To anyone who vetted obama back in 2008 - and by definition this would exclude the mainstream media which, instead of vetting obama chose to benignly cover up some of the shenanigans they knew existed there - it was quite apparent that he wasn't going to be a very good president. His verbiage, his ideas, his "policies" were all awash in far left dogma. I have nothing against these ideas were they being discussed in a theoretical, non-public policy setting. There was a time when such ideas were fresh and waiting for their chance at implementation. There was a time when, compared to whatever economy the reigning monarch or dictator was comfortable with, they even seemed plausible. But that was about a century ago. Between then and now countries near and far have instituted socialist, neo-marxist and pure marxist economic models and found out, without a single exception, that they just do not work. The central flaw in such plans was their reliance on the willingness of the producers in society to continue to work hard and innovate new products and markets when they were not being rewarded with the fruits of their labor, at least to a meaningful degree. For those who are not fluent in economic theory, think about obama's stammering answer to the question Joe the Plumber asked him.
"Income redistribution is good!" the wide-eyed obama exclaimed in an off-the-cuff remark that nearly derailed his lead over a closing Hilary Clinton. By income redistribution, obama means taking the money earned by the working class and giving it to those who do not work, whatever their reason is. In some respects it sounds good, at least to the naive and uninitiated. People who want to work but can't find work need help from society, especially when they are trying to provide for a family. Even conservatives believe in that kind of "redistribution." The disagreements and arguments begin when those receiving the redistribution are more or less responsible for their financial plight. Should a hard-working small businessman who is hard-pressed to meet payroll in a recession have to contribute to people who are poor because they dropped out of school, or who elected not to go to college so they could accept a factory job that paid well but ended when the factory closed? How about those endorsed by Mrs. obama who won't take a job in the private sector because it is an assault on their dignity? Should such folk get government money collected in the form of taxes taken from those who are working?
Somewhere between ten weeks of unemployment benefits and government handouts in the latest entitlement program a line needs to be drawn by society. obama wants it drawn about as far down the page as it has ever been drawn. Romney wants it drawn above where it is now.
Were that the choice facing Americans, the November election would merely be a choice between economic models. But obama and company are doing everything in their power to confuse the issues. In doing so, obama has now helped a whole lot of folks to answer an underlying question about his candidacy. As stated, the first question, (has he been a good president?), was answerable even by those who pay but scant attention to national politics about ten or twelve weeks after he had been inaugurated. The answer was plainly "no." No one espousing those far left economic plans, including unchecked spending in the face of huge national debts and soaring taxes during a staggering recession, had any chance at all of being a successful leader.
It is the underlying question, the "second" question, that bothers more and more Americans every day: Is obama at least a good person?
Many held out hope that he was at least this: a good person. But the mounting evidence, including his abominable carrying on in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Arizona immigration case, is that he is not a good person. I, for one, do not think it is even a close question.
We ask our President to rise above the fray, to stand tall in the face of unrelenting criticism. We ask for a noble heart and a noble soul, we ask for a profoundly caring and graceful heart exhibited for all Americans, whether they be rich or poor, democrat or republican, white or black or hispanic.
When the President loses a political or legal battle, as inevitably he must, we insist that he not act petulant or vindictive. But that is exactly what this person has done. His "defeat" in the case was barely that. Of the four parts of the Arizona Law considered by the Supreme Court, three were found unconstitutional. The fourth and supposedly most controversial portion of the state law - the part requiring law enforcement officers to inquire about a person's immigration status during legal stops, was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court. Read that again: unanimous Supreme Court. All eight of the participating justices - one, Justice Kagan, excused herself because of a possible conflict of interest - found that the law as written was constitutional. The majority cautioned that what looks good on paper may fall short in practice, and they left open the possibility that the Supreme Court and the lower courts may have to revisit the application of the law once its implementation becomes clearer. But this reasoned decision was not what obama wanted, and he instructed federal immigration officials to immediately stop cooperating with Arizona Law Enforcement Personnel when it comes to immigration law violators. So if Arizona police stop an illegal immigrant who has a felony record and, after doing so, call the INS to begin the deportation process, the INS will refuse to cooperate. Since state law enforcement folks cannot themselves deport anyone, the state will be left with the choice of trying the violator in state court and paying for the cost of any imprisonment that is ordered, or letting the felon go.
Imagine that: the jail house doors open and vile criminal - maybe a rapist, maybe a pedophile - walks free, courtesy of one person: obama.
obama has forgotten that Arizona citizens are also citizens of these United States and that obama is their president. obama has lost sight of his duty to all the people. obama has acted with extreme petulance. If he could not have it exactly the way he wanted it he was going to take his ball and go home.
What, exactly, has Arizona Governor Brewer done wrong? Her state is on the frontline of the immigration issue. It is the entry point for thousands of people who break the law by crossing the Mexican border and come to the United States. Leftists say how can anyone criticize those coming to the USA find a better life. Okay, we won't criticize the immigrants. But what should Arizona do? It is not debatable that illegal immigrants are causing an upheaval for state authorities. They have sent the crime rate soaring. They have overrun state social services. They have jammed hospital emergency rooms. These people are fending for themselves and getting help where it is to be had. Like many Americans, my complaint is not with those who come seeking a better life. Like many Americans, my complaint is with those in the government who cannot do their duty and do what is best for America. The American People, by a wide majority, want the national borders sealed and want immigration to proceed under law. I would favor an immediate overhaul of the immigration laws, with an eye towards higher numbers of immigrants and less red tape for those who play by the rules, but only after the borders are sealed.
In Arizona, the governor is charged with caring for all of the citizens of Arizona. Landowners near the Mexican frontier have been made the victims of criminal acts by immigrants desperate to make a successful crossing. The proximity of Arizona to the frontlines of the Mexican drug wars means that elements from those wars have carried their act into Arizona. The feds - meaning obama - will not enforce the law in Arizona. Now, they are taking steps to make sure the State doesn't enforce the laws either.
This makes a mockery of the United States Code. There are laws on the book that obama doesn't like. Many leftists want those immigrants to come en masse and become voters in the lefts' dream of national conquest.
(I don't for a second believe that Hispanics will be Democrats for long. It has become a party for anti=Americans. It is not a party for liberals. Once new citizens see this, as they surely will, they will no longer vote for Democrats. That would be the inevitable fulfillment of the old phrase, what goes around comes around.)
He is not the kind of person who should ever have become president. His economic policies are relics of the far left trash heap. His foreign policy initiatives have been morally clouded by his extreme desire to gussy up to dictators like castro and chavez and even the iranian wild man Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At the same time, countries that have stood by the USA through thick and thin - England, Poland, Honduras and, most of all, Israel - have felt obama's boot on their windpipe. This is the president who confronts economic calamity by strangling the means to recover. He chokes off energy sources like the Gulf of Mexico, the Keystone Pipeline and our Coal and domestic oil reserves. This is the man who is itching, real real bad, to compel the private sector to hire even when it doesn't perceive that such a move would be in their economic best interests.
This is the president who assumes American Blacks will vote for him again in droves. It is possible that they will because of the sorry treatment accorded them during much of American History. But what has obama done to earn their vote. Black unemployment is at historic highs. The unemployment rate of black teens is literally through the roof. Compare those rates with the rates during any previous administration. Black leaders excoriated President Bush for every reason in the book. President Bush had black unemployment at or near historic lows throughout his eight year presidency, save for the twelve months after the Nine=Eleven Attacks. If Romney were to fashion a plan to emphasize a direct attack on black unemployment beginning on day one of his administration, who is to say that he could not siphon off five to ten percent of the black vote. If he did, obama would have no chance to gain a second term.
For those who continue to support obama, answer this one question. What has he accomplished? Is it your idea that he has earned a second term? If he hasn't earned it, and God knows he hasn't, then he does not deserve to win. No incumbent president should be writing off any constituencies this early in the election cycle. Yet obama has already written off white men, all of Texas and now all of Arizona. But it doesn't matter to him. All that matters to obama is obama. And that is his ultimate shame.
There are other things worth writing about. I wrote recently about Danielle Trussoni's novel, "Angelology." One of the many great things about the story is the way it grabbed you on the first page and would not let go. I won't ruin it for you if you haven't read it yet. Now I'm reading David Mitchell's novel, the 1000 Autumn Nights of Jacob de Zoet. Like Trussoni, he reaches out and grabs the reader at the outset. The first chapter of the historical novel contains an account of a natural event gone wrong and it will leave you sweating. Mitchell writes as if he is more comfortable with a pen in hand than someone to talk to when he has something to say. Great writers are like that: more comfortable writing than talking.
In baseball, the Orioles are confronting a huge problem that threatens their magical exploits so far this season. The problem is hitting, or, more accurately, the lack of hitting. Over the weekend the Orioles beat the Nationals two out of three but only scored five runs total while doing so. Friday, the wonderful Jason Hammel won for the eighth time and surrendered only one run in the process. He was coming off a complete game shutout. On Sunday, the other Oriole wonderkund, Wei-Yin Chen, stymied the Nats on Sunday and Matt Wieters hit a two-run homer in the bottom of the eighth for another 2-1 win. On Monday, the Orioles lost to the Angels 7-3 after falling behind, 7-0. Wilson Betemit hit his tenth homer in the 8th inning, but it was too little and way too late. To make matters worse, Hammel was roughed up by the Angels on Wednesday night, falling behind 7-1 in the fourth inning.
No comments:
Post a Comment