Skewed Horizon

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

If any American still doubts that liberal ideology is built entirely upon a foundation of lies and fraud, the news of the past week should put the notion completely to rest. Major events, and in more specifically the disjointed and prejudicial manner in which those events have been covered, stand as proof that in the eyes of the liberal politicians and their media parakeets, “reporting” is not a matter of informing the people, but is instead an opportunity to indoctrinate them with a decidedly leftist worldview. Unfortunately for the left, when the facts become known, their empty fabrication quickly implodes.

Foremost in the minds of Americans was the April 15 terrorist bombing of the Boston Marathon. People hoping to enjoy a pleasurable outdoor spring event instead experienced unimaginable carnage and death. The nation is rightfully angered by the attacks, but it should also be outraged by the manner in which members of the press, ostensibly acting as guardians of an open and informed society, were busily and shamelessly striving to exploit the horrific event to the benefit of the liberal/Democrat agenda.

Among the most deplorable examples of this behavior was the column by David Sirota at Salon.com, entitled “Let’s Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American.” From the first moments after news of the bombing broke, liberals have been struggling to warp and twist the disaster into an occurrence that somehow validates their version of what America and the world should be. However, none was so brazen and loathsome in their attempts to recast the actual occurrence according to the leftist belief system as Sirota. Yet in a perverse sense, by displaying his unvarnished arrogance and detachment from reality, he ultimately did Real America an enormous favor.

Sirota lamented that unless the perpetrator turned out to be one of those villains from the ranks of grassroots conservatives, the resultant bad publicity would undermine all of the great and wonderful changes the left has planned for America. In essence, he feared that the facts would once again prove to be at odds with the utopian fantasy to which he and other leftists vainly cling. And of course when the identities and motivation of the perpetrators became known, his fears proved to be absolutely well founded.

As was fully predictable among thinking Americans, the villains of the Boston Marathon bombing turned out to be a couple of stridently anti-American Chechnyan Muslims. Now, those in the “mainstream” (read: liberal) media and their counterparts on Capitol Hill are backtracking and tap-dancing away from the event and its real connotations, since once again the underlying circumstances that led to murder and mayhem in Boston flatly refute the liberal belief system while reinforcing the principles and concerns of the American Heartland.

The reality of events in Massachusetts likewise came crashing down on MSNBC host Chris Matthews who, in a mindless rant that was typically devoid of facts, attempted to associate the mayhem in Boston with thinking of those on “the far right.” In retrospect, it is much more accurate to assert that by such comments from Matthews (and with the assent of his like-minded cronies) it is the American left which proves to be the biggest enabler of the terrorists.

Absurd speculations offered by media liberals, frantically seeking to establish some oblique connection between the bombings and anything conservative, indeed proved to be flatly wrong. More importantly, this has invariably been the case each time an assault of this nature takes place. Nevertheless, with each ensuing episode, leftist ideologues obsessively cling to the hope that perhaps this time, the cards will fall in their favor and the venom they regularly spew against traditional America will finally be justified. Of course this is never the case, but it is hardly a coincidence or matter of mere bad luck for well intentioned liberals. Instead, it is part of a growing body of proof that the entire liberal philosophy is rotten to the core and simply cannot be advanced on its own merits. Thus, it must be shrouded in deception and pretense.

So, rather than conceding the perils of a burgeoning Islamist movement based in the Middle East and dangerously encroaching on all of Western Civilization, prominent liberals continue to focus on the ostensible faults of our country as the real culprit in any ongoing hostility among cultures. Unwilling to “profile” radical Muslims and the precepts of Islam that motivate and drive them, America’s own liberal political and media establishment is entirely willing to essentially “profile” all of the good people of this country and lay the blame at their feet for their incompatibility with the Islamists.

In the wake of the September 11, 2012 Al Qaeda attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi Libya, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and four other Americans were brutally tortured and murdered, the entire response of the Obama Administration was fabricated around the premise that an obscure anti-Muslim video on YouTube had fomented the anger of the attackers. Eventually, when pressed by members of a Senate Committee investigating the incident, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disparaged legitimate concerns of Senators with her infamous “What difference does it make?” evasion. During the interim, Barack Obama pandered and groveled in a speech at the United Nations, reaffirming the Administration’s phony excuse of the YouTube video as the catalyst for the murderous attacks by asserting that “the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Unfortunately for liberal dreamers, the determining factors behind the deaths in Benghazi strongly align with the real circumstances underlying the deaths in Boston, as well as those of eleven years ago in New York City, Washington D.C. and western Pennsylvania. Barack Obama’s strategy of “peace through weakness” has been no more successful or founded on truth than the entire “green energy” debacle, the economic “stimulus,” or the bogusly named “Affordable Healthcare and Patient Protection Act.

Conversely, fanatical and malicious liberal attempts to discredit grassroots conservatives and the “Tea Party” as dangerous domestic subversives have proven to be without merit. Their contempt is no more likely to undermine that organization than could all of the liberal adulation give credence to the debased and malignant “Occupy” movement.

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, liberals find themselves at a precarious crossroads. The nation might be on the verge of awakening from its “politically correct” stupor and starting to recognize the threats facing it, along with those who willingly seek to keep it ignorant and therefore vulnerable to those threats. The prospect of an America that can discern who is with it and who is against it would constitute the worst imaginable nightmare to liberals. It is no wonder they are so obsessive in their effort to prevent this from happening.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

In the greatness that was once America, when truth prevailed over “political correctness” and justice was an honorable pursuit, the nation’s leaders would have begun by giving the benefit of the doubt to their countrymen, presuming innocence until guilt might be proven. Sadly, that course of action has been completely upended in recent years, as any major occurrence, whether natural or artificially instigated, is immediately “interpreted” and thereafter discussed by leftist politicians and their media lapdogs in whatever manner best suits the liberal agenda. In the process, truth itself becomes the initial casualty.

Consequently, Hurricane Sandy and the devastation it wrought were not evaluated with the intention of strengthening municipal infrastructures in hopes of better withstanding future tempests of nature. Rather, in the wake of the storm, all energies have been devoted to blaming “global warming” and then further sapping governmental coffers of taxpayer dollars, ostensibly to promote “green energy” development as the universally presumed cure.

Much more ominously however, the smoldering resentment towards Western civilization among radical Islamists has been deliberately and meticulously ignored by the left. Rather than drawing the proper conclusion from the mounting evidence of their visceral malevolence, every allowance is offered to justify the ongoing cavalcade of outrages and vile attacks against innocent westerners and the American ideal in particular. This insane reaction to a burgeoning and hostile foreign culture stems from an apparent personal affinity towards it among this nation’s leaders, and in a perverse sense, its perceived value as a weapon by which to advance their hard-left agenda.

By this means, the American left is doing its best to render the nation open and vulnerable to belligerent outside forces who would gladly see its demise. The horrific events in Boston, and the reaction to them by the nation’s liberal mouthpieces, represent incontrovertible proof that among those who have reached high office in this country, a decidedly anti-American sentiment prevails. What would once have constituted flagrant disloyalty to the nation is now offered as erudite analysis and policy.

In the wake of the 2009 Fort Hood massacre in which Major Nidal Hasan, an openly Islamist Army “Chaplain” suddenly fired on Army personnel while yelling “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is great), killing thirteen and injuring thirty, the primary stated focus of Army Chief of Staff George Casey was to prevent “backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers.” In essence, the proper reaction to the killing spree of a traitorous Muslim insurgent was not to prevent other Americans from becoming similar targets, but to protect Muslims from the anticipated outrage of those Americans.

No less an affront to the good people of this nation were all of the liberal grandstanding episodes in the wake of the Aurora Colorado movie theater and Sandy Hook Elementary school shootings. Relishing these opportunities to exploit horrendous tragedies in service to their relentless effort to void the Second Amendment and disarm the American people, liberal media types and their Democrat cohorts have engaged in a disgraceful misrepresentation of those events, while suppressing and disparaging any worthwhile means of thwarting future repeats.

Several cases of impending mass murders which were prevented by armed citizens have occurred since Aurora and Sandy Hook, and are well-documented. However, these events are almost completely ignored by the media/Democrat establishment. The possibility of actually enabling citizens to protect themselves from crazed assailants is of no interest to leftists and their dreams of an unarmed and thoroughly compliant populace.

So it was profoundly ironic that, on the very day the United States Senate actually descended into debate over how to effectively undermine the Second Amendment while feigning loyalty to the Bill of Rights, a horrific attack against America was perpetrated at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. In the midst of the crowded event, two improvised terrorist bombs detonated, killing three and severely injuring more than a hundred and seventy others. In a terribly sad reflection of the corrupt and duplicitous character of the modern political establishment, among those not directly affected by the blasts, a major concern was how those in power might capitalize on the event to advance their political interests.

America’s leaders, including Barack Obama are loathe to suggest that any Islamist attack on this country might be construed as “terrorism.” In a despicable affront to the sensibilities of the American people, the Hasan killings have been officially characterized as “workplace violence.” In contrast, the United States government has readily classified mere grassroots political opposition as “domestic terrorism.” Those who feared that liberal activists would follow this course in the aftermath of the Boston bombings have sadly, but not surprisingly been proven correct.

Within hours of the disaster, Senator Diane Feinstein (D.-CA) was on record saying “It could be foreign, it could be home grown.” Predictably, MSNBC loon Chris Matthews suggested that the location of the bombs was possibly directed against Democrats and, remaining purposefully ignorant of Obama cronies Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn (among many others), casually asserted that “domestic terrorists tend to be on the far right.” In a comparable insinuation, former Obama Administration political strategist David Axelrod pondered if the date, April 15 (known by many as “Tax Day”) bore any relation to the timing of the bombings. Interestingly, Barack Obama altogether avoided the word “terrorism” in his first speech pertaining to the event, perhaps out of concern that this might ultimately prove to be just another embarrassing episode of “workplace violence.”

It is impossible to escape noticing that leftists are once again fervently hoping that somebody related to the NRA or the Tea Party can be implicated in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack. Within hours of the July 2012 Aurora Colorado movie theater shootings, ABC News “reporters” Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulis exuberantly speculated that the perpetrator, a “James Holmes” might be the same individual who was registered as a member of the Aurora Tea Party. Likewise, virtually every early liberal media analysis of the 2011 Tucson massacre by Jared Loughner (whose acquaintances characterized him as undeniably left leaning) postulated that his violent spree was likely motivated by right wing sentiments. Since December 16, liberals have incessantly asserted that Adam Lanza’s rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School somehow directly reflected on the National Rifle Association.

It is of little consequence to the left that such activity as bombing innocent Americans at a celebrated sports event or killing helpless children and theater goers is simply not in the character of the Tea Party movement, and that directing the attention of law enforcement down that rabbit trail only weakens real efforts to prevent such occurrences. The actual consequences of liberal policy, and the vile fraud needed to implement it, are secondary to the perceived importance of creating the brave new world which they envision.

The people of Boston, and all of America, had better learn to look past the sanctimony of liberal propagandists and recognize the sinister nature of the real enemy they face. Otherwise, they can only expect more of the same.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

Clearly America’s leftists think that the 2012 elections were a blanket endorsement of liberal ideology. Or at least that is the conclusion they want America to reach. But while the electoral statistics reflected a general lack of enthusiasm for Republican candidate Mitt Romney, much the same could be said of the nation’s reaction to Barack Obama, who netted nearly four million fewer votes for his second term than he did in 2008. No matter, the Democrats and liberal media want to believe that America is lurching to the left, so, as is the case with global “climate change,” they will incessantly assert their viewpoint as uncontested truth.

Based on this wholly flawed premise, they now behave as if they have a mandate to employ every possible means to eradicate Real America and supplant it with their collectivist/statist utopia. With one outrageous assault after another, this is the sinister cause to which they have devoted themselves ever since the results were tabulated in November. Having wholly misconstrued the real sentiments at the grassroots, they now move boldly forward, trampling and denigrating any vestige of the American ideal to which they take objection. But although they are indeed advancing, the basis of their onslaught is deeply flawed, and shows definite signs of an imminent collapse.

The 2014 mid-term elections are less than a year and a half away. And historically, the party holding the White House does not fare well at this juncture. Nevertheless, Barack Obama is plowing relentlessly ahead with his coordinated attack on every pillar of American tradition and virtue that has made the country the powerful, prosperous and bastion of freedom it was. In Obama’s mind, Mitt Romney was the embodiment of those things, and if he could be taken down, so can everything he ostensibly represented. So look out Main Street, you are next.

Add to this the fact that extensive and carefully choreographed “polling data” has been compiled to reflect a drastic liberal shift in the electorate, and in the minds of the Beltway insiders, nothing remains to prevent them from fast tracking their radical alterations to the fabric of the nation. Predictably, the invertebrate wing of the Republican Party stands ever ready to concede the point, aiding and abetting the crime through “bipartisanship” and “finding common ground” with those devoted to the morally bankrupt and collectivist overhaul of America.

However, although the actual implementation of such a dangerous and destructive agenda would bode extremely ill for the nation, it is not entirely a bad thing that its foot soldiers have become so bold at this time. While their seditious efforts must indeed be stopped, the silver lining in this putrid cloud is that in their blind arrogance, both the far left Democrats and their enabling “moderate” GOP cohorts are now so brazen and overconfident that grassroots conservatives are finally able to see where their real affections lie. The descriptor of “Ruling Class,” once only directed at tyrannical foreign regimes, increasingly applies to Washington elitists who clearly view themselves as superior in intellect and privilege to the rabble and peasantry. Sadly, this sordid phenomenon crosses party lines.

In his massive push for amnesty for illegal aliens, Barack Obama believes he can recast the debate entirely as a matter of race, and thereby sufficiently stoke Republican fears of being branded “racist.” Typically the result would be that the party completely capitulates, and thus sanctions the import of at least nine million new Democrat voters. Meanwhile, the conservative and pro-America GOP “base” is likely to be so thoroughly disenfranchised by this betrayal that many will abandon the party in disgust, further enlarging its electoral deficits for the foreseeable future. In consideration of similarly monumental past Republican strategic blunders, this scenario is clearly within the realm of possibility. Yet if reason prevails and Republicans maintain their commitment to the integrity of the nation, the threat of so vast an insurgency from the southern border could indeed rally the base and provide a stunning political recovery next year.

Ultimately though, it is the issue of “gun control” that has most starkly delineated between the underhanded and truly menacing efforts of the liberals to render the nation defenseless and subservient, as opposed to those on the right who unwaveringly stand against so flagrant an effort to emasculate “We the people” and force them into helpless servitude. While those on the left deceptively claim that their intentions are to ensure safe schools, and the “me too” wing of the Republican Party may likewise seek to partially comply, in order to dodge accusations of indifference to those vaunted children, the real issue at stake is as inarguable and defining as the irrefutable pages of human history, whether a people will remain free or be crushed into submission.

For years, the elimination of private ownership of firearms has been one of the left’s driving obsessions. But ever since the December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, Barack Obama and his standard cadre of hard-left Democrat parrots have sought to shamelessly exploit that horrific event as an uncontested green light for their gun grabbing agenda. In its immediate aftermath, they believed that the nation’s horror and mourning provided them a window of opportunity to quickly trample the Second Amendment into oblivion before reason and logic might override the raw emotion of the moment.

Ominous as that prospect may be, the unexpected (at least among liberals) repercussions of their latest onslaught against gun ownership have proven to be a major benefit to pro-America traditionalists. No other issue has so clearly delineated the chasm that separates those who affirm and uphold the Constitution from those who do not. Any feeble attempts by “moderates” to thread the needle between appeasing the liberal statists and maintaining constitutional rights instantly relegates them to the ranks of waffling and untrustworthy political hacks. Absolutely no shred of commonality exists between those who respect individual liberties and those who would happily seem them destroyed.

Lately, Obama has resorted to unleashing his “Organizing for Action” Brownshirts to drum up public support for a gun control measure now being ramrodded through the Senate. In addition, he has despicably paraded family members of Sand Hook victims in front of the cameras like trophies, while frantically claiming that this macabre circus “isn’t about politics.” Furthermore, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-NV) has been forced to significantly dilute the bill in hopes of garnering the votes needed to carry it. In essence, the supposed national mandate for gun confiscation, so adamantly asserted in days following Sandy Hook, is proving no more popular than any of the other leftist usurpations of individual rights and freedoms by which this White House and its Democrat minions on Capitol Hill regularly threaten America.

Having lost credibility with the American people with all of his hysterical doomsaying over the sequester, Barack Obama cannot afford for the Republicans and the public to stridently rebuff yet another of his attempted power grabs. Despite claiming the moral “high ground,” it is clear that Obama is desperately engaging in damage control. He may have been successful in his character assassination of Mitt Romney last fall, but to triumph in next year’s elections, he would have to be equally successful slandering conservatives in every congressional district across the nation. His “political capital” to the extent that he ever had any, appears to be rapidly dissipating.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

Last week the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in the cases of California Proposition 187, which upholds marriage in the Golden State as being between one man and one woman, and DOMA, the federal Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1996. The tenor of the arguments before the court, as well as the thoroughly tainted and lopsided “reporting” by the liberal media in their aftermath, sheds significant light on just how the insidious onslaught of “political correctness” and its demands for total conformity to the mindset and goals of the liberal counterculture has thoroughly undermined the ability to hold a reasoned discussion in modern America.

Amid all of the hyped emotionalism and sanctimony from the left, little is being said of what is really taking place here, and what the intended end game of the counterculture actually entails. As with every other leftist attempt to erode the foundations of Western civilization, the entire discussion is couched in platitudes and evasions of the real agenda. Instead, every conceivable excuse, from the freedom to “love” to the inequities of inheritance taxes is invoked as justification for the leftist assault on marriage and the family. Certainly more revealing of the nature of those who seek to eradicate marriage in its historical sense is the manner in which any disagreement is immediately categorized as “hate” and “intolerance,” with the sole purpose of suppressing it.

To restore a remnant of authenticity to the discussion, it must first be stressed that for several decades, nobody in America has been prevented from establishing a relationship with any other person, in any manner. Nor does any governing entity constitute a looming threat to do so. If hospital visiting privileges are problematic, the situation can be directly addressed and is readily fixable. The same is true for inequities of inheritance taxes, which would be more suitably alleviated to the betterment of all by entirely removing the government from the sordid business of confiscating any portion of a deceased person’s private property.

But although such arguments are ostensibly offered as worthwhile reasons to demand marriage be redefined to include individuals of the same gender, in truth they are mere distractions. It would seem that if the once professed concept of “live and let live” were actually the goal, it had long since been realized. Something far more encroaching and sinister is behind the current effort to recast “marriage” according to the precepts of the counterculture. Its ultimate aim is to force governing institutions not only to tolerate or tacitly accept, but to officially sanction the homosexual lifestyle and thus require everyone under their jurisdiction do likewise. Only in this manner do the advocates of same sex “marriage” believe they can establish the lifestyle under the auspices of normality that they so fervently seek.

Having thus far failed to win over a majority of the voters or lawmakers, they now look to the courts to once again do an end run around the electoral and legislative processes and declare their wants as irrefutable law. And if the Supreme Court does indeed render a decision to officially endorse same sex “marriage” and by default the lifestyle of its participants, does anyone doubt that the occasion will be quickly followed by a flood of lawsuits against any individual, any Church, or any business that refuses to assent to the court edict? In essence, the entire First Amendment prohibition of state mandated religious doctrine will be circumvented, and the citizenry henceforth obliged to redefine morality and truth not on any spiritual teaching from the Bible, but according to the secularist dictates of the state. What was once the unquestioned institution of “Holy Matrimony” would thereafter be legally bound to an activity which many will find impossible to describe as such. In its stead, the official diktat will be “What the state hath joined, let no person put asunder.” If such a scenario sounds implausible, consider for a moment the degree to which this manner of thinking has already been established as the indisputable standard for governing.

During the March 28 oral arguments on DOMA, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, quoted the 1996 House Judiciary Committee report which stated “Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.” Kagan asserted that such a contention represented a drastic departure from past positions held by the government, claiming that “The only uniformity that the federal government has pursued is that it’s uniformly recognized the marriages that are recognized by the state.” It is revealing that liberals militantly demand gender quotas in every area of life except the one place where they have been concretely established throughout all of human history. And in that place alone they tirelessly work to abolish the premise.

Worse still, according to Kagan’s thinking, since neither the Constitution nor any of its amendments specifically defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, and furthermore that it does not expressly prohibit such a redefinition, any restriction whatsoever would be unconstitutional. However, as her seditious thinking becomes more generally accepted, a dangerous Pandora’s Box is opened. The Constitution likewise places no limits on the use of drones or governmental infringement on purchases of ammunition, in which case “We the People” will soon be engulfed by a flood of onerous new encroachments on life and liberty.

Nor does Kagan’s assertion have any validity on the basis that the element of “morality” somehow negates a law’s standing, which is a foundational contention of modern liberalism. Rather, the glaring irrationality and hypocrisy of that ideology renders her statement moot. Every principle of civil law in America, from the basic premise of “equality” for all citizens to the pursuit of justice itself, is a derivative of a moral code which was rooted in the nation’s Judeo-Christian ethic. Even incessant liberal calls for “fairness” tie directly to a component of morality in societal order (although the selective and capricious manner in which the left invokes or ignores real fairness on any given occasion ultimately exposes their fundamental immorality).

Certainly governments could run far more efficiently and the “greater good” of the state be pursued with enhanced ease if those complicating factors of integrity and individual rights were not allowed to frustrate the process. And admittedly, as the elements of America’s moral code have been erased, line by line, from the underlying philosophy of its government, the nation has drifted ominously in this very direction.

At present, and without the help of the Supreme Court or the cadre of leftist “social reformers,” anyone in America is already free to marry. What they cannot do is invoke the power of the court to redefine “marriage” in a manner that aligns with a lifestyle that is inherently at odds with it. Of course the attempt may be made. In 1857, the Supreme Court likewise sought to negate the humanity of America’s slave population with its abhorrent Dred Scott decision, pushing the nation beyond its tipping point and plunging it into the Civil War. Again in 1973, the Court chose to ignore the biological reality of unborn human beings when it handed down Roe v. Wade, thereby giving its approval to a genocide of innocents that now surpasses the fifty million mark. In every case the end result has been a debasement of American civilization with tragic consequences to follow. Despite any legal gymnastics, activist liberal courts simply cannot recreate reality in conformity to their warped perception of life.

So perhaps the Supreme Court in its arrogance believes it can forcibly impose a redefinition of marriage on America. Let it next endeavor to strike down the law of gravity as “unconstitutional” on the basis that it clearly affects citizens in a decidedly disproportionate manner and thus is a primary source of “inequality” among the people. Then every concurring jurist, bureaucrat, and countercultural activist who regards the court’s decision as credible will be free to find a high precipice from which to test its merits. We will then see benefit that can actually be reaped from blind faith in liberal arrogance.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

Though relatively few people on Main Street are consumed with anxiety over the unfolding events on Cyprus, a tiny Mediterranean island with a population of barely one million, the chaos there is a grim harbinger of a burgeoning worldwide financial crisis that will ultimately reach U.S. shores. The outlandish nature of Cypriot governmental action is merely a precursor to similar outrages that will inevitably take place here if the congressional spending spree of the past four years is not strenuously curtailed. So far however, Democrats are insisting that no problem exists, and Republicans lack the necessary will to effectively restrain them.

Nevertheless, disturbing rumors of an economic cataclysm in Cyprus warrant legitimate concern, even on this side of the Atlantic. For some time, its government has toyed with the idea of confiscating a percentage of all savings accounts in the country in order to pay its bills and remain solvent. The initial alarm over this possibility had seemingly subsided when the unthinkable happened. On March 25, government officials suddenly seized as much as thirty percent from accounts totaling 100,000 Euros or more.

Although in the wake of this upheaval, life has apparently resumed its normal course throughout the rest of the world, its reverberations are yet to be felt in their entirety. Try to comprehend what has really transpired on Cyprus. Those in power behaved in a manner that is barely distinguishable from a thief who forcibly enters a private residence to clean out the cashbox. Private property was injudiciously appropriated in an exercise of raw governmental power. In essence, the government of Cyprus unilaterally declared the ultimate possession of all property to itself, while the people under its jurisdiction are no longer to be citizens, but subjects.

Throughout this tumultuous affair, little of anything has been done to address the real underlying problem which is the unsustainability of government debt. The Cypriot government, like the rest of the European Union, has been digging itself into a financial hole by spending beyond its means. Of course this worked no better than it ever has throughout history and now the tiny nation faces impending bankruptcy. Sufficiently curtailing expenditures is not considered a feasible option, and in order to secure a “bailout” from the European Union, such drastic action was deemed necessary. The cash was needed, so those in power simply reached for the most available stash of wealth. No considerations of integrity or justice were allowed to interfere with this action. And that should be an end of it.

However, it is only the beginning. Similar measures are being considered in Spain and Italy. Jeroen Dijsselbloem of Holland, the Eurozone Chairman, flippantly advises that such actions could eventually take place across all of Europe. But he and his kind seem completely unable to recognize two crucial facts. First, if a wave of bank account confiscations becomes a credible threat, those with the ability to do so will simply close their accounts. Better to have the nest egg in hand even if it accrues no interest, than to leave it within the grasp of insatiable collectivists. Secondly, the confiscations in Cyprus, drastic though they were, can at best only delay the inevitability of financial collapse unless a complete national change of course is immediately undertaken.

The disastrous events on Cyprus are only a harbinger of an inescapable end game for every government that is allowed to grow so disproportionately. In the beginning, a small number of people are “beneficiaries” of funds collected from a comparatively large taxpayer base. However, if the pattern is not quickly reversed the concept becomes widely accepted by the population. Every attempted socialist panacea will predictably be overwhelmed by expanding numbers of expectant recipients. Hence, from the moment the Cypriot government made the decision to ignore history and pile on unsustainable debt, the radical measures now being undertaken against the accumulated wealth of its people became inevitable.

Americans should be among those most closely watching the unfolding events on Cyprus, as well as the general reaction of the rest of the European Union. For although in the past many of the cultural and social ideologies across the Atlantic differed starkly from those in the American Heartland, the general drift of this country in the same direction portends an exponential increase in our own financial woes. The manner in which annual deficits and the accumulated debt of the United States have ballooned in the past five years alone is great cause for alarm. Borrowed money must eventually be repaid. And just as the liberal governments of the European Union are quickly running out of accounting shell games by which to continue spending beyond their means, America’s economy cannot withstand its multi-trillion dollar annual outlays indefinitely. A grim day of reckoning will dawn, just as surely as it has for the people of Cyprus.

Unfortunately, at a time when competent, principled, and courageous leadership is desperately needed, America finds itself under the authority of Barack Obama, abetted by his Democrat cohorts and enabled by Republican timidity on Capitol Hill. Yet Obama has offhandedly dismissed the looming threat of financial insolvency that will result from the enormous and continuously growing debt. In a March 13 interview with George Stephanopoulos, he flatly declared “We don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt” and added “for the next ten years [the debt] is going to be in a sustainable place.”

Since the summer of 2009, America has been incessantly told by liberal politicians and liberal news commentators (as if any delineation exists between the two) that the sunken economy is rebounding. And the rosy stories continue. Nevertheless, the actual condition of the America’s finances remains abysmal, as the nation lingers in the longest economic downturn since the end of World War Two. Amazingly, no effort whatsoever has been made to curtail government expansion, a situation that will worsen considerably during the next few years when the majority of Obamacare’s unfathomable expenses hit. The dire straits in which our nation finds itself are not going to abate on their own. But still no realistic efforts are even being proposed to contend with this looming disaster.

As American productivity continues to falter, revenues to the federal treasury will slow even below their current levels, causing the total debt to spike. It is altogether likely that the “ruling class,” desperate to maintain the status quo, will increasingly look to various sources of amassed money outside of its typical realm. Government seizure of private retirement accounts and even personal savings is not beyond consideration. Our nation no longer possesses the inherent moral resolve to oppose such despicable actions. Consequently, the single biggest firewall that might have protected the people from this nightmarish scenario no longer exists. The unthinkable can happen, even here in America.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

Once again, those “moderates” of the Republican Party inner circle are exhibiting a determination to obliterate any lingering shred of credibility left in the GOP. Appearing in the shadow of a stellar CPAC 2013 gathering this past weekend, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus outlined the results of an introspective analysis of the party’s lapses during the November 2012 elections. Predictably, the advice from the self-anointed “experts” is to move the party further left in order to persuade its opponents of a general willingness among the party hierarchy to abandon principle in a futile quest for votes.

The venue from which Priebus issued his statement, the National Press Club, reflects the Beltway Insider environment that has wrought nothing but a string of political disasters for Republicans in recent decades. Yet among those who believe that Washington has all the answers, and that the American Heartland is made up of unsophisticated rubes, the reality on Main Street is of little consequence. “Experts,” the very same experts who gave us Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney as the “most electable” candidates, now assert that the core principles which have defined the Republican Party are the root cause for its current unpopularity in the public eye. Thus, the marginalization of those principles is the best course for the party as it seeks to resurrect its image in the public eye. Go figure.

Even the make up of the five member panel, which ostensibly analyzed Republicans’ faltering performance at the ballot box, is tainted by the same old power brokers and their tired and ineffectual approach to politics. Ari Fleischer was formerly a press secretary under George W. Bush. Sally Bradshaw was a Chief of Staff to former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Henry Barbour is a nephew of former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. Does anyone see a pattern here?

In short, the consensus of the panel, after an extensive “listening tour,” is that the Republican Party needs to pander to the special interests who have been thoroughly co-opted over the years by the Democrats, absurdly hoping that a watered down Republican version of the Democrat political agenda might appeal to such individuals. Chief among the proposed changes in GOP identity is a renewed push for amnesty for the roughly twelve million illegal aliens now in America, in yet another vain endeavor to court Hispanics.

All polling on this issue indicates that the primary motivation for Hispanics to vote Democrat is that party’s socialistic programs. This fact is apparently lost on Priebus and his panel of luminaries. In their world, increased pandering to minorities, on terms dictated by the left, will cause such people to abandon the burgeoning government programs instituted by the Democrats and flock to abridged versions offered by the Republicans. One has to wonder on what basis Priebus and his kind might believe that Republicans can miraculously make up for the instant four to five million vote deficit that would ensue the moment those illegals become citizens.

In a similar manner, the version of the Republican Party envisioned by Priebus and his team would abandon its former conservatism of Ronald Reagan (a move he believes to be in the best interests of the party), and refocus on an agenda that will ostensibly prove to “Hispanic, Black, Asian, and gay Americans” that “we care about them too.” He even shamelessly descended to the level of playing on class envy and attacking the private sector, offering his own version of Obama’s political pablum, decrying “corporate malfeasance and corporate welfare.”

Is it really beyond the comprehension of Priebus and his fellow political lemmings that if the Republican Party seeks advice from traditional Democrat constituencies, the guaranteed result is that it will be directed to remake itself in the image of the Democrats? Do these GOP insiders actually expect that following such a course will suddenly inspire advocates of the nanny state to rally to them, and that Heartland America will not become thoroughly disenfranchised in the process? More significantly, by their waffling and capitulating on issues that define the irreconcilable differences between the political right and left, Reince Priebus and his “experts” expose their readiness to subordinate the long term interests of the nation to their political ambitions.

The last two presidential elections yielded irrefutable proof that Republican candidacies based on “moderation” and “bipartisanship” will not only fail to inspire liberals to cross over to the GOP, they will sufficiently disenfranchise the conservative base to the point that voter turnout is suppressed. Nevertheless, despite the consistently devastating results of this approach, the Priebus “doctrine” contends that the real problem in the party is an excess of conservatism, and that only by continuing down the path of “moderation” that has netted so many failures, can the Republican Party restore itself.

Had Priebus really wanted to ascertain the needed course correction for his party, he should have spent less time with the “ruling class” at the National Press Club, and instead given a listen to some of the unassailable wisdom from CPAC. There, he would have heard how real conservatism can energize voters with something higher, and not merely cheaper, than that offered by the Democrats. He could have relearned the inspiring legacy of successes, both in political races and in elected office, from those who are unafraid to stand firmly on principle while facing the inevitable derision from liberal politicians and their media parakeets.

The Republican Party will never succeed in its dubious quest for leadership by pandering and following. And all attempts to follow such a course will only engender cynicism and distrust from the voters. Even the extremely remote possibility of an uptick in support from special interest constituencies is sure to be more than offset by a decline in enthusiasm from the party’s traditional base. A party that professes to stand for anything is quickly recognized as standing for nothing.

Nevertheless, the net outcome of these circumstances does not constitute an unwinnable dilemma for Republicans. If common sense, and more importantly, a devotion to the ideals of this great nation, can be courageously and unabashedly reestablished as the guiding principles of the Republican Party, aspiring candidates on the right can point to the promise of America as a promise for all people. Once the pernicious “nanny state” is reined in, the opportunities that can uplift the life of one industrious citizen are available to every citizen.

It is this message, confidently delivered and steadfastly upheld, that can overcome any leftist effort to convince people that their plight is one of mere subsistence and subjugation.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

In the immediate aftermath of the 2012 election disaster, the Republican Party grew extremely introspective, with many of its key figures postulating that the party needed to shift leftward if it was to have any hope of future successes. This effort was encouraged in part by the liberal media along with Democrats, who readily understood the long term political hegemony they could enjoy if their opposition wallowed in uncertainty, self doubt, and ambiguity. Mitt Romney, we were told, had ultimately been a bad choice to run against Barack Obama specifically because his support of traditional values and personal responsibility in lieu of the “nanny state” made him unpalatable to the nation’s increasingly dependent culture.

 For several excruciating weeks, America was bombarded with prognostications from news anchors, warning that if the GOP did not immediately embrace the fiscal and social policies of the Democrats and abandon its extreme right wing, it would drift off into political irrelevance. Of course amnesty for illegal aliens and the wholesale embrace of the homosexual agenda, including same-sex “marriage” topped the list, not that the Republican Party could actually gain anything by embracing those precepts, but precisely because doing so would alienate its traditional base, thus ensuring unassailable Democrat advances for the foreseeable future.

Since that time, other professed political “experts” of the conservative movement have moved into the limelight, unveiling their plans to shift the GOP back to the political “center” (meaning to the left) so that it can ostensibly gain a broader appeal among voters. In particular, former Bush political strategist Karl Rove recently unveiled his bogusly named “Conservative Victory Project,” the purpose of which is to confront and undermine Tea Party candidates during Republican primary races, in order to secure victories for candidates who are more moderate and thus, in his opinion, more electable.

Possessing an abundance of money, connections, and publicity, this cabal of Republican “centrists” have everything they need to wage a successful war on conservative and “Tea Party” candidacies, except any evidence that their strategies could ever work. While they revel in pointing out the failed candidacies of conservatives such as Christine O’Donnell of Delaware and Todd Akin of Missouri, candidacies which by the way, they did their best to undermine, no historical example can be offered as proof that their strategizing might have fared any better.

Certainly, Rove would point to the presidency of George W. Bush who defeated Al Gore for the presidency in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. And it must be remembered that Bush actually lost the 2000 popular vote and would likely not have achieved re-election in 2004, were it not for the sobering effect of the World Trade Center attacks in September of 2001. Yet even that was an aberration in an otherwise unbroken string of abject failures stretching back to 1992, when the senior George Bush lost to Bill Clinton. Also among the rubble of unsuccessful “moderate” candidacies over the past three decades were those of Bob Dole in 1996, along with John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

Against this dismal track record, and with the Obama onslaught moving ahead at breakneck speed, conservative America has increasingly despaired of ever again prevailing against those on the left who would remake the nation in their own sordid image. Nanny state encroachment and collectivism appeared to be the unstoppable wave of the future.

Yet on Wednesday March 6, 2013, one irrepressible individual rose to the occasion and successfully took on the entire Washington establishment. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, with assistance from a handful of other Republican Senators and one Democrat, effectively shut down the confirmation of John Brennan, Barack Obama’s nominee for CIA chief. Waging a thirteen hour filibuster over the Administration’s unwillingness to unequivocally proclaim the lethal use of drones against Americans on American soil to be unconstitutional, Paul promised to continue speaking for as long as his voice would endure.

From every perspective, the event was a stunning success. On the following day, Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement reassuring Paul that the Obama Administration concedes that the use of drones in question is indeed unconstitutional. However, even beyond that specific issue, Rand Paul’s success in taking on the Executive Branch and demanding accountability from it proved to be a pivotal moment for the nation. What had been the burgeoning monster of unchecked power in the nation’s highest office was suddenly thwarted and put completely on the defensive. As a result, grassroots conservatives were rallied and energized in a manner they have not enjoyed since the electoral rout of congressional Democrats in 2010.

Against such a backdrop, it would seem predictable that the Republican establishment in Washington ought to be celebrating its newfound momentum. However, to the dismay of Heartland America, key players in the GOP displayed a much different and extremely telling response. In particular, Senators John McCain (R.-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R.-SC) castigated and demeaned Senator Paul in a manner they never employ against Democrats. Graham openly expressed his “disappointment” with the filibuster, while lauding the “good judgment” of the Obama Administration. Disparaging Paul and his motive for the filibuster as “totally unfounded,” McCain went on to express his concern that Paul’s conduct might fuel criticism over noncompliance with “the rules of the Senate.”

In what will ultimately be a beneficial series of events for conservative America, John McCain and Lindsay Graham inadvertently emerged from the shadow of Rand Paul’s stellar performance and unequivocally reminded the nation of why their version of the GOP is on the road to extinction. While Barack Obama flagrantly trashes the Constitution and continues his onslaught against America’s founding principles, John McCain frets over possible negative repercussions on the “rules of the Senate.” As the people on Main Street seek a leader around whom they can rally, McCain and Graham remind them of the inevitable failures awaiting them if they once again coalesce under the insipidness of a “mainstream” Republican.

Contrary to the supposed wisdom of the self-proclaimed “experts” inside the Beltway, it was not conservatism that lost in November. Nor was the nation drawn to the irrefutable disaster of Barack Obama’s “hope and change” platitudes. What America rejected was a continuance of the tired and uninspiring prospect of “business as usual,” to which the GOP invariably retreats as perceived politically safe ground. Senators McCain and Graham can certainly remain there as they and their version of the Republican Party fade into obsolescence. An emboldened conservative element, reflective of the Tea-Party and real conservatism at the grassroots, is ready to assume leadership.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Christopher G. Adamo

By:  Christopher G. Adamo

It has been a surreal week, beginning with Michelle Obama’s looming appearance on a giant television screen at the Academy Awards to present the Oscar for best picture. As the Friday deadline for the congressional sequester approached, Barack Obama has likewise made himself incessantly present in the public eye, with his numerous appearances and announcements, all of which warn of impending calamity if the nation is foolhardy enough to retreat, even in the slightest, from his agenda of reckless spending. The shrillness of his tone and shameless exaggerations of unfathomable repercussions from the budgetary sequester lend credence to the fact that he is adamantly opposed to it, but for reasons that his minions in the liberal media dare not mention.

In a speech given at the Eisenhower Office Building on February 19, Obama made such outlandish claims of disaster in virtually every branch of government that his presentation bordered on the comical, except that his intentions were far from humorous. Worse yet, even a cursory examination of the potentially failing government functions he outlined brings to mind the manner in which his administration has deliberately hamstrung and undermined the legitimate functions of government as he seeks to remake the nation according to the sordid precepts of the political left. Wednesday’s release of up to thirty thousand illegal alien criminals from jails, on the phony grounds that the impending funding reductions required such a move, was a seditious move deliberately designed to create chaos on Main Street in order to validate his outlandish contentions.

Furthermore, it is beyond absurd for Barack Obama to warn the American people that border security might be compromised if those despicable “cuts” are implemented, when he and his Department of Justice lackey Eric Holder have done more to compromise the integrity of the nation’s border than any individual since General Cornwallis. Never in the four years of the Obama Administration has any serious consideration been given to securing the borders, and in fact Obama and Holder have stridently undermined efforts by the states to undertake their own efforts to stop the influx of illegal aliens.

Also in the same speech, Obama warned of dire consequences for the economy, as if the nation has been basking in prosperity since the advent of his regime. Perhaps somebody should explain to the spendthrift in chief, as well as his enabling minions on Capitol Hill, that an unemployment rate of eight percent was considered in the past to be evidence of an abysmal economy. More than four years in that condition is almost unprecedented. Furthermore, basic economic principles dictate that sapping additional trillions from the producers in the Heartland, to be fed to his federal leviathan, only weakens the free market and drastically reduces its ability to manufacture the goods and deliver the services which generate real employment and provide for the needs of consumers.

The truest indicator of Obama’s real purpose for his indefensible scaremongering is that he sought to blame the Republican Party, on the basis of barely two percent reductions in the rate of growth of government, for all of the problems he and his cohorts have caused over the past four years. The general degradation of life in America can be directly correlated to the implementation of his Marxists policies, from Obamacare to the explosion of regulations in virtually every facet of commerce, to the grasping and tightening nanny state tentacles stifling this once free country. Yet with no apparent qualms of conscience whatsoever, he flagrantly points a finger at anyone but himself as the culprit, at once affronting all who know better while showing complete contempt for those who still believe him as he peddles his deceptions.

Clearly, Barack Obama and the cabal of leftists he leads are convinced that since November’s elections, they have been given the green light to fully transform this nation through any possible means. Past firewalls of separated government powers are of no more consequence than that irritating and archaic spoiler known as the Constitution, and the occasional references to it by his opposition who hope to slow his onslaught.

Nevertheless, it is this very situation, and the precarious manner in which the current controversy teeters in the balance, that has those on the left so panicked, not for the fate of the nation, but for their own political fortunes. What Obama knows, but his Republican “opposition” still fails to grasp, is that they possess the means of thoroughly refuting his pathological scaremongering, and in that manner can potentially discredit all of his former contrived crises.

The reality of the sequester is far different from the feigned reign of terror promised by Obama and the Democrats. A trillion dollar “cut” from projected spending, spread out over at least a decade, actually translates to inconsequential downward revisions in the rate of anticipated budget growth during any given year. This represents only more of the typical Washington D.C. sleight of hand, with absolutely no reductions in the ravenous spending spree of the past four years. And while those hordes of bureaucrats on the federal dole are not likely to thin their ranks to any great extent, the situation also proves that all of the Democrat efforts to create panic over the looming sequester are empty hype. This is true as well of every past calamity foretold by the liberal establishment as it sought to stampede the American public into its camp.

The American people will not starve in the streets if Obama fails to get his latest tax hike “on the rich” (which invariably finds its way into the withholdings of middle class paychecks). The lights will not go out across the land if he is prevented from squandering billions more on fruitless “green energy” programs that funnel taxpayer dollars to his favored supporters. Nor will the military be crippled in its efforts to provide for the common defense. Obama’s mindless obsession with bloating every facet of the United States government has not proven to be essential to anyone or anything other than the political fortunes of opportunistic statists.

If Republicans’ resolve does not collapse at the midnight hour (and admittedly, this is a big “if”), a tiny first step towards curtailing the spiraling costs of government will have taken place. And to the amazement of many, the sun will come up on schedule the next morning. Perhaps all of the other hysteria by which the people have been systematically coerced to forfeit their inheritance as Americans was just as devoid of substance as the cataclysmic predictions related to the sequester. This is a point that Obama and his lapdogs cannot afford for the American to people ponder.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

For the past week Rush Limbaugh has been explaining Barack Obama’s successful strategy of advancing his far-left political agenda while ostensibly keeping his fingerprints off of any specific governing actions, thereby remaining immune from criticism over the dire consequences that invariably ensue. And once again, the maestro of talk radio is correct. This single keen observation readily clarifies even the most irresponsible Democrat actions, including the lack of a Senate budget for over four years, as well as Obama’s own behavior of voting “present” on one hundred and thirty occasions while in the Illinois State Senate. And in so many ways, Barack Obama has continued this practice since his inauguration in 2009.

When Cambridge Massachusetts police officer James Crowley arrested Harvard professor Henry Gates who appeared to be breaking into a house that turned out to be his own, Barack Obama was quick to insert himself into the situation. Shamelessly attempting to capitalize on the incident, he decried the Cambridge police as “stupid” and insinuated that their actions were racially motivated. When George Zimmerman who was participating in a neighborhood watch, shot and killed Trayvon Martin who as attacking him, Obama did not hesitate to inflame the situation, stating “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Yet on September 11, 2012, when Al Qaeda jihadists attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi resulting in the deaths of four members of the consulate staff including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, Obama just as quickly hopped a plane to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser and thereafter did his best to remain completely detached from the event.

While he obviously presumed that he could gain some political traction from the Gates and Martin incidents, the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Libya put the lie to his grandstanding about an “Arab Spring” in the Middle East. So rather than involve himself in any manner that might have saved those under siege in Benghazi, he merely brushed their fates aside and ducked the bright lights. When a Senate committee pressed then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding the lapses and obfuscation that led to the Benghazi deaths, and how that outrage was amplified by the despicable attempted cover-up in which an amateur video was blamed, Clinton followed Obama’s behavior pattern of deflecting blame with her infamous “What difference does it make?” rejoinder. As Limbaugh points out, this has been the standard modus operandi of the Obama political machine, along with the entire Democrat Cabal in Washington.

Given the propensity of leftists to shamelessly engage in such ploys and spew their vile propaganda rather than working to address the burgeoning problems facing America, it has once again become necessary to recall the original facts in order to cut through the murk. At the risk of repetition, the American people must again be reminded of the overall track record of Democrat governing so that its causes and effects can be properly weighed against the utopian liberal promises and their disastrous results. As many times as Obama and the liberals seek to engage in shameless campaigning and distortions of the past in order to escape culpability, the truth must be diligently invoked against them. Even if only a small sample of their governing track record is recalled in the process, the emerging pattern remains unmistakable.

As gasoline prices reach stratospheric levels, it is important to not be distracted by hysterical liberal accusations directed at those malevolent and rapacious oil companies. Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats have been setting this stage for years. When attempts were made to develop oil reserves beneath the barren and remote Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge during the Presidency of George W. Bush, the efforts were completely blocked by liberals in the Congress. In the same manner, Barack Obama took a personal interest in thwarting the Keystone Pipeline project by which Canadian oil could be transported to refineries in Texas. And of course the enviro-whacko hysteria reached a crescendo during the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which would ostensibly render that region uninhabitable for decades.

Though the ecosystems of the Gulf Coast essentially returned to normal in the immediate aftermath of the spill, the enemies of U.S. oil development have successfully choked domestic efforts to expand supplies from the Gulf. Meanwhile, billions of taxpayer dollars are squandered on “green energy” fiascos such as the infamous and now-defunct Solyndra Corporation.

On the international scene, America’s foreign relations continue to crumble. From the previously mentioned catastrophe of Benghazi and the entire “Arab Spring,” to the escalating belligerence of North Korea, to America’s faltering and ever more subservient relationship with the Chinese, the repercussions of Barack Obama’s philosophy of appeasement and capitulation towards despotic foreign governments has only emboldened them against us. In response, he endeavors to shrink the U.S. military under the bogus premise of saving federal dollars.

At home, the domestic economy is in a shambles and only getting worse. Massive federal debt is hemorrhaging America’s money supply and stifling growth while any brief uptick in the economy is immediately offset by the corresponding surge in fuel costs. As the tentacles of Obamacare extend their reach into the private sector, businesses are struggling and collapsing under the load. Many have engaged in massive layoffs, while others have simply shelved plans to expand. Consequently, the unemployment rate has remained at levels not seen since the Carter recession of the late 1970s. Meanwhile, food stamp enrollment and dependency on other overloaded federal programs are skyrocketing.

The faltering country we see around us is not the result of happenstance. It was in the process of imploding long before any hurricane or tidal wave on the other side of the planet might have negatively influenced it, and it has continued to struggle long after those regions were on the mend. National economies and societal structures have always been subject to cyclical ebbs and flows, and this country is no exception. Yet something has fundamentally changed in the past several years. America is no longer picking itself back up, nor even attempting to figure out a means of doing so. Rather, among too many, the focus has been redirected to merely coping with the nation’s deteriorating condition, as if those who should be held accountable can believably assert innocence while resigning all of us to the unknowable quirks of fate.

But these are not abstract forces that continually undermine our nation, and threaten to bring it to its knees. What we are seeing is premeditated and orchestrated. And the blame must be rightly placed. This is the grim reality of Barack Obama’s America.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

Despite all of the leftist hype and contrived anticipation preceding Barack Obama’s 2013 “State of the Union” spectacle, the entire event was monotonously predictable and absolutely nothing of substance came out of it. >From his standard litany of disingenuous platitudes to the shameless media fawning that inevitably followed, every aspect of Obama’s latest appearance followed the standard pattern of a self-absorbed ruler and his slavish public relations lapdogs posing as news reporters.

Even their “coverage” of the rebuttal by Senator Marco Rubio (R.-FL) was executed according to a previously strategized plan. As has invariably been the case with any previous Republican “rising star,” Rubio was slated for political annihilation before he ever spoke a word. In the end, the liberal “punditry” seized on Rubio’s sip of water as a gaffe that somehow eclipsed the substance of everything he had to say. Since their only alternative would have been to weigh his commentary against Obama’s stream of vacuous lies, liberal commentators were determined to avert a side-by-side comparison at all cost, and regardless of how petty the deception made them appear.

With North Korea assembling a nuclear arsenal and tooling up for war, radical Islam burgeoning throughout the Middle-East in the wake of Obama’s “Arab Spring, and the U.S. economy continuing to unravel, of course the defining issue of the day is the hysterically concocted impropriety of taking a drink of water in front of the cameras. In contrast, Barack Obama’s straight faced announcement that “Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime” can best be translated “My loyal followers are a bunch of idiots.” Yet to the liberal media, this glaring affront to common sense is not news. Clearly, they regard their devoted viewership with equal contempt.

Many on the right have expressed outrage at Obama’s threat to bypass the Congress if it fails to cooperate with him. Yet even this is nothing new. For many years, Obama has repeatedly made know his resentment of the Constitution and the limits it imposes on his grandiose plan to remake America, openly decrying its checks and balances as an irritation and an impediment. From his first days in office, his actions have revealed a determination to circumvent them by any means possible. Forget all of that trite nonsense about swearing to uphold the Constitution. That archaic scrap of parchment, and indeed the law itself are merely an obstacle to be overcome.

So aside from being perhaps a bit more bloated with his self-importance (if that is even possible), what the nation received Tuesday evening was merely an assurance from Obama that the destruction will continue, perhaps accelerated a bit as the Washington GOP Establishment continues its retreat. His minions are pleased that the culture will continue to implode, and the hemorrhaging of the nation’s treasury through the time proven disaster of redistribution will go on, at least for the moment. Inside the Beltway, this is merely business as usual.

Meanwhile, out in the hinterlands, the simmering resentment in the American Heartland is coming to a boil. Citizens are increasingly regarding their state governments as a firewall against the federal government assault. Though the expected Republican turncoats are acquiescing to Obamacare mandates in such states as Ohio, and Nevada, elsewhere, truly conservative governors are drawing a line in the sand, and taking an increasingly confrontational tone against the ravages of the nanny state.

Once again, Texas Governor Rick Perry is setting the example of just how such an endeavor is to be undertaken. Despite his lackluster showing in the Republican presidential primaries last spring, Perry has continued to lead his state in a manner that not only yields great results on the economic front, but inspires an increasingly forceful dissent among the “grassroots” across the nation.

Having openly castigated Obama on many issues, including Second Amendment rights and the culture, Governor Perry has also rebuffed the administration in regards to taxes, spending, and the economy. In stark contrast to Obama’s empty fraud, Perry offers as evidence the successes of his ideology as Texas continues to lead the nation in new jobs and general economic growth.

Now, in a bold move that highlights the stark differences between the failing collectivist model and America’s time honored free market, Perry is essentially taking on the disastrous ideologies which dominate the government of California. Traveling to the once “golden” state this past week, he visited major entrepreneurs and invited them to relocate their companies to Texas, where the business climate is far more conducive to success than in California’s increasingly taxed and regulated environment.

Not surprisingly, the liberal media is gloating that no businesses have taken Perry up on his offer (yet). It is unfortunate that they never exhibited a comparable interest in the results of Obama’s bogus “stimulus,” though its cost wasn’t measured in thousands of dollars (as was Perry’s effort) but in hundreds of billions of dollars.

Of course none of this sits well with California’s politicians and bureaucrats, who view businesses as a source of revenue to be squeezed for the benefit of the nanny state. Only last November, they gushed with joy over passage of the ballot initiative that raises taxes on high earners, and on which they pinned hopes of alleviating their state’s ballooning debt. To their surprise, revenues have since fallen, as the increased tax burdens have undercut businesses and further stagnated the state’s economy.

In frustration, California Governor Jerry Brown (appropriately dubbed “Governor Moonbeam” back in the 1970s, on account of his flaky and fanciful leftist worldview) reacted to Perry’s audacious move by throwing an embarrassing tantrum. Comparing Perry’s comments to “burps” and other body functions, Brown’s childish antagonism was a disgrace to both himself and his state, though the prevailing culture of the West Coast likely renders the majority of its population incapable of realizing this.

Nevertheless, struggling businesses in California and across all of America are being made aware that they can reestablish themselves in a region that is aware of their plight and willing to assist their attempts to flourish. Observing the starkly contrasting political and social climates of Texas and California, Americans can see their options for the future, along with the benefits and consequences of each. As Barack Obama endeavors to cloud the issues and deflect attention from his ongoing socialist boondoggle, and Jerry Brown wallows in an ever deepening mire of unsustainable collectivism, “Congratulations” are owed to Texas Governor Rick Perry for making his case for renewed American greatness and prosperity with such clarity.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.