Ever get really drunk and wake up the next morning with a truly scary president? I did, a couple of times. I mean, I didn't wake up in bed with them, but you get the point. Mercifully, I didn't know at the time how scary they'd actually wind up being – but I found out soon enough.
That's similar to what happened on Jan. 21, 2009. This time, I hadn't been drunk the night before, but I knew how scary the president would be right from the start.
Last week in this space, I evaluated some of President Obama's milquetoasty rhetoric at the United Nations General Assembly. As the meeting progressed, it only got worse, with our president reviving 1970s namby-pamby overtures toward nuclear disarmament. If the issue didn't have the potential to result in millions of incinerated human beings, I would have been doubled up on the ground, laughing uproariously.
We've seen this sort of thing before with Democrat administrations. Don't get me wrong; the Republican Party leadership definitely deserves to have the soles of their feet beaten for the abysmal leadership they provided when they had the White House and a congressional majority. But for the last 30 years, Democrat administrations have done nothing but a collective ankle grab as regards foreign policy – and our enemies have always been quick to take advantage of it.
Last week, I also touched on some of my earlier excursions into the foreign-policy debate, and intimated that a doctrine of allowing other nations to run themselves off the rails is fine in so far as they don't threaten anyone else. Some currently do threaten us, and we have fallen short in addressing same.
I believe that this guideline applies to aspects of our domestic situation as well. As a society, we've pretty much decided that allowing Americans of other belief systems or mores to run their lives off the rails is acceptable. Once more, concerning the in so far as they don't threaten anyone else part, we have again fallen short. To a degree, this is because we have allowed some of those who choose to run their lives off the rails to set the agenda.
Two poignant reminders in this area occurred last week. By now, many are aware of the growing controversy over some video footage that surfaced of approximately 20 New Jersey schoolchildren singing songs in class that praised President Obama. In these ditties, the students chanted the president's name and referenced his accomplishments, whatever those are.
While some, even among Obama critics, maintain that this sort of thing is harmless, others point out that no other American presidents have been so honored, and cite similar methods used for youth indoctrination by the likes of Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro. Certainly, this would not be the first time that the issue of a totalitarian modus operandi as regards Obama and many of his surrogates has been raised.
Yes, yes – I've already been accused of being horribly disingenuous for dropping the H-bomb (that being Hitler) in the same discussion as President Obama; here, I would remind that I am not equating Obama with Hitler (as many on the left had no problem doing, and with impunity, regarding our last president), I am comparing methodology. I spent a significant amount of time last week reading and listening to the testimony of people who'd been raised in Hitler's Germany and Castro's Cuba; they testified to having experienced this very type of indoctrination as children.
Earlier in the week, the story of President Obama's appointment of Kevin Jennings as director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools appeared in the press, though not widely. Jennings, a radical homosexual, founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), an educational consulting organization with over 4,000 chapters in schools across America. He has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, and written unapologetically about his own drug use. In one instance, his group was criticized for graphically describing unorthodox sex practices to students.
One has to ask oneself why it is that Obama repeatedly chooses some of the most wildly inappropriate individuals one could conceive of to serve in high-level positions. A radical homosexual druggie for his "safe schools czar"? It's practically inconceivable.
Inconceivable unless one is aware of this president's radical agenda for America, one which his minions and the establishment press have continued to deny and successfully veil from the eyes of many Americans. Obama, being a creature of the farthest left, has no qualms whatever about allowing activist homosexuals – or people who are soft on drugs – to set the moral agenda for this country; the more dysfunctional and enslaved to sensualism we are, the more easily manipulated we will be. And going after the children, as we have learned, is nothing new.
While conscientious Americans fight health care reform and enlighten their neighbors as to the dangers this administration poses in the areas of the economy and geopolitics, we can't forget those areas in which progressives – and this administration in particular – seek to fundamentally transform American hearts and minds.