I took a few days to think about this note before posting it, so plenty of people have had the chance to comment during the four days since Barack Obama gave the clearest indication yet of his all-consuming arrogance.
Before I get to Obama, a few words about Bill "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" Clinton: In a speech on Friday at a leftist think-tank, Clinton compared the Tea Party movement to Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, the 15-year anniversary of which is today (April 19th).
Clinton talked described Tea Party activity as "disorientation" and in usual Clinton finger-wagging style said that pro-liberty activists should "be careful with what you say and do not advocate violence." Of course, Clinton's unsubtle implication with those words and bringing up the memory of Oklahoma City are an attempt to tar Tea Parties as havens for would-be violent fanatics despite the utter lack of evidence to support such an insinuation.
It's part of the Dems' scheme to paint anyone who opposes the tyrannical Progressive agenda as racist, stupid, and dangerous. If anything, it is nothing more than projection. After all, who is more racist than people who claim that Tea Party members must be racist and violent because they're mostly white people? Who is more dangerous than politicians who want to demonize and silence millions of citizens? Who is more stupid than a politician who doesn't realize that today's elections are determined by independent voters and that independent voters aren't fooled by bogus claims that people fighting for low taxes, limited govermment, and respect for our Constitution are parallels to McVeigh or Klansmen?
And now, to our own Dear Leader, Organizer-in-Chief, Barack Obama:
While on a trip to Florida where he talked about privatizing part of NASA (an arm of government which is at the bottom of any sensible person's list of what we first need to privatize), Barack Obama said that he was "amused" by the Tax Day Tea Parties and that those of us who believe government is over-taxing and over-spending "should be saying thank you" to him.
On Friday, Rush Limbaugh did an excellent few minutes of "thanking" Obama for the many assaults The One has launched against the liberty and economic well-being of the nation. But that isn't enough, in my view.
Barack Obama is turning into a Keith Olbermann-like clown, so full of himself and so surrounded by sycophantic advisers and kool-aid drinkers that he is utterly unaware of how deep and wide are the increasingly negative feelings about him across the nation.
But at least Olbermann is just a media figure.
Barack Obama is arguably the most powerful man in the world (despite his efforts to weaken the country he leads). For the president of a free republic to ridicule millions of American citizens, the people whose bank accounts and childrens' futures he is mortgaging in his rush toward "transforming" America into just-an0ther-nation, is reprehensible.
Even if the Tea Party represented a tenth of the number of people it does, it would still be one of the largest grass-roots movements in American politics in recent memory. Barack Obama's casual dismissal of the wakening giant should and will only serve to anger us more. Indeed, I can imagine (based on projecting my own reaction on to others) Obama's comments causing the creation of personal anger against him as opposed to the entirely policy-oriented anger and dismay we've felt so far during his tyrannical reign.
Barack Obama has gone from being a socialist/fascist petty tyrant to insulting millions of us...to insulting you...to insulting me. In terms of politics, Obama may think he's riling up his far-left-wing loony base but there could hardly have been a more boneheaded move in terms of motivating conservatives and offending independent voters than calling serious-minded protest "amusing".
I can practically see the smirk on Obama's face as he made the comments and I can only hope that someone would have the courage to slap it off his face...and that voters will give him the electoral equivalent of that slap in November and again two years hence.
One last thought on this (for today): The narcissistic and condescending views of Presidents Obama and Clinton is not peculiar to them. Such views are an inherent part of being a true-believing Progressive. Progressivism is based on a fundamental lack of faith in individual citizens or in organizations of citizens to make the best decisions for themselves or for the nation. Progressivism's key attribute is its insistence that the "smart people", the technocrats, the people who really "care", should be handling the levers of power over every important aspect of our lives, from education to resource allocation.
It is of no matter to a Progressive that every such political construct has failed in the past, with the size of the failure proportionate to the size of the implementation of Progressive (i.e. socialist) ideas. For a Progressive, past failures only mean that not-quite-smart-enough people were put in charge, or that the government domination of the private sector wasn't complete enough for their plans to work.
It is no wonder that Progressivism thrives, like scum on a stagnant pond, in the halls of academia, where professors are masters of dozens or hundreds or thousands of students and where they can spend their meetings and conferences telling each other how smart they are. After all, it is in the narrow interest of each of them to do so: To the extent that an academic supports the ego and the career of another academic, he increases the chance of someone returning the favor. It's a mostly closed system and, like that stagnant pond, takes a fairly large event to substantially change, to allow even a modicum of life-giving respect for individual liberty.
Barack Obama comes from such halls, having never had an private sector job (at least not as an adult), never produced anything, never met a payroll, and being surrounded by people like Cass Sunstein at the University of Chicago -- the same Sunstein who has argued that government should encourage pro-government pawns to infiltrate chat rooms and anti-big-government meetings, even if it means government paying such infitrators to sneak pro-Progressive propaganda into such arenas.
So, let's be clear about the fundamental assumption of Progressives like Barack Obama and Bill (and Hillary) Clinton: you are a stupid sheep designed to be dominated and led. Your job is to do what you're told, to speak when spoken to, to eat your vegetables like a well-behaved child. And when you find the meal being shoved down your throat to be too bitter, your complaints are "amusing".
Sorry, Mr. Obama, but now you've really gone too far. Although I'm just one person, I hope and believe I represent many when I tell you that it's one thing to awaken the sleeping giant and another thing entirely to beat and taunt him. I was already motivated by your policies to oppose your presidency. But now you've made it personal. Now I'm also motivated by a deep dislike of you and I will work tirelessly to defeat your agenda and defeat you and your allies in every election where I might have an influence. And when you are defeated, I will take the same joy in that as any soldier takes when his army wins a war against an invading enemy, the same pride that soldier would have knowing that he was part of defending his nation against a force which hated it, didn't understand it, and wanted to "transform" it from a free society into a tyranny.
You, Mr. Obama, are doing everything you can to transform yourself from a modestly objectionable petty leftist dictator into an outright enemy of the citizenry. It is a transformation which is dangerous, destructive, and to use one of your favorite terms, "historic". And it is under your control. At this point, it's becoming clear that you're willing to be the enemy of millions if it means you get your Progressive agenda jammed down our throats at home and American influence curtailed abroad. And while I understand that your approach is the obvious conclusion of Progressivism, it is nevertheless saddening to watch our nation recognizing how completely you fooled most of them (but not me) with your campaign facade of moderation. I might suggest that you have a hard choice to make, but obviously you've already made it. So be it.
[One short but important warning, lest some leftist agitator wants to take my words out of context: I am not calling for political violence of any sort (though I wouldn't object to someone slapping Barack Obama for the sheer insolence of his professed "amusement.") This nation is far from the place that Thomas Jefferson probably meant when he suggested that "the tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Our anger and frustration, and more importantly our desire to see our republic continue as a place where liberty thrives, must be channeled into winning at the ballot box. Indeed, part of the strength of the Tea Party movement has been the wise self-restraint of its members, the remarkable lack of violence throughout hundreds of anti-big-government protests involving hundreds of thousands of people. We must, as a movement, remain vigilant against the ability of the left and supporters of big government to characterize us as violent or racist; we must maintain our true character as an awakening of the American people against tyranny, nothing more and nothing less. So, please, if you're as angry as I am -- and if you take Obama's words as the personal insult that I do -- react by redoubling your efforts to beat liberals and might-as-well-be-liberals this November...and in every election in the future.]
|<< <||> >>|