurende sy ampstermyn van 8 jaar as president het hy soveel probeer bereik deur 'n verandering aan te bring in elke aspek van die bestuur van die land en wat hy vir die mense in die algemeen doen. Sy kritici het moontlik 'n geldige punt dat hy nie al sy beloftes nagekom het nie, maar ek dink die meeste van u sal saamstem dat hy gedoen het wat hy in sy vermoë was as die huis en die senaat in die latere stadiums van Republikeinse beheer was tweede termyn.

Ons-nie-ek houding

U het miskien opgemerk toe Obama 'n toespraak lewer, praat hy met die eerste persoon meervoud "ons" eerder as met "ek". Dit is aanvanklik effens afleidend, maar as u van naderby kyk, is dit 'n slim en slim manier om die gehoor te betrek. Die gebruik van ons is nie net suiwer politiek soos sommige van u dalk verstaan ​​nie, maar eerder 'n unieke manier om mense by 'n gesprek betrokke te maak en dan te laat glo dat hulle eintlik iets positiefs bygedra het tot 'n saak.

As 'n persoon sê dat ons dit saam gedoen het, voel almal wat daarna luister, deel van die verrigtinge, selfs al was hy nie betrokke nie. Dit is 'n baie belangrike deel van 'n leier, om almal rondom u betrokke te maak en hulle byvoorbeeld die eienaarskap van 'n suksesvolle projek te gee. Ontelbare kere in sy toesprake het Obama 'ons' gebruik om mense te laat glo dat die mense van 'n spesifieke stad of die hele land iets gedoen het waarop hulle trots kan wees.

Neem risiko's

Dit is 'n algemene praktyk dat baie mense dit veilig speel as dit kom by enigiets wat verband hou met hul werk of professionele lewe. Om risiko's te neem, selfs 'n geringe, is nie almal se koppie tee nie. Dit is die rede waarom die meeste suksesvolle mense diegene is wat risiko's in hul lewe neem en triomfantlik uitkom. Maar so eenvoudig is dit beslis nie. In sy boek, die 'The Audacity of Hope', noem Obama dat hy 'n groot waagstuk gemaak het deur vir die presidensie te hardloop, selfs 'n paar vriende en hulpverleners het in die nasleep daarvan anders aangeraai dat hy die voorverkiesing vir die presidensiële wedloop in 2004 vreeslik verloor het.

Die politieke risiko's is soortgelyk aan die risiko's wat in die werklike lewe geneem word. Daar is soveel op die spel dat mense soms hul hele rykdom of wat hulle ook al in gevaar stel, net vir 'n sakeonderneming in gevaar stel. Obama het altyd mense rondom hom en die algemene publiek aangespoor om risiko's te neem, hoewel dit aanvanklik bereken was. Hoe meer u van Obama weet, hoe meer sal u geneig wees om risiko's in die lewe te neem en voordeel te trek uit hierdie daad eerder as om te misluk.

Die kuns van kommunikasie

'N Persoon kan nie 'n leier word nie, tensy hy 'n goeie kommunikeerder is. En dit is nie beperk tot net 'n goeie spreker nie. Die luister-, skryf- en leesvaardighede is ook belangrik, aangesien slegs 'n goeie luisteraar 'n goeie spreker kan word. Obama is by uitstek 'n leier, want hy weet hoe om met enige persoon, groep of gehoor te praat, ongeag hul agtergrond, ouderdom, ras, geslag, ens. En dit is waar hy werklik alle lof verdien omdat hy 'n onberispelike persoon is wat vervolmaak het die kuns van kommunikasie.

Toe Barack Obama in 2008 deur Advertising Age in 2008 die bemarker van die jaar -toekenning kry, was baie mense verbaas en sommige het selfs die wenkbroue laat lig, maar ek het ook destyds geweet dat hy die toekenning terdeë verdien. Sy hele veldtog was 'n klassieke voorbeeld van hoe om te kommunikeer met feitlik elke persoon in die VSA wat stemgeregtig is, sy vertroue kan verkry en die boodskap in duidelike terme kan oordra. En daarom kon hy in 2008 en 2012 die verkiesing wen.

Om van eindes 'n nuwe begin te maak

'N Leier is 'n persoon wat nooit tevrede is met selfs sy eie werk nie en altyd daarna streef om meer te bereik. Neem die voorbeeld van Barack Obama. Met 'n magdom dinge om te doen op sy lys, hoe het hy 'n einde vir 'n begin vir die volgende projek tientalle kere verander? Dit is waar sy leierskapsvaardighede in werking tree en die verskil maak. Laat ek u 'n voorbeeld gee, sodat u hierdie punt maklik kan verstaan.

Luister of kyk na 4-5 van sy toesprake, en in 1-2 toesprake vind u beslis die frase "Laat ons weer aan die werk kom". Dit is sy manier om 'n oorwinning in 'n geveg te vier of net nadat hy 'n nuwe projek ingewy het. Hy het dit keer op keer gedoen en seker gemaak dat almal daarna luister. Hy gebruik die positiewe openbare reaksie en sentiment om 'n nuwe projek te begin, sodat die lewendige modus die momentum aan die gang hou en help om die nuwe taak maklik te voltooi.

Laaste woord

Barack Obama se twee termyne het nou geëindig, maar sy nalatenskap sal voortduur. Die 6 eienskappe wat hier genoem word, is slegs 'n kort kykie van hoe leiers die lot van 'n nasie ten goede kan omdraai en hulle kan lei. U kan hierdie eienskappe aan enige groot leier koppel, en moenie verbaas wees as u iets soortgelyk aan dit wat ek hier in hierdie blog beskryf het, sal sien nie.


Obama oor die Hoofbeats of History

Ek is 'n fan van Glenn Thrush. Vir my is hy in Politiek maar nie daarvan. Maar ek dink hy kry hierdie idee van Obama, as gevolg van sy onstuimige en stewige persooreenkoms in Iran, eenvoudig verkeerd. Die beeld is van 'n president wat woes probeer om soveel erfenis as moontlik in die laaste kwart van sy presidentskap in te span. Geen drama Obama is vervang deur 'n man wat getuig en ongeduldig is nie. Soos dikwels laat in die termyn van 'n president gebeur het, het baie belangrike adviseurs, diegene wat die meeste in staat was om sy meer liefdelose neigings te herstel, hul post-presidensiële lewens aangegaan. Ek dink dit is 'n regverdige karakterisering van die artikel van Thrush. Dit is glad nie wat ek sien nie.

Ons onthou almal daardie week verlede maand toe die land blykbaar met geskiedenis opruk. Die hof het die bekostigbare sorgwet bekragtig teen wat waarskynlik sy laaste ernstige regsuitdaging is, en dit effektief ingebed in die struktuur van die Amerikaanse sosiale beleid. Die hof het toe (in 'n besluit wat ongelukkig 'n swak aangevoerde meerderheidsbesluit was) die huweliksgelykheid landwyd die wet van die land gemaak. Toe op die hakke van hierdie gebeure kom die toespraak van die president (transkripsie hier) in Charleston, Suid -Carolina, eintlik 'n lofrede vir Clementa Pinckney, een van die slagoffers van die bloedbad van die Emmanuel -kerk op 17 Junie, maar eintlik 'n herdenking en meditasie oor die betekenis van die hele gebeurtenis. (James Fallows ’ is een van die beste waarderings en behandelings daarvan.)

Die lofrede in Charleston herdenk nie net 'n gruwelike reeks moorde wat die kwessie van rassegeweld en haat op 'n vreeslik ongekompliseerde manier voor die nasionale publiek stel nie. Terwyl die president gepraat het, was daar 'n duidelike subteks, wat soms in sy toespraak duidelik gemaak is wat die reaksie was. En hier het ons sy raaksteen van genade. Heel onverwags, na 'n paar dae se verskansing, het goewerneur Nikki Haley die hele politieke establishment van Suid -Carolina gelei om te verklaar dat dit tyd is om die oorlog van simboliek oor die Konfederale vlag te beëindig en na die museums terug te trek as 'n oorblyfsel van die verlede. Nog meer onverwags dreun die seeverandering oor die Suide, wat besluite laat ontstaan ​​het om die vlag te verwyder van die mees konserwatiewe Suid -blanke Republikeine en besluite wat slegs dae tevore ondenkbaar sou gewees het.

Die president het iets diep en skokkends gesê in sy toespraak, iets wat genadeloos (miskien nie sonder rede) in byna enige ander konteks van sy presidentskap gedemagageer sou gewees het, maar hierdie met sy geweldige erns en die lof van die president van politieke teenstanders wat die afgelope dae die voortou geneem het en die vlag beëindig het, heers oor die suide. Uit die verskrikking van die moordenaar se aanval en sy wens dat dit rassehaat aan beide kante van die kleurlyn sou veroorsaak, het die president iets anders gesien. “ Ag, maar God werk op geheimsinnige maniere. God het verskillende idees. [Dylann Roof] het nie geweet dat hy deur God gebruik word nie. ”

So 'n idee is nie onbekend op die preekstoel nie, maar dit is onbekend en 'n baie gevaarlike idee wat 'n president kan voorstel.

Dit was 'n belangrike week. Ek wou destyds iets daaroor skryf. Maar ek kon my mening daaroor nie heeltemal vorm nie. Dit lyk meer na iets om in te neem as om oor te praat. In 'n kort reeks gebeurtenisse is soveel van die nalatenskap van die president, wat voorwaardelik en onseker was, skielik bevestig en huis toe gedryf op 'n manier wat min twyfel moontlik gemaak het. Nie al hierdie oorwinnings was natuurlik Obama ’s nie. Hy het nie eens in 2008 huweliksgelykheid gesteun nie, laat staan ​​nog daarop. Die beslissing van die hof en die seeverandering in die publieke opinie wat dit moontlik en miskien onvermydelik gemaak het, was die gevolg van dekades van aktivisme wat strek tot jare toe niemand ooit die naam van die president gehoor het nie. Maar ons praat hier nie oor 'n enkele persoon of politieke leier nie, maar oor die aspirasies van diegene wat hom verkies het. En geoordeel deur hierdie prisma, kom die stormloop van gebeure aan die einde van Junie saam as 'n verenigde prentjie.

As ek na Obama kyk, sien ek nie dat 'n president desperaat probeer om erfenisprestasies in die dalende maande van sy presidentskap te druk nie. Ek sien prestasies wat gewoonlik jare aan die gang was, maar wat dikwels foutief of kwiksoties en onseker lyk. Dit was wat vir baie so sterk was aan die einde van Junie. Dit was 'n lang sewe jaar. Wat na 'n onsekere lys prestasies gelyk het, wat lank beloof is, maar uitmekaar gehaal is deur middel van die terugkeer van die verkiesings en Obama se soms begeerte na huisvesting, verskyn skielik nader aan diepgaande, soos 'n roman of 'n toneelstuk wat verspreid of onopgelos lyk tot al die stukke val op hul plek, duidelik beplan, aan die einde.

Wat u ook al van hierdie Iran -ooreenkoms dink, dit is nie net die produk van jare se werk nie, maar is ook die kern van die buitelandse beleidsvisie wat Obama na die presidentskap gebring het. Dit is die kern van die doelwitte waarmee hy die presidentskap betree het, alles wat die afgelope weke gebeur het. Hy het dit in gedagte dat sy politieke teenstanders baie hard sal druk om hom te blokkeer. En hy stoot vorentoe om dit reg te kry.

Niks hiervan is om te sê dat daar geen duidelike en tasbare verandering in die invloed en houding van die president is nie. Sy presidentskap kom tot 'n einde en sy reeks aksies sal verder afneem namate die presidentsverkiesing volgende jaar na die middelpunt beweeg. Aangesien die begrotingstekort uit die openbare oog teruggesak het, het Obama se tekort na vore gekom. Na ses en 'n half jaar in die amp, het hy moontlik 'n klein voorraad geld. Maar hy het niks meer om te gee nie. Hy is toenemend onverskillig vir die klagtes en woede van sy politieke vyande en fokus op wat hy op sy eie of met betroubare politieke ondersteuners kan doen. U kan dit ook sien op die meer gereeld leunende oomblikke tydens perskonferensies en toesprake. Hy is regtig 'n blaaskans om te gee. Maar dit is meer 'n produk van fokus op die afronding van aspekte van sy presidentskap wat jare lank aan die gang is as op die einde. Vir die meeste van sy ondersteuners was dit die Obama wat hulle altyd wou hê. En hy gee dit vir hulle. Wat vir verslaggewers na vore kom as getuienis, is meer die onverskilligheid van iemand wat werk het om te doen en die bedoeling is om dit te doen.


Obama begin met 'Magical History Tour'

Stof die toerbus af, druk die Ioniese piepschuimkolomme in die bagasieruim en toets die galm, Barack stap die pad op 'n vierde somer van herstel en 'n meer eksklusiewe uitstappie, meer gepas die "Magiese geskiedenis -toer" genoem. "In plaas daarvan om tyd in Washington DC deur te bring Obama het president se pligte uitgevoer en besluit dat dit tyd is om 'n merkwaardige reputasie te herstel.

As iemand die fantasie op die spel kan uitoefen, kan Barack Obama dit beslis doen. Die doel: om Amerika in 'n onverantwoordelike hantering van die ekonomie te glo, was 'n broodnodige en sterk stap om dit van die rand af terug te bring. & Quot

Een stop is in Michigan, waar die indiensneming 14%is. Barry sal daarop aandring dat die werkloses meen dat die reddingsdiens werk sal toevoeg. Obama sal dan van Motor City na die tuinstaat ry om die waarde van 'n mislukte stimuleringspakket van $ 787 miljard te beloon, aangesien fiskaal verantwoordelike goewerneur Christie New Jersey red van die rand van ekonomiese vernietiging in die Obama-styl.

Obama se reise volg 'n al hoe grimmiger patroon van meningspeilings, wat 'n diepgewortelde skeptisisme toon onder die Amerikaanse publiek oor die gevolge van die stimulus en [Obama se] benadering tot die ekonomie in die algemeen [volgens 'n Pew-peiling], slegs 35 % van die Demokratiese kiesers meen die stimulus het gehelp dat werkloosheid nie erger word nie.

Obama kan gedwing word om deur Will.i.am se plek te swaai en die & quotJa We Can & quot -bemanning op te neem, want dit lyk asof die kern -demokratiese kiesers wat 18 maande gelede van vreugde gehuil het, deel uitmaak van 'n groter wordende entoesiasme tussen gemotiveerde kiesers in die opposisieparty. Republikeine herken rook en spieëls voor die verkiesing, maar nou val onafhanklikes in massas weg. Wat die saak nog erger maak, het gesonde Demokrate die rooskleurige Barry-bril verwyder en is hulle tans besig om in 'n somer van Obama se ontevredenheid rond te loop.

Teleprompter -teater opsy, selfs dolly Demokrate besef dat die stimulus niks gedoen het om Amerika te red van 'n opkomende indiensnemingskrisis nie.

Een uitdaging voor Barry is om die Amerikaners te oortuig dat sy prioriteite nie teenoor ondernemings en die rykes is nie. '' Hierdie spesifieke vermaning is beter om te sê tot ná die president se $ 30,000,00 per persoon se verjaardag.

Op die rand van die verlies aan die beheer van die Demokrate oor die Huis en die Senaat, is Obama moontlik die enigste persoon wat nie daarvan bewus is dat swagger en spraak nou en November weinig sal doen om die feite op die terrein te verander, wat steeds oorheers word deur 'n byna dubbelsyferkoers van werkloosheid. & quot

Namate Amerika dieper in 'n swart gat van die sosialistiese beleid duik, sal Obama George W. moontlik in 'n prentjie uitsleep en voortgaan om die oudpresident wat twee jaar terug in Crawford, Texas was, te straf. Barry bied die keuse & quotAmerica -gesigte aan. tussen om terug te gaan na die beleid wat ons in die gemors gelei het [of] vorentoe te gaan met liberale beleid, wat die land in totale wanhoop gedompel het.

By gebrek aan stof, sal Obama sy leë pak vul deur die opponerende party te beledig. Die briljante spelplan: beklemtoon die Republikeinse opposisie om werkloosheidsvoordele uit te brei na diegene wat sonder werk is weens die slegte ekonomiese beleid van Barry.

Op die & quotsummer recovery & quot toer is dit waarskynlik dat Obama die langdurige Bush -belastingverlagings sal demoniseer vir diegene wat in staat is om werk te skep vir diegene wat werkloos is weens 'n mislukte sosialistiese agenda.

Nadat Obama die nasionale skuld met $ 2 triljoen verhoog het, is Obama vasbeslote om Amerika te bedrieg deur 'n beroep op ontevrede kiesers te doen met die idee dat belastingverlagings vir welgestelde Amerikaners dieselfde beleid het wat ons in hierdie resessie gelei het. & Quot

Obama se "Magiese geskiedenis toer" behoort 'n fassinerende somerskouspel te wees, waarvan die resultate in November sal aandui of die bedwelmde kiesers wat Barry die Bamboozler een keer mislei het, twee keer mislei sal word.

Stof die toerbus af, druk die Ioniese piepschuimkolomme in die bagasieruim en toets die galm, Barack stap die pad op 'n vierde somer van herstel en 'n meer eksklusiewe uitstappie, meer gepas die "Magiese geskiedenis -toer" genoem. "In plaas daarvan om tyd in Washington DC deur te bring Obama het president se pligte uitgevoer en besluit dat dit tyd is om 'n merkwaardige reputasie te herstel.

As iemand die fantasie op die spel kan uitoefen, kan Barack Obama dit beslis doen. Die doel: om Amerika in 'n onverantwoordelike hantering van die ekonomie te glo, was 'n broodnodige en sterk stap om dit van die rand af terug te bring. & Quot

Een stop is in Michigan, waar die indiensneming 14%is. Barry sal daarop aandring dat die werkloses meen dat die reddingswerk werk bykom. Obama sal dan van Motor City na die tuinstaat ry om die waarde van 'n mislukte stimuleringspakket van $ 787 miljard te beloon, aangesien fiskaal verantwoordelike goewerneur Christie New Jersey red van die rand van ekonomiese vernietiging in Obama-styl.

Obama se reise volg 'n al hoe grimmiger patroon van meningspeilings, wat 'n diepgewortelde skeptisisme toon onder die Amerikaanse publiek oor die gevolge van die stimulus en [Obama se] benadering tot die ekonomie in die algemeen [volgens 'n Pew-peiling], slegs 35 % van die Demokratiese kiesers meen die stimulus het gehelp dat werkloosheid nie erger word nie.

Obama kan gedwing word om deur Will.i.am se plek te swaai en die & quotJa We Can & quot -bemanning op te neem, want dit lyk asof die kern -demokratiese kiesers wat 18 maande gelede van vreugde gehuil het, deel uitmaak van 'n groter wordende entoesiasme tussen gemotiveerde kiesers in die opposisieparty. Republikeine herken rook en spieëls voor die verkiesing, maar nou val onafhanklikes in massas weg. Die verstandige demokrate het die rooskleurige Barry-bril verwyder en is tans besig om in 'n somer van Obama se ontevredenheid te verdwaal.

Teleprompter -teater opsy, selfs dol Demokrate besef dat die stimulus niks gedoen het om Amerika te red van 'n opkomende indiensnemingskrisis nie.

One challenge before Barry is convincing Americans his priorities are not "skewed toward companies and the wealthy." This particular exhortation would be better left unsaid until after the President's $30,000.00 per person birthday extravaganza.

On the precipice of losing Democrat control of the House and Senate, Obama may be the only person unaware that swagger and speechifying will do little "between now and November to change the facts on the ground, which continue to be dominated by near double-digit rate of unemployment."

As America plummets deeper into a black hole of socialist policies, Obama will likely drag George W. out in effigy and continue to censure the ex-president who's been back in Crawford, Texas for two years. Barry will present the choice "America faces. between going back to the policies that led us into the mess [or] moving forward" with liberal policies, which plunged the nation into total despair.

Lacking substance, Obama will fill his empty suit by sullying the opposing party. The brilliant game plan: stress Republican opposition to extending unemployment benefits to those who are out of work solely because of Barry's wretched economic policies.

On the "summer recovery" tour it is likely Obama will continue to demonize prolonging Bush tax cuts for those in a position to create jobs for those who are unemployed because of a failed socialistic agenda.

After increasing the national debt by $2 trillion, Obama is determined to hoodwink America by appealing to disaffected voters with the idea that tax cuts for wealthy Americans "are the same policies that led us into this recession."

Obama's "Magical History Tour" should be a fascinating summertime spectacle whose November results will indicate if the bedazzled electorate fooled once by Barry the Bamboozler will be fooled twice.


Whither western civilization?

I thought about giving myself the weekend off for Father's Day, but as so often happens, some current journalism provided the texts for this morning's sermon, in the form of two book review essays. The first, by a Princeton historian named Fara Dabhoiwala, from a recent issue of the New York Review of Books, deals with three books on the history of colonialism and decolonization: Time’s Monster: How History Makes History , by Priya Satia Neither Settler nor Native: The Making and Unmaking of Permanent Minorities by Mahmood Mamdani and W orldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination by Adom Getachew. Unfortunately only subscribers can follow the link. The second, by the journalist and Yale Law lecturer Emily Bazelon in today's New York Times, reviews recent books on the state of American politics and thought by George Packer (The Last Best Hope) and Jonathan Rauch (The Constitution of Knowledge.) The first review illustrates, and the second one directly addresses, the profound changes in western intellectual life over the last five or six decades, which now amount to a repudiation of the western political and intellectual tradition, and raise the question of whether we are on the verge of an historical turning point comparable to the fall of the Roman Empire.

Dabhoisala's review begins with a lengthy discussion of British justfications for imperial rule, especially at Oxford University. He does not attribute either to any of the books he is reviewing or to any other text. although it may come from his third book. His many quotes show that much the British establishment devoutly believed in its civilizing mission in India, Africa, the Caribbean, and elsewhere, as indeed they did. Time's Monster, the first book under review, apparently echoes these themes, and points out that figures as influential as Rudyard Kipling and Winston Churchill also came to believe that only British rule saved territories like India from endless internecine warfare and bloodshed. (I have known that, for the record, since I read Churchill's own memoirs in 1966.) Instead, Satia, the author, seems to argue that British rule was responsible for heightening divisions between Muslims and Hindus (who had contended for the rule of India in previous centuries), and thus was responsible for the enormous post-independence violence that generated millions of deaths and refugees in Pakistan and independent India. This argument, we shall find, is becoming popular.

The next book, Mahmood Mamdami's Neither Settler nor Native, apparently argues that the west's concept of the ethnically and religiously homogeneous nation-state is responsible for enormous violence not only in the west but all over the world. " The pathologies of postcolonial civil wars and genocide," Dabhoisala paraphrases, "are directly connected to the history of what 'civilized' nations have long done at home." Mandami cites at least two examples: the treatment of the Indians by colonists in what became the United States, which Dabhoisala calls "willful extermination," and the decision at the end of the Second World War to move millions of ethnic Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe into Germany proper, to eliminate sources of political conflict. Like virtually everyone who writes about American Indians today, Mandami apparently fails to put their history in a broader metahistorical context, which would show that geen hunter-gatherer society has ever survived in direct contact with an agricultural or industrial one. As for the European example, I wrote at great length about that episode in my own book Politics and War more than thirty years ago, noting, tragically, that the Europeans had found no other solution to longstanding ethnic conflicts in Eastern Europe, in particular, except population transfer and mass murder. When I completed that book, three multinational states--the USSR, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia--were also about to disintegrate amidst more violence, suggesting that the problem has not yet been solved. That hardly means, however, that such ethnic or racial conflicts enigste existed in Europe, or that, as Mandami apparently argues, the west taught the rest of the world about them.

The third book, Adom Getachev's Worldmaking after Empire, performs an even more striking historical gymnastic, arguing that 20th century anti-colonialism in the west was really disguised imperialism. "Woodrow Wilson, the reviewer paraphrases, "the great champion of the new League of Nations after World War I, is often portrayed as having been motivated by an egalitarian, essentially anti-imperial conception of national self-determination. But as Adom Getachew argues in her astute and incisive first book, Worldmaking After Empire, that is pretty much the opposite of the truth. In Wilson’s eyes, preserving 'white supremacy on this planet' was the ultimate postwar goal. Just as African-Americans were unworthy of national citizenship, so, too, for colonized and other lesser peoples across the world self-government was not a right but a stage of development for which they were inherently unfit or, at best, woefully underprepared." Having been reading Wilson's speeches on this subject recently myself, I must say that this is a critical distortion. Wilson certainly believed (and helped impose) racial segregation in the US, and also believed that nonwhite peoples were at that time at an earlier stage of development than the Europeans. Yet he believed that the only justification for colonialism was to educate and prepare other people for independence. It is possible, although I do not know, that Getachew regards teaching western forms of self-governance to non-western peoples itself constitutes "preserving white supremacy on this planet." That's a popular view nowadays in many contexts. Many colonized peoples, however, eagerly adopted western ideas of democracy and human rights, and welcomed Wilson's initiative. Wilson also, it might be noted, advocated the earliest possible independence for the Philippines, which the United States had acquired in 1898, and because of other Americans like him, Congress in 1932 established 1946 as the date for independence, and the United States in 1946 carried that plan out.

And the independence of the Philippines is just one episode in a much bigger story that both Getachev and Dabhoisala seem determined, bizarrely, to ignore. "A project of anticolonial worldmaking," Dabhoisala writes, overcame colonial "structures of domination. . . In 1960, despite the resistance of the United States, Britain, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and South Africa, UN Resolution 1514, “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,” established that “the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights” and was contrary to the UN Charter. Despite its specification of “alien” rule, which seemed to exculpate settler colonialism, this was a legal watershed." I don't know why the representatives of all those nations opposed that General Assembly resolution, but I do know that by 1960 Britain had given up India and its Middle Eastern Empire, de Gaulle was on the point of liquidating the last major French imperial territory in Algeria--having already pulled out of the rest of Africa--and Belgium had pulled out of the Congo. All that took place partly because of revolution and resistance in the colonies, but also because of the triumph of anti-colonialist forces in the European states, except in Portugal, where that did not occur until 1975. Like the authors of the 1619 project, however, Getachev appears determined to deny that white people have every willingly done anything to benefit nonwhites, and to claim that their ideas of equality have never been anything but a mask for their own supremacy.

These books, in short, try to refute the whole idea that western civilization represented a step forward for humanity and that many aspects of it spread around the world for that very reason. To make this argument, it seems, they find it convenient to ignore any serious discussion of violence in colonized territories before the West arrived, just as woke activists in the US never mention that slavery was flourishing in Africa long after it had been abolished in Europe. It is quite clear, however, that violence was endemic and often cruel among different tribes in the Americas before the Europeans arrived, and that India was the scene of huge wars for empire long before the British became a political factor. The idea that ethnic conflict is a western invention imposed by westerners on the third world is, in my opinion, without foundation, but such is the general skepticism about western civilization in the academy that these books are now mainstream. I do not know if the fall of the Roman Empire was preceded by the publication of books in Rome claiming that Roman expansion had been a horrible catastrophe for the peoples of the Mediterranean world, although I know at least one scholar has interpreted Tacitus's Germania as an early piece of political correctness. The greater irony, I think, is that all the ideas that books like these are using to undermine our view of western civilization came from the western academy--from angry younger generations, originally--and have essentially tried to overthrow western political thought from within.

Emily Bazelon's review spends most of its time on George Packer's book, which has been excerpted at length in a freely available article in The Atlantic. Packer identifies four different Americas--or four concepts of America--two each on either side of the political spectrum. The Republicans combine Free America, based on the libertarian fantasies of men like Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan and Alan Greenspan, with Real America, the constituency of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. The Democrats combine Smart America--the second- or third-generation meritocrats who have become an educational and cultural elite--with Just America, the new activists who have abandoned "the universal values of the Enlightenment: objectivity, rationality, science, equality and freedom of the individual." They argue that "“all disparities between groups result from systems of oppression and demand collective action for redress, often amounting to new forms of discrimination — in other words, equity. In practice, identity politics inverts the old hierarchy of power into a new one: bottom rail on top.” None of these groups, he argues, focus primarily on our most serious problem, increasing economic inequality--and I agree. Packer does not point out, at least in the Atlantic article, that while the Republican split is mainly an economic and cultural one, the Democratic split is mainly generational.

Bazelon notes that Packer, like myself, is particularly concerned with Just America's dominance of academia and major media outlets, who emphasize the impact of emotional trauma inflicted on minorities by speech and texts, and shame and ostracize colleagues who do not toe the line. As recenty as last September, Bazelon herself wrote another long New York Times article questioning our traditional devotion to free speech, lamenting that the best ideas do not always prevail in a marketplace of ideas. Now she is having some second thoughts. "As a journalist and a part-time lecturer at a university," she writes, "I would have shrugged off these claims a few years ago. I still think a minority of academics and journalists are driving the shift Packer is talking about. But they have real influence."

Their influence, she continues, is the subject of Jonathan Rauch's book, which deals with the attack upon traditional western intellectual values head on. She quotes him about the novel features of cancel culture: "“Criticism seeks to engage in conversations and identify error canceling seeks to stigmatize conversations and punish the errant. Criticism cares whether statements are true canceling cares about their social effects.” Given the power of the new ideologues in universities and newspapers--where they are bureaucratically entrenched now--few people dare to challenge them. Rauch, who has been a gay activist, also has contempt for leftists who refuse to recognize opponents as worthy of debate. “Every time I hear a minority-rights advocate say that she should not have to debate haters who question her very right to exist," he writes, "I say: On the contrary, that is exactly who you need to debate.” Yet Bazelon, like the vast majority of journalists and academics to whom Rauch refers, will not abandon the new orthodoxy. "I also wanted both Rauch and Packer to consider why the Enlightenment figures and values they love don’t speak to everyone," she writes. "They are sensitive to the concerns of people who have lacked power in American society, but they don’t engage with the full scope of their critiques and frustrations. These books are a launching pad for debate, not the last word."

I don't know Packer or Rauch and I haven't read all of either book, but I suspect they might agree with me that critical theory's approach to the problems of women, minorities and gays is both inaccurate and harmful--because the ideals of the Enlightenment, even if they have never been perfectly applied, are the only really effective weapon those groups have ever had. The increasing contempt for those ideals holds these two reviews together. If you believe that the violent and non-violent spread of western ideas around the world caused far more harm than good, then you will see no reason to defend western ideas of equality and free speech. Those are dominant intellectual trends of our time. They could lead us into a new dark age.


Obama Blog - History

A carousel is a rotating set of images. Use the previous and next buttons to change the displayed slide

Slide 1: President Barack Obama visits a pre-kindergarten classroom at the College Heights Early Childhood Learning Center in Decatur, Georgia, February 14, 2013.

Slide 2: First Lady Michelle Obama and kids double-dutch jump rope during a taping for the Presidential Active Lifestyle Award (PALA) challenge and Nickelodeon's Worldwide Day of Play, on the South Lawn of the White House, July 15, 2011.

Slide 3: The First Family with Representative John Lewis and others walking across Edmund Pettus Bridge, March 7, 2015.

Slide 4: President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama look out at the Chicago, Ill., skyline, June 15, 2012.

President Barack Obama visits a pre-kindergarten classroom at the College Heights Early Childhood Learning Center in Decatur, Georgia, February 14, 2013.

First Lady Michelle Obama and kids double-dutch jump rope during a taping for the Presidential Active Lifestyle Award (PALA) challenge and Nickelodeon's Worldwide Day of Play, on the South Lawn of the White House, July 15, 2011.

The First Family with Representative John Lewis and others walking across Edmund Pettus Bridge, March 7, 2015.

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama look out at the Chicago, Ill., skyline, June 15, 2012.


Associate Professor of Political Science - Boise State University

Today, there are numerous additional examples, with each survey utilizing its own methodological approaches. Given the diversity of approaches, the relative consensus of these studies’ results can be surprising. The top tier of greatness polls consistently reports the same handful of presidents—Lincoln, Washington, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, followed closely by Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt—while the bottom of the list also exhibits continuity, with names such as Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, and Hoover consistently among the most ignominious.


Obama - The #1 gun salesman in history

It's been noted here before that Barack Obama and his anti-gun Chicago cronies are the firearms industry's best friends. From his election onward, Obama has been the top firearms and ammunition salesman in America. Despite what liberals like to believe, conservatives aren't stupid. If you put the most anti-gun administration ooit in our White House and give them four years in which to undermine our basic constitutional rights as they have in Chicago where they hold absolute power, we are going to react. To not do so is to possibly doom ourselves to a fate similar to the Greeks as was pointed out a few days ago here at AT by Larrey Anderson.

So react is what Americans did. Even before Obama was sworn in, they began adding to their personal arsenals and bulking up ammunition inventories in record numbers,. Ammo supplies became particularly acute when rumors began circulating around the Internet that Democrats, fearing they couldn't muster the votes for stiffer gun control legislation, were planning to enact a punishingly huge excise tax on all forms of ammunition as a back door to their aim of overturning the 2d Amendment. When in 2009, key Democrats like Obama, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and others began trumpeting the ridiculous canard that American arms were primarily responsible for the violence and mayhem in Mexico, the antennae of millions of gun owners began to tingle with suspicion that something underhanded was underway. That suspicion was reinforced with the revelation in early 2011 that Obama had told gun activists that his administration was working under the radar to advance gun control. We are now being proved right by the revelations emanating from the congressional investigation into Operation Fast & Furious.

A few months into this administration, nine millimeter pistol ammunition, the caliber used by the most popular handgun in America, was almost impossible to find. Even a major retailer like WalMart could obtain it only in limited quantities and then rationed it out to their stores, who, in turn, limited the quantities individual customers could purchase. Our local WalMart sometimes went weeks without a shipment of Nine-Mil when they did get one, it was gone quickly, sometimes within minutes.

This shortage had disappeared in the past year but there's evidence it may be returning as conservatives, put off by the internecine battles of the Republican primary campaign, are beginning to fear that Obama just could conceivably pull off a victory in November should the economy improve. An unfearing, unfettered anti-gun activist in the White House for four years could be a 2d Amendment nightmare, especially if he gets to pick a supreme court justice or two. Headlines have again begun reappearing noting a significant uptick in ammo and firearms sales. Two weeks ago I received a marketing email from my low-priced, super-fast, online firearms supplier, Bud's Gun Shop saying this:

After spending the first six weeks of 2012 attending various firearms industry shows, including the NSSF Shot Show in Las Vegas with the highest dealer attendance of record, there was one obvious recurring theme from every manufacturer we visited with. "we just can't make enough firearms". Although we fully expected another surge later in 2012, it has already started as the ATF continues to report all time record highs in background/NICS checks as well as Conceal Carry/CCW permit applications.

We are also experiencing record high sales on www.budsgunshop.com, actually breaking our all time single day sales records TWICE this month ! Considering we had no special promotions going on, and we exceeded every sales record dating all the way back to 2003, it seems pretty clear . "Here we go again !"

Here we go again, indeed. Bud's makes no mention as to whether Obama was presented the Top Salesman Trophy at that Las Vegas meet. Funny, isn't it, that the liberal media wouldn't mention it, if he was?

It's been noted here before that Barack Obama and his anti-gun Chicago cronies are the firearms industry's best friends. From his election onward, Obama has been the top firearms and ammunition salesman in America. Despite what liberals like to believe, conservatives aren't stupid. If you put the most anti-gun administration ooit in our White House and give them four years in which to undermine our basic constitutional rights as they have in Chicago where they hold absolute power, we are going to react. To not do so is to possibly doom ourselves to a fate similar to the Greeks as was pointed out a few days ago here at AT by Larrey Anderson.

So react is what Americans did. Even before Obama was sworn in, they began adding to their personal arsenals and bulking up ammunition inventories in record numbers,. Ammo supplies became particularly acute when rumors began circulating around the Internet that Democrats, fearing they couldn't muster the votes for stiffer gun control legislation, were planning to enact a punishingly huge excise tax on all forms of ammunition as a back door to their aim of overturning the 2d Amendment. When in 2009, key Democrats like Obama, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and others began trumpeting the ridiculous canard that American arms were primarily responsible for the violence and mayhem in Mexico, the antennae of millions of gun owners began to tingle with suspicion that something underhanded was underway. That suspicion was reinforced with the revelation in early 2011 that Obama had told gun activists that his administration was working under the radar to advance gun control. We are now being proved right by the revelations emanating from the congressional investigation into Operation Fast & Furious.

A few months into this administration, nine millimeter pistol ammunition, the caliber used by the most popular handgun in America, was almost impossible to find. Even a major retailer like WalMart could obtain it only in limited quantities and then rationed it out to their stores, who, in turn, limited the quantities individual customers could purchase. Our local WalMart sometimes went weeks without a shipment of Nine-Mil when they did get one, it was gone quickly, sometimes within minutes.

This shortage had disappeared in the past year but there's evidence it may be returning as conservatives, put off by the internecine battles of the Republican primary campaign, are beginning to fear that Obama just could conceivably pull off a victory in November should the economy improve. An unfearing, unfettered anti-gun activist in the White House for four years could be a 2d Amendment nightmare, especially if he gets to pick a supreme court justice or two. Headlines have again begun reappearing noting a significant uptick in ammo and firearms sales. Two weeks ago I received a marketing email from my low-priced, super-fast, online firearms supplier, Bud's Gun Shop saying this:

After spending the first six weeks of 2012 attending various firearms industry shows, including the NSSF Shot Show in Las Vegas with the highest dealer attendance of record, there was one obvious recurring theme from every manufacturer we visited with. "we just can't make enough firearms". Although we fully expected another surge later in 2012, it has already started as the ATF continues to report all time record highs in background/NICS checks as well as Conceal Carry/CCW permit applications.

We are also experiencing record high sales on www.budsgunshop.com, actually breaking our all time single day sales records TWICE this month ! Considering we had no special promotions going on, and we exceeded every sales record dating all the way back to 2003, it seems pretty clear . "Here we go again !"

Here we go again, indeed. Bud's makes no mention as to whether Obama was presented the Top Salesman Trophy at that Las Vegas meet. Funny, isn't it, that the liberal media wouldn't mention it, if he was?


Obama changed the face of our economy for the worse

Question: What do Hong Kong, Singapore, Chile, Ireland and Estonia have in common?

Answer: They all have more economic freedom than the United States.

According to the 2016 edition of the Index of Economic Freedom — compiled annually by the Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation — America has matched its lowest global ranking ever at #11, its seventh decline in the past eight years. Measuring such factors as rule of law, regulatory efficiency, limited government, and open markets, they conclude, “The United States remains mired in the ranks of the ‘mostly free,’ the second-tier economic freedom status into which it dropped in 2010.”

Many believe we’ve arrived at this state of affairs due to the nature America’s mixed economy—capitalism coupled with government controls—and its nexus with President Barack Obama Barack Hussein ObamaObama: Voting rights bill must pass before next election The world's most passionate UFO skeptic versus the government Biden plans to host Obama for portrait unveiling that Trump skipped: report MORE ’s eight years of collectivist ideas and policies into American life and the economy. The result: Obama and his administration have upset, perhaps in some respects irrevocably, the tenuous balance between private enterprise (free markets, productivity, entrepreneurial growth, etc.) and the countervailing winds of government coercion and intervention.

Certainly one of the primary culprits in this dynamic is the blizzard of regulations imposed under Obama. As reported by Sam Batkins of the American Action Forum (AAF), the Obama presidency has implemented 600 hoofvak regulations—defined as regulations that have “an economic impact of $100 million or more”—and is on track to enact 641 major regulations before he leaves office. This figure shatters the 426 regulations under President George Bush and represents a new major regulation every three days—according to Batkins costing, “on average, $1.4 billion . . . With the possibility of 50 more rules, the lame duck tally could push this regulatory cost figure to $813 billion . . . more than the GDP of the Philippines.”

Faced with these and other findings, Obama remains obdurate and combative—offering kingly declarations in response: “By almost every measure, we are better off than when I took office” and “Anyone claiming that America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction.” These assertions fly in the face of the numerous non-fictions he simply refuses to acknowledge: a labor participation rate near a 40-year low (including a record number of women) his single-handed accumulation of more debt (at $19.5 trillion and counting) than every other president before him combined 46 million Americans living in poverty and nearly 50 million on food stamps his presidency overseeing a record number of home foreclosures as well as America’s credit rating downgraded for the first time ever . . . the litany goes on. Is it any wonder that trust in Obama’s leadership and his administration remains at historically low levels? After almost eight years of government corruption, ever-expanding spending and taxation, bloating of the administrative state, and governance repeatedly highlighting racial, social and religious divisions, the once unassailable belief in America as the freest, strongest, noblest, most prosperous nation in history has been supplanted by a vision of ourselves that we do not recognize and from which we may never recover.

Obama’s insistence on government being increasingly involved in the country’s private sector’s economic decision-making has inevitably given rise to more and more lobbyists, more special interest groups, more political influence, and more crony capitalism—which makes a mockery of his pledge to create an “unprecedented level of openness” and his claim that his administration has been “the most transparent administration in history.” His proof? Every visitor who comes to the White House is now a part of the public record.

Given Obama’s lineage, his mentors and political influences, his controversial friends and associations, his background as a community organizer and neighborhood economic developer, should we be surprised that he is a man who knows only how to slice up the pie, rather than grow the pie? It is who he is. It’s in his DNA. He can’t help himself.

Is it only a matter of time before America slides down to the next lower level of the economic freedom index and joins the ranks with Poland, Barbados, Albania, Rwanda, Namibia, Guatemala, Italy, Slovenia, and others—as “moderately free”?

La Valle is freelance writer in New York.

The views expressed by Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.


Kyk die video: Making History: President Obamas New Approach to Old Adversaries