Obama is Evil
The recurring leitmotif in all their actions and policies from the very first day of Obama’s first term in office has been: Destroy for the sake of destruction
Obama’s Fruits of Falsehood
by EDWARD CLINE May 17, 2013
There is an understandable reluctance in President Barack Obama’s critics – a reluctance verging on a fastidious decorum and civility regarding the office of the President – that stops them from making the ultimate judgment of President Barack Hussein Obama and his administration. It is a damnation they have avoided. Perhaps it is too horrible for them to contemplate. They can excoriate him over the details of his policies and actions, but never quite reach a logical conclusion. Perhaps they believe he isn’t beyond redemption.
However, I don’t think I’m putting my life at risk by stating, without apology, regret, hesitation, or trepidation that: Obama is evil. Even if he never committed another evil action, he is irredeemable. As irredeemable as Richard Speck or Charles Manson.
And by evil I do not mean evil by accident, or by omission, by hypocrisy, by happenstance, by character flaw, by insanity, or even by criminal negligence. I mean: Consciously, purposefully, determinedly evil.
Obama is a public figure. His policies and actions are fair game for observation, examination, and evaluation. They’re there for all to see. His private life also has been made public, from his closeness to America-hating Reverend Jeremiah Wright to his frequent golfing outings to his numerous lies and cover-ups. There is not a single speech of Obama’s, not a single pubic gesture of his or a piece of legislation he has signed or vetoed, that has not telegraphed his malevolent motives and intentions.
It is fruitless to take him to task on incompetence or willful negligence or over a character flaw or even over his ostensible “pragmatism,” which tends to backfire when his pragmatism encounters the pragmatism of seasoned veterans like Vladimir Putin. One can understand Mark Steyn, as he wrote in “The Benghazi Lie” on May 10th about the insouciance of Obama and Hillary Clinton about why Benghazi happened:
And, in the most revealing glimpse of the administration’s depravity, the president and secretary of state peddled the lie even in their mawkish eulogies to their buddy “Chris” and three other dead Americans. They lied to the victims’ coffins and then strolled over to lie to the bereaved, Hillary telling the Woods family that “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.” And she did. The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula [maker of the "Innocence of Muslims" video on YouTube] in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi. It was such a great act of misdirection Hillary should have worn spangled tights and sawn Stevens’ casket in half.
Steyn issues a warning to Obama’s and Clinton’s defenders and apologists, that they, too, can be policy fodder:
The dying Los Angeles Times reported this story on its homepage…under the following headline: “Partisan Politics Dominates House Benghazi Hearing.” In fact, everyone in this story is a Democrat or a career civil servant. Chris Stevens was the poster boy for Obama’s view of the Arab Spring; he agreed with the president on everything that mattered. The only difference is that he wasn’t in Vegas but out there on the front line, where Obama’s delusions meet reality. Stevens believed in those illusions enough to die for them.
One cannot say the same about the hollow men and women in Washington who sent him out there unprotected, declined to lift a finger when he came under attack, and in the final indignity subordinated his sacrifice to their political needs by lying over his corpse. Where’s the “partisan politics”? Obama, Clinton, Panetta, Clapper, Rice, and the rest did this to one of their own. And fawning court eunuchs, like the ranking Democrat at the hearings, Elijah Cummings, must surely know that, if they needed [to], they’d do it to them, too.
The subtitle of Steyn’s column is, “A failure of character of this magnitude corrodes the integrity of the state.” I beg to differ. This particular failure of character had nothing to do with the integrity of the state or of the office. A character, if it is fundamentally malign, as Obama’s is, cannot fail unless it is opposed. And he has been opposed only haphazardly. Yes, Cummings and Rice and Clapper can be sacrificed, if need be. In fact, by extrapolating Obama’s penchant for sacrifice, of partisans and American lives overseas alike, one can imagine that he can and will throw Hillary to the wolves, as well, if that will buy him time.
Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish in his May 11th column, “With Blood on Their Hands,” ends his column on the Lady Macbeth theme on which it is pegged, about the morbid senselessness of Obama’s and Clinton’s policies:
The social revolution of her 1969 thesis [Clinton's Wellesley thesis on Saul Alinsky] is once again here, and like most revolutions, it’s a bloody mess. Once again social values are under attack by radicals while soldiers die overseas without being allowed to fight back. And the radicals care for nothing for the blood that they spill for their radical revolution. Not the blood of a single man or of a thousand men.
“What is a traitor?” Lady Macduff’s son asks his mother, before being murdered by Macbeth’s assassins. “Why, one that swears and lies,” his mother replies. “Who must hang them?” her son asks. “Why, the honest men,” she answers. “Then the liars and swearers are fools,” he says, “for there are liars and swearers enow to beat the honest men and hang up them.”
The liars and swearers have hung up the honest men from Benghazi to Kabul to Capitol Hill. And the traitors walk through the night with blood on their hands and do not even see.
Nor, as Greenfield notes, will they wail in remorse or in fear of the consequences of being party to murder, as Lady Macbeth did. If they see blood on their hands, well, that’s life, isn’t it? What difference does it make? They are not guilt-ridden, not shaking with fear of moral disapprobation. After all, they will think: Aren’t we the epitome of the oblige noblesse of altruism and sacrifice? Sometimes that duty requires self-sacrifice, as well, but we won’t go there, because if we sacrificed ourselves and not someone else, who would be left to be, well, moral?
Clinton’s aggravated but arrogantly elitist protest on January 23rd, 2012, of “What difference, at this point, does it make?” about the lives lost at Benghazi sums up Obama’s approach to things. Nothing matters to him at any point. Clinton is desperate to salvage her chances for the presidency. Obama is so hollow, so malign, so filled with the poisonous glop of hatred, he cannot feel desperation for anything.
I think the outrage expressed by Mark Steyn and others over Obama’s and his cohorts’ actions and behavior is misplaced; it is a response which resists acknowledgement that Obama is what he is: evil. But all the details about the Benghazi cover-up and the Seal Team killings in Afghanistan which are coming out, not to mention his de facto alliance with the omnivorous Muslim Brotherhood, only confirm the evil. As in any portrait of any Dorian Gray, the devil is in the details. But the brushstrokes make up the portrait. It’s the sum of those brushstrokes that matters. It’s what you see when the canvas is finished and the artist steps aside after explaining how all the brushstrokes work.
So, I’m going the extra mile by saying what must be on everyone’s minds: Obama is evil.
So are former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, and all the other policy makers and advisors in his administration. The recurring leitmotif in all their actions and policies from the very first day of Obama’s first term in office has been: Destroy for the sake of destruction. Out of destruction will come construction of a world more to our liking. Sacrifice your own allies, if necessary, such as Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, if it will sustain the falsehood and allow us to continue to destroy without obstruction or surcease.
But Clinton, Holder and all the others have merely been enabled by Obama. They are his vindictive flying monkeys, the stinking, badgering Harpies of Hussein.
Or, try this analogy on for size: They are the human bagworms killing this country and abbreviating our lives. Bagworms can strip a tree of its protective bark and foliage and leave it to die, exposed to disease and the elements. Obama wishes to strip this country of its defenses to leave it and us exposed to the machinations of the Muslim Brotherhood, Vladimir Putin, and other predators.
But, what, after all, is evil?
The Oxford English Dictionary has two principal definitions. The first is “morally depraved, bad, wicked, vicious.” The second is: “Doing or tending to do harm; hurtful, mischievous, prejudicial.” I would amend the second definition to read: Doing or wanting to do harm, to be hurtful, to be insidiously nihilistic. It would complement the first definition.
You cannot accuse him merely of fiddling while Rome burns, even though it becoming apparent that he ordered the arson. After all, Obama is not blindfolded and whacking a stick at a piñata to see what falls from it once he’s smashed it. He stuffed the piñata himself, presented it to the country as a gift, and dropped it in the country’s lap. It has broken open and what has spilled from it is offal and excrement and toxic bile.
You doubt it? Take a look at the shape of the country. At the character of our foreign relations.
You will excuse the imagery. I am not given to exaggeration. I have been calling this man evil for years. I have never hesitated to identify the reality of the man and of his motives. It was time to be frank and that cannot entail decorous language or distaste for acknowledging the moral repulsiveness of this creature. Kid gloves don’t agree with me. It is time to divorce the office from the man who occupies it, to make a distinction between the dignity of the office and the low character of the man who works every day to rob it of every vestige of dignity.
What must be understood by Americans is that, whether it’s Benghazi or the Afghanistan Seal Team killings or what he’s done to this country economically and politically since taking office in 2009, is that he doesn’t mind these things happening. The “perfect” world message propagated by Obama and his stooges in the MSM isn’t possible. He knows this if his stooges don’t. His perfect “transformed” America is a continent lying in ashes, overrun by Third World illiterates and religious barbarians picking through the ruins and savaging the survivors. At the present, the only thing he might be worried about is how a full-blown Congressional investigation of Benghazi might hurt his being able to continue doing what he’s been doing. He is only afraid of being found out.
And the only thing that might worry Clinton is how it might sink her chances of running for president in 2016. But, down deep, that hatred of existence, and of this country, and of us, is her driving force, as well. It just isn’t as obvious.
Obama is more obviously evil. That is the long and short of it.
|Reply via web post||Reply to sender||Reply to group||Start a New Topic||Messages in this topic (1)|
"WHEN ALL YOU HAVE IS A HAMMER, EVERYTHING LOOKS LIKE A NAIL."