Barry Soetoro had a Great Fall...
(--with 2020 Addendum)
Do you remember where you were 10 years
ago? Do you remember who was president? Who was governor? More to the
point, had you ever heard of Barry Soetoro, or should I say Barack
Obama? Technically, maybe you had. 10 years ago, Mr. Obama had just
been sworn in as a Senator and had been the Keynote speaker at the
DNC convention the previous November, but you get my point. Bush had
been a Governor for 6 years be becoming President, Clinton for 10
years, Bush Sr. had been a been a Vice-President for 8 years, Reagan
had been Governor for 8 years, Carter had been for 4 years, Ford had
been Nixon's Vice-President and Nixon and been in politics at the
nation level for a very long time before gaining the highest office
in the land. I can go back further, but the world becomes less and
less recognizable through the lens of mass media and each instance of
a person's rise to President becomes less similar than a rise is
today. So my point is that Mr. Obama has had a meteoric rise to
become President of the United States.
Let me take a moment to stress that
meteoric rise. In 2005, Mr. Obama was sworn in as a Senator from
Illinois and just 4 years later he was being sworn in as President,
having not even served a complete term as a US Senator. He catapulted
from being a State Senator—one of about 2400 nation-wide—to being
a US Senator, and then quickly catapulted further to become the
United States President. Now, making the jump from State Senator to
US Senator is not that unusual. And the jump from Senator to
President has happened before, Nixon and Kennedy are examples of
that. But to jump from State Senator to US Senator and then right on
to the Presidency, without pause? That is unheard of. Everyone who
advances up the ranks in leadership has a pause while he or she
learns how to handle the new roles and responsibilities and then
build a track-record to demonstrate that he or she is ready for the
next step. But not Mr. Obama. So I assert that Mr. Obama's rise, is a
rise most unusual.
'But', some may argue, 'If a person is
of extraordinary ability, then he will have an extraordinary rise'.
That is true, look at the meteoric rise in the business world of Mr.
Zuckerburg. He built Facebook into a platform that others could use
and has virtually defined Social Media, he was in the right place, at
the right time, with the right ambition and the right skills—much
like Mr. Gates and Mr. Jobs (read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers for
more on them). But is Mr. Obama one of these 'extraordinary' people?
Was he in the right place at the right time, with the right ambition
and the right skills? I expect that depends on that you mean by
'right'. Clearly, he did get
elected, so he must have been at the right time and place. Also, it
is just as clear that he had the right ambition, or at least that he
had the ambition to go
after what he wanted—whatever that was. But did he have the 'right'
skills? Again, since he did get elected—and re-elected—he clearly
has the skills needed to win elections.
So we
know he can get the job, but can he do
the job? Let the evidence speak for itself: IRS targeting and
'missing' emails, Benghazi, Veterans Administration scandal, trading
5 Taliban leaders for 1 American deserter in violation of law and
under false pretenses of poor health of the deserter, spying on the
Associated Press, ATF 'Fast and Furious', Eric Holder refusal to turn
over emails and contempt of Congress charges, the Healthcare.gov
failed rollout, giving 500 million in government money to
Solyndra—the company that donated 500 thousand to Mr. Obama's
election, Holder's explanation of his refusal to prosecute Black
Panthers for voter intimidation, promising but failing to close
Gitmo, refusing to defend laws that Mr. Obama doesn't agree with-- in
spite of his oath of office, changing the definitions of measurements
to create false figures—such as counting people turned away at the
border as 'deportations' when that wasn't counted in the past and
using Executive 'Memorandum' in place of Executive Orders to claim
that he doesn't use Executive Orders very frequently, granting
Executive Amnesty to people in the country illegally—in spite of
repeatedly claiming to lack the authority to do so, repeatedly lying
to the American people about the ACA and telling then that they
'could keep their insurance' and that they 'could keep their
doctors', the Secret Service prostitution scandal, the Secret Service
failure to stop intruders into the White House, the political
imprisonment of a man for making a film offensive to Muslims....gosh,
you know, I can go on and on with this, but I think I have presented
enough to make my point.
And
the point is this: if Mr. Obama was the man with the 'right' skills,
these things and these kinds of things just wouldn't have happened
with such frequency. They have happened with such frequency that
before a scandal has even left the news, another one emerged to
supplant it, and then another one after that. And what has been Mr.
Obama's response to such scandals? All too often it has been to claim
ignorance, or to declare some future action and then just never
follow through. Mr. Obama has a staff of nearly 2000 people to assist
him in his job as President—admittedly a difficult job—yet he is
constantly blindsided. Whether it was knowing about the IRS
targeting, the VA scandal, or the formidability of ISIS, he claims to
has been mis-informed. Sorry, but either he is lying, or he does not
have the 'right' skills to justify his meteoric rise to power. His
rise to power is a rise unearned.
If Mr.
Obama does not have the right skills to justify his meteoric rise to
power, then how did he achieve it, how did it happen? I assert that
he did not achieve it,
but it happened nonetheless. Which can only mean that someone
else—likely a lot of someone else's—assisted him in his rise to
power. Why would I say that, what is the evidence? I present 2 key
things that happened after
Mr. Obama got elected that expose the strings of the puppeteers and
suggest that some things which happened before he got elected were
not accidental but were intended to happen to make him become
President. The first is the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize in
October of 2009 to Mr. Obama. This award stunned everyone and no one
has a satisfactory explanation for how Mr. Obama had earned it. The
best anyone can say is that it was awarded as a downpayment
for future actions that would foster peace world-wide. The second
item is the US Senate's vote to 'cut funding for the closure of
Guantanamo Bay' by a vote of 90-6. This is key, if the Senate can
control the military with such surgical precision, then the whole
role of Mr. Obama as Commander-in-Chief is called into question. The
likely explanation is much more simple: after being elected, Mr.
Obama was more fully informed of the complications to American
foreign policy if Gitmo were to close, and he clearly changed his
mind on the matter. But he had already made very public
pronouncements to the contrary, so what could he do? Obviously, he
asked the Senate to cover his ass, and they did. Does this indicate a
shadowy control over the government? Sure it does. Whenever you have
people claiming to be diametrically opposed to each other in public
who then suddenly work together on a task and then go back to public
bickering, you should ask yourself if this 'bickering' is a real
difference of opinion or if is just puppet theater. In this case, and
the case of the passage of the NDAA, it clearly shows that the
two-party system we have if really just one-party, but I digress.
Here
are another couple of things to indicate that Mr. Obama's rise to
power wasn't just accidental. The first is the inexplicable failure
for his Republican candidates who brutally pummeled and
out-maneuvered each other, but then suddenly trip and stumble when
facing Mr. Obama. Take John McCain, for example, he was thought to be
out of the primary races very early, but then put his resources where
they would help him the most and came back to beat everyone else. But
then when he faced Mr. Obama, he became a complete idiot. He had a
source of ready-made material to use against his opponent—all of
the things that Clinton and Biden had said about Obama-- and he
refused to use it. And then the was Mrs. Clinton, an established
politician and national figure who had a special meeting with Mr.
Obama and then just let everything fall apart for her instead of
fighting as she had been doing the entire year before. And that
doesn't even touch on the Main Stream Media's 'cloak of invisibility'
that it threw on things in Mr. Obama's past such as the Rev. Wright
comments and the Bill Ayers connections or of his father's hatred of
colonialism or his mother's love of communism. And then, in 2012,
history repeated itself, with Mr. Romney's super-PACs beating up all
of his Republican rivals and then him treating Obama with kid
gloves—except for his first debate with Obama. I think that first
debate was Romney showing what he could
do even though, like Mr. McCain, he then threw the election. These
things, by themselves, would not be much, certainly not enough to
point out some controlling influence to our elections. But, when
taken together, all of these events than happen to benefit just one
person, Mr. Obama, show that his rise to power was a rise engineered.
What all of this
means is that Mr. Obama's meteoric rise to power was one that was
unusual, unearned and engineered, and I think that it also means that
Mr. Obama is headed for a fall. I think that Obama is headed for a
fall, a disaster, that will be equally meteoric in proportion to his
rise—and I think that is will be in this calendar year.
The first reason
that I think Mr. Obama is headed toward a fall is one of balance.
When considering his rise in comparison to recent history, it is
almost always the case that a person rises and then falls—and it
would not be dramatic to merely suggest that Mr. Obama will have his
decline, but the nature of his rise suggests that a slow decline into
obscurity is not really what is ahead. This is less of a
evidence-based approach and more of a common-sense one. Isn't it
always the case that the man who flies to high, the Icarus who flies
to close to the sun, then falls back to earth? “The flame that
burns twice as bright, burns half as long—and Roy, you have burned
so very, very bright.” It is just something that 'seems to make
sense' when you consider someone who has been catapulted into fame
and power, they will inevitably fall back down, but when considering
the details of Mr. Obama's rise to power, there are other
considerations as well.
One of
those 'other considerations' is that those who engineered Mr. Obama's
rise to power have more people to manage than just Mr. Obama, and
that taking just one person and giving him everything while requiring
nothing will create disloyalty 'within the ranks'. Take someone like
Mr. Biden, a loyal servant of establishment politics who—while not
terribly bright—at least knows how to do what he is told (most of
the time). He has been working within the political establishment for
decades when along comes Mr. Obama. A recently elected
junior-Senator, Mr. Obama is catapulted over
Mr. Biden and Mrs.
Clinton and becomes President, a position that Mr. Biden had hoped
for—Mrs. Clinton too. And that is just the tip of the iceberg, what
of all the other people who have been following the rules and 'paying
their dues' as they worked their way up within the establishment? A
person like Mr. Obama, just coming along and being given
everything—even a Nobel Peace Prize—for doing nothing more than
they had been doing
will create dissension among the ranks. On the other hand, if Mr.
Obama were to face an epic catastrophe, a fall as monumental as his
rise, then things will be balanced. All of the people working within
the establishment will see that being the 'golden boy' comes at a
price and they will be more satisfied with their positions.
The
other 'consideration' is Mr. Obama's hidden history—his school
records and his travel records. I don't think these will show that he
isn't a US 'natural-born' citizen, rather I think they will show that
while he is a US
citizen, he attended school, or accepted funding, or traveled while
claiming that he wasn't a US citizen. I think they will show that he
lies. But I don't know—nobody does. My point is that he can't keep
these things secret forever and that after he has had his disaster
(whatever it is) then it won't matter what these things say—he
won't matter. Or he won't matter very much.
So why
does this supposed 'fall' have to happen this year? Simple, because
after this year, Mr. Obama will become less and less important until
he reaches the point where any 'fall' could never be equal in
magnitude to his rise. Right now, he is still on the 'plateau of his
power'—as he has been for the last 6 years. But starting next year,
he will be coming down off that plateau. The eyes of America and of
the world will shift to who is coming next. By the end of next year,
all eyes will be fixed on his successor, with just an occasional
glance in his direction. For there to be any great disaster, any
great fall, it would have to come this
year.
So there it is, I
think that Mr. Obama has had a meteoric rise to power that is
unusual, unearned and engineered. I think that the great heights and
honors he has been given will be balanced by a great fall and that
this fall will serve to bolster loyalty among the ranks of the elites
and used to further the goals of the people who engineered his rise
in the first place, they—whoever 'they' are—own him. And I think
this will all happen in the year 2015.
A footnote: I don't actually like
making predictions—who does? Reality has a perverse way of turning
from it's course just to prove me wrong. When I say that we can't
keep getting snowstorm after snowstorm, we get blizzards until May
2nd (literally!). When I say that we had a bad winter last
year so this one will be better, we get the worst winter ever(!).
When I say that we will have 2-3 bad winters in a row and get a snow
blower to be ready for them, we get very little snow at all (so far).
So when I come along and say that Mr. Obama is headed for a
fall....and he will likely be just fine. You Obama supporters can
thank me later.
2020 Addendum:
Looks like all the Obama supports can thank me. Guess everything turned out fine and he glided from the Presidency with ease. So I was wrong, but why was I wrong?
My assumptions had been that there was (and is) a controlling organization that keeps watch over their political monopoly (there is! check out the book 'You can't be President' by John R. MacArthur) in the US and seeks to reward those who have shown service and loyalty with helping them advance in politics. Clearly there are organizations that have control over politics.
BUT, do they have an interest in rewarding loyalty and service-- as I had assumed. Apparently not. And I'm not just saying that to bash Obama.As meteoric as Obama's rise was (and I still maintain that it was), his successor --Donald Trump-- had an even more meteoric rise. Trump never served in any political office, and yet became President. Could the establishment have stopped him? Of course they could have. The RNC can change the rules and could have found a way to keep Trump out (voters would have gotten over it, what else can they do?). But they didn't. If your assumptions are wrong, then you will get poor conclusions.
Clearly my assumptions were wrong. Obama's departure proved it. Trump's Presidency confirms it. So what does it mean? It means that we are in a new place where long service and loyalty to establishment organizations does not mean those people will be rewarded with preferential treatment. An odd place to be, certainly, but here we are.
for more essays and for short stories, check out MHHickey.com
for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out Booksandswords.com
