Barack Obama ‘Acting Stupidly’

Barack Obama ‘Acting Stupidly’

Jeannie
DeAngelis

Without saying anything, Barack Obama’s silence speaks
louder than all his empty words. The President who likes to define himself as a
champion of racial equality and promoter of civility has thus far stood by in
silence as liberals attempt to lower the stature of Herman Cain by portraying
him as a conservative version of Stepin Fetchit.

By failing to address the prejudicial remarks directed
at Herman Cain, the President of the United States is revealing a side of
himself that reeks of a form of discriminatory selectiveness that should further
discredit his claim to be the purveyor of civility and racial
justice.

Who can forget the President’s response to the
supposed prejudice leveled against Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates?
Without the benefit of all the information surrounding the incident, Barack
Obama rushed before the cameras to publicly condemn Cambridge, Massachusetts
police officer Joseph Crowley and insinuated that, due to the color of his skin,
Gates was the target of racial profiling and victimized by ‘stupidity’ on the
part of law enforcement.

Recently the President spoke at the dedication of the
Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial.  It was there that he
described
Dr.
King as “a black preacher with no official rank or title who somehow gave voice
to our deepest dreams and our most lasting ideals, a man who stirred our
conscience and thereby helped make our union more perfect.”

Yet, while Herman Cain, a man who fits a similar
description, is whacked by MSNBC analyst Karen Finney with a verbal billy club
and drenched with a fire hose of mean-spirited rhetoric that described him as
merely a “Black man who knows his place” – Barack Obama has remained
silent.

Where is the President’s usual predictable
indignation?  Why no public correction or call for mutual
respect?

At the Martin Luther King Memorial dedication, in an
attempt to portray himself as a great black leader, Obama didn’t hesitate to put
a self-referential spin on the narrative of Dr. King’s life, saying:
“Even after rising to prominence, even after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr.
King was vilified by many, denounced as a rabble rouser and an agitator, a
communist and a radical.”

Barack Obama had the temerity to place himself on the
same level as Martin Luther King Jr. and yet, soon after, he stood by while
left-wing pundits with zero content of character made racially humiliating
comments about Herman Cain that were based solely on the color of his
skin.

Thus far, Obama hasn’t said a word.  He has neither
corrected, condemned, nor cited mentor Saul Alinsky, whom he
quoted
at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial dedication
when he said, “We can’t be discouraged by what is. We’ve got to keep pushing for
what ought to be.”

Maybe the President also believes that if a black
American such as Herman Cain is a conservative,  he should know his place and
that, especially in politics, they are nothing more than a stereotype, a
caricature.

When not diminishing the memory of Dr. King by
pretending to be much like him, Barack spends some of his off time making the
rounds collecting campaign contributions in Hollywood.  In the meantime, liberal
comedian David Letterman is on a mission to replace GW Bush with
Herman Cain as
the newest late-night-created Republican stammering idiot.

If any of the Letterman “Top
Ten
Signs Herman Cain’s Campaign is in Trouble” were
applied to Barack Obama, the left would be picketing the Ed Sullivan Theatre and
demanding an Imus-style resignation.  If the butt of Dave’s jokes had been named
Henry (as in Professor Henry Gates), Obama would never have stood for Letterman
implying that Henry was “less fun-crazy and more crazy-crazy.”

It doesn’t end there either.  In the name of fairness
and economic equity the President, who insulted Tea Party activists by referring
to them as
racists
and by using the vulgar sexual slang term
tea
baggers
” to describe American citizens, has yet to condemn
the behavior taking place within the ‘Occupy’ movement.

So far, Obama has not disassociated himself from a
protest infiltrated by prostitution,
public masturbation,
filth, violence,
and people fighting over money, blankets and food, nor has he called for
civility from a nationwide movement presently populated by ingrates that scream
police brutality after defecating on the bumpers of squad
cars.

Which brings us back to Obama’s disingenuous attempt
to convince people that he possesses a measure of righteousness that sets him
apart from mere mortals.

When it benefited him politically and he wanted to
paint the right as impolite, he hosted a civility conference in Tucson Arizona,
quoted Scripture, and called for a measure of tolerance he demands for himself
but is unwilling to extend to anyone else.

If Hollywood liberals promise to put cash in Obama’s
2012 campaign coffers, he casually overlooks demeaning comments directed toward
Herman Cain by asinine comedians because what would otherwise be viewed as
racially-tinged humor may instead help advance his cause.

If a group of deadbeat derelicts squat in public parks
and proceed to behave like savages, if the signs they carry support “sharing the
wealth” and condemn the wealthy, and in time for the next election hold the
promise of swaying the general public toward liberal policies, then by saying
nothing the President, America’s self-proclaimed purveyor of non-discrimination
and equal rights, is condoning rape, racism,
and barefaced anti-Semitism.

By exhibiting selective indignation and failing to
address the negative racial remarks directed at potential presidential
opponents, supporting the nationwide disgrace that is the ‘Occupy’ movement, and
choosing to associate with liberal comedians who make Herman Cain the butt of
racial jokes, President Barack Obama is proving he doesn’t understand the
responsibilities of his role, or understand his place as a
leader.

Author’s content: www.jeannie-ology.com

Obama Chooses American Defeat

Obama Chooses American Defeat

James G.
Wiles

In April, 2007, at the height of
American casualties during the Surge in Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D. Nev.) famously announced
“the war is lost.” His remark attracted national headlines – and a big push-back
from Republicans, who, in the wake of the 2006 elections, controlled neither
House of Congress.

An American President – George W.
Bush of Texas – had refused to accept defeat. He changed his military leaders,
launched the Surge and victory followed. And, even though, the Republicans had
lost control of Congress, President Bush’s control of the Executive branch and
the American people’s refusal to accept defeat prevailed over leading Democrats’
desire for American defeat.. It enabled the forces of the Sunni Awakening,
General Petraeus and the coalition’s troops to crush the Iraq
insurgency.

Over a thousand American soldiers died  in
Iraq
after Leader Reid’s remarkable press conference.

Democrats, like Reid, who’d predicted
defeat, never changed their views.  Now, President Barack Obama has just
guaranteed that Senator Reid’s remark will come true. Iraq is not Vietnam and
the Middle East is not Southeast Asia. Yet, the parallels – 36 years after a
Democratic Congress cut off U.S. funding for South Vietnam – are
unsettling.

Once again, a leader of the
Democratic Party has opted for American defeat – after a splendid American field
army has achieved military victory. Former New York Times Baghdad
bureau chief John Burns predicted  disaster as a result of Mr. Obama’s decision
on Hugh
Hewitt
on October 24.  “We’ll see” was the most optimism Pulitzer-Prize
winner Dexter
Filkins
could muster  on his New Yorker blog.

These guys aren’t
conservatives
. But, with Michael Yon, these famous war correspondents are
not hopeful about whether America’s sacrifice in Iraq will be
redeemed..

How can Democrats ever be trusted
with America’s national security again?

It’s a simple as
that.

Read Fred and Kimberly Kagan’s
excellent piece this weekend in the new issue of the  Weekly
Standard
for the post-mortem. The Kagans were part of the intellectual
brain trust behind the Surge – the Surge which President Obama has just thrown
away.

 

Obama takes risky stance against the rich

 

Obama takes risky stance against the rich

By Richard McGregor in Washington

With the US economy suffering through its deepest slump since the Great  Depression, the Obama administration has designed a political strategy to match,  with echoes of the campaign rhetoric deployed by Franklin Roosevelt in the  1930s.

Throwing out the standard presidential playbook dictating an aspirational  pitch to centrist voters, the White House is cementing a high-risk message that  strikes firmly at wealth and privilege.

“There is surging sentiment out there among voters that the economy is  weighted towards the wealthy,” said a senior White House official. “Public  opinion has changed dramatically.”

The White House strategy will make the 2012  election a generational test of the Republican push of the past three  decades for cutting taxes, in ways their critics say have been constantly skewed  towards the highest earners.

The after-tax income of the wealthiest 1 per cent of US households increased  by 275 per cent over the past three decades, compared to an average of 62  per cent for all Americans, the independent Congressional Budget Office reported  this week. For the poorest 20 per cent, the growth was only 18 per cent.

The “Occupy  Wall Street” protests that are spreading raggedly across the US and the  world have thrown a spotlight on mounting popular anger at economic stagnation  and income inequality.

But the factors driving the White House go further, to their inability to  strike any substantive deals on their terms with congressional Republicans  emboldened by their smashing victory in last November’s mid-term elections.

The failure of the economic recovery to yield many jobs during its mild  upswing of the past two years has also transformed the political calculus for a  president facing a perilous re-election battle.

“In normal circumstances, this pitch might be suicidal. But these are not  normal circumstances,” said William Galston of the Brookings Institute.

Mr Galston has been reading the speeches of Franklin Roosevelt’s winning  campaign for the 1936 presidential election and finds striking comparisons to  the emerging line from Mr Obama.

“Roosevelt wasn’t just saying: ‘I am fighting for you.’ It was: ‘I am  fighting against them,’” he said.

All sides of politics have been regrouping since the fraught negotiations in  August over the country’s  borrowing limits that bought the US to the edge of sovereign default.

While Mr Obama was widely depicted as weak in his dealings with Congress, the  clash damaged the Republican majority in the House of Representatives even more.  Congressional approval ratings are now in single digits.

Although they have offered little fresh on policy, Republicans are tweaking  their public message, with the hardline house majority leader, Eric Cantor,  recently acknowledging the need to address the rich-poor gap.

Mitt Romney, the frontrunner in the Republican race to challenge Barack Obama  in 2012, has taken to saying that he is standing up for the “middle class” because the rich “can look after themselves”.

For the White House, this is just the terrain that it wants to fight on. “The  Republicans want to give the average millionaire a $200,000 tax cut, while the  middle class is struggling,” said the White House official.

The majority of Republican voters polled by the White House agree with the  president, the official added, meaning “they hold a different opinion from their  lawmakers and their candidates”.

Mr Obama has been barnstorming the country for the past month, highlighting a  jobs package which his aides acknowledge little of which has any chance of  passing.

The aim is put Mr Obama back at the centre of the debate after a period in  which he seemed marginalised and ineffective, the worst position a sitting  president can be in.

“Let’s re-emphasise what powers we have! What we can do on our own! Push the  envelope!” William Daley, the White House chief of staff, said in an interview  with Politico, the Washington publication.

Despite Mr Obama’s battered standing, senior Republicans remain wary of a  rejuvenated president.

“What the president wants to turn this into is the proposition that you may  hate us, but you will hate these people more,” said a senior Republican  congressional official. “We need to make sure we do not allow him to turn this  election into an anti-incumbent election.”

Besides the inherent risk in making wealth the central issue in a country  which has prided itself on the ability of anyone to get rich, Mr Obama must also  surmount a credibility gap in taking on Wall Street.

“He has blown hot and cold on the finance sector, so he is widely regarded as  having fallen between two stools,” said Mr Galston.

In the White House, there is no doubt that it is entering the election year  with its back against the wall.

“You can just feel this electorate is very volatile,” Mr Daley told Politico. “So strap yourself in.”

Who is Barack Obama?

Who is Barack Obama?

By Mondo
Frazier

There are so many things the public does not know
about the man who sits in the White House.  Who is Barack Obama?  In my search
to find out the answers I embarked on a journey that has lasted three years and
counting — and nearly made my head explode.

As usual, when Obama is the subject, Americans can’t
count on the progressives in the Corporate Mainstream Media (CMM) for much
help.  So, what’s one to do?  The foreign press proved helpful.  Therefore,
gleaned from the foreign press: a few stories which didn’t rate any coverage
from the U.S. CMM.

In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama went on a mission
to Russia with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN).  The  newly-minted U.S. senator was
invited to be part of a Russian fact-finding tour that inspected a nuclear
weapons site in Perm, Siberia.  The base Lugar and Obama visited was where
mobile launch missiles were being destroyed under the Cooperative Threat
Reduction program (CTR), which also went by the name of the Nunn-Lugar
program.

What happened next — after the inspections were over
— was at the time reported by several foreign news sources but was never
reported in the USA by the CMM.  The Russians detained Obama and Lugar for three
hours at the airport, demanding to examine both Obama’s and Lugar’s passports
and search their plane.  Some sources reported that the Russians accused Barack
Obama of being a spy.

But wait — there’s more!

According to an Italian source, the Russians did not
accuse Obama of being an American spy; they accused him of being a spy for the
British!  The report went on to say that the incident ended up involving the
White House, the U.S. State Department, and military officials, along with their
counterparts in Moscow.

Strangely enough, an official report from Lugar’s
office about the trip never mentioned the incident.  Neither did Barack Obama in
2008 when he was desperate to exhibit some foreign policy
chops.

One other oddity: in the fall of 2008, Obama admitted
on his Fightthesmears.com site that he had held dual citizenship with both the
United States and Great Britain (the site explained that this was due to Barack
Obama, Sr. being a foreign national) until 1982.  Did the Russians know
something about Obama’s citizenship in 2005 that ordinary Americans don’t know
in 2011?

Another story no one has seen fit to ask about:
Obama’s Most Excellent Pakistani Adventure.

In the summer of 1981, 20-year-old Barack Obama
embarked on a two-week trip to Pakistan.  At least what little reporting that
has been done claimed the length of the trip was two weeks.  The only proof that
the trip didn’t turn into a longer stay is that we (supposedly) have records
which show that Barack Obama enrolled at Columbia University later that same
summer.  Of course, the public hasn’t seen those records, but that’s what we’ve
been told.  Anyone in doubt will be directed to Obama’s autobiography,
Dreams from My Father.

Obama clearly gave the impression in DFMF that he was
this penniless, somewhat confused young man, in search of an identity.  Obama
makes sure readers don’t miss the point by writing that he was forced to wear
“thrift store clothing” during this time.  Yet he somehow managed to find the
cash to finance a two-week trip to Pakistan.

Which he never wrote about.  Which in itself is odd:
here’s a guy who wrote two autobiographies that explored events real, imagined,
and totally fictional that supposedly forged the modern-day Barack Obama from
humble beginnings.  That’s according to the Obama NarrativeTM
which gets most of its facts from Dreams from My
Father
.

Not only did a poor, nearly destitute Obama manage to
afford the trip to Pakistan, but once there he somehow financed two weeks in the
Lahore Hilton International.  In addition, Obama was introduced to the future
prime minister and president of Pakistan — and went bird-hunting with him.
Which the prime minister mentioned in the Pakistani press in 2008.  There’s so
much more, including one question the CMM never asked Obama: who arranged all of
this?  For a 20-year-old nobody.

Another curious piece to the queer Obama puzzle is the
connection — which hasn’t been made in the CMM (attention, Fox News!) –
between illegal foreign contributions to the Obama campaign and subsequent
billions in Stimulus money to foreign companies and banks.  During and after the
2008 election, accusations of illegal foreign contributions — which flowed into
the Obama campaign when credit card safeguards were disabled on the campaign’s
website — were documented in the conservative press and
elsewhere.

Who were these mysterious donors, and in what
countries did they live?  Unfortunately, due to the chicanery of Team Obama, we
may never know.  Fast-forward to 2009.  Obama’s multi-billion-dollar Stimulus is
rushed through Congress, and billions of dollars in Stimulus money are doled out
to foreign companies and banks.  Finland, China, Brazil, and India are just a
few of the beneficiaries of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars. Might these have
been payoffs for those shady, unknown donations?

Bill Clinton was the first president to benefit from a
foreign spoils system, but Barack Obama has made Clinton look like an
amateur.

One more coincidence in shady fundraising.  The lady
involved with Obama’s fundraising in the Caribbean?  None other than Vera Baker,
who packed up and hurried left the country after the National Enquirer
started exploring a possible tryst between her and Obama in a Washington
hotel.

Barack Obama can only hope that ObamaCare covers
“extreme stress” — because whoever on his staff is responsible for keeping
track of all of the weird stuff in the president’s life is definitely a
candidate for burnout.

One final item involves that most elusive of
documents: Obama’s long-lost long-form birth certificate.

A Chicago-area activist, Sherman Skolnick, writing for
a radio show/website (now defunct) by the name of Cloak and Dagger uncorked this
headline on his readers.  It referred to another story he’d written in 2005 –
three years before anyone in the media coined the term “birther” to tamp down
curiosity about our 44th president’s past.  (All-caps headline in the
original story.)

CLOAK’S EXCLUSIVE AUGUST 2005 STORY EXPOSING OBAMA’S
KENYAN BIRTHPLACE FORCES OBAMA TO SANITIZE HIS PASSPORT
FILE.

Just another day in the life of anyone attempting to
pierce the shroud of mystery that surrounds our 44th president.  The
final result is the publication of The Secret Life of Barack Hussein
Obama
.

Mondo Frazier is the editor/founder
of the website DBKP – Death By 1000
Papercuts
and the
author of
The Secret Life of Barack Hussein
Obama
, published
by Threshold Editions/Simon &
Schuster.

Morning Bell: Should America Carry the U.N.?

Morning Bell: Should America Carry the U.N.?

Posted By Ericka Andersen On October 28, 2011 @ 9:46 am In American Leadership | 5 Comments

The 39-story United Nations headquarters stands on the banks of the East River in Manhattan. But now the U.N. is planning the construction of a new building next door, with a price tag pegged at $400 million — and it could soar even higher [1]. And since U.S. taxpayers pay 22 percent of the U.N. budget, the costs for that new building will come right out of your pocket, leading to a very serious question: Just how far should the United States go in supporting the U.N. and international organizations like it?

The issue of a new building in New York isn’t the only U.N. story to make the headlines this year. Take the issue of Palestine, which over the summer formally requested U.N. membership. If Palestine were to succeed in its unilateral efforts, it would be detrimental to U.S. interests in the region, isolate Israel, and deal a major setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects. And all of that would come at the hands of an international organization over which the United States can exert strong influence but cannot control.  If Palestine is granted member status at the U.N., American interests–along with those of its allies–will be seriously harmed, requiring an even greater vigilance and financial commitment to maintain leverage for U.S. priorities.  Again, the question is posed: When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem?

In the latest installment of Heritage’s “Understanding America” series, Brett Schaefer addresses America’s role as a member of international organizations. He explains that conflicting interests will nearly always hinder forward movement on issues of peace, security, and human rights — but that doesn’t negate the benefit of having a platform for achieving U.S. interests. Schaefer further explains the risks [2] of participation in these bodies:

Supporting international organizations is not without consequence. It is a burden, albeit sometimes a burden worth bearing. But refusing to recognize the limitations of international organizations and their potential to cause harm does a disservice to the American people.

Joining with friendly nations for a mutual benefit or avenue to problem solving can prove to be valuable for the United States, but America’s leaders must never sacrifice the greater American interest for the sake of compromise. When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem? That’s a question U.S. leaders must continually ask themselves. Schaefer [2] explains how the United States must seek to strike that balance:

If the United States is not to undermine its interests, it must abandon its default position of supporting and engaging with international organizations regardless of their performance. Instead, the U.S. must assess honestly whether each organization works, whether its mission is focused and attainable and not dependent on “good faith” that does not exist, and whether it advances U.S. interests.

International organizations are a tool to attain a goal, not an end in themselves. They are one way for the U.S. to defend its interests and to seek to address problems in concert with other nations. But they are not the only option, and their strengths and weaknesses should be clearly understood.

America played a key role in the founding of the U.N., so our stake in its success is important. But there are always risks in working with other nations — and each international organization relies at least in part on the good faith of those involved. However, each country’s own priorities come first, which is why American leadership must be eternally vigilant in assessing the record and actions of participating countries.

That is true when it comes to issues such as America’s financial commitment to the U.N., particularly as the organization considers constructing a costly new complex in Manhattan. And that vigilance is even more imperative on issues of international security and the promotion of ideals at odds with America’s interests abroad, as is the case with Palestine’s bid for recognition in the U.N.

In a 1985 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Ronald Reagan addressed the U.N.’s role head on–and the need for America to remain vigilant, noting, “The vision of the U.N. Charter–to spare succeeding generations this scourge of war–remains real. It still stirs our soul and warms our hearts, but it also demands of us a realism that is rock hard, clear-eyed, steady, and sure–a realism that understands the nations of the United Nations are not united.” Those words hold true today and should guide America’s understanding of its commitment to international organizations but also the realities and limitations of its engagement.

Willful blindness

Willful blindness

Jerry Philipson

The United States Department of Justice, which
includes the Federal Bureau Of Investigation (the FBI) and the National Security
Division, has been
ordered
to remove all references to Islam from any
examination of Islamic terror in its training materials and procedures. That
means investigation of the Islamic beliefs, motives and goals of Islamic
terrorists in the U.S. is verboten in the Department Of Justice and the rest of
the Federal Government because accurate, knowledgeable, honest and objective
discussion of Islam has been forbidden and is no longer possible there. Islam
cannot be examined in depth or criticized in any way, shape or form and woe
betide any government employee who does.

Beyond that, Islamic apologists and supremacists whose
purpose is to turn America into an Islamic state governed by Islamic Law are the
only people the government allows to speak about Islam to its employees and they
present a distorted and totally false portrait of it which has nothing to do
with reality and history and everything to do with bringing about the downfall
of the country.

These edicts come straight from the top, straight from
President Obama, and they are a clear, unequivocal threat to freedom of speech
and freedom of expression and the survival of the United States as a free,
democratic, secular, pluralistic nation. Thanks to Obama, the tyranny of Islam
has come to the Federal Government and if Americans aren’t careful it will come
to the rest of the country as well. It is entirely predictable that Obama will
attempt to extend these edicts in some form to the American people
themselves…if he is allowed to get away with it the United States is doomed,
pure and simple. Islam and Islamists are evil personified and the U.S. is in a
war for survival with them, even if Obama doesn’t want you to think so and won’t
allow you to say so.

Memo to Americans: vote the bum out of office and
fight him at every turn because if you don’t there won’t be an America
left.

And don’t forget, as America goes so goes the
world.

Is the POTUS Stirring Up a Revolution?

Is the POTUS Stirring Up a Revolution?

By Mercer
Tyson

Obama was hailed as a healing president, promising
peace and harmony.  What we have seen, however, is a president distinctively
divisive on racial issues, and instigating class warfare.  His actions are a
prescription for a violent revolution.

During his campaign Obama gave the highly acclaimed
speech on race (excerpt):

“Throughout the first year of this campaign, against
all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for
this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a
purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the
whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate
Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white
Americans.”

My, how things have changed; and it didn’t take long.
Shortly after Obama took office there was Obama’s reaction to the
incident
involving Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the Cambridge Police
Department: “President Obama said that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
‘acted stupidly’ in arresting a prominent black Harvard professor last week
after a confrontation at the man’s home.”  He never should have stuck his nose
into this.  And if he were going to say something, he should have understood the
situation prior to butting in.  Instead, he routinely took the professor’s side,
showing his real and sincere bias, and managing to anger folks on both sides of
the debate.

More recently the POTUS told a
group of Hispanics, “And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying,
we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends…”  Punish?
Enemies?  Not exactly harmonious, peace-inspiring words.

Then in his speech
before the Congressional Black Caucus he said, “I expect all of you to march
with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching
shoes.”

And let’s not forget the work of Eric Holder when his
Justice Department went easy in a Philadelphia voting rights case against
members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African
American.

This is our post-racial president.

And then there’s the class warfare.

In 2008, then-candidate Obama’s remarks in his
interview
with Charles Gibson should have been a clue.  When Gibson pointed out that
recently when tax rates were increased government revenues decreased and when
tax rates decreased revenues increased, Obama replied “Well, Charlie, what I’ve
said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of
fairness.”
  He has accusingly said ad nauseam that wealthy Americans should
pay their “fair share,” which means that no matter how much they are paying,
they should pay more.

Mr. Obama’s repetitive attacks on the wealthy have led
to growing divisions between them and the less fortunate, such as the current
Occupy Wall Street protestors who
“want to see the rich pay a fair share of their profits in wages, wealth and
income in taxes…”  When asked about the protestors, Obama replied: “”I think
it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”

Usage of words such as greed, selfish, and mean, while
always a part of the liberal description of Republicans, has escalated more in
recent years.

While most pundits seem to think of this as just
another chapter in American politics, albeit somewhat intense, I’m less blasé
about it.  I see this as a potential beginning of serious violence in our
streets and neighborhoods.  At worst, problems could escalate to a point
requiring national action — possibly a declaration of a state of emergency with
military involvement.  Is it possible we could have martial law imposed on us
around next November, and, coincidentally, have the elections postponed?  Not
likely, but possible.

More certain, however, is the extended racial and
class tension that will exist for decades.  While I never expected racism to go
away completely, racial harmony in this country has been gaining momentum and
is, essentially, more of a problem to the left-wing media and certain
race-baiting politicos than to folks on the ground.  I’m afraid the actions of
this administration may reverse the positive course that people of all races
have worked so hard to establish.  Barack Obama has done his best to delay
racial harmony.

And class warfare?  The vociferous screams from the
left have prompted normally silent, tax-paying Americans to denigrate those who
don’t pay taxes: adding their voices to the argument and elevating
hostilities.

I don’t generally subscribe to conspiracy theories,
and I’m not postulating such right now.  However, you have to wonder, given Rahm
Emanuel’s remarks at
the beginning of Obama’s administration: “You never want a serious crisis to go
to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you
could not do before.”  Do what? Fully implement socialism?  Create a
fascist-left country?  Simply elevate the problems with our economy and
instigate tension between the people, and you have the perfect storm for such a
scenario.  Even if this isn’t being done by design, it could happen
anyway.

This is one reason why so many on the right believe it
is absolutely critical that we remove Mr. Obama from office in 2012.   A GOP
president will certainly stir up anxiety on the left, and the cries of foul play
that existed during George Bush’s administration will resume.

Certainly a Republican will not be able to do much to
mend recent wounds.  But the GOP is never as hostile in its criticism of the
left, and the dissention will slow down and possibly stop.  Maybe after a few
years and if the economy improves progress in this area will again move
forward.

And yes, while there are not many high-profile,
moderate Dems, a more moderate and sensible Democrat could lessen the problem as
well.  However, it is highly unlikely that any Democrat (even Hillary) will
challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination.  And if one did, of course,
additional hostilities would generate from that.

Thanks to Barack Obama (with help from the media and
left-wing pundits) hostility in America is a high as I can recall, and close to
a breaking point.  With regard to this situation, the 2012 election represent a
break even or lose situation.  If Obama wins, we lose.  If any Republican wins,
we break even.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers