When Barack Hussein Obama took the presidential oath of office in 2009, I expressed more than once in this space the concern that we would never be able to get rid of him. To clarify: By the time Obama was inaugurated, I had already forgotten more about the individual bearing that name than most people gleaned during his entire presidency. This aggregate of knowledge and the concerns I had (some of which were detailed in my 2010 book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession”) I continued to convey in the coming months, and indeed some of the latter played out fairly accurately in the following years.
A chief fear I had was that Obama, a radical socialist who found himself able to get away with just about anything for no other reason than he was black, would orchestrate a situation in the vein of the Cloward-Piven strategy wherein widespread civil unrest would necessitate his declaration of martial law at some opportune time, thereby forestalling the normal electoral process and keeping him in office indefinitely.
While I believe that some of the machinations of the Obama administration did work toward this end (such as its campaign to inflame racial tensions, dangerously subverting key areas within our military and facilitating Islamists’ activities within the U.S.), it is clear that either I was mistaken, or opportune time to execute such a move never arose.
As many commentators have discussed over the last several weeks, the body of Obama appointees, radicals in federal agencies, key lobbying organizations and activist judges appear to amount to a shadow government that was deliberately put into place during Obama’s presidency to maintain the power of his cabal and to carry on the far-left agenda regardless of who won the November 2016 election. At present, a large measure of its objectives have to do with sabotaging the Trump administration.
One of the most recent controversies reflecting this dynamic is the Hawaii Obama-appointed judge’s rejection of Trump’s travel ban for the second time. In a filing in his Honolulu court last week, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson brought a halt to President Trump’s travel ban and rejected the government’s request to limit his ruling. What is most noteworthy about Watson’s ruling is that it has almost no basis in law, deferring instead to Watson’s subjective lay of the land from a sociological perspective.
Referencing the ongoing controversy as regards Trump’s travel ban, on Friday, March 17, conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh warned that America would be on the verge of a constitutional crisis should federal judges continue to block Trump’s ability to execute his policies. If allowed to stand without decisive and vigorous resistance by the administration, Limbaugh insisted that it could lead to other arbitrary limits on constitutionally provided presidential powers later on.
Other conservative commentators like Sean Hannity weighed in with related insights, concerns and a similar level of outrage pertaining to the illicit exercise of power by leftist ideologues such as activist judges.
Realistically, what President Trump has attempted to do in mitigating the unfettered immigration of individuals from Islamic nations who may pose a risk to our national security is a mere shadow of more heavy-handed measures taken by past American presidents when national security was at issue. Of course, many Americans are unaware of this, given trends in education over the last several decades, and the establishment press is certainly not going to offer a fair comparison considering its political bent.
The concerns of these pundits and others who decry arguments and judicial rulings that cite nothing other Trump’s designation as an anti-Muslim bigot in order to justify the sabotage of his lawful actions as president are unequivocally valid. The deeds of prominent leftists and activist judges like Watson also stand in stark contrast to their having facilitated all manner of crimes committed by the Obama administration over the last eight years.
On another front, we have the ongoing congressional battle over Obamacare. After seven years of Republican calls to repeal the manifestly evil law, we’ve been treated to weeks and weeks of obfuscation and the deflecting of blame for being impeded in their efforts to rout Obamacare, an issue upon which Trump ran and which a veritable oodle of Americans support.
On Tuesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters that President Trump and House Republicans had sealed the deal on Ryan’s American Health Care Act. I don’t have to tell regular readers of this column that conservatives think this legislation is garbage, and they have good cause to think so.
I’ve said it before, and I’m sure I’ll say it again many times: The reason that Washington Republicans are equivocating with regard to repealing Obamacare is because of the fundamental usurpations of personal liberty and latitude granted government contained therein. Progressives brought about these developments, and Washington Republicans are progressives. Why would they so easily divest themselves of that which took them so long through so much subterfuge and deceit to obtain?
Paul Ryan and the rest of his odious puke colleagues didn’t oppose Barack Obama when he was running roughshod over the Constitution for eight years, and you don’t hear them complaining about his antics now. They will continue to play the role of impotent foil to far left machinations in the Beltway until America is a lumbering, broken, economically crippled has-been of a nation like so many in Europe.
With friends like these, who needs a shadow government?
Article posted with permission from Erik Rush