Measuring Obama's Achievements Against LBJ, FDR and Lincoln

"Until justice is blind to color, until education is unaware of race, until opportunity is unconcerned with the color of men's skins, emancipation will be a proclamation but not a fact."

― Lyndon B. Johnson


"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

- Franklin D. Roosevelt


"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

- Abraham Lincoln


"That's some good sushi right there."

- Barack Obama

Do you recall Obama's 2011 claim regarding his White House achievements:

"As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history."

Well, with respect to legislative accomplishments, I believe that the staggering costs of Obamacare ("If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them") will only become apparent in 2015. On the other hand, with respect to foreign policy, I think Obama's accomplishments are painfully clear.

Obama has just left Japan after failing to reach a trade agreement.

High stakes peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis, organized by John Kerry, have crumbled and given rise to Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.

With regard to the Ukraine and Crimea, Vladimir Putin, who was promised "flexibility" by Obama in his second term, is ignoring American whining. In fact, it's gotten so bad that the Russians are not even answering Chuck Hagel's phone calls (see: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/25/chuck-hagel-cant-get-russian-defense-counterpart-p/).

But can you really blame Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu for refusing to speak with Chuck? Everyone knows Hagel is a moron (see, for example: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/chuck-hagel-jokes-that-indian-man-asking-him-a-question-is-a).

Whereas JFK's "Camelot" consisted of the "best and the brightest," Obama has managed to surround himself with the worst and the dumbest.

And although Kathleen Sebelius has finally resigned, Kerry and Hagel are going nowhere.

No, it can't get any worse.

Elliott Abrams, "Questioning Hagel": Can American Jews Voice Their Opinions Without Being Called "Jew Firsters"?

More than 60 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" was being labeled the "Jew Deal" by American anti-Semites, and Charles Lindbergh was busy accusing the Jews of trying to drag America into the war against Hitler. Fast forward: Today's anti-Semites are blaming the Jews for America's declining economic fortunes, while claiming that AIPAC, the Zionists and the Israel Firsters are attempting to instigate a war between the US and Iran for Israel's benefit. There is nothing new under the sun.

In an opinion piece published by the National Review entitled "Questioning Hagel" (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337543/questioning-hagel-elliott-abrams), Elliott Abrams begins by telling us that Obama is entitled to choose his own cabinet:

"The primary argument against Hagel’s confirmation seems to be that his policy views are wrong, bad, and even dangerous — and of course contrary to those of whoever is lodging this criticism. Several senators have already said they would vote against Hagel, and others have jumped on the fence and are sitting there until the hearings — due to their policy disagreements with him, often over Iran policy and Israel policy. I completely agree with the typical criticisms of his policy views, but can’t say I find them to be persuasive grounds for opposing his confirmation.

For one thing, the general rule should be that presidents get the policies and the appointees they want. I did not vote for President Obama, but he did win and he does get to make his own policy and choose his subordinates."

Abrams goes on to explain his "own argument against Senator Hagel’s suitability":

"Today most pressure from the organized Jewish community over foreign-policy issues is related to the security of Israel and the Iranian nuclear-weapons program. To be treated with indifference by an elected official is bad enough. To be told by a future nominee for very high office that, 'I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator,' and 'my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States' is insulting and unacceptable. It suggests that Senator Hagel believes such lobbying by American Jews to be illegitimate and offensive, and is indeed evidence of loyalty to another country."

Abrams observes the failure of American Jews, in the years leading up to World War II, to act on behalf of European Jewry. Many of these Jews were concerned with being accused of dual loyalties or of being accused, in today's terminology, of being "Jew firsters." Ultimately, half of Europe's Jews and a third of world Jewry would perish at Hitler's hands.

Abrams then notes that American Jews were subsequently more proactive in standing up for the freedom of Soviet Jewry, notwithstanding renewed claims that such advocacy ran counter to American interests.

Today, when voicing concern over repeated Iranian threats to annihilate Israel and when questioning Chuck Hagel's past conciliatory utterances regarding relations with Tehran, the loyalty of American Jews is again being questioned. As observed by Abrams, Hagel's assertion that he is an American senator, not an Israel senator, has exacerbated this persistent claim that American Jews care more deeply for Israel than the US.

In 2013, can American Jews voice concern over Iranian nuclear weapons development and threats to wipe Israel off the face of the map without being accused of dual loyalty or of being Jew firsters? Perhaps President Obama, who has so adamantly pushed Hagel's nomination ahead, notwithstanding Hagel's positions, which, according to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html) place him "well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate," would care to weigh in on the topic.

Do you remember how Obama once vowed to heal a divided America? Yeah, right.