In 1969 there was Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull who wrote a book called ‘The Peter Principle’ that introduced the concept that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”  The question in this political analysis is: Did we the people vote President Barack Hussein Obama into ‘his level of incompetence?’

After all he is an employee of the people.  And, let’s face it things haven’t been going too well under his administration for nearly two years.

Obama blames Bush for all of his problems.  Today he went to Austin Texas, Bush’s home territory, and ripped him for his economic policies.

To say, with all the promises that Obama made during his campaign for this job, bashing Bush two years into an administration that only knows the word ‘spend’, dosen’t seem to be a class act.

The class act is with our past President George W. Bush – he’s allowing Obama to do his job without interference from the past.

But Obama has no successes for the present nor do there appear to be any on the horizon for the future, so he attacks the past to defend a dilemma, much of which he created with a progressive Alinsky philosophy.

If we are to carefully examine Obama’s qualifications for the job he holds, prior to his election, this is what we would find:

• He was the son of a white American mother and a black Kenyan father.  Allegedly born in Hawaii August 4, 1961 where he grew up.
• He left Hawaii to attend college, and earned degrees from Columbia University and Harvard Law School.
• Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago where he met his wife, Michelle LaVaugh Robinson in 1992.
• Obama was elected to the Illinois state senate in 1996 and served for eight years.
• In 2004 he was elected to the US Senate from Illinois.
• In February of 2007 he announced his candidacy for President.
• He was elected president in 2008.

Now with this resume, I wouldn’t think of suggesting that Obama run for dog catcher least of all president.

Nevertheless he did and he won, in my opinion, because of a knee jerk reaction for change.

They say that the Peter Principle is a special case of ubiquitous observation, basically noting anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it fails.

However, in the case of Obama, there appears to be something more sinister than mere incompetency and being elected to a level of failure; there appears to be a motivation of wealth redistribution using the time proven techniques of socialism leading to Marxism, all of which has been used progressively in European countries until it failed, resulting in the destruction of nations in exchange for a new world order. The signs are apparent and I think it’s the motivation of this administration.