Whose Side Is Obama On, Anyway?

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Our sitting president, Barack Obama, is either oblivious to the wishes and needs of his constituents or he is deliberately choosing a side opposed to them.

An example: Recently, the state of Arizona passed an immigration law. This law is quite similar to a federal law on immigration, so why was it needed? Because no one in the federal government is making any attempt to enforce protection against the invasion of illegal immigrants and because Arizona is facing a steadily growing crime rate.

Phoenix is especially vulnerable, with kidnappings and murders at an all time high. The finger for this crime points to drug wars and an unstoppable influx of criminals entering Arizona illegally.

The vast majority of Arizonans are in favor of this new state law. The vast majority of Americans are also in favor of it. The Obama administration is opposed to it and has, in fact, taken action to sue Arizona in an effort to block the law.

Why? If my memory serves me, Arizona is one of our 50 states; Arizonans are citizens of the United States of America. Hence the administration is flying full force against our own people - people determined to stop the encroachment of lawbreakers. It would thus appear that Barack Obama is on the side of those same lawbreakers.

To what purpose? Try this one on for size: close to 20 million Hispanic votes. In other words, who cares what the public thinks if we can just get re-elected?

The Gulf oil spill is clearly a calamity. It was caused by incompetence, shortcuts and failure to follow standard safety precautions - not by the oil industry, but by one of its companies, a corporation with a long history of violations, BP. Historically, however, most of the deep seas drilling operations have worked fine. Why then would this administration seek to ban further drilling?

It might have been a knee-jerk reaction, which should have been pulled back when it was pointed out that thousands of jobs would be lost by this ban and that the drilling rigs would move to other countries (like Brazil), never to return. But when a federal judge ruled against the ban, the administration fought back, stamping its feet like an angry child at recess who is determined to have his own way. Whose side is he on?

This arrogance - this narcissism - is evident in Barack Obama's every speech. He has mastered the calm, low-key approach that manages to place the guilt on George W. Bush, but the American public is beginning to see through a facade of broken promises and outright lies.

We face record-breaking debt and out-of-control spending. Yet with soft-spoken eloquence, our president contends that everything is fine. Even ultra-liberal papers like The Denver Post are beginning to ask if Obama will ever accept the responsibility for anything or will continue to blame Bush. You can only go so far with spin before people ask: Whose side are you on?

Massachusetts' health care, which provided a blueprint for Obamacare, has been pronounced a total disaster, yet Obama keeps defending it and promises to jam through similar catastrophic bills like cap-and-trade. This despite the overwhelming objections by real experts and the majority of the American public.

A man who was never even a Boy Scout is dubbed commander-in-chief and tells West Point graduates with decades of experience how to run an army. This list of egotistical errors goes on and on.

I hear daily from a growing groundswell of people calling for impeachment. I think this would be a mistake, for impeachment is only a charge, and this Congress would never convict. Besides, getting rid of Obama would give us Biden and, should something happen to him, Pelosi. Most of us cringe at the very thought of that.

No, the solution lies in November, when we can take back the House and Senate and place roadblocks in front of someone who is clearly not on our side.

Allan Jefferys, a former New York theater critic and newsman, lives in Pinehurst. Contact him at oldjeff@nc.rr.com.

More like this story

publius 1 year, 10 months ago

Mr. Jefferys' provocative essay is hard to ignore. I would but remind the author that President Obama was not 'dubbed' Commander-in-Chief, but was elected to fulfill this Constitutionally mandated role by a majority of American voters and, as Commander-in-Chief, he is expected to provide guidance to the military leadership on running the Army. President Obama may not be Mr. Jeffery's cup of tea, but I'm not too sure that this sort of demonization advances Mr. Jeffrys' case for change.

sgmartin 1 year, 10 months ago

Obama is "either oblivious to the wishes and needs of his constituents or he is deliberately choosing a side opposed to them"?? Not sure that is true. For sure he is advancing an agenda that I think is long overdue - in small steps - much slower than I would like but then I recognize change takes time. But please don't speak for me or others who support the Obama administration. He still has my approval with the exception of the war(s) which will bankrupt us unless we rethink our strategy. Terrorism isn't waged using a 1950s war paradigm.

coffecreme 1 year, 10 months ago

Dont speak for me either Mr Jeffreys. I am quite satisfied with him. Sure I wish this economy would turn around nillywilly but it took at least 10 years or more to get into this mess and I am willing to be patient. He is representing me just fine thank you.

RmeMP 1 year, 10 months ago

while those of you who know me, know its no secret that i "dislike" the current POTUS, i have to say one thing about this - the immigration problem is not his fault. immigration has been boke for a VERY long time, and needs to be addressed and fixed. the problem that i DO have with the POTUS in regards to this subject, is that he is actually trying to sue the state of arizona for enacting legislation which they wouldn't need if the government would do their job on the matter.

arizona, by passing this new law, is shouting out to the governement; what they did can be metaphorically compared to a troubled tean attempting a feable suicide attempt - THEY ARE CRYING OUT FOR HELP! the problem, is that this administration, by sueing them of instead of offering assistance, is like telling that same teenager, "no - your on your own".

as a republican, i want secure borders - as a democrat, those of you who are, you want amnesty; ok, i have an idea: shut down the borders, to the north and south, entirely (except for commerce reasons) for 6 months to 1 year, and offer any illegals currently in the country amnesty on conditions (background check, obtain id, etc...) while at the same time coming up with a way to ensure faster legalization processes for the future; then, once the borders are reopened, we maintain a strict "no trespassing law" as most countries do.

opinions?

DaveyNC 1 year, 10 months ago

Mr. Jefferys didn't finish his Arizona law example, leaving the door open for sgmartin and coffeecreme to say, "Don't speak for me." What Mr. Jefferys should have included is a statement that current polls show that, for instance, 70% of the populace support the Arizona law; 55 to 60% oppose health care reform; the majority of people oppose the drilling ban in the Gulf and so on. So, regardless of sgmartin's and coffeecreme's positions, Obama is demonstrably going against the majority of the electorate.

Obama has staked out what he thinks is the moral high ground, acting as the nation's parent, wagging his finger at all of us and forcing us to do what he thinks is right. Problem is, he has spent his entire life sitting in an ivory tower with like minded individuals telling him he is right and he is brilliant. He never bothered to test his elegant theories in the real world and he is learning that theory and practice are two very different things. In theory, we can talk to the Norks and Iran and get them to disarm. In reality, they ratchet up their rhetoric and their nuclear proliferation efforts. In theory, Obama can "give" us health care, in practice, we can't afford it. It's easy for him to denounce the Arizona law, it's hard for him to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Our national scold got elected by taking the easy way; he said all the right things to entrance the electorate, but he doesn't have the ability to govern. He makes a nice speech. He makes an awful chief executive.

GoldenDreams 1 year, 10 months ago

You hear daily from people who want to impeach the President, Mr. Jefferys? That is a little extreme. On what grounds? Like it or not, he is our President and he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. His agenda is progressive and it is more like you just don't agree with him. My only problem with him is that the Iraq War is still in operation, which he said he would end within 16 months of his presidency. That money could be better used in this country. But don't get me started on why we are even in Iraq in the first place.

theonewithsense 1 year, 10 months ago

According to the Obama administration, the new health care insurance mandate is a tax. In reality it is probably worse than a tax, but at least their true colors are starting to shine through.

The truth is taxes will be raised on everybody not just the smokers and tanners that make more than $250,000 a year.

In Obama's defense, most politicians lies, just not as much as he does.

Whose Side Is Obama On, Anyway?

More like this story

Comments

May events