The Real Obama Legacy

Foreign Policy
How will Obama be viewed historically? The obvious answer is: in two completely different ways. First, he is now, has been, and will be
remembered as one of our greatest, most consequential presidents by the far left Mainstream Media who have uncritically
supported him all along. According to a recent CNN broadcast, Obamas leading accomplishments are comprehensive healthcare, the
rescue of the global economy, the historic deal with Iran to halt that nations march towards a nuclear weapon, the global climate
change agreements, the appointment of two women to the U.S. Supreme Court, and his moves on social issues such as marriage
equality for gay Americans, equal pay legislation, criminal justice reform, and more.
The second answer is not so generous. We have decided to present our evaluation in a three-part series covering:
1. Foreign Policy
2. Economic Legacy
3. Race Relations
Part 1 focuses on some of the key failures of Obamas foreign policy that led to the Trump victory in November, principally the
passivity of his policy in the Middle East and his championing of the globalist cause of open borders.
Part 1: Foreign Policy
Those who would claim that Obama is one of our greatest presidents are the same folks who have been selling the story that Trump is
the new Hitler. Presumably, they believe that in February 2017 Trump will begin rounding up 6 million Muslims and sending them to
camps to be executed, much like the US did after Pearl Harbor with Japanese-Americans. What? We did not send 6 million Japanese-
Americans to death camps in California? Mea culpa, but its hard to keep pace with the revisionist propaganda being taught in our
schools and colleges.
One of Trumps first goals will likely be to secure our borders from the stated ISIS objective of infiltrating the US via massive refugee
migration from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other ISIS-infiltrated territories prone to jihad and hatred toward the West (directly or via
Australia). There will be other responses as well, but count on Trump not to be so stupid as to telegraph them in detail to the enemy.
Churchill famously said, In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. In The Art of War,
Sun Tsu said, All war is deception and advises those who would be powerful to be unpredictable to their adversaries.
Any student of modern Game Theory can confirm that Trump is intuitively employing the two key strategies that preserve the greatest
amount of power.
First, as a negotiator he is using strength and hard positioning, rather than soft or compliant positioning. The hard position here is to
start by going through with his proposal to ban all immigration from terrorism-prone (i.e., Muslim) countries. If the end goal is
cooperation, which is always difficult in multi-party games or negotiations (because the temptation for cheating is ever-present),
the stronger player always fares better than the soft player. This of course will produce howls of protest from the usual suspects,
including many Republican members of Congress, because it violates a fundamental tenet of multicultural ideologythat, a few rotten
eggs notwithstanding, humans are all the same everywhere.
Second, when in a hazardous position, the Game Theorist would encourage unpredictable mixed strategies to keep other parties
uncertain. In all competitive and adversarial contexts, unpredictability, deception and its detection are vital. As someone long
experienced in the art of the deal, Trump knows he has to keep his adversaries off-balance.
Obama was a classic failure in these respects. In Game Theory parlance, Obamas gambit was to soften Americas approach to foreign
policy in the Middle East, as, for example, his Syria policy which vacillated from inaction, to non-existent red lines, to ineffectual aid
for the jihadist rebels, all the while ignoring the realities of Middle East politics which dictate that highly fractionated Arab societies
require strong rulers to keep up some semblance of civilization. Remember the good old days of stability under Saddam Hussein?
Vacillation while signaling weakness and lack of resolve is not strategy mixing. Obama is a hard leftist for whom war against brown
people doesnt come naturally, although he is doubtless quite happy that all this instability has been the impetus for ramping up the
non-White invasion of the West. Obama was never into waging these wars he had to be dragged by Hillary into the Libya disaster
which was motivated again by Moammar Gaddafi (like Hussein and Assad) being a bad person, or at least that was the propaganda.
The result, as we clearly see, has been to unleash the always latent tribal divisions in these societies, with no end in sight. He has
emboldened our adversaries and turned small players into more powerful players.
Speak loudly, but carry a little stick
Posturing hard but playing soft may be even more disadvantageous. Like any other strategic advantage, hard posturing works only
when properly exploited through sound strategic decisions. Tough talk must be used judiciously. But Obama seems to have reversed
Teddy Roosevelts maxim to now read, Speak loudly, but carry a little stick. As the Syrian red line debacle demonstrated, the White
House should issue specific threats only when it is prepared to follow through on them. As noted by Mark Moyar, writing in the New
York Times,
Obama began his first term with lofty vows to conciliate adversaries, defer to the opinions of other countries and reduce Americas military commitments.
Consequently, he received rapturous applause in European capitals and a Nobel Peace Prize. In the real world of geopolitics, however, the results have been
catastrophic. Obama naively thought that all America had to do was apologize for everything and all would be right with the world.
Obama began his second term promising to finally end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, conflicts that probably will grind on long
after he leaves office. His promise to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan satisfied the liberal elites at home and abroad, but
deflated American allies and emboldened adversaries in Iran and elsewhere. Indeed, Iran with its newfound influence over Iraq, is the
obvious winner from a war that cost thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of American wounded, and trillions of American
dollars, with the result that neocons and Israel are clamoring for a war with Iran.
But the good news in all this is that the neocons, having gone all in on the #NeverTrump movement, have lost their influence. (We can
only hope that Trump will not appoint arch-neocons John Bolton or Elliott Abrams to the #2 position at the State Department, as has
been rumored at various times.) Bill Kristol, whose campaign against Trump combined allegiance to lofty conservative principles with
de facto support for Hillary (who would have ensured a far left, multicultural future for America combined with a neocon-approved
foreign policy), has resigned his position at The Weekly Standard (although its hard to believe things will improve under Steven
Hayes). Ditto for Jonah Goldberg at National Review. Their plans for reconstructing the GOP along neocon lines, including a complete
rejection of White identity politics, after the hoped for Trump debacle are in complete shambles.
As Commentarys Noah Rothman confidently phrased it before the election, Trump supporters would be on bended knees to their neocon
masters:
Trumpism exists at odds with conservatism, and the party as reconstituted in 2017 must be one built up around conservative ideals of limited government, free
trade, an internationalist foreign policy, and an unqualified rejection of identity politics. In short, Republicans of all stripes must be made to acknowledge and
accept that Trumpism is an experiment that failed. Thats the price of admission, and its a modest one given the great costs associated with sacrificing a winnable
race for the White House.
But Trumpism succeeded, so the reemergence of the neocons in the GOP will have to wait a few years at least. But the important point
is that this defeat of the neocons would not have been possible if Obama, a weak and vacillating leader who was never able to
extricate the U.S. from the failures originally promoted by the neocons, had had a successful foreign policy. Thanks Barack. We owe
you one.
Obamas own defense of his record (echoed, of course, by the lefts MSM) is largely built around the large number of troops he
brought home from Iraq and Afghanistan. About 15,000 troops are deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, down from about
175,000 when Obama took office. While the administration likes to point out the savings of troop reduction, their cost-benefit
analysis does not include the horrific costs to the people of the region, the continuing instability throughout the region, or the
massive costs of absorbing a tsunami wave of Arab and African refugees flooding into Europe and elsewhere. And, as we are seeing,
drawing down troops only means that the fighting among the various factions will continue until a new strong man emerges.
In the Middle East, its either all or nothing at all. The U.S. had to be willing to commit a huge number of troops for a very long period,
as the neocons wanted. (Neocons commonly made the analogy to the U.S. troop commitment in Japan and Germany after World War II,
implying an unending commitment, since we are still there 70+ years after the war; of course, the Middle East is nothing like Japan or
Germany, as there would be continued sectarian violence, implying continuing U.S. casualties far into the foreseeable future. But,
given the security benefits to Israel of a Middle East occupied by U.S. troops, they would have seen this as a small price to pay.) Or the
U.S. simply had to leave the area to its own devices, a result not at all to the liking of the Israel Lobby and its neoconservative media
flaks. (Wikileaks provided an email in which Hillary made it clear that the motive for U.S. intervention in Syria was to support Israeli
policy). We suspect that Trump understands this.
Obama and Israel
On the plus side, we should also remember that Obama stood up to the Israel Lobby in a way that no president since Eisenhower did.
Obama had a notoriously icy relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu, with Ambassador Oren noting in 2010 that the US-Israel
relationship was at its lowest in 35 years. The Iran deal was accomplished over strong opposition of Israel and the Israel Lobby, and
Obama managed to resist their attempts to gin up a war with Iran. Again, Obama is a hard leftist social justice warrior, and like many
social justice warriors and a majority of Democrats, there can be little doubt that he doesnt like Israels policies promoting apartheid and
the ethnic cleansing and oppression of Palestinians. Recently Obama also signed a 10-year $38 billion aid package for Israel with
as little fanfare as possible. Why publicize this increased aid to a highly developed, First-World nation engaged in apartheid and ethnic
cleansing when the U.S. is massively in debt and has to borrow the funds it is giving? The deal pleased no one, especially the pro-
Israel hacks like Lindsay Graham who wanted a much larger package and were likely disappointed on the new spending restrictions
which limit the amounts that can be spent on purchasing weapons from Israeli companies.
In any case, despite Obamas generally poor relationship with Israel, at the end of his administration Israel is still armed to the teeth,
it is still dominated politically by messianic fanatics who would engage in a civil war if there was any meaningful pullback, and it is
still supported to the hilt by a very wealthy and powerful Diaspora community. Israel, while not happy with Obama, definitely came
through unscathed, although they didnt get the war with Iran that they wanted. Its therefore more than a little worrying that Trump
appointed David Friedman, a hardline settlement-supporter and opponent of a two-state solution, as Ambassador to Israel in the new
administration. Trump has also promised to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, a move long sought by Israeli hard-liners. And he
previously signaled that Israeli settlements are not an obstacle to peace. So its not surprising that Israelis are very positive about a
Trump presidency.
Squaring these signals of support for the Israeli far right with an America First foreign policy raises difficult questions, especially with
respect to Iran given that Trump has appointed Gen. Michael Flynn to head the National Security Council and General James Mattis as
Secretary of Defense, both known as Iran hawks. It also raises complex issues with Trumps warming relations with Russia given that
Russia and Iran are allies. It would be ironic indeed if the war with Iran that Obama avoided ended up being fought under a Trump
administration officially dedicated to an America First foreign policy and ending wars in the Middle East promoted by Israel, the
neocons, and the Israel Lobby for whom a war with Iran has been at the top of their wish list since the Bush II administration.
The High Cost of Leading from Behind
The result of all this unrest has been disastrous for Europe given the policies promoted by Angela Merkel and other similar-minded
pillars of the establishment. Over 4.8 million Syrian men, women, and children have fled their country since the conflict began shortly
before Obamas second term and another 6.1 million have been displaced within Syria.
By 2014, nearly 600,000 asylum applications were filed in Europe, a 47% increase over the more than 400,000 applications filed in
2013. In 2015, the number of asylum applications grew again, this time more than doubling 2014s record to reach about 1.3 million
(a 122% increase). These increases reflected asylum seekers arriving from each of the three leading origin countries: Syria,
Afghanistan and Iraq.
A spring 2016 Pew Research Center survey conducted across 10 EU member states found that majorities in each country disapproved of
how the EU was dealing with the refugee issue. Disapproval was generally greatest in countries with the highest number of asylum
seekers in 2015. For example, 94% of Greeks and 88% of Swedes said they disapprove of how the EU has handled the refugee issue.
Germany received an unprecedented 442,000 individual first-time asylum applications in 2015 the highest annual number ever
received by a European country over the past 30 years.
The refugee issue was highly debated in the UKs June vote to leave the European Union. The debate focused on the policy of open
borders allowing migration of refugees into the UK from other EU countries. Nigel Farage was viciously attacked for a UKIP add
showing the hordes invading Europe.
Over half (53%) of asylum seekers were young adults 18 to 34 years old. In addition, men made up 73% of Europes asylum seekers
in 2015. Refugees from leading origin countries such as Syria (71%), Iraq (75%) and Afghanistan (80%) were also predominately male
in 2015. As a result, about four-in-ten asylum seekers in Europe in 2015 (42%) were young men ages 18 to 34. The statistically
extreme level of violence characteristic of this sub-group compared to all other groups is referred to by scientists as the Young Male
Syndrome.
Aside from this potential for violence, the financial average cost of each Middle Eastern refugee resettled in the United States
is estimated at $64,370 in the first five years, or $257,481 per household. This includes heavy welfare use by Middle Eastern refugees;
91 percent receive food stamps and 68 percent receive cash assistance. In contrast, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
has requested $1,057 to care for each Syrian refugee annually in most countries neighboring Syria.
These economic analyses ignore the cost of present and future dangers to the host countries. The principal terrorist threat around
the globe has consistently come from young male Muslim immigrants (or their male offspring) who were radicalized through online
propaganda or during return visits to their country of origin.
Conclusion
Obamas leading from behind has had disastrous consequences for our allies, just as it has emboldened our adversaries around the
globe. Granted that cleaning up the messes made by the neocon-dominated Bush administration was always a tall order, Obama
made it worse by adding another neocon-approved disaster in Libya by pursuing weak, vacillating postures in Iraq and Syria that only
prolonged the instability and violence. A newly affluent Iran (thanks to the Iran deal) is consolidating its power in the Middle East
thanks to the Iraq debacle, leading to fresh challenges as Trump attempts to normalize relationships with Irans ally Russia. China
continues to drain the American treasury via the massive trade imbalance and to replace American influence in the Pacific. Together
with the cultural and economic demise of Europe which has been enormously speeded up by the migrant invasion unleashed by
instability in the Middle East, they constitute another devastating consequence of the soft Obama administration.
The Economy
Shortly after his inauguration in 2009, President Obama invited Republican leaders in Congress to the White House to discuss their
proposals for stimulating the economy. In this gesture of goodwill he failed to mention that House Democrats had already drafted and
passed a stimulus bill without consulting them. Every GOP idea had been left out.
Even a minor concession or two would have gone a long way toward gaining Republican votes, with the result that Republicans would
have inherited part ownership of the stimulus package. But as no concessions were offered, every House Republican voted against the
bill, as did all but three in the Senate.
Then came Obamacare which was put together in the office of then-majority leader Harry Reid. No Republicans were invited to that
party either and consequently none voted for it. Democrats became sole proprietors of Obamacare.
Politically speaking, this approach was justified. But there happens to be great value in compromise and bipartisanship. On big
matters that involve the entire country and affect most Americans, they are critical. They act like a seal of national approval. When
both parties agree, controversial measures are no longer in serious dispute. When one party insists on having its way, controversy
lingers.
Obamacare is a prime example. As a product of bipartisan compromise, it would have been less unpopular than it is now. But as
wholly owned property of the president and Democrats, forced on an unwilling public, its loathed. For Democratic candidates, its an
albatross. In short order, Obama lost the House majority he brought with him into office, then the Senate.
Obamas relations with Republicans have worsened since then. In 2011, he and House speaker John Boehner agreed to a $4 trillion
deal of spending cuts and tax hikes. But this grand bargain unraveled when Obama insisted on hundreds of billions more in tax
revenue. Boehner promptly pulled out, saying he couldnt trust Obama to honor a deal. Obama had throws away a breakthrough that
might have enhanced his economic legacy.
Thus ended Obamas minimalist efforts to cooperate with Republicans in Congress. After his re-election in 2012 he announced he
would use his pen and the phone to handle Congress. Rather than negotiate with Republicans, he mainly used his pen to sign an
unprecedented number of executive orders. No need to discuss, cooperate, or compromise on those. Throughout his second term he
routinely exceeded his constitutional authority by signing orders rather than passing legislation.
Now, in his final month in office Obama seeks to secure his legacy by introducing a last-minute barrage of costly environmental
regulations. This adds to his administrations dubious record of producing more than 600 major regulations, at a cost of more than
$100 million each, according to a study by the American Action Forum, a Washington-based think tank.
Related to this legacy of stifling over-regulation is the fact that the U.S. is now 19.95 trillion dollars in debt (as of December 2016).
Obama added an additional $7.917 trillion to Americas national debt, which amounts to a 68 percent increase from the $11.657
trillion debt level Bush accrued by the end of his presidency.
But according to Obama himself, echoed by the MSM, he has done a really great job overall and America is indisputably better off
economically today than it was when he took office.
At first glance one would think that more than any other aspect of Obamas legacy, the economy is a matter of fact rather than
ideological spin. But consider this Nov 30, 2016 statement by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest. In his press briefing he said
that 805,000 manufacturing jobs have been created since President Barack Obama has been in office. But a quick fact check by a
liberal leaning watchdog indicates that there has been a net loss of 303,000 manufacturing jobs since Obama took office in January
2009.
Earnest made the statement on the day that Carrier announced a deal with President-elect Donald Trump so that the company would
continue to manufacture gas furnaces in Indianapolis, in addition to retaining engineering and headquarters staff, preserving more
than 1,000 jobs.
Earnests intention to undermine Trumps achievement was clear when he fabricated this lie to the American people and then taunted
Trump by adding that Trump would have to make another 804 deals like that to equal the number of manufacturing jobs created
while Obama has been president.
So given this state of affairs, lets fact check Obamas indisputably better off claim against eight key metrics of economic health: the
federal debt, the gross domestic product annual growth rate, the unemployment rate, labor participation rates, median annual
income, home ownership rates, health care costs, and reliance upon food stamps (see Americas economy before Obama versus after
Obama, Breitbart, 11/29/2016).
As already mentioned, the federal debt has doubled to nearly $20,000,000,000. And counting
Obama has overseen the worst economic growth of any President since Herbert Hoover, and has not had a single year that saw an
annual growth of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) that reached or exceeded 3%. CNS News reported that all of Obamas predecessors
since JFK, whose administration saw annual growth of real GDP peak at 6.1 percent in 1962, have seen far more robust economic
growth. Obamas eight years pale in comparison to Ronald Reagans eight years between 1981 and 1989, where annual growth in
real GDP peaked at 7.3 percent in 1984.
The good news was that the unemployment rate declined from 7.6% in January 2009 to 4.9% in October 2016, and the number of
employed increased by 9.8 million and the number of unemployed decreased by 3.8 million. However, the bad news was that the
number of Americans not in the labor force increased by 13.5 million.
This latter statistic reflects that fact that the labor participation rate declined from 65.8% in February 2009, shortly after Obama took
office in the midst of a recession, to 62.8% in October 2016 (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Thus 94,333,000 Americans were not in the
labor force in July 2016. In September 2015, the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.4 percent, its lowest point since 1977.
Median household annual income has remained stagnant in real terms under Obama 1.5% lower ($884) than it was in January 2008
just as the recession was beginning, but substantially above its low point of August 2011.
The home ownership rate declined from 67.3 percent in the first quarter of 2009 to 63.5 percent in the third quarter of 2016.
Health insurance rates, both for employer-sponsored programs and Obamacare, increased significantly between January 2009 and
November 2016. Breitbart:
In 2008, the average employer-sponsored family plan cost a total of $12,680, with employees footing $3,354 of the bill. By 2016,
the cost of the average employer family plan was up to $18,142 for the year, with workers picking up $5,277 of the tab.
And its getting worse. Obamacare premiums are set to skyrocket an average of 22% for the benchmark silver plan in 2017.
The number of individuals receiving food stamps increased from 33.5 million in January 2009 to 44.2 million in August 2016, an
increase of 10.7 million. Enrollment in the food stamp program has soared by 32 percent in the years since President Obama first
took office, a new report finds.
Summary
Six of these eight metrics show that Americans are demonstrably worse off in November 2016 than they were in January 2009, when
President Obama was inaugurated. The two metrics which show nominal improvementthe unemployment rate and median annual
incomecome with significant caveats.
While the measured unemployment rate has declined under Obama, the dramatic increase in the number of those not participating in
the labor force, the huge increase in those on food stamps, and stagnant median household annual income in real terms, suggest that
those two economic metrics represent illusory gains.
On the face of it, Obamas economic plan is to expand the dependent population by exporting manufacturing jobs, swelling the
numbers on welfare, disability, and those out of the labor force, continue to import millions of uneducated, economically dependent
foreigners, but to make everyone at least minimally happy with payments from the government so they continue to vote for the
Democrats who are indisputably more favorable to the welfare state than the GOP.
With six of these eight economic metrics lower in 2016 than they were in January 2009, and with the two improved metrics qualified
at best, it is hard to conclude that America is indisputably better off economically todaycompared to January 2009.
In his last press conference as President Obama made his case once again that as president, he was great for the economy:
As I was preparing to take office, the unemployment rate was on its way to 10 percent, he noted. Today it is at 4.6 percent, the
lowest in nearly a decade.
In contrast here is how Trump depicts the last 8 years:
President Obama has weakened our military by weakening our economy. Hes crippled us with wasteful spending, massive debt, low
growth, a huge trade deficit and open borders. Our manufacturing trade deficit with the world is now approaching $1 trillion a year.
Were rebuilding other countries while weakening our own. Ending the theft of American jobs will give us resources we need to rebuild
our military, which has to happen and regain our financial independence and strength.
Because Trump was elected on his promise to restore American jobs, I have chosen to focus the remainder of this brief essay on job
loss due to outsourcing jobs to places like China and Mexico.
Outsourcing the American Dream
Jobs outsourced to China have continuously reduced American employment opportunities and have helped contribute to wage erosion
since 2001, when China entered the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2013, the US trade deficit with China increased by
$240.1 billion ($21.8 billion on average per year). During this period the trade deficit with China cost the U.S. 3.2 million jobs, three
quarters of which were in manufacturing, according to the Economic Policy Institute report.
By 2015 the U.S. trade deficit with China jumped to $365.7 billion. This is a new record, up from the 2014 record of $343 billion. The
deficit is always increasing because, for more than a decade, China has exported about $4 worth of goods to the United States for
each $1 of goods that it imports. A lot of the Chinese exports, such as consumer electronics, clothing, and machinery, are from U.S.-
based companies that send raw materials to China for low-cost assembly. Because most American companies cant compete with
Chinas low costs, millions of U.S. jobs have been lost due to outsourcing, facilitated by
Because China consistently distorts market forces through government subsidies, preferential loans, and currency manipulation, they
can produce goods at lower cost than US companies. They pay lower wages to workers, and manipulate an exchange rate in which the
yuan is always priced lower than the dollar. If the dollar loses value, China buys dollars through U.S. Treasuries to support it. In this
way, the yuans value is always within a target range of 2 percent.
The passive resignation of the Obama administration to this growing problem is precisely the kind of response that infuriates the
newly unemployed class of American workers who gave Trump the 2016 election. Thanks to the Obama administrations globalist
ideology, China is now the worlds largest economy and the largest lender to the U.S. Government. As of September 2016, the U.S.
debt to China was $1.157 trillion. Many are concerned that this gives China political leverage over U.S. fiscal policy since it could call
in its loan. (Source: Major Foreign Holdings of Treasury Securities, U.S. Treasury.)
In their Outsourcing America: Whats Behind Our National Crisis and How We Can Reclaim American Jobs, Ron and Anil Hira note that
despite the enormity of the stakes for all Americans, a state of denial exists among US policymakers.
To convince Americans of outsourcings benefits, corporate outsourcers sponsor misleading one-sided studies. Only a small handful
of people have looked objectively at the issue. These few and the large number of Americans whose careers have been destroyed by
outsourcing have a different view of outsourcings impact. But so far there has been no debate, just a shouting down of skeptics as
protectionists.
The Hira brothers also cite a University of California study that concludes that 14 million white-collar jobs are vulnerable to being
outsourced offshore. The authors note that these are the jobs of the American Dream, the jobs of upward mobility that generate the
bulk of the tax revenues that fund our education, health, infrastructure, and social security systems.
The authors point out that the track record for the re-employment of displaced US workers is abysmal: The Department of Labor
reports that more than one in three workers who are displaced remains unemployed, and many of those who are lucky enough to find
jobs take major pay cuts.
The result is a lose-lose situation for American employees, American businesses, the American government and for the American
people as a whole.
The national security implications of outsourcing can no longer be ignored. The steel and aluminum industries are essential to our
national defense industrial base. If U.S. steel production is hollowed out by unfair Chinese competition, the U.S. could be placed in
the vulnerable position of having to rely on foreign countries for critical commodities. Obamas legacy of passivity regarding these
issues has inevitably eroded Americas superpower status, hence the appeal of Trumps main message: Make America Great Again.
Trump has already begun the task of reshaping trade relations with China by naming outspoken China critic, Peter Navarro, to lead a
new White House office overseeing American trade and industrial policy. Navarro, who is a professor at the University of California,
Irvine, and holds a doctorate from Harvard, is the author of a series of books critical of Chinas unfair trade practices and a 2012
documentary film, Death by China.
Eight years ago when he was running for president, Obama criticized President Bushs deficit spending, calling it irresponsible and
unpatriotic. Obama said at a presidential campaign event on July 3, 2008:
The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the
name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome.
So we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back $30,000 for every man, woman and child. Thats
irresponsible. Its unpatriotic.
By December 2016 Obama has added far, far more to the U.S. debt than Bush or any president in history. As he leaves office he
continues to add to his total of over 260 executive orders, while at the same time he advised Trump not to issue too many executive
orders.
The left, believing that they would control the presidency for years to come because of the demographic changes they have
engineered (with the complicity of the GOP), doubtless felt that executive rule was a good thing no need to deal with all those
flyover Republican Congress people. Its a great precedent for Trump.
Obamas legacy of hypocrisy and arrogance (and that of his press secretary) is a testament to his disdain for the intelligence of the
American people. Fortunately not all Americans have succumbed to the ideological propaganda honed by the Obama administration
and their fervent supporters in the MSM over the past 8 years. We will soon have a new American President, but we remain stuck with
a MSM that is bristling with anger over repeated exposures their bias, not to mention their frustration that their much hoped for
utopian dream of complete domination was at hand with the ascension of Hillary Clinton has been shattered.

Obamas Legacy Will Live Forever

The Economy: Obamas Recovery
If Obamas economic performance is to be judged, it must be on the strength of the recovery, which began just a few months after he
took office. And on that score, he fails miserably. Despite repeated promises that his policies would produce growth rates of 3% to
4% a year, annual GDP growth never reached 3% once making it the worst recovery since the Depression. Had Obamas recovery
been merely average, GDP would be $2 trillion bigger and thered be millions more with jobs?
The Middle Class:
Obama, like every Democrat running for office, claimed to be the champion of the middle class, and that instead of trickle down
economics, hed growth the economy from the middle out. Instead, middle-class wages stagnated throughout Obamas term in
office, with real median household income today exactly where it was when Obama took office.
And despite Obamas constant bragging about the longest stretch of private sector job growth, the 15.5 million private sector jobs
added since February 2010 hasnt even kept pace with population growth which climbed 17.5 million over that time. As a result,
more than 14 million people have dropped out of the labor force since Obama took office. In fact, without the huge decline in labor
force participation under Obama, the unemployment rate would be more like 10%, rather than the official 4.9%.
Health Care:
ObamaCare was supposed to be Obamas grand legacy, showing how a government could be a force for good. Instead, its become an
epic failure that will have to be dealt with by the next president. The reforms Obama said would repair a broken health system have
themselves broken it. Premiums in the newly government-run individual market are up an average 22% nationwide, and at rates of
50%, 60%, even 113% in some states increases unheard of before ObamaCare. Insurance markets that were once vibrantly
competitive are now dominated by one or two carriers. ObamaCare has made Medicaid, an already terrible health program, worse by
dumping millions more into it. ObamaCares taxes, mandates, and regulations are suffocating businesses.
Race Relations:
Obama came to national prominence promising that he could bridge racial and political divides and bring the country together. From
the moment he stepped into the White House, however, Obama stoked racial tensions and governed as a bitter divisive partisan. Does
anyone dispute that the country is more divided than it was eight years ago?
The National Debt:
When it came to the federal budget, Obama promised a new era of responsibility. Eight years later, the national debt is now 127%
bigger, annual deficits are on track to top $1 trillion again, and the Congressional Budget Office says that Obamas policies have put
the nation on a course toward fiscal ruin. Under current law, publicly held debt will soar by over $9 trillion to $23.1 trillion between
now and 2026, rising from its current post-World War II high of 77% of GDP to 86% in a decade a level that most economists agree
will damage the economys growth by siphoning vast amounts of money from the productive sector into the far less productive
government sector.
The War On Terror: Obamas legacy
Since Obama took office, nine radical Islamic terrorist attacks each of which came with plenty of warning signs have claimed 91
lives and injured about 400. Obama acted as if this scourge can be defeated with kind words, gun control, shuttering Guantanamo,
and civil trials. Because he walked away from his duties as commander in chief and refused to recognize the ongoing threat, the U.S.
faces an increased risk of a major terrorist attack for years to come.
Financial Reform:
Sold initially by President Obama and congressional Democrats as financial reform and an end to the too big to fail doctrine, the
2010 Dodd-Frank law has instead become a straitjacket for lending and the economy. Its a massive law, at 2,300 pages, and few fully
understood it at the time it was passed. Now they do. A report by the American Action Forum in 2015 estimated that, over 10 years,
Dodd-Franks spate of restrictions on lending and financial innovation will cost the U.S. economy $1 trillion in output. Whats worse,
its still in place, doing its damage. As Peter Wallison, a financial industry expert with the American Enterprise Institute who was part
of the governments financial crisis investigation, put it: It is likely that, without the repeal or substantial reform of Dodd-Frank, the
U.S. economy will continue to grow only slowly into the future.
International Relations:
In his first inaugural speech, Obama said that the country was ready to lead once more, and that he would be ushering in a new era
of peace. The next president will take office with nations global leadership dangerously diminished, while instability has grown and
more wars are being waged than when Obama took office.
A list of Obamas foreign policy failures would fill a volume, but here are just a few: Obama in 2011 prematurely removed troops from
Iraq, creating a power vacuum later filled by ISIS; he let Irans covert nuclear weapons program continue, starting a nuclear arms race
in the Mideast; after Obama called ISIS a jayvee team, it grew in clout and territory as a result of Obamas neglect; Obamas
intervention in Libya during that countrys civil war led to the country becoming a terrorist haven, with no real government; he and
Hillary Clinton pushed the reset button with Russias Vladimir Putin, and Russia launched hostile actions against its neighbors in
Crimea and Ukraine, and threats to the Baltic states; Obama has signaled ambivalence over protecting traditional allies in Asia, leading
to China arming up and bullying it neighbors. With massive defense cuts Obama put in place, its safe to say the U.S. hasnt been this
weak since the Carter years.
Obamas legacy is secure. Its one of abject failure. The only question of importance now is whether the next president can repair
the damage.