During the recent government shutdown, America has witnessed just how far certain members of both parties can sink. The childish name-calling exhibit put on by the Obama Administration, which involves characterizing the Tea Party as, “hostage taking terrorists” is appalling. On September 22, 2013, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called the Tea Party “legislative arsonists.” Following her lead, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called the same group “anarchists.” Stepping up the disgusting rhetoric further, Congressman Peter King (R-NY) described Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and those who stand with him as “terrorists!”
On September 26, 2013, Noah Rothman of Mediaite.com reported,
White House advisor for strategic communications, Daniel Pfeiffer, appeared on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper on Thursday where he reiterated President Barack Obama’s administration’s insistence that they will not negotiate over the next increase of the nation’s debt ceiling. Pfeiffer equated the GOP’s wide-ranging demands associated with raising the debt ceiling with threatening to burn down someone’s house or a suicide bombing mission.
In light of the disturbing “terrorism” rhetoric, I began to get a sinking feeling inside when I remembered Obama’s 2012 speech at the United Nations regarding the religion of the true jihadi terrorists. No one would ever expect an American President to utter the now infamous words, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Shockingly, that is exactly what the Dictator…I mean Commander in Chief said.
Now let’s think about those words. “The future must not belong to….” Fill in the blank with any person or group of people. What exactly does that phrase mean? If the future must not belong to someone, doesn’t that mean that the person that the future must not belong to should, at some point not be allowed to live? Try as we may, there is really no other way to define that phrase. If anyone can tell me another logical meaning of that phrase, please let me know what it is. But, as far as I understand it, the future can only belong to those who are living.
Like most Americans, I don’t want to believe that this is what my President means but his statement forces me to ask the following questions. First of all, who gets to decide who lives and who dies? The answer should be obvious, of course, only God Himself. However, not in fascist, Marxist states where the ends justify the means and the collective reigns superior to the individual. In fascist governments, the dictator gets to decide who lives and who dies. With a health care plan that puts the I.R.S. in control of the health of Americans, it appears that Obama has audaciously assigned that role to himself.
The second question is this: Who says things like, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam?” The only people that I can recall talking like that in the past have been fascist dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Obama’s buddies from the Muslim Brotherhood. The only people who have said such things have openly advocated killing large groups of people and “wiping Israel off the face of the map.”
In true Alinsky fashion, Obama refuses let the current “crisis” of the government shutdown go to waste. Who doesn’t shudder when they think of the disgusting display of tyrannical strong-arming when Obama closed the World War II Memorial to ninety-year-old heroic veterans to simply make a point? What of the heart breaking news of the five fallen heroes (four soldiers and one marine) that Obama won’t even fork over the money for the families to attend their loved ones’ funerals? As if such callousness isn’t appalling enough for one lifetime, one must wonder why the banned phrase “terrorist” is now back in vogue with Obama and his cronies, only this time applying exclusively to the Tea Party.
Obama will not allow his administration to call terrorists by their proper name, yet he doesn’t flinch when the word is applied to Constitution loving Americans like Tea Party groups. Fort Hood was labeled “workplace violence” by the Obama administration. All while Nidal Hasan shouted an Islamic jihadi phrase as he murdered thirteen innocent Americans (12 soldiers) in cold blood. Obama doesn’t mind negotiating with the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad after admitting that he believes he gassed his own people. Any other U.S. President would have taken him out and at the very least would have had him before the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal. But Obama sends John Kerry to “negotiate” with him and Kerry gives al-Assad a “paddy cake” on the back for getting rid of a few chemical weapons.
Now the Obama administration and other progressive Republicans like McCain (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC) and Corker (R-TN) are characterizing Representatives Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) as extremists when these brave men are only doing what they came to Washington D.C. to do, represent their constituents! Now we can understand why Obama did not want to use the word “terrorist” to describe Muslim jihadists. He was saving that type of rhetoric for the Tea Party!
While I would like to laugh at this ridiculous rhetoric and brush it off as ironic humor, I believe that it is much more serious than that. It is downright dangerous to the American people and to our image in the world. The recent targeting of Tea Party and other patriotic groups by the I.R.S. brings to mind the 2009 controversial report by former Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, which targeted “Right Wing Extremists” and returning Veterans as “terrorist threats.” The Washington Times quoted Napolitano on April 16, 2009:
We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources.”
Ironically, this seems exactly like what the Obama Administration is currently doing. The link to the report is no longer active from the Washington Times’ website.
America, it’s time to wake up and realize that we are living in extraordinary times, which are unprecedented. The Divider in Chief has succeeded in his division to the point that it is now acceptable for the powers that be to associate the Tea Party with terrorism. One might ask if the Tea Party is now in a legal position to sue for defamation of character.
Things are clearly out of control and quickly spiraling downhill. We must urge our representatives to hold fast to their principles and not give in to this destructive rhetoric from either side of the aisle. With everything that has happened, only one thought comes to mind. That is that America’s future must not belong to Obama.