Recent antics of Mr. Obama and such of his principal associates as Attorney General Holder & Janet Napolitano have once again focused American attention on issues of moral & intellectual character. Do these individuals lack moral or intellectual perception? Are they merely generally flawed personalities, or can one more precisely describe their moral & intellectual deficiencies? The deliberate exploitation of human grief over the school massacre in Connecticut provides one clue. So, too, deliberate decisions to punish the public by misdirecting extremely modest cutbacks in Federal expansion, resulting from the "sequester," to cause immediate but unnecessary problems & inconvenience to the more productive elements of the population. Understanding such antics is the moral dilemma.
The obvious query: How may one best describe the moral & intellectual character of this President & such key associates? Are they agenda serving bullies; crack-pots betraying duty; power seeking thugs, or amoral degenerates?
To attempt to answer our query, we must obviously define the selected terms. What are the attributes of a public office holder, who may be described as an "agenda serving bully?" Consider a familiar example. Many Americans, who live in public school districts where citizens vote on school tax levies, have witnessed an all too frequent phenomenon. When a tax levy goes down to defeat, some School administrators will cut back, not on programs that officious bureaucrats seek to meddle with family values or to engineer social change, but on those which the public generally support--long-standing programs that are not controversial. This, of course, is both petty & irresponsible. It tells a lot about the intellectual & moral character of the School administrators who engage in it. They do not understand to whom they are actually responsible--nor the natural primary responsibility of parents, not bureaucrats, for children's education. But they have agendas, and they would bully the public into acceptance.
While many are used to this sort of tactic at the School District level, it is a considerable shock to see the same type of petty bully in an office once defined by the noble character of George Washington. Yet how else should we describe administrators who, in making extremely modest reductions in spending forced by the "sequester," have deliberately applied those cuts, not to controversial programs that many Americans despise, but to those--even in the same departments--which the public actually relies on. Put another way: Were there no savings possible in the Department of Transportation, which would not have mucked up essential travel, as did the "furloughing" of FAA personnel?
How should one define a "crack-pot betraying duty?" This is really no more complicated than the agenda serving bully. Where a public office holder with clearly defined duties--as a federal office holder sworn to uphold a carefully & precisely worded Constitution--repeatedly ignores his duties, in order to pursue an ideology inconsistent with the careful allocation of functions that he has sworn to respect & honor, we see duty betrayed. Where that ideology is also inconsistent with the very realities of human existence--a denial of inherent differences in aptitudes & capacities for achievement, in order to interfere with the experience based processes for human achievement; it is no stretch to characterize such ideology by the old slang term "crack-pot?"
The "power seeking thug" is one unrestrained by law, morality or heritage, in the pursuit of power. Consider the behavior of the late Hugo Chavez, across the Caribean. He operated at about the same "intellectual" level as the present crew in Washington, and was similarly free of traditional mores or moral restraint. More classic models--admittedly operating on a higher cerebral level (the terrible effectiveness of their thuggery enhanced by misused intelligence)--would include the Lenins, Trotskys, Stalins, Hitlers, Rohms & Maos. Those men knew how to "break eggs to make omelets," as it were. In quests for power, they employed the same indifference to human suffering, the same contempt for other individuals who stood in their way, as did the ancient cult from which the words "thug" & "thuggery" were derived.
Does the term apply to those waging war on the American tradition in the Obama Administration? Consider why the Constitution was so explicit, so clear in limiting the functions of the Federal Government. The Founding Fathers represented a variety of related yet different cultural heritages. Their solemn compact (the written Constitution) was intended to preserve rights to pursue happiness in quite varied ways. Descendants of people who had sometimes killed each other over those differences, carefully framed distinctions in the allocation of power, for limited common purpose, were essential to avoid the cruelty that power seeking thugs had imposed elsewhere. One indifferent to the intentions of those who came together in that compact; one willing to circumvent those intentions, to impose programs clearly illegal for a Government whose only existence is based upon that compact, has embraced the morals of the ancient thug.
It may be controversial to describe one with a large political following as an "amoral degenerate." Yet consider not only the moral duty to adhere to one's oath--is any more solemn than that to uphold the Constitution?--but also what is common to virtually every religion: That Man is answerable to a Higher Power. Moreover, while it is accepted that Man is imperfect; who making any claim to morality would justify those who make a habit out of bearing false witness? (We will not even try to define the moral character of a man who used the mass media to repeatedly flaunt his admiration of a second tier athlete, openly proclaiming conduct that religious Americans consider an "abomination," as a "hero." Note the vast difference between tolerance & flaunting. Under no moral theory is the latter acceptable.)
And consider the behavior of a demagogue, who disrupts the regular routines of small children, not yet recovered from being terribly traumatized, to use them as props for his agenda driven public appearances--promoting an agenda to deprive citizens of their basic rights;--an agenda seeking to extend Governmental control over their futures in ways absolutely inimical to a cultural heritage that once made us the envy of the earth; in brief, using frightened children as props in the quest for power?
All historic evidence goes to the fact that the better armed, the law-abiding in any society, the safer the population, as a whole, from criminal elements. Yet would any of us who stand up for the right of Americans to keep & bear arms, seek to use children, traumatized by a school shooting, as props for photo ops, even to promote that truth? How much more despicable, how truly amoral, to use them to promote something clearly contrary to the public safety!
Do you think such a man, who has sought to remake American society, his whole adult life, would hesitate to abuse information obtained by ever more obtrusive background checks? For that matter, do you believe Attorney General Holder was innocent of the carnage resulting from what has been described as the "Fast & Furious" project? Or that Janet Napolitano needs to buy up most of the ammunition being manufactured in America for certain common firearms?
Are Obama, Holder & Napolitano, "agenda serving bullies"; "crack-pots betraying duty"; "power seeking thugs," or "amoral degenerates?" The answer is, "All of the above."