Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Marxist tyranny.

Keith Lehman

Lighthouse Patriot Journal

Obama Watch: Issue #004

In Obama Watch, Politics & Political Science on November 14, 2008 at 11:19 am

There isn’t any real Obama doctrine as of yet, but what he has discussed during his campaign, which is mostly that the Bush doctrine concerning Iraq was a failure. That has proved to be just political rhetoric and not reality.

The Reagan doctrine, as Dinesh D’Souza wrote back in September 2008 consisted of assisted non-intervention. In other words, troops were to be sent as only the last resort. Of course, there wasn’t a 9/11 during the Reagan administration, but President Reagan

…believed that people in foreign countries should fight for their own freedom. We do not fight for them. … And so in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, in Angola and to some extent in Ethiopia, Reagan supported rebels who sought liberation from Marxist tyranny. For instance, Reagan supplied Stinger missiles to the Afghani mujaheedin who were fighting to repel the Soviet invasion of that country. Reagan did not, however, send large numbers of American troops to Afghanistan. Now in Bush’s defense it should be said that the Reagan doctrine could not have worked in Iraq. … But from the beginning the administration understood that, even in Iraq, over time the Bush doctrine must metamorphose into the Reagan doctrine. …finally, Iraqis are getting to the position where they can defend their own country and fight for their own freedom. Of course America is going to get out of Iraq. The only question is whether we will leave recklessly, precipitously, with the risk of escalating violence and chaos and perhaps even a return of the Saddamites. This seems to be the approach the Obama Democrats want. The other option is to leave cautiously, deliberately, in a way that leaves Iraq a self-governing society, the only pro-American Muslim democracy in the Middle East.

* The next item is the agenda of the Obama administration in the judicial works of America. Ronald Kessler writes in his article entitled Obama Will Change Balance on Courts Quickly (November 12th, 2008) …

It’s a given that Barack Obama will change the balance on the courts to a liberal judicial outlook. What is surprising is how quickly he could do that. Because Democrats dragged their heels on President Bush’s judicial nominations, 14 seats are open on appeals courts or will be by the end of January. Democratic nominees now are a majority on only one of the 13 federal appeals courts, the ultra-liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. Within four years, Obama could name enough judges to give Democrats a majority on nine of the 13 appeals courts.

* President-elect was successful with the powerful Internet connection and during his transition period he has activated a website and using it as a tool which will help in achieving his goals and Newsvine reports in an article entitled: Obama to Pioneer Web

Democratic strategist. Joe Trippi was quoted saying:

He’s built the largest network anyone has ever seen in politics, and has ever seen in politics, and congressional Republicans are clueless … Republicans say they’ll be watching for White House Web outreach that appear overly political.
“Hopefully, Obama will be a president for all Americans, not just the political supporters on his e-mail list,” said Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant. Obama’s people know they’ll have to extend their reach. …Obama clearly is poised to become the first truly “wired” president of the digital age.

* And President-elect planned to honor fallen troops on Veterans Day, and like presidents before him have confused Memorial Day with Veterans Day – the former for the fallen, the latter for those that serve and have served. The even occurred with Iraqi war veteran and Illinois State Director of Veteran Affairs, Tammy Duckworth, who placed a wreath at The Bronze Soldiers Memorial in honor of Veterans Day on the Lakefront in Chicago, Illinois. I think my first correspondence with the president-elect is to set his predecessors straight as the difference between Memorial Day and Veterans Day. After all, he has claimed throughout his campaign as being the administrator of change. This would be a time to set this practice straight. He will be officiating these holidays as President for his entire term in office. MSNBC quoted Obama as saying:

Let us rededicate ourselves to keep a sacred trust with all who have worn the uniform of the United States of America: that America will serve you as well as you have served your country,” Obama said in a statement. “As your next commander in chief, I promise to work every single day to keep that sacred trust with all who have served.

* One of the items that Senator Obama campaigned against was the lobbyists and the way lobbying is conducted in Washington. Nedra Pickler, AP writer reports:

Lobbyists can work for Obama’s transition if they stop their advocacy efforts and avoid working in any field that they lobbied on in the last year. They also must pledge not to lobby the Obama administration on the same matters they focused on during the transition for a year after leaving Obama’s service. The ethics policy allows Obama to hire any of the some 22,000 federally registered lobbyists who could be valuable assets because of their government experience, even though Obama railed against their influence on the campaign trail. …
Under recommendations spelled out in Obama’s campaign Web site, no Obama political appointees would be allowed to work on regulations or contracts “directly or substantially related to their prior employer for two years.” And while people who work on the transition would be permitted to lobby the administration on their transition issues after one year, political appointees to administration jobs would be prohibited from lobbying the executive branch for the remainder of the administration, according to Obama’s proposed rules

And as far as the controversy over the Second Amendment and firearm control by the Obama administration, Robert Blevins, AB of Seattle writes:

There are recent claims that President-elect Barack Obama is planning to ban guns in America, or severely restrict their purchase and usage. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Obama is only following the proposals he made on his official platform during the campaign. Nothing more, nothing less.

His plan was posted at …

As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor common sense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent; as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.’

* President-elect Obama is still considering the policy of closing Guantanamo. The information at MSNBC was pulled (“expired”) for the review of the new administration concerning classified files. Funny that it didn’t seem as important when President GW Bush was performing his job as Commander-in-Chief and media entities like the New York Times didn’t care anything about classified files. I couldn’t find the original information on the story at the Washington Post, as was directed by the website at MSNBC either. I can see “change” already.

* The expensive bailout, A Lemon of a Bailout, as Charles Krauthammer calls it, the Democrats are pushing to include the auto industry in the bailout. Let me see, the produce gas guzzlers and haven’t paid attention to the public or the facts concerning what folks really need, and now they are hurting and want help from the government, which really constitutes the taxpayers. It is already estimated that the bailout is going to cost far more than the $700 billion that was voted for in the emergency legislation that caused so much controversy. What also happened is that more of the banking and investing companies have come under the thumb of government, which provided a leap toward nationalization of private business entities. The Democrats are wired to include the auto industry because they want to protect the unions involved. The Democrats want to nationalize the auto industry, which means restructuring. But as Krauthammer writes:

Which will guarantee the continued failure of these companies, but now they will burn tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. It’s the ultimate in lemon socialism.

Now, can someone tell me why they got so upset when I warned them about having a Democrat president AND a Democrat controlled Congress and its consequences? They are doing the same thing, except on a grander scale, that the Bush administration did with banking institutions. At this rate government will soon own most of the private sector business industries. And Krauthammer nails it right on the head:

Liberals have always wanted the auto companies to produce the kind of cars they insist everyone should drive: small, light, green and cute. Now they will have the power to do it.

It is government in YOUR face. And …

If you think we have economic troubles today, consider the effects of nationalizing an industry of this size, but now run by bureaucrats issuing production quotas to fit five-year plans to meet politically mandated fuel-efficiency standards — to lift us to the sunny uplands of the coming green utopia.