A few days ago, news junkies learned of a story that has since picked up momentum, and whose accompanying video segment has gone viral online. This involves a North Carolina high school student named Hunter Rogers, who was berated by his teacher after he questioned her on the relevance of President Obama’s past versus that of presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney. The teacher went medieval, alternately belittling and threatening Rogers while spewing inane propaganda and inaccuracies in a classic shrill, histrionic fit.
Whether this teacher is intellectually challenged, or was having some sort of emotional episode, the question of whether or not she ought to retain her teaching credentials should be taken seriously, since instructors like her are a significant part of the reason for social unconsciousness on the part of Americans in general. If you’ve not had the opportunity to listen to this exchange, you’re really missing out, because it exemplifies not only the abysmal level of competence on the part of some of our educators, but the irrational allegiance some Obama supporters have to him.
As the reader may have noticed, elements of the press have picked up on news stories and commentary relating to President Obama’s myriad radical associations over the years, the fact that these were overlooked (to put it extremely mildly) during the 2008 campaign, and that candidate Obama was never properly vetted.
Some believe that this pursuit is folly, not only from the vantage point of being old news, but reasoning that if it didn’t gain any traction the first time around, it is unlikely to do so now. Then, there is the inevitability that the left will accuse anyone so doing of beating a dead horse out of antipathy for the president, racism and things of this nature.
Leaving aside the double standard that most certainly exists with regard to everyone but Obama being fair game for public scrutiny, there are a few reasons I disagree with these assessments. I believe that there is potentially a great deal to be gained by rehashing Obama’s history and, given the stakes, every reason to include it in our proverbial arsenal.
Toward the end of last week, as these stories really began to gain momentum, Mitt Romney essentially disavowed dredging up Obama’s past as a political strategy for his campaign. There are a few things many of us find wrong with this, first and foremost the GOP’s past losses due to their unwillingness to go for the jugular. There is also the fact that most Americans remain unaware of Obama’s past (despite the Obama campaign’s criticisms of Romney referencing events that occurred during the Pleistocene Era). Finally – and most important – there is the reality that all of the points being raised concerning the president’s past and questionable associations are germane to his subsequent policy development.
Well, the GOP leadership can be invertebrates if they like; we cannot control that, but we may be able to change it over time. We can only hope that whoever the Republican nominee is that he runs an intelligent and effective campaign. One of the things that came out of a meeting of conservative journalists and commentators in New York last week was that it will have to be our job – as well as that of thousands of citizen journalists – to speak to these truths in the coming months for the elucidation of American voters.
One of the items that spoke volumes to this issue was recent video of the Daily Caller’s Michelle Fields (which aired on a segment of Fox News “Hannity” on May 18) interviewing random New Yorkers. Citing passages from Barack Obama’s 1995 compendium of lies “Dreams From My Father,” Fields asked individuals if they knew of the book, and the many convicting statements Obama made relative to his associations and political philosophy therein.
Not one of them had heard of the book, but most were markedly disturbed.
My contention is that having been apprised of these sobering facts, Americans will finally understand why President Obama has been operating as he’s been operating. Of course Obamacare is overreaching, intrusive and unconstitutional; it was crafted by a lifelong radical, America-hating Marxist and his like-minded colleagues. Why wouldn’t Obama’s economic policy give rise to high unemployment and the failure of businesses, since communism is diametrically opposed to capitalism?
It won’t necessarily be important that Americans have a deep working knowledge of the history of communism to grasp why it has been necessary for Obama to divide us by class; it’s always been the Marxist modus operandi. They’ll understand why Obama came out in support of gay “marriage,” and why blacks are now being pressured to do the same by a compromised black clergy. Americans will know fully why the administration is attacking religious organizations. They will also comprehend why it was integral to the agenda for the left to cultivate a slavish dedication to Obama, as evidenced by the Hunter Rogers incident, as well as countless others.
Thus, there is much more value in bringing Obama’s past associations to the fore than simply educating people as to what he is all about. Americans will finally have an opportunity to see the subtle (and not-so-subtle) machinations of radicals in America over the last 50 years and how Obama is attempting to bring their grand design to fruition, here and now.