My Major Random Thoughts
The Half-Known, Half-Committed, Half-Legal, Half-Way President
In so many areas of Obama’s existence, half-truths mixed with prevarications is the accepted norm. Almost everything about him is characterizable as half this and half that. Half white, half black; half Kenyan, half American; half American, half Indonesian; half secular humanist/liberation theology socialist, half Christian; half Hawaiian, half Chicagoan; half foreign student, half American student; half accomplished student, half affirmative-action student; half transparent honest broker of the truth, half hypocritical liar; half defender of the Constitution, half violator; half defender of America, half criticizer of America; half representative of American power and dignity, half subservient deep-bower to foreign kings; half advocate for fiscal responsibility, half wasteful and extravagant spender and tax cutter, half attacker of deficit spending, and half biggest spender in history. And that’s just a sample. Is there any issue on which good King Hypocrite is not two-faced? AN
Sophistry: Unsound or misleading but clever and plausible arguments or reasoning. The methods of the Sophists. Employed by socialists employed to make Barack Obama appear to be a legitimate and constitutional President.
Sophomoric: characteristics of sophomores, often regarded as self-assured, opinionated etc., but immature, impulsive and lacking in critical thinking. Exemplified by snide, infantile remarks made by momma’s boys blogging from their parent’s basements commenting on anti-Obama articles that expose the truth about him, -which they are paid enough or dumb enough to toss verbal farts at.
“But then again Obama did not select Michelle for her warmth or her heart. He almost surely chose her for future votes. She rooted him in the African-American experience. He could not get elected in Chicago without a woman quite like her. At the peak of the Rev. Wright flare-up, Obama played his Michelle trump card. ‘I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners,” he boasted in his bellweather speech on race, “an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.'”
Huummmm…what if he had married a Kenyan woman, or a white woman? Would he have been viewed as presidential candidate material then? What kind of citizen would he have been viewed as, natural? or something else? What if his mother had been the Kenyan wife of his father? What kind of citizen would he have been viewed as then? Natural or naturalized? But what difference would it have really made? Well, he wouldn’t have been a citizen through his mother and able to pull off the greatest deception since the traitors in the FBI and CIA were discovered after rising to upper management levels.
Why do we not elect Presidents for life? The Communist Party of China has tenure for life. They can do long-range planning and make it happen without any interference from opposition parties. Isn’t that a good thing? Wouldn’t that be good for America also? Why not? Mexico and other governments (communist) had single party rule for nearly three quarters of a century. Doesn’t that enable the altruistic self-sacrificing patriots in the ruling party to accomplish much good? It would be reasonable to assume so…if you were living in a fantasy world. Such worlds do exist and have existed all throughout human history. The Third Reich was one, the Soviet Union was another, the Dear Republic of North Korea is another.
The attitude that the federal courts are above the law of the Constitution and are its supreme arbiters is founded on the principle that if you tell a big enough lie long and loud enough, it will be mistaken for the truth, after all, how could a liar have the gumption to lie so fervently or inexhaustively? And so the lie is believed. And so everyone falls for the “rules” promulgated by those who have the most prestige and power to gain from making the rules. And everyone bows low at the unholy feet of flawed, biased, political men who Fate has placed on the federal bench. Just like the Congress that passes laws that pertain to everyone except themselves, such as sexual harassment and insider trading. AN
But in the real world it is an inescapable fact that what people seek in a leader is described by a word you’ll never hear mentioned in any media commentary, and that word is “virility”. Women, who determine who becomes President, prefer a virile man over a non-virile man, and even if they like a woman candidate, if a man is equally appealing, they will vote for him instead because he is more virile. Michelle Bachmann, who is appealing in almost every way, lacks the quality of virility. There is no other discernible reason why her popularity was no higher than it was. In the end it just boiled down to something lacking and that something was the perception of masculine strength.
In America, women are at a natural disadvantage when it comes to the “beauty pageants” we call elections. It’s in our genes. It goes back to pre-historic eras when the strongest man was the leader. Men were deferential to him, and women trusted him to keep them all safe. That primeval instinct is still with us and will determine the course of any general election involving a female candidate.
That doesn’t mean that gender perceptions can’t be reversed and a woman can’t be perceived as more “virile” than a male opponent. Margaret Thatcher would be an example. Also, it’s very possible that Sarah Palin could be viewed as being the more virile of the two 2008 Republican candidates because she had more “fire in the belly” than her running mate. He had old age countering his virility.
As for Sarah Palin as a vice-president running mate, the best thing to shake up the whole race would be if she were to run for the Vice-Presidency as an Independent. That’s right. No party affiliation. A straight forward run to be Vice-President. I’d just love to see the looks on all the faces of the Washington and media elites when hearing such news for the first time. Someone should make a movie… I’d pay to see it.
A Threat Greater Than Ignoring The Constitution
The Constitution is to Obama like a solid iron door. Socialist attitudes and efforts are like acid eating away at it so they can break it down and push their way into the cockpit, into the nuclear plant control room and take over everything. Utopian Peace & Prosperity will be brought about only through revolution, violence, destruction, martial power, or through back-stabbing duplicity that works by ignoring the Constitution. The Liberal Elites learned from the defeat of the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) that the Constitution was a roadblock that they could not remove and so they decided to just go around it my ignoring the need for constitutional amendments to affect radical transformation and every greater socialistic policy. But the threat to America isn’t from income redistribution in the real world, it’s from redistribution from the piggy bank of the future which is viewed as an endless supply. And neither party is especially bothered by that. AN
You mischaracterize President Obama’s order to not deport long-term-resident non-citizen immigrants in college or serving in the military . It was not an order to do something, it was an order to not do something, -something that was probably not being done anyway. But openly declaring what may have been an unofficial policy is great for shoring up his Hispanic base, especially after the stance against the Catholic church.
But there’s a huge fact that everyone is overlooking, including those in Congress, and it’s that not only does the President have the power to not obey the regulations passed by Congresses, he has the power to kill them outright by the constitutional authority of the veto. He has the authority to totally thwart the will of Congress, and the justification meant to support it is his sworn oath to defend the Constitution by rejecting unconstitutional legislation, or to protect the rights of minorities, or to avoid a policy that is contrary to the best interest of the nation. The President is not a rubber stamper for Congress. He is in effect a co-equal structure of the government, -the first arbiter of the constitutionality of laws and regulations passed by Congress, as well as the enforcer-in-chief.
Not enforcing something should not be equated with enforcing regulations that the out-of-control executive branch makes up on its own on a daily basis. The real threat isn’t from the government not doing something, -not performing some standard policy enforcement, -it’s from what it does as standard procedure, things it has no right to be doing. Where is the outrage in Congress over the enforcement of 10s of thousands of unconstitutional executive branch rules that rob American citizens of their individual liberty? AN