By Christopher G. Adamo – Ever since Barack Obama won reelection last November, he and his minions have become increasingly emboldened in their efforts to dismantle this once great nation, and replace it with a broken-down socialist “democracy” more to their liking. The hounds of liberalism are feeling energized and believe their cause has been validated by the voters. So they increasingly assert their vision for America’s makeover in terms that suggest it is a done deal.
Meanwhile, as their beloved leader, Barack Obama is tasked with the responsibility to keep putting a good face on the unfolding catastrophe and deflecting attention from the many dire consequences that have already resulted from his Marxist governing philosophy. If blaming former President George W. Bush for all of America’s problems no longer resonates with the public, then Obama will simply have to readjust his story in order to continue implementing the policies that have so damaged this nation, while dodging any blame for them.
Consider how every few months since 2009, the nation has alternately been in the midst of a supposedly wonderful economic rebound yet still suffering the ill effects of George W. Bush’s woeful economic policy that “only benefited the millionaires and billionaires.” These are wholly contradictory stories, their sole common thread being that no matter what happens, Barack Obama is the great savior, and his political opponents are the root cause of every problem.
So we are told that the unemployment picture is looking brighter by the day. Yet, the ostensibly dire consequences of Republican budgetary “cuts,” and in particular, that nightmarish “Sequester” by which the growth of federal spending was slowed by less than two percent, are held up as looming threats against the entire American economic engine. The projected hordes of furloughed federal employees are ghoulishly flaunted as proof that responsible budgeting would put untold millions out of work, an assertion that ignores the reality of so many federal “jobs,” which are ultimately meaningless and unproductive, and therefore indistinguishable from other forms of welfare and public “assistance.
Given the pattern of the last four and a half years, it might seem impossible for this administration to sink any lower. Yet on multiple occasions during the past few weeks, Barack Obama has clearly exceeded everyone’s worst expectations.
Fundamental to any functioning system of self-government is the ability of the people to recognize the repercussions of official actions, and either credit those in leadership for their good deeds, or hold them responsible for their blunders. And while most politicians will seek to avoid accountability when things do not go well, by his decision to delay key provisions of Obamacare until after the November 2014 mid-term elections, Barack Obama has outdone them all.
The nation’s highest office holder was never intended to be the executor of a pick-and-choose legal system. Such activity has historically been the realm of monarchies and, more specifically tyrannies. At its founding, America’s government was constructed in such a manner as to prevent discretionary enforcement of the law, which in fact is no law whatsoever. Barack Obama has no more authority to arbitrarily delay the implementation of his own “healthcare” monstrosity than can he unilaterally declare himself emperor.
Nevertheless, he did exactly that on July 2, refusing to implement key provisions of the very “healthcare” system he ramrodded through the Congress and signed into law. Clearly, he does not regard Obamacare as the utopian cornerstone that he and his minions portrayed it to be. But rather than proceeding on schedule and allowing the American people to experience firsthand its purported benefits and liabilities, he has opted to avoid culpability by waiting until the people can no longer voice their assent or disapproval at the ballot box. Obamacare will be a disaster, and this move, a complete abandonment of his oath of office, proves that he knows it. Regardless of the focus-group tested excuses being offered, it is a flagrant display of contempt for the entire American population, but particularly those who were foolish enough to support his agenda.
In another despicable ploy to inflame discord among the lowly peasantry, and thus keep them in turmoil, Obama seized on the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin as an excuse to make blanket assertions of ongoing and pervasive racism throughout this nation. Once again, rather than subduing resentments and rising tensions among minority groups, he personalized the situation and added fuel to it, offering the absurd and disgraceful claim that “Trayvon could have been me thirty five years ago.” Evidently, an agitated citizenry is far more useful to his governing agenda than one that can honestly and objectively consider its own plight, and properly evaluate those in office responsible for it.
Recognizing that he has nearly depleted his contrived storehouse of political capital, it is hardly surprising that in July of 2013, fifty four months after he entered office and presided over (read: orchestrated) the longest period of elevated unemployment since the Great Depression, Barack Obama once again announced that he plans to direct his focus back onto jobs and the economy. In a speech given at Knox College, he insisted that this must be his ultimate priority, and that key to his efforts would be a strident opposition to those nasty Republicans who only seek to oppose him on political grounds. But if the nation’s economic engine were indeed humming again as we have been told on so many occasions, why would he need to make such an effort?
During that same speech he disparaged concerns over the burgeoning corruption of his administration as “phony scandals.” In a transparent effort to undermine and discredit any who would seek accountability on his part, he engaged in a political shell game that, from his narcissistic perspective, exonerates him while vilifying those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law.
Many on the right have expressed outrage over Obama’s comment during his July 26 meeting with the Vietnamese president Truong Tan Sang, asserting philosophical common ground between Thomas Jefferson and Vietnam’s pivotal Marxist leader, Ho Chi Minh. Though the comparison is absurd, it should hardly shock anyone. In any given circumstance, Barack Obama will resort to any words he deems necessary to pander. Yet the stark chasm that differentiates America’s glorious birth of freedom from the massive genocidal oppression of Southeast Asia may indeed escape him. And in consideration of his total lack of historical understanding, it is entirely likely that he may not be able to discern any tangible difference between the two, other than the fact that Jefferson owned slaves.