End Times for this Administration

We’ve long believed and predicted that Obama will not serve a full four-year term, not because of assassination, and not necessarily as a result of impeachment, but most likely from forced or even voluntary resignation. We still believe it and predict it, and momentum is now building every week.

Historians ultimately get to pick the incidents that served as the final straws, but two incidents this week will be contenders. They will get very little play from the Pravda media, so you may not hear too much about them, but they will deliver a two-by-four to the forehead to the mainstream liberal intelligentsia. And when they awake from the concussion, they may open the floodgates of opinion that will finally drive Obama out of the White House.

The first is ABC News reporter Jake Tapper’s blog report on Obama and other White House officials’ reactions to the recent Al Qaeda terrorist attack in Uganda. Obama’s comments and the usual ‘unnamed’ White House official’s comments have to be seen and read to be believed.

Obama: "What you've seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself. They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains."

White House official: Mr. Obama "references the fact that both U.S. intelligence and past al Qaeda actions make clear that al Qaeda -- and the groups like al Shabaab that they inspire -- do not value African life. The actions of al Qaeda and the groups that it has inspired show a willingness to sacrifice innocent African life to reach their targets. Additionally, U.S. intelligence has indicated that al Qaeda leadership specifically targets and recruits black Africans to become suicide bombers because they believe that poor economic and social conditions make them more susceptible to recruitment than Arabs…Al Qaeda recruits have said that al Qaeda is racist against black members from West Africa because they are only used in lower level operations. …In short, al Qaeda is a racist organization that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life."

In other words, the worldview of the Obama administration is that the problem with Al Qaeda is not that it is an Islamist terrorist organization intend on killing as many infidels of all colors, shapes, sizes, ages and genders as possible; the problem is that they are racist in their recruitment practices and bombing practices and do not give blacks the opportunity to rise in the organization.

Take a moment to let that sink in. And if you think the foregoing is an unfair interpretation of the quoted comments, go back and read them again for yourself.

These quotes spring from a worldview held by less than 3% of Americans. This worldview is not shared by mainstream bread-and-butter Democrats; it’s not the worldview of even 20% of liberal elitists in the Northeast Corridor and Beltway. Even professional race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton don’t ride racism into this territory.

Mark our words—this story will make the cocktail circuit. This will be discussed in the editorial staff meetings. This will be epiphany level stuff for a whole bunch of liberal power-brokers. Their public pontifications may be about the religion of peace, but privately they have a pee-in-their-pants fear of Islamic terrorists. They loved to pillory George W. Bush, but privately they loved knowing he was on the job and willing to protect America. The idea that we now have an executive branch more concerned about Al Qaeda recruitment practices and the fact that Al Qaeda is killing too many blacks and not enough whites—well, it’s enough to short-circuit the conventional liberal’s mind. A wholesale turn on Obama can follow.

Which brings us to the second incident of the week—involving conventional liberal Democrat Congressman Brad Sherman of California. He was questioned at a townhall meeting by a lady wanting to know his views on the DOJ’s handling of the New Black Panther voter intimidation cases (dropping the default convictions) and its reported decision not to prosecute black defendants, at least with regard to voting rights violations. (Powerline has the video of Sherman’s townhall appearance here ). Sherman claimed not to know about the New Black Panther controversy, and the townhall crowd jeered in response.

Sherman stuck by his story, and soon released a statement indicating the news sources he relies on hadn’t reported anything about the DOJ scandal, so he truly didn’t know about it. He assured his constituents he’d write a letter to Eric Holder to express his concerns.

By all appearances, Sherman is a truly pathetic figure—because as hapless as he is, he is probably telling the truth about not knowing of the New Black Panther case. He’s a mainstream liberal Democrat; he has a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, can-be-no-evil certainty about his mainstream liberal views; he has no idea what’s really going on in this administration and in the American people’s reaction to it because he lives in a liberal media cocoon. He has a kindergarten level of naivete about the response his letter will receive from the Holder DOJ. And his whole world just got rocked.

No one enjoys being humiliated and made into a national laughingstock. But even more important, an ordinary liberal like Sherman is scared to death of militants of any kind (he’s only a tough guy when he beats up on WASPs). When he finally catches up to what the New Black Panther case is really all about, including videotapes and ‘kill cracker babies” audiotapes, he will be a toxic combination of outraged, frightened, disillusioned, and embarrassed, with his self-importance now completely on the line. What will he do?

If it were just Sherman, maybe nothing would happen. But Sherman is a proxy for a whole lot of Congressional Democrats who have never felt totally comfortable with the wild left of Obama, Reid and Pelosi, but they’ve always convinced themselves that they could keep it all under control. Now they know how badly it’s spiraling out of control.

The conventional wisdom would be that these two incidents will cause enough Democrats to be concerned about the loss of power that they will turn on Obama and force him out—in other words, they will always be liberal Democrats, but for pragmatic power-calculation reasons, they will sacrifice one of their own. We’re hopeful that what is going to happen will have a better explanation: a society-wide rethinking and rejection of mainstream liberalism itself, and with it, the awesome, rekindled, moral power of a free and united people demanding Obama’s resignation. And getting it.

Paul Gable

July 14, 2010