Ever wonder why politicians, particularly our current President, love Hollywood? Perhaps Barack Hussein Obama just feels comfortable around millionaires and billionaires who are utterly narcissistic, who make wonderful speeches that make them sound erudite, charming, appealing and persuasive. And those speeches (scripts) are always what someone else has written.
In a movie script the hero always knows what he’s doing, and always gets the best looking girl and always has huge numbers of people who think he’s wonderful. And there are never, I mean NEVER any unintended consequences as a result of what our hero does, no matter how stupid it seems at the time.
Luckily for us, we know that it’s all make believe.
I wonder if Barry has realized that the White House is not make-believe, but keeps kidding himself that it is.
Many have accused Barack Obama of being guided solely by the writings of Saul Alinsky. I know, I know, there were stories going around about Obama relying on the writings of Saint Augustine when selecting which potential terrorists were going to die by means of drone strikes, but does anyone actually believe that?
I didn’t think so.
On the other hand, I do think that our President has read more than just simply Saul Alinsky. No, I’m not referring to the Constitution. I’m referring to the book Brain Droppings by George Carlin. In a section titled “Rules to Live By”, Carlin makes some suggestions that our Dear Leader has apparently taken quite to heart:
Rule #6: Surround yourself with inferiors and losers. Not only will you look good by comparison, but they will look up to you, and that will make you feel better. (Hello, Joe Biden!)
Rule #10: Never give up on an idea simply because it is bad and doesn’t work. Cling to it even when it is hopeless. Anyone can cut and run, but it takes a special person to stay with something that is stupid and harmful. (Let’s raise taxes on anyone who is gainfully employed!)
Rule #15: Finally, enjoy yourself all the time, and do whatever you want. Don’t be seduced by that mindless chatter going around about “responsibility.” That’s exactly the kind of thing that can ruin your life. (Well, look, it’s time for another vacation!)
I rest my case.
If the law mandating truth in advertising could be applied to the government itself, it would undoubtedly force changes in the names of the executive departments.
The Department of Labor would become the Department of Union Protection and Suppression of Non-Union Labor.
The Department of Education would become the Department of Unionized Teacher Benefits
The Environmental Protection Agency would become the Environmental Lunatic Fringe Protection and Pandering Agency.
The Tea Parties all across the nation should seek out ways to develop relationships with local media reporters so that local papers and radio and TV stations don’t merely parrot what comes from the AP or from Democrats and Democrat front groups as their easy way out when reporting about the Tea Parties. Once they begin to see Tea Partiers as ordinary people rather than a mob of people who walk around carrying guns, Bibles and copies of the Constitution with a plan to destroy the liberal America that they love, the stridency of their comments might abate. It’s hard for any human being to speak harshly of someone with whom they have broken bread.
Liberals are always claiming that conservatives, particularly social conservatives, are trying to control what you do in your bedroom. The inference is of course that they themselves would never control what you do in your bedroom. And for once, at least temporarily, they are telling the truth, just not the whole truth. No, right now they don’t want to control what happens in your bedroom. They just want to control everything else that you do, see, eat, where you work, how much you earn, what kind of car they will allow you to drive, and on and on and on.
Lies are in the ears of the beholder.
Just who the hell are the politically correct police, and who decides what is, and is not, politically correct? Could it be the denizens of Ivy League faculty lounges who have nothing better, or more productive, to do than decide what is “allowable” speech? The whole idea of political correctness is nothing more than veiled censorship, and as such it should be quashed as strongly as possible.
Yes, some words and phrases offend people in certain groups. To be honest, I have looked very carefully at the founding documents of this nation, and I’ve never seen anything that resembles “Thou shalt be protected from being offended”. Have you?
Barack Obama is the only person on the planet that can make Al Gore look humble.
A primary danger if Obama is re-elected is seen in the re-election of William Jefferson Clinton. When Bill Clinton was re-elected, he received only a plurality of the popular vote (about 41%), not a majority, and yet he trumpeted loudly and often that he had a mandate.
Obama already thinks (or at least espouses) that he has a mandate, and look how he has trashed the constitution, the economy, and our national security. If re-elected, he will feel even less constrained than he is now. This is truly dangerous.
Liberal-Progressive-Democrats often justify their lust for absolute and total control of everything that interests them by claiming that they are really, Really, REALLY smart. Maybe so. But Ted Bundy, the charming serial killer was pretty smart. Come to think of it, Ted Kazinsky, the unibomber, was very, very intelligent Harvard graduate.
For all those who are non-Catholics and who wonder why the Catholic Church can’t be more “reasonable, flexible or be willing to compromise” with regard to the Obama/Sebelius requirement that the church provide contraceptive services to all their employees. Could it be that their denomination preaches that contraception is OK? Well, no one is going to tell you that it’s wrong are they? Oh, no! It’s politically correct, so just go with the flow.
How about this question though. Suppose Obama and company decide to mandate that any and all churches provide weddings for same-sex couples? Is that ok, too?
What if they mandate that all pregnant women have their fetus tested and if there is any genetic abnormality, the pregnancy must be terminated? Abortion in that case would be required, it would be mandated. Is that OK? I mean it would reduce medical costs in the future, right? The collective would benefit.
Since every church I know, or have even heard of, has a collection during services, what is to prevent Obama from demanding 10% of that tithe? It’s only fair. It would mean that God would be paying his fair share, right? I’m fairly sure he’d quote that part of the Bible about “render unto Caesar” to justify it, too.
I want this blog to be a forum to discuss the issues of the day (or week, month, year…whatever). But you, my friends, need to respond. A discussion where only one person is speaking is not really a conversation; it’s merely a lecture…or worse, it’s a sermon.
Please feel free to use the comments section or even rate this particular blog entry. I can’t improve my ability to communicate without honest critiques, and only the reader can note where I might have communicated more clearly or where I should have expanded the ideas. I will even admit (in the theoretical sense, anyway) that it might be possible that I might be wrong about something.
Thanks for reading and I hope you’ll join the conversation.