Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 324: Chick-fil-A, Obama and the legacy of liberal Democrat hubris

Obama on Voters
Liberal hubris. It’s the fuel that drives the modern iteration of the Democrat party forward, a complete and unwavering -- and irrational -- belief in themselves, their issues and their causes as though preordained by a higher secular power (science? certainly not God) to triumph over any and all opponents, cultural obstacles or legal barriers in their way.

According to the dictionary, hubris “describes a personality quality of extreme or foolish pride or dangerous overconfidence, often in combination with (or synonymous with) arrogance.” Focus group-driven Democrats may have opted to ditch “quid pro quo” in favor of the more commonly used term “bribery” in an attempt to make their impeachment witch hunt more palatable and understandable to their dull-brained partisan masses, but “hubris” is what really propels them on a daily basis.

We saw it in the debate on Wednesday night, from each of the Democrat candidates. We see it regularly with the party’s inane Ukraine phone-call investigations featuring committee chairman Adam Schiff shutting down all efforts to provide President Donald Trump and his administration members constitutional due process and the right to publicly reveal the name of the so-called deep state whistleblower. We witness it whenever Speaker Nancy Pelosi steps to a microphone to spin plain facts into some sort of overly contrived and incriminating narrative regarding Trump.

We’ve experienced Democrat hubris for the past three years when Hillary Clinton runs to the media or appears before friendly audiences and expands on her crackpot theories for why she lost the 2016 election. And now former President Barack Obama’s even getting into the act, this time to lecture his own party on how to win elections -- and on what people supposedly want from Democrats. But is this really what Barack’s up to? Look a little deeper… not so fast. John Gage reported at The Washington Examiner, “Former President Barack Obama warned his party that it's pushing too far left too fast, saying the average American supports our current political and economic system and does not want it torn down.

“’Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality,’ Obama said Friday while addressing the Democracy Alliance. ‘The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. They just don't want to see crazy stuff.’

“The comments were a not-so-veiled attack on two 2020 Democratic presidential front-runners, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Sanders has promised a political ‘revolution,’ while Warren has vowed to enact ‘big, structural change.’ Both have also said they would eliminate private healthcare insurance options in favor of a ‘Medicare for all’ system.”

If Sanders or Warren ever managed to win the presidency and push through their healthcare hallucinations, it would send Obamacare down to the depths of policy hades forever. Assuming his fans fondly remember Obama for enacting the first big government takeover of the health industry, Sanders-care or Warren-care (“Pocahontas”-care?) would be on the lips of everyone from that point on. Who would bother crediting (blaming?) Obama for the ensuing mess when the first black president was so yesterday in Americans’ remembrances?

President Trump is methodically dismantling practically everything Obama did during his eight years in office and has the economy humming along like the former president never existed to apply the brakes to it. History won’t be kind to the precursor of such rapid improvement, and Obama will someday take his rightful place in the dredges of the bottom tier of the least successful past presidents. It’ll be bad. Maybe Obama will end up placed next to Jimmy Carter among the White House’s biggest losers.

Aside from this, something doesn’t smell right with this Obama quote. Gage’s article contains a CNN video report with Obama’s actual words, which revealed a couple things from the audio of the speech. First, the “One” is definitely out of practice speaking without a script to a live audience, and two, the former purveyor of “Hope and Change” has either radically rehabilitated his political views… or he’s hiding something.

On the first count, Obama spoke haltingly and searched for words. Granted he was never a terrific off-the-cuff speaker to begin with, but he was never this bad. It’s amazing how being in front of cameras and microphones every day as president tends to make certain politicians skillful in extemporaneous utterances, at least to the point where they don’t make fools of themselves. Speaking proficiency is almost like a reflex, or perhaps more aptly, is akin to a muscle. The more you exercise it the stronger it becomes. And if you let the muscle sit idle, it results in atrophy.

You heard it here -- Obama’s once legendary gift of gab is in atrophy. But then again, everyone knows O could barely sound coherent whenever he was separated from his teleprompter anyway. It hasn’t been so long since he left office that we forget how he used to bring the thing everywhere and set it up even for short speeches so as to avoid having to search for words as he did with the Democracy Alliance. If Obama’s intent on playing a bigger role in the 2020 campaign he’d better practice up a bit -- or people might recognize what a dolt he was all along.

On count two, Obama’s newfound “moderation” is nothing short of retroactive reputation repair, plain and simple. The two-term president likely figures everything he does from here on out counts against his legacy. But there’s something else -- it’s also a rearguard protective volley against those who would threaten the presidential prospects of Obama’s buddy and chief cheerleader, Joe Biden. Grampa Joe is in hot water these days with Obama administration corruption being exposed to the light of day every time Adam Schiff conducts another hearing, and it’s about time Obama himself jumped in to save his veep’s candidacy before it’s too late.

Everyone knows, despite all evidence and common sense to the contrary, Biden has assumed the “moderate” label in the 2020 Democrat race, and his stiffest competition to this point has come from the left wing of the party led by Sanders and Warren. Put two and two together and Obama’s now talking up moderation and how to attract independents and “moderate” Republicans to prop up Biden’s chances and therefore save his own skin from the leftists’ policy scalpels.

Obama certainly wasn’t running a rush-to-the-middle campaign in 2008. For those with short memories, he toured the country back then talking about spreading the wealth around (recall Joe the Plumber?), transforming America’s culture and institutions and laying the foundation for permanent liberal rule (again, it’s hubris to believe Democrats would control the government forever). The “crazy stuff” Obama had in mind included taking the world’s best health system and converting it to a model where government bureaucracy calls the shots and death panels would be set loose to ration care.

Was it “moderate?” Heck no! It was much closer to “revolutionary,” which Obama himself now disavows. But it’s also a self-image thing, because in Democrats’ own minds they think what they’re doing is middle-of-the-road. In numerous conversations I’ve had with Democrats about Obama and the way Republicans treated him during his time in office, liberals are convinced the former president governed as a “moderate” and conservatives only opposed him on everything he stood for because of his black skin color.

But was it “moderate” for Obama to order his IRS to investigate and harass conservative organizations during the Tea Party wave in 2010? Was it “moderate” for the Obama deep state to initiate and prosecute from within a plan to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign and then set in motion a coup to ruin the new administration before it even got started? Was it “moderate” to blame the 2012 Benghazi travesty on a random videotape and then cover up the malfeasance of Hillary Clinton and the national security apparatus?

Or was it “moderate” to fan the flames of racism in American cities and demonize the police forces tasked with maintaining order? How many riots have there been since Obama left office? (None that I can think of off the top of my head, except maybe for Charlottesville, which resulted because of Democrat incompetence.) Was it “moderate” for Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department to create Operation Fast and Furious which led directly to Border Patrol agent Brian Terry‘s murder by Mexican thugs?

Were Obama’s judicial appointments “moderate”? His foreign (appeasement) policy? Hardly.

Unfortunately, liberal hubris also leads to other non-political negative effects like corporate boycotts, which are nothing more than fascist weapons to intimidate individuals and businesses into abandoning their beliefs or worse -- fail to support their own values against the forces seeking to destroy them.

Sadly, former conservative stalwart Chick-fil-A caved this week…and it won them no goodwill from their enemies, either. Jessica Chasmar reported at The Washington Times, “Chick-fil-A caused a stir after announcing it would no longer donate to Fellowship of Christian Athletes, The Salvation Army or Paul Anderson Youth Homes following years of criticism for donating to faith-based groups that support traditional marriage. The move sparked the ire of conservatives, who accused the chicken chain of caving to the outrage mob, but it turns out liberals aren’t exactly satisfied with the news either.

“’Chick-fil-A Still Isn’t LGBTQ-Friendly, Despite Pledge on Donations,’ reads a headline by The Advocate magazine. ‘Remember, Chick-fil-A isn’t LGBTQ-friendly yet,’ reads another by LGBTQ Nation.

“The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the U.S., wants Chick-fil-A to update its corporate anti-discrimination policy to also include protections for people based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Terrific. Expect to now see a confused transgender person taking your order at a CFA franchise near you, where the restaurant’s stock reply of “My pleasure” (after you thank them) takes on a whole new meaning. Liberal anti-Christian hubris wore down the good folks at Truett Cathy’s company despite the love and undying business support from cultural conservatives. Everyone who’s devoted special backing to the chicken chain since Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day in 2012 feels betrayed and ignored.

What did Chick-fil-A gain by selling out its values? As was made clear by the hubristic LGBTQ lobby, they want even more concessions before giving their okay to patronize the business. Seeing as every CFA that I’ve visited is regularly packed with customers, I’m not sure where the problem lies.

What’s the solution here? Fight hubris with… kindness? It ain’t gonna work. Leftists like Colin Kaepernick won’t stop until the entire world bows to their absurd ultimatums. Sad. Stick to principle. It’s the only thing left. (Note: The AFA is circulating a petition to Chick-fil-A. I highly recommend you sign it.)

Liberal hubris is here to stay. Barack Obama can offer all the advice he likes but it’s really just a grand rear-end covering legacy exercise and a barely disguised ploy to aid Joe Biden’s faltering presidential candidacy. Conservatives aren’t fooled. Be prepared to fight back -- liberals will never back down.

Share this

Chick-Fil-A, Obama, and Liberal Hubris

Great analysis, Jeff!

A point on Obama's cautioning restraint:

Bear in mind, Obama's policies are now the status quo and what Trump is doing is the radical realigning. Obama understands that HE'S now the "conservative" side of this equation. He is in a pickle, because he supports radical change but not the kind Mr. Trump is promoting. So he has to caution patience, to get the Democrats to consolidate the gains he made as opposed to biting off more than is chewable.

Revolution is easy; holding on is the hard part. Obama is learning that now. Fortunately for us the Democrats aren't.

Keep in mind that it has been 11 years since the Anointed One was elected. 21 year olds were only ten when he came to power. 30 year olds were just 19, and so the norm is Obamunism, or close to it. BHO understand that.

Trump is a radical departure, an attempt to realign the world order. Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all followed a policy of Deep State control, internationalism, environmentalism, extreme government regulations and taxation of businesses, etc. Trump is moving us away from this. HE is the radical.