Obama Team Downplays Ineptitudes

U.S. voters find it increasingly difficult to discern precisely what President Barack Obama means when he speaks. In response, the Obama team, especially his newsmedia sycophants, downplay his ineptitudes.

They talk fast to explain his broken campaign promises, such as transparency in government, a lobbyist-free White House, cost-saving universal health care, and resolution of a mounting immigration crisis.

With the Obama re-election campaign in full swing, one line of attack takes on state voter identification laws that keep ineligible persons, including non-citizens, from voting. Although the Constitution establishes voting as a state’s right, constitutional amendments have extended voting rights to certain groups over the years.

Obama shakes hands with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Seoul. (AP Image)

To divert attention from the voter eligibility issue in state and federal elections, Obama’s pliant newsmedia follow a radical left agenda. Tune into the MSNBC channel, and you might find Andrea Mitchell spouting a Democrat Party line on why we should want as many people as possible to vote. Left unsaid but implied is that ineligible persons, including illegal aliens, should be allowed to vote.

The liberal-left means to win the 2012 presidential election, even if it requires flooding the polls with non-citizen voters.

Objective reporting is not exactly Andrea Mitchell’s forte. For example, on MSNBC on June 5, 2008, she called voters in southwestern Virginia “rednecks.” Then on January 1, 2012, on the "NBC Nightly News," she stated that Iowa doesn’t represent the United States — “it is too white, too evangelical, too rural.”

Later that month, she claimed falsely that relatives of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney entered the United States illegally. Apparently she hadn’t bothered to fact-check that Romney’s relatives went to Mexico in 1885 to escape religious persecution but retained their U.S. citizenship.

Then in February 2012 on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" show, Mitchell defended President Obama’ s failures on things over which he has “so little control.”

Despite the best efforts of Andrea Mitchell and her cohorts, the president’s three years and two months in office have seen his national approval ratings fall below the 50 percent mark. High on the list of factors causing his fall from grace is the national debt.

Estimated at $15 trillion to $22 trillion, this out-of-control debt forms only a part of the price tag for the Obama Team’s “change that can be believed in.”

Among other factors are the “stimulus” bill that provided large amounts of taxpayer dollars to White House cronies, the failed “cap and trade” energy bill, the surging gasoline prices following his tabling of the Keystone pipeline project, and last but not least, his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that promises more than it can deliver, while the cost of private health insurance skyrockets.

These factors are to blame for the taxpayer’s fiscal indigestion.

Behind the president’s failures is a growing realization by the public that Obama’s changes of positions are part of his attempt to place blame on everyone and everything except his own shortcomings as a leader. Obama is an ideologue with limited political or business experience — at a time when the nation’s problems demand both.

Instead, Obama supports open-borders immigration as essential to accomplish a national restructuring with universal health care as the key to a “new” America.

President Obama’s election in 2008 depended heavily on minority voters, as he received 96 percent of the black vote and 74 percent of the Hispanic vote. His support of comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship for illegal aliens and their extended families secured him the Hispanic vote.

Today the radical left ranks comprehensive immigration reform and universal health care as major issues. Since Obama failed to deliver on his promise to tackle immigration reform in his first year as president, a new obfuscation will be needed to placate Hispanic voters.

Obama’s not-too-subtle attack on religious freedom by requiring the Catholic Church to contradict its position on contraception has not helped his relations with Hispanics.

In addition, the Democrats failed to placate Hispanics by simply replacing the term “citizen” with “individual” and “employee” in the Obamacare legislation.

Immigrant advocates assert a moral obligation to provide health care for all “Americans” regardless of their immigration status. As many as 42 percent of the 47 million uninsured “individuals” in the United States may be undocumented aliens.

The president is of the view that a pathway to citizenship, transforming nearly 20 million illegal aliens into U.S. citizens, would solve both his immigration and health care problems.

Not hardly.

Since 2010, the Obama administration has been unusually silent about illegal aliens being covered by Obamacare, perhaps because the estimated costs run in the hundreds of billions of dollars over a 10-year period.

With the November 2012 election on the horizon, the U.S. electorate might well question the glowing media reports that Obama is restructuring his “change” principles. As comedian Groucho Marx once declared, “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them . . . Well, I have others.” Groucho could have written for the president.

James H. Walsh was associate general counsel with the U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1983 to 1994. Read more reports from James Walsh — Click Here Now.