In the wake of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s bombshell report regarding former U.S. President Barrack Hussein Obama’s traitorous actions against the United States of America and its citizens, there are many voices calling for some kind of serious and real accountability. But in the absence of any such accountability over past political actions that were demonstrably harmful and destructive to the lives of Americans, it is understandable that many remain skeptical about such a possibility.
But the elusiveness of achieving ‘accountability’ in government may be the consequence of deeper forces beyond any individual’s direct control. Unfortunately, in a democracy governed with the ‘consent of the governed,’ the difficulty in holding individual politicians ‘accountable’ for their political actions is an unavoidable part of the democratic process itself. After all, the usual way for politicians to be held ‘accountable’ for their political shortcomings has simply been by losing elections.
So maybe the real story here is not just about Obama’s traitorous actions, but also about how and why so many Americans – supposedly citizens of a free society – either could not see Obama’s anti-Americanism, or worse, openly supported it. So who’s really accountable?
When Obama first became president in 2008, it was glaringly clear that he was no friend of America. Calling upon Americans to “summon a new spirit of service,” his collectivist philosophy became much more explicit in his second term, when during his January 2013 inaugural speech he announced that “preserving our individual freedom requires collective action.” Continue reading »
