Incomprehensible as it may seem, even to this point in the Obama administration there were still millions of people throughout the country who either could not or refused to see the virtual, political train wreck that was taking place in America, in practically real-time. By the time the mid-term elections arrived in November of 2010, however, it was clear that the American people were no longer buying the words and “feel-good” initiatives that the leftist Democrats were attempting to sell to their own constituents, all for the benefit of their own power.
Part Five of this series picks up with one of the landmark moments of the past four years – Barack Obama’s 2010 State-of-the-Union speech.
January 27, 2010 – In what some political pundits described as a “populist nightmare”, President Obama presents his first State-of-the-Union Address to the American people. Full of empty expressions that are merely words intended to fool what he no doubt believes is a populace that has been sufficiently dumbed down over the past 40 years, President Obama attacks what he wants his political base to view as “the system” that has held the disenfranchised in place for far too long. The signature line comes during what can be aptly characterized as a moment of unmitigated temerity to verbally dress down the members of the Supreme Court – an equal branch of our government – for having the nerve to vote 5-4 that corporations have the same “freedom of speech” as other individuals and groups and can therefore contribute whatever they deem necessary to political campaigns. This measure, obviously, is a direct threat to a socialist power base, since it would put the private corporations on an equal footing with the public sector unions (which can, of course, donate as much as they want to political campaigns – apparently, that’s just A – OK). I also found this rather strange in another way, in that President Obama took millions of dollars for his presidential campaign in 2008 from the private sector, namely from Goldman-Sachs and British Petroleum. That is, indeed, quite odd.
Never in the history of the country has a sitting President of the United States attempted to inflict such damage on another equal branch of government in such a public fashion, an action that is tantamount to a child having a tantrum because he has not gotten his way and can do little about it. Naturally, he receives a standing ovation from the Democrats for his actions, only further illustrating the fact that our Congress is now emblematic of the cultural divide that is tearing America apart.
March 2, 2010 – The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the person responsible for writing the federal tax code that we all have to follow, Charlie Rangel, agrees to step down from his position of influence in Congress and is effectively suspended for allegations revolving around massive tax fraud. Coupled with President Obama’s original intention to name Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle – two other Democrats guilty of ignoring tax laws and delinquent to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars – to prominent Cabinet positions, Nancy Pelosi’s contention that she would “drain the swamp” of Republican corruption begins to ring more and more hollow.
March 21, 2010 – A day which may yet live in infamy, the Democratic Congress – through a process of incredible bribes and using the forced tactic of “Reconciliation”, a measure usually reserved for minor budget proposals – essentially places the equivalent of a timed economic bomb into the heart of the American economy by nationalizing 1/6 of the money that courses through the veins of our Republic. For the first time in the history of a free people, we are all, by law, now forced to purchase a specific product, lest we be fined heavily or, in some instances, be sent to jail. The real question that a sane person should ask him or herself is simply this: if millions of people are being forced to purchase a specific product, someone or some entity must be the financial beneficiary of that windfall. Who stands to gain mightily from such a brazen maneuver?
Almost immediately over half the states in the union begin to either file or plan lawsuits against the government on Constitutional grounds, the obvious argument being that such a measure violates the sanctity of the 10th Amendment – States’ Rights ( it also violates the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids slavery; requiring or forcing others to do one thing for the benefit of another without recompense clearly falls squarely within the boundaries of that argument). In fact, later in the year on August 4th Missouri will put to a people’s referendum the option to decide whether they wish to abide by the new health care directive. The measure is crushed, approximately 71-29. The Obama administration, while initially claiming well before the passage of the bill that this was not in any way a tax of any sort, nevertheless plans to defend the measure by claiming that it is, indeed, a tax and can therefore be regulated through the commerce section of the Constitution.
The bill is so massive that it calls for approximately 116,000 additional officers for the IRS, men and women who will be responsible to ensure that you comply with the forced purchase of their product – um – tax. Well, that is 116,000 new jobs, and well, Nancy Pelosi did say that their legislative initiatives were all about “jobs, jobs, jobs”. At least in that case she was actually telling the truth.
Several months later, President Obama will make a recess appointment to the position of “Health Care Czar” in the person of Donald Berwick, a man who has a passionate love for the British socialized health care system (one in which, for example, women are giving birth in hospital corridors and on sidewalks, and a system that is on the point of financial collapse) and is on record as stating that the “quality of health care is by definition re-distributional.” Apparently, Don struggled with basic math in high school, but it is literally impossible to distribute equally to millions of people. Well, at least with an appointment such as this one, the administration no longer seems to be hiding the fact that they are, indeed, socialists.
April 24, 2010 – Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signs into law SB 1070, a law which effectively provides the law enforcement agencies of her state the legal authority to enforce federal immigration laws. With the increasing de-stabilization of the Mexican government as a result of the power of the drug cartels and the unfathomable willingness of the federal government to blatantly look the other way with regard to who is crossing the border and when, Governor Brewer feels as though she must take action in order to protect her own people.
The law sparks nearly-violent protests from those on the Left, especially from the Hispanic and Latino communities, many of whom feel or have been taught that they have been wrongfully uprooted from their own land. Apparently, the fact that these borders were decided over a century ago makes little impact on their outlook or decision-making.
President Obama and the White House respond immediately, referring to the law as “misguided”, even though the law does nothing more than enforce existing federal law and specifically prohibits racial profiling. In fact, those on the Left seem completely unwilling to comprehend the fact that the existing federal statute is even harsher than the law that has been signed by Governor Brewer. The obvious thrust and motives behind the mindset of the Obama administration centers on the fact that they probably feel that they will need those who are here illegally to be legal citizens and registered voters in 2010 and 2012, even more so because they more than likely recognize the fact that the American people have turned against their agenda. Many illegal immigrants have been generally conditioned by the Democratic Party over the course of several generations to accept handouts and entitlements in exchange for votes. The long-term goal of the Democratic Party is, without a doubt, dominant power in perpetuity.
The funny part about this, however, is that the Hispanic and Latino cultures are populated by Christian or Catholic people who are by nature people of faith, family-oriented, and hard-working. Whether they understand it or not, their culture is much more aligned philosophically with the conservative movement, and if, indeed, they’ve come here to work and make a better life for themselves and their families, having the opportunity to reap the benefits of their own hard work is much more to their benefit than accepting handouts from the Democrats, which only keeps these immigrants in chains.
Perhaps the most egregious part of this whole scenario is a conversation that seems to have taken place between President Obama and Senator John Kyl of Arizona, a Republican. President Obama’s most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement that the administration will not enforce security on our Southern border because that would remove Republicans’ desire to negotiate a “comprehensive” immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution. For partisan political advantage, he is willfully disregarding his obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to protect states from foreign invasion.
April 27, 2010 – A mere three days after the initial fallout from the Arizona initiative, President Obama, speaking at a town hall-type gathering in Arizona, makes the claim that there does exist a possibility that Hispanic and/or Latino American citizens may, in fact, be “harassed” while “out for ice cream” by Arizona law enforcement agencies. This tactic is incredibly consistent with the tactics of the Left, in that the police are demonized (one might call it “rushing to judgement”), and scare tactics are used in order to galvanize the apparent “victims” of potential injustice.
He sure did sound “nice” while he made that speech, though, didn’t he?
I’m sure, however, that both President Obama and the members of the political Left – despite their complete disregard for both the military and the police – would have no problem with the establishment of an “internal military force”.
In fact, I’m reasonably sure they’d welcome it. Such a force worked wonders, after all, in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
May 4, 2010 – The White House announces plans to award U.S. Soldiers commendations for something called “courageous restraint.” So, let’s step back from our understanding of what’s going on in our country’s attempts to prevent Afghanistan from once again being overrun by the Taliban and becoming a haven for international terrorism, shall we? Our soldiers – young men and women who are literally putting their lives on the line for something in which they believe (I mean, I really have a hard time believing otherwise, since they are there, after all) – are now being told (in one form or another) that they must issue Miranda rights to terrorists/enemy combatants on the battlefield, that they’re essentially only worth their own Commander-in-Chief’s derision as evidenced by his unwillingness to give more immediate consideration to General McChrystal’s request for additional manpower on the ground, and now they can earn a big two-thumbs up from Washington, DC if they think twice about actually firing their weapon. All this is, of course, topped off by the plush accommodations being accorded those actual/suspected terrorists who are being held at Guantanamo Bay (which still hasn’t been closed).
Geez, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say that there’s actually quite a degree of politics interwoven into all of this alleged “decision-making” – which, naturally, could never be the case, since this administration has done away with the practice of “politics as usual”.
May 23, 2010 – Joe Sestak, Democratic candidate running for Congress in Pennsylvania, confirms for the media that he was, indeed, offered some type of “plum” White House position in exchange for his willingness to abdicate his Democratic primary challenge to Arlen Specter.
Specter, of course, is in some ways the living embodiment of the “everything’s for sale” political MO that prevails on the beltway nowadays, as he switched from the Republican to the Democratic Party back toward the end of 2008 when he found it expedient to do so. As a much older man and a politician of the worst sort to begin with, Specter was no doubt motivated to do so with promises from the White House to assist him when it came to re-election time in 2010.
The Obama administration, cognizant of the fact that it “owed” Specter for having assisted in bringing the filibuster-proof majority into existence, attempts to pay its debt to the old man by simply bribing Sestak, a man who (despite aligning himself with the Democratic Party and the policies of Nancy Pelosi) seems to be a man of integrity. One would expect so, as he was an extremely high-ranking officer in the United States Navy before retiring. To his credit, he’s fairly open and honest with the media with regard to the essence of what has taken place – in other words, he says all that he possibly can without compromising himself.
All one needs to know about the plummeting stock of the Democratic brand is that as of this writing, Sestak trailed his Republican opponent in Pennsylvania – a notoriously Democratic state – by six points in the most recent polls.
Looks like for those honest Democrats, it might be too little, too late.