WASHINGTON – Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Saturday night accused President Barack Obama and other Democrats of waging wars against religious liberty and education and said that a rebellion is brewing in the U.S. with people ready for “a hostile takeover” of the nation’s capital.
“I can sense right now a rebellion brewing amongst these United States,” Jindal said, “where people are ready for a hostile takeover of Washington, D.C., to preserve the American Dream for our children and grandchildren.”
“I am tired of the left. They say they’re for tolerance, they say they respect diversity. The reality is this: They respect everybody unless you happen to disagree with them,” he said. “The left is trying to silence us and I’m tired of it, I won’t take it anymore.”
Earlier this week, Jindal signed an executive order to block the use of tests tied to Common Core education standards in his state, a position favored by tea party supporters and conservatives. He said he would continue to fight against the administration’s attempts to implement Common Core.
“The federal government has no role, no right and no place dictating standards in our local schools across these 50 states of the United States of America,” Jindal said.
Okay, all that’s good stuff, right on the money, and surprisingly direct, honest, and plain-spoken for a politician with a national profile and possible aspirations to, shall we say, higher office. But now we get to the aforementioned question:
“Are we witnessing right now the most radically, extremely liberal, ideological president of our entire lifetime right here in the United States of America, or are we witnessing the most incompetent president of the United States of America in the history of our lifetimes? You know, it is a difficult question,” he said. “I’ve thought long and hard about it. Here’s the only answer I’ve come up with, and I’m going to quote Secretary Clinton: ‘What difference does it make?'”
Again: admirably direct, perceptive, and–well, right. My answer remains what it always has been: there’s no reason it can’t be both. They are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, the latter is a pretty much inevitable consequence of the former.
Obama is cunning, driven, and guileful as hell. Doesn’t mean he’s smart; doesn’t mean he’s capable. It just means he’s the kind of guy you don’t dare turn your back on for a moment in any sort of up-close-and-personal dealing with him…and the kind of guy you don’t expect a hell of a lot from otherwise. He’s arrogant, narcissistic, and lazy. He’s faithless and manipulative; his loyalty, to the extent that he has any at all, is exclusively to himself and his grotesque left-wing principles. He’s prickly and thin-skinned and sour, and doesn’t take criticism or opposition at all well. He’s crass and graceless. You’ll never hear people who know him, even those who support him, say that he’s anything like a nice guy. He is, in the end, a perfect modern-day American political animal. Which is to say, in more blunt terms, that he’s a pretty nasty little piece of work.
All these things are easily picked up from any serious observation of him, and from even a cursory look at his history, both personal and professional. Which is of course why the media went to such great lengths to suppress any such examination back when it still mattered; they had already hoisted him up onto their shoulders, and were absolutely determined to carry him across the finish line. He is, in sum, a douchebag and a weasel, of a sort we’ve all had the misfortune of dealing with at one time or another. I doubt that there were ever very many people who were honestly glad to see him stroll up, or who remained so for very long. And I still think that if the American electorate had had an honest profile of him made available to them, he most likely would never have stumbled into the presidency in the first place.