Your Read of the Day: Krauthammer On Obama Doctrine

Charles Krauthammer takes Obama to task for his “doctrine” of “leading from behind”:

It is the fate of any assertive superpower to be envied, denounced and blamed for everything under the sun. Nothing has changed. Moreover, for a country so deeply reviled, why during the massive unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and Syria have anti-American demonstrations been such a rarity?

Who truly reviles America the hegemon? The world that Obama lived in and shaped him intellectually: the elite universities; his Hyde Park milieu (including his not-to-be-mentioned friends, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn); the church he attended for two decades, ringing with sermons more virulently anti-American than anything heard in today’s full-throated uprising of the Arab Street.

It is the liberal elites who revile the American colossus and devoutly wish to see it cut down to size. Leading from behind — diminishing America’s global standing and assertiveness — is a reaction to their view of America, not the world’s.

Other presidents have taken anti-Americanism as a given, rather than evidence of American malignancy, believing — as do most Americans — in the rightness of our cause and the nobility of our intentions. Obama thinks anti-Americanism is a verdict on America’s fitness for leadership. I would suggest that “leading from behind” is a verdict on Obama’s fitness for leadership.

Leading from behind is not leading. It is abdicating. It is also an oxymoron. Yet a sympathetic journalist, channeling an Obama adviser, elevates it to a doctrine. The president is no doubt flattered. The rest of us are merely stunned.

Read it all.

This is why Trump totally jumped the shark when he said Charles Krauthmmer was a “sad fool”. A sad fool is someone who calls everyone who disagrees with him, “stupid”, and gives speeches laced with F-bombs.

Another good one:

Michael Walsh at The New York Post: Change’ via executive power grab

So, our elected representatives in Congress may pass a law and a president may sign it, but if Obama decides — absent any Supreme Court ruling — that the law is unconstitutional, out it goes.

It all boils down to this: Are we to be a constitutional government with three distinct branches, or a single executive entity that makes policy, carries it out and decides for itself whether it’s constitutional or not?

That’s what the next presidential race is really all about.

Hat tip: Cold Fury

Share

About these ads

3 Responses to “Your Read of the Day: Krauthammer On Obama Doctrine”

  1. wdednh Says:

    The picture alone is speaking volume. The man is shameless. Not one US president ever kissed or bowed to any Arab King or whatever. It is just Sham that Obama is Called President Of United State!

  2. Carlos Says:

    “It all boils down to this: Are we to be a constitutional government with three distinct branches, or a single executive entity that makes policy, carries it out and decides for itself whether it’s constitutional or not?”

    Depends on who you’re asking, and when. If you’re asking Obhammud now, it’s a single executive branch.

    If you’re asking Obhammud during the ’08 campaign, it’s three equal branches.

    If you’re asking Obhammud privately anytime in the last 35 years, it’s a single executive branch.

    That’s what all marxists believe.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,588,052 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 507 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: