BY CHRISTOPHER G. ADAMO – One day prior to the October 16 Obama/Romney debate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton very publicly took “responsibility” for the Benghazi disaster. Though much was made of her willingness to fall on her pitchfork in service to the Obama Administration, the real significance of her statement was its complete irrelevance to the nation’s security. Apart from the ongoing game of political charades by which the Obama Administration is still attempting to deflect and defuse criticism of its abysmal mishandling of the Libya situation, Hillary’s attempted diversion yielded absolutely no substantive information or policy changes that might make Americans safer in hot spots around the world.
Instead, she merely performed as predicted, in a desperate last minute effort to remove one of the most potentially risky topics from the debate. Unfortunately for the Obama camp, like every one of its other ham-fisted efforts, this one fell apart under the spotlights. During the course of the debate, Obama alternately tried to play the presidential role regarding the oversight of his cabinet, while ducking the reality of the Benghaziattacks and the manner in which they have been completely distorted and misreported by his team from the beginning. Fortunately for him, “moderator” Candy Crowley was on hand to tip the balance in his favor, albeit on a fraudulent premise.
The left has been making an enormous amount of indignant noise in response to Mitt Romney’s earlier comments, given in the immediate aftermath of the al Qaeda terrorist assault in Benghazi. According to Democrat talking points, Romney was singularly motivated by politics, and was far too quick in rendering his judgment of the matter. Yet what liberals dare not admit is that although Romney commented within hours of the horrific news from Libya, his appraisal of the situation is still far more precise than any of the stories coming from the White House or State Department, even after a month has passed.
Concurrently, the same media that in 2005 insisted America’s security apparatus was verging on collapse over the faux disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity now remains largely ambivalent over the stream of lies and “revisions” coming from Obama and his minions. It only exhibited an interest when seizing on Democrat talking points which asserted that any serious scrutiny of Administration tap-dancing over Benghazi amounted to a reprehensible “politicization” of the incident. America’s security, its diplomatic standing in the world, and the very safety of its officials while on foreign soil is comparatively inconsequential. Despite a debacle and cover-up that vastly eclipses Watergate, the only concern among liberals is that Mitt Romney be prevented from pointing out the flaws in Obama foreign policy.
It is mid-October of a presidential election year. The sole matter of consequence is keeping Barack Obama in the Oval Office so that he can complete his plans to fundamentally and irreversibly change America. The lives of diplomats and America’s standing on the world stage are of no more concern than the suffering of businesses on Main Street, or the daily wreckage of consumer pocketbooks at the gas pump.
Against this backdrop, Mitt Romney took the stage in his second “debate” against Barack Obama and CNN “moderator” Candy Crowley. Of course Romney was confronted by a two party opposition, as was his VP nominee Paul Ryan, a week earlier when facing Joe Biden along with Biden’s sidekick, Martha Raddatz of ABC. The liberal/Democrat propaganda machine knew full well that the glaring partiality of debate “moderators” would not be as damaging as any replay of Obama’s stupefied demeanor in his first encounter with Romney.
While it is tempting to focus on the brazen bias of the liberal press, or how such prejudice aids and abets a political class that should long ago have been dispatched from the mainstream of society, the most critical attention of the moment must be directed at the gravity of America’s present circumstances. It is easy to be distracted by the daily antics of desperate leftists, and thereby diminish the perils facing the nation.
For starters, consider how significantly its future course will be defined in the next few weeks. Since the time when civilization was first infected with the fetid babblings of Karl Marx, America has remained among the biggest obstacles to its worldwide implementation. Yet after four years under Barack Obama’s dominion, the nation teeters at the precipice of total immersion in it. Realizing their precarious circumstances in the immediate aftermath of his inauguration, the people of the Heartland coalesced into a grassroots movement known as the “Tea Party,” which rallied against the statist onslaught and began strenuously driving it back.
The ugly reality of the encroaching liberal “utopia” propelled grassroots conservatism forward, yielding a stunning Republican electoral landslide in 2010. Having actually gained momentum since that time, the movement is on the verge of removing Obama from power, and thereby denying him a second term. From the liberal perspective, such a repudiation would not only completely set back efforts to institute socialism in America, the all-but-inevitable rebound from the currently disastrous economic straits would provide the people with an inarguable comparison between the historical failures of collectivism and the triumph of a free society with free markets.
The devastating repercussions that such a scenario could deal to the empty promises of liberalism represent the worst nightmares of leftists. Hence, in their desperation they are far more willing to commit any act, tell any lie, and risk violating any law in order to perpetuate and expand their hold on power. No doubt, America under a second Obama term would be just as angry and frustrated with its disintegrating economy and evaporating freedoms. However, with the help of a few more activist Supreme Court judges, like-minded and unaccountable “Czars,” and a more comprehensively brainwashed and dependant populace, the entrenched Democrat power brokers would be far more able to continue implementing their extra-constitutional agenda unchallenged.
America is being plainly shown the stark contrast between the two options for its future. The international/diplomatic disasters, economic implosion, general degradation of daily life, and most of all, the facade of lies and distortions employed to hide the mess, are only a menacing harbinger of the dismal possibilities facing the nation if it remains on this course. Conversely, if “we the people” remain firm in our determination and principle, the evil tide of recent years can be turned back and the nation we love restored to us.
Yet what liberals dare not admit is that although Romney commented within hours of the horrific news from Libya, his appraisal of the situation is still far more precise than any of the stories coming from the White House or State Department, even after a month has passed."
You keep talking about "talking points" while offering no specifics or citations to back up ANY of your claims. How can Romney's appraisal be correct when he literally has no ties to the intelligence community?
You're completely right about the starkness of our choice this election, though. We can either choose to move forward with policies that President Obama has put in place, which have the best interest of the majority of Americans at heart. Or we can go back to policies such as the Bush Era tax cuts (era is a huge key word here. Hint: it doesn't mean forever). Those policies, which took our surplus during the Clinton administration, and despite having good intentions, failed miserably and were one of the major factors in causing the economic collapse of 2008 (the other being the two wars that were started under the Bush administration, as well as the housing bubble).
This post is so well written and gets to the point(s) "calling out" the liberal elite and the liberal ignorant. This is a good read.
Comments are closed.