Having a goal isn’t simply important, it’s vital to success. Those who actually write down their goals achieve them 85% of the time. Part of the reason for that is that only 3% of people actually write down their goals, and merely an additional 13% of people have goals but not in writing.
A goal can be as simple as losing 20 lbs (I know, for some that’s not simple), or as complicated as changing the world. And by that, I don’t refer to the think global, act local bumper sticker crowd. I refer to those on the world stage that can affect such change.
Last night Benjamin Netanyahu won his election as Prime Minister of Israel. Not only did he win, but he won big, or covered the point spread as we say in sports, by capturing 29 seats for his party, Lukid, to retain control of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset.
It’s difficult enough to win an election; it’s even more difficult to win when outside parties actively work to unseat a politician. Benjamin Netanyahu faced an intense battle against Isaac Herzog and his Zionist Union party. However, his battle was made all the more difficult by the meddling of foreign influences, specifically the Obama Administration.
The American nonprofit OneVoice Movement – under scrutiny by a U.S. Senate panel over possible links to a campaign to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – quietly filed paperwork that would allow it to engage in political activism after two leading Republican lawmakers questioned its use of government funds, FoxNews.com has learned.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., sent a letter Jan. 29 to Secretary of State John Kerry asking whether the group – as a recipient of almost $350,000 in recent grants from the Obama administration’s State Department – had violated its tax-exempt status when it began backing the virulently anti-Netanyahu Victory 15 campaign in Israel earlier that month.
Cruz also publicly asked whether Obama – who’s had a well-documented adversarial relationship with Netanyahu – had “launched a political campaign against” the Israeli leader in the run-up to the election which was held on Tuesday.
The feelings, or lack of them, that President Obama has for Prime Minister Netanyahu have been well known for some time; so much so that one might be tempted to say that Bibi’s victory was a clear slap in the face to the President.
But with all goals, the path to them is not smooth and setbacks are often encountered. While this victory is a big setback for President Obama’s goals, they do not deter him from pursuing them.
We as Americans have continued to view the foreign policy engagements of President Obama as muddled, befuddled, inept, even Chamberlain-esque. However, we have been wrong in our assessment because we continue to view his choices and decisions through the wrong lens.
That brings me to several fantastic articles by Victor Davis Hansen. If you aren’t reading Victor’s articles, you are missing a lot of tremendous insights. Victor has done an excellent job of piecing together the clues that have been sown throughout the chaos to reveal what is actually going on. And while I’m going to summarize some of it for you, PLEASE, read the articles because they are critically important to understanding our rapidly changing world and will give you remarkable insights into the policies of the Obama Administration.
I know it’s both easy and convenient to think of and refer to the Obama Administration’s policies as being Chamberlain-esque, especially with regards to Iran. However, that view, while convenient, fails to fully grasp exactly who Obama is, what his goals are, and what he is setting out to accomplish.
Victor Davis Hansen reveals to us the true nature of President Obama’s Foreign Policy. We tend to view his handling of said Foreign Policy through the lens of American Exceptionalism. However, President Obama doesn’t consider the US be exceptional. He views the United States as an Empire with too much power and influence that needs to quietly recede, while giving other nations an opportunity to have an equal voice. He also believes that all nations and interests act rationally, if given a chance, and by curing both poverty and a lack of education, most can be reasoned with and brought to an understanding.
Ideals, persuasion, feelings, and intent are now the stuff of foreign policy, not archaic and polarizing rules of deterrence, balance of power, military readiness, and alliances.
Of course, the complete irony of wanting to topple empires seems to escape him while he deliberately empowers and builds others. It is not mere happenstance or coincidence that Russia, Iran, Turkey, China, and others are rising and exerting their influence and power abroad. This is by design through the deliberate reduction of influence the United States has overseas.
As scary as this might be, it is not new and it is precisely because of history that we can reflect on the lessons of the past with regards to our present condition, and where that path may lead. Again, Mr. Hansen gives us great insight to our past and how it relates to our place today. We want to remember Chamberlain, and should; but it was far more than that which impacted the events that unfolded in the later 1930’s. Remarkably, we fail to mention, or forget altogether, Hitler’s reaction to Chamberlain and the concessions Neville made to him. Hitler wasn’t magnanimous, he was incensed.
Hitler fumed that the compliant Chamberlain at Munich was a “worm” for making such concessions to him and boasted that he would stomp on that “silly old man” on the next occasion he saw him.
What we view as appeasement, both from Neville Chamberlain and Barack Obama, is really pretentious narcissism.
The architect of appeasement — for example, Neville Chamberlain, former prime minister of Great Britain — was predictably a narcissist. Chamberlain believed that his own powers of oratory, his insights into reason, and his undeniably superior morality would sway even a thug like Adolf Hitler.
President Obama currently is convinced that his singular charisma and rare insight into human nature will convince the Taliban to peacefully participate in Afghan politics. Obama will supposedly also win over the Iranian theocracy and show it how nonproliferation is really to everyone’s advantage.
We’ve arrived at this pivotal point in history because of the deliberate machinations of this President. His functional transformation of both the US and the world through the deliberately weakening of influence the United States has abroad is part of his plan to transform both the Middle East and the rest of the world. He thinks that he can affect such change simply through the force of his charm. While we see election results and the rise belligerent nations as repudiations of his policies, he sees them simply as obstacles to be overcome in the pursuit of his goals.
We are now in an equally turbulent age of rising empires — mostly due to a new American indifference and passivity. Or, to put it more exactly, President Obama believes that his own legacy rests with avoiding all confrontations overseas, withdrawing as many troops as he can, and cutting the defense budget as much as Congress will allow so as to use the funds to address supposed inequality at home. If chaos results abroad, he can either blame his predecessor, George W. Bush, or assume that his successor will have to deal with what he wrought — or both. Obama is running out the clock of his presidency on the premise of Après moi, le déluge. (Emphasis mine.)
Some of that chaos, in the form of falling oil prices, has resulted in some delicious irony, as Victor notes. While those falling prices probably helped save his 2012 campaign as it offered a brighter note on the economy, the damage of his repressive energy policies had already been done.
Russia, Venezuela, Iran and through Iranian subsidies, Hezbollah, all grew far more powerful from the profits generated from those high oil prices; prices deliberately brought about by Obama as promised during his 2008 campaign. For all the talk about wars for oil, it would appear that his administration has a war on oil.
The Obama administration never much worried about high energy costs. During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised that “under my plan . . . electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Shutting down coal plants and using higher-priced but cleaner natural gas would pave the way for an even pricier mandated wind and solar generation. (Emphasis mine.)
It was those high prices he predicted that enriched the enemies of the United States. The windfall profits those countries realized drove rising anti-American foreign policy abroad, and played right into President Barack Obama’s goals of weakening the influence and power the United States had in the world.
Election results, the rise of ISIS, militant Islam, falling oil prices, and the belligerence of Iran aren’t repudiations of his policies or evidence of their failures; rather, they are simply obstacles and challenges to be overcome. When one realizes this, it changes the way President Obama and his choices are viewed and makes his actions all the more dangerous.
He’s not inept, he’s a narcissistic academic relentlessly driven to accomplish his goals, and no amount of evidence will convince him that said goals are either unrealistic or deluded. Rather, it will only drive him harder to overcome said obstacles in the ruthless pursuit of his ambitions.
We can thank oilmen, the rising conservative movement in the US, and Benjamin Netanyahu for their pursuit of their own goals in blocking the progress of this President in his pursuit of his entirely destructive goals. It is knowing what his strategy is, knowing what those goals are, that helps us to make sense of the perceived madness our current foreign policy. When we alter our perspective and realize the goals this man has, the irrationality and absurdity suddenly make sense.