The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Obama’s Fruits of Falsehood

There is an understandable
reluctance in President Barack Obama’s critics – a reluctance verging on a
fastidious decorum and civility regarding the office of the President – that
stops them from making the ultimate judgment of President Barack Hussein Obama
and his administration. It is a damnation they have avoided. Perhaps it is too
horrible for them to contemplate. They can excoriate him over the details of
his policies and actions, but never quite reach a logical conclusion. Perhaps they
believe he isn’t beyond redemption.

However, I don’t think I’m
putting my life at risk by stating, without apology, regret, hesitation, or
trepidation that:  Obama is evil. Even if he never committed another
evil action, he is irredeemable. As irredeemable as Richard Speck or Charles
Manson.

And by evil I do not mean evil by
accident, or by omission, by hypocrisy, by happenstance, by character flaw, by
insanity, or even by criminal negligence. I mean: Consciously, purposefully,
determinedly evil.

Obama is a public figure. His
policies and actions are fair game for observation, examination, and
evaluation. They’re there for all to see. His private life also has been made
public, from his closeness to America-hating Reverend Jeremiah Wright to his
frequent golfing outings to his numerous lies and cover-ups. There is not a
single speech of Obama’s, not a single pubic gesture of his or a piece of
legislation he has signed or vetoed, that has not telegraphed his malevolent motives
and intentions.

It is fruitless to take him
to task on incompetence or willful negligence or over a character flaw or even
over his ostensible “pragmatism,” which tends to backfire when his
pragmatism encounters the pragmatism of seasoned veterans like Vladimir Putin. One
can understand Mark Steyn, as he wrote in “The Benghazi
Lie
” on May 10th about the insouciance of Obama and Hillary
Clinton about why Benghazi happened:

And,
in the most revealing glimpse of the administration’s depravity, the president
and secretary of state peddled the lie even in their mawkish eulogies to their
buddy “Chris” and three other dead Americans. They lied to the victims’ coffins
and then strolled over to lie to the bereaved, Hillary telling the Woods family
that “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the
video.” And she did. The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula
Basseley Nakoula [maker of the “Innocence of Muslims” video on
YouTube] in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi. It was
such a great act of misdirection Hillary should have worn spangled tights and
sawn Stevens’s casket in half.  

Steyn issues a warning to Obama’s
and Clinton’s defenders and apologists, that they, too, can be policy fodder:

The
dying Los Angeles Times reported this story on its homepage…under the
following headline: “Partisan Politics Dominates House Benghazi Hearing.” In
fact, everyone in this story is a Democrat or a career civil servant. Chris
Stevens was the poster boy for Obama’s view of the Arab Spring; he agreed with
the president on everything that mattered. The only difference is that he
wasn’t in Vegas but out there on the front line, where Obama’s delusions meet
reality. Stevens believed in those illusions enough to die for them.

One
cannot say the same about the hollow men and women in Washington who sent him
out there unprotected, declined to lift a finger when he came under attack, and
in the final indignity subordinated his sacrifice to their political needs by
lying over his corpse. Where’s the “partisan politics”? Obama, Clinton,
Panetta, Clapper, Rice, and the rest did this to one of their own. And fawning
court eunuchs, like the ranking Democrat at the hearings, Elijah Cummings, must
surely know that, if they needed [to], they’d do it to them, too.

The subtitle of Steyn’s
column is, “A failure of character of this magnitude corrodes the
integrity of the state.” I beg to differ. This particular failure of character
had nothing to do with the integrity of the state or of the office. A
character, if it is fundamentally malign, as Obama’s is, cannot fail unless it
is opposed. And he has been opposed only haphazardly. Yes, Cummings and Rice
and Clapper can be sacrificed, if need be. In fact, by extrapolating Obama’s
penchant for sacrifice, of partisans and American lives overseas alike, one can
imagine that he can and will throw Hillary to the wolves, as well, if that will
buy him time.

Daniel Greenfield, writing as
Sultan Knish in his May 11th column, “With
Blood on Their Hands
,” ends his column on the Lady Macbeth theme on which
it is pegged, about the morbid senselessness of Obama’s and Clinton’s policies:

The
social revolution of her 1969 thesis [Clinton’s Wellesley thesis on Saul
Alinsky] is once again here, and like most revolutions, it’s a bloody mess.
Once again social values are under attack by radicals while soldiers die
overseas without being allowed to fight back. And the radicals care for nothing
for the blood that they spill for their radical revolution. Not the blood of a
single man or of a thousand men.

“What is a traitor?” Lady Macduff’s son asks his mother, before being
murdered by Macbeth’s assassins. “Why, one that swears and lies,” his
mother replies. “Who must hang them?” her son asks. “Why, the
honest men,” she answers. “Then the liars and swearers are
fools,” he says, “for there are liars and swearers enow to beat the
honest men and hang up them.”

The liars and swearers have hung up the honest men from Benghazi to Kabul to
Capitol Hill. And the traitors walk through the night with blood on their hands
and do not even see.

Nor, as Greenfield notes, will
they wail in remorse or in fear of the consequences of being party to murder,
as Lady Macbeth did. If they see blood on their hands, well, that’s life, isn’t
it? What difference does it make? They are not guilt-ridden, not shaking with
fear of moral disapprobation. After all, they will think: Aren’t we the epitome
of the oblige noblesse of altruism
and sacrifice? Sometimes that duty requires self-sacrifice, as well, but we won’t
go there, because if we sacrificed ourselves and not someone else, who would be
left to be, well, moral?

Clinton’s aggravated but
arrogontly elitist protest on January 23rd, 2012, of “What difference, at
this point, does it make?” about the lives lost at Benghazi sums up Obama’s
approach to things. Nothing matters to him at any point. Clinton is desperate
to salvage her chances for the presidency. Obama is so hollow, so malign, so
filled with the poisonous glop of hatred, he cannot feel desperation for anything.

I think the outrage expressed
by Mark Steyn and others over Obama’s and his cohorts’ actions and behavior is
misplaced; it is a response which resists acknowledgement that Obama is what he
is: evil. But all the details about the Benghazi cover-up and the Seal
Team
killings in Afghanistan which are coming out, not to mention his de facto alliance with the omnivorous Muslim
Brotherhood
, only confirm the evil. As in any portrait of any Dorian Gray,
the devil is in the details. But the brushstrokes make up the portrait. It’s the
sum of those brushstrokes that matters. It’s what you see when the canvas is
finished and the artist steps aside after explaining how all the brushstrokes
work.

So, I’m going the extra mile by
saying what must be on everyone’s minds: Obama is evil.

So are former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, and all the other policy
makers and advisors in his administration. The recurring leitmotif in all their
actions and policies from the very first day of Obama’s first term in office has
been: Destroy for the sake of destruction. Out of destruction will come
construction of a world more to our liking. Sacrifice your own allies, if
necessary, such as Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, if it will
sustain the falsehood and allow us to continue to destroy without obstruction
or surcease.

But Clinton, Holder and all
the others have merely been enabled by Obama. They are his vindictive flying
monkeys, the stinking, badgering Harpies of Hussein.

Or, try this analogy on for
size: They are the human bagworms killing this country and abbreviating our
lives. Bagworms can strip a tree of its protective bark and foliage and leave it
to die, exposed to disease and the elements. Obama wishes to strip this country
of its defenses to leave it and us exposed to the machinations of the Muslim Brotherhood,
Vladimir Putin, and other predators.

But, what, after all, is evil?

The Oxford English Dictionary has two principal definitions. The first
is “morally depraved, bad, wicked, vicious.”  The second is: “Doing or tending to do
harm; hurtful, mischievous, prejudicial.” I would amend the second
definition to read: Doing or wanting to
do harm, to be hurtful, to be insidiously nihilistic.
It would complement the first definition.

You cannot accuse him merely
of fiddling while Rome burns, even though it becoming apparent that he ordered
the arson. After all, Obama is not blindfolded and whacking a stick at a piñata
to see what falls from it once he’s smashed it. He stuffed the piñata himself,
presented it to the country as a gift, and dropped it in the country’s lap. It has
broken open and what has spilled from it is offal and excrement and toxic bile.

You doubt it? Take a look at
the shape of the country. At the character of our foreign relations.

You will excuse the imagery. I
am not given to exaggeration. I have been calling this man evil for years. I have
never hesitated to identify the reality of the man and of his motives. It was
time to be frank and that cannot entail decorous language or distaste for acknowledging
the moral repulsiveness of this creature. Kid gloves don’t agree with me. It is
time to divorce the office from the man who occupies it, to make a distinction between
the dignity of the office and the low character of the man who works every day
to rob it of every vestige of dignity.

What must be understood by Americans
is that, whether it’s Benghazi or the Afghanistan Seal Team killings or what
he’s done to this country economically and politically since taking office in
2009, is that he doesn’t mind these things happening. The “perfect”
world message propagated by Obama and his stooges in the MSM
isn’t possible. He knows this if his stooges don’t. His perfect
“transformed” America is a continent lying in ashes, overrun by Third
World illiterates and religious barbarians picking through the ruins and
savaging the survivors. At the present, the only thing he might be worried
about is how a full-blown Congressional investigation of Benghazi might hurt
his being able to continue doing what he’s been doing. He is only afraid of
being found out.

And the only thing that might
worry Clinton
is how it might sink her chances of running for president in 2016. But, down
deep, that hatred of existence, and of this country, and of us, is her driving
force, as well. It just isn’t as obvious.

Obama is more obviously evil.
That is the long and short of it.

Previous

“Mad Men”: The Left’s Hidden Persuader

Next

Benghazi: Obama’s “Wag the Dog” in Reverse

10 Comments

  1. Jim

    Yes, unfortunately. Thanks.

  2. revereridesagain

    The most dangerous thing one can do in the face of an approaching catastrophe is deny the nature of what is happening. Obama is an EF5 tornado chronically miscategorized as a wayward wind.

  3. Edward Cline

    This column will run on Family Security Matters probably on Tuesday. I have to pen an attention-grabbing "teaser" that readers can click on. I wrote: "Is Obama a menace to this country? Or merely 'misunderstood'? Americans must decide.

  4. Anonymous

    "…overrun by Third World illiterates and religious barbarians picking through the ruins and savaging the survivors."

    For whatever reason, ARI, TOS and other Objectivist leaders are working towards the same result. It's well past time to acknowledge that reality too.

  5. Michael Neibel

    I couldn't agree more. Obama hates America's founding principle of individual rights because it is anathema to his notion of self sacrifice. But you know he doesn't even believe in practicing this notion himself. He believes humans are flawed, imperfect because they can and do make mistakes: that they are evil for being selfish and greedy and are a species that needs to be destroyed. So if he can hurt or punish these evil beings in some way it will make him feel good about himself. He is the only President ever who has publicly threatened disabled children and poor children if he doesn't get the budget money he wants. He is evil.

  6. ger

    An especially good and truthful essay. Most important to me is the observation that Obama's evil as been obvious in all of his actions and words. This makes anyone who voted for him complicit in his crimes.

  7. Illustrated Ideas

    Grant, you say "For whatever reason, ARI, TOS and other Objectivist leaders are working towards the same result. It's well past time to acknowledge that reality too." I'm not challenging what you say. I might agree, but it's rather cryptic. Can you be more specific?

  8. Tim C

    @Illustrated Ideas – I can't speak for Grant, but I think this is a good place to start.

    http://ariwatch.com/index.htm

  9. Tim C

    Great column as always…a side point – re the SEAL link – for HOW long is "winning hearts and minds" going to be considered anything more than a grotesque fantasyland anti-concept???

  10. Edward Cline

    Tim C: You ask, "HOW long is "winning hearts and minds" going to be considered anything more than a grotesque fantasyland anti-concept???" It will last as long as Obama is in office and George Bush's "hijacked religion" mantra isn't demolished, discredited, and repudiated. Obama simply picked up where Bush left off. Every time I saw one of those "Do you miss me?" ads of Bush's, my gut response was, "Hell, no."

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén