The rude awakening is already beginning among those Obama supporters who expected any real “change” from this candidate. Other than his ability to fool some with smooth talk, the political renewal into which they were inspired to invest so much “hope” has thus far manifested itself as a reemergence of a bunch of Clinton era retreads who are already laying out plans to bring back the good ol’ days of liberal cronyism and chaos.

 

Imminent White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel offered one of the most ominous harbingers of America’s future with his outrageous, abominable, and revealing statement “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” The outlandish nature of that statement should alarm all but the most blindly obedient Kool-Aid drinkers on the left (whose ranks have admittedly swelled in recent years).

 

Being Jewish, one might expect Emmanuel to abhor such a Reichstag-burning concept of advancing a political agenda. But any scrutiny of his past behavior as a Democrat political strategist proves this latest disgrace to be entirely consistent. Nor is he alone. In the wake of 9-11, Clinton loyalists were quick to lament not the horror and loss of thousands of innocent Americans, but the regrettable misfortune that such a catastrophic attack could not have occurred on Bill Clinton’s watch instead of Bush’s, thereby granting Clinton the chance to prove his greatness.

 

Emmanuel is indeed just such an opportunist, just as his soon-to-be boss Barack Obama. These people are, after all, the standard bearers for the Democrat Party, which for nearly a century has built its own political empire on the backs of the downtrodden. Not truly helping them, the Democrat machine has instead been diligently keeping them in just such a predicament in order to prove itself their indispensable champion and defender.

 

Recognizing the once-likely prospect that a United States victory in Iraq, and thus in the Terror War, would bolster American morale and national prestige (qualities that spell doom for the crippled electorate that is so essential to Democrat fortunes), the left worked overtime to undermine any moral legitimacy of the entire effort. And the success of its seditious labors cannot be denied. Examples are plentiful.

 

It is beyond absurd to attempt any comparison of present-day life in Iraq, as opposed to the nightmarish existence under Saddam Hussein, where rape-rooms, real torture of average citizens often for inconsequential reasons, and even genocide (as evidenced by the never-ending discovery of mass graves), characterized an existence far more horrible than anything Americans could imagine. Yet the left makes just such an assessment, and in its twisted judgment has maligned America, and not the “Butcher of Baghdad” as the real oppressor of the Iraqi people.

 

In response to the hundreds of thousands of murders and other outrages against basic human dignity, the left (with Obama as its sanctimonious but selective ombudsman) has promised to remove the United States presence that ended the misery and liberated the Iraqi people. Surely, the possibility of an impending Iranian insurgency and more mass graves is a small price to pay for the assurance that no wayward U.S. soldier ever again forces militant Islamist prisoners to play “dog pile” at Abu Ghraib.

 

Closer to home, the decades-old effort by the left to dismantle the American educational system apparently paid-off handsomely during this latest election. Young people, just entering the job market, were among Obama’s biggest supporting demographic. Yet it is they who will likely be harmed most by the job-killing agenda of the nanny state with its overarching governmental intrusion into the market place and social safety “net” that is more accurately termed a “snare.”

 

The pattern of orchestrated failure is stark and undeniable. The more directly any educational system is influenced and defined by the left, the more thoroughly are the students emerging from it rendered unable to access America’s tremendous opportunities or even able to cope with day-to-day life in this country. And inner city minority populations, ostensibly Obama’s chief area of concern, have inarguably suffered most as a result of the liberal insurgency into the instruction of young people. Yet Obama callously insists that more of the liberal disease should be offered as the only cure for its own symptoms.

 

Coldly refusing to even consider any real fixes for the appalling conditions in urban schools, Obama defends himself by asserting some twisted visage of “fairness” as the reason to continue this monopoly of academic squalor. Since a solution such as educational vouchers (despite a proven track record of vastly improving the circumstances of students where they have been instituted), would not necessarily be utilized by every single student, Obama would refuse help to any. Among liberals, achieving universal squalor for all is apparently a higher calling than creating opportunity for some.

 

Were such twisted “moralizing” to be taken seriously, it would be easy to conclude that Obama and his kind might have opposed the heroic work of Harriet Tubman and her “Underground Railroad” by which slaves were led from chains to freedom in the ante-bellum South. She certainly could not have liberated every one of them so liberal “fairness” would require that they all be left in bondage.

 

Of course the looming prospect of renewed slaughter in Iraq, as well as the hopelessness and futility of urban “education” are far from being threats to the lives, liberty, and prosperity of most American people. As reflected on Election Day, the majority of this country’s citizens believe they are immune to such dire consequences of their blind idealism. Consequently, they have felt free to indulge the notion of supporting an Obama presidency as a high-minded venture with no negative repercussions.

 

However, the tentacles of a political movement that from its murky inception has been obsessed with the need for unbridled power, and thus demanding of universal compliance, will ensure that no region of this nation will be exempted from governmental intrusion and tampering.

 

From the 401K retirement accounts of average workers to the formerly common availability of cheap energy for heating, travel, and an overall decent standard of living, the lives of heartland Americans are indeed looking to “change.” But like the contorted premises and fraudulent solutions of the recently contrived “financial crisis,” those expecting worthwhile “change” from the government will find instead that its self-interests are not only primary, but exclusive.

 

The plight of average American people, including those who created this monster, is only important insofar as it benefits the newly energized liberals who now hold a near monopoly on governmental power.