Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

February 2, 2012

Obama’s bromance with Robert Kagan

Filed under: Obama — louisproyect @ 5:00 pm

Robert Kagan

On January 27th, the New York Times reported:

Now, as he runs for re-election, President Obama has latched on to a new foreign policy book, which offers a more appealing narrative for a leader facing fresh charges — this time from Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates — that he is leading the United States into its twilight of global influence.

The book, “The World America Made,” makes the case that the nation’s decline is a myth, a reaction to the financial crisis of 2008 rather than to any genuine geopolitical shifts. In a delicious coincidence for the White House, the author is Robert Kagan, a neoconservative historian and commentator who advises Mr. Romney. The president has brandished Mr. Kagan’s analysis in arguing that the nation’s power has waxed rather than waned.

Although they may disagree about prescriptions for ensuring American primacy, most conservative and liberal analysts agree that the United States has the strength to remain the world’s leading power for decades. That message has permeated the White House, where aides say that Mr. Obama has been determined to rebut the Republican critique about a declining America since before excerpts of Mr. Kagan’s book appeared in The New Republic magazine. The book will be published on Feb. 14.

Foreign Policy provided some additional background:

President Barack Obama is personally enamored with a recent essay written by neoconservative writer Bob Kagan, an advisor to Mitt Romney, in which Kagan argues that the idea the United States is in decline is false.

“The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe,” Obama said in his State of the Union address Tuesday evening. “From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.”

“Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” Obama said.

Just hours earlier on Tuesday, in an off-the-record meeting with leading news anchors, including ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and NBC’s Brian Williams, Obama drove home that argument using an article written in The New Republic by Kagan entitled “The Myth of American Decline.”

Obama liked Kagan’s article so much that he spent more than 10 minutes talking about it in the meeting, going over its arguments paragraph by paragraph, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed to The Cable.

National Security Advisor Tom Donilon will also discuss Kagan’s essay and Obama’s love of it Thursday night with Charlie Rose on PBS.

While Kagan’s article is behind a paywall, you can read a copy at the Brookings Institute website. A word about the Brookings Institute would be in order. Like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, et al, this is one of those bipartisan policy study groups that form a part of the “invisible government”. If you look at their board of trustees, you will find Richard Blum, the arms industry billionaire who is married to Dianne Feinstein and sits on the board of the World Wildlife Fund. As I told Michael Barker, who informed me about Blum’s “green” affiliations, I wonder how long it will take Leon Botstein to recruit him to Bard College’s board of trustees. The chairman of the Brookings board is one John L. Thornton who used to be President of Goldman-Sachs until 2003 and went on to found the Nelson Mandela Legacy Trust afterwards as part of a sense of noblesse oblige, I guess. Pardon me for my cynical snicker at this.

Kagan kicks this off with this gem:

The present world order—characterized by an unprecedented number of democratic nations; a greater global prosperity, even with the current crisis, than the world has ever known; and a long peace among great powers—reflects American principles and preferences, and was built and preserved by American power in all its political, economic, and military dimensions.

One imagines that the loss of 2 to 3 million Vietnamese civilians was part of this noble mission. This blatantly imperialist worldview might seem at odds with the standard liberal defense of Barack Obama as more “reasonable” than the frightening Republican opposition. But Kagan, as shrewd observer of the president, reminded Foreign Policy readers back in March 2010 that there are no real differences:

Unnoticed amid the sniping in Washington over health care and the wailing about “broken government,” a broad and durable bipartisan consensus has begun falling into place in one unlikely area: foreign policy. Consider the fact that on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran — the most difficult, expensive, and potentially dangerous foreign challenges facing the United States — precious little now separates Barack Obama from most Republican leaders in and out of Congress.

Today…a substantial majority of Republicans have supported President Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan. Both the administration and the Republican opposition are committed to a stable, increasingly democratic Iraq. Vice President Joseph Biden’s recent remarks claiming Iraq as Obama’s success may have annoyed Republicans, but it is good news: the most divisive issue since the Vietnam War has become politically uncontroversial. On Iran, differences are rapidly narrowing now that engagement is giving way to pressure. Republicans may complain, along with many Democrats, that the administration has been too slow to support the Iranian opposition and took too long to pivot to sanctions. Yet some also realize that Obama’s prolonged effort at engagement accomplished what George W. Bush never could: convincing most of the world, and most Democrats, that Iran is uninterested in any deal that threatens its nuclear weapons program. As a result, France, Britain, and even Germany appear more determined than at any time in the past decade to impose meaningful sanctions. A majority of Republicans, along with most Democrats, will support the administration as it toughens its approach to what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now calls the “military dictatorship” in Tehran. Partisan divisiveness will return only if the administration backs down from its own stated objectives.

Turning to economic issues, Kagan quite rightly compares the United States to another imperial power that went into decline:

The decline of the British Empire, for instance, occurred over several decades. In 1870, the British share of global manufacturing was over 30 percent. In 1900, it was 20 percent. By 1910, it was under 15 percent—well below the rising United States, which had climbed over the same period from more than 20 percent to more than 25 percent; and also less than Germany, which had lagged far behind Britain throughout the nineteenth century but had caught and surpassed it in the first decade of the twentieth century. Over the course of that period, the British navy went from unchallenged master of the seas to sharing control of the oceans with rising naval powers. In 1883, Britain possessed more battleships than all the other powers combined. By 1897, its dominance had been eclipsed. British officials considered their navy “completely outclassed” in the Western hemisphere by the United States, in East Asia by Japan, and even close to home by the combined navies of Russia and France—and that was before the threatening growth of the German navy. These were clear-cut, measurable, steady declines in two of the most important measures of power over the course of a half-century.

It goes without saying that Obama has no problems seeing the United States as an imperial power determined to avoid Britain’s fate. Anybody who becomes enraptured with Robert Kagan’s words, despite their obvious kinship with Niall Ferguson, does not deserve the support of the liberal left—despite obvious signs that they will back him in 2012 in their quadrennial impersonation of the lemming.

Not only does he do an A-B comparison with Imperial Great Britain, he cites an even more malevolent benchmark:

A British diplomat told Huntington: “One reads about the world’s desire for American leadership only in the United States. Everywhere else one reads about American arrogance and unilateralism.”

This was nonsense, of course. Contrary to the British diplomat’s claim, many other countries did look to the United States for leadership, and for protection and support, in the 1990s and throughout the Cold War. The point is not that America always lacked global influence. From World War II onward, the United States was indeed the predominant power in the world. It wielded enormous influence, more than any great power since Rome, and it accomplished much.

What an amazing evolution Obama has gone through from the time he was sniffing around the left as a headstrong youth to the current day admirer of an imperialist bully-boy like Robert Kagan who flouts America’s continuing economic prowess:

Let’s start with the basic indicators. In economic terms, and even despite the current years of recession and slow growth, America’s position in the world has not changed. Its share of the world’s GDP has held remarkably steady, not only over the past decade but over the past four decades. In 1969, the United States produced roughly a quarter of the world’s economic output. Today it still produces roughly a quarter, and it remains not only the largest but also the richest economy in the world. People are rightly mesmerized by the rise of China, India, and other Asian nations whose share of the global economy has been climbing steadily, but this has so far come almost entirely at the expense of Europe and Japan, which have had a declining share of the global economy.

While I am sure that investors are quite pleased that the U.S. remains as dynamic as it was in 1969, that’s little consolation to working people whose status certainly can be described as in decline, even if their bosses are sitting on top of a profit-generating powerhouse. On August 24, 2011 Bloomberg reported:

Men who do have jobs are getting paid less. After accounting for inflation, median wages for men between 30 and 50 dropped 27 percent–to $33,000 a year from 1969 to 2009, according to an analysis by Michael Greenstone, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who was chief economist for Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.

“That takes men and puts them back at their earnings capacity of the 1950s,” Greenstone says. “That has staggering implications.”

This of course is just a function of having “creative destruction” when there is about 99 percent destruction and 1 percent creation. This morning I was listening to the execrable Stuart Varney on the Don Imus show. Varney is a Fox Business News host who has the typical hatred of working people you will find there. In trying to explain the American economy to the folksy reactionary multimillionaire, Varney referred to the Facebook IPO that has made stockholders instantly rich, including the graffiti artist who worked on Zuckerberg’s headquarters. With only 3000 employees, Facebook is a huge success story in comparison to Google that has more than 20,000. The implication is that the best model for an American corporation is one without any employees. People like Varney and Robert Kagan could care less about unemployment since they will always have a job providing ideological fig leaves for the ruling class.

It is difficult to exaggerate how much of a reactionary thug Robert Kagan is. One of his “achievements” is co-founding the Project for the New American Century with William Kristol. Just in case anybody needs reminding, PNAC was one of the most vociferous promoters of a war with Iraq back in 2003. Their website claims that “American leadership is both good for America and good for the world” and supports “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.” Isn’t it amazing to think that someone coming into office with expectations of instituting a new New Deal will find inspiration in the malignant views of a Robert Kagan.

Well, maybe not so surprising:

I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Barack Obama, “The Audacity of Hope”


  1. Talk about Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum . If Romney becomes the Republican presidential candidate you will have a contest between a person advised by Kagan and another Obama who seems to accept his advice. Perhaps there can be bipartisan adoption of PNAC policies.

    Comment by ken — February 2, 2012 @ 5:33 pm

  2. Judging from the quote from the Audacity of Hope at the end Obama is in the wrong party and on a different planet perhaps.Government grew and grew under Reagan especially the military.

    “”Reagan significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.
    Spending during Reagan’s two terms (FY 1981-88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase. [4]””

    Comment by ken — February 2, 2012 @ 5:51 pm

  3. Bloodthirsty warmongers like Kagan always turn out to present a chunky jowled swinish visage.

    Must be because Kagan actually is…a…swine. It’s true, turn 50, and you have the face you deserve.

    Good luck with his “It’s Morning Again in America II” Reaganite plot redux. I suggest he find himself another Soviet Union about to conveniently self-dissolve, or another China about to embark on a historic capitalist boom. Oops, those were one-time-only specials off the worker’s revolution production line of history! All out of ’em now!

    Now to actually read the article…

    Comment by matthewrusso9 — February 2, 2012 @ 7:04 pm

  4. Now to address something of substance. Of crappy substance, because it is morally important to rub the fecal droppings of their own so-called “arguments” resolutely in their own porcine faces. Because we rightly hate these bastids.

    Identify the fallacy and contradiction in the passage that Louis excerpted above:

    “Let’s start with the basic indicators. In economic terms, and even despite the current years of recession and slow growth, America’s position in the world has not changed. Its share of the world’s GDP has held remarkably steady, not only over the past decade but over the past four decades. In 1969, the United States produced roughly a quarter of the world’s economic output. Today it still produces roughly a quarter, and it remains not only the largest but also the richest economy in the world. People are rightly mesmerized by the rise of China, India, and other Asian nations whose share of the global economy has been climbing steadily, but this has so far come almost entirely at the expense of Europe and Japan, which have had a declining share of the global economy.”

    It is of course that Kagan makes an argument for an “unchanged” U.S. position in the world system – this in itself not saying alot in favor of the U.S., in a *capitalist* world system where constant *expansion* is the real measure of power, where treading water just ain’t good enough, Kagan, you loser! – at the expense of his own imperialist vassal “allies”. But whereas here these are put in the minus column when it comes to political-economic “analysis”, these same are eagerly shuffled over the plus column when it comes to considerations of specific geo-political situations, such as Iran, that themselves cannot be the basis for generalizations concerning “global power”. Nice card trick there, Kagan. But by Kagan’s own implicit admission, in his general thesis for his book, Europe and Japan are necessarily components of that total U.S. hegemonic power, and their own power to function in support must include both economic and political indices. But if Europe and Japan are a minus, and the U.S. a mere zero, then for the imperialist triadic core as a whole we have a net minus as the result. All this amounts to saying is that, if all three legs of the triad are entangled by the Chinese-BRIC anchor and in danger of drowning, Kagan’s U.S. is better able to kick the other two deeper under water in order to save itself by merely…treading water.

    A power frantically thrashing about to keep head above water is a pathetic sight, don’t you know, Mr. Kagan. And way to treat your hapless vassal “friends”, as pathos morphs into sheer viciousness.

    This very standard sort of sophistry always pivots upon a very shallow and superficial – or as Kagan puts it, “basic” – political economy. Political economy is the Achilles heel of the neo-con ideology. It is not simply that they rely on gross and un-analyzed measures such as GDP, or purely value measurements of manufacturing, etc. It is that certain crucial economic concepts and categories are beyond their ken, such as the possibility that GDP figures include *imperialist rent*, a form of Marxian absolute rent on the world scale – here Samir Amin has it correct, despite his long affiliation with the Monthly Review school – appropriated via U.S TNC operations abroad, and augmented by a strategic relationship to key mineral rent extractors such as the Persian Gulf states, who price their oil in USD (“recycling the petrodollars” in the 1970’s was one such U.S. imperialist rent operation). It is here that Kagan’s peculiar kind of geo-political ideology finds its real substance, in the the implicit Israeli-Saudi-U.S. alliance.

    Comment by matthewrusso9 — February 2, 2012 @ 8:48 pm

  5. BTW, the neo-con Kagan is immediately contradicted by the neo-liberal Caroline Baum, appearing on Bloomberg under the rude “let them eat cake” title, “Just Fill the Darn Potholes, We’ll Do the Rest” – yeah, and fill that pothole after finishing your cake!


    Will the U.S. bourgeoisie ever get its story straight?

    I’m inclined to side with Baum on the manufacturing stats. Her account has its own glaring contradiction – manufacturing ain’t coming back, blah, blah, Ricardo, blah, hey, but wait a minute, manufacturing IS coming back in 5 years, and so forth. But I’ll address this more in depth on my USofM blog as soon as I can, as it fits the theme. Hint: relative surplus value extraction once again, a concept Baum must ignore (there is an analogous bourgeois formulation) as it raises a whole host of issues that would contradict the soft, mushy core of her neo-lib ideology.

    Comment by Matt — February 2, 2012 @ 11:34 pm

  6. Philosophical history devoid of any dialectical concept of irreconcilable contradictions truly amaze me for their intellectual dishonesty & poverty. Both Kagan & Baum are utterly bereft of any materialist conception of history — totally ignorant of the fact that class struggle is ultimately the motor of history & completely in denial of the irrefragable fact that capitalism is an inherently predatory, temporary social formation that’s as historically doomed as feudalism, with it’s unsustainable far flung militarism, perpetually vulnerable to socio-economic political convulsions & perennial catasrophes like Fukushima if it doesn’t first manage to first ruin the planet through abject greed & narrow-minded avarice when turning pristine blue waters for short term profits into poison lakes emitting foul bursts of radiation & AIDS gas resembling in all its toxic sulphuric putridity the surface of Venus.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — February 3, 2012 @ 3:05 am

  7. US manufacturing strength in 1950 was based on the highest wages on the planet. Whatever insourcing returns to the US today is based on cheap wage labor (14$ an hour at the VW plant in TN).

    As for GDP %, Western Europe and Japan were never significant rivals to the US , post WW2, as they were defeated powers. If you look at the countries who will defy the US on Iran sanctions, it is more illuminating – China, India and Turkey.

    Or better yet, step outside the US for a few months and it is obvious or even shocking how stark the decline of the country is. Or look at a picture of downtown Shanghai in 1990 versus today.

    More to the point, these imperialist intrigues are not of central concern to the working class. Whoever the Big Boss is, it does not matter one ilk if the same system is in place. Wars are the bosses struggle, not ours.

    Comment by purple — February 3, 2012 @ 7:10 am

  8. As my sometimes Presbyterian father used to say, Christ Jesus our Heavenly Lord!

    Is this drivel meant to justify our risking world war by attacking Iran, with the certain economic ruin and massive death toll that would entail?

    But suppose Kagan is right and U.S. hegemony is in some meaningful sense waxing rather than waning?

    The question is still, what good any of this does for the American masses–or anybody but those we have come to call the 1%, worldwide?

    In any case, it seems clear that our perpetual wars (and this is ultimately what Kagan is touting, economic and cultural distractions aside) now serve a very different purpose dialectically speaking than they did back when the New York Times could rhapsodize over the precise number of board feet of mahogany that were about to be extracted from the Philippines over the dead bodies of the Filipinos.

    Surely it’s beyond a truism to say the wars are more and more for purposes of controlling the global proletariat and less and less about booty for “USA, Number One!” They justify the political repression and lies about “enemies of freedom” that are necessary to keep the masses at bay while the world’s increasingly homogeneous working class, including us, keeps getting smashed down to the lowest sustainable level and then some.

    (It goes without saying that the need to extract ever more surplus value by force if need be hardly expresses the confidence of victory)

    Imperialism is coming more and more to signify the dominance of a world proletariat by an international lawless elite of supercapitalists, and less and less the piracies of Teddy Roosevelt’s time. This dominance is backed by almost unimaginable military force, which has yet to be used to the fullest.

    Kaganism is nothing but a defensive smokescreen for the violent enforcement of the currently leading “austerity-based” currents of world capitalism. In that light, Kagan’s cock-a-doodle cry of “winner” is supremely unconvincing. It is nevertheless chilling.

    Comment by Joe Vaughan — February 3, 2012 @ 7:39 pm

  9. I haven’t read the Kagan piece, but I did hear him interviewed on NPR this morning, and in its own way, it was revealing. The host asked him (and I’m paraphrasing) “Well you’re saying here that the U.S. actually isn’t in a permanent state of decline, but that’s at odds with the near-apocalyptic tone with which the Republican presidential candidates are smearing Obama.” Kagan in effect replied, “Oh, that’s just politics and it’s mainly over minor strategic points. Fundamentally, Republicans and Democrats both want the same things.” I’m paraphrasing again, but that’s essentially what he said. Quite an admission, I thought, particularly since he’s openly backing Romney.

    Comment by David — February 3, 2012 @ 9:23 pm

  10. Turkey a threat to the US?? Really??

    And Kagan says nothing about manufacturing, he talks about OUTPUT which includes goods AND services.

    Geez, with a pathetic left like this what hope is there…..

    Comment by btraven — February 3, 2012 @ 11:29 pm

  11. @#9 [“Fundamentally, Republicans and Democrats both want the same things.”]

    Of course. This truism is neither news nor profound. That’s why the so-called Liberal vs. Conservative debate is such a false paradigm. Even the most minimally class conscious workers in the US have come to cover their wallets when they hear the words “bipartisan support” — for those two words always mean something really unpopular is coming down the pike, from so-called “free-trade” agreements like NAFTA to Wars in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and next, probably Iran, which can only be thwarted by a new OWS uprising that raises the spectre of the 99% wreaking havoc on the status quo ante.

    Fact is from the beginning the sine qua non of Uncle Sam’s foreign policy has always been liberalism. The problem is the so-called Liberals that saw Obama as some sort of “progressive” seem to be organically incapable of understanding that liberal foreign policy is inherently predatory.

    Liberals like Katha Pollitt at “The Nation” seem to be oblivious to the fact (in her last article that railed against Ron Paul) that Uncle Sam’s foreign aid comes with all kinds of strings, like the fact the recipient has to spend a huge percentage on “Caterpillar” tractors and the like, that is, another avenue of corporate welfare that’s seldom addressed whereby public monies enrich private corporations.

    Lets face it. Uncle Sam presides over one of the most perfidious and at the same time ingenious rackets ever concocted by human beings. It’s like a perpetual Catch-22 and per the most famous line of that great movie:

    Yossarian: Whoo… That’s some catch, that Catch-22.
    Dr. ‘Doc’ Daneeka: It’s the best there is.

    When some congenital scoundrel like Kagan admits that: “Fundamentally, Republicans and Democrats both want the same things” it only confirms the notion, as Proyect once put it here, that the USA is a one party state with 2 factions that bicker over the best ways to fuck over working people.

    Sentient beings who cast a vote of confidence for either of those 2 factions should be ashamed of themselves.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — February 4, 2012 @ 1:13 am

  12. why dont all of you flaccid academic declinists stick your dicks between your legs and pretend you have cunts. real productive vigorous men with self confidence and appetites for life and who take life by the gonads and seek pleasure, sex, profit will bring the freest country on earth back so that you limp tenured profs can stay cozy and safe, funded by very productive men who fund your schools and whom you envy. women know the vigorous and passionate from the limp and flaccid.

    Comment by Galt — February 4, 2012 @ 1:41 am

  13. Galt,

    You may profit from this


    Comment by Kate Devlin — February 4, 2012 @ 5:25 am

  14. “The Jews are our misfortune.” Sometimes it’s actually true.

    Comment by Grumpy Old Man. — February 4, 2012 @ 3:27 pm

  15. Gee, Galt, i tried it, but it only messed up my underwear. Anymore tips on how to be a real he-man and keep my hair from falling out?

    Comment by Peter Byrne — February 4, 2012 @ 9:07 pm

  16. Congratulations Galt! A note perfect parody of post by a brain dead jock suffering from steroid abuse, very impressive. Looking forward to future comedy gems from you.

    Comment by meltr — February 4, 2012 @ 9:23 pm

  17. Hey Galt? Do your surges of roid rage always get your thong into such knots or were you just born with such Nietzchean Machismo?

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — February 4, 2012 @ 10:00 pm

  18. Galt,

    May God have mercy on your wicked soul. You venom shows the true you. I feel sorry for a person so lost in darkness you can only communicate threw animalistic vulgarities. I will be praying for you.


    John Kaniecki

    Comment by johnkaniecki — February 5, 2012 @ 1:02 am

  19. Am I the only person on the planet who’s seriously questioning the authenticity of the RAPIDLY dropping unemployment numbers and new jobs added during the tail end of 2011 through today? Seems very sudden and conveniently occurs during Obama’s bid for re-election. Do they really take us for being that stupid? My newspaper is pretty empty in the jobs section. This is nothing but re-election propaganda and a ploy for votes.

    Comment by Deborah Jeffries — February 6, 2012 @ 7:08 pm

  20. Another issue about Obama that’s concerning is the recess appointments of Presidential nominees without the vetting of the nominess by congress. This was reported by Attorney Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ. The problem with this is that congress wasn’t in recess when this occurred. Though I normally don’t support the ACLJ because they’re conservative, they are 100% correct in the conclusion that President Obama has abused his power. He is not the King of America and can’t change laws to promote his agendas.

    Comment by Deborah Jeffries — February 8, 2012 @ 5:28 am

  21. Another issue about Obama that’s concerning is the recess appointments of Presidential nominees without the vetting of the nominees by congress. This was reported by Attorney Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ. The problem with this is that congress wasn’t in recess when this occurred. Though I normally don’t support the ACLJ because they’re conservative, they are 100% correct in the conclusion that President Obama has abused his power. He is not the King of America and can’t change laws to promote his agendas.

    Comment by Deborah Jeffries — February 8, 2012 @ 5:34 am

  22. The ACLJ under Attorney Jay Sekulow reported that President Obama was pushing through presidential nominees during congressional recesses to bypass the vetting process. Only problem was that congress wasn’t at recess at the time he did this which is an abuse of presidential powers.

    Comment by Deborah Jeffries — February 8, 2012 @ 5:53 am

  23. I’m normally not a supporter of the ACLJ or Attorney Jay Sekulow, but this case is a disturbing display of President Obama abusing Presidential powers and making up his own rules.

    Comment by Deborah Jeffries — February 8, 2012 @ 4:12 pm

  24. Sorry my last two posts were posted twice. I think if these allegations about Obama are true, this is very troubling. I’m not a big fan of the constitution, but it is the law of the land for now and I as a citizen I must respect it or face consequences. If this kind of dishonesty is reported, can you imagine what hasn’t been? Two words come to mind RICHARD NIXON. Obama may be going down the same road.

    Comment by Deborah Jeffries — February 9, 2012 @ 3:23 am

  25. Like Nixon who touted a healthcare plan, Obamacare hasn’t made healthcare more accessible, has raised insurance premiums and forces every citizen to get coverage of face tax penalties. The ACLJ (I know I mentioned them again) reported that the Supreme Court is reviewing a challenge to Obamacare. It’s bureaucracy at its worst.

    Comment by Deborah Jeffries — February 9, 2012 @ 3:49 am

  26. Obama likes to brag. But let’s talk about what he hasn’t accomplished and poor judgment. He didn’t save us from a depression, too many bailouts, failure of Obamacare to help Americans, continuing to not police Wall Street, caving in to Republican pressure and questionable appointments like Tim Geitner to head the IRS when he was an admitted tax cheat. Oh God, I could go on all night!

    Comment by Deborah Jeffries — February 9, 2012 @ 4:16 am

  27. […] Kagan, it is only natural that the president would connect with Robert Kagan, Fred’s brother. As I reported last February, Obama was carrying around Robert Kagan’s new book “The World America Made” […]

    Pingback by Was the 2012 election really a referendum? A response to Bill Fletcher Jr. and Carl Davidson « Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — December 25, 2012 @ 5:07 pm

  28. […] Acheson, yet to find its role in a world in which the American empire withers. Instead Obama grabs the latest Robert Kagan, so as to deny any such decline. Yet in foreign affairs Obama’s ability to set a new course is […]

    Pingback by Obama must be more ambitious if he wins a second term tomorrow — March 20, 2013 @ 10:28 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

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 at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: