Barack Obama's path to the White House was strewn with rose petals and a red carpet of partisan news coverage almost indistinguishable from his campaign commercials.
His election was reported as the restoration of the rightful (read: leftful) king, and journalist sycophants depicted his presidential inauguration as a divinely-anointed monarch's coronation.
But this week, on his 50th day of the 100 day honeymoon traditionally granted to new presidents, Obama came under attack by one of his most faithful liberal press acolytes, Howard Fineman of Newsweek.
“In ways both large and small . . .” writes Fineman, “the American establishment is taking [President Obama's] measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking.”
Mr. Obama, writes Fineman, is being “denounced as a socialist by conservatives, criticized as a polite accomodationist by government-is-the-answer liberals, and increasingly, dismissed as being in over his head by technocrats.”
President Obama, notes Fineman, seems to have yielded too much power to Congress; become paralyzed by the banking crisis; and lost control of “the moral high ground” on spending by going along with a congressional bill “larded . . .with 9,000 earmarks.”
“The president, known for his eloquence and attention to detail,” writes Fineman, is “seemingly unwilling or unable to patiently, carefully explain how the world works — or more important, how it failed.”
What Americans clearly understand is that the stock market has lost approximately 25 percent of its value — more than $2.6 trillion dollars — in the two months since Mr. Obama became president.
During his honeymoon Obama has talked negatively of the economy almost every day, sowing negativity and uncertainty, and doing almost nothing to inspire investor confidence.
The tide of conventional wisdom and opinion may already have started turning against Obama, writes Fineman, and “the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes.”
Among those in the know, Mr. Obama seems to be viewed in two ways: that he is either a knave or a fool, a naif or a cynical manipulator of crises.
Thus far President Obama has gone along with those who think that the mortgage mess, economic recession verging on depression, and social insecurity can be fixed if enough trillions of dollars are expended.
Even if this were the right policy — and Vice President Joseph Biden concedes that at this policy has a at least 30 percent chance of failing — it requires spending astronomical sums of money we do not have.
With interest added, the Obama administration is already proposing to beg, borrow, or tax away more than $13 trillion, an amount so large that our children and their children will be paying for it, yea onto the third and four generations and beyond.
It is a burden that will hobble and cripple the United States for decades, perhaps even centuries, to come.
Most Americans intuitively understand this, which is why one recent poll found that for the first time in our history Americans believe that their children will not live as well as they have.
The wormhole of optimism and self-confidence that always used to open the way to an ever-brighter American future is now closing. Under Barack Obama, the American Dream is going into eclipse.
But what if this is happening not out of presidential incompetence but by design?
Yes, we can point to those like Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., who threatened and pressured banks to make millions of loans to Democratic constituents who bankers nicknamed Ninjas, uncreditworthy people with “no income, no job, no savings.”
Lend to them, threatened Frank, or face a regulatory witch hunt and accusations of redlining and racism.
Or we can point to Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who started the dominoes falling by outrageous statements that caused the first depositor run on a major bank — a bank, as it turned out, that had been targeted for cheap takeover by backroom Democratic donors.
But the economic chaos that turned November's election Obama's way was precipitated largely by an electronic run on America's big money institutions that happened last September — computerized withdrawal demands that threatened to surge beyond $500 billion per day.
This kind of global money manipulation, perfectly timed to influence the outcome of our election, could only have come from a major power. Were the puppet masters behind this radical billionaire financier George Soros, who once pocketed more than a billion dollars by using such tactics to break the Bank of England, and his fellow billionaire leftists?
During the last three election cycles Soros spent heavily to defeat Republicans because, as he said, America is “too strong” in the world. He believes the peace and well-being of the world depend on drastically weakening the U.S. to the power of a Germany or France.
Or was the power behind last September's computerized financial Pearl Harbor Russia, or China, or a consortium of Muslim oil billionaires, all of whom might have their own reasons to cripple and permanently weaken the United States by electing Barack Obama?
Both Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now say that a crisis should never be wasted. The current crisis is being used to leverage into place a wide variety of social and economic policy changes long desired by those on the radical left. An end to the crisis would foreclose these changes.
Is this why President Obama keeps unpacking his agenda, proposing every day a new government expansion or takeover of something in the once-private sector?
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.