Obama’s First Two Years a Disaster for America

Obama’s First Two Years a Disaster for America

By Chad
Stafko

 

Recall the euphoria that surrounded Barack Obama during
the 2008 election season and after he was inaugurated as the 44th
President of the United States.  Life was going to be blue skies and rainbows,
or at least we were told, with hope and change on the way.  The American people
would be better off and so would our nation with Obama in control.  After a
little more than two years as the President, those blue skies have turned gray
with not the slightest hint of a rainbow.

Some professed that with Barack Obama as President, the staples of life
would become affordable if not altogether free.  Surely you remember Peggy Joseph who said, at
a Barack Obama campaign event in August 2008, that she would not have to worry
about paying for her gas and mortgage.  Consider what has happened to those
staples of life during the Obama presidency.
As of March 14, the average price of regular unleaded gasoline was
$3.57/gallon.  When Obama took office in January 2009, the price was
$1.81/gallon.  That represents more than a 90% increase in just over two
years.
To put that in perspective, assume you have a 40 mile round trip commute to
work, your car gets 20 miles per gallon and that prices remain the same going
forward.  Relative to January 2009, you are paying about $18 more per week and
about $72 more per month at the pump.
The pertinent question we might ask is, “What has President Obama done in
the past two years to limit the rise of oil and gasoline prices, if anything?”
The answer is…nothing.  If anything, his policies have contributed towards
rising prices.  Recall the moratorium he enacted on oil drilling following the
BP oil spill that further limited the supply of the commodity from our own
waters.  His failure to support drilling in ANWR and his overt allegiance to the
anti-drilling environmental fringe has also directly contributed to less supply
of oil and therefore higher oil prices.
Ms. Joseph also looked forward to Obama paying her mortgage.  Well, many
Americans don’t have to worry about a mortgage anymore, as they’ve had their
houses foreclosed.  In
2009
, a record 2,824,674 foreclosures took place, while 2,872,892
foreclosures occurred in
2010
.   In other words, 5.7 million families have lost their homes, but at
least they’re not up all night wondering how they will pay their
mortgage.
It just wasn’t supposed to be this way, at least in the eyes of the 53% of
voters who cast their ballot for Barack Obama.  After all, President Obama’s
policies
were going to reignite the economy and keep the unemployment rate
below 8% at least that is what we were told, thereby making those aforementioned
mortgages affordable.  The opposite has occurred.
In December 2008, President Bush’s final full month in office, the nation’s
unemployment rate stood at 7.3%.  From that point until December 2010, a period
in which Obama benefited from accommodative Democratic majorities in the House
and Senate, the unemployment rate rose to 10.1% at one time and remained at or
above 9.5% from July 2009 until November 2010.
This resulted despite unprecedented government spending labeled as
“economic stimulus.”
What happened?  Instead of a surge in America’s economic growth, we’ve seen
a surge in America’s deficit.  Under the direction of President Obama, the
United States has seen its deficit
increase
by more than $3 trillion or by nearly $10,000 for every man, woman,
and child in America.
Then there was the
promise
of “When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk, as President, you,
the public, will have five days to look online to find out what’s in it before I
sign it….” Again, the reality has been the complete opposite.
Rewind to March 2010, when then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in reference to
the ObamaCare bill, said,
“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”  Really?  I
thought that 2,700 page bill would be posted on the Internet for all to view for
five days.  Instead, it was rushed through and pushed down our throats, despite
most Americans not in favor of it.  Again, Obama failed to deliver, as he has
time after time.
We are now just after the halfway point of the Obama presidency.  Based on
the facts, we are no better off as a nation than we were when Obama took
office.  The average American citizen has failed to see an improvement in his or
her lifestyle versus two years ago.  This is a presidency, up to this point,
that has been an absolute disaster for our nation and our people.
Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the
Midwest.  He can be reached at
stafko@msn.com

Obama Destined to Be a Footnote in Presidential History

Obama Destined to Be a Footnote in Presidential History

By Rusty Weiss

Barack Obama has set a course that will leave his legacy as no more than a footnote in American presidential history.  For all of the bluster and glory, for all of the pomp and circumstance, and yes, for all of the anticipated hope and the promised change, the whirlwind of hype and expectation surrounding the president a mere two years earlier has virtually dissolved.

He was the man destined to save this country from his predecessor’s failures.  He was the man who would end the war in Iraq, finish the war in Afghanistan, and shut down the prison at Guantánamo Bay.  He was the man charged with rescuing the faltering American economy.  He was the man who would usher in a post-racial era in an allegedly inherently racist American society.  And he was the man who had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize based not on tangible accomplishment, but simply upon these very expectations.
On all of these accounts, President Obama has been a striking failure.
He has not saved this country from the Bush-era failures; rather, he has done the impossible in making Americans pine for the days that Bush was in office, with Obama’s job approval rating recently falling below that of the former president.
Obama did not end the war in Iraq; he merely claimed credit for a deal negotiated under the Bush administration.  The Status of Forces Agreement, signed by U.S. and Iraqi officials on November 16, 2008, already laid the groundwork for an end to combat missions in Iraq.
He has not brought an end to the war in Afghanistan, instead emulating a military strategy that was a basis for success in Iraq, the surge.  What was once heavily criticized by President Obama as a failed strategy has since been hailed as a path to victory in a war that recently sparked Bush-like protests from the antiwar crowd.
Obama has failed to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, an alleged symbol of American tyranny and torture, and a top priority of Obama during his campaign.  Shortly after his inauguration, executive orders were issued for the closure of the prison within a year.  The thinking was that such a facility was not “consistent with our values and our ideals.”  Gitmo remains open nearly two years later, an apparent admission that the president is not consistent with his own values and ideals.
He has failed in every manner to resuscitate the stumbling economy.  The unemployment rate has continued its upward trend under Obama, going from 7.7% in January of 2009 to the current rate of 9.8%.  Meanwhile, attempts to convince the American people of the success of the stimulus bill were manufactured in deceitful ways despite clear signs of turbulence in the economy.  Personal incomes continue to trend downward, as does private-sector job creation, and the national deficit is projected to balloon to a staggering $1.5 trillion in 2011.
Obama’s election has been anything but post-racial, with heightened racial rhetoric and actions coming from the administration itself.  Setbacks for the post-racial presidency include the firing and subsequent apology to a black official, Shirley Sherrod, at the Agriculture Department; the president himself, without knowing the facts of the case, labeling police as having “acted stupidly” following the arrest of a black Harvard professor; and the Justice Department’s dismissal of voter intimidation charges against members of the New Black Panther Party during the 2008 elections.
Worse, Obama has been governing by putting policy over process, inviting unprecedented backroom deals for health care reform…and now, apparently, tax compromise solutions.
With both sides of the aisle enraged by the process, the recent tax compromise is simply the nail in the coffin.  Obama himself once declared that “[a] good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence or a good piece of music.  Everybody can recognize it.”  Complaints from both sides of the aisle indeed indicate that everyone recognizes this — as a bad compromise. 
And unlike former President Bill Clinton’s shift to the center during his tenure, Obama’s backroom successes and polarizing failures will only result in a perpetual downturn in his approval rating.  His recent ceding of the podium to Clinton seems to indicate an acceptance of this fate.
The president has gone from being “a big f’n deal” to eliciting utter contempt and disrespect for the highest office in the land.  His liberal colleagues angrily mutter, “F the president.”
Like a good compromise, a good president, too, is something that everybody can recognize.  Years from now, recognition of Obama as a transcendent president will long be forgotten, and the era of the man who was to save America will be nothing more than a footnote in history.
Rusty can be reached at The Mental Recession or via Twitter @rustyweiss74.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/obama_destined_to_be_a_footnot_1.html at December 27, 2010 – 11:17:54 AM CST

Iran’s Underground Revolution

Iran’s Underground Revolution

Posted By Lisa Daftari On July 2, 2010 @ 12:17 am In FrontPage | 6 Comments

As Iranians passed the one-year mark of a tumultuous and historic year, an unimpressive and rather quiet June 12 anniversary left many wondering what happened to the disenchanted Iranians.  Regime threats, issued weeks in advance against protesters engaging in anniversary demonstrations, succeeded in deterring some. However, from its initial moments, this movement was remarkably forged by hundreds of thousands of courageous Iranians who have not let government intimidation discourage them. Journalists, analysts, and politicians questioned the movement’s strength and survival, wondering if President Ahmadinejad, the clerics, and their Revolutionary Guard had succeeded in quashing the masses.

The people of Iran tell a different story. Rather than pouring onto the streets and surrendering to the brutality of regime forces, the Iranian people say they have voluntarily taken a step back. The one-year anniversary of Iran’s fraudulent election has seen a transformation in the Iranian people and consequently, their ongoing movement.

“What’s the point of demonstrating when we are putting up our finest and most intellectual minds to go up against conscienceless guards to be shot at?,” asked Maryam, a 34-year-old radio producer for Iran’s state media in an early morning phone call to Tehran. “People have given up too much over the last year and have since changed their strategy,” she said in her native Farsi.

Maryam is politically active and socially in tune with the changing ambiance in Iran.  She wants regime change for her country. An Iran that is secular and democratic is what’s best for everyone, she said.

Among friends, Maryam is considered to be bold, courageous, and even “crazy” for speaking out openly against the regime.  Yet, she could not even use her real name in this interview.

Like many Iranians, Maryam had friends who were arrested and beaten during the protests. She quickly became upset when remembering some of these instances and changed the topic. Iranians have learned a very valuable lesson over the last 12 months, she concluded. They realized that they could be more efficient staying home.

Despite the appearance that the movement has been suppressed in the absence of demonstrations, intellectuals and politically active Iranians like Maryam and her friends are opting to sit home to think, write, publish, and discuss politics.

Welcome to Iran’s Intellectual Revolution.

The shutdown of dozens of Iranian newspapers and media platforms over the last year as a result of demonstration coverage that was unflattering to the regime, left a sizable void that the underground media is effectively filling.  The regime strategically closed official media sites hoping to thwart the spread of anti-government sentiment through traditional media outlets. They simultaneously paved the way for popular and unregulated publications to sprout up by the dozens, including underground newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs, and even night letters—flyers that are circulated in local neighborhoods in the middle of the night and have become a popular method of disseminating important political messages in many Iranian cities and villages.

At the same time, the radical crackdown against protesters and their freedoms sparked a thirst for information and transparency among the Iranian people.

“This is the time to sit back and think about how we can organize and strategize against the government to make significant changes,” Maryam said. “I cannot say too much over the phone.”

She repeated that phrase many times; fearful of getting into too much detail, and almost certain her line was tapped by the government.

As election results were announced last year—significantly ahead of the time it would actually take to count the votes—the regime proved its corruption and provoked its people. Iranians filled the streets in protest not just against a rigged election but also against 30 years of tyrannical rule.

Immediately, and in the days that followed, the regime began a brutal and vengeful crackdown on protesters. The wrath of the regime’s Revolutionary Guard was not enough. Thousands of Basiji militiamen, imported Iraqis, Pakistanis, Saudis, Palestinians, and others, were paid hundreds of dollars each day, equivalent to the monthly salary of many Iranian professionals, to violently and relentlessly attack demonstrators. Tear gas, acid, batons and even guns were used against the people.

The Iranians persisted.  As the government took away their Internet connections, the Iranians found ways to bounce Internet connections through proxy servers. Journalists banned from the country resulted in an emergence of a nation of citizen journalists.  As government forces cracked down against women and murdered Neda Agha-Sultan, women quickly came to the forefront of the movement. When the clerics became more radicalized and religious in their sermons, the Iranian people became more secularized and nationalistic.  It began as a movement for reform and an election debate, but evolved into a battle to regain control of a 5,000 year-old heirloom.

 

More than half way through this year, the Iranian people gradually realized that in order to be successful in their endeavor, they must have organization and leadership. The biggest obstacle the opposition faces is that they lack both. The Iranians learned that demonstrations would not help gain either. They only put the lives of innocent Iranians at risk. This new-found awareness has given the opposition a new perspective from which to operate.  Iranians are looking to engage one another in meaningful dialogue. They are publishing valuable content, publicizing critical information, and looking for unique ways to communicate political messages to one another.

The alternative, as they witnessed, is watching their loved ones be rounded up and taken to Evin Prison.

NEW POLL FINDS U.S., ARAB SUPPORT FOR MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN TO PREVENT MULLAHS FROM GETTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS

NEW POLL FINDS U.S., ARAB SUPPORT FOR MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN TO PREVENT MULLAHS FROM GETTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS

* Will it happen? Should it? Lt.-Gen. (ret). Boykin, Israeli Vice PM Yaalon and I will discuss implications during conference

By Joel C. Rosenberg

(Philadelphia, PA, June 24, 2010) — An intriguing new survey of international public opinion indicates deep concern over the mullahs in Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and strong support for preemptive military action to stop Tehran from getting the Bomb. According to the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project 2010….

* In 16 of the 22 states included in the survey, people who were polled said they would support preemptive military strikes against Iran to prevent the mullahs from obtaining nuclear weapons compared to avoiding a military conflict with Iran, even if that means allowing the mullahs to have nuclear weapons.

* In the U.S., 66% support a military strike on Iran, compared to 24% who object.
* In France, 59% support a military strike, compared to 41% who object.
* In Germany, 51% support a military strike, compared to 39% who object.
* In Great Britain, 48% support a military strike, compared to 37% who object.
* In Egypt, 55% support a military strike, compared to 16% who object.
* In Jordan, 53% support a military strike, compared to 20% who object.
* In Lebanon 44% support a military strike, compared to 37% who object.
* In Brazil, 53% support a military strike, compared to 33% who object.
* However, in Turkey, only 29% support a military strike, compared 37% who object and would allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.

That said, I don’t forsee a U.S. or NATO preemptive strike to stop Iran from getting the Bomb, especially with General David Petraeus moving from CENTCOM commander to running the war in Afghanistan. Will Israel launch a strike? That remains to be seen, but if Netanyahu orders one, don’t expect these poll numbers to hold up. International public opinion would likely turn decisively against Israel in such a conflict.

You can’t fool Mother Nature, Flies know where B__ S___ comes from

You can’t fool Mother Nature

Flies know where B__ S___ comes from

The Appeaser-In-Chief

The Appeaser-In-Chief

Posted By Rich Trzupek On June 23, 2010 @ 12:05 am In FrontPage | 14 Comments

The Islamist movement that threatens Judeo-Christian western culture can be viewed in one of two ways: as a fundamentalist, misguidedly pious religious phenomenon that appeals to a wide swath of the Muslim masses, or as a calculated, cynical attempt to grab both the power and wealth that the West holds — orchestrated by an Islamic elite who don’t actually care about the finer points of the Quran or Sharia law, except when either might serve to further their overall purpose. The important difference between the way that George W. Bush approached the problem of radical Islam and the manner in which Barack Obama deals with the issue – or claims to be trying to deal it – involves these two different points of view.

At various instances during his terms in office Bush tried, mostly in vain, to find and deal with moderates among Islamic leadership, hoping to thus isolate extremist leaders and their radical, fundamentalist followers. It was a flawed vision, but an appealing one, for it attacked the problem at a grass roots level. If radical Islam is primarily a political phenomenon then it should be possible to separate radical organizations like the Taliban, al Qaeda and Hamas from ordinary moderate Muslims who reject fundamentalist dogma and instead blend secular values in with their theology in the western style. That’s a tough road to take, especially given the lack of any meaningful educational system in the modern sense in the Muslim world. Yet, in Iraq the majority of a relatively educated populace (by Islamic-state standards anyway) did indeed reject the radicals in their midst once coalition forces provided the kind of security needed to allow the Iraqi people to take charge of their lives in safety.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has effectively abandoned any hope of cultivating a moderate, secularlist Islam that might counterbalance the fundamentalist, radical variety. Given the ever-increasing power and influence of the extremists, even in a nation like Turkey that we once thought of as the model of a “moderate Muslim” state, the president’s approach is more realistic than Bush’s utopian visions. Moderate Muslims, cowed by the murderous fanatics who infect Islam throughout the globe, were never of much use in the war on terror anyway and aren’t likely to be in the future. In a practical sense, Obama’s policies reflect the reality that Islam cannot be reformed in any meaningful sense. But his reaction to that reality has been to try to appease the extremists rather than rendering them harmless. It’s a strategy that merely emboldens radical Muslims, who are thus convinced more than ever that the West lacks the stomach to see this war through.

Obama’s counter-terrorism czar, John Brennan provided an example of the Obama administration’s approach in a speech he gave a few weeks ago [1]. Utilizing the kind of Orwellian newspeak that has become a hallmark of this administration, Brennan said that “…we need to try to build up the more moderate elements” within Hezbollah. It’s at least the second time that Brennan has referred to “moderate elements” within the radical Shia militia, but Brennan surely knows that there are no moderate elements within Hezbollah, just as though there are no moderates within Hamas, the Taliban or al Qaeda. So, why use such a term? There’s only one rational answer: if this administration is going to negotiate with terrorists – in effect trying to find a way to buy them off – it cannot appear to be doing so. While America remains a house divided when it comes to pressing forward war against the jihadis, the “millions for defense, but not a penny for tribute” spirit still resonates among Americans of every political stripe. Obama would face intense criticism on both sides of the aisle if he announced that he was going to negotiate a settlement with terrorists, but when the administration packages that strategy as an attempt to nurture so-called moderates, it sounds much more palatable, so that’s how his counter-terrorism czar is going to sell it.

This is of course the same John Brennan [2] who said: “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” Unfortunately, to the radicals that this administration is trying to court, it is both legitimate and Islamic to murder innocent men, women and children in the course of this “holy struggle.” Again, Brennan knows that. He was in the CIA [3] long enough to understand the realities of Islam, but his current assignment involves papering-over those inconvenient facts, not confronting the cold truth.

Some commentators have accused Obama of sympathizing with the radicals, or possibly being a “closet Muslim” himself. That kind of reaction is understandable, given the president’s poorly-concealed hostility towards Israel and his attempts to curry favor from Islamic states. Yet, the more likely reason that Obama chooses to trod down this dangerous path is because he’s an academic and, like most academics, believes that the right combination of words and concessions can soothe the most savage beasts. It’s a naïve strategy, of the sort that only a smug intellectual can embrace. Appeasement is also a forlorn hope, one that delays an inevitable conflict rather than preventing it, as western leaders from Jefferson [4] through Chamberlain [5] painfully learned. Barack Obama seems determined to take America down that doomed path once more. The inevitable consequences of the president’s policy are obvious to even casual students of history and Islam: America and Israel will surely pay for Obama’s naiveté in blood. The only real questions are when and how much.

A Mom Asks: Should We Care What’s Wrong with Obama?

A Mom Asks: Should We Care What’s Wrong with Obama?

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

Robin of Berkeley has provided a great summary of psychological speculation to answer a question now in the minds of some Americans: “What’s wrong with Obama?” 
I suppose a few among us are still asking this question, as though the answer will undo a whit of the damage done. As a full-time mom, with 36 years of experience under my belt and a couple of model American adults now on my resume, I’ve stopped asking that question, however. In fact, from a mom’s point of view, I’m much more prone, at this point, to be asking, “Should we care what’s wrong with Obama?”
From the Dr. Mom perspective, as opposed to the therapist’s paradigm, it’s not hard to surmise that the boy, Barry Obama, was victimized by Murphy’s Law of Character Development. Every single thing that could go wrong in the development of strong and upright character quite obviously did go wrong in Obama’s childhood. To which, I might add, so what? He’s a grown-up now. He ain’t twelve anymore. And he has more than three hundred million real people to whom he owes a good day’s work for a good day’s pay. 
We did not go out and recruit Barack Obama to be our president. We did not find him by searching the country over for the most qualified man for this job. No, it was Barack Obama, owing to a character flaw the size of California — a blaring lack of humility — who put up his own name in contention for the presidency, when he had never held an executive position (not even a paper route, for crying out loud!) of any kind whatsoever, in the public or private sector. In fact, as I’ve said before, Barack Obama had a resume that would fit handily upon the back of a postage stamp, and it was pure, unbridled arrogance that prompted his candidacy. Sure, there were lots of giddy sycophants who egged him on, but at the end of the day, Barack Obama should have known better, should have given far more weight to the responsibility he was assuming. And the fact that he didn’t know any better is owing to his own lack of character, which he has had every possible opportunity to develop in the years since he left home. 
It is Barack Obama, not his momma or his daddy or his grand-momma or his grand-daddy, who has to answer for the job he is doing now that he has secured the position he sought. 
While it is virtually impossible for anyone — other than God — to answer the question, “What’s wrong with Obama?”, it is completely within the realm of human observance to see that no matter where he came from or what kind of parents he had, Barack Obama’s character is nothing short of reprehensible. 
Where he ought to be hardworking and industrious to the nth degree, he shows himself to be lazy. When he ought to be knuckling under, hard at work at his desk, hammering out decent solutions to the vast array of problems before him, he is partying hardy, having a merry ole time, trotting around the globe, playing golf, shooting backyard hoops, and opining on the latest controversial umpire’s call in a baseball game. When it comes to actual governance, the only word this president knows is “delegate.” When he ought to be consumed with fixing a national disaster in federal waters, which occurred in a federally regulated industry, the best he can come up with to even feign an I-do-really-give-a-darn work ethic is an emotionally contrived use of the A-word. 
Oh, please.  This is the kind of lazy, no-account attitude demonstrated by every panhandling bum on any street corner. His GQ dress code notwithstanding, Barack Obama has the work ethic of the welfare moms for whom he has shown his only real empathy to date. In a president, this character deficit is not only pitiful, but it is also downright despicable.
Does President Obama evince bedrock honesty, integrity, and a moral compass with all-American-value bearings? From every possible ordinary-citizen vantage point, Barack Obama appears to possess character deficits — again, the size of California — in every one of these essential-in-a-president qualities. And I’m so sorry for the bad hand Barry Obama was dealt in childhood, but that makes no difference now that he is an adult with the same accountability as every other adult on the planet.      
None of us get to choose our parents. None of us get the perfect childhood to which we all feel somehow entitled. None of us start adult life with all the tools we might wish to have in our little box of life skills. And none of us get to hand over a therapist’s excuse-card when we inevitably meet the Big Guy and must account for how we have used the hand we were dealt and made the most of it on earth. 
None of what happened to the president in childhood, in my opinion, lets Barry off the accountability-hook as an adult. Because in spite of anyone’s claim to the contrary, human beings do have free will; they can and do change all the time. 
For every therapist’s doomsday prediction based on a model that claims some hurdles simply cannot be jumped, there are an infinite number of human beings who somehow do manage to not only jump those horrible-hand-in-life hurdles, but veritably speed to the finish line of life as though it were a walk in the park. History is replete with the inspiring stories of such individuals. We know such people, work with them, sup with them, worship with them. Some of us are those very exceptions to the rule. Many a would-be bum or serial killer or bomb-thrower has become a person of such outstanding character and achievement that it behooves all of us to humble ourselves before the indomitable human spirit. We are endowed by our Creator with abilities so profound that they remain as yet uncharted by modern mankind.
When Robin of Berkeley opines that the president will not change because he is incapable of change, owing to the truly horrible things that probably happened to him in childhood, she is not only ignoring the millions of exceptions to the arbitrary rules of therapists’ expectations, but she is also diverting attention from the very real American calamity of this presidency. 
For the past forty years, America has gotten little more than hippie psychiatry from the mental health profession. The tired old flower-child mantras — “If it feels good, do it,” “Our hope is in dope,” “All the world needs now is love,” and “He just can’t help himself” — simply have not lived up to their cultural hype any more than Barack Obama has lived up to his. Trying to figure out — from a distance, no less — what is wrong with Obama is a fool’s errand. Can the president change himself?  Of course he can. But we certainly cannot change him. The only person I can change is myself; that’s human nature axiom #1. 
On the other hand, we are the parents in this governmental paradigm. We, the voters, hold all the authority under our Constitution. We may not be able to change Obama’s character, but we can certainly hold him accountable for what happens on his watch. We can apply a great deal of parental pressure in the form of public demonstrations, letters, phone calls, and hounding the press for more accountability, and in this fashion, we can provide an incentive for the president to change his behavior. President Obama ought to be getting the message about now that he has fooled far too many for far too long, but that the accountability-buck has now landed squarely in his lap. Barack Obama is now beholden to three hundred million Americans, each of us holding an IOU for diligent service — whether little Barry feels up to the job he took or not.
If Obama voters have any question now, the only one they should be asking is, “What’s the matter with me?” Now, that is a question which lies within the power-province of every single man and woman who pulled the lever for this man. As the crises mount, as the president continues to preen and play, as the livelihoods of more and more Americans go up in economic smoke (or oil, as the case may be), I predict that even many liberals will rediscover their collective common sense and take much greater care the next time they cast a vote. 
No, we’ll never know all that may be wrong with Obama or what caused his stubborn, willful refusal to acquire the strong character denied him in childhood. But I, for one, have begun to ask my Obama-voter acquaintances, even strangers who admit their vote and want to talk about it, “What were you thinking?” Civil confrontation is one of the best tools, available to every one of us, in helping Obama voters to come to grips with the enormity of their decision in the 2008 election.
Upon such idiotic decisions, great civilizations do indeed fall.
And in this Dr. Mom’s opinion, that is the truly consequential lesson of the Obama presidency.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at www.kyleanneshiver.com.