Can Obama Go Any Lower?

NOTE: This story is pretty old, but it should be noted that Randy got his reaction to me right away.  — Jeff

HotAir: Obama’s turnout pitch to Latinos: Get out there and punish your “enemies”

In a radio interview that aired on Univison on Monday, Mr. Obama sought to assure Hispanics that he would push an immigration overhaul after the midterm elections, despite fierce Republican opposition.

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, I think that it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think that it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

Referring specifically to Republicans such as Senator John McCain, who are stressing border security and supporting strict immigration laws like Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration measure, Mr. Obama said “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”

Can a president of the United States go any lower than referring to the majority of the population as “enemies” in order to curry votes with an ethnic minority? How can we survive as a nation of mixed peoples when our president uses such vulgar tactics in an election campaign? Does he not know that he is inflaming racial animosity for his own self interest and at the expense of any hope of bringing a divided nation together for the common good? What happened to his post-racial presidency?

Of course he knows, but that is of no interest to him. He has other plans for our nation which fall under the category of “fundamental transformation” and he makes no secret of the fact that he is willing to destroy all that was for the sake of achieving that goal. If we are to survive, we must bring an end to this reign of divisiveness before it is too late. Mr. Obama is loathe to use the term “enemies,” even in regard to radical Islamists, but yet he’s willing to label us who disagree with the course that he is taking us on as “enemies.” And is it such a large leap from “our enemies” in matters of policy to “enemies of the State” in matters of national security?

At the moment, with the midterm election right around the corner, it looks probable that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be dethroned and replaced by Congressman John Boehner, but that will only intensify the battle leading up to the presidential election in 2012. A change in House leadership may keep us from going over the cliff before that election, but it will accomplish little else. Nothing less than a complete change in national leadership, brought about by an awakened citizenry at the polls in 2012, will provide a narrow window of opportunity to begin to reverse the course that the Obama administration has put us on. If we miss that opportunity, I fear that the force of the prevailing demographics will be our downfall as a nation.  With a recent Rasmussen poll showing that 65 percent of the population would love to scrap the entire Congress and start over, such a possibility isn’t so outlandish as some might think.

Regardless, this business of referring to United States citizens of any stripe as “enemies” by the president is quite serious and cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. It smacks of the mindset of tyrants and dictators and should motivate all citizens, regardless of political leaning, to reject such an un-American perspective. Let your voice be heard tomorrow.



  1. whats_up says:

    Randy I agree with you that the President shouldnt be saying this. However I am wondering if you think that it is okay for those on the right to continue to say those things as well. Lets remember that Obama is not the first nor will he be the last to say these things. Do you condemn those on the right as well? We need to get rid of this kind of mindset in politics alltogether, unfortunatly neither side has.

  2. Randy Wills says:

    “whats-up” @ 1:58 PM:

    Yes, I agree with you on that. I guess that’s why you and I get along well, even though our political perspctives appear to be quite different. As I’ve said before, I don’t think that our objectives differ that much, but rather our means of achieving them.


  3. Gail B. says:

    Whats_up, what are you referring to by “wondering if you think that it is okay for those on the right to continue to say those things as well.”

    I am not an enemy of Democrats; I am not an enemy of Latinos; I am not an enemy of Main Street Americans; and I do not believe any conservative is, either.

    However, when the Secretary of Homeland Security names as domestic terrorists those of us who uphold the Constitution, are Christians, and are conservatives, my eyebrow is raised into my hairline!

    Randy, regarding your question, I believe the answer is “NO!”

  4. Gail B. says:

    I received a phone call during Glenn Beck today. It was a survey. The caller asked a number of questions based on a 0-to-100 scale, 0 being least favorable and 100 being the high side.

    One of the questions was “If a Democrat said (‘example’), would you find it believable?” The answer was to be according to the scale. I replied with, “Did you see the video in which Obama told seven lies in two minutes? Obama lied to the Americans. Tell me one lie, and I will never believe anything else you have to say. Democrats have lied time and time again, and I don’t believe anything a Democrat says.”

    She asked if that was a zero.

    She wanted to know if I would believe a statement by a Republican. Well, it depends upon whether I’ve ever known him to lie.

    She asked if I approved of Obama. I gave him a zero.

    She asked if I approved of Nancy Pelosi. I gave her a MINUS 100.

    There were enough questions that I missed 15 minutes of Beck.

    I am certain that both Obama and Pelosi are very friendly people; I just do not appreciate Marxism being shoved down my throat.

  5. whats_up says:

    @ Gail,

    The Secretary of Homeland Security said nothing of the sort, these are the lies that the right contiues to expound on, with NO basis in fact. What the REPORT said was that some ex members of the military were coming back and joining groups hostile to the American Govt. By the way the report was correct.

  6. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Actually, What’s Up, in the DHS Directive of Spring 2009, the agency said that we should look at returning veterans, single-issue political advocates (pro-life), and those who believe in a limited federal government as “rightwing extremists.” Even if you don’t buy into respondeat superior, Napolitano herself repeatedly affirmed and supported what the report said … before backtracking months later. Recall that this is a woman who refused to use the word “terrorism” or “terrorists” when addressing the issue of radical Islam, yet she had no qualms about casting the blanket assertion that more than half the nation were rightwing extremists and domestic terrorists in waiting.

  7. Gail B. says:

    Thanks, Jeff–you are much more eloquent than I am. Now I don’t need to say anything more to him.

  8. Randy Wills says:

    I see in this morning’s news that President Obama is trying to “blunt” the effect of his use of the term “enemies” by saying that he should have used the word “opponents”.

    Nice try, Mr. President, but it changes nothing. You have used that phrase before, so we know that it rises easily to your lips, and it represented the exact connotation of your message to the Hispanic audience; those who oppose open borders and amnesty are “enemies” to that voting bloc.

    And what about the words “punish” and “reward”? How do these words square with the simple will of the people in all policy matters? Is that the kind of leadership that we want from our president; one that “punishes” those who, for rational and valid reasons, disagree with his policies and “rewards” (meaning with tax-payer money, I would assume) those who share and support his “transformational” vision of America?

    Although this kind of rhetoric is not uncommon in the political realm, it is intolerably egregious when if comes from the mind and mouth of our president.

    Mr. President, this is not Chicago’s South Side; this is the United States of America and once elected, our president should rise to the high esteem of the office, not drag it into the mud of Chicago-like politics.

    Shame on you.


  9. whats_up says:

    @ Jeff,

    The actual wording in the report is this:

    “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
    adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
    and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
    rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
    single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

    Now unless you belong to a group that is hate oriented, I think it is pretty much on target. Would you say the report was in error? If so how? What motivates these extremist groups if not the things listed above?

  10. whats_up says:

    @ Jeff,

    Hit enter too soon. Jeff it doesnt say limiting federal authority it states in plain english, rejecting Federal authority. There is a big difference there. It also doesnt say that they are targeting single issue political advocates. Its states that the above groups (those that are hate-oreiented, or those that REJECT federal authority) may have within their groups those that are dedicated to a single issue.

    Again I will ask, is the report wrong? If so, how?

  11. William A. Rose says:

    Has anyone heard/seen Obama talking in an interview recently and making the statement that he’s only President, not king? I believe he appeared to bemoan the latter. I wish I could remember when I heard that. It hasn’t been more than a few days.

  12. Gail B. says:
  13. John Buyon says:

    @ Gail
    “However, when the Secretary of Homeland Security names as domestic terrorists those of us who uphold the Constitution, are Christians, and are conservatives, my eyebrow is raised into my hairline!”

    the DHS under Bush release a report about a connection between environmentalist groups, black church’s and al-qaeda.

    Nevertheless I found it disgusting for the president to refer to conservatives as the blanket enemies of lationo’s.

  14. Gail B. says:

    @ Whats_up

    I think you’re reading from the amended version. The original one DID say those things. Napolitano said that an aide or employee let it out without her having seen it first. Remember? People were up in the air over the report until Napolitano finally changed what it said. Since then, there have been only references to it because the indignation was so great.

    Have a nice weekend.

  15. Poll dancing says:

    Can Obama go any lower? Is that the question?

    I bet if he and Michelle went to India, on a 2 billion dollar trip, and danced, he might.


Speak Your Mind