Chris Adamo
The Obama/Napolitano doctrine: conservatism verboten
By Chris Adamo
In the midst of all the current turmoil, it is worthwhile to recall the fetid episode involving former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who in the fall of 2003 was caught stealing documents from the National Archives, which he later destroyed. The timing of Berger's action was thoroughly telling, occurring at the outset of Congressional hearings on the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The Department of Justice conducted its tepid investigation, and endeavored to whitewash the whole incident, no doubt in deference to George Bush's "new tone." Nevertheless, as a result of the few facts that did emerge, the only plausible conclusion was that Berger was attempting to obliterate historical evidence of the numerous failings of the Clinton Administration, and its ultimate culpability in leaving America vulnerable to the predations of Islamic terrorists.
Nevertheless, though the incriminating specifics of Clinton malfeasance may have been successfully eradicated by Berger's actions, the entire Clinton presidency was an inescapable indictment of the dangers reaped from national leadership bent on a liberal agenda, instead of responsibly serving the country. Clinton's terms in office were an ongoing succession of foolhardy ventures, ultimately subordinating the well being of the nation to the lunacy of his "politically correct" staff.
From the misdirection of government agencies such as the FBI and IRS to assail political enemies, to the deliberate compromise of vital security protocol in exchange for dubious campaign donations from the Communist Chinese, to the repeated fumbling of evidence that Islamic terrorist operations clearly pointed to a burgeoning threat, the Clinton agenda placed the advancement of liberalism as its primary goal, while presuming such ineptitude could continue indefinitely with no negative consequences.
Eventually, America paid an enormous price in blood for the games Clinton and his enablers played with matters of national security. Yet neither Clinton, nor any of his high-level minions including Berger, were ever held properly accountable for the damage they inflicted on this country. Thus it could be assured that whenever a like-minded administration came into power, the abhorrent pattern would be continued.
It would be bad enough if the abominable "Rightwing Extremism" report, released recently by the Department of Homeland Security, were evidence of only that. But the truth is far worse. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in concert with Barack Obama, is laying the groundwork for a far grander and more sinister plan, which if suggested only a few years ago would have been instantly consigned to the realm of paranoid conspiracies. Such transparent deflections notwithstanding, the evidence is far too extensive to allow for deniability. This is the menacing reality of the Obama White House.
Obama has made claims of wanting to "unify" the nation. Yet few have properly grasped the actual intention, and thus the enormous danger posed by his goal. Unlike great former presidents, such as Ronald Reagan, who sought to bring the nation together by uplifting and inspiring, Obama seeks to ramrod his thoroughly leftist and countercultural agenda, while marginalizing and eventually silencing any opposition. Herein lies the "unity" under a tyranny.
That this "report" was conceived as a weapon to advance a Marxist political agenda is undeniable. The Obama/Napolitano cabal clearly crafted it for just that purpose. Contrary to their feeble attempts at defending the document, political conservatism is treated in a wholly different manner than any actions emanating from the left. From its opening statement, the Homeland Security report yields glaring evidence of such.
Among other weak efforts to minimize its significance, high officials have pointed out that a "similar" document exists, which offers a seemingly comparable admonition of threats from leftwing extremists. Yet right from the introductory paragraphs of each document, the stark contrast in their perception and characterization of the groups in question becomes readily apparent.
For example, in the analysis directed at "leftwing extremists," those of concern are clearly described as subgroups of animal rights, environmental and anarchist movements "that promote or have conducted criminal or terrorist activities." Yet right wing organizations are painted with an all-encompassing brush. No supporting evidence is sought or offered. Instead, seditious behavior is presumed as a result of ostensibly violent adverse reactions to everything from the current economic situation, to the anti-life, anti-Christian predisposition of the Democrats, to Obama's race (of course).
In short, any governmental scrutiny of left-wing extremists studiously adheres to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," while the examination of conservative America is flagrantly couched in the liberal mindset that those on the right are, by definition, "guilty until proven innocent." Sadly, this situation has been allowed to ensue for so long that even now, rather than simply confronting the atrocious nature of this DHS "analysis," many conservatives feel a need to simply defend themselves on terms dictated almost entirely by the left.
Thus does Obama, abetted by Napolitano, plan to tighten the noose around real America. Those who believe in the Constitution, the Second Amendment, or even the biologically undeniable reality of the humanity of the unborn, now represent a "radicalizing" element within which this government finds a threat.
Barack Obama, who genuflects to a Saudi king and grovels before third world tinhorn communist dictators as they verbally assail and castigate the greatness of this country, sees his real enemy in the people of the heartland. He denies every worthy vestige of the nation's history in the presence of foreign leaders who disdain its very existence, striving to gain their approval by sacrificing the former standing of his country.
Likewise, on a short leash that Obama obviously holds, his Homeland Security Secretary is busy looking out for the "rights" and "dignity" of illegal aliens, while categorizing the good people of this country as would-be terrorists, and downplaying the ever-encroaching and real threat of more attacks from the Islamists. Neither of them, nor any high-level official of this administration, has produced a single shred of proof that they are vigilant of the real dangers that loom.
Like Russian roulette, this is a game that cannot be played indefinitely. America's enemies, including those who now backslap the egotistically blinded Obama, will seize their opportunities presented by his myopic governing philosophy. But even that danger is secondary to the threat posed by a government that regards as hostile, imminently dangerous and thus in need of suppression, the free and open expressions of sincere disagreement from its honorable and impassioned citizens.
© Chris Adamo
April 23, 2009
In the midst of all the current turmoil, it is worthwhile to recall the fetid episode involving former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who in the fall of 2003 was caught stealing documents from the National Archives, which he later destroyed. The timing of Berger's action was thoroughly telling, occurring at the outset of Congressional hearings on the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The Department of Justice conducted its tepid investigation, and endeavored to whitewash the whole incident, no doubt in deference to George Bush's "new tone." Nevertheless, as a result of the few facts that did emerge, the only plausible conclusion was that Berger was attempting to obliterate historical evidence of the numerous failings of the Clinton Administration, and its ultimate culpability in leaving America vulnerable to the predations of Islamic terrorists.
Nevertheless, though the incriminating specifics of Clinton malfeasance may have been successfully eradicated by Berger's actions, the entire Clinton presidency was an inescapable indictment of the dangers reaped from national leadership bent on a liberal agenda, instead of responsibly serving the country. Clinton's terms in office were an ongoing succession of foolhardy ventures, ultimately subordinating the well being of the nation to the lunacy of his "politically correct" staff.
From the misdirection of government agencies such as the FBI and IRS to assail political enemies, to the deliberate compromise of vital security protocol in exchange for dubious campaign donations from the Communist Chinese, to the repeated fumbling of evidence that Islamic terrorist operations clearly pointed to a burgeoning threat, the Clinton agenda placed the advancement of liberalism as its primary goal, while presuming such ineptitude could continue indefinitely with no negative consequences.
Eventually, America paid an enormous price in blood for the games Clinton and his enablers played with matters of national security. Yet neither Clinton, nor any of his high-level minions including Berger, were ever held properly accountable for the damage they inflicted on this country. Thus it could be assured that whenever a like-minded administration came into power, the abhorrent pattern would be continued.
It would be bad enough if the abominable "Rightwing Extremism" report, released recently by the Department of Homeland Security, were evidence of only that. But the truth is far worse. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in concert with Barack Obama, is laying the groundwork for a far grander and more sinister plan, which if suggested only a few years ago would have been instantly consigned to the realm of paranoid conspiracies. Such transparent deflections notwithstanding, the evidence is far too extensive to allow for deniability. This is the menacing reality of the Obama White House.
Obama has made claims of wanting to "unify" the nation. Yet few have properly grasped the actual intention, and thus the enormous danger posed by his goal. Unlike great former presidents, such as Ronald Reagan, who sought to bring the nation together by uplifting and inspiring, Obama seeks to ramrod his thoroughly leftist and countercultural agenda, while marginalizing and eventually silencing any opposition. Herein lies the "unity" under a tyranny.
That this "report" was conceived as a weapon to advance a Marxist political agenda is undeniable. The Obama/Napolitano cabal clearly crafted it for just that purpose. Contrary to their feeble attempts at defending the document, political conservatism is treated in a wholly different manner than any actions emanating from the left. From its opening statement, the Homeland Security report yields glaring evidence of such.
Among other weak efforts to minimize its significance, high officials have pointed out that a "similar" document exists, which offers a seemingly comparable admonition of threats from leftwing extremists. Yet right from the introductory paragraphs of each document, the stark contrast in their perception and characterization of the groups in question becomes readily apparent.
For example, in the analysis directed at "leftwing extremists," those of concern are clearly described as subgroups of animal rights, environmental and anarchist movements "that promote or have conducted criminal or terrorist activities." Yet right wing organizations are painted with an all-encompassing brush. No supporting evidence is sought or offered. Instead, seditious behavior is presumed as a result of ostensibly violent adverse reactions to everything from the current economic situation, to the anti-life, anti-Christian predisposition of the Democrats, to Obama's race (of course).
In short, any governmental scrutiny of left-wing extremists studiously adheres to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," while the examination of conservative America is flagrantly couched in the liberal mindset that those on the right are, by definition, "guilty until proven innocent." Sadly, this situation has been allowed to ensue for so long that even now, rather than simply confronting the atrocious nature of this DHS "analysis," many conservatives feel a need to simply defend themselves on terms dictated almost entirely by the left.
Thus does Obama, abetted by Napolitano, plan to tighten the noose around real America. Those who believe in the Constitution, the Second Amendment, or even the biologically undeniable reality of the humanity of the unborn, now represent a "radicalizing" element within which this government finds a threat.
Barack Obama, who genuflects to a Saudi king and grovels before third world tinhorn communist dictators as they verbally assail and castigate the greatness of this country, sees his real enemy in the people of the heartland. He denies every worthy vestige of the nation's history in the presence of foreign leaders who disdain its very existence, striving to gain their approval by sacrificing the former standing of his country.
Likewise, on a short leash that Obama obviously holds, his Homeland Security Secretary is busy looking out for the "rights" and "dignity" of illegal aliens, while categorizing the good people of this country as would-be terrorists, and downplaying the ever-encroaching and real threat of more attacks from the Islamists. Neither of them, nor any high-level official of this administration, has produced a single shred of proof that they are vigilant of the real dangers that loom.
Like Russian roulette, this is a game that cannot be played indefinitely. America's enemies, including those who now backslap the egotistically blinded Obama, will seize their opportunities presented by his myopic governing philosophy. But even that danger is secondary to the threat posed by a government that regards as hostile, imminently dangerous and thus in need of suppression, the free and open expressions of sincere disagreement from its honorable and impassioned citizens.
© Chris Adamo
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
