You know, the one where the targeting ‘of only a few” TEA Party groups by ‘ couple of rogue agents’ quickly became more than a handful of offices and included some of the real higher ups who thought they were safely ensconced deep within the D.C. HQ. Turned out to be almost 300 TEA Party groups were harassed by our Civil Masters civil servant for simply requesting 501(C3) tax status but being of the “wrong” political persuasion (the absolute NERVE of those TEA Partiers, telling us who derive our salaries from their tax monies that they want a smaller and less intrusive government, one that obeys the Constitution and costs them less!).
Incompetent and too big was the plea by the Obama apologists…
I don’t believe many of the Big Gov cheerleaders have really thought about the consequences of much of what they’re advocating, or perhaps they have and are simply insouciant about it. Because many of the “solutions” to problems the Big Gov folks advocate for, more often than not, distill down to more Government. Therein lies the problem. Even Obama’s confidant David Axelrod admitted the other day that “we have a large government” and that the “government is so vast” to really know what’s going on down in its depths. So, how does making it bigger help anything? It doesn’t.
Or, was it on purpose? Take Obama’s Foreign Policy – how has his (and Hillary’s) “Reset” with Russia gone over lately (i.e., Putin playing cat with Obama’s ‘field mouse caught between its paws’ with Snowden)? How has the lecturing gone over with North Korea (I keep seeing ICBMs going off the launch pads)? Sending Winston back to England? The STASI 2.0 signs in Germany? The signs in Egypt that Obama AND his Ambassador supporting tyrants and fascist dictators? The Mullahs in Iran are still mullah-ing and the Taliban are laughing at him (as they keep blowing up Americans) – even Karzi keeps singing “Should they stay or should they go?” as Obama is letting him hang in the wind (and once we pull out, that might be literally true). NSA was such a WONDERFUL display of that vaunted “soft power”, eh?
I have said consistently throughout Obama’s Presidency that two words can summarize his efforts at excellence: Determined Weakness. I’m no longer the only one (and haven’t been the only one for a while) (emphasis mine):
That is Obama’s goal, but I see it as a goal in the service of something more. He’s not just interested in smallness and irrelevance for their own sakes. He’s interested in weakening America’s influence, and in doing so he allows other forces to rise, forces that previous administrations had opposed. Those forces could be summarized as being either leftist or Islamicist, depending on the country and the situation. In studying Obama’s decisions in the foreign arena, it is difficult to escape the idea that Obama prefers that these groups gain more power around the world. And since he can’t come out directly for them, sometimes he must support them by apparent indirection and inaction.
The Obama Doctrine.
Less “complete incompetance” and more like “willing incompetance”? Our enemies no longer fear us, small countries kick sand in his face, and our former allies no longer trust us or look to us for leadership. Mission Accomplished, Mr. President? Hard to be influential when you’ve put America into the position of being isolated, alone, and apparently toothless to back up his own rhetoric.
Like many politicians, however, he himself will suffer no adverse consequence for putting America into what he believes to be its proper place, even if it costs the American people time, treasure, talent, or blood in the future. His decisions will cause many consequences in the future – and many of them not positive, I’m afraid.
(H/T: Powerline)
