In our Liberty Update commentary last week, we noted the many failures of Barack Obama as president…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Stat of the Day: Terrible Deterioration of Race Relations Under Obama

In our Liberty Update commentary last week, we noted the many failures of Barack Obama as president over the past eight years.  Today, as the nation celebrates Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a Washington Post-ABC News survey shows just how disastrously race relations have declined under his watch:

In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 63 percent of Americans think race relations are 'generally bad.' Shortly after Obama took office, that number was 22 percent. In the same time period, those who think race relations are 'generally good' plummeted from 66 percent to 32 percent." Of his failures and disastrous legacy, this may be the most depressing.…[more]

January 16, 2017 • 02:13 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
From “You Didn’t Build That!” to “I Didn’t Set a Red Line,” a Deepening Crisis of American Leadership Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, September 05 2013
[T]he issue is that Obama’s continued pattern of behavior has created an obvious crisis of U.S. leadership.

The rhetorical tic, “Let me be clear” infects nearly every statement that Barack Obama makes. 

Yet then he turns around and disavows earlier statements in which he was abundantly clear. 

This was Obama one year ago on August 20, 2012, when asked about Syria: 

“I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation.  But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical.  That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria.  It concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel.  It concerns us.  We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.  We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to the other players on the ground, that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation.”  (Emphasis added.) 

But here was Obama this week in Stockholm, Sweden when confronted with that year-old assertion: 

“First of all, I didn’t set a red line.  The world set a red line.  The world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war.  Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty.  Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for.” 

If that’s the case, then why didn’t Obama similarly support the Iraq war?  After all, Saddam Hussein also used chemical weapons against his own citizens.  He also used them against foreign enemies.  Hussein also attacked no fewer than four other nations (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel), attempted to murder a former U.S. President, subsidized suicide bombers in other nations, constantly attacked American Air Force jets and refused to allow international inspections per the terms of his earlier agreements.  Bill Clinton had signed legislation advocating regime change in Iraq.  Moreover, “the world” was far more supportive of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, which included a coalition of approximately 40 nations.  In contrast, Obama can’t even persuade our closest ally Britain to join him. 

Nor does it make sense for Obama to shirk responsibility by pointing toward Congress, since he routinely ignores it on everything from “recess” appointments to immigration laws to global warming pursuits. 

It’s all apparently Obama’s counterpart to Harry Truman’s admission that “The buck stops here.”  Somehow, everybody other than Obama is responsible for drawing the “red line,” even though he’s the one who actually used the term. 

Of course, disavowing earlier statements whose meanings were perfectly clear is nothing new for Obama.  In 2011, Obama said that Assad “had to go.”  Today, however, his administration has explicitly taken regime change off the table as a goal of military intervention. 

Or recall July 2012, when the man who never ran so much as a lemonade stand in the private sector thundered, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that – somebody else made that happen!”  Embarrassed handlers immediately claimed that Obama was referring to “roads and bridges,” even though the man we’re supposed to consider the most gifted orator of our lifetimes chose the singular “that.”  In January 2009, Obama promised that Guantanamo Bay prison would be closed by January 2010.  And so on. 

As much as Obama has earned the ridicule heaped upon him, however, that is not the broader concern here. 

Rather, the issue is that Obama’s continued pattern of behavior has created an obvious crisis of U.S. leadership. 

Even those who oppose intervention in Syria can acknowledge that reasonable arguments exist for responding militarily to Assad’s use of chemical weapons.  Unfortunately, Obama’s constant hyper-partisanship and litany of broken promises have destroyed his credibility both at home and abroad.  From Guantanamo Bay to ObamaCare to the “red line” in Syria over one year ago, his words prove meaningless, and his motives too often prove malevolent. 

When even Britain refuses to partner with an American president, and Congress simply cannot trust him to deploy our military forces competently and earnestly, we have lost something important. 

That erosion of American stature should alarm every American, and serve as a cautionary tale for future elections. 

Question of the Week   
Since 1950, which one of the following U.S. Presidents has appointed the greatest number of Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"In the substantive debate between the American left and right, a debate which really does exist, the basic question is 'What is the proper purpose of government?' Those who are not on the political left object to greater or lesser degrees to the redistribution of wealth from those who earned it to those who didn't. I do indeed object to a hard-working middle class (or upper-middle class or upper-…[more]
 
 
—Ross Kaminsky, The American Spectator
— Ross Kaminsky, The American Spectator
 
Liberty Poll   

Has President-elect Trump sufficiently distanced himself from his numerous international business holdings to eliminate reasonable conflict-of-interest concerns?