The “incompetence narrative” that many of Obama’s detractors have employed to explain his abysmal governance is false. It is not incompetence; Obama is the ultimate saboteur.
At the 70th anniversary commemoration of D-Day, when Allied troops stormed the beaches at Normandy to turn the tide of World War II, our president (I use the term loosely) Barack Hussein Obama (or whatever his name truly is) profaned this hallowed battleground with his vile, treasonous countenance. At the landing site where courageous, freedom-loving patriots sacrificed their lives so that we might be free, the world was subjected to the counterfeit mouthings of this Manchurian President.
Cravenly citing the military exploits of a maternal grandfather who may not even have existed (and whose alleged narrative portrayed him as a dedicated, America-hating communist if in fact he did exist), Obama paid empty homage to fallen heroes as he diligently strives to negate the last vestiges of their efforts.
With the advent of the Bengazi Select committee hearings (wherein Congress will investigate the White House’s consignment of brave American civil servants to death), in the wake of the Veteran’s Administration scandal (wherein the federal apparatus consigned American veterans to death), and in the aftermath of the Berghdahl-Taliban prisoner swap (wherein Obama illegally traded five of our most dangerous enemies for one treasonous Army Private), it is positively surreal that this President could stand before an international audience and pontificate in the vein of America’s “commitment to liberty, our claim to equality, our claim to freedom and to the inherent dignity of every human being.”
Not one utterance of Obama’s D-Day oratory was sincere.
The Berghdahl-Taliban swap may have value to the White House as a temporary distraction, but make no mistake: Aside from the illegality of the measure and the abject deception regarding the White House’s justification for same, it is Obama’s intention that the five freed Taliban “generals” return to the field to continue their war against the United States – no less. As for Bergdahl, who by nearly all accounts is a spoiled, immature brat who converted to Islam and defected to the enemy, he will in all likelihood receive a slap on the wrist if he is not pardoned outright and installed as the new director of DHS or some other august post.
With the two houses of Congress behaving like indulgent parents abrogating their responsibility to rein in their criminally delinquent child, and with a press that is either deluded, complicit, or a little of both, Obama has repeatedly flaunted his insolence and disobedience of the Constitution and the rule of law, incrementally advancing his communistic agenda. Many Americans remain ignorant of this, many are disbelieving, and some – perhaps like some of our lawmakers – are terrified of the implications of holding our historic “First Black President” accountable for treason.
While I am skeptical with regard to the repercussions attendant to members of Congress’ new-found indignation catalyzed by the Berghdahl-Taliban fiasco, I am gratified to hear more conservative pundits using the word “treason” with regard to Obama’s actions in this area. Indeed, this was treason, as was his support for the Islamist-driven Arab Spring, his participation in the Libyan insurgency, and his clandestine material support for Islamist rebels in Syria. When one strips away the semantics around what the administration designates as “moderate” and “extremist” Muslims, his insinuation of Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the Department of Homeland Security and his close ties to them are blatantly treasonous as well.
While the outrage of congressional Republicans and even some Democrats may prove to be far more of a debacle than Obama reckons, right now I believe that the White House is quite happy to have Congress and the press focusing on the Berghdahl-Taliban exchange, because they perceive it to be far less of a potential hazard than the Benghazi investigation (for example). Based on confirmed and credible information that exists relative to Benghazi, there are hanging offenses – yes, hanging offenses – for which charges have yet to be leveled. “Yet” meaning that whether or not this ever occurs is contingent upon the resolve of the Select Committee. It has been well-established that the President, his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill have engaged in decades-long collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood. Additionally, there are both Democrat and Republican lawmakers who have participated in these dealings. The Muslim Brotherhood’s unequivocal mandate calls for the destruction of America; no semantic attenuation of their agenda by the Brotherhood itself, or by Obama and his co-conspirators can change that.
Some lawmakers have even floated the word impeachment. I find this laughable for two reasons: One, in that given Obama’s crimes to date, we have no reason to believe that this will ever occur, and two, because the actions of Obama and members of his cabinet (past and present) far surpass the criteria for impeachment. They call for the ignominy of arrest and charges of treason, even if this results in legal precedent. Heaven knows Obama has set enough of his own.
For weeks now, I have been railing against this “incompetence narrative” that Obama’s detractors have employed to explain his abysmal governance. It is not incompetence; Obama is the ultimate saboteur. Every action he has taken has harmed America.
While it may be incomprehensible even to many of Obama’s detractors that he is a communist, an Islamist-sympathizer, a malignant figure with a synthetic past, born and bred by radicals and strategically placed in the office of President of the United States by America’s enemies to utterly destroy this nation while posing as a garden-variety liberal Democrat, this does not make it any less the truth.