Obama, The Great Uniter
Yep, this was the battle-cry of the 2008 elections. Obama was the Great Uniter who would bring America together and save it from the horrible division that Evil Bush caused.
The activist old media (who constantly promise to protect us from everything that could possibly harm us) easily bought this line because it fit their template and they wanted to believe it. Today will any of them walk this back—even a little bit? Nope—instead they blame the GOP and try to convince us that their poor Dear Leader has become a victim of the Rancorous Republicans.
Here’s just one example of the story line from 2007 with this little bit from the Washington Post about Obama, “he has the capacity… to unify the country and move it out of what he called “ideological gridlock.” Wow, good thing we don’t have gridlock and we hired the guy for the job who could stop it with a beer summit or the wave of his magic cigarette.
I anchored local news during the 2008 Democrat Primary, I covered one of the debates back then, and I know what I read and you know what you heard. Obama was the Great Uniter. Of course, nobody with a brain bought it, but the media loved it and spread it like barnyard fuel.
So today, we hear from Obama leftist Peter Orzag in The New Republic that we “need less democracy” because Washington can’t seem to get along. What happened to The Great Uniter?
Orzag says, “it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing.” His conclusion— “we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.” I guess if we just make the Great Uniter the Dear Leader, we will have unity in destruction. Just a “bit less democratic” won’t hurt during these tough times. They’ll give us our democracy back when they say the time is right, cross their bleeding hearts.
Please leftists, don’t try to tell us how you love the Constitution when you are giving support to this administration (Orzag worked in the Obama administration as the director of the Office of Management and Budget.)
Which brings me to a line from Obama’s recent speech before the Joint Session of Congress that went largely unnoticed, but jumped out at me when I heard it live. While talking about Social Security and Medicare, Obama wondered what would’ve happened if those bankrupt social programs were voted down “because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?” (Applause.)
That was applause by Democrats after that line. Did Democrats applaud the destruction of the Constitution? (Sorry—I had to put that in after all the foolish things the left and their activist old media have said lately about Republicans applauding at debates—although mine actually fits.)
What was that “rigid idea about what government could or could not do” that our President was speaking about? Seriously, I’d like to know what he was talking about. The only rigid idea about what government could or could not do that I know of is the US Constitution. I thank God for those words on 4 pages of parchment daily. Without that document and its amendments Democrat leftist Woodrow Wilson might have followed eastern Europe into the abyss of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. We could be entering another Dark Ages right about now. No, I’m not just being provocative here, many who have looked back at the Wilson Presidency believe he would’ve gone there were it not for our Constitution.
Do you think anybody in the media would dare ask their Dear Leader what he was referring with his words in the speech? Nope, won’t happen. Does Obama believe the US Constitution is just a “rigid idea about what government could or could not do?” Also, Obama is sort of acknowledging here that the Constitution had to be set aside so that Social Security and Medicare could be passed, but that’s a different issue. Does anybody in the media find that interesting?
It’s not a stretch to say that Obama and his buddy Orzag see the US Constitution as something that is keeping them from uniting the country—or recreating it to their own liking, or both.
It should be mentioned here that our Founders understood the value of political division, it’s everywhere in the Federalist Papers and in their personal writings, that cannot be denied.
The media has jumped in with this administration to tell us 1) political division is bad, 2) it’s being caused by Republicans. They will supposedly protect us from spoiled spinach, killer tomatoes and Michael Jackson’s alleged killer, but they care not to see the potential destruction of our founding principles while promoting unity. Who could be opposed to unity? Of course, Democrats could’ve gotten all of this budget stuff taken care of while they had majorities in both Houses of Congress and the White House…but that takes too long to explain in an :08 second sound bite.
Today the Great Uniter works to divide America along racial and economic lines to further his cause to get re-elected and Change America. Change America. First, he needs to get rid of those rigid ideas about what government can and cannot do.
We now clearly know, if we did not know this before, that we cannot wait for the government or the media to save us.