What I think Greenfield left out of his article is Obama’s desire, beyond his ‘Progressivism’, is to take America down by destroying everything he can. He’ll still have two years to play wrecking ball, even if the Repubs take the Senate.
My view is this: Ebola cannot spiral out of control quite fast enough to really cause the overthrow of American society the way Obama would like. Therefore, he will intentionally handle the situation in an explicitly incorrect manner, causing panic, anger, and confusion. He’s pushing for a revolt, either from the military, from congress, or armed mobs. He will declare martial law in 2014. The Republicans elected in November will not be seated.
The disease itself will not necessarily have a devastating effect – but the disease will allow Obama to end America as a world power.
NOTE: Neither martial law or civil war have to result in a viable dictatorship and the declaration of Muslim supremacy in the United States – that does not have to be Obama’s winning strategy. He can lose. He can die. I don’t think he cares. All he needs to do is cause a complete breakdown. Civil War will be the breakdown. The winner of the war is inconsequential – America will never be capable of propping up the West again, and the Caliphate will become firmly established in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe (Spain).
I think this will happen very quickly.
I agree but how is that beyond his “Progressivism”?