“I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than [Hillary Clinton] can. I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the ’90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be running. I don’t think there is anybody in this race who’s able to bring new people into the process and break out of some of the ideological gridlock that we have as effectively as I can.”
-Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, 2007
Barack Obama has certainly united the American people. He has united them into several angry, opposing ideological camps.
Barack Obama, the professional community organizer was prematurely dubbed the Post-Partisan President by some of his adoring lapdogs in the media and lauded as the Post-Racial President by others. He was to be the “great uniter,” the man who was supposed to bring us all back together following those “horrible, divisive Bush years.” This was the enlightened one in which we were to put our faith…as he led us back to “hope” as he promised to “change” the way Washington politics work.
Well, Barack Obama has proven he is anything but Post-Partisan and Post-Racial. What he has proven is that he was more than capable of being the most divisive President in the modern era.
On his watch, we’ve seen racial tensions multiply as he has, on several occasions, made irresponsible statements that have thrown fuel on the fire of some already racially-charged events for which he had almost none of the facts. In one such incident, he criticized a white police officer as “acting stupidly” after a justified arrest of a black Harvard Professor for disorderly conduct. His careless statement put presidential weight behind a frivolous, unwarranted accusation of racism against a dignified police officer. Then, rather than acting as a calming influence when it was desperately needed, he injected himself into the simmering racial turmoil surrounding Trayvon Martin’s death, rallying the rush-to-judgement crowd with his declaration that “if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.” Rather than lead…Obama did what he does best: he agitated.
During his adminstration we’ve seen the unchecked rise of the New Black Panthers, who have repeatedly threatened acts of violence, engaged in the most hateful, racist speech imaginable, and have even placed a bounty on the head of George Zimmerman–all without a peep from this “post-racial” president. Under his leadership, the Department of Justice has looked the other way on voter intimidation perpetrated by the New Black Panthers, and has refused to even investigate the death threats and bounties. Obama’s silence is nothing short of an endorsement of this racial tension. As any good community organizer will tell you…social unrest is a catalyst for “change.”
On Obama’s watch, we’ve seen an outbreak of violent class-based conflicts as the Occupy movement has declared war between the so-called “haves” and “have nots.” Our great uniter has not only publicly sympathized with these illegal, immoral, and lawless protests, he has also been the primary instigator–relentlessly accusing those who pay the most in taxes of “not paying their fair share.” His inflammatory comments are not without intent. The irony is that the Obamas consider themselves part of these same elites that are the target of the Occupy protests, and they associate almost exclusively with the “haves.”
During the past three years, we’ve seen religious freedom visciously assaulted by Obama’s administration. We’ve listened to him ridicule men and women of faith–stating that those who won’t fall into line with him are “bitter,” and that “they cling to guns or religion.” We’ve witnessed Obama, in multiple speeches, omit the words “by our creator” when he is supposedly quoting our Declaration of Independence saying how “we are endowed…with inalienable rights.” But beyond the rhetoric, his admistration has passed laws intended to force religious organizations to fund services and practices in direct opposition to their teachings. He has repeatedly shown his contempt for our first amendment rights–effectively dividing us into believers and non-believers.
Under Obama’s leadership, the left has manufactured a phony “war on women,” claiming those who believe in the sanctity of life of unborn children somehow don’t want women to have quality, affordable health care. His administration has demonized those who oppose government funding of abortion mills like Planned Parenthood–accusing them of trampling on the rights of women, and again, deepening the divide between the Pro-Life and the Pro-Abortion movements. We’ve witnessed him coming to the defense of leftist women who were criticized for their beliefs, while remaining silent as conservative women are verbally assaulted by hateful misogynists using the most vile terms we have in the English language.
On Obama’s watch, we’ve seen the rise of the Tea Party, which emerged in response to his administrations radical policies and complete fiscal irresponsibility. Following a near-landslide election for the Republicans in 2010, Obama’s minions and media pets attempted to explain away the devastating defeat by accusing Americans who support fiscal discipline as “racists,” who are really only opposing Obama because he is black.
These are merely a few examples of Barack Obama’s divisive behavior as President. We could spend all day reviewing the hundreds of other examples. Under the leadership of this “great uniter,” we’ve seen escalated division among:
- Economic Classes
- Blacks vs. Whites (even Black vs. White-Hispanics)
- Religious vs. Non-Religious
- Pro-Life Advocates vs. Pro-Abortion Advocates
- Fiscal Conservatives vs. Tax & Spend Liberals
The numbers among those who consider themselves political ‘moderates’ are shrinking dramatically under this post-partisan President. More and more, people are aligning themselves further to the left or the right–increasing the idealogical gulf between the two sides, which has led to the most divisive political rhetoric we’ve seen in decades.
As we approach the general election of 2012, more and more Americans are fearful that violence will erupt, should the outcome not be what some of these divided groups had hoped. I can honestly say I’ve never had this concern in any previous elections. I have always had confidence that the will of the people would be accepted by all, whether they were in the minority or the majority.
This year is different. It seems that this President has made it a priority to stir up dissent whenever he could. He has sought out opportunities to drive a wedge between those of opposing viewpoints. He has created an atmosphere that is ripe for violence and anarchy. He has created a monster that is ready to attack our very Constitution–if the constitutionally-mandated elections don’t go the way he wants them to go.
Should Mitt Romney win this November, our best hope for a smooth transition in 2013 is that the Presidential election of 2012 ends in a Romney landslide. If Obama loses in a squeaker, get ready for civil war because that is the stage our Community-Agitator-In-Chief has set.