Gullible, an adjective, is defined in most dictionaries as “easily cheated or tricked.” Glib and charismatic, then-Sen. Barrack Obama campaigned on a hope-and-change platform, constantly referring to the U.S. as the greatest nation, constantly deriding his predecessor as being responsible for all problems in the U.S.
Our economy is on the brink of collapse, stimulus monies have failed, the takeover of industry has failed, financial industry bailouts went to executives’ bonuses, the mortgage industry is full of foreclosures, commercial and retail properties are vacant. Programs paid into for many years and pension benefits earned are regarded as “entitlements,” subject to curtailment.
President Obama before election did not mention years of preparation for finding Osama bin Laden, but he accepted kudos for bin Laden’s demise. Commander in -chief Obama told the world who, what, how and what we got from the enemy — a deed that placed operatives and military in jeopardy.
Our attorney general is practicing “selective enforcement” of law, our secretary of state wants binding international treaties, negating the Constitution within our borders, and recent Supreme Court appointees believe law is interpreted to reflect popular notions, not legal precedent.
When politicians appeal to “hope and change,” every American should demand what is being hoped for and what is going to be changed before casting a vote — or is it flattering to be gullible?
Peter L. Williamson