I have good news to share: If his former supporters continue to abandon President Barack Obama and his radical agenda at their current rapid rate, and I suspect they will, you will have a happier 2010 than you could have imagined just twelve months ago.
By quietly dismantling immigration enforcement, pandering to the ethnic identity lobby with empty "comprehensive immigration reform" promises, pursuing his massively expensive, controversial health care reform that will include illegal aliens (plus, needless to say, legal immigrants), and by escalating an unpopular Afghanistan war, Obama has caused the scales to fall from the eyes of some of his most ardent MainStream Media admirers.
Add to those dismal performances Obama's pitiful inability to deliver "change" of any sort. His ineptitude is most painfully obvious on the employment front where Obama is unable to deliver on even the smallest percentage of the three to five million additional jobs he vigorously promised during his carefully-choreographed campaign.
Amidst all Obama's administrative chaos, we now know that Homeland Security, under Janet ("Man-Caused Disasters") Napolitano's rudderless direction, cannot keep known Al-Qaida terrorists off U.S.-bound flights.
Little wonder that the adoring throngs who were in such a tizzy about the first African-American president are now trying to figure out how it could all have gone so wrong so fast.
Apparently anxious to get out of the crossfire, Obama has made ten overseas trips to 21 different countries. If you had failed across the board on as many fronts as Obama, you'd be eager to get out of Dodge too. [Big First Year Leaves Obama Tired, Associated Press, December 29, 2009]
Things have gotten so bad for Obama that two major Democratic columnists appearing in leading liberal newspapers have recently written critically about him.
Frank Rich, is the New York Times' senior advisor to the paper's culture editor and, unsurprisingly given his title, an Obama fan
Yet in his December 19 column, Rich grouped Obama in a group of men (including Wall Street executives and—this is serious!—Ted Haggard) whom he said have "bamboozled" us in the "dreadful decade" just closed. He wrote bluntly:
This can be seen in the increasingly urgent political plight of Barack Obama. Though the American left and right don't agree on much, they are both now coalescing around the suspicion that Obama's brilliant presidential campaign was as hollow as Tiger's (Woods) public image—a marketing scam designed to camouflage either his covert anti-American radicalism (as the right sees it) or spineless timidity (as the left sees it). The truth may well be neither, but after a decade of being spun silly, Americans can't be blamed for being cynical about any leader trying to sell anything. [Tiger Woods, Person of the Year, by Frank Rich, New York Times, December 19, 2009]
So both Republicans and Democrats find themselves sharing common ground on at least one key point: that Obama scammed, to use Rich's word, the country into thinking that he would be an effective leader.
Even harsher criticism comes from Washington Post columnist (and our frequent ally in the immigration war) Robert Samuelson.
Predicting that passing health care reform could become a "nightmare" for Obama, Samuelson makes these observations:
"Barack Obama's quest for historic health care legislation has turned into a parody of leadership. We usually associate presidential leadership with the pursuit of goals that, though initially unpopular, serve America's long-term interests. Obama has reversed this. He's championing increasingly unpopular legislation that threatens the country's long-term interests. 'This isn't about me,' he likes to say, 'I have great health insurance.' But of course, it is about him: about the legacy he covets as the president who achieved 'universal' health insurance. He'll be disappointed."
And, Samuelson wrote more damningly about the consequences of passing (if indeed it does pass) willy-nilly health care legislation:
"The finished product will fall far short of Obama's extravagant promises. It will not cover everyone. It will not control costs. It will worsen the budget outlook. It will lead to higher taxes. It will disrupt how, or whether, companies provide insurance for their workers. As the real-life (as opposed to rhetorical) consequences unfold, they will rebut Obama's claim that he has 'solved' the health-care problem. His reputation will suffer.
"It already has. Despite Obama's eloquence and command of the airwaves, public suspicions are rising. In April, 57 percent of Americans approved of his 'handling of health care' and 29 percent disapproved, reports the Post-ABC News poll; in the latest survey, 44 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved. About half worried that their care would deteriorate and that health costs would rise."
And:
"If we don't curb immigration of the poor and unskilled—people who can't afford insurance—Obama's program will be less effective and more expensive than estimated. Hardly anyone mentions immigrants' impact because it seems insensitive."
Samuelson's conclusion:
"This is a bad bargain. Health benefits are overstated, long-term economic costs understated. The country would be the worse for this legislation's passage. What it's become is an exercise in political symbolism: Obama's self-indulgent crusade to seize the liberal holy grail of 'universal coverage.' What it's not is leadership. [Passing Health Reform Could Be a Nightmare for Obama, by Robert Samuelson, Washington Post, December 21, 2009. VDARE.COM Links added.]
Samuelson's analysis doesn't surprise me a bit. Two weeks ago I wrote that many Democrats rue the day they heard the words "health care"
Erosion within Obama's base is a wonderful thing for patriotic immigration reformers.
First, because so many Congressional Democrats have gotten the message that voters are not buying into their agenda, reconciling the health care bill will be tough. The rigid liberals like Majority Leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi may view Obamacare as essential to what they perceive as their mandate. But the blue dog Democrats and other moderates see it as a one-way ticket out of office.
Second, H.R. 4321, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity bill conceived by Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez and delivered by Texas Rep. Solomon Ortiz has rekindled the fear that in 2010 somehow comprehensive immigration reform will pass.
I say: No way!
Given the waning Democratic popularity, the waxing skepticism about Obama and the certain bitter fight to the end over Obamacare, I cannot conceive of any scenario under which amnesty will progress.
I'll add this additional Happy New Year thought.
Of my many well placed Capitol Hill sources, none take the Gutierrez bill seriously. At the White House press conference announcing the bill, no reporter asked a single question. [Gutierrez Reform Bill Has No Chance, by Esther Cepeda, Chicago Sun-Times, by Esther Cepeda, December 21, 2009]
As our Washington Watcher pointed out in his recent column, even Gutierrez's fellow pro-amnesty Democrats Pelosi and Reid haven't endorsed H.R. 4321.
Finally, keep in mind that the important amnesty players are not Gutierrez, Ortiz, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham or John McCain. They have been lost causes for some time.
The important votes, in the unlikely event that "comprehensive immigration reform" comes to the floor, will come from blue dogs like my own U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire (immigration grade: A-)
One year ago today, I promised that 2009 would be amnesty-free. I renew the same pledge to you for 2010.
Of course, 2010 will be a tough year: stealth amnesty, Obamacare, crucial Congressional races that, if enough patriotic immigration reform candidates win, could tip the balance in our favor or, if the Treason Lobby prevails, set the stage for comprehensive immigration reform in 2011.
Above all, there is no sign that any professional politician is prepared to do the obvious: lead the fight for an immigration moratorium, keyed to the current record unemployment. Nor is the MSM even prepared to talk about it.
Our fight never ends!
Joe Guzzardi [email him] is a California native who recently fled the state because of over-immigration, over-population and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life. He has moved to Pittsburgh, PA where the air is clean and the growth rate stable. A long-time instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, Guzzardi has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It currently appears in the Lodi News-Sentinel.
