• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Like the majority of people out there when it comes to certain issues, problems and concerns, all I need or generally want is just a simple explanation. Why did I get pulled over? Why is my power out? Why did my computer freeze? Why didn’t I get the job or why was I terminated? Many times frustration and irritation can be remedied through simple clarification by which a level of understanding is derived.

So with that somewhat obvious point in mind, I, along with many others in our country, am looking for some kind of explanation to define the current status of the upcoming crucial presidential election. No one on either side of the aisle will argue that the culmination of the ongoing presidential race isn’t the most crucial we have faced in the past several decades. There are two drastically differing ideologies that, depending on the immanent outcome at hand, will send our nation along two very different paths for the foreseeable and maybe permanent future.

So here’s my question(s): Why is a man with such an abysmal record on the economy (which undoubtedly is or largely should be the focal point of voting in November) not only leading in the large majority of national and swing-state polls, but why is he not figuratively getting “run out of town” by we the American voter? Why is the first president in American history to oversee an economy that has experienced negative job growth during his tenure even competitive during this election process? How is a man who promised to cut the national debt in half during his first term, yet increased it by more in three and a half years than the last two presidents did in the previous 16, even being taken seriously? Why is a man who has resided over an administration that has seen a “jaw-dropping” spike in poverty levels and entitlement dependency the current front-runner in the most crucial election of our time?

Mr. Obama, you engaged yourself in an epic battle to turn this economy around, which was not dissimilar to the effort undertaken by Ronald Reagan. During the first few months of Reagan’s administration, as a result of the laughable presidency of Jimmy Carter, unemployment rose to over 10.8 percent. By the end of his first term unemployment had receded to just over 7 percent. You, Mr. Obama, after vowing to return this economy to full employment (through the implementation of “shovel ready jobs,” which you laughing said later weren’t so “shovel ready”), while spending us into oblivion, have seen unemployment rise almost a full point. During this exact time under Reagan’s watch, the economy was expanding at 11 percent annually, but recent second-quarter numbers show the economy under your tutelage growing at just 1.3 percent. This economy could have been and can be fixed.

At any rate, and without getting into the current and somewhat consistent foreign-policy gaffs or elaborating on the fact that for every one dollar generated in tax revenue $2.50 is added to the national debt, I think I’ve made my point in the limited space I have. So the baffling question still remains: Why in the hell are you leading in the polls and poised to actually win the upcoming election?!

After listening, studying and contemplating, I believe I’ve arrived at the unfortunate answer to my somewhat rhetorical question. I have always despairingly understood that at some point during my lifetime the greatest economy and governmental experiment this world has ever witnessed would slowly but surely morph into a state of socialism and entitlement not unlike other great powers of times gone by. I always told myself that based on blatant observation it would happen sooner or later, while naturally hoping for later. From the looks of this election it appears that later has finally arrived.

From the implementation of the first broad-ranging social entitlement programs, which were introduced through Johnson’s Great Society back in the ’60s, little by little the American populace has become more and more comfortable suckling at the government teat over the passing decades. No one can argue that the concept of expansive socialism and far-reaching entitlement were ever a component of the founding doctrine of these United States. Yet as with many things which at first are taboo, slowly they become tolerated, then accepted, then expected.

Barack Obama is the most liberal, socialist-minded individual to ever darken the doorway of the Oval Office. And what forms the backbone of the socialist mentality? Entitlement and government dependence, which has run rampant during his administration. Whether one observes the record number of Americans accepting food stamps, or the blatant socialist/entitlement foundations of Obamacare, or the battles being waged on behalf of class warfare, this administration has succeeded in not only changing the face of what’s acceptable regarding the level of individual government dependence, but what is expected.

The American mindset is changing. What will my country/government do for me? What am I entitled to? These two questions seem to be a growing theme resounding through the American mentality, which is in strong contrast to the ideologies that made this country great. Barack Obama has no ability to run on a platform of “what I’ve accomplished during my tenure” as nearly every area that measures a successful administration has been met with incompetence, futility and abject failure. Yet his message of “Free” stuff seems to be carrying him to the promise land of four more years. I hope for our country’s sake I’m mistaken – for if I’m not, America as we have known her will now and forevermore be a thing of the past.

Quote of the week: “A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.” G. Gordon Liddy

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.