Just a few brief comments on a couple of recent statements uttered by Saint Obama and his attractive, classy, brilliant, scholarly, accomplished, mother-of-the-year (the fair-and-balanced media can’t be wrong, can they?) wife.
Since Obama’s campaign for the presidency began, the two have uttered countless (adj. – too numerous to be counted) statements that beg for analysis by rational minds. Trouble is, few (rational minds, that is) are to be found in the mainstream media. After all, minds, besides being a terrible thing to waste, are of finite dimension and capacity. And, when they are filled to overflowing with biased, left-leaning grey matter, there is precious little room left for ‘rational’.
Ditto for the majority of the American electorate. The finite volume of the average American’s brain is just overflowing with important stuff with which our dolt ancestors didn’t have to contend (you know – the need to remember what day and time ‘Deal or No Deal’ airs, how Angelina and the twins are doing, and volumes of other similarly weighty and life-sustaining pieces of information). ‘Rational thought’ is a luxury we can no longer afford.
But I digress ...
I’d like to take a look at just a couple of comments recently offered up for our perusal by Obama and the missus. We’ll do more at a later time. On any given day, they utter dozens of statements that require careful scrutiny, lest we few remaining ‘rational thought dinosaurs’ be driven mad by swallowing them at face value.
The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more ... Michelle the Merciful
[convenient Marxist translation: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.]
First of all, Michelle ... call me picky, if you like, but you need to remember that, despite its inferiority to Spanish, in English grammar, person is important. ‘Someone’ is not a ‘they’. ‘Someone’ is a ‘he’ or a ‘she’. The grammatically (if not rationally) correct statement should be: ... then someone is going to have to give up a piece of his/her pie ...
More importantly, Michelle, do you not think that the working people of America, most of whom are handing over to the government, in one form or another, more than thirty percent of the fruits of their labor, are sharing their pie sufficiently already?
As for your inference that Americans are going to have to be more willing to give to others (at the figurative point of a gun, it would appear), are you aware that Americans are the most charitable people on the face of the earth? That, when allowed to use their time and money as they see fit, they give more of both to the less fortunate than have any other people in the history of mankind? (By the way, Michelle, how does that particular observation mesh with your recent comment, made during a South Carolina stump speech, that America is 'just downright mean'?)
Are you also aware, Michelle, that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the federal government granted the power to dictate educational standards or curricula, or the power to provide universal healthcare to everyone (either citizens and/or illegal residents)? As a matter of fact, the decisions regarding both are left to the states, or the people themselves.
I, for one, am becoming increasingly aware that you, and your husband, are arrogant, racist, elitist, anti-American, Marxist would-be tyrants. And the thought that he may soon be serving as President, and you as First Lady, is among the most horrifying thoughts that have ever entered my mind.
Michelle, before moving on to your husband's comment, I'll refer to yet another of yours, without editorial comment from me. I believe this one reeks so harshly of arrogant, narcissistic elistism that any reader here would be highly insulted if I even attempted to parse it:
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism ... that you come out of your isolation ... Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
Dear readers, have you managed to keep your breakfast/lunch/dinner down, or should I have preceded that particular piece of condescending conceit with an 'impending nausea' warning?
We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom ... the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges ... Saint Obama (in describing his Supreme Court litmus test)
More Grammar 101: Senator, 'criteria' is a plural noun. 'That's the criteria' should correctly read 'Those are the criteria', or 'That's the criterion.' (End of grammar lesson ... I, and many Americans, would forgive you saying, 'I ain't got no criteria,' provided your intentions were honorable. But such isn't the case.)
Senator Obama, I'll see your empathy for the young teenage mom (and all of your other 'victims' mentioned above), and raise you my empathy for the unborn child. A legal scholar who believes in the sanctity of life -- say, a Clarence Thomas or an Antonin Scalia -- what color would your litmus paper turn in his presence?
The problem with relying on emotions (either genuine, or politically-motivated – the latter being the one with which you are most intimately acquainted) to decide cases that come before the Court is that there are invariably passionate emotional arguments on both sides. That is why an unwavering duty to uphold the original intent of the Constitution must be the foremost criterion in selecting judges to sit on the highest court in the land. Emotions must play no part in that noble calling.
Are you really an attorney, or is that assertion just a convenient creation of one of your P.R. people? If you are indeed a member of the bar, did you miss the class in law school in which the professor dispensed the time-honored lesson that justice is blind? The law, and the interpretation of law, has nothing to do with empathy. It has to do with impartiality in upholding the U.S. Consitution -- not any single man’s personal perception of what is ‘fair’ or ‘right’.
Barack Obama regularly displays a blatant contempt for the most magnificent blueprint for governance ever conceived by the mind of man. The quote above is simply one of countless comments that exhibit that contempt. If he places his hand on a Bible on January 20, 2009 and affirms:
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States ...
... he will be lying.
In addition, America’s slide into socialism, and Islamic terrorists’ ability to accurately position her in their crosshairs, will be strengthened to a measure beyond anything any of us can now envision.
The arrogance and elitist attitude of Senator Obama also became glaringly apparent over the past few weeks as he announced his strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq before departing on the ‘fact-finding mission’ (read: campaign swing) that will include visits to both Iraq and Afghanistan – in effect, saying that nothing that occurs during that trip will alter his view, or change his strategy to wind down the war in Iraq.
Here we have a man whose ‘qualifications’ for the presidency seem to amount to a brief and unremarkable stint in the senate (without a single meaningful legislative achievement to show for it) and a history as a ‘community organizer’. On the other hand, more than a hundred thousand duty-bound Americans have served, and are serving, in Iraq and Afghanistan, witnessing both a past and a continuing brutality that you or I cannot even imagine, leaving their friends and family in order to travel to a violent war zone, placing their lives on the line each and every day – and many even re-enlisting two or three times. Yet this ‘community organizer’ has in effect declared that nothing he witnesses in either war zone, and no words, admonition or advice he hears from those Americans who are serving there, will affect his preordained view of that war ... or their amazing accomplishments in prosecuting it.
It would be difficult to conceive of a more insidious kind of arrogance, either historical or present-day. Yet, six months from now, this man may well be the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, and leader of the free world.
... which all lends tragic new meaning to the phrase 'the inmates are running the asylum'.