Higher Education in America: An Obot Snapshot

I’m reading the sophomoric tripe that leftists are shilling lately, and I can’t help but wonder if they have any self-awareness, any clue at all about how immature and intellectually-barren they sound.  Did you see the snort- and cringe-worthy Why Obama’s the bestest president of all bestest presidents EVAH column written by an Ed.D.?  In itself it’s a depressing commentary on the state of higher education in this country; it’s also a sad and terrifying look into the Koolaid-addled brain of a typical higher ed Obot.

Here goes my response to this intellectually-challenged, eternally-juvenile doctorate’s 12 reasons Obama is the biggest, bestest, most historicalist president in the history of history’s greatest, bestest presidents!:

1. He is for The People. Say what you will about Barack Obama, but unlike the many presidents who preceded him, he cares about what is best for the greater good. He truly does represent The People. His actions have always been motivated by a sincere desire to do what is best for the majority, even if it meant losing ground with the wealthy, influential or powerful minority.

It is intellectually, spiritually, economically, emotionally, and in every other way impossible to be both for the people and for The Greater Good.  The Greater Good always subverts the rights and liberty of the people; indeed, that’s the very premise by which it exists and by which it justifies perpetrating untold horrors on the people.  In every commie, totalitarian scheme throughout history a few million people have had to die . . . for The Greater Good.  And even so, The Greater Good is never met, these regimes always fail.

As to that last part, just look at the list of wealthy, influential, and powerful people, groups, companies, and unions exempted from the ObamaCareTax fiasco.  Rebuttal complete.

2.  He is for civil rights. He has consistently spoken on behalf of the disenfranchised, the underdog and the most controversial members of society -despite the fact that it was politically unpopular to do so at the time. His outspoken support of gay marriage is an excellent example. Gay marriage is, and has always been, a legal and civil rights issue -not a moral one as conservatives would have you believe. Obama’s open support of gay marriage speaks to his core values and his inherent belief that there truly should be justice for all.

Actually, the “underdogs” are the people most harmed by every single one of Obama’s domestic policies.  It’s not an accident that welfare, food stamp, disability, unemployment claims, and every other form of government handouts have exploded under Obama, and it’s no accident that unemployment among America’s minority population has risen to all-time highs.  It’s also no accident that the income gap between the rich and poor has risen exponentially under Obama‘s reign.

As to Obama’s “evolving” view on gay marriage, he’s not always been outspoken about it; indeed, he’s spent a lot of time supporting traditional marriage.  Obama’s idea of “justice for all” is distinctly racist, as evidenced by his DOJ‘s refusal to prosecute the New Black Panthers while going after states for requiring proof of citizenship to vote.

3. He is for one race -the human race. In just a few short years, Obama’s professional achievements and continued demonstration of equality and integrity have done wonders for race relations. America has never been more unified as a people than it has been under the direct leadership of Barack Obama. Finally, the racial lines that have divided blacks and whites for decades seem to be narrowing.

This one made me laugh out loud.  Literally.  There are, demonstrably, hundreds of examples of Obama throwing gasoline on increasingly tense race relations in this country, and it would take hours to find and link them all, so I’ll just include three instances of Obama inciting racial disharmony: “the police acted stupidly,” “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” and his campaign accusing Bill Clinton of being a “racist” (this latter set the tone for the media, Hollywood, and random leftists screeching “RAAAAACIST” any time anyone disagrees with Obama’s policies.).

4.  He is for a healthcare system that brings hope and healing to the hurting. Obama’s healthcare plan has allowed uninsured Americans to reap the benefits of a universal healthcare system. A suffering child should never be turned away because his or her mother doesn’t have health insurance. To deny medical assistance to people who desperately need it is barbaric. Obama’s health care plan has placed America among the world’s greatest superpowers who demonstrate care and compassion toward its constituents with healthcare that serves all.

No. He’s not. The ObamaCareTax catastrophe has nothing to do with hope or healing.  Or “the hurting.”  It has everything to do with amassing control and power in the executive branch.  It doesn’t “serve all” (and therefore is not “universal”), and it never will (be); it was never intended to do or be so. Indeed, according to the CBO, 30 million people will not have coverage after 0Care is fully implemented.  Yes, that’s roughly the same number of people that the law–billions of dollars ago–was supposed to help.

No “suffering child” was ever “turned away” under the “old” system; emergency rooms turning away a patient because of inability to pay is illegal and was well before the 0Care nightmare.

5. He is for the middle class. Here are just a few of the comments made by President Barack Obama in recent months: “Rebuilding our economy starts with strengthening the middle class. Extending tax breaks on 98 percent of families now would give hardworking Americans the security and confidence they need.” In July 2012, during a visit to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he said, “The vision of a strong middle class is what we’re fighting for. What we need is somebody who’s going to fight every single day to grow the middle class because that’s how our economy grows, from the middle out, from the bottom up, where everybody has got a shot. That’s how the economy grows.” Enough said.

Perhaps the most deluded point here (if not the most hilarious).  The middle class has been eroding for a couple or three decades in all fairness to Obama, but that’s been ratcheted up under his “rule”, with more and more people out of work, forced into part-time work (largely by 0Care but also by a stagnant economy that Obama’s done nothing substantive or meaningful to turn around), and heavily taxed in new and exciting areas (despite Obama’s pledge not to increase taxes on anyone making more than $250k per year).

6. He is for women’s rights. Obama’s very first executive action as President was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a bill specifically designed to annihilate wage discrimination barriers for women. He also fully funded the Violence Against Women Act, which addresses the criminality of sexual assault and domestic violence and provides women with the services needed to overcome such atrocities. President Obama nominated two women to the Supreme Court, including the first Latina justice in American history. Furthermore, Obama has taken exceptional measures to secure grant money for women business owners and get them a fair shake from the Small Business Association.

Another completely deluded argument . . . unless you believe that women are nothing more than reproductive and sexual vessels.  If that’s your argument, you win!  Obama does indeed stand for women having early and often abortions (as birth control, no less) and access to “free” birth control pills and “morning after” abortion drugs.  He’s also a big proponent of late term abortions and the denial of medical care to a baby who survives the “abortion” process.  So yeah, if infanticide is your thing, Obama’s your guy.

And if paying 13% less to women is your idea of gender equality . . . chalk up another win!

Oh, and woohoo! The Obama regime will hand out money to Julias who are dependent not on a man but on her Big Brother-, father-, or husband-government.  What a win for women!

7.  He is for doing away with pomp and circumstance. Let’s be real -Obama is one cool cat. As the 44th president of the United States, he has changed the face of the Oval Office forever. Many suggest Obama’s casual demeanor and informal interaction with the American people is inappropriate, and even downright offensive. Millions of people, however -me included -perceive his relaxed deportment, humorous candor and outright honesty as a breath of fresh air. In spite of the fact that he is a politician, and the president, there is something about him that makes him real and relatable. Even though he is the most powerful man in the world, he is, at heart, just a man. In almost four years under perhaps the most intense public scrutiny ever placed upon an American president, he has never lost sight of the fact that he bleeds red, just like everyone else.

Ignoring, as we really must, the “cool cat” weirdness here; how can anyone claim that Obama does away with “pomp and circumstance”?  When he and his wife (and dog) aren’t taking separate planes to the same destination (within hours of each other, no less) or hosting lavish parties on our dime, they are reveling in excesses that defy logic during this time when Americans are hurting economically.

I, for one, am not at all impressed with Obama’s fake accents and bizarre-sounding attempts to pretend he’s . . . whomever his current audience wants to meet (to be fair, I also hate this when Hillary Clinton does it.).

As to his “deportment,” he’s an absolute embarrassment.  I will say that his rare moments of candor (“you didn’t build that,” and “it’s good for everybody when you spread the wealth around“) are noteworthy, but absolutely not so because they make him more “relatable” (I can’t even begin to express my deep loathing for that “word”).

“Outright honesty”? Really? About what?  That we can keep our plan and our doctor?  That our health care costs will decrease by $2,500 per year?  That 0Care won’t add “one dime” to the deficit?  That 0Care wouldn’t cover elective abortions?  That the Benghazi attack that resulted in the rape and torture of an American ambassador and the deaths of three other Americans was due to a video?  That he doesn’t know anything about anything until he sees it on the news or reads about it in the paper?

8. He is for the environment. President Barack Obama has taken a forward thinking approach to creating a red, white, blue and green America. His policies and initiatives for a clean energy economy have had an incredible impact on the future of the nation. For instance, the U.S. reduced oil imports by more than 10 percent from 2010 – 2011. That’s more than 1 million barrels a day. The Administration continues to seek ways to reduce America’s dependence on oil, promote efficient energy and invest in clean energy practices. Read more about Obama’s environmental strategies here.

Obama could give a rat’s patootie about the environment (note above on his and Mooch taking separate planes within hours of one another); he cares about control.  He cares about bankrupting the coal industry and sending electricity and gas prices “skyrocketing.”  And he cares about this not because he believes in the AGW hoax but because he’s a Marxist ideologue who truly believes that America is evil, that it oppresses other countries just by being, and that we should spread our wealth around (not only in-country, but around the world).

As to the bizarre and erroneous claims that Obama has done anything at all to lessen our reliance on foreign oil . . . that has happened not because of his policies (which seek only to limit oil, coal, and natural gas production in America) but despite them.

9.  He is for veterans. Obama has consistently promoted the allocation of funds, increased benefits, job opportunities and extended resources for our nation’s veterans. Although Obama never served in the U.S. Armed Forces, he has always been a responsible and thoughtful commander-in-chief. Unlike his predecessor -G.W. Bush -he has always been conscious of the fact that troops serving in combat zones are sons, daughters, mothers and fathers. He has never lost sight of the commitment, dedication and sacrifice made by the brave men and women who volunteer for military service and he has been adamant about rewarding them accordingly.

Where to start on this one?  His treatment of the Fort Hood terror attack survivors?  His shutting down open-air war memorials out of spite? His first response to any government cuts is to target the military?  His requiring a Marine to violate regulations in order to hold an umbrella for Dictator Won?  His crotch-salute of the American flag?  His requiring that all military personnel be disarmed in his presence?  His repeated insistence that the United States military is “his” and that they “fights on [his] behalf“? His regime’s attacks on Christians and conservatives in the military?  His dismissal of hundreds of generals and other high-ranking military officers whom he deems too patriotic?

10.  He is for peace. Let us never forget that Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 -one of the greatest accomplishments any man or woman could hope to achieve in a lifetime. The award reads, “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” During his presidency, Obama successfully ended the war in Iraq and is close to finally putting an end to the conflict in Afghanistan and bring our troops home for good. Speaking of Afghanistan, remember public enemy number one, the King of Terror? It was under Obama’s order that Osama Bin Laden was annihilated and put out of the warmongering business for good.

Obama’s “for peace”? Really?  That must explain why he unilaterally and unConstitutionally took us to war in Libya and why he was chomping at the bit to march us off to war in Syria (on the side of al Qaeda, nonetheless!).  That would also explain his alienation of our allies and his rush to destroy our own nuclear arsenal as he encourages Iran to build one of their own and ignores Russia’s lack of stupidity in refusing to destroy their own nukes.

Yeah, a weakened America, a strengthened Iran, Russia, and China, and roiling unrest throughout the Middle East . . . a sure recipe for peace.

11.  He is for education. Obama has always been an advocate for education, making it a top priority during his administration. Believing education is what brings about the strength of a nation, Obama has set a goal for the U.S. to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. He has increased federal funding and doubled the amount of grant money allocated to students seeking a higher education to cover rising tuition costs. During his presidency, Obama also passed the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African-Americans and the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics to ensure equal education for people of color.

He’s “for education” if by that one means indoctrinating our nation’s youth in his cult of personality and refusing to allow the teaching of American history and civics, then sure, he’s all for educating America’s children in the finer points of anal and oral sexual intercourse, leftist protesting, and that Obama is an actual messiah.

As to the goal of producing the highest number of college graduates in the world, that’s going to be easy because colleges are giving out A’s like candy, being bullied and shamed into lowering standards, and basically making a college degree a joke (the author of this “12 reasons” article is a prime example of the type of student who would not have made it past the first semester of freshman year even three decades ago . . but now not only holds a doctorate in education but actually serves as chair of his department!).  This all breaks my heart because I believe in higher education, or at least in the long-lost theory of it.

12.  He is for entertaining the masses. If we have to listen to a president yakitty-yak about this or that for another four years, we might as well pick one with charisma and charm. If you can’t find anything else appealing about Obama, you can’t deny the fact that the guy is an amazing speaker with wit, fantastic comedic timing and an incredible intellect. In fact, I will go so far as to say that when the man does finally retire from politics, he has a rewarding and lucrative job as a stand up comic awaiting him if he so chooses. When’s the last time you heard a president joke about drinking beer, belt out Al Green with poise and precision at a moment’s notice and admit to watching the Kardashians?

Holy crap!  Can’t you just see this written out, painstakingly, in crayons?  We want a president who can “entertain the masses”?  Whose most promising post-presidential career is that of opening act for Carrot Top?  Really?

I have no words.

Ends Justify Means: Our “Perfectible” “Imperfect Union”

Bryan Jacoutot, one of the great contributors over at Legal Insurrection, penned a winning piece on Target’s gay marriage ad.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with Bryan’s logic, with his argument, or even with his point (essentially that the leftist propensity for boycotts was manifested in Mumbles’ thought police slash “government boycott” of Chick-fil-A and is wrong).  The problem–and it’s not just Bryan, either, everyone seems to be arguing the same thing (though without the “government boycott” angle; probably because that’s a problematic construct on almost every level), so his is just the article that snapped it for me–The problem is that trying to be reasonable in the face of unreasonableness is not useful, not helpful, and ultimately, nothing more than a distraction from our goal of taking our country back.

Here’s the thing: Mumbles knew that he could not legally ban Chick-fil-A from Boston based purely on their CEO’s ideological beliefs, beliefs with which Mumbles and his crowd disagree.  Don’t kid yourselves, Mumbles may sound like a moron, but he’s not.  He, like the regressive commies who parroted him (notably Twinkle Toes over in Chicago), understands very well that what he was saying and what he intended to do was illegal.  What conservatives just can’t seem to grasp, though many say they do and even get the language right when they say it, is that to communists (and let’s stop pretending that we’re dealing with anything else, please) the law is more of a guideline . . . sometimes only for other people.  If the law can be used to their advantage, they’ll do that (we see this in the constant lawsuits regarding God and religion, for instance), but, and here’s the thing conservatives don’t get, if it doesn’t work to their advantage, they have zero problem ignoring it completely.

We have plenty of evidence of how little the law means to leftists.  Off the top of my head: we have cities across the country that are self-proclaimed “sanctuary cities” in which illegal immigrants will be free from immigration laws, we have the WH stating that it will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, we have the DOJ’s “unofficial” stance on not prosecuting crimes committed by black people against white people, we have a president who can unilaterally order the death of American citizens whom he–and only he–thinks are “terrorists,” and we have, only a couple weeks ago, the president illegally creating new law by giving certain illegal immigrants effective amnesty.  These aren’t outliers, this is how the left actually thinks.  If they like a law, they’ll use it to the end of time (and in ways we wouldn’t even imagine), but if they don’t, they’ll simply ignore it.  We know this, but some conservatives, just don’t “get” it or at least don’t “get” what it means.

For leftists, nothing is more important than the end goal.  Nothing.  No law, no moral, no ethic, no nothing.  “The ends justify the means” is their rallying call.  If they can convince themselves that the horrors they inflict, the illegal or immoral acts they commit, are for The Greater Good, then there are literally no means that are off-limits.  None.  Zero.  Zilch.

Every time they do something outrageous or illegal for some aspect of The Greater Good (Fast and Furious, anyone?), we go into “national discussion” mode or we become outraged (righteously, yes) by their means (our government running guns to Mexican drug lords, resulting in the deaths of two border control agents and 200+ Mexican citizens).  And we should.  But we forget to look at the underlying motive, the ends that they seek to achieve.  Connecting the dots is difficult, it’s time consuming, and it’s frightening as hell.

But we have to face it, and the first step to doing that is truly comprehending that we are not dealing with JFK Democrats, we are not dealing with people just like us (only, you know, confused, or misguided, ill-informed, or “wrong”).  We’re dealing with a DOJ that won’t state that they won’t support a proposal to criminalize speech against any religion.  We are dealing with people who fundamentally loathe America and all that she stands for (the evidence for this is massive, if only we’d look at it); we are dealing with people who seek not just to undermine our free-market capitalist principles but our entire Constitutional Republic. And we are dealing with people who have no boundaries at all when it comes to this goal.  None.  They will do and say anything to achieve their ends, even as they know that they are harming real people, forcing their fellow human beings to adhere to something that they don’t believe in, destroying liberty and individual freedoms.  They are not wrong, they are, truly, evil.

Until we all understand that, fully and completely, we will lose.  We will continue to flail ineffectively at their means–be that illegally banning restaurants or moving against the Second Amendment or seeking to control political and religious speech–without once countering the ends to which they aspire.  Mumbles and Twinkle Toes have back-tracked, but don’t think for one minute that they don’t believe that they have every right to flout the law, any law, to police thought, to squash free speech, to do whatever it takes to “perfect” our “imperfect Union.” 

Removing Crosses from National War Memorials: Separation of Church and State?

I wrote this article on July 6, 2006. It’s rather emotional, but I decided not to edit it.

I just read on Liberty 4’s blog that the ACLU has been trying to get the cross at the Mount Soledad National War Memorial in San Diego removed because some atheist sued on the grounds of separation of church and state. I am outraged! What’s next? Remove all the crosses from every national cemetary and war memorial across the nation? Arlington National Cemetary? This is probably no surprise to anyone, but I am outraged!

Separation of church and state is not mentioned in—let alone directed by—the Constitution, and all that the First Amendment says on the topic of religion and government is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (from the U. S. Constitution online). We do not live in a theocracy (though some people may incorrectly argue otherwise), and we do not have a state church. What we do have is a history of a Christian belief in God and a sense that we should be free from religious tyranny—one of the main reasons that our forefathers and mothers left England in the first place, remember? Separating church and state is indeed a muddy issue, one that’s been debated for centuries and in all sorts of countries and civilizations. Here in the U. S. I believe that the founding fathers were trying to protect us from a government mandated religion or from the banning of any religion. Yet the way this has been interpreted seems to be that we must all become atheists, or at least practicing atheists, whether we like it or not, because ANY expression of religious belief is an infringement on SOMEONE’s religion, unless there is “no” religion, “no” God: i.e. atheism.

“Under God,” “In God We Trust,” and an assortment of religious expression including but not limited to the display on public property of a nativity scene at Christmas are all being curtailed in the name of “separation of church and state.” Religion, I think, is already separate from both church and state in the sense that we used to have freedom of religion, a religion or any religion that is not state run. The state cannot dictate which religion I adhere to and it cannot treat me differently because of my religious beliefs. Separating church and state means that a church cannot establish laws, the state can. So in this interpretation, I can murder someone, and the church can do nothing. I can murder someone, and the state can arrest, try, judge, and sentence me. I can murder someone, and according to my religious beliefs, I will go to hell. A fine line? I really don’t think so.

There have been Christian clubs banned from public schools, yet if we tried to ban a Moslem club, all hell would break loose, and I’m not saying we can or should ban a Moslem club or any other religious club . . . including a Christian one. School prayer has been abolished, including the “moment of silence” during which anyone of any religion could have prayed silently, disturbing no one. Christianity is not something you “catch” by hearing someone pray or by seeing a cross or crucifix, just as I’m not going suddenly to become Jewish because I see a Star of David or a menorah or upon hearing a Hebrew prayer. But someone realized that a moment of silence would give people the “chance” to pray to a Christian God, and we can’t have that, now can we? And we certainly can’t have a cross, symbol of Christianity, cluttering up a war memorial and conveying the impression that veterans believe in a Christian God or that we as a nation do so. No, that is just reprehensible . . . to atheists.

Why do atheists care? I mean, if you don’t believe in God, you surely don’t believe in Christ and the sacrifice He made for us, so why bother about the symbol of it? The atheists I’ve had the misfortune of talking to generally seem to feel quite superior to those of us who “blindly” believe in God and have religious faith, and while they wail about their right to have a God free existence, it doesn’t seem to occur to them (or to anyone else passing these laws) that granting that right means that my right to God filled existence is violated. Now, I know that the atheists are not trying to turn us into atheists: just as no Moslem prayer will turn me Moslem, the absence of symbols of God will not turn me atheist. But my freedom of religion is severely impaired, and that should mean something, shouldn’t it? In fact, everyone’s freedom of every religion is severely impaired when no expression is permitted. And what about the veterans who fought and died for their country as one nation “under God”? Should we really rip out the crosses from all national war memorials in an effort to appease the atheists and the ACLU?

For stories about this case: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23579 and http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23563 and http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50761 (this article provide a series of further links)

For the Soledad National Cemetary site: http://savesoledad.com/

For information about and links to further information about the separation of church and state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state