With the aid of House and Senate Democrats, President Obama increased the federal budget deficit from the $458 Billion in President Bush’s last year to over $1.4 Trillion, then  proceeded to blame the Bush administration for the national debt crisis.  When tax receipts to the federal treasury fell from $2.5 Trillion under George W. Bush, to $2.1 Trillion in President Obama’s first year, Obama blamed the rich for not paying their “fair share,” when in reality, it was the unprecedented loss of jobs due to Obama’s policies that caused the decline in tax revenue.  When faced with the reality of Americans losing jobs at an unprecedented rate, Obama invented a new metric called “jobs saved” and touted his record of saving jobs by spending taxpayer money at a rate never before seen in our nation’s history.  When the ‘jobs saved” metric proved to be a farce concocted by his spin doctors, Obama resorted to blaming ATMs for job losses. 

This pattern of blame deflection and deception has been an ongoing tenet of the Obama Administration.  In fact, Obama and his minions in the Democratic Party have sunk to new depths by blaming the Tea Party for the debt crisis and the hollow debt reduction bill that Obama signed just a week ago.  The Obama 2012 campaign manager, David Axelrod actually attempted to label the recent Standard & Poor’s downgrade of America’s credit rating the “Tea Party Downgrade.”  Of course, anyone with an I.Q. above forty could see the monumental fallacy in Axelrod’s game.  Well, everyone except the emptiest suit in the US Senate, John F. Kerry, who repeated Axelrod’s idiotic claim. To blame the Tea Party for S&P’s downgrade is akin to blaming Woodward and Bernstein for Watergate.  It is like blaming Scooter Libby for “outing” Valerie Plame…oh, wait a minute, the Democrats actually did that.

President Obama, in yet another speech to the American people, blamed Washington gridlock, a failure to compromise, Congress, Standard & Poor, and even the rich for the failure to meet the requirements set forth by the credit rating agency to retain the nation’s AAA rating as well as the 624 point drop in the Stock Markets.  During his nonsensical diatribe of blame, not once did Obama blame his failure to lead on the debt issue, or even his failure to present a plan to decrease debt.  In his “Bart Simpson” moment of “I didn’t do it,” Obama again called on the rich to pay their “fair share.”  This may work at his numerous shakedowns of his rich supporters (38 fundraisers and counting since inauguration) but Americans who actually pay taxes know who pays the overwhelming share of the bill.

Meanwhile, with zero leadership and only counter-productive measures from the White House, the nation’s economy continues its slide down the world’s economic ladder.  If our current economic trajectory remains, Obama’s legacy is that of the worst American president in history – with a resounding “thank you” from Jimmy Carter.  At this point in his presidency, Obama makes Carter appear sensible, a seemingly impossible task.   Could the man who was portrayed by leading pundits in 2008 as a cerebral scholar actually be a bumbling dunce?  Could the collective media have been that far off the mark about the odds on favorite for the position of President of the United States?  Since there has been no evidence presented to the contrary, one has to believe this to be true.
 

Unless there is a more sinister explanation for the destruction of our nation’s economy under Obama’s watch.  Perhaps as some have suggested, Barack Obama did not somehow lose his disdain for the United States.  Perhaps he was listening to Jeremiah Wright as he sat among his congregation.  Perhaps Obama’s wife Michelle did not misspeak when she felt proud of America for the first time when the nation selected her husband for its highest office.  Perhaps Barack Obama was influenced by his stepfather’s anti-American rhetoric.   Perhaps Obama’s Indonesian and Ivy League schooling tainted his view of what America should represent.  Perhaps Barack Obama actually intended to destroy the American economy in order to rebuild it according to his idea of what our nation should be.  Is this even plausible?  If we are to believe the media accounts of his superior intellect, and that of his hand-picked Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner, then intentional sabotage is the only explanation.

Or is it?  Insanity is often casually defined as doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.  Insanity is actually defined  in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as  such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility.  It is also defined as extreme folly or unreasonableness or something utterly foolish or unreasonable. 

Since most of the President’s decisions and policies are the result of a complete lack of understanding of basic life lessons, and they are largely foolish and unreasonable, could our President actually be insane?  Insanity is often associated with the same mental illnesses that cause delusions, hallucinations and paranoia.  These manifestations often lead to an inability to accept responsibility for one's own actions.  Severe delusions, such as blaming the Tea Party for America's failure to stop overspending, are often considered dangerous and can be grounds for institutionalizing a person for treatment.  When our nation’s economy finally crumbles to beyond any semblance of what it once was, and Barack Obama has blamed everyone and everything he possibly can, and continues to lack the self-awareness and insight necessary to even consider his own policies as failed ones, blaming insanity may be a compelling option.