, , , , , , , , ,

A recent statement made by Robert Gibbs regarding the mindset of politics in the 2012 election cycle has our nation in a state of laughter. Most people were aware that he was a factual phony, but nobody knew the former press secretary cold be factually funny. In an effort to turn the dialect of the news cycle towards the economy Robert Gibbs stated that it’s

time to get rid of this mindset in our politics that, if we disagree, we have to question character and faith.”

Blinded by his own ideology, I doubt that Gibbs even knew that he was the pot calling the kettle black! Apparently Gibbs has a short memory, or perhaps a selective memory; more than likely it is a combination of the two. Right out of the gate Obama has heedlessly stomped on anyone who dared to disagree with him or his policies. No matter what Gibbs would have you believe, there is no hope that Obama will change his approach any time soon.

The real mockery is that his tactics are disregarded by the press. So it is no big surprise that the lame stream media would favor Gibbs plea when he claims that poor li’l Barry is being picked on; instantly they run to his defense, like the good little lapdogs they are.

In early 2008, during the primary election, Obama gave us the first glimpse of what we could expect out of him. Unguardedly, with a live microphone that he thought was off, Obama denigrated the people of Pennsylvania and those who live in the Midwest while at a fundraiser in San Francisco.

Remember the statement . . .

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

That statement came about while discussing the loss of jobs in those areas. Unvarnished, Obama managed to cast a wide net in a short statement. In a mere three sentences Obama not only belittled the citizens of Pennsylvania and those living in the Midwest for their religious affiliation and penchant for owning guns, but he cast aspersions at the Clinton and Bush Administrations for not coming to the aid of those in the Midwest and in the small towns of Pennsylvania. 

Furthermore, he implied that they were racist by stating that they had ill will toward people who were different. He goes on to intensify the situation by inferring that they have “anti-immigrant sentiments” and “anti-trade sentiments.” His perception that the electorate from the small towns of Pennsylvania and those of the from Midwest employ that sort of hatred “to explain their frustrations,” is pure conjecture. How could he possibly stereotype that many people with such a small group of characterizations? Undoubtedly and unashamedly he attacked their faith and characters.

It is likelier that he was just grouping his critics together to make it easier for him to swallow the fact that he is not as well liked as he imagines he is. More recently, it has become commonplace for Obama to box up his up his detractors in stereotypical fashion, just as he did with his previous statement, so he can then unleash his minions on them. 

The truism that actions speak louder than words sustains the rationality that Obama has internalized a Machiavellian morality. The Obama Doctrine is that “all means may be resorted to for the establishment and preservation of authority.” All one has to do is look at his dealings to know that nothing is below him; which is why it is so fantastic that Gibbs would even bother to incriminate the Obama Administration and Campaign by espousing the phony an laughable notion that religion and character should be left out of an election campaign.

In the same way, Obama perpetually defends his actions by blaming his predecessor; if not, he drags out the race card to gain empathy with the electorate. In the process, he unavoidably attacks someone’s character. In fact, he has dragged it out so often that Eric Holder tried to use it while being questioned by Congress about the “Fast and Furious /Gun Walking” scandal. Unfortunate for him, he doesn’t rate the amount of empathy that Obama does from the media, so the media paid no heed to Holder’s claims. Holder’s improprieties to our nation and the U.S. Department of Justice are pretty serious, yet Robert Gibbs has no problem defending them.

Recently, it has been noted that Obama is not a bad politician; it is just his leadership skills that are lacking. Along the same lines, most everyone will agree that Obama is no dummy when it comes to manipulating the public, but he is not near as sly as he perceives himself. The entire 2008 Obama Presidential Campaign, primary and general elections included, was largely based on ploys that included race baiting and the use of white guilt. Sure there was a smattering of other devices they employed, but the tricks that were aforementioned were most effective in his bid for the White House.

A prime example is when the Obama campaign tried to falsely brand the Clintons as racists. Off the record, Obama made an unsubstantiated claim in the presence of Tucker Carlson and other reporters that the Clintons opposed Barack Obama because he was black; as a result, and without validation, the press was expected to just assume they were racists. It could be easily argued that it was his intention to crank up the rumor mill on the sly so he wouldn’t be blamed for the peccadillo. Consequently, the seeds of discontent would be planted in the minds of those people who might have otherwise voted for Hillary in the primary election.

In addition, and also during the primary election, Clinton had mentioned that it was Lyndon Johnson, a sitting President, who had signed the civil rights act, not Martin Luther King. [incidentally it was Dwight D Eisenhower who enacted the first legislation revolving around civil rights, not LBJ or MLK]  In any case, Clinton’s comment was ill received by some people, and it was misconstrued as a racist statement. Truth be told, there was nothing racist about the statement, but Obama remained indifferent and never spoke out, and in time it was accepted by some that the Clintons were in fact racist. Allowing the racism to fester was no different than Obama actually being the source of it.

For certain, Obama is no stranger to racism; his book “Dreams from My Father” implicitly illustrates it. Racism and epithets are flagrantly littered throughout the whole book. Numerous character assassinations can be viewed in the book as well.

Obama’s statement that “We don’t mind the republicans coming along with us, but they got to sit in back” is a barefaced reference to Rosa Parks and her plight. No only does Obama devalue her struggles, but the context of the reference smacks of reverse racism. His use of such tactics supports the contention that he is bigoted. It is getting harder and harder to deny that Obama is the least presidential man the oval office has ever seen.

Furthermore, it appears that Obama isn’t satisfied with personally impinging on the ideology of others; he has also asserted himself in ways the produce a domino effect. In this manner he has inspired hatred in a way that gets others to do his bidding. In a radio address directed at Latinos on Univision Radio, Obama declared that . . .

. . . if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on the issues that are important to us,’ . . . I they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2nd.

Again, Obama shamelessly pulled out the race card; although, he used “Latino guilt” in this instance. In this instance he tries to drive a wedge between the Latino voters and Republicans; with an alternate spin, he also drives a wedge between the Latinos who support him and the Latinos who do not support him.

For all he knows he has destroyed the harmony among umpteen families by plotting family member against family member. He did not only encouraging those Latino voters to punish their enemies, but he condemned those Latinos who don’t criticize other Latinos who do not support Obama. In this occurrence, he has cleverly “questioned the character” of those Latinos who may not agree with him without being forthright about it; never let it be said that Obama is not a silver tongued devil. His transgressions matter none to him; it has been stated before that Obama fits the profile of a sociopath, and this example exemplifies his sociopathic tendencies. Quite often Obama does things he knows that are wrong, yet he still does them anyhow; that is the profile of a sociopath. In short, Obama has no sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Another good example that showcases how small minded they really are is when they attacked the character of people in Arizona by calling them “enemies” just for supporting the immigration legislation that the state tried to implement. The understanding that democrats and liberals are open minded is a misconception; their policies and ideology may be open minded, but they are not open minded enough to concede that others may very well not agree with their system of beliefs. What is more is that Obama has gone as far as trying to discredit Fox News as a credible news source because they speak out against him, his cabinet, and his policies.   

His willingness to utilize the divide and conquer tactic is another major indignation. At this very moment the Obama Administration is slandering U.S. Citizens who earn more money than other U.S.Citizens; his end goal is to incite a Maoist uprising. Labeling the likes of those well off as “fat cat bankers,” it is Obama’s intention to vilify them. It is his goal to demonize those who are more fortunate in the eyes of those who are less fortunate. Forget that many of them started at the bottom rung of the ladder and used sweat equity to get to the top of the ladder; Obama only wants the electorate to take notice of what he wants them to take notice of. None of that matters; all that matters is that he is enabled to ply his policies on our nation. It is his goal to mischaracterize these people as a way to achieve re-election.

As you can see, Robert Gibbs’ declaration that it’s time to play nice is the height of hypocrisy! What is good for the goose is good for the gander! If Obama and Gibbs expect others to play by the rules set out by the Marquis of Queensberry, then they had damn well better adhere to the rules they claim to live by. And thus far, they have a track record that is not very pleasing. The voting public may as well accept the fact that Obama is the disingenuous type, and as long as he acts that way others will too.

The artificiality of Obama’s actions are well established. Remember “Joe the Plumber?” Obama and his minions heartlessly assassinated his character because he questioned Obama’s ability to stay the course on his proposed tax hike for those Americans who made more than 250K per year. Joe was right; whether he was in a position to own his own business or not. Obama was not able to stay the course; and his promise to not raise taxes on those making less than 250K was broken. Although Joe had his character destroyed, his question to Obama that day was pricesless. He succeeded in showing the world what sort of person Obama is, and inadvertently, just how far he would go to achieve his objectives.

More than likely this plea from Gibbs is just another instance of the Obama Machine trying to position itself above the fray. Nevertheless, his artificiality is transparent as their condescension is ever so evident; many of his statements, like the one telling republicans to get to the back of the bus, bear out the reality that Obama is nothing more than a lout.

At the end of the day, their authoritarianism divulges their intentions and though they may believe they are the cream of the crop, and think they are smarter than the common folks who put them in office, they’ll soon find out that that same arrogance will be the beginning of their demise.