Defining Success In the Age of Obama

I originally wrote the on January 27, 2009

It's been over a week now since America welcomed it's first black President with adulation. The party, however, is over and it is now time to get down to business for this nation's 44th president...and what a time for the new president as he must contend with: two ongoing fronts in the Global War on Terror (aka "The Long War"), an economy in crisis, new abortion policies, and several other dire crises which all require his immediate attention. Though he now enjoys a majority in Congress, President Obama does not enjoy a monopoly, yet. The GOP leadership has promised to be the "loyal opposition," but anytime they offer respectful opposition to the President's plans, they are immediately lambasted by their Democratic colleagues in Congress, the Liberal Mainstream Media, and the President himself as not wanting our President "to succeed" (the implication being that they want America to fail for their own political gain). Well, success (as the illustrious Rush Limbaugh has so eloquently pointed out) is an extremely relative term and we, as both Conservatives and Americans, must go down the litany of things the President seeks to achieve and decide whether we truly wish for him to succeed or not.

I. Foreign Policy: The Closing of Guantanamo Bay Prison

One of President Obama's first actions as Commander-in-Chief was to issue an Executive Order suspending the trials of several GITMO Islamist prisoners whilst his administration comes up with an alternative for maintaining the neo-Alcatraz. However, all we've gotten so far is the disturbing word the trial of the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, would be suspended for 120 days and then relocated to New York City's Southern District for trial. He will not be tried for the 3,000 innocent deaths on 9/11 due to the fact he was waterboarded, rather, he will be tried for the nominally successful 1993 World Trade Center Attack. That case has less evidence and will be harder to try (and easier for his lawyers to use loopholes to get him a reduced sentence).

Taking this step, placing the mastermind of 9/11 in the hands of the American civilian judicial system rather than the United States military judicial system is totally unprecedented in the history of warfare, allows for a greater chance of the Sheikh escaping justice, unduly burdens, and makes a mockery of our judicial system. If the Obama Administration does, indeed, move forward with their precariously niaive plans, this will not only burden our already overburdened justice system but send a signal to our enemies -- in what Donald Rumsfeld accurately dubbed "The Long War" -- that we no longer have the stomach to prosecute this war with the same steadfast resolve we had under the Bush Administration. In essence, we are granting al Qaeda and their subsidiaries a reprieve whilst allowing them an unfounded moral victory.

This step will ultimately be used as a precedent by other Left-leaning members of the bar in order to facilitate the relocation of these prisoners from GITMO to somewhere else within the United States! This insane motive begs the following questions: where shall we send them; Fort Leavenworth? A military installation which will undoubtedly become a target and bring the rabid hordes of Islamists to attack us on our own land again? How about regular high security Department of Correction facilities in your local neighborhood (err, excuse me, only Republican districts since no Democrat will openly place their district up for becoming the new home of al Qaeda members captured fresh off the battlefield)? Can they even handle that kind of load?

Should we place the GITMO detainees under the supervision of regular DOC facilities, in what way will we be living up to those ridiculously high (and unfounded) moral standards regarding American "violence" towards enemy combatants that Liberals have placed upon us, which started us down this rabbit hole? Do they not believe that these prisoners will be just as violently abused by -- if not more so -- the general prison population and their civilian guards than they were at the hands of their military handlers (which I even quibble with the belief that they were "abused" by their military overseers at GITMO)? The amount of GITMO detainees certainly cannot fit in the relatively small Solitary Confinement areas that our prisons here in the state possess. And, we're still missing the key element that these facilities -- which are generally located near US cities -- will become targets by Terrorists operating within our borders (read Ronald Kessler's "The Terrorist Watch" for more information on terrorists operating within our borders)! Why offer such tempting targets to Terrorists? Is there a valid strategic reason -- other than our squeamish morals?

Here's another question that seems so basic I am shocked I must ask it: if these Islamists we capture overseas are not American citizens (and do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 2 of the Geneva Convention), whose laws do we try them under? Are we going to suddenly say that they are now American citizens, thereby giving them the full rights the very same people they are trying to slaughter are dying to defend, and then prosecute them? If we are not inclined to do that (which I pray that we are not) do we try them under their homeland's law? Perhaps we should take the Archbishop of Canterbury's idea for Britain and adopt Sharia Law here in the States and use it to judge these animals! It sounds absurd, but this is the quandary we find ourselves in if President Obama continues down this dangerous path.

Regarding the Prisoner of War question: should we make some form of amendment to the Geneva Conventions to include Terrorists -- thereby changing the very definition of what the proper conduct of war is, since the Conventions clearly outline that it is improper for opposing forces to hide among civilians and not wear uniforms -- and try these Islamists in International Court over in Hague? I should note as well that the International Court in Hague is the same entity which wanted to have the ability to try both President George W. Bush and American soldiers for war crimes regarding the Liberation of Iraq! With a corrupt and biased record like that, how can they be trusted to execute justice fairly while simultaneously demonstrating to the world that Terrorism categorically fails to achieve the aims of the Terrorists?

The bottom line is: no matter how unpopular, the George Bush policy of military tribunals for these murdering Islamists -- and the concept of keeping them as far away from American soil as possible -- is the only safe and truly just way to approach this issue. I would remind you that after World War II, no one was sitting around demanding that we give Nazi and Japanese POWs trials in civilian courts! They were given military tribunals! That is how it has been for every combatant captured. In my opinion, at a time when everyone is talking about the complexity of this issue, I believe it is incredibly simple: unlike the captured combatants of previous wars, the Islamists we capture simply do not classify as POWs! Therefore they are enemy combatants living under military authority who have no rights as legislated by the Geneva Convention, they are not American citizens and therefore not protected under our Constitution, and their home nations want nothing to do with them! That means the military can do whatever it sees fit with them. Essentially, they are non-people. We are a gracious and good people which is why we afforded them basic human rights at GITMO (when we were under no obligation to do so) and decided to generously grant them the ability of military tribunals and some form of fair trial. Why do we now have to go further, risk our own security, and make a mockery of our own system by allowing non-citizens bent on our complete annihilation to possess the same rights as we have?

On this issue, I hope Obama fails miserably and is forced to keep GITMO open. As you should as well.

II. The Economy: Moving Us Closer to Socialism

The next major issue is President Obama's plan to initiate an even larger "stimulus" package which will put this country further in debt by trillions of dollars. Those of us in the GOP who oppose his plans for increased spending, this ridiculous Works Progress Administration reboot, and essentially, this obscene birthing of the New Deal 2.0 are ridiculed and derided by not only the Administration and its allies in Congress and the media, but by own party -- who seem to have lost all sense of reality and are suffering from Obama Mania like the rest of the country.

Throughout the Campaign, amidst the vacuous and purposely vague contentions of "hope" and "change," President Obama was specific in his desire for one thing: a rebirth of the New Deal (what Time Magazine dubs "The new New Deal"). The President comes from the place that most hardcore Leftists in this country do: that when the proverbial economic excrement hits the fan it's time for the Federal Government to intervene and redefine capitalism. The President, like so many of his ilk, actually believe what Jonah Goldberg at National Review accurately describes as the "Myth of FDR" in that his intervening and meddling with our Free Market saved the economy. Yet, when analyzing FDR's sixteen years in office, we see that it was not until 1941 that the nation started to lift itself from the economic depression it was in. Yet since the early thirties both FDR (and his predecessor, President Hoover) tried desperately to intervene in the economy and save it, yet never fixed the problem. What happened in 1941? Well, my friends, it was the year that this country led the effort to crush the Axis Powers in WWII. It was our wartime economy switch -- and the Postwar Economic Boom of the fifties -- which saved our country from Depression, not the Liberal Collectivism of the New Deal.

Yet, our President and his acolytes continuously tell us that a new New Deal is precisely what we need. That in times of economic downturn, we must surrender our free market system to the public sector and allow anti-capitalist forces "save us from ourselves!" Why don't we just start fighting Cancer with Cancer while we're at it? If President Obama's contention were true then why didn't President Reagan follow this course when he stood in the almost exact same position as both Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama? Why did he look and brilliantly declare "Government is not the solution, Government is the problem"? Within two years of him taking office (and drastically cutting taxes in what would be dubbed "Reaganomics") -- after the bitter disappointment that was Jimmy Carter's presidency which led to that economic downturn -- why is it that the nation underwent a massive economic revitalization and the 1980s were one of the most prosperous times in American history? Oddly, President Reagan's actions -- which had tangible and positive benefits for this nation -- are considered incorrect by the Political Establishment when responding to economic crises. The FDR Model is considered the truest, best way. Yet, just yesterday President Obama -- the man who was supposed to save Capitalism (and the people) from themselves -- is now saying that regardless of what FDR-like actions he takes (even with his almost complete control of our political and now economic system), "the worst is still yet to come"! If Keynesian/FDR New Dealism actually worked as beautifully as its proponent claim, shouldn't the worst be behind us (as it was when Reagan implemented his Supply-side Economics in the 80s)?

The sad truth is the New Deal was a total gambit which totally failed. It's legacy is one, when judged historically, which is far more detrimental to America than beneficial. Today, we find ourselves saddled with massive debt thanks to the utter failure that is Social Security, the disturbingly false promise of Welfare, and the sickening notion that the individual is incapable of caring for him/herself and we must surrender our freedom to the hallowed bureaucrat sitting aloft in his cushy, taxpayer funded, office in the far off capital of Washington, D.C. Imagine what the legacy of President Obama's new New Deal will be for our children?

If that fact doesn't prove that the new President is going to take this country down the wrong path if he "succeeds" in his economic plan, I'll enter these two beautiful quotes (one from a New Deal Brain Trust member in the forties and the other from President Obama): Mr. Alvin Hansen was asked in the 1940s whether "the basic principle of the New Deal" was "economically sound," he responded, "I really do not know what the basic principle of the New Deal is." Flash forward sixty years to President Barack Obama stating in a recent 60 Minutes interview "what you see in FDR that I hope my team can emulate is not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence and a willingness to try things and experiment in order to get people working again." So, essentially, the path that our President has taken -- one which has been taken before with dire consequences -- is so hazy and unknown that the term "The Great Deluge" does not even begin to describe it!

In essence, all President Obama will end up doing -- regardless of how much he wants it to work -- will be to place this country further in debt to unfriendly nations like China or even Saudi Arabia (ironically, during the campaign season, the President bitterly warned that borrowing from those nations as the Bush Administration had done was "very dangerous"), expand an already over-bloated government thus making it utterly ineffectual, and put America's role as the world's Sole Superpower in dire jeopardy. In this -- the total usurpation of the Free-Market System by anti-capitalistic forces -- I hope the President fails.

III. The Culture: Reversing the "Global Gag Rule"

This next topic is something that is very near-and-dear to me. As a Conservative, I am most-definitely anti-abortion. Yet, I recognize that this country is deeply divided on this topic. Forty-eight hours ago, President Obama issued a reversal on President Bush's ban on federal funding to Third World nations for abortions (this is what many critics of the ban have called the "Global Gag Rule"). This ban was first introduced by President Reagan, upheld by President Bush, Sr., then reinstituted by President Clinton, banned again by President Bush, and finally (as aforementioned) reinstituted by President Obama. This act will send millions, but potentially billions of taxpayer's dollars (in a time of severe economic recession) to Third World nations to practice abortions.

First, on an economical level, I find this ruling insulting. At a time when we are all being asked by the new Administration to "sacrifice," workers are being laid off left and right, and many college students cannot attend school any longer because their scholarships have been rescinded due to the economic crisis (as is the case for three of my friends), President Obama and his fellow Democrats somehow scrounge up enough money to subsidize abortions throughout the Third World! Obama's belief, it'd seem, is similar to when people needed help and saving in ancient times they'd look to their gods, in the forties, it was the Marines are coming! In the sixties, it was the Peace Corps is coming! Today, it's the Abortionists are coming! Does anyone realize how silly this is?

Second (and this is going to offend you secular progressive Liberals out there), this is simply immoral and unethical. As I mentioned before, abortion is one of the single-most divisive subjects in this country. It's disgusting that such a heavily debated topic is even allowed to be exercised in this country (we should come to an agreement on whether it should be done or not before we implement it), now that same issue which we ourselves cannot agree upon, is going to be exported to other nations. Suddenly, it's become wrong to try and liberate a foreign people from oppression, yet it's okay to liberate them from children! This issue is contentious and I am shocked that a supposedly "post-partisan" president like Obama, would make one of his first acts to grant cart blanche regarding global abortions. I understand that this will forever be a touch-and-go issue (whenever a Republican is in office, it will be banned and the exact opposite will happen when a Democrat is in office), however, I just cannot wrap my head around exporting something that we ourselves are so unsure of, exporting something that is so vile and unethical, with such resolve. How can President Obama be the arbiter of morality (that so many of his gallant followers believe him to be) when he is running around being judge, jury, and executioner of not only American babies, but now foreign ones?

When President Obama was an Illinois State Senator he supported legislation which would have allowed partially born babies to be "aborted." This was seen -- not only by Republicans but several Democrats -- as outright insanity. In this country we have strict guidelines regarding abortion (particularly when a child can be aborted and when they cannot). However, I have serious issue believing that in the Sudan a parent not wanting to bear a child will adhere to those guidelines and that the abortionist will be so inclined to follow such rules. As well, I have extreme difficulty believing that at a time when we are told by the international Left (and Bono) that HIV/AIDS is running rampant in Africa, as a national policy, we would be seeking to encourage more unprotected sex between members of African nations whom could all be potential carriers of the HIV/AIDS virus, thus shooting the Third World down into more disease and despair! I thought the President was supposed to champion stability and life!

On this issue, too, I hope President Obama fails.

IV. A Definition Of My Usage of the Term "Failure" & Conclusion

Just as I stated that "success" is a relative term, I would also like to state that "failure" is as well. In the three topics I discussed in this article (I realize there are several other issues of contention like the 16-month Withdrawal from Iraq) I stated that I desired President Obama to "fail." What I mean is, I desire the President to not go against the general public's moderate political stances by ripping this nation Leftward, thereby ripping it away from greatness. I hope Obama succeeds in realizing early on that the only definition of success will be for him to continue to prosecute the Global War on Terror as effectively as his predecessor did (using the same tactics regarding Iraq and GITMO as President Bush did), I hope he succeeds in realizing that the only way to revitalize our economy is to give the power back to the people through lowering Capital Gains and Corporate Taxes to allow people to spend more money, businesses to expand, and thereby create more jobs. I hope President Obama succeeds in realizing that his stances on Abortion are incorrect and, if he cannot realize that, then simply realize that spending his political capital on such a contentious issue as reversing the "Global Gag Rule" will not only be costly politically, but also financially.

If President Obama does not succeed in realizing that the more Conservative methodology of running the nation is the only way of running the nation, then he willfail regardless of what I desire and this nation will be severely undermined. President Obama stands at a crossroads: he can either go the unsuccessful way of the extreme Leftist ideology President Jimmy Carter lovingly embraced -- lose his reelection bid and seriously debilitate this country in the process (and his legacy) -- or, he can go the way of the Pragmatic Centrist (and somewhat successful) President Bill Clinton and do less harm than good for this country by governing from the middle.

My prayers are with President Obama in that he sees the light, recognizes the error in his Liberal ways early on, and takes this country down the far more successful path of Conservatism...although I highly doubt it, so we should all brace ourselves for what will be an extremely arduous time! The only bright spot will be that eventually a Conservative will rise to prominence again and correct our incredibly wayward course. What the GOP, the Conservative Movement, and most especially this country truly needs is another Reagan Revolution!