Obama Likes Tyrants and Dislikes America?

Michael Ledeen wrote an article, Is Obama Naive?, that appeared on the National Review's web site on 09/24/2009, in which he claims that President Obama likes tyrants and dislikes America:


Is Obama Naive?

"I don't think so. I think that he rather likes tyrants and dislikes America. I think he'd like to be more powerful, I think he is trying to get control over as much of our lives as he can, so that he can put an end to the annoying tumult of our public life. As when he said (about health care) to the Congress, "Okay, you've talked enough, now it's time to do the right thing (my thing)." And he's trying to end American power in the outside world. He's saying "I'm going to stop us, before we kill again."

There is nothing unusual about elitist hatred of freedom. Back in the 18th century, when book publishing really got going, British authors were infuriated that they had to submit to the judgment of a marketplace. They didn't want to be judged by people who were obviously inferior to them, and there was a great rage among the intelligentsia, including some very famous men. And in modern times, we can all name famous intellectuals who fawned all over Mussolini, Stalin, Fidel, and even Hitler.

American politics are very fractious, and always have been. Leaders are constantly frustrated, and some of them come to yearn for an end to our freedom. They think they know best, they just want to tell us what to do and have us shut up and do it. I think Obama is one of them. He's not naïve. It's different. He doesn't like the way things work here, he thinks he can do much better, and he's possessed of the belief that America has done a lot of terrible things in the world, and should be prevented from doing such things ever again. The two convictions mesh perfectly. It's The Best and the Brightest run amok.

Democratic leaders' envy of tyrants' power can be understood. But it can't be forgiven."


Let's examine this article and see how it fails to support its own assertions.

Ledeen says, "I think that (Obama) rather likes tyrants and dislikes America. I think he'd like to be more powerful, I think he is trying to get control over as much of our lives as he can, so that he can put an end to the annoying tumult of our public life."

How does he back up these bold statements? By allegedly quoting one sentence from a speech by President Obama concerning health care: "Okay, you've talked enough, now it's time to do the right thing (my thing)." Weak. Also, possibly not even an accurate quote. I tried searching the internet using that quote, minus the "my thing," and the only results were references back to Ledeen's article, not to any quote by President Obama. Ledeen even had to editorialize in that sentence by assuming that Obama only wanted Congress to act on the health care matter to support his "thing." How is this proof that Obama likes tyrants and dislikes America? Your guess is as good as mine.

Ledeen then goes on to say, "And he's trying to end American power in the outside world. He's saying "I'm going to stop us, before we kill again." Where is Ledeen's evidence? Nowhere to be found in this article.

"There is nothing unusual about elitist hatred of freedom. Back in the 18th century, when book publishing really got going, British authors were infuriated that they had to submit to the judgment of a marketplace. They didn't want to be judged by people who were obviously inferior to them, and there was a great rage among the intelligentsia, including some very famous men." Ledeen could have named some. After all, there were many British authors in the 18th century. Surely he could have provided some quotes. Wonder why he didn't?

Same criticism applies to Ledeen's next statement: "And in modern times, we can all name famous intellectuals who fawned all over Mussolini, Stalin, Fidel, and even Hitler." Is that right? I challenge any reader, off the top of your head, to name these "famous intellectuals." Good luck. Obviously, Ledeen didn't choose to name any. Picture him being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. "So, Mr. Ledeen, as I cannot come up with those "famous intellectuals," please name them for me." I can hear Ledeen's stammering now. One thing for which I admire O'Reilly, besides his penchant for increasing our vocabulary at the end of each show, is that he doesn't let politicians and newsmakers wiggle off his interviewing hook. He reels them in. Bill would have a ball with Ledeen.

"American politics are very fractious, and always have been. Leaders are constantly frustrated, and some of them come to yearn for an end to our freedom. They think they know best, they just want to tell us what to do and have us shut up and do it. I think Obama is one of them." I agree with the first sentence. The next three just constitute more unsubstantiated hyperbole. Evidence please.

"He doesn't like the way things work here, he thinks he can do much better, and he's possessed of the belief that America has done a lot of terrible things in the world, and should be prevented from doing such things ever again. The two convictions mesh perfectly. It's The Best and the Brightest run amok." I imagine that most politicians, regardless of party, don't like the way things work, and think they can do much better. But then Ledeen continues with yet another unsupported statement, "... (Obama's) possessed of the belief that America has done a lot of terrible things in the world, and should be prevented from doing such things ever again." Yawn.

Drum roll, please. Ledeen concludes, not surprisingly, with, "Democratic leaders' envy of tyrants' power can be understood. But it can't be forgiven." He made clear his opinion that President Obama falls into that category. So who are the others? Names and quotes to substantiate that claim, Mr. Ledeen. Oh...I see...that would have required research and an intellectual discipline that you do not seemingly possess. Your comments, therefore, can be understood. But they can't be forgiven.

But wait. I must commend you on one success. Your article's title is, "Is Obama Naive?" You first sentence stated, "I don't think so." Yet near the end of your article, you wrote, "He's not naïve." This is a 313 word essay. Yet in that short time, you at least succeeded in changing the mind of one person, yourself, on the issue of whether Obama is naive or not. Congratulations.

04 June 2009: An Important Day for World Peace

President Obama will make a speech at the University of Cairo on June 4. The topic? An attempt to convince the Muslims of the world that the West, primarily the United States, is not at war with Islam.

Former President George W. Bush tried to make that case, but failed to do so. Why did he fail? First, after the September 11 attacks, President Bush said, "...this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." Second, the fact that his Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, headlined his written war briefings to the President with Biblical quotations, such as, “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.” Referring to a "crusade" and then having Bible quotes embellishing official documents kind of wrecks one's credibility concerning the non-religious aspect of the war. I suspect that history will not be kind to President George W. Bush.

The May 9 Boston Herald carried this story about President Obama's upcoming speech in Egypt:


"President Barack Obama will visit Egypt on June 4 to deliver a long-planned speech aimed at convincing Muslims worldwide that the United States isn’t at war with their faith.

Egypt is a strategic but politically risky choice for such a venue. With more than 83 million people, it’s the most populous nation in the Middle East.

However, the Egyptian government, led by 81-year-old President Hosni Mubarak, is widely criticized for its authoritarian rule, corruption and human rights abuses, issues that are likely to provoke criticism of Obama’s choice to speak there, and that will require him to walk a careful line between promoting democratic values and criticizing his host.

President Bush repeatedly said after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that the United States was not at war with Islam, only terrorists, a message since repeated by Obama.

Obama’s speech is expected to be delivered in Cairo, historically an Arabic center of intellectual thought in the Muslim world, but the location hasn’t been finalized, according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Gibbs called Egypt “a country that in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world” and said the speech won’t be aimed at Muslim leaders so much as it will be at the populace.

It represents “a continuing effort by this president and this White House to demonstrate how we can work together to ensure the safety and security and the future well-being through hope and opportunity of the children of this country and of the Muslim world,” he said.

The State Department’s most recent human rights report said that Mubarak’s regime routinely abuses human and political rights, employing torture, detaining hundreds of people without charges or trial, including political opponents, restricting freedom of speech and the press, and rigging elections.

Gibbs acknowledged that “the issues of democracy and human rights . . . are on the president’s mind,” and said “we’ll have a chance to discuss those in more depth on the trip.”

After Egypt, Obama will travel to Germany for a June 5 visit to Dresden and the Buchenwald concentration camp, which a great uncle of his helped to liberate, then on to France on June 6 for the 65th anniversary of D-Day."


I am simultaneously concerned for President Obama's safety, and optimistic that his trip will, at a minimum, plant the seeds of understanding in the minds of Middle Eastern citizens who happen to be of the Islamic faith.

As always, I look for areas of common interest. If his speech goes as planned at the University of Cairo, I can see President Obama reaching out to the students there with some shared concerns that he had, both as a student in the United States, and as a teacher at the University of Chicago. Perhaps a brief comment that students around the world represent this world's future; or a comment in favor of students studying overseas in order to help gain a global perspective on issues. He would then direct his comments to the wider audience.

The shape of the world will be molded, in large part, by how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are resolved. Peaceful and just conclusions will introduce stability and hope for generations to come.

I wish the President a safe and successful trip, and thank him in advance.

President Obama's Legacy Assured By a Pen Stroke

March 9, 2009. President Obama signed an Executive Order. Restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research, put into place by former president George W. Bush, are eliminated.

In so doing, President Obama's legacy has been guaranteed. If he does nothing else of significance, history will remember him for this one simple act. He has allowed the United States of America to join with other nations, such as China, Japan, India, South Korea, Australia, Taiwan, Switzerland, Spain, France, et cetera in researching and developing not just treatments, but permanent CURES for numerous debilitating diseases and conditions, including diabetes, Alzheimer's, heart disease, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, stroke, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and even severe burns. Stem cell research holds that much promise, and perhaps even more.

Here is the full text of President Obama's speech on the day he signed the Order:


"Today, with the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.

At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions. To regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair. To spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles. To treat Parkinson’s, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.

But that potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research – from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit – and from a government willing to support that work. From life-saving vaccines, to pioneering cancer treatments, to the sequencing of the human genome – that is the story of scientific progress in America. When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives.

But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.

It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans – from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs – have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

That is a conclusion with which I agree. That is why I am signing this Executive Order, and why I hope Congress will act on a bi-partisan basis to provide further support for this research. We are joined today by many leaders who have reached across the aisle to champion this cause, and I commend them for that work.

Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No President can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them – actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground. Not just by opening up this new frontier of research today, but by supporting promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.

I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.

This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let’s be clear: promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

By doing this, we will ensure America’s continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs. That is essential not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity.

That is why today, I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making. To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals – to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives.

As we restore our commitment to science, and resume funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not. Today, we honor all those whose names we don’t know, who organized, and raised awareness, and kept on fighting – even when it was too late for them, or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause – people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment.

One of Christopher’s friends recalled that he hung a sign on the wall of the exercise room where he did his grueling regimen of physical therapy. It read: “For everyone who thought I couldn’t do it. For everyone who thought I shouldn’t do it. For everyone who said, ‘It’s impossible.’ See you at the finish line.”

Christopher once told a reporter who was interviewing him: “If you came back here in ten years, I expect that I’d walk to the door to greet you.”

Christopher did not get that chance. But if we pursue this research, maybe one day – maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children’s lifetime – but maybe one day, others like him might.

There is no finish line in the work of science. The race is always with us – the urgent work of giving substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers, of seeking a day when words like “terminal” and “incurable” are finally retired from our vocabulary.

Today, using every resource at our disposal, with renewed determination to lead the world in the discoveries of this new century, we rededicate ourselves to this work.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America."


On a personal note:

In 2004, I lived in Chicago. Illinois State Senator Obama did not know me when I supported him in his race for the U.S. Senate.

In 2007, U.S. Senator Obama did not know me when I volunteered as an Obama precinct captain in Nevada during his campaign for the Democratic nomination for President.

In 2008, U.S. Senator and Democratic Presidential nominee Obama did not know me as I continued to support his candidacy for President.

In 2009, President Obama does not know me. He does not know how this Executive Order has moved me to the very core of my being. But in his heart, I suspect he knows how many lives he has touched.

And I know him. He is a man of vision and honor, and represents hope on so many levels.

Thank you, Mr. President. At the risk of being overly repetitive, your legacy - personal, local, national, and international, is now assured.

Was Criticism Of 2008 Wall Street Bonuses Justified?

On Thursday, January 29, news outlets reported that President Obama had called the bonuses that some Wall Street financial firm executives received for their 2008 performances "shameful" and the "height of irresponsibility". The bonuses totaled $18.4 billion. His concern was that those firms should not have accepted federal money when they obviously had plenty of cash for bonuses. President Obama's concern, as outlined in the hald dozen accounts I read, seemed more than justified. My initial title for this Friday's blog was "Obama's Criticism of 2008 Wall Street Bonuses Justified". Then, I dug further.

I learned that the source of Obama's criticism was a report by the New York State Comptroller. So I went to the source. Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli's report, DiNapoli: Wall Street Bonuses Fell 44% in 2008, did mention that $18.4 billion was paid in bonuses. The title of the report itself, however, suggests that its focus was on the decrease. What wasn't even mentioned in most other news articles was that this amount represented a 44% decrease as compared to the 2007 bonuses.

Does this excuse the $18.4 billion that was paid out? Depends. Was some of that money paid to executives of firms that were profitable in 2008? That detail is missing. Was some of that money paid out under obligatory, written pre-existing agreements in the executives contracts? That detail is missing. Where is the investigative reporting in the media that should have uncovered these facts?

What is shameful is if some of that money was paid out to executives by boards of directors of firms that incurred large losses, and then begged the federal government for money. In those cases, those boards clearly did not exercise their fiduciary responsibilities.

The federal money that was loaned to these firms should have had specific, legally binding wording that would have prevented use of the money to pay unwarranted bonuses. That no such wording was included is the fault of the politicians who wrote, amended, and scrutinized the legislation. There is blame aplenty to go around.

It's said that when a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The same applies to headlines and reports. If it sounds as simple as black and white, it probably isn't. There is an almost infinite number of shades of gray into which the truth may fall.