Boston has always maintained a sense of autonomy. Annexed by America’s epic battles for self-governance, the city remains an industriousness co-mingling of old and new world identity.
Gem of the sea Irish pride still pervades Southie, while Dorchester, as distant from rice fields wide enough for a flock of storks to spread their wings across, is home to a new generation of Vietnamese émigrés.
On a day commemorating battles fought and lives lost in Lexington and Concord, two immigrant brothers clashed not only with time immemorial, but those now forging out a better life than the one they knew.
The interloping seconds of the Boston Marathon bombings was the fifth terrorist attack on American soil under Barack Obama’s watch; one in which domestic terror ranks below the assault on protectorate laws such as the 2nd Amendment.
For one day, Boston’s urbane, spirited way of life was in lockdown, the FBI combing Watertown searching for the escaped Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
As Blackhawk helicopters circled the boroughs, Fox News reported the older Tsarnaev, Tamerlan, already on a terror watch list, and killed in a firefight with law enforcement the night before, had traveled between the United States and the Russian Republic of Dagestan in 2011; a trip Janet Napolitano indifferently referred to as a “ping,” given he was able to evade the Feds upon re-entering the U.S.
The brothers Tsarnaev inculcating doctrine was facilitated at Boston’s Islamic Society Mosque, a haven of anti-American figureheads and rhetoric. Napolitano’s furtive “ping” and Obama’s refusal to reference radical Islam’s war on America has, as the Mosque, empowered those covert enemies of freedom within our borders.
The design of the Tsarnaev attack, Nidal Hasan’s heinous, religious rampage at Fort Hood in what the Defense Department ludicrously labels “workplace violence,” and three other centralized assaults are being manipulated in federal courts as the Obama administration efforts to multi-sensitize and battle the unsavory stereotypes of Muslim attackers.
While Obama bemoans America to “not jump to conclusions until we have all the facts,” those State Department specifics, perpetual distortions and cover-ups only become unraveled during congressional oversight hearings. The slaughter of 4 Americans in Benghazi is evidence to that.
With an ineffectual, apologetic president whose says the U.S. is no longer a Christian nation and “we must educate ourselves more effectively on Islam,” an apathetic secretary of Homeland Security and attorney general whose spent the last 16 years defending terrorists, it was the yeoman work of Boston regional law enforcement capturing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in a suburban backyard.
The famous Massachusettsan John Quincy Adams once said, “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Little could he have known then, that given the chance, they seamlessly come to America to do the same.
Because they can.
Early into his presidency, the Beltway buzzword describing Barack Obama’s protocol of protracted reaction was dithering. Dick Cheney went one better, terming it waffling as Obama’s dawdling response to the role of American troops in Afghanistan facing an emboldened enemy.
In Obama’s Keystone XL Dithering, US News and World Report columnist Mort Zuckerman wrote of the economic cost of non-implementing a transformative link to American energy independence.
Obama’s most damaging, if not intentional delay came during the two-years Democrats controlled both Houses. With the economy in free-fall, Obama and the more hell-bent Nancy Pelosi, ramrodded, without one Republican vote, his paradigmatically-flawed signature healthcare program into law.
Obama and the State Department’s inaction and cover-up at the onset of the senseless slaughter of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, are as British investigative writer James Boys points out in Two Weeks to a Presidency, [Obama’s] “dithering over the Benghazi tragedy has done little to inspire confidence. His inability to present a comprehensive strategy for the next four years, in over four hours of debates, is equally troubling.”
Dithering has been more aptly replaced by a more conventional description of how Obama thinks, acts, or chooses not to act; leading from behind. In Richard Miniter’s book of the same name, a young, feral, impressionistic Obama is described as adopting the reactionary ascriptions of his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. As president, Obama’s indecision and moodiness rely on the success or failures of female supporting players Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Valerie Jarrett.
While targeted phraseology promulgate the man and his failings, a second Obama term will further embolden a more disturbing, self-opportunistic pattern this president has already acted on; habitually skirting Congress to implement changes where he believes cooperation is lacking.
In bypassing formal legislation, Obama’s liberal agenda is predominant, witnessed in his executive fiat on welfare-to-work requirements; landmark legislation for its bipartisan efforts in 1996 under Bill Clinton.
The problem a Romney administration faces in rejuvenating the workforce stem from the hangers-on to Obama’s predilection that entitlement exists in being laconic, resentful and rooted in indignation; that welfare no longer represents failure, but failure to go out looking for or preparing for work is rewarded as a condition to receive aid.
Unable to bridge the separation of powers or reach across the aisle, Obama used authoritative action to personally overhaul the Dream Act. As Republicans consolidate their power in Congress after November 6th, an Obama replay would be more of the same, doing whatever it takes to get his way.
Resolute action is not in Obama’s repertoire. Little his defenders say about the number of times he was swift to act are pretentious. His self-proclaimed achievement of hanging Osama bin Laden’s head above his mantle was over 12 months in the making, and impossible without interrogatory information he chastised his predecessor’s tactics to attain.
One possible way for Obama to win reelection is for great numbers of voters to remain ignorant of the true natures of both party candidates on Election Day.
If enough of the nation’s electorate grasp a moderateunderstanding of the differences between these men, Americans will choose someone who acts fast and purposeful on his directives. It will usher in a new era of economic prosperity and resolve, because Mitt Romney is a man who will not dither. There’s simply no time.