Being portrayed as monsters by an American president is nothing new for Conservatives. The Clintons certainly dabbled in it. In 1995 President Clinton linked Conservatives to the Oklahoma City bombing. Soon afterwards his wife blamed Conservatives, as part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” for his adultery and subsequent perjury. Yet President Obama’s recent attempt to essentially call Conservatives “terrorists” is a new low in partisan politics.
On April 14, Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, released an intelligence report that lists veterans as “a terrorist risk to the U.S.” and defines “right-wing extremism” as including groups opposed to abortion and immigration. “ It should be noted that this assessment that those of us who are pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, and/or military veterans were a “terrorist risk” was made despite having “no specific information domestic right-wing terrorists are planning acts of violence.”1
How odd is it that right-wingers and veterans can be stereotyped as terrorist risks, without any evidence that Conservatives are planning on strapping on suicide belts any time soon, in a way we would never allow a young Saudi Arabian male boarding an airplane with an one-way ticket to be stereotyped as a terrorist risk?
Furthermore, it is no coincidence that this should come out on the eve of the national Tea Parties. What better way to attempt to counter the voice of thousands publicly protesting his tax policies than to mock them (tea bagging jokes), pretend they are not noteworthy (Gibbs saying Obama didn’t know about the Tea Parties), or by smear. Obama has chosen all of the above.
And yes, Obama should be blamed for this. True his spokesman denied any involvement from The One in this, but isn’t this always the case whenever a cabinet member of his utters some outrageous leftist comment? Obama remember “had nothing to do” with Eric Holder – the first African American Attorney General, for the first African American President – calling the US a nation of cowards on the issue of race. Nor did Obama have anything to do with Secretary of Veteran Affairs, Eric Shinseki, suggesting the military veterans hurt while in uniform be responsible for paying the costs of their rehabilitation.
Our President seems strangely detached to controversial (to the Left anyway) military decisions ranging from extending the war in Iraq to continuing Bush policies on torture and state secrets to shooting teenaged Somalian pirates. Obama obviously can no more be aware of any controversial remarks made by his White House team than he can be of the terrorism of William Ayers, or the “Damn America” remarks of his reverend of twenty years.
To know the real Barack Obama one must listen to what he says when he doesn’t think anyone is listening. Further evidence of Obama’s fingerprints being on the DHS “right-wing extremist” report comes from observing how similar in tone this report is to the speech he gave in San Francisco at a fundraiser, a speech that was not supposed to have been recorded:
It’s not surprising then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Another thing about these bitter, gun clinging, right-wing Jesus nuts who are so prone to becoming terrorists is that they are also quite racist. Enemies of Obama quite often are, aren’t they? At least according to him. Just as they didn’t want to vote for him because ‘he did not look like the other men on the dollar bills,’ right-wingers and military veterans, according to the DHS report, are more likely to become terrorists because of Obama being the first African-American president.
Obama first came to national prominence by speaking of a hope of a more unified, less divided nation. Unfortunately, he did not warn us that he would attempt to achieve this unity by using Saul Alinksy tactics to demonize any opposition.
1 Ms. Napolitano issued an apology for this remark on 4/16