Obama’s Mob[ster] Mentality

9 August 2009

– by Mike Murray

My, how things change. A few short months ago, supporters of Barack H. Obama were extolling (what they insisted) was the virtue inherent in their presidential candidate’s background as a “community organizer.” No less an icon than Jesus of Nazareth, they reverently intoned, was one! Liberals normally given to bashing Christ – especially around election time – suddenly found something to admire in the Messiah. (The real one.)

Because, while Republicans occupied the White House (making Democrats, as a consequence, the challengers of authority), Dems appreciated Jesus’ rabble-rousing ways. Stirring things up, after all, was their own modus operandi. Back then, Obama’s lieutenants set out to disrupt the status quo in every way imaginable. They instructed their operatives (paid and volunteer, professional and “grass-roots”) to be forceful, to “get in the faces” of those who opposed their candidate and his views.

Even prior to the campaign season, Democrats were aggressively acting out. They joined many libertarians in bashing George W. Bush over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as over the Patriot Act, Gitmo, the economy, etc.). All the while they reminded us that protesting – in all its forms – is good. Noble, even. They said it was nothing short of a way of “speaking truth to power.” Back then, they claimed that dissent is oh-so patriotic.

But things changed once Democrats gained control of the White House. Combined with their new (and huge) majorities in both houses of Congress, they suddenly possessed immense power. And, just as suddenly, they began to sing a different song on the subject of dissent. They took to characterizing people who disagreed with their establishment policies as dangerous “disrupters.”

Protest that was once deemed by Obama to be a form of good citizenship was now labeled “low-level terrorism.” (The Department of Defense was put on alert, and directed to provide training to troops on the subject.) Attendees of Tea Party rallies (who demonstrated against out-of-control government spending) were painted as “right-wing extremists” by the Obama Administration – and put under watch by its Department of Homeland Security.

All of that “change” regarding the way protest and dissent are viewed by leftists in America occurred in six short months. But things are now getting even worse. At so-called Town Hall meetings – where representatives of the Obama administration (along with Congressional Democrats) are trying to drum up support for the major health-care changes they seek – tensions are rising.

Scores of concerned citizens have been showing up, and heatedly (though, so far, peacefully) expressing their anger and frustration over the plan’s potentially devastating effects. They demand to know: Have members of Congress (and the President, who proposed the legislation) even bothered to read it? Do they understand it? Will they accept “ObamaCare” for themselves and their own families? How will they pay for it? Will rationing result? Is it even appropriate (i.e., constitutional) for the government to be attempting to grab control of a private industry?

All good questions. And ones, you betcha, that Democrats would be demanding answers to if Republicans were in control and proffering legislation of such magnitude and consequence. Because, if enacted, any of the proposed plans (there are several being simultaneously pitched), would involve drastic, costly, and possibly catastrophic changes to America’s health-care system – for decades to come.

If ever there was a moment when it was crucial that we citizens hold our public servants’ feet to the fire, this one qualifies. Two branches of our federal government are poised to rush through legislation that would have profound, expensive, and long-term impact. It is not an exaggeration to say that issues involving human life and death are at stake, as well as those relating to our nation’s fiscal viability.

All of which has millions of Americans worried, and demanding answers to questions such as these: Is it really too much to ask that we slow down? That everyone involved take a few deep breaths? That we spend the time necessary to carefully analyze and debate? Figure out how to pay for things? Consider potential consequences (especially the unintended ones)? Is it really “extremist” to insist that our elected officials proceed carefully, cautiously, conscientiously?

Many of Obama’s supporters think so. Toward those who oppose the hell-bent pursuit of potentially dangerous legislation, they now level this charge: They’re just a bunch of trouble-makers, members of an “angry mob.” One Democratic Congressman went so far as to label them “Brown Shirts” (i.e., fascists).

He got it backwards. The jack-booted thugs – the ones trying to suppress constitutionally protected speech, assembly, debate, dissent, and protest – are on the other side. Occupants of the White House (and their staunchest allies, including many among the traditional media) are the ones guilty of bullying and oppressing.

First, members of the Obama Administration termed those who disagreed with them “disrupters.” Next, they called them “right-wing extremists” (and sicced the Department of Homeland Security on them). After that, they labeled them “low-level terrorists” – and instructed the Department of Defense to be on the alert. And now, they’re claiming that dissenters are “mobsters” of a sort. (What’s next? Justice Department attorneys drafting RICO Act charges?)

Piling injury upon injury, officials at the White House have recently asked their cyberspace cohorts to snitch on anyone whose e-mail or website content (regarding the health-care issue) appears to be “fishy.” Whatever that means. Neither Obama nor Congressional Democrats even understand their sundry proposals – making it, by definition, impossible for anyone to misrepresent them. Misrepresent what, exactly? The only thing that smells “fishy” is the Democrats’ absurd attempt to ram through legislation of unknown content and impact.

Nevertheless, they are aggressively seeking to intimidate and to silence those who dare criticize. In addition to accumulating a list of names (and e-mail and website addresses) of outspoken opponents, the White House is also reportedly providing instruction and coaching regarding various methods of “handling hecklers.” Those familiar with the First Amendment know that Obama and his minions are fast-approaching a very bright Constitutional line. If they cross it, there could be serious consequences.

In addition, there are material legal issues involved when a governmental official collects information regarding his or her political “enemies.” Richard M. Nixon found himself on the wrong side of a Supreme Court ruling in such a case. Thin-skinned members of the Obama administration just might, too, if they’re not careful.

Finally, if I were a high-ranking member of Team Obama (and had cut my political teeth in Chicago), I’d avoid all references to mobs. People might get the right idea.

Berea Pundit