Monday, September 17, 2012
The Rule of Obama
Historically the American ideal has been that all men should be equal before the law. While America hasn’t always achieved that it’s part of American DNA as evidenced by the anger that people have when it’s perceived that a rich or famous person gets preferential treatment in court.
We’ve known for a long time that Obama holds a different view of how the law is to be applied.
Among the first examples of Obama’s belief that not all men are created equal was in 2011 when roughly 1200 entities, representing 3% of Americans, received exemptions from certain aspects of ObamaCare. Outside of the MSM significant concern was raised about the fact that those entities seemed to disproportionately consist of friends of Obama.
For example the AARP that lobbied heavily for ObamaCare was given an exemption from government oversight on the rates it charges for its lucrative “Medigap” coverage.
At the time it seemed that perhaps the Chicago rule of who you are not the law was coming into play. The law being merely a guideline that could be modified by politicians to benefit the good--ie those who contributed--people and punish the bad--those who voted for your opponent--people. That of course is a classical example of the corruption that most Americans associate with the Third World.
Another example of the Rule of Obama is his decision to not defend, in direct contravention of his Oath of Office, the Defense of Marriage Act, a law fully supported by Bill Clinton and the Democrats when it was passed.
Under the Rule of Law Obama would have had to defend the law until it was either modified or repealed by Congress or the Supreme Court determined that the law was unconstitutional. But under the Rule of Obama the President has the power to decide what laws are to be enforced and who those laws will be enforced on.
Just recently there have been two other major examples of Obama’s “nuanced” view of the law.
In early August the Obama administration told defense contractors to ignore the WARN Act, a law which requires large companies to give a 60 day warning when they are planning to lay off a large number of workers--note that Solyndra too did not provide warning to its workers.
The supposed Obama rationale was that sequestration was not foreseeable even though it is written in the law.
Defense contractors are clearly leery about this guidance from their prime customer. They can either break the law, and suffer consequences as Solyndra has discovered--Solyndra was just ordered to pay those laid off back pay-- or they can risk alienating their only customer.
The real motivation behind the Obama administrations guidance is of course that the warning notices that the defense contractors need to send to employee’s whose jobs are at risk because Obama insists that everyone making more than $250,000 a year should pay more taxes would go out mere days before the election. To avoid this potentially negative impact on Obama the Rule of Obama gives Obama the authority to unilaterally modify any laws which may hurt him.
Just today another example of the Rule of Obama came out. It turns out that in the sort of ironic parody only liberals can produce the IRS has said it will not enforce the ObamaCare “tax”.
In response to Obama’s declaration that if he is reelected he will figure out how to work around Congress conservative pundits gave an example of Romney, if elected, “working around Congress” by enacting tax cuts by ordering the IRS to not enforce the tax codes as an example of why the Rule of Obama was not a good idea.
Today we learn that Obama apparently listens to conservatives but is apparently sarcasm challenged since he himself has just unilaterally enacted a “tax cut” for people, at least until after the election, by having the IRS not enforce the ObamaCare tax law.
The Rule of Obama appears to be that what benefits Obama, and to some extent fellow Democrats, is legal and what hinders them is not.
If Obama is reelected we can expect to see the further Chicagoization of America as who you know becomes more important than what the law says and the law ceases being a set of rules but becomes merely guidelines that the President can modify as he sees fit. It appears that Obama is truly aiming at the first “Imperial” American presidency.
We’ve known for a long time that Obama holds a different view of how the law is to be applied.
Among the first examples of Obama’s belief that not all men are created equal was in 2011 when roughly 1200 entities, representing 3% of Americans, received exemptions from certain aspects of ObamaCare. Outside of the MSM significant concern was raised about the fact that those entities seemed to disproportionately consist of friends of Obama.
For example the AARP that lobbied heavily for ObamaCare was given an exemption from government oversight on the rates it charges for its lucrative “Medigap” coverage.
At the time it seemed that perhaps the Chicago rule of who you are not the law was coming into play. The law being merely a guideline that could be modified by politicians to benefit the good--ie those who contributed--people and punish the bad--those who voted for your opponent--people. That of course is a classical example of the corruption that most Americans associate with the Third World.
Another example of the Rule of Obama is his decision to not defend, in direct contravention of his Oath of Office, the Defense of Marriage Act, a law fully supported by Bill Clinton and the Democrats when it was passed.
Under the Rule of Law Obama would have had to defend the law until it was either modified or repealed by Congress or the Supreme Court determined that the law was unconstitutional. But under the Rule of Obama the President has the power to decide what laws are to be enforced and who those laws will be enforced on.
Just recently there have been two other major examples of Obama’s “nuanced” view of the law.
In early August the Obama administration told defense contractors to ignore the WARN Act, a law which requires large companies to give a 60 day warning when they are planning to lay off a large number of workers--note that Solyndra too did not provide warning to its workers.
The supposed Obama rationale was that sequestration was not foreseeable even though it is written in the law.
Defense contractors are clearly leery about this guidance from their prime customer. They can either break the law, and suffer consequences as Solyndra has discovered--Solyndra was just ordered to pay those laid off back pay-- or they can risk alienating their only customer.
The real motivation behind the Obama administrations guidance is of course that the warning notices that the defense contractors need to send to employee’s whose jobs are at risk because Obama insists that everyone making more than $250,000 a year should pay more taxes would go out mere days before the election. To avoid this potentially negative impact on Obama the Rule of Obama gives Obama the authority to unilaterally modify any laws which may hurt him.
Just today another example of the Rule of Obama came out. It turns out that in the sort of ironic parody only liberals can produce the IRS has said it will not enforce the ObamaCare “tax”.
In response to Obama’s declaration that if he is reelected he will figure out how to work around Congress conservative pundits gave an example of Romney, if elected, “working around Congress” by enacting tax cuts by ordering the IRS to not enforce the tax codes as an example of why the Rule of Obama was not a good idea.
Today we learn that Obama apparently listens to conservatives but is apparently sarcasm challenged since he himself has just unilaterally enacted a “tax cut” for people, at least until after the election, by having the IRS not enforce the ObamaCare tax law.
The Rule of Obama appears to be that what benefits Obama, and to some extent fellow Democrats, is legal and what hinders them is not.
If Obama is reelected we can expect to see the further Chicagoization of America as who you know becomes more important than what the law says and the law ceases being a set of rules but becomes merely guidelines that the President can modify as he sees fit. It appears that Obama is truly aiming at the first “Imperial” American presidency.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
The Liberal First Amendment
Liberals both in and out of the MSM constantly portray themselves as staunch supporters of the right to free speech. To the extent that many of them worship one of their key gods is supposedly the First Amendment.
After all doesn’t the ACLU defend Nazi’s right to march in front of Holocaust survivors, the right of the KKK to advertise on public property, the most extreme forms of exploitative pornography, and any and all attacks on religion?
What better credentials, our liberal friends tell us, can there be to show how much liberals love free speech?
This week however provides two studies in contrasts which help demonstrate how to liberals really view the First Amendment.
In DC liberals are working hard to censor a man who released an anti-Muslim film. No not Bill Maher whose film Religulous that spends 20 minutes mocking Islam and was seen by hundreds of thousands of people at movie theaters. Bill is one of the good guys in the liberal universe so apparently his attacks on Islam are fine and proper.
Instead the full power of the American government is being brought to bear on some random Coptic Christian who was probably persecuted by Muslims for his entire life in Egypt. Real persecution; the life threatening kind not the faux kind liberals always invoke for themselves. His movie, released on YouTube and seen by hardly anyone before the latest dust up in the Middle East is now public enemy number one.
You see according to the Obama administration Muslims have very very particular sensitivities. They don’t object to Obama killing Muslims with drone strikes or about Obama’s incessant spiking the football about it. They’re not bothered by Obama’s war in Afghanistan. They won’t be bothered by a big theater blockbuster about how Obama killed Osama. They weren’t bothered by Bill Maher’s movie--presumably because Maher is a big donor to Obama and Obama has told us how much Muslims love Obama. But by George those peace loving Muslims can’t be expected to endure a low budget seen by no one YouTube video.
As a result the full force of the liberal establishment is focused on the cause of all of our problems in the Middle East; free speech in America.
The same stalwart liberals who howled like wolves at the thought that pieces of “art” that attacks Christians shouldn’t be shown in public museums are now fighting among themselves to see who can most harshly condemn a video that attacks Islam. But they are not just trying to condemn the video they are actively seeking to censor it.
To a typical fly over American it’s a bit hard to understand why putting a Crucifix in a, hopefully, sealed vat of the “artists” urine deserves to be displayed in taxpayer funded museums but a video that condemns Islam must be driven out of even the private sector.
The incongruity is even more obvious when you realize that liberals staunchly defend a porn theaters right to show a movie about raping women but would condemn that same theater for showing this anti-Islam movie.
The first internal contradiction in the Liberal First Amendment then is that attacks on Islam, and pretty much any other religion, by liberals are okay and must be promoted with public funds not just tolerated while attacks against Islam by any one else must be censored not only in the public sector but in the private sector.
The second level of internal contradiction in the Liberal First Amendment is that the KKK which advocates public racism should be allowed to speak on government signs but a cross on a city sign is odious.
In Georgia the ACLU is working hard to ensure that the KKK, a rabidly racist organization founded by the same Democrats who came up with the Jim Crow laws in the post Civil War South, can advertise its good work of cleaning up trash along Georgia highways.
The KKK claims to be a Christian group so they are religious. Yet the same ACLU who is constantly eager to knock crosses out of memorials for Christians that happen to be on public lands is eager to ensure that the KKK can declare its “good” works on public signs.
Just recently there was an outcry by the liberals because the town sign for Steubenville Ohio contained a picture of one of the major economic establishments in the town, the University of Steubenville. That evil university happens to be Catholic and as such it has a Cross on the roof of its chapel. That large chapel is a major landmark in Steubenville and as such it got added to the logo. If the university had been Jewish there would have been a Star of David and if it had been Muslim there would have been a crescent moon or minaret. Steubenville was trying to bring in business and tourists not proselytize for Jesus.
The city was simply doing what every city does with its logo; show what’s in town. Yet liberals could not stand the sight of the Cross--has anyone looked to see if liberals avoid garlic; we know they don’t avoid mirrors.
But in the case of the KKK liberals believe that the government must allow the KKK to be featured prominently on public signs even though the KKK’s speech is blatantly racist.
The second internal contradiction then in the Liberal First Amendment is that racism is protected speech but even the tiniest religious symbol must be censored.
In reality in the Liberal First Amendment there is no freedom of speech. Rather there is freedom to say what the liberal elites like and no freedom for speech they don’t like. While this is nothing new, the FACE act passed by liberals makes it a crime to politely try and hand a woman entering an abortion clinic a pamphlet, the events of this week provide clear evidence of the truly anti-free speech core of the Liberal First Amendment.
After all doesn’t the ACLU defend Nazi’s right to march in front of Holocaust survivors, the right of the KKK to advertise on public property, the most extreme forms of exploitative pornography, and any and all attacks on religion?
What better credentials, our liberal friends tell us, can there be to show how much liberals love free speech?
This week however provides two studies in contrasts which help demonstrate how to liberals really view the First Amendment.
In DC liberals are working hard to censor a man who released an anti-Muslim film. No not Bill Maher whose film Religulous that spends 20 minutes mocking Islam and was seen by hundreds of thousands of people at movie theaters. Bill is one of the good guys in the liberal universe so apparently his attacks on Islam are fine and proper.
Instead the full power of the American government is being brought to bear on some random Coptic Christian who was probably persecuted by Muslims for his entire life in Egypt. Real persecution; the life threatening kind not the faux kind liberals always invoke for themselves. His movie, released on YouTube and seen by hardly anyone before the latest dust up in the Middle East is now public enemy number one.
You see according to the Obama administration Muslims have very very particular sensitivities. They don’t object to Obama killing Muslims with drone strikes or about Obama’s incessant spiking the football about it. They’re not bothered by Obama’s war in Afghanistan. They won’t be bothered by a big theater blockbuster about how Obama killed Osama. They weren’t bothered by Bill Maher’s movie--presumably because Maher is a big donor to Obama and Obama has told us how much Muslims love Obama. But by George those peace loving Muslims can’t be expected to endure a low budget seen by no one YouTube video.
As a result the full force of the liberal establishment is focused on the cause of all of our problems in the Middle East; free speech in America.
The same stalwart liberals who howled like wolves at the thought that pieces of “art” that attacks Christians shouldn’t be shown in public museums are now fighting among themselves to see who can most harshly condemn a video that attacks Islam. But they are not just trying to condemn the video they are actively seeking to censor it.
To a typical fly over American it’s a bit hard to understand why putting a Crucifix in a, hopefully, sealed vat of the “artists” urine deserves to be displayed in taxpayer funded museums but a video that condemns Islam must be driven out of even the private sector.
The incongruity is even more obvious when you realize that liberals staunchly defend a porn theaters right to show a movie about raping women but would condemn that same theater for showing this anti-Islam movie.
The first internal contradiction in the Liberal First Amendment then is that attacks on Islam, and pretty much any other religion, by liberals are okay and must be promoted with public funds not just tolerated while attacks against Islam by any one else must be censored not only in the public sector but in the private sector.
The second level of internal contradiction in the Liberal First Amendment is that the KKK which advocates public racism should be allowed to speak on government signs but a cross on a city sign is odious.
In Georgia the ACLU is working hard to ensure that the KKK, a rabidly racist organization founded by the same Democrats who came up with the Jim Crow laws in the post Civil War South, can advertise its good work of cleaning up trash along Georgia highways.
The KKK claims to be a Christian group so they are religious. Yet the same ACLU who is constantly eager to knock crosses out of memorials for Christians that happen to be on public lands is eager to ensure that the KKK can declare its “good” works on public signs.
Just recently there was an outcry by the liberals because the town sign for Steubenville Ohio contained a picture of one of the major economic establishments in the town, the University of Steubenville. That evil university happens to be Catholic and as such it has a Cross on the roof of its chapel. That large chapel is a major landmark in Steubenville and as such it got added to the logo. If the university had been Jewish there would have been a Star of David and if it had been Muslim there would have been a crescent moon or minaret. Steubenville was trying to bring in business and tourists not proselytize for Jesus.
The city was simply doing what every city does with its logo; show what’s in town. Yet liberals could not stand the sight of the Cross--has anyone looked to see if liberals avoid garlic; we know they don’t avoid mirrors.
But in the case of the KKK liberals believe that the government must allow the KKK to be featured prominently on public signs even though the KKK’s speech is blatantly racist.
The second internal contradiction then in the Liberal First Amendment is that racism is protected speech but even the tiniest religious symbol must be censored.
In reality in the Liberal First Amendment there is no freedom of speech. Rather there is freedom to say what the liberal elites like and no freedom for speech they don’t like. While this is nothing new, the FACE act passed by liberals makes it a crime to politely try and hand a woman entering an abortion clinic a pamphlet, the events of this week provide clear evidence of the truly anti-free speech core of the Liberal First Amendment.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Obama's military
In late August head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Martin E. Dempsey attacked ex-SEALs for criticizing the egregious security leaks emanating from the White House.
He said
"If someone uses the uniform for partisan politics, ... I’m disappointed in that, I think it erodes that bond of trust we have with the American people. This displays an amazing ignorance of the relationship between the those who serve America in the military and our Democracy."
While we all agree that active duty members of the military should not campaign in uniform Dempsey seems to be saying that veterans who are no longer on active duty can’t use their service as a credential when speaking out on politics.
That would be news to Dwight David Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and John Kerry. It would also be news to the veterans who fought for our Constitutional rights that they are expected to give up their First Amendment rights not just when they were in the military but for their entire life.
In fact at the time many thought that Dempsey’s comments were being pushed as part of a partisan agenda in support of the President who appointed Dempsey. But many held out hope that Dempsey would condemn all speech by all veterans thereby being ill informed but not biased.
Sadly the DNC has provided more evidence that Dempsey, and hence the military, is being politicized just as Holder has politicized the DOJ.
At the DNC retired Admiral John Nathman spoke at the DNC. While you may have heard his speech described as extolling the troops it was far more than that. The retired admiral said
"And since the day he took office, the president has demonstrated that he respects and understands the challenges for those who wear a uniform. For every branch of the service, for those in civilian clothes or the uniform, President Obama gives us a foreign policy worthy of the men and women on this stage, to ensure that wherever they serve, their uniform and dedication is respected, and that their service makes a difference for America.
For every veteran who comes home wounded, the president invested in the VA and expanded care to more than a half million returning troops who deserve that care."
The speech is a paean to the glories of all things Obama. It is far more political than the ex-SEALs condemning publicly acknowledge security leaks.
Just as President Obama said the troops were fighting for him not America
"When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf... "
Admiral Nathman seems to think that it’s Obama’s money, not the taxpayers, that goes to the VA. Similarly the Admiral fails to note that the Republicans in Congress fully supported the increase in VA funding.
Yet General Dempsey has been quiet.
By condemning veterans who criticize Obama and staying silent when veterans support Obama General Dempsey is doing precisely what he supposedly opposes; politicizing the military.
While the average soldier has not been corrupted by Obama’s Chicago style of management it appears a watchful eye needs to be trained on the DoD to see if the leadership is putting Obama or America first.
"If someone uses the uniform for partisan politics, ... I’m disappointed in that, I think it erodes that bond of trust we have with the American people. This displays an amazing ignorance of the relationship between the those who serve America in the military and our Democracy."
While we all agree that active duty members of the military should not campaign in uniform Dempsey seems to be saying that veterans who are no longer on active duty can’t use their service as a credential when speaking out on politics.
That would be news to Dwight David Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and John Kerry. It would also be news to the veterans who fought for our Constitutional rights that they are expected to give up their First Amendment rights not just when they were in the military but for their entire life.
In fact at the time many thought that Dempsey’s comments were being pushed as part of a partisan agenda in support of the President who appointed Dempsey. But many held out hope that Dempsey would condemn all speech by all veterans thereby being ill informed but not biased.
Sadly the DNC has provided more evidence that Dempsey, and hence the military, is being politicized just as Holder has politicized the DOJ.
At the DNC retired Admiral John Nathman spoke at the DNC. While you may have heard his speech described as extolling the troops it was far more than that. The retired admiral said
"And since the day he took office, the president has demonstrated that he respects and understands the challenges for those who wear a uniform. For every branch of the service, for those in civilian clothes or the uniform, President Obama gives us a foreign policy worthy of the men and women on this stage, to ensure that wherever they serve, their uniform and dedication is respected, and that their service makes a difference for America.
For every veteran who comes home wounded, the president invested in the VA and expanded care to more than a half million returning troops who deserve that care."
The speech is a paean to the glories of all things Obama. It is far more political than the ex-SEALs condemning publicly acknowledge security leaks.
Just as President Obama said the troops were fighting for him not America
"When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf... "
Admiral Nathman seems to think that it’s Obama’s money, not the taxpayers, that goes to the VA. Similarly the Admiral fails to note that the Republicans in Congress fully supported the increase in VA funding.
Yet General Dempsey has been quiet.
By condemning veterans who criticize Obama and staying silent when veterans support Obama General Dempsey is doing precisely what he supposedly opposes; politicizing the military.
While the average soldier has not been corrupted by Obama’s Chicago style of management it appears a watchful eye needs to be trained on the DoD to see if the leadership is putting Obama or America first.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
9/11 and the Blame Game
Because Democrats can never run on their record they constantly try and blame others for their failures. Sadly because of the willingness of the Main Stream Media(MSM) to play along many Americans blame the wrong people for a variety of current problems.
This is especially evident today when the MSM is trying to blame Bush for 9/11.
9/11 occurred because of the execrable foreign policy of Bill Clinton.
We know that Osama bin Laden thought that America was a paper tiger, unwilling to fight back, based on Clintons running from Somalia after Americans were killed in the infamous Black Hawk down episode. Just as earlier Democrat presidents had convinced Mao that America would not stand and fight Bill Clinton’s actions convinced Osama that he could attack America without having to worry about retaliation.
After all Clinton had done nothing substantive after the bombing of the USS Cole and Clinton had passed on multiple opportunities to arrest or kill Osama. While Clinton was not trying to make America ripe for 9/11 his actions had the effect of giving the go ahead in the mind of Osama. Also keep in mind that the planning for 9/11 started long before Bush was elected.
Yet today the NYT is trying to lay the blame on George Bush. Why? Well because Bush is a Republican and Clinton is campaigning for Obama.
There are many other examples of Democrats blaming others for their failures. Take a look at the current Democrats meme that it is the obstructionist Republicans who are responsible for all of Obama’s broken promises.
For Obama’s first two years in office Democrats had complete control of the Federal government. They controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They pushed through Obama’s massive “stimulus” bill and realistically Obama could get pretty much anything he wanted. Yet even though the steps that Obama then declared to be necessary to “save” the economy were enacted the economy tanked.
A reasonable observer would say that the Democrats were responsible. Yet liberals and the MSM declare that it is the Republicans who are at fault.
When Bush was president Democrats blocked his judicial appointee's and anything else the could but then Democrats tell us it was necessary to protect the country. Their obstructionism and their attacks on the war which undercut our troops were declared, by Democrats, to be the essence of patriotism.
Now when Republicans block Democrats from spending more money than we have we’re informed that obstructionism is evil and bad. That Republicans only care about themselves and not about the country.
As with 9/11 Democrats have tried to blame Republicans for the failure of the policies implemented by Democrats.
The biggest example of this liberal finger pointing is the economic melt down in 2008. The crisis occurred because too many people had mortgages that they couldn’t afford and that the bad loans had been allowed to grow because the impression was that since the loans were owned by Fannie and Freddie they were safe.
Because Bush was President the Democrats try to blame him for the failure even though he had tried to address the problem by reining in Fannie and Freddie. Should he have done more? Yes. Were Republicans partly to blame? Yes. But it was the Democrats who blocked the efforts of Republicans to try and address the problem.
Few people know that in 1995 Obama was the lead attorney on a lawsuit that forced CitiBank to lend to people who didn’t really have a chance of being able to afford the resulting loans. Interestingly in that case the settlement gave more than twice as much money to the lawyers as to the 186 “victims”.
Obama’s case was the beginning of a path that continued with the reinterpretation of the Community Reinvestment Act that saw Bill Clintons administration leaning on banks to make questionable loans in service of supposedly combating racism.
Realistically speaking lending money to people who can’t pay it back, note that a welfare check was advocated by some as proof of income in some cases, will result in a huge loss of money to investors.
That huge loss came home to roost at the end of Bush’s administration. But the loss was due to policies pushed and defended by Democrats. While it’s true that establishment Republicans scared of being called racists did nothing much to try and fix the problem their crime of inaction is certainly less odious than the Democrats buying votes by getting minorities loans that would eventually go bad and financially destroy the borrowers.
Yet Democrats constantly talk about the evil impacts of Bush’s policies.
They seem to ignore that Bush inherited a recession from Bill Clinton, it started two months after Bush was sworn in, and that 9/11 occurred before Bush had been in office for even a year.
Strangely, if you listen to Democrats, Bush’s evil policies somehow managed to avoid the disaster that is the Obama “recovery” and unemployment was kept below 6% for years. The very policies that the Democrats condemned resulted in more years of prosperity than the supposedly superior policies that Obama has implemented.
In order to spare America another four years of bungling, broken promises, and “reimaging” it’s important that conservatives take back the issues by making it clear to all that the policies espoused by Democrats, from weak foreign policy to spending money we don’t have to make America prosperous, are the cause of the problems facing America today.
If voters understand that we’re in the Obama economy which came after the Democrat recession and that the war in Afghanistan is a result of Bill Clinton's foreign policy they’ll be much more likely to vote for candidates who will bring America back to economic well being.
While 1984 has shown up 28 years late it’s not too late to recast the debate in this election season so that voters will go to the polls knowing that good is good and bad is bad not that lies are truth and truth is a lie.
This is especially evident today when the MSM is trying to blame Bush for 9/11.
9/11 occurred because of the execrable foreign policy of Bill Clinton.
We know that Osama bin Laden thought that America was a paper tiger, unwilling to fight back, based on Clintons running from Somalia after Americans were killed in the infamous Black Hawk down episode. Just as earlier Democrat presidents had convinced Mao that America would not stand and fight Bill Clinton’s actions convinced Osama that he could attack America without having to worry about retaliation.
After all Clinton had done nothing substantive after the bombing of the USS Cole and Clinton had passed on multiple opportunities to arrest or kill Osama. While Clinton was not trying to make America ripe for 9/11 his actions had the effect of giving the go ahead in the mind of Osama. Also keep in mind that the planning for 9/11 started long before Bush was elected.
Yet today the NYT is trying to lay the blame on George Bush. Why? Well because Bush is a Republican and Clinton is campaigning for Obama.
There are many other examples of Democrats blaming others for their failures. Take a look at the current Democrats meme that it is the obstructionist Republicans who are responsible for all of Obama’s broken promises.
For Obama’s first two years in office Democrats had complete control of the Federal government. They controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They pushed through Obama’s massive “stimulus” bill and realistically Obama could get pretty much anything he wanted. Yet even though the steps that Obama then declared to be necessary to “save” the economy were enacted the economy tanked.
A reasonable observer would say that the Democrats were responsible. Yet liberals and the MSM declare that it is the Republicans who are at fault.
When Bush was president Democrats blocked his judicial appointee's and anything else the could but then Democrats tell us it was necessary to protect the country. Their obstructionism and their attacks on the war which undercut our troops were declared, by Democrats, to be the essence of patriotism.
Now when Republicans block Democrats from spending more money than we have we’re informed that obstructionism is evil and bad. That Republicans only care about themselves and not about the country.
As with 9/11 Democrats have tried to blame Republicans for the failure of the policies implemented by Democrats.
The biggest example of this liberal finger pointing is the economic melt down in 2008. The crisis occurred because too many people had mortgages that they couldn’t afford and that the bad loans had been allowed to grow because the impression was that since the loans were owned by Fannie and Freddie they were safe.
Because Bush was President the Democrats try to blame him for the failure even though he had tried to address the problem by reining in Fannie and Freddie. Should he have done more? Yes. Were Republicans partly to blame? Yes. But it was the Democrats who blocked the efforts of Republicans to try and address the problem.
Few people know that in 1995 Obama was the lead attorney on a lawsuit that forced CitiBank to lend to people who didn’t really have a chance of being able to afford the resulting loans. Interestingly in that case the settlement gave more than twice as much money to the lawyers as to the 186 “victims”.
Obama’s case was the beginning of a path that continued with the reinterpretation of the Community Reinvestment Act that saw Bill Clintons administration leaning on banks to make questionable loans in service of supposedly combating racism.
Realistically speaking lending money to people who can’t pay it back, note that a welfare check was advocated by some as proof of income in some cases, will result in a huge loss of money to investors.
That huge loss came home to roost at the end of Bush’s administration. But the loss was due to policies pushed and defended by Democrats. While it’s true that establishment Republicans scared of being called racists did nothing much to try and fix the problem their crime of inaction is certainly less odious than the Democrats buying votes by getting minorities loans that would eventually go bad and financially destroy the borrowers.
Yet Democrats constantly talk about the evil impacts of Bush’s policies.
They seem to ignore that Bush inherited a recession from Bill Clinton, it started two months after Bush was sworn in, and that 9/11 occurred before Bush had been in office for even a year.
Strangely, if you listen to Democrats, Bush’s evil policies somehow managed to avoid the disaster that is the Obama “recovery” and unemployment was kept below 6% for years. The very policies that the Democrats condemned resulted in more years of prosperity than the supposedly superior policies that Obama has implemented.
In order to spare America another four years of bungling, broken promises, and “reimaging” it’s important that conservatives take back the issues by making it clear to all that the policies espoused by Democrats, from weak foreign policy to spending money we don’t have to make America prosperous, are the cause of the problems facing America today.
If voters understand that we’re in the Obama economy which came after the Democrat recession and that the war in Afghanistan is a result of Bill Clinton's foreign policy they’ll be much more likely to vote for candidates who will bring America back to economic well being.
While 1984 has shown up 28 years late it’s not too late to recast the debate in this election season so that voters will go to the polls knowing that good is good and bad is bad not that lies are truth and truth is a lie.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Akin and the Truth
In the firestorm resulting from baseless attacks on Akin the simple truth of what he said is being ignored.
Akin is being taken to task for two things:
Akin has already apologized and said his words did not convey what he was thinking. Just as President Obama’s reference to “Polish” death camps did not mean that Obama holds the Polish people responsible for the German Nazi death camps that happened to be located in occupied Poland.
Yet the same people who don’t even think that Obama should apologize for and correct his comment are declaring Aiken to be the epitome of evil.
While there were no “Polish” death camps there are cases where the term rape is used “illegitimately”. The most obvious are the 4-8% of reported rapes where the woman is lying. Additionally modern liberal feminists have so distorted the definition of rape as to make it meaningless. An extreme example of that can be seen at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-rape/
“To put the point another way, having granted that “no” always means no, we must recognize that, in some cases, “yes” also means no. There are many kinds of explicit and implicit threats that render a woman's consent to sex less than meaningful: ... or simply to sulk and make her life miserable for days should she refuse to have sex. Which (if any) such nonviolent coercive pressures should be regarded as rape, either morally or legally, is a matter of some controversy (Schulhofer 1998; Burgess-Jackson 1996, 91-106).”
Declaring that a woman who voluntarily chooses to have sex rather than endure a man “sulking” has been raped is an insult to those women who are really raped.
By declaring nearly all heterosexual sex to be rape extreme liberal feminists help destroy the sense of outrage all should have towards rape. This is similar to what liberals who say that calling the President “angry” is on par with the odious race hatred of the KKK do to reduce the impact of the word racist.
A woman who dresses like a whore and goes to a strange mans hotel room at 2 in the morning and makes out with him is completely innocent and a victim of “legitimate” rape if she doesn’t say it’s ok to continue and the man doesn’t stop.
Akin was using the word legitimate to distinguish between what the vast majority of Americans view as rape and liberal feminists all encompassing condemnation of pretty much all heterosexual sex.
Akins use of the term “legitimate” in this context was stupid and understandably, especially in light of how it has been misreported, caused suffering for those women who have been raped. But it, just like Obama’s Poland comment, does not reflect an evil intent.
One of the points Akin was trying to make is that abortions due to rape are very rare and should not be used to keep abortions of convenience legal. According to research done by the Alan Guttmacher institute--a virulently pro-abortion organization spun off from Planned Parenthood--only 1% of abortions in America are the result of rape--www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf. Yet liberal pro-abortion extremists use rape to push to keep sex selection abortions legal right up until the moment the child is born.
In reaction to those lies Akin wanted to establish that the victims of the type of rape most Americans think of when they think of rape are not very likely to get pregnant.
There are two broad classes of rape, forcible and non-forcible. Both are horrible violations of a woman and in both cases the woman is a completely innocent victim. When they hear rape the average American thinks of a man using force or the threat of force to compel a women to have sex against her will. These were the cases Akin was trying to identify when he stupidly used the word “legitimate”.
In many cases when a woman is raped however she is not being physically forced to have sex. For example when a 27 year old man psychologically manipulates an emotionally and psychologically immature 15 year old girl into having sex with him it is rape and the girl is completely innocent even if she is not actually averse to the event at the time. We have juvenile courts because we realize the young are usually not competent enough to be held to adult standards.
Liberals who declare that a woman is just as likely to get pregnant in a forcible rape as she would if she were making love to her husband are saying that at a physical level the woman’s body, but not her mind, is in fact consenting to the rape; her body is just as willing to make a baby with her rapist as with her husband.
The “evil” Akin on the other hand is saying that woman who is being forcibly raped is not even consenting at a purely physical level to the horrible act being done to her. Akins position ascribes an even more fundamental rejection of the rape to the innocent victim than the liberal position does.
While liberals claim there is scientific data for their position the one study they invoke did not separate non-forcible rape from forcible rape.
There is some evidence that pregnancy is very rare in cases of forcible rape. A typical woman who has one act of sex with her “significant” other has roughly a 4-5% chance of getting pregnant--see http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol3/5/default.htm .
Eugene F. Diamond, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and Past Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine wrote in the April 11, 1985 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine that:
“Pregnancy is rare after a single act of forcible rape. In a prospective study of 4000 rapes in Minnesota, there were no pregnancies. In a retrospective study covering nine years in Chicago, there were no pregnancies. In a prospective study of 117 rapes there were no pregnancies among either the 17 victims who received DES or the 100 who did not.”
Similarly anecdotal evidence and other studies indicate that the pregnancy rate in forcible rapes is less than 0.2% or 25 times less than the rate when a woman has one act of sex with her husband.
We know that a woman’s emotional and psychological state can impact her ability to become pregnant so it’s hardly counter-intuitive to claim that the trauma of rape would reduce the chances of pregnancy. We also know that when forcibly raped a woman’s body does not experience several changes that facilitate the safe transport of the mans sperm to the woman’s egg. Additionally from an evolutionary perspective a woman who would have a child with any man who could forcibly rape her would seem to be at an evolutionary disadvantage.
At this time there is no definitive scientific evidence that Akin is wrong and there are data that indicate he might be right. Hence while we may find that Akin was wrong in the future it is not as though he was claiming the Sun orbits the Earth.
The question we need to address is why conservatives always attack their own in cases like this. Rather than saying, as Democrats do when Democrats say stupid things, “yeah Akin did a horrible job expressing what he was thinking but it is the Democrats who have the warped idea that killing your daughter is a good thing to do after you’re raped” conservatives condemn their own.
If Akin meant what the liberals say he meant then by all means we should condemn him. But when he merely used the wrong word while trying to say the right thing why should we team up with the liberal media who are purposely distorting what he meant to say?
His opponent says that if a child’s father is a rapist she should be killed. Conservatives should be condemning that from the rooftops not Akins verbal misstep.
Akin is being taken to task for two things:
- The use of the phrase “legitimate rape”
- The claim that women who are “legitimately raped” are unlikely to get pregnant
Akin has already apologized and said his words did not convey what he was thinking. Just as President Obama’s reference to “Polish” death camps did not mean that Obama holds the Polish people responsible for the German Nazi death camps that happened to be located in occupied Poland.
Yet the same people who don’t even think that Obama should apologize for and correct his comment are declaring Aiken to be the epitome of evil.
While there were no “Polish” death camps there are cases where the term rape is used “illegitimately”. The most obvious are the 4-8% of reported rapes where the woman is lying. Additionally modern liberal feminists have so distorted the definition of rape as to make it meaningless. An extreme example of that can be seen at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-rape/
“To put the point another way, having granted that “no” always means no, we must recognize that, in some cases, “yes” also means no. There are many kinds of explicit and implicit threats that render a woman's consent to sex less than meaningful: ... or simply to sulk and make her life miserable for days should she refuse to have sex. Which (if any) such nonviolent coercive pressures should be regarded as rape, either morally or legally, is a matter of some controversy (Schulhofer 1998; Burgess-Jackson 1996, 91-106).”
Declaring that a woman who voluntarily chooses to have sex rather than endure a man “sulking” has been raped is an insult to those women who are really raped.
By declaring nearly all heterosexual sex to be rape extreme liberal feminists help destroy the sense of outrage all should have towards rape. This is similar to what liberals who say that calling the President “angry” is on par with the odious race hatred of the KKK do to reduce the impact of the word racist.
A woman who dresses like a whore and goes to a strange mans hotel room at 2 in the morning and makes out with him is completely innocent and a victim of “legitimate” rape if she doesn’t say it’s ok to continue and the man doesn’t stop.
Akin was using the word legitimate to distinguish between what the vast majority of Americans view as rape and liberal feminists all encompassing condemnation of pretty much all heterosexual sex.
Akins use of the term “legitimate” in this context was stupid and understandably, especially in light of how it has been misreported, caused suffering for those women who have been raped. But it, just like Obama’s Poland comment, does not reflect an evil intent.
One of the points Akin was trying to make is that abortions due to rape are very rare and should not be used to keep abortions of convenience legal. According to research done by the Alan Guttmacher institute--a virulently pro-abortion organization spun off from Planned Parenthood--only 1% of abortions in America are the result of rape--www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf. Yet liberal pro-abortion extremists use rape to push to keep sex selection abortions legal right up until the moment the child is born.
In reaction to those lies Akin wanted to establish that the victims of the type of rape most Americans think of when they think of rape are not very likely to get pregnant.
There are two broad classes of rape, forcible and non-forcible. Both are horrible violations of a woman and in both cases the woman is a completely innocent victim. When they hear rape the average American thinks of a man using force or the threat of force to compel a women to have sex against her will. These were the cases Akin was trying to identify when he stupidly used the word “legitimate”.
In many cases when a woman is raped however she is not being physically forced to have sex. For example when a 27 year old man psychologically manipulates an emotionally and psychologically immature 15 year old girl into having sex with him it is rape and the girl is completely innocent even if she is not actually averse to the event at the time. We have juvenile courts because we realize the young are usually not competent enough to be held to adult standards.
Liberals who declare that a woman is just as likely to get pregnant in a forcible rape as she would if she were making love to her husband are saying that at a physical level the woman’s body, but not her mind, is in fact consenting to the rape; her body is just as willing to make a baby with her rapist as with her husband.
The “evil” Akin on the other hand is saying that woman who is being forcibly raped is not even consenting at a purely physical level to the horrible act being done to her. Akins position ascribes an even more fundamental rejection of the rape to the innocent victim than the liberal position does.
While liberals claim there is scientific data for their position the one study they invoke did not separate non-forcible rape from forcible rape.
There is some evidence that pregnancy is very rare in cases of forcible rape. A typical woman who has one act of sex with her “significant” other has roughly a 4-5% chance of getting pregnant--see http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol3/5/default.htm .
Eugene F. Diamond, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and Past Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine wrote in the April 11, 1985 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine that:
“Pregnancy is rare after a single act of forcible rape. In a prospective study of 4000 rapes in Minnesota, there were no pregnancies. In a retrospective study covering nine years in Chicago, there were no pregnancies. In a prospective study of 117 rapes there were no pregnancies among either the 17 victims who received DES or the 100 who did not.”
Similarly anecdotal evidence and other studies indicate that the pregnancy rate in forcible rapes is less than 0.2% or 25 times less than the rate when a woman has one act of sex with her husband.
We know that a woman’s emotional and psychological state can impact her ability to become pregnant so it’s hardly counter-intuitive to claim that the trauma of rape would reduce the chances of pregnancy. We also know that when forcibly raped a woman’s body does not experience several changes that facilitate the safe transport of the mans sperm to the woman’s egg. Additionally from an evolutionary perspective a woman who would have a child with any man who could forcibly rape her would seem to be at an evolutionary disadvantage.
At this time there is no definitive scientific evidence that Akin is wrong and there are data that indicate he might be right. Hence while we may find that Akin was wrong in the future it is not as though he was claiming the Sun orbits the Earth.
The question we need to address is why conservatives always attack their own in cases like this. Rather than saying, as Democrats do when Democrats say stupid things, “yeah Akin did a horrible job expressing what he was thinking but it is the Democrats who have the warped idea that killing your daughter is a good thing to do after you’re raped” conservatives condemn their own.
If Akin meant what the liberals say he meant then by all means we should condemn him. But when he merely used the wrong word while trying to say the right thing why should we team up with the liberal media who are purposely distorting what he meant to say?
His opponent says that if a child’s father is a rapist she should be killed. Conservatives should be condemning that from the rooftops not Akins verbal misstep.
Friday, September 7, 2012
By their heroes shall you know them
You can get a good measure of a man by finding out who his heroes are.
A general who admires Patton will tend to behave differently than a general who likes Montgomery.
A politician who thinks Reagan is the greatest will be support different solutions than a politician who adores FDR.
On the first day of the DNC we discovered one of the key heroes of modern Democrats; Ted Kennedy.
The same Ted Kennedy who left Mary Jo Kopechne to die a slow death while he strategized with his lawyers on how to avoid being blamed for the accident that resulted in her death.
The same Ted Kennedy whose drinking and womanizing are legendary.
On the second day of the DNC we all saw a second hero of the Democrats; it’s Bill Clinton.
The same Bill Clinton who cheated on his wife multiple times over many years. The same Bill Clinton who had affairs with subordinates; behavior that would cause immediate firing at any major corporation.
The same Bill Clinton who lied under oath in order to avoid admitting that he regularly sexually harassed subordinates.
It would seem that the two of the biggest hero’s of modern Democrats are both distinctly unfriendly to women. In fact any Republican who did any of the things that these Democrat “heroes” did would be pilloried for his vicious misogynistic nature.
But does the Democrat love of these sexual predators bleed through into Democrat policy?
We hear little about supporting stay at home mom’s or equal pay for equal work at the DNC. Instead the Democrats have been showing their “pro-woman” credentials at the DNC by touting their support for contraception and abortion.
But who are one of the major beneficiaries of contraception and abortion? The answer of course is men who wish to sexually exploit women without having to be concerned about any consequences. Men like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
The Republican party banned Todd Akin from the RNC because he misspoke and unintentionally offended women. The party said that even though Akin profusely apologized he was tainted as being anti-woman and they didn’t want him around.
The Democrats pushed their vice presidential candidate aside to bring back Bill Clinton; a man who admitted to lying under oath in order to cover up his sexual exploitation of subordinates. And Bill hasn’t apologized for his consistent humiliation of his wife or for his sexual harassment of subordinates.
If there is a war on women in America today it’s being waged by the type of men that the Democrat party views as their heroes not by the Republican party.
A general who admires Patton will tend to behave differently than a general who likes Montgomery.
A politician who thinks Reagan is the greatest will be support different solutions than a politician who adores FDR.
On the first day of the DNC we discovered one of the key heroes of modern Democrats; Ted Kennedy.
The same Ted Kennedy who left Mary Jo Kopechne to die a slow death while he strategized with his lawyers on how to avoid being blamed for the accident that resulted in her death.
The same Ted Kennedy whose drinking and womanizing are legendary.
On the second day of the DNC we all saw a second hero of the Democrats; it’s Bill Clinton.
The same Bill Clinton who cheated on his wife multiple times over many years. The same Bill Clinton who had affairs with subordinates; behavior that would cause immediate firing at any major corporation.
The same Bill Clinton who lied under oath in order to avoid admitting that he regularly sexually harassed subordinates.
It would seem that the two of the biggest hero’s of modern Democrats are both distinctly unfriendly to women. In fact any Republican who did any of the things that these Democrat “heroes” did would be pilloried for his vicious misogynistic nature.
But does the Democrat love of these sexual predators bleed through into Democrat policy?
We hear little about supporting stay at home mom’s or equal pay for equal work at the DNC. Instead the Democrats have been showing their “pro-woman” credentials at the DNC by touting their support for contraception and abortion.
But who are one of the major beneficiaries of contraception and abortion? The answer of course is men who wish to sexually exploit women without having to be concerned about any consequences. Men like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
The Republican party banned Todd Akin from the RNC because he misspoke and unintentionally offended women. The party said that even though Akin profusely apologized he was tainted as being anti-woman and they didn’t want him around.
The Democrats pushed their vice presidential candidate aside to bring back Bill Clinton; a man who admitted to lying under oath in order to cover up his sexual exploitation of subordinates. And Bill hasn’t apologized for his consistent humiliation of his wife or for his sexual harassment of subordinates.
If there is a war on women in America today it’s being waged by the type of men that the Democrat party views as their heroes not by the Republican party.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
God, Jerusalem, Voter Suppression, and Phoning it in
President Obama and the Democrat leadership were shocked to discover that Americans reacted negatively to the Democrat platform rejecting God and rejecting Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.
In front of the whole world they tried to use the democratic process to amend the suddenly no longer suitable for prime time document. And not once, not twice, but three times they failed.
According to CNN, that font of reactionary conservatism, the video clearly shows that the majority of the delegates to the Democratic convention opposed putting God back into their platform and declaring Jerusalem to be the capitol of Israel.
What did the Democrat leadership do? Well they did what they always do when democracy “fails”, i.e. doesn’t support the Democrat position, they rigged the vote.
Mayor Villaraigosa, who presumably agrees with his parties attacks on Republican “voter suppression, simply declared that he had heard enough pro-voices, presumably dead Democrats coming back, to declare that the motion had a two thirds majority.
In front of the American people the Democrats disenfranchised their own people by manufacturing votes that weren’t there.
If the Democrats are willing to fake votes to crush the will of their own delegates why should anyone believe that they are not willing to cheat in the presidential election?
Having grown up in Chicago--the city whose mayors are so wonderful the dead regularly leave Heaven to come and vote for them--the mantra of the Obama party that illegal voting never happens is reminiscent of the twitching drug user who says he’s clean.
In some sense the Democrats are right. Republicans are trying to suppress the votes of non-citizens, the dead, and family pets. Apparently Democrats believe that anyone who can make it to the voting place--even if only in spirit--should be allowed to vote.
Republicans also oppose some individuals voting multiple times. Democrats have no difficulty with that practice, so long as only they practice it. Democrats get the concept of voting more than once from watching American Idol where voting early and voting often is a virtue not a vice.
Next time some Democrat whines about “voter suppression” and says that there is no evidence of election fraud in America pull out your smart phone and show him his own convention.
Because Democrats realize they have a major optics problem in that their delegates clearly want God shoved out of their platform and Jerusalem turned over to the Muslim Brotherhood they’ve spun the issue as the Good President Obama riding in to save the day.
The Democrats are saying, in effect, “Sure our delegates are a bunch of God hating anti-Semite neanderthals but President Obama saw their error from his mountain top and stepped in to correct his people.”
The problem with that is that Obama reviewed and agreed to the platform. Or did he?
A key criticism of Obama, mentioned by both his supporters and his detractors, is that he seems more enthused with the trappings of power than the nitty gritty day to day work needed to govern America.
When an actor just says his lines but really doesn’t act he’s said to be “phoning it in”. Many have accused Obama of “phoning it in” when it comes to running the country.
Democrats would now have us believe that Obama was unaware of the wording of his own parties platform. While it’s true a presidential candidate does not have to agree with everything in his parties platform, Romney for example supports abortion in the case of rape, he should know what’s in it.
But if Obama knew that he didn’t support the platform he could have done what Romney did; simply acknowledge his differences with the platform and move forward.
Instead Obama, according to the most recent Democrat spin, was shocked to discover this oversight and moved quickly to correct the egregious error.
That leaves us with a problem. Either Obama “phoned in” reviewing his own party platform and needed the conservative media to point out the problems in it to him or the Democrats are lying about Obama having always wanted God and Jerusalem to be in the platform.
Either way this whole affair has two clear messages:
1) Democrats only believe in democracy if they win and they have no problem manufacturing votes to make sure that they should believe in democracy.
2) President Obama either doesn’t care enough to read his own parties platform or he is lying to us about his true position on both God and Jerusalem.
In front of the whole world they tried to use the democratic process to amend the suddenly no longer suitable for prime time document. And not once, not twice, but three times they failed.
According to CNN, that font of reactionary conservatism, the video clearly shows that the majority of the delegates to the Democratic convention opposed putting God back into their platform and declaring Jerusalem to be the capitol of Israel.
What did the Democrat leadership do? Well they did what they always do when democracy “fails”, i.e. doesn’t support the Democrat position, they rigged the vote.
Mayor Villaraigosa, who presumably agrees with his parties attacks on Republican “voter suppression, simply declared that he had heard enough pro-voices, presumably dead Democrats coming back, to declare that the motion had a two thirds majority.
In front of the American people the Democrats disenfranchised their own people by manufacturing votes that weren’t there.
If the Democrats are willing to fake votes to crush the will of their own delegates why should anyone believe that they are not willing to cheat in the presidential election?
Having grown up in Chicago--the city whose mayors are so wonderful the dead regularly leave Heaven to come and vote for them--the mantra of the Obama party that illegal voting never happens is reminiscent of the twitching drug user who says he’s clean.
In some sense the Democrats are right. Republicans are trying to suppress the votes of non-citizens, the dead, and family pets. Apparently Democrats believe that anyone who can make it to the voting place--even if only in spirit--should be allowed to vote.
Republicans also oppose some individuals voting multiple times. Democrats have no difficulty with that practice, so long as only they practice it. Democrats get the concept of voting more than once from watching American Idol where voting early and voting often is a virtue not a vice.
Next time some Democrat whines about “voter suppression” and says that there is no evidence of election fraud in America pull out your smart phone and show him his own convention.
Because Democrats realize they have a major optics problem in that their delegates clearly want God shoved out of their platform and Jerusalem turned over to the Muslim Brotherhood they’ve spun the issue as the Good President Obama riding in to save the day.
The Democrats are saying, in effect, “Sure our delegates are a bunch of God hating anti-Semite neanderthals but President Obama saw their error from his mountain top and stepped in to correct his people.”
The problem with that is that Obama reviewed and agreed to the platform. Or did he?
A key criticism of Obama, mentioned by both his supporters and his detractors, is that he seems more enthused with the trappings of power than the nitty gritty day to day work needed to govern America.
When an actor just says his lines but really doesn’t act he’s said to be “phoning it in”. Many have accused Obama of “phoning it in” when it comes to running the country.
Democrats would now have us believe that Obama was unaware of the wording of his own parties platform. While it’s true a presidential candidate does not have to agree with everything in his parties platform, Romney for example supports abortion in the case of rape, he should know what’s in it.
But if Obama knew that he didn’t support the platform he could have done what Romney did; simply acknowledge his differences with the platform and move forward.
Instead Obama, according to the most recent Democrat spin, was shocked to discover this oversight and moved quickly to correct the egregious error.
That leaves us with a problem. Either Obama “phoned in” reviewing his own party platform and needed the conservative media to point out the problems in it to him or the Democrats are lying about Obama having always wanted God and Jerusalem to be in the platform.
Either way this whole affair has two clear messages:
1) Democrats only believe in democracy if they win and they have no problem manufacturing votes to make sure that they should believe in democracy.
2) President Obama either doesn’t care enough to read his own parties platform or he is lying to us about his true position on both God and Jerusalem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
