In truth, it is rather difficult to even keep apprised of all of the “calamity” that bombards the American people every day. Each ensuing upheaval serves the purpose of wiping out any discussion of the previous one.
Does anyone remember the name Bowe Bergdahl these days? Only a few weeks back, Bergdahl’s name rocketed to the front page of every major newspaper as a result of his release from five years of “captivity” by the Taliban. Early accounts lauded Bergdahl as a war hero who had endured hardship at the hands of his captors, a sentiment trumpeted by Barack Obama and echoed by high-level cabinet members as they sought to portray the event as a great triumph for America.
Very soon however, the details of Bergdahl’s desertion and likely collaboration with the Muslim jihadists began to emerge, casting him instead in a traitorous light. Official accounts of early attempts to find him attribute the deaths of many other Americans to the effort. Perhaps worst of all, without any consultation with Congress (a legal requirement in this situation) Obama authorized the release of five extremely dangerous high-level terrorists, who had been held at the Guantanamo prison since their capture, in trade for Bergdahl.
Any celebratory reactions from Americans quickly turned into horrified shock. Those in government who inarguably knew the circumstances of Bergdahl’s desertion were worse than derelict in their duties to allow such a “prisoner transfer” to take place. Yet Obama not only orchestrated the entire affair, he claimed as much spotlight and credit for it as he possibly could, at least in the beginning. As indignation across the nation intensified, the liberal political machine did what it always does in a tight spot. It changed the subject. Currently, few mentions of Bergdahl occur anywhere in the “mainstream” media.
In truth, it is rather difficult to even keep apprised of all of the “calamity” that bombards the American people every day. Each ensuing upheaval serves the purpose of wiping out any discussion of the previous one. The pattern continues unabated. But without exception, the events themselves and the manner in which the leftist political machine responds to them represent a major leg of Obama’s grand plan to “fundamentally transform America.” At the same time, the blur of devastating “crises” is sufficient to prevent a focus on any single one of them.
Close on the heels of the Bergdahl fiasco came the calamitous news that America’s southern border was spontaneously being invaded by illegal alien children, primarily from Honduras and El Salvador. Hardly likely to be a random occurrence, this drama was curiously timed to bring attention to the “need” for amnesty (or “immigration reform” as the proponents of amnesty attempt to sugar coat it). Emotional accounts of the plight of those hapless children on the nightly news were singularly crafted to evoke sympathy and generate momentum for the faltering effort to get some form of amnesty pushed through the Congress prior to the November mid-term elections.
Once again, the liberal/Democrat movers and shakers miscalculated. Any initial sympathy has since soured into anger among Americans as they watch their nation’s border being systematically eradicated and their society victimized by foreigners and pandering politicians who express concern for everyone involved, except the American people. As communities across America increasingly resist efforts to turn them into way-stations for this onslaught of young foreigners (who will most certainly be joined in short order by the rest of their families), the public relations boon anticipated by Democrat strategists suddenly became a growing political liability.
So once again, Democrats eagerly sought to shift their focus away from the border fiasco, and onto something… anything that might redound to their benefit in the fall elections. When visiting Texas earlier this month to attend multiple fundraisers, Obama refused to visit the border, despite being invited there by Texas Governor Rick Perry. With public opinion swinging severely against the Democrats and their treasonous quest for thirty million new voters, the last thing Obama wanted was any visual association between himself and the humanitarian disaster he and his policies had created. It is indeed time for the Democrats to figure out a way to distance themselves from the border mess. What will be next?
Much can be learned of how this scheme is intended to operate by a close examination of one of its chief practitioners, Hillary Clinton. Despite her claims of a stellar political career, Hillary Clinton’s “popularity” with the public has always been inversely proportional to the amount of time she spends in front of the cameras. Lately, she has been desperately attempting to pick up the pieces after her disastrous June interview with Diane Sawyer, in which she attempted to make the case that upon leaving the White House in 2001, she and Bill were essentially paupers.
Prior to that, she is best known for her hysterical 2013 rant in front of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, which was looking into the lapses and deception surrounding the September 2012 Islamist attacks on the Consulate in Benghazi during which four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stephens were killed. When pressed for specifics by Senator Ron Johnson (R.-WI) she retorted “What difference, at this point, does it make?” The single most telling, and most overlooked portion of that shameless obfuscation was the phrase “at this point.” In Clinton’s world, such a declaration rendered the episode inconsequential on the basis that it was old news. Once the heat is turned up on any liberal debacle, the chances are good that they will attempt to declare it “old news.” To this end, their absolutely predictable undermining of efforts to quickly resolve any matter should be a red flag to those interested in actually finding the truth.
Last week’s lies are simply irrelevant to this week’s controversy since they were only ever intended to win the debate of the moment (See: “If you like your doctor and your healthcare plan, you can keep them.”). Those who dare to demand any shred of accountability from Obama or his fellow leftists will be derided as overly “partisan” and targeted for political destruction. The plan is to continue shifting the country left, which requires that real consequences of Obama/Democrat policy be brushed aside.
“Fast and Furious” has become “old news,” with nobody actually held responsible for it, on account of Attorney General Eric Holder’s indefensible stonewalling of congressional investigators. Similarly, the ongoing drama of the missing IRS e-mails, and the flagrant efforts to evade accountability for what was clearly an abuse of power by former IRS department chief Lois Lerner and her minions, will no doubt be dragged on as long as possible, to then be dismissed as irrelevancies from “the past.”
Unfortunately, each of these incidents, along with too many others to mention in this space, represent a government that has broken the constitutional boundaries intended to protect the American people from its overreach. A government that effectively exempts itself from oversight while continually amassing ever greater power is a threat to the people. It needs to be stopped, and its key players held accountable. Otherwise, “liberty and justice” are themselves in danger of being reduced to merely being trite phrases from the past.
Christopher G. Adamo is a lifelong conservative from the American Heartland. He has been involved in grassroots and state-level politics for many years, seeking to restore and uphold the Judeo-Christian principles on which our Nation was founded. His book, "Rules for Defeating Radicals," is the "Go To" guide for effectively confronting and overcoming the dirty tricks of the political left. It is available at Amazon.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
