Obama … in a Word … or Two (Part 4)

But how upset can one become over a president’s hypocrisy? Such is historically of abundance in politics and relatively minor among Mr. Obama’s shortcomings. For we now have a president who does not respect the rule of law, does not respect our constitution, and does not respect democracy – three things considered sacrosanct by many.

More specifically, he does not respect these things beyond their political utility, to be referenced or employed as rhetorical tool or political truncheon. At a basic level, Barack Obama has shown his utmost respect for two things: 1) the power of propaganda and 2) the exercise of raw power.

As a result, his response to nearly every challenge is to find the cameras and teleprompter and give a speech; he is more concerned with concocting self-serving political narrative than crafting sound domestic and international policy; he disregards inconvenient dictates of the very laws he has sworn to faithfully execute; and he prefers to bully, scapegoat and demonize his political opposition rather than negotiate meaningful solutions or respect opinions other than his own.

Mr. Obama is thus the type of politician who may well have thrived in the Soviet Union – cynical, ruthless, lawless. And he is one who wishes to fundamentally transform the United States of America from a constitutional republic, reliant upon the rule of law, into a nation of subjects, dependant upon on a newly enshrined authoritarian state.

And that, above all, is why he must be opposed.

Advertisements

Obama … in a Word … or Two (Part 3)

For the worst of Mr. Obama’s transgressions are the vast corruption of his administration and its contempt for the essential functioning of our constitution. Mr. Obama doesn’t hesitate to make substantive unilateral changes to federal legislation (in effect re-writing such legislation, as he has done more than twenty times with ObamaCare); to decline enforcing our immigration laws and securing our national border; or to re-allocate spending from one budget item to another; and to do so without consulting the U.S. Congress – which is solely vested by the U.S. Constitution with the power to write laws and pass budgets.

Our president compromises the functioning of our democracy when his Internal Revenue Service targets private citizens and citizen groups, because of their political persuasion, to inhibit their exercise of free speech in the months leading up to an election; and when officials of the IRS attempt to absolve themselves of responsibility for their misdeeds and mislead the Members of Congress charged with investigating such misdeeds.

Mr. Obama further disregards the rule of law by engaging in crony capitalism, fattening an ever burgeoning federal bureaucracy and enriching his political allies, on the backs of American taxpayers (recall Solyndra and the General Motors bailout, as prominent examples); and with warrant-less spying by the National Security Agency on a scale that, had it been pursued by his predecessor George W. Bush, would’ve prompted a reaction nothing short of apoplectic from the liberal establishment, including Mr. Obama himself.

But how upset can one become over a president’s hypocrisy …

                                                                                                       (to be continued)

Obama … in a Word … or Two (Part 2)

Other prominent aspects of the Obama myth are an uncanny ability to elicit confidence, cooperation and good will from other nations, even those who had been considered our adversaries (apparently the reason our president was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize – which a man of humility would have politely declined – before he had accomplished anything beyond getting elected); as well as his purported uber-competence (in contrast to his predecessor George W. Bush’s purported uber-lack thereof); and his pledge to maintain the most ethical and transparent administration in American history.

Of course, none of this has panned out as promised.

Thanks to Mr. Obama’s misguided and arbitrary maneuvers on the world stage, America’s enemies no longer fear us, our allies no longer trust us and virtually no one respects us; one need merely reference Ukraine, the Middle East or other relevant headlines to find ample evidence.

Due to Mr. Obama’s lack of experience and feckless administration, our economy is mired in its most anemic recovery since the Great Depression, with its lowest labor participation rate since 1978; the Veterans Administration is both a bureaucratic nightmare and a national disgrace; and the Environmental Protection Agency functions to stifle economic growth and restrict private property rights with overly intrusive and burdensome regulation.

America’s southern border has been made a seamless sieve through which virtually anyone – friend or foe – can pass unopposed. American citizens are being made ever more vulnerable, and not merely to forces beyond our borders.

For the worst of Mr. Obama’s transgressions are …

                                                                               (to be continued)

Obama … in a Word … or Two

One of my many liberal friends (comes with the territory in West L.A.) asked me, during President Obama’s first term in office, what word best described the man. Imagine my friend’s chagrin when I told her I needed two words – charlatan and Soviet – to describe our current president.

You see, as long as I’ve observed Mr. Obama in national politics, he has held himself out as someone other than who he really is. A main premise of his 2008 campaign, for example, was his purporting to be a conciliatory leader, a political centrist, with an extraordinary ability to unite disparate political factions toward common purpose. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth, as was evidenced early in Mr. Obama’s first term.

He took advantage of overwhelming Democrat majorities in Congress to advance a nearly trillion-dollar, big government, power grab misleadingly labeled a ‘stimulus’ package, followed by a radical brand of health care legislation that a majority of Americans did not want. And to make matters worse, Mr. Obama deliberately alienated Republican legislators from the process, prompting a hyper-partisan, legislative fiasco.

Things got so bad that not a single House Republican voted for the ‘stimulus’ and no Republican in the House or Senate voted for ObamaCare. Now that the ‘stimulus’ has failed to ignite the economy, and ObamaCare’s implementation has proven a disastrous train wreck of failure and deceit, Obama and his fellow Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. Yet, in a mind-bending charade of conceit, Mr. Obama still blames his political adversaries, namely, Republicans.

Other prominent aspects of the Obama myth are …

                                                                                     (To be continued)

Mr. Romney … Please

No less venerable a source than Bill O’Reilly, of Fox News, has reported that Mitt Romney is considering yet another run for the presidency … seriously.

Let’s be clear, I am solidly with the 45% of Americans who, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, think America would be better off if Governor Romney were in the White House right now, instead of President Obama (who garnered a mere 38%). Having said that, here’s some unsolicited advice for Mr. Romney.

Overly cautious in your execution of inherently flawed strategies in 2012, you lost to an extremely vulnerable, highly beatable incumbent. And that was your second try at the presidency. Don’t expect a third effort to be a charmed walk in the park. The forces that aligned against you in 2012, so as to award Mr. Obama his second term, will line up once again if Hillary Clinton needs them.

Of course, if Hillary does not run in 2012, and she may well decide not to, then the calculation changes somewhat in your favor. And there is the factor of your having already weathered the withering negative storm that Obama and his left-wing media allies launched against you last time around — now on the other side of that storm, rehabilitated by the successful documentary, Mitt, which portrayed you in a favorable light, you may now actually be stronger than ever.

Please, continue to comment publicly on matters of national policy. That is welcomed. But as to running for high office once again, you cannot afford to be so half-hearted as you were in 2012, or you’ll suffer a similar outcome, and perhaps ruin the Republican party in the process. Follow this advice at your own peril … probably best to move on and leave the field open to other viable contenders.

Media’s Conflict Of Interest

America’s liberal media (a.k.a. the ‘mainstream’ media) are bridled by an engrained, unavoidable conflict of interest. It is exemplified in their having voted, in nearly their entirety, for President Obama in 2008 and again in 2012. Indeed, the Center for Responsive Politics has documented a decades-long trend of liberal voting patterns, as well as financial support, among influential members of the journalistic community. The liberal media even went so far as to campaign on candidate Obama’s behalf by exhibiting a preference for him over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democrat primaries, over John McCain in that year’s general election, and over Mitt Romney in 2012.

It is basic psychology that when Americans support a presidential candidate, we are, in essence, investing in that person. Some of us actually invest our money by way of campaign contributions; many of us invest our trust, hope and belief in America’s future, in other words, an important part of ourselves, by how we cast our ballots.

When those in our news media invest – personally and professionally – in a politician, said investment defies the later application of common sense in assessing its own soundness. It also corrupts something essential to a vibrant democracy, namely citizen access to the fair and independent presentation of news and information. It is no great surprise, for example, when liberal media institutions refuse to vigorously cover the IRS, VA or Benghazi scandals; when they avoid critiquing Mr. Obama’s policies with skepticism; or when they seem incapable of reporting on him with objectivity, much less the outright antagonism they showed toward his predecessor, George W. Bush (for whom they did not vote).

This is an important part of why the liberal media are incapable of covering Obama properly. They want and need him to succeed, and so, they advocate on his behalf. They’re ground floor investors. He’s their GM – too big to fail. Most everything else, including the health of our democracy, is negotiable.