President Obama came to the White House with no executive experience. It shows. Working from his background and the mindset of a community organizer, he is dedicated (by his own admission) to the "redistribution of wealth". His administration has used the power of the federal government first and foremost to attain that goal. All other considerations are secondary and distract from his primary agenda.
The President prizes his communicative skills. They explain much of his political success. But he gives the impression that a good speech is the solution to most problems, be they substantive or political. Scott Engers in a letter to the Wall Street Journal published on May 22 wrote:
President Obama "---seems to think that he simply has to say that he will not tolerate something and it will stop. He will not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons--sexual harassment or rape in the military--school shootings--IRS targeting conservative groups--another debt ceiling debate--a nuclear armed Iran".
These statements sound forceful. But too often there is little followup indicating that the Chief Executive is not fully engaged.
There have been numerous occasions where the Obama Administration has demonstrated ineptitude with its misguided policies and mismanagement. To wit:
*The effort to harass news organizations such as the AP and Fox News in violation of their First Amendment rights.
*The targeting by the IRS and other agencies of non- profit conservative groups.
*The mandate under Obamacare for religious organizations to provide health care services that are contrary to their beliefs.
*The Administration's struggle to implement Obamacare, a poorly conceived and poorly written law that will cost us more than advertised.
*Recess appointments to administration positions that were illegitimate and unconstitutional.
*Changing immigration regulations without proper legislative authority.
*A seeming indifference to our national debt and its implications for our economy and national well being.
*The failure to protect our diplomatic delegation in Benghazi and the transparent efforts to downplay the obvious dereliction.
*The President's confused leadership in the war on terror. Are we at "war" or not? How do we handle enemy prisoners? What if they are American citizens? These questions should have been resolved long ago.
David Axelrod, a former advisor to the president recently said the following in connection to the IRS targeting of conservative groups: "Part of being president is that there is so much beneath you that you can't know, because the government is so vast." (Quoted in an article "Government Gone Wild" by Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal on May 23).
Mr. Axelrod is correct; the government is too vast. But given this Administration's record in expanding the government, Mr. Axelrod's comment comes across as an inept explanation for the President's failures rather than a serious recognition of a very real problem.
The Constitution established a system of government with limited enumerated powers. It includes the Bill of Rights which list specific freedoms that are not to be abridged. Amendment X of those Rights states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Today our freedoms are threatened by the very government instituted to protect those freedoms. Cries to redress the government's excess of power falls on deaf ears. Politicians have become a professional and privileged class responding to special interests. The average citizen finds it difficult if not impossible to penetrate the curtain of power and secrecy.
Honesty compels us to say that we cannot continue on our current path as we are certain to lose whatever remaining freedoms we have. How do we get out of this morass? And who will lead us?
