Barack Obama and the Sucker's Revolution

     How could Americans have been so stupid? We empowered the media and the Democrat party to push an obscure State Senator from Illinois into the office of President of the United States in a mere four years, needing only a teleprompter and some broad promises of "hope" and "change". During the course of the 2008 campaign, several questions arose regarding Obama's past associations, including Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Saul Ulinsky, to name a few. The significance of those relationships were never truly explained, only scoffed at by the mainstream media. The truth is, following the huge bailout that was the TARP banker takeover (and eight years of the Bush administration being perceived as in the pockets of multinational corporations), Americans didn't mind hearing then candidate Obama talk about "spreading the wealth around." Understandably, the workforce has seen their wages stagnate, their jobs shipped overseas, and the income gap become the largest since the age of the robber barons at the dawn of the 20th century. I would contend that the power elite had their man exactly where they wanted him when the fateful Joe-the-plumber controversy unfolded. For every American who knew what "spreading the wealth around" actually entailed, there likely stood two who were all-too-willing to opt for the idea of a free lunch.  

     Socialism-inclined Americans should have raised their eyebrows when Obama ran back to Washington in the midst of the campaign, to prod the Congress into bailing out the so called "too big to fail." But there were innumerable reasons to be skeptical of the junior Senator from Illinois. The most obvious being his absolute lack of any relevant experience. The man had only been in the US Senate for two years prior to his presidential campaign, and voted "present" many times so as not to take a firm stand on controversial issues. This should have been a startling red flag for anyone even remotely concerned with the issues that face our country. Just as troublesome was the fact that most all of the man's records- academic, medical, etc.- had been sealed, as if we were supposed to just read his book and take it all at face value. No, this man seems to be a nearly complete fabrication! Who knows if he is an naturalized American citizen or not? It should not matter, because anyone with a brain should never have voted for the man. Americans have allowed the globalist political establishment to install their man at a crucial point in the history of world civilization.

     And what about the police state? Surely, the professor of constitutional law would roll back the Bush administration's assault on the Bill of Rights. Undoubtedly, the civil rights attorney would put America back on the path to social justice. Indeed, Obama had campaigned against the most egregious sections of the Patriot Act, calling the bill "shoddy and dangerous." He also rightly decried President Bush's use of executive orders and signing statements, calling it: "a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability." Well, throw all that out of the window. After struggling to get his administration's agenda through the Congress in his first year (it's those pesky constituents), "President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities."

     It's not looking good, America. You already know that the President has ordered the continuation of rendition, claims the authority to assassinate US citizens, and has his own enemies list. I suppose it does little good now to browbeat my fellow Americans who fell for the old "hope" and "change" cliches. But, please, let this be a lesson: Demand real vetting of candidates, and if you're not getting it from the media, do some research on your own. Check the record before voting for your public servants, and if it's hard to come by, move on to another candidate. It would not be a bad idea to vote against whoever is getting the most media coverage and the most corporate donations. To illustrate just what I am talking about, the establishment candidate was clear months before Election Day. According to the New York Times' David Brooks,

"When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising advantage over McCain."

     As most of us will admit, big money is everything in Washington. The special interests effectively are the government, and most of the regulators come directly from high positions within the companies they are now charged with overseeing. Barack Obama is a yes-man for the corporate and banking elite, just go back and read from the Brooks' article above. It is well documented that after the TARP banker takeover was passed, the Federal Reserve decided not to spend the money on the home mortgage crisis. Rather, they passed out the money to the bankers, who had mountains of worthless assets due to rampant and irresponsible derivative speculation. As a result, 2.9 million American homes have been lost to foreclosure in 2009 alone, and the banks continue to make record profits. You wanted socialism, you got it! The liberal way to do things appears to be a type of reverse wealth redistribution: you lose your job and go broke, Wall Street celebrates with record bonuses. The mainstream media refuses to cover our economic situation using these simple terms, and as a result, the President retains a 49 percent approval rating. Despite that sharp pain you feel in your back, you just can't help but like the guy.