The Contents of Obama’s Character
As everything President Obama touches turns to crap, we begin to hear more and more leftist attacks on Mitt Romney the man. Andrea Mitchell on leftist network NBC dishonestly edits a tape to make Romney seem “out of touch.” Joe Williams from the leftist website Politico crazily suggests Romney is only comfortable around white people. Lawrence O’Donnell on the leftist cable net MSNBC moronically attacks Mrs. Romney for riding horses. And just about every leftist everywhere from the New York Times all the way up to some ostensibly legitimate news sources decries the fact that the Republican candidate for president is, horror upon horrors, a Mormon.
Really? I mean, while believing in the Angel Moroni may be kind of odd, believing in Barack Obama is just plain magical thinking. The jobs “created or saved,” the new tone in Washington, the health care “reform,” the new approach to the Middle East, the Russian reset — sure, all religions have their hard-to-swallow miracle tales but most of them don’t do this kind of real-world damage.
But of all the weird, creepy and false left-wing religious tenets the Obama administration has forced down this nation’s throat, none is as impossible to swallow as the myth of the president’s superior character. Listen, I’ll make no claims for Mitt Romney on this score. From a distance, he seems a decent person enough but I don’t know him and I’m willing to stipulate he’s no better than any other politician. But on the very surface of it, based on his own words and actions and what we know, President Obama clearly does not live up even to that exceedingly low standard.
In many ways, the political “character issue” is a nonsense, a phrase invented by the media as an excuse to expose people’s sex lives. But the real sins that people commit in moments of physical intimacy — sins of personal unkindness, dishonesty and self-degradation — are none of the public’s business. Bill Clinton committed adultery in the Oval Office with a woman half his age and shame on him, but what’s it to me? That satisfying swell of righteous indignation we feel in the presence of others’ personal weaknesses is mostly a psychological ruse to keep us from focusing on our own — that’s a loose translation of Gospel wisdom, I know, but a fair one.
No, the parts of a politician’s character that matter to the voter are revealed in his relationship to the American people and the principles of American liberty and law. These are the areas in which Obama has shown himself to be a man unsuited to his office. Here are three examples.
All the evidence, policy and actions of President Obama over the last three plus years have shown that the myth of the character to be false.
Myth busted.
Now that it is busted, its time for Americans to stop believing it in the face of measured empirical evidence.
Science in action! The President did say he would bring science back. We just didn’t realize he meant we would have to use it to prove his life (a composite character) was a myth that never happened.
Obama is a sociopath. A criminal personality. Click on Anti Social Personality and confirm it. We need to confine him in an institution for the criminally insane for life.
I can’t wait to see all the comments this scathing indictment on the Obama Administration will bring…
Shane,
I guess the Obama people don’t visit this site. Maybe it’s a backwater.
How Obama got elected will be analyzed for years. The flaws Klavan enumerates were visible in 2008, yet he got elected because our electoral system is hostage to 15 to 20% of the electorate are beyond help, and are unfortunately, unworthy of the franchise.
My nightmare moves to phase 2 in November, when Obama swaggers up to the podium, sneers into the camera, and bellows about how he knew the small-minded and the haters and so on could not drag America down, or something. I predict I will vomit.
Until then I will send Romney money when I can and hope for the best. Oh, maybe hedge my bets and invest something in Berkshire-Hathaway. Buffet has a straight line to Obama.
In 1980 it was well known that Carter was going to defeat that “John Bircher” Reagan. Carter’s numbers were in the high 50′s and Reagans were High 30′s or Low 40′s.
It was a done deal and Reagan didn’t have a chance.
That all changed on the First Tuesday in November of 1980.
The media were dumbfounded and unable to contain their dismay.
Here’s my Prediction for the First Tuesday in November 2012;
Obama will win: California, New York, Hawaii, Michigan, and the District of Columbia.
Obama May additionally win: Washington, Oregon, Maine, and Minnasotta.
Obama will lose all of the other states.
I’m afraid he’ll most likely take Illinois as well.
The Chicago graveyard vote is a powerful thing.
I’m using his percentages minus his loss of popularity – but I think I should concede that Illinois may hold steady (with however many votes are necessary coming out of Cook County) and that Michigan may swing over the other way.
Indeed.
Your keyboard to God’s monitor, I hope.
Obeyme will also win Maryland
I’m with you jd, except I’ll put Michigan in the Romney column.
If Obama wins California, I will literally fall off my chair. California is in self destruction mode and I should be shocked if the people here voted for Romney.
If Obama appeared on stage with hs good budy Satan and Osama Bin Laden, singing as a Trio, for the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce – California would still go Obama.
Don’t forget Massachusetts
Romney has a Record of being able to win Mass.
And, Scott Brown shows dissatisfaction with the Obama Status Quo.
I predict that Obama will win Ill and Hawaii. Romney will win the rest. One forgets Romney hasn’t even picked a VP yet. Only if Romney picks the WRONG VP will my predictions fail. I know die hard democrats who will not vote for Obama again. The democrat superman has shown he is strong enough to hold a golf club and dribble a basketball, he can leap the steps of Air Force One, but he can’t even out run his dog! He is no Lincoln. He has managed to divide the country into ethic groups, class, and income. He is no Reagan. He is no FDR. He is no Truman ( the buck stops here). Obama is the failed Jimmy Carter!
I’d add Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey to Obama’s list, as well as a probable Michigan and Wisconsin. Pennsylvania’s in play, as is Iowa. One must not get overconfident.
Obama got elected in 2008 because the country had only two choices for president in November of that year and:
1) The public was sick and tired of war. Obama ran on an anti-war platform while his opponent ran as a war monger.
2) The economy was seen to be on the verge of collapse. Obama went along with all the “wise” media fools while his opponent famously said that the economy is fundamentally fine.
3) Identity politics drives large numbers of votes and Obama was able to build a larger coalition of identity voters – young people, minorities, smart people, gays, establishmentarians; than McCain was able to – old white guys and warmongers.
I find it hard to believe that any smart people would vote for him. He doesn’t care one iota about this country and the people who love it. He would gladly tear us all down and be proud of himself for doing it. The sooner he is gone, the better off we will all be.
“He doesn’t care one iota about this country and the people who love it”
And neither do the majority of his constituants who voted for him….
College punks, lefties, tree huggers, radical gays, ACORN, the Sharpton element, Hollywood, ACB CBS NBC, teachers unions, trial lawyers…think any of them “care about” the country, or just their agenda?
And don’t forget the legions who work for government at all levels. Of course, the ones who thought he was going to pay their rent and give them free stuff have probably realized by now that it ain’t gonna happen. I hope.
I find it hard to believe that any smart people would vote for him.
Most likely.
But idiots that want to feel smart most definitely did.
Beginning with the educated idiots in academia.
Smart people? Really?
“Smart” has lost all value, and might as well be a Confederate dollar or a Weimar Deutchmark. “Smart” people have brought us ruin and misery. Credentialed cretins and social climbers.
Don’t discount the gushing that went on in the media (including “conservative” quarters–even Charles Krauthammer would refer to Obama’s “first-rate temperament and first-rate intellect”). He was called a messiah, a god, a lightworker, a Mahatma, a symbol of the hopes and dreams of people around the world, a philosopher king, the fulfillment of Platonic prophesies, a son of promise and child of hope, the alpha and omega. He was photographed with halos, in shafts of heavenly light, as the Transfiguration, always, always looking down from on high. It was unbelievable–I was slack-jawed through the entire campaign. And did the man himself ever pooh-pooh any of this nonsense? He did not. In fact, he accepted it all as his due.
And yet, it looked as though McCain/Palin were actually going to pull it off until the great financial crisis hit. Obama handled it well; McCain did not (and his previous statement that the economy was not his strong suit certainly didn’t help).
I’m very distrustful of voters in the mushy middle (the muddle). You never know what’s going to tip their scale, float their boat.
My challenge to all those who claim Obama is “brilliant”:
Name even ONE idea or policy that Obama has put forward, that has not already been standard Democratic Party boilerplate for the last 30 years.
For a guy who is supposed to be so “brilliant,” Obama has not come up with even one new idea throughout his entire presidency.
I agree. from the outset of obama’s racist pandering and divisive campaign in 2008, never did i hear anything from him that sounded intelligent or well thought out.
his intellect is very limited and he does not know how to govern. when he speaks on crucial matters, he has no specifics in his head, so it’s apparent that he’s not studied what he’s talking about, always sounding like a great late night host and saying nothing.
the worst thing is ignoring the plight of jobless americans and the debacle that has befallen the middle class, simply because he can’t think of anything. he has no jobs ideas. no homeowner ideas. no force.
he seems to be living in some other country where only non-whites, arabs and mexicans make up the population. despite our fragile financials, obama can’t broom in enough of them to implode our healthcare, our educational systems, welfare, indeed, our american culture.
i will not vote for him although our choice is really bad. however, as a bonus, we get rid of holder. anything is worth that.
“Even Charles Krauthammer would refer to Obama’s “first-rate temperament and first-rate intellect”).”
Say, Chuck, how’s that “first-rate temperament and first-rate intellect” looking, now? Nice call. You apologized yet to Hannity for not listening when he was shouting Obama’s flaws from the rooftops?
Keep remembering that Obama was elected by only 30% of registered voters. There was a 58% turnout and of the people who actually voted, 52% voted for Obama. Multiply 0.58 and 0.52 and you get 0.30. Just 30% of registered voters saddled us with Obama. Forget about the polls and just vote. He has not gained followers.
Here’s how I am going to ‘handle’ November 2012 – No TV, cable, no internet, no radio, no newspapers, magazines, nothing.. Total blackout. Why? Because knowing what is going on out there has done nothing other than to cause me 24/7 grief. Not one damn thing I can do to change anything. The mongrels are in charge even though any one of them has an IQ under 90. I would (we would) be better off if it were the early 1800s. At least then good people had a chance to make a good life. Now it’s like being tossed into the holding tank on a crab boat. You live as long as it takes to get to the processing plant i.e. Social Security. We are so screwed.
Obama can easily be beaten if there is a decent turnout of voters. Keep remembering that Obama was elected by only 30% of registered voters. There was a 58% turnout and of the people who actually voted, 52% voted for Obama. Multiply 0.58 and 0.52 and you get 0.30. Just 30% of registered voters saddled us with Obama. Forget about the polls and just vote. He has not gained followers.
Obama the Cipher.
Barack Obama in the highest office in the land, parley-voo?
Barack Obama in the highest office in the land, parley-voo?
He can sink the economy and campaign and vacation a great deal
But taking any responsibly to him just does not appeal
He has less class than the back of a hack
When he morns for anyone but himself the tears run down his back
If he would just take responsibility sometime somewhere
The MSM frogs would probably give him the Croix-de-Guerre
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo
You always slay me, Klavan. You are pure genius.
Honestly? I think things are going to get ugly. ‘Dead voter’/'resurrected ACORN’ ugly.
Our country is in seriously deep doo doo.
I don’t know about you, Andy, but, I’m effing afraid.
So am I. One fear is that people can no longer even recognize what makes for good character, and simply see what they want to see.
Seriously, the only possible demerit on Romney anyone can point to is that he is rich in a world with lots of poverty, and hasn’t given almost all of it away yet. (Of course, the people who say the rich should do this never include their own surplus in the deal.) There’s also the common leftist assumption that any fortune made by a non-leftist must have its roots in crime. Setting those aside, everything known about Mitt Romney suggests he’s a matured version of Kevin Price, the lead character of the musical “The Book of Mormon,” minus the arrogance. Meanwhile, Barack Obama has the same character’s matchless ego and childhood/youth of endless praise, minus the achievements, piety, and capacity for shame. (On Planet Werewife, Broadway answereth all things.) I really want to see how this one’s going to shake out…
“One fear is that people can no longer even recognize what makes for good character, and simply see what they want to see.”
Indeed. The sharp crease in D’oh-bama’s pants indicated to the national socialists that he’d be a “great leader”. That same sharp crease in Romney’s pants indicate he is “out of touch with working Americans”.
The absolute sublime aspect of it is that people generally don’t even realize they’re doing it. When you point it out, you get blank stares. But we’ve arrived at a place where the conservatives and the national socialists live in parallel universes and thus, validating string theory. (that’s just a joke, btw)
When you try to reason with a national socialist, you get run over with yelling and screaming. But I recently had a “discussion” with an avowed socialist the other day about “Bush’s evil TSA” and how they are so “intrusive” and I simply pointed out that the more intrusive regulations and search methods were instituted under Captain Barry McFlappears. Her head exploded. I swear…it exploded. She got so red and grit her teeth so hard, and stormed off, completely pissed off.
I said, quietly, “Wait…all I said was…..”, and then smiled.
So, Bush having a TSA was bad and evil and intrusive but Barry having the TSA is “right and just and necessary”. But then, I ask, “Oh? Why is it ‘necessary’?” and the reply is, “Because of bad people who want to hijack airliners.”
“I see”, I reply. “And who are those bad people?”
“You, know…BAD people…ones who want to hijack airliners”.
“And what ‘bad people are they’?” (You can see where this leads…but NONE of them will say, ‘muslims’)
So I say it for them.
“You mean, muslims?”
“Oh…that’s such a racist attitude…it’s not JUST muslims!”
“It’s not? When has it been ‘not-a-muslim’?”
Then the same reaction occurs where they get spitting angry and either yell at me and then storm off, or just storm off.
Reason, logic, self-critiquing, introspection, careful measuring of facts, willing to admit being wrong, all trumped by FEELINGS.
Obama is one walking cesspool of hate who thinks his divine right is to teach the US a lesson. What people like him fail to realize, as was Carter’s failing is that the nation will move along without him. Without Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, and the rest of the sugar-hill gang. They have spent all our money, they have undermined our laws and they have broadcasted their hatred for this nation. They thought they could get away with it and for a time they have.
But they keep exposing themselves and showing their real colors.
The criminal activity over immigration is just the latest and is reminiscent of a dictator being a dick.
Well stated – P Jay Medilla. Best assessment of Lib’s I’ve read to date and I agreee 100%. Pointless to argue with them – all logic and truth is trumped by MSM infused “Feelings”. Then when all the policies fail miserably and wreak pain and suffering on the majority they run away and hide and never take responsibility. Then they attack the messenger and are clueless to the fact they are being manipulated by propoganda. Thanks for your post.
Actually, I understand Romney gave his inheritance to charity.
100% exactly true…but I’ll bet you my house you will not (have not) heard that from ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN….Their not reporing it doesn’t change the fact…but then again, teh MSM doesn’t give two flips about facts or truth
“Seriously, the only possible demerit on Romney anyone can point to is that he is rich….”
No. Klavan got it right. Romney is as dishonest as the next politician. Flip-flop Mitt.
In government, he has no foundational principles. Re ObamaCare: “Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.” “Let’s keep the good and throw out the bad.” “What will we replace it with?” He is a technocrat. Give him a situation, and he’ll want to make it work better within its current paradigm. He will not seek to change the paradigm, even if it is based upon some tyrannical process.
Romney is a moral man in personal affairs. The interns will be safe from him. His political ambitions, however, make him politically amoral. Whatever he achieves in office, we will be stuck with, because he has an ‘R’ after his name. I also doubt he will prosecute any of the Obama cretins, as it would be politically disadvantageous to do so. “Let’s put it all behind us, blah, blah, blah.” Either I am not fooled by him, or I am just too cynical. Anyone want to bet I am wrong?
Romney has principles, just no enduring ideological ones. But considering the hostile posture that the media has taken towards anything conservative, his carefully-maintained blank slate may be his most valuable asset. Romney reminds me of Woody Allen’s “Zelig,” a character so malleable that even his physical appearance changed to match his environment.
His steady and skilled use of negative attacks really troubled me in the primaries, but it may be the only workable approach now. Sadly, if he does win he’ll not have a mandate to do anything.
The remark about how technology causes unemployment illustrates how much Obama has been influenced by EF Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful ethos and now seeks to enshrine it into our economy through the UN’s sustainable development initiatives. It is a big part of the implementation he has assigned to Arne Duncan at DoED using our money to promote it via education.
Likewise the most interesting part of that tape where Obama introduces Derrick Bell was his ease of speaking. He only needs a teleprompter when he is not being sincere in his radical beliefs for social, political, and economic restructuring.
Also his reference to opening up your hearts when introducing Bell is another reminder he wants to push the primacy of emotion over reason in education. Students know are to feel. That is the real essence of his Common Core push for deep understanding.
Whether he wins or loses, we must understand what his initiatives were designed to fundamentally transform. It will be the only genuine means of extirpation and vaccination against a recurrence.
One thing people should expect from their president is honesty. I know there are other important things like wisdom, compassion, discernment, decisiveness, the ability to reason carefully, a certain level of competence, but these are meaningless without honesty.
When he quotes his opponents out of context and twists their words,
then I am not convinced that he has a workable alternative.
When he is very selective of facts or sparing with the truth,
then I am not convinced that he has a workable alternative.
When he speaks in the vaguest of terms,
then I am not convinced that he has a workable alternative.
When he does nothing and blames the other side for blocking progress,
then I am not convinced that he has a workable alternative.
When he insists on the rights of his supporters but not on personal responsibility,
then I am not convinced that he has a workable alternative.
When he keeps adding to the layers of bureaucracy and mountains of legislation,
then I am not convinced that he has a workable alternative.
When he does not look in the mirror to see his own shortcomings and those of his party and denies that they have messed up, then I do not see a man who places a high value on honesty – irrespective of the consequences for himself and his party – the kind of president for whom I can have respect.
Presidents are notorious for not being honest but this is no excuse for ignoring this important criterion when voters next make a choice.
History is subject to interpretation. The who is rarely a bone of contention, only the why. Barack Hussein Obama is the first American president where the very facts of his life are open to question. After four years we still don’t know who he is. How is that even possible? And yet it is.
We don’t know who he is, but we sure do know who he isn’t.
he is no american president. that is who he isn’t.
no. not the birther thing. the american president thing.
“Even if socialism did work, it would be wrong because it would strip people of the fruits of their labor and the property rights on which liberty depends. Thankfully, it doesn’t work, which makes the moral issue moot.”
Mr. Klavan: you are a very funny, witty guy and I am a big fan. But sometimes you present ideas like the one quoted above that are illogical or seem to indicate moral confusion. The criteria for determining whether something is moral or not is whether it is anti-man or pro-man. Socialism is immoral because it is anti-man. It is anti-man BECAUSE it denies mankind the fruit and products of his mind. So to say that Socialism strips people of the fruits of their labor and property rights is the same as saying it is immoral. It cannot work because IT IS immoral. It’s immorality comes from the fact that it forbids man for pursuing his rational self interest and happiness.
I fear the comment is based upon your religious belief that morality comes from devine revelation than logic and reason. I wish the religious right would examine their premises on this issue. It undercuts their defense of liberty and capitalism.
If government bestows rights, government can take them away. The foundation of our government is based on rights endowed by our Creator, inherit in our being, that make those rights inalienable. Socialism is antithetical to our government as well as our nature.
Carmelita-
Man’s rights are based upon observable facts and reason, not religion. By forfeiting reason in arguing for man’s rights, you imply God gives us those rights. What God giveth, God can take away as well. Please check your premises. Jefferson’s argument for a radical separation of church and state was reasoned based. Religion should remain a personal issue.
David, I agree with you.
The Founders said that our rights were given to us by our Creator, an entity the most influential of them did NOT equate with the god of the bible (Thomas Paine’s “An Age of Reason” should be required reading in every public school), but just because they thought this doesn’t make it true.
Morality is defined in every age by every culture as that which benefits or harms its members. Your interpretation of morality is logical, but in this world, logic is irrelevant. Most Americans think morality is something defined by the bible, which most have never read (if they did so, most would become atheists or take up other religions overnight), and that it has something do with sexual organs. They are not ethical beings. They’re not even moral beings by their own definitions of “morality.” This they brush off as unimportant, claiming that all humans are flawed (the bible again), instead of addressing. They tell themselves that believing is this or that god or savior will get them to heaven no matter what, and that all their evil can be heaped onto a scapegoat.
Obama’s policies are immoral by your definition, and unethical by universal definition. They seek to benefit some at the expense of others, and they are all based on lying and misrepresentation. The man is a charlatan of the first order, leading the gullible to their own doom. He is incapable of speaking truth, if he has any awareness of it at all, and to his followers, this is perfectly fine. After all, he speaks THEIR language, and supports THEIR values and causes. And the fact that water seeks its own level does not alarm them in the least.
Mr. Wall – I disagree. Thomas Paine had his place in our nations history but was largely an agnostic and irrelevant after “Common Sense”. Ben Franklin called him out on his flawed logic. This country was founded on the premise that our rights are endowed by our creator and that is absolute truth. I know you are probably paid to write this crap but stop trying to rewrite hisory – the truth always prevails.
I must take issue with Mr. Goulds comment on Thomas Paine. “The Age of Reason” which Paine courageously wrote in defense of reason, knowing it would be vilified by religious bigots, also happens to be unflawed reasoning that brilliantly exposed the flaws in religious (so called) reasoning.
His less than respectful attitude toward the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the clergy of his day was well placed, but did not exactly endear him to those who practiced it. He, like Jefferson, was a Deist, who understood natural law and natural rights as they were meant in the Declaration of Independence.
Ignorant and typical liberal( immoral) balderdash!
Jefferson did not argue for a “radical separation of church and state.”
Thank you for the compliment, David. But are you sure you’ve thought this through? Socialism “cannot work because it is immoral?” That seems rather trustingly naive. It seems to me many immoral systems work perfectly well over very long periods of time (slavery comes to mind). And as for observable facts and reason being the basis of our liberty, many very reasonable people have observed the facts and come to far different conclusions — who’s to say them nay without some baseline moral axioms? Carmelita is right, the US is founded on the principle of God-given rights that no man can take away. Your response that “If God gives us our rights, he can take them away,” is irrelevant. You need not fear that possibility because you don’t believe in him, and I need not fear it because I do.
Though I’m a great admirer of Ayn Rand, Andrew, you’ve given a sterling logical answer to what I see as her solitary fallacy.
Excellent.
“You need not fear that possibility because you don’t believe in him, and I need not fear it because I do.”
Again, Mr. Klavan, you are a funny, witty man! Very good.
However….
I do fear for my rights when their most ardent defenders give them weak, faith-based justifications. The fact that something “works” or at least exist does not make it right. That is not my point. The fact that it is pro-reason and thus pro-man does make it right. Slavery is anti-man on the face of it. It destroys the victim bodily and the perpetrator spiritually. This is true whether the society that condones it recognizes it or not.
Similarly, morality and man’s rights have objective basis in reality whether it is recognized by society or not. Individual rights are moral whether they are sanctioned by majority rule, a devine right king, a 20th century despot, or the arbitrary dictates of a religious authority.
Andrew,
I would argue “God given” is merely a default position used by the Founders to simply and effectively deny that rights are “created” or “granted” by some men to others, and thus could conceivably be taken away when these men change their minds or rationale.
What I’m saying is, it is sometimes more important to be crystal clear on where they DO NOT come from, and who DOES NOT have the right to change or limit them, than it is to put too much emphasis on any specific deities as the source from which they come.
The Eternal Separation of Church and State Caucus would love to change the Declaration and anything else that refers to divine inspiration or authority, as completely inappropriate superstitions that have no place in modern conversations about governance.
While I do not necessarily agree with them, I am loath to give them ammunition to advance their view that anything written can (and should) be changed, as long as there is “modern consensus” that some features are now “obsolete” (their constant attacks on the Second Amendment come to mind) by using “god references” as a wedge.
We must therefore use “Their Creator” carefully and clearly, so it is not viewed as a pro-religion cudgel easily dismissed by “the beautiful people”, but merely as a logical (and enforceable) acceptance that Rights exist simply because THEY DO.
They may come from “who cares where”, so long as its fully understood/accepted that they DO NOT come from “them”.
I think this is what Jefferson was attempting to do, by using the word “creator” and not “God”.
I agree, Root. Saying that rights originate in a supreme being strengthens support for those rights by believers, but the other side of the coin is that, for non-believers, it provides no support at all, and inclines them to denigrate those rights because of what they deem to be a superstitious foundation. Better to provide a rational basis that they might respect.
Thank you Sir,
The impetus to dismiss all we hold sacred in our Constitution is very strong among the left. This is why I say the crime of Slavery was so disastrous to the Nation. Aside from the cruelty inflicted on individuals (which I don’t mean to diminish), its REAL horror is that it allows The Left to continually dismiss everything in the Constitution they don’t like as “another mistake.”
The Constitution is not Sacred to them, not inviolable, there are no absolutes they may not trample…just other “mistakes” they feel need correcting, and “3/5’s” is the secret formula most often used to justify it.
Guns, OMG, what a stupid mistake, just like slavery. How DARE you claim its “constitutional” when kids are dying. See how easy that is? They will use the “3/5’s” formula to undercut everything you think is (and ought to be) forever beyond their reach.
It is rather like Original Sin. The imperfectness of man. We succumbed to temptation, we lost sight of what God wanted us to FULLY be, and Slavery was the Apple that banished us from a nearly achieved Eden in the very beginning.
And we’ve been fighting the Devil for the Soul of this Nation, ever since.
Mr. Klavan–
Thank you for encouraging the exchange. We disagree about religion, but I sense you are at heart a true liberal–not the mongrel, immoral rattrap that is called liberal today–but the classic, shinning liberal of our forefathers who gave birth to this great country.
Arguing about who gave them IMHO is really not the point. The point is that the Government does not get to take them away.
These rights of ours are deemed inalienable, period.
David – I agree with you 100%! Laws were developed through centuries of human developement. If the Bible is the innerant source of all law and morality, then why aren’t we still stoning women for adultery, as the Muslims do, and as the Bible quite clearly commands us?
The Founders most certainly DID see the necessity of the separation of church and state, after having been oppressed by Englands church-state divine right theocracy. Muslims also want a theocracy. Christians need to realize that the separation of church and state is to their benefit, not harm.
And as you point out, using anything other than reason to defend the principles of the Constitution just clouds the issue.
Your first paragraph was fine; the second, not so much.
God’s morality tells us what is right for us, what is good for us. Many cultures simply get it very, very wrong. You can try to deduce from various facts as to what is morally correct, but in the end, you get to what God has already told us.
You are trying to find the answer, then condemn us for working from what we already know the answer to be. “Oh, but that is just religion, and you are not allowed to cram it down our throats.” That works both ways. You are not allowed to cram your secular beliefs down our throats, especially when, time and again, they prove so disastrous.
How about this? You try to explain how God’s ways do not work. Better yet, try to argue for why they do work. Do that with yourself. Try advocating for the Christian view. Take your time about it. If you are right about your morality, you will find it matches with God’s morality for us.
That is how I became a Christian. I thought about real-world results of standards professed. In every case, God’s way worked, and the secular or hedonistic results did vast harm. Then, I read the Bible with faith for the first time. I’d read it before, but without faith, it made no sense. It seemed disjointed. Faith is the key to understanding it. Suddenly, with faith, it all made sense.
I have never doubted the existence of God since, and He has answered a few very specific prayers for me. We need not reinvent the wheel. The answers already there for us.
However, as long as you continue to buy into the secular propaganda, the notion that God has to be kept out of government, we will continue to have immoral government. Christianity is the foundation for our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and government. As long as you think it is not, it is like trying to read the Bible without faith. Our form of government simply cannot work without our faith in God. It cannot.
“However, as long as you continue to buy into the secular propaganda, the notion that God has to be kept out of government, we will continue to have immoral government. Christianity is the foundation for our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and government. As long as you think it is not, it is like trying to read the Bible without faith. Our form of government simply cannot work without our faith in God. It cannot.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, nor limiting the free exercise thereof.
The Key word is AN! Not Any, not The, AN.
The followon regarding the limiting the free exercise therof is important too.
What that says is Government MUST stay out of Religion, but nowhere does it say Religion must stay out of Government.
Yet when we have people trying to build a ‘wall of separation’ we eventually see The constant Limiting of the Free Exercise therof in the name of ‘Not Respecting THE Establishment.’
If religion is allowed into government, you will end up with a theocracy. That is not good even for Christians, since every denomination except for the one in power will be threatened. Madison himself, the “Father of the Constitution”, said, “Religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.” and, “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”
The separation of church and state is not something secularists just made up. It was intended, by the Founders, as a protection of freedom of religion. If the government remains truly neutral in regards to religion (and vice-versa), then no religion has anything to fear from government.
Wrongo du Maxami!
Theoracies occur when Government is allowed into Religion.
Religious people in Government may pass legislation that reflects Religious Values like say -It is Illegal to Murder Someone- but since that reflects Any Establishment of Religion (except a certain religion of peace) or The Establishment of Religion but not An Establishment of Religion it meets with Constitutional Muster.
But When Religion is Prohibited from Government the door is open to make ‘Certain Forms’ of Murder Acceptable. And, of course, that definition of ‘Certain Forms’ will be an ever expanding definition until the State has the sovreign right to determine who lives and dies.
Separationists need to read the Constitution once in a while
“Congress shall make no law…” means just that.
Make. No. Law. None. Not one that establishes OR one suppresses what people do or say in regard to their Faith. ESPECIALLY in public
When FREE people simply chose to express themselves on public ground, and it involves God, it does not mean “Congress” suddenly convened that moment and made a “new law” establishing them as “The Official Priests of The Regime”
It just means people are exercising their RIGHTS, and the GOVERNMENT (Federal, State, Local, School) needs to just stand down.
That means, my kid should be thank able Jesus every other word of his graduation speech, in a public school, without being censored by some fat commie social studies teacher in a ponytail, who falsely uses the weight of Government against a child to suppress a view he doesn’t like.
Too bad if you’re offended. It wasn’t the State, or a Law of Congess that offended you. It was my kid, exercising his rights. The State cannot nor should it ever be expected to, correct, adjust for, or in any way compensate or prevent, your being offended at someone exercising THEIR RIGHTS.
But as you’d prefer:
Cop, enforcing Social Studies Teachers religious views:
“You’ve been told, you cant say that here”
Student: “why not?”
Cop: “its the law”
Student: “What law?”
Cop: “Separation of church and state”
Student: “Thats not a law…thats a concept . The LAW is The First Amendment”
Cop: “Right, well it says you cant say “god” or “jesus” on school property today…if you continue to disobey, we’ll have to arrest you…the laws the law.”
Student: “Actually, sir, the law says you’re specifically NOT allowed to be doing exactly this”
Cop: “what am I doing, kid?”
Student: “Applying The Power of the State against me to enforce my Atheist Commie Marxist Social Studies Teachers religious preferences at this venue…instead of just letting ME be free to thank Jesus, any way I wish to that’s not destructive of school property, or over the time limit allotted for Graduation speakers today. I just want to say “thank you Jesus” with words, with my voice, in my speech today because its meaningful to me to do so at my Graduation, in front of my parents….how can that POSSIBLE be a crime, anywhere in this whole country?”
Cop: “Tell it to the Judge kid, you’re under arrest for disorderly conduct”
Religious freedom means “Congress shall MAKE no law”
You cant honestly argue my kid is in “violation” of a Constitutional ”law” that’s SPECIFICALLY NOT ALLOWED TO EXIST BY THE CONSTITUTION.
Make. No. Law.
Read the Bill of Rights one day….its really, REALLY not that complicated.
In reply to root83: What you are giving an example of is NOT separation of church and state – it is the abuse of it. Of course students should be allowed freedom of speech and expression of belief. To supress that in the name of “secularism” is no different than supressing it in the name of Islam or some other religion. I HAVE read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and understand the importance of the principle of NEUTRALITY of government in regard to religion. It is wrong for freedom of religious expression to be hindered. On the other hand, it is also wrong for religion to be forced on citizens by the governmnent. It’s one thing for a student to choose to pray to Jesus at a school function. It’s another thing for the institution itself, if funded by the government, to make prayer, in Jesus name or otherwise, mandatory. It’s one thing for a student to carry a Bible to class; its another thing for Bible study (in a taxpayer funded school) to be mandatory. This is a distinction that needs to be understood by those on both sides of this issue.
jd – what are you going to do when religious people pass legislation reflecting religious values like, say, polygamy? Will it be OK for religion to be in government then?
The problem with your example is that it reflects passing a law respecting AN establishment of Religion as Most Religions do not accept Polygamy.
Therfore they cannot do that under the constitution.
If you need a clincher, the 44th president’s response to SCOTUS’s decision partially upholding Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration-enforcement bill should do the trick. Obama is so consumed with himself that he can’t help lashing out spitefully at those who differ with him. But the moral order of the universe dictates that such blows will usually be reflected, most grievously, upon him who deals them.
I can’t wait for November. Neither can the United States.
Francis: I would say that O’s treatment of Arizona is a fourth aspect of his character (or lack thereof): Peevish, petulant and infantile.
All tendencies of the Malignantly Narcissistic. How dare you contradict me! Do you know who I am?!!! Me! ME!!!
I just can’t help but think, every time I see this behavior from him (or his Radicalized, Fellow Traveler “Progressives”), that I am listening to spoiled, petulant, juvenile delinquents, stomping their feet and shrieking at the top of their lungs, because they’ve been thwarted in their desires by an adult.
In the Social Services, this is “Infantilization” but we usually only see this in adults who have serious “issues.” The world owes them, somehow, and the world damned well better step up and provide or else!
One interesting parallel to him is that these Infantilized adults will not actually do much for themselves, but expect everyone else to do for them on demand. If this does not occur, then it’s always someone else’s fault.
Sounds eerily familiar, doesn’t it?
Great article, thanks! Especially love #2. So true, and so succinct. It’s as if we took an English professor from Crappola University and made him present. Obama is the “faculty lounge,” minus any sign of serious intellectual engagement with views that differ from his own.
Content of someone’s character. … Where have I heard that before?
(heh — damned good title)
“Bill Clinton committed adultery in the Oval Office with a woman half his age and shame on him, but what’s it to me?”
Why so casually dismissed?
It is said that Reagan considered it to be a sacrilege for a person to enter the oval office dressed in less than proper attire. No lacking of coats or missing neckties were condoned. Clinton used the same office for a b_job. If that doesn’t indicate an clear distinction in personal character and reverence for the Office I don’t what could. Knowing only that about the two men you could easily guess which held enormous respect for America and its people and which was (is) a politically opportunistic buffoon.
It is said that Reagan considered it to be a sacrilege for a person to enter the oval office dressed in less than proper attire. No coatless or missing neckties were condoned. Clinton used the same office for a b_job. If that doesn’t indicate an clear distinction in personal character and reverence for the Office I don’t what could. Knowing only that about the two men you could easily guess which held enormous respect for America and its people and which was (is) a politically opportunistic buffoon.
Yooper, I agree. I might choose to smoke cigarettes in my own house. But if I were house sitting for someone, I wouldn’t feel free to do that. Clinton’s behavior with Lewinsky was as arrogant as it was embarrassing. He had no sense of who and where he was.
Clintons behavior with Lewinski was criminal.
The 50+ year old bosses cant doink the 20-something interns at my Company.
Not allowed due to the difference in rank.
Cant do it.
Then lie about it.
Shake his finger and lie.
Lie under oath.
All while using Company Assets to hide the affair, hunt up a lucritive make-work job on our dime to shut her up, intimidate witnesses, and worry the competitors (the Chinese) might already know and blackmail him into intentionally screwing up our next product launch in order to keep it secret.
If Clinton was in the Private Sector, he’s have been fired…not for the BJ, but for all the bad judgement and risks he exposed the company to in order to satisfy his selfish needs to have one at work.
The Impeachment ala Lewinski thing was NEVER about sex.
It was about leadership, and the Bosses failure to measure up to Company Standards.
Clinton used the oval office (at least the surrounding rooms/hallways) as a massage parlor. I never considered it an impeachable offense but why anyone still listens to this guy is beyond me. It speaks volumes about today’s democratic party.
jao44, I had completely forgotten this, but your comment prompted me to look on Wikipedia. Clinton wasn’t impeached for treating the White House like a brothel. He was impeached for lying about that under oath. There was also an obstruction of justice charge. But for some reason, some still give credence to what Clinton has to say.
I’ve always meant to read : No One Left To Lie To, Christopher Hitchens’ book about the Clintons. Hitchens thought the truth isn’t much in Hillary either.
why do people still listen to Bill? well, probably because Clinton was a pretty good president. not such a good husband, not such a good human being, you may argue, but the country was in far better shape under him than it has been since.
I’m curious, what flavor is that KoolAid you’re drinking?
I always thought that God was being merciful when Reagan was struck with Alzheimers.
He was not aware what Clinton was doing to his beloved country or the White House.
A tour de force, Mr. Klavan. I’m tempted to send it to my lefty friends, but I know it would do no good. One consolation: I’ve heard several of them say they aren’t going to vote for O this time. So for some, at least, the Kool Aid has worn off.
They have abandoned Obama, but have not abandoned their beliefs which were so well represented by Obama. They just think he did it wrong and that the next guy will do it right. Obama is doing it right. This is what the policies of the Left always look like in the end. You can see it in every Dem-dominated area of the country. The more they dominate, the more it looks just like the national picture. The results are consistent. The Dems prefer to see their fantasies, rather than the realities.
Brilliant.
The problem I have with Obama is the people who support him even though he has demonstrated total disregard for our laws and constitution. Obama believes he is a king who can rule by decree. He does not recognize the separation of powers, Obama will not stop until he is stopped at the ballot box and or convicted and jailed.
Many of the people who support him share his contempt for our country and its laws.
Great article, Mr.Klavan.
People call Marion a liar and he obviously is, but the word doesn’t really do justice to who he is. Mr. Klavan doesn’t exactly say it, but massaging the truth in arrears to cover up a foible or burnish one’s image is virtually universal. If you meet somebody who doesn’t do that, give me a call. I’m wondering if there is someone among the six billion people on earth who is truly honest under that meaning.
The problem with Marion is that he has constructed a universe of lies to con his way into power and live like an emperor. He’s a maliciously proactive liar and con man thoroughly in the footsteps of Lenin, Mao and others who tried without their success.
I believe this is unique in American history. Not that nobody has tried, but that somebody could actually become president with a resume wholly constructed out of his imagination, while somehow, inconceivably, covering up a lifetime of evil associations and a philosophy marinated in hatred for this country.
When a person lies, outrageously, about the circumstances of his birth, his family history, his religious beliefs, who his associates have been, his personal belief system, and on and on, he will lie about anything and everything. He is 100% amoral and has no limits on what he will do. This is the dna of monsters. This is the soil the infamous dictators of the 20th century emerged from. Marion is 50 years old. He could live for another 35 years. The prospect of him with another minute of power is the most frightening thing I can imagine.
Perhaps this is why Ms. Elizabeth Warren still tries to defend the lie that made her academic rise possible. Hey, if the President has gotten away with so many, so often, what is her One Little Fib to that? And it might explain why anyone of any sense would still support her. They don’t mind the lies—you just have to get away with them long enough to be above criticism.
Our “president” has the moral character of a 1960′s/1970′s used car salesman (with apologies to used car salesman). He ran on the idea of “hope and change” but what he has given us is bait and switch.
Bizzare attacks on the Romneys? Quoth the Palin, “Welcome to my world.” Obama’s character was revealed when he pushed the IL bill to require doctors to let abortion survivors die unattended. It’s no wonder he behaves so badly, he has the soul of a reptile.
Don’t denigrate reptiles. I’ve befriended many snakes and lizards, and they’ve all been far more evolved than Barry von Münchhausen, who may have to reincarnate as a bacterium or virus, and start all over.
I recently read a list of traits associated with psychopaths. Assuming it was authentic, Obama fit the pattern perfectly.
No, even lower: he’s a retrovirus, like HIV, who worms their way directly into the core of the organism, and try to co-opt the entire thing into copies of itself. And the long-term survival of said organism is of no concern. Only as long as it can keep growing.
Zero character. What ‘Man’ has the gall to stand up in a state senate and fight for the right of babies to die neglected in a closet ? Answer? Barack Hussein O what’s his name. Complete pass by the mainstream media on that issue and all others. Baby killer liar sack of crap in chief communist. Fooled a lot of people last election (not me). Let’s hope and pray it doesn’t happen again.
” the exceptional American project of limited government, personal liberty and free enterprise.”
Just gotta say that’s the most succinct description of what we were blessed with, and how it stands apart. It isn’t about geography, race, or religion. Simply, it’s about freedom, and the IDEA of it put into practice.
Well said, Ned.
Ditto! Within a body of work that reveals giftedness at every turn, for me this piece ranks at or near the very top.
I enjoyed this article and think my video Obama’s Rudest Moments will show you some more of his personal character flaws. This video has struck a cord with the left in a negative way which is why comments are moderated:
Obama’s Rudest Moments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3J5SC73BFk
It’s funny he thinks so highly of himself when he is so utterly classless.
Need to make him a presidential “corpseman” in this November.
I can explain everything about the decline and fall of America, and especially its current crop of charlatans and liars in Washington DC.
“If ya ain’t got character, ya ain’t got nuttin’.”
Although we are seeing the emergence of some bright lights in Congress, the people generally running the current show in DC wouldn’t be qualified to polish the shoes (let alone groom the horse) of this nation’s founders.
THANK YOU Mr. Klavan for putting down on paper what the rest of us are thinking, and have known since this jerk put himself up for President.
Nobody will admit it I guess because there’s no political cover to do so. But Obama has the character of a killer. His intent; overwhelming desire since day one, has been to kill America.
Is this so scary a thought that nobody on this wonderful website can bring themselves to admit what I see as this base Obama truth? That the anointed one is out to destroy America. Politically, economically, militarily.
Does anybody realize that so many discussions of Obama dance around what I view as a core Obama intent, but pretty much for some reason stop short at making the admission that Obama literally wants to do away with our constitution, our system of government our belief in capitalism; our belief that no man is above the law?
I have no problem acknowledging what you write.
It’s an extreme statement but, essentially, true.
The man is clearly a sociopath. There is him. Those immediately (wife/children) close to him, maybe but not actually proven. And all the rest of creation exists only for his amusement and exploitation.
All this talk about him being a ‘nice guy’ is nonsense. Personally, I think he is a NASTY piece of work… born and bred to be angry, ungrateful, victimized, resentful, indulged.
“Is this so scary a thought that nobody on this wonderful website can bring themselves to admit what I see as this base Obama truth? That the anointed one is out to destroy America. Politically, economically, militarily.”
Obama is exactly what you describe – agree 100%. I’ve been saying that since ’07 and been asking when people will wake up and grasp this reality.
This is a must read to get a clear picture of the morally vacant person in the White House. A man who will do anything to keep his job and destroy our culture.
To paraphrase his wife, I have never in my adult life been so ashamed of the President of the United States and the crowd of criminals that surround him.
In truth, Barack Obama and Joseph Smith are of the same type: self-invented American messiahs with adoring followers and self-serving teachings. They are both straight out of H.L. Mencken.
A lot of truth there, but Obama is not a self invention, he is a puppet to a greater master or masters! To the extent his own personalities and thoughts are coming out they are and will destroy the puppet or force the master to destroy it! Either way the destruction is underway.
Mr Klaven, et al.
I disagree about one’s fidelity in the bedroom. If a person can not be trusted to be faithful to a spouse, can such a person be trusted to be faithful to anything else? If a promise offred to one other person is not kept, is it not harder to keep promises made to millions?
BTW, Sam Adams (of beer and revolution fame) pretty much had the same idea as I’ve expressed here. A petty thief, a betrayer of small confidences is likely to be embesselor, and unfaithful when given the opertunity.
AC
PS I did not read any of the comments.
Obama is a thief too. We know that when he was a teenager he stole ice cream to give his friends. Nothing has changed. He’s feels comfortable stealing from some to give to his friends.
Does Obama have real friends? I would say he gives things to people who are useful to him, but the ground under the bus is always a possibility if their utility changes,
Something to think about. I remember this from questionnaire and poll design class. The quote is from Wikipedia.
“The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect,is a theory proposed to explain observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some United States government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.The theory proposes that some voters will tell pollsters they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, while on election day they vote for the white candidate. It was named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor’s race despite being ahead in voter polls going into the elections.
The Bradley effect theorizes that the inaccurate polls were skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias. Specifically, some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation. Members of the public may feel under pressure to provide an answer that is deemed to be more publicly acceptable, or ‘politically correct’. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well. The race of the pollster conducting the interview may factor in to voters’ answers.”
A decent article but you sound like an anti christian-culture liberal at times. Character does matter in less your favorite president is Bill Clinton.
Great piece! All your points are indisputable. Now tell me how in the hell I get my lib friends to read and understand.
<>
Firstly ” Thou Shalt Not Covet”; what the Romney’s have is theirs, envy brings only evils.
Secondly, if Ann Romney rides and cares for horses for her therapy or even enjoyment, so what? Moochelle said she was never proud of America, that should convey who she, and her husband, are.
Thirdly, I’m not that familiar with the Mormon faith; the few Mormons I’ve personally know seemed happy, content and easy to get along with. As far as I know Mormons have never overthrown a county, hijacked economies, set up internment, death or re-education camps, plindered and redistributed wealth; Marxists have, and Obama, by all indication, is a Marxist.
Romney seems like a decent, reasonable, successful man; Obama, despite his great efforts to hide his mysterious background, has shown clearly who he is and what he intends to do to America and Americans.
I thank God everyday for Eric Holder.
When this Fascist cabal swept into Washington, I do believe that Obama thought he had his Felix Dzerzhinsky or at least a second Beria. But through Divine Grace what he got was Officer Nordberg. For which I am eternally grateful.
But that was then and this is… well the next time we need to see to things ourselves. If we don’t, we will deserve whatever we get. For I think that if there is a ‘RE-Election’, there will be a terrible payback from the White House.
Here’s what I don’t understand: a disdain of people because of the color of their skin is not something that is hard to understand or perceive. Obama spent 20 years at a church run by a man who has no love of whites, embracing a black theology by James Cone, another man who clearly has no love of whites, and with a congregation that gave standing ovations to any utterance of Wright which discomfited white people.
On the other side, the liberal party so conspicuously concerned with the concept of “justice,” sees racialism by seeing Romney sitting with other white people, thinks dressage significant and the not even true idea of a man being enthused by a touch screen a sign of being semi-retarded.
Who are these “principled” people? Why would O’Donnell think dressage so evident a critique of the wife of a candidate while ignoring Obama’s Trinity Church giving it’s highest award and honor to America’s most famous racist, Louis Farrakhan? And remember, Obama was forced out of Trinity.
I really don’t know. I have no idea who these people are. Nothing I think of fits. People who are literally morons? Delusional? Insane? Liars? Towards what purpose? To import the Third World here and put them on welfare or doing menial jobs for a shrinking population that creates the jobs and wealth to enable both? Is that the vision of the Dem Party? What is their vision? I don’t even know.
Does anyone in their hearts really believe that people who can’t manage their own simple affairs without law schools they can’t create, the law to go with it, and without mountains of theories, explanations, mitigation, excuses, blame, revisionist history, generational hangovers, affirmative action and advocacy groups they have and others outside themselves add to is going to take America anywhere but straight to Blade Runners-ville?
It’ll take a long time yet for the effects to truly show, although things like crime and unwed teen pregnancy is still at a massive high compared to the ’50s. Like a great business inherited by incompetents, America will totter along for a long time yet. But make no mistake about it: the Dem Party is a suicide cult – more concerned with seeming to not be racists than survival. Creating imaginary enemies to push against in a country that was just fine in the ’50s other than Jim Crow, relatively speaking.
Now, with a country growing faster than the economy can support it because of illegal and legal immigration, and with that new population being among the least productive in the world, cracks are already beginning to show. Where else but in Solyent Green do cities like Detroit exist? St. Louis, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Newark, Memphis, Hartford, Gary, Dearborn aren’t going to improve but get far worse. Blinded by the word “equal,” this is the vision and future for America bestowed on us by men like President Obama – they are people who live in a dream world where the best are the worst and the worst the best.
You are trying to make sense of hate. Every constituency in the progressive coalition bases its identity on being ‘not them’ which has evolved into envy and hate, and their evil step-children lies and theft. There is only one person crazier than a crazy person, the one who argues with him. Whoever said it first was right, liberalism IS a mental disorder.
It always comes back to the old seesaw – evil or stupid? In progressive society, the seesaw is broken and falls down on both sides.
“morons? Delusional? Insane? Liars?”
for the 99% who are followers, the best word is “thieves”, although all your words are also accurate.
For the 1% who are leaders, the best word is “psychopaths”
” Is that the vision of the Dem Party? What is their vision? I don’t even know”
Their vision is free money and high living, for themselves and their connected friends network, and they do swimmingly well at it.
They have found the angry populist minority grievance cult will pave their way to riches, whist living in (predomiantly) rich white enclaves that keep the refuse out.
They care not about the Country, or even “the people” they claim to champion. Poor blacks and Illegal Immigrants are the stooges they step on to get invited to the good parties, the award celebrations and Red Carpet.
They have found the ultimate sham….with zero productive output by their own selves, they have gotten rich by BLAMING the competent, the hard working, the innovative and the productive.
Blame. Agitate. Complain.
Add public funding, and miraculously, you’ll find MORE to complain about:
Capitalism is evil. Corporations are bad. Industry harms the environment. The sky is melting. They hate you because you are (fill in the blank). I’m wonderful because I accept your failure as virtue, come to me and together we’ll make it right.
Demand MORE public funding to combat these straw men, and you have the self-fulfilling prophesy of The Left: Produce nothing, and live well.
Everyone, at every level of the “progressive” side, is a lying scammer. I like to get high, riot, break stuff and set fires, so I’ll dress hip-n-cool and be all “O.W.S.” as cover for my criminal glee. Nancy Pelosi will stay a Rich 1 percenter, (wish I was one too!) and I’ll vote for her (again) , if she lets me get high and wreck stuff.
Nancy will team up with Big Al and the Wind Mills, and we’ll all get paid blaming Zimmerman for Travon being a thug…
Nobody has to actually PRODUCE anything, and we (select few) can live off the fat of the land by COMPLAINING, while the chumps and wage slaves pay the bills…
That’s their vision.
Unindicted co-conspirators, each knowing the other is lying, and nobody rocking the boat.
To put it simply and succinctly , they are either crooks with out ideaology, or they are sociopaths being taken advantage of, or in some minority of cases the ignorant being taken advantage of!
Two or more people can embrace and advocate the same policies but do so for different reasons. Among those who we call leftists are those who have a messiah complex, who sincerely believe people, other than themselves, are being treated unjustly, and wish to free them. But they aren’t the most dangerous among leftists. There are also those who are so narcissistic and arrogant that they will hop onto any bandwagon that will take them where they want to go. Its about power and wealth. They are parasites, and if their machinations destroy the host, it matters not to them because they believe they have what it takes to survive and thrive under any and all possible conditions. Right now, the road to wealth and power is through the creation of division and discord that the people affected will pay them handsomely to “fix”. When such a person is a politician, he’ll spend a fortune to obtain a political office that could never repay that investment with the position’s salary. But they manage to retire millionaires with unbelievable benefits. People like Soros aren’t ideologues. He doesn’t support the left because he thinks someone is not getting their fair share. He supports them because, once the left is in charge, he’ll be able to get his hands on the levers of government and the economy and wring as much out of us as he possibly can. He knows there will be no backlash against him. Money and power are all that matters. Racism, social justice, the environment, education. Those aren’t their real concerns. They invent or capitalize on these issues to manipulate the rest of us into giving them what they want.
“What is their vision? I don’t even know.”
The liberals’ vision is to emulate the welfare states of Europe.
I read Paul Krugman’s columns regularly. Krugman’s admiration for the European social democracies is unbounded. He constantly calls them “the most humane and decent societies on earth.”
Krugman and others of his ilk keep comparing America unfavorably to Europe: Europeans enjoy cradle-to-grave security while Americans don’t; Europeans have universal health care while Americans don’t; European children are better educated than American children; European countries employ “soft power” rather than fighting wars the way America does; etc. The list is endless.
The only good thing to come out of the European debt crisis is that it has (temporarily) shut up the Europhiles among the American Left. Even Krugman has had to admit that Europe is bungling their debt crisis.
Obama The Lawless
“But Obama has no clue of what’s been tried and found wanting.”
Come on, now; of course, he knows and so do all the other liberals/leftists who believe the only flaw is that someone other than them did the trying. To them, socialism has failed only because they were not in charge. Sadly, some in the Dem ranks understand the folly of this thinking but cannot bring themselves to put country over party. That makes them even worse than Obama. He is simply a liar; they are damn near traitorous.
“But the real sins that people commit in moments of physical intimacy — sins of personal unkindness, dishonesty and self-degradation — are none of the public’s business.”
Perhaps none of our business, but its still a solid barometer for how WE’LL likely be treated in moments of contempt and convenience, by a slimebag that doesnt respect his own wife.
So, you swore an oath before God and all attending to be faithful to the love of your life,
and you broke that promise to her?
Or, maybe you just went throught the motions of that “oath” to please some standard you really didnt believe in,
and you never HAD any intention of keeping it?
You think its OK, for appearance sake, to lie about oaths, loyalty, fidelity or whatever, because your own personal needs are more important than adhering to commitments youve made?
Mmmmkay…Fine….N.O.M.B.
Just dont ask me to “trust you”…
With my money, my Soldier kid’s life, or my countries future, thanks.
Clinton the adulterer was a better Chief Executive than Obama the faithful husband.
Clinton–for all his personal faults–was more in touch with the average American (many of whom have also cheated on their spouses!) than Obama can ever be. Clinton’s humble background from a town in Arkansas stood him in good stead.
BTW: Surveys have found that roughly one-fifth of American husbands have cheated on their wives at least once. If that disqualified them from holding down jobs in the public or private sector on the basis of trustworthiness, then the unemployment rate would be more than double what it currently is!
Too bad the Republicans are content to be pull in as much power and money as the Democrats, from America’s race and class stereotype-driven, socialist welfare state paycheck redistribution, currently driving trillions _from_ all struggling wage earners, of every color, culture and income level _to_ all millionaire politicians. Otherwise, the little hypocrites would use this article as their election platform, instead of raking in the tax funded cash flow, while allowing the conservative internet media help them pretend they are the welfare state’s “opposition party.”
One way to help ensure there is less voter cheating is to have as many people as possible show up at the voting places with cameras and take pictures of everyone coming in to vote.
Later, facial recognition software could be used to compare faces and see who showed up at more than one voting place (say within 20 or 50 miles). No names need be given, but the pictures of duplicate people could be shown on the web…
The mere presence of the cameras or the threat of this sort of action might give those inclined to vote more than once some pause for though.
Why wait until later? I suspect that smart phones have enough power to do the analysis in real-time, then upload the picture and facial signature to a central server. If there is a match with a previously uploaded picture, the server can notify the uploading phone, and/or another human that can check the two pictures and take further action. Perhaps the alert should go to the poll scrutineers at the poll the photo was uploaded from.
Great article, Mr. Klavan….keep up the good work every day; keep getting the word out! Over time, those that are ignorant will become informed and the innate goodness of the American people will be reflected at the ballot box. God bless you
In my opinion, the real problem is the leftist media: newspapers, television news, movies etc. that have bombarded us with leftist ideals for years. They have pushed the idea that the worst sin in the universe is racism, and that the most important value is diversity. When President Obama was first running for president, a person didn’t have to try too hard or be too smart to see his many weakness and that if he was elected it would be a disaster. Many people had been brainwashed to believe that any negative word against him would mean that they were racists, so it became taboo to properly vet him.
The liberal mindset occurs in an alternate reality where things are what you wish they were not what they are. President Obama lives in a world where the truth is elastic, and facts are what he decides they are moment by moment. A person can get by living in his or her private delusion but a country cannot.
“Character?” Hugo Chavez has more “character” than this imposter, usurper, and traitor. He’s living like a King, ruling like a Dictator, and acting like a Psychopath. Must I constantly remind people that Barack Hussein Obama II was not born Barack Hussein Obama II? He is not the son of S. Ann Dunham and Obama Sr., not born in Hawaii, not a graduate of Punahou, or Columbia, or Harvard, was elected to the Illinois Senate and US Senate via dirty tricks and election fraud, and illegally elected as President also via dirty tricks, election fraud, identity fraud, wire fraud, interstate commerce fraud, illegal campaign contributions, money-laundering, real estate fraud, and government document forgery.
Other than that, Obama is a really swell guy.
and he sells clarinets to the kids in the town with the big trombones and the rat-a-tat drums, big brass bass, big brass bass, and the piccolo, the piccolo with uniforms, too with a shiny gold braid on the coat and a big red stripe runnin . . .
On character for Obama? I’ll take “petty” “small” and “mean” for 100 per cent.
Obama is the bigget FRAUD to have ever succeeded to public office.
Even if I agreed with obama’s policies and politics, I would want him to be crushed.
People can have legitimate disagrements about policy. Every liberal is not dangerous.
What makes obama and leftists like him so frightening is their utter contempt, repudiation and relentless undermining of a political system that has proven to be the most successful in history.
Man up leftists. If your world view is so great, sell it to world. Stop lying about every single thing you believe in. Stop sabotaging the system. Stop the Alinsky tactics. Stop balkanizing the country to create anger at the status quo. Let the power of your ideas prevail. After all, you know you are smarter than everybody who disagrees with you. Just overwhelm us with your brilliant schemes.
(pretty funny, eh??)
Obama has NO character! How can a LIE have character? How can a total fraud have character? If he has a persona it is a lie and the absense of character!
Very nice article.
But let’s compare and contrast him to President Bubba Clinton.
(1) Lies all the time (about who he is). Bubba was a bigger liar, but not especially about who he was, he was the Man from Hope, which was a bit of an exaggeration but not wildly so. Have to call this one even.
(2) Does not believe in the American way. Check. Bubba was a great American, in a white trash sort of way.
(3) No idea of how things work. Check. Bubba was crazy, but he wasn’t stupid. Obambus seems to be to be both. Even Bubba seems to think so, judging from some of his recent comments. Though he has seemed to have gone silent in the last few days.
So my point is that the fabulist dishonesty of Obambus is not entirely unprecedented, and may indeed be a *requirement* in the Democratic party. Algore lived on the fable of AGW, John F. Kerry on his delusion of having been a war hero. Pelosi couldn’t find reality with both hands, and Reid wouldn’t admit to it if he did. And then there’s MSNBC, MediaMatters, Axelrod and Plouffe, none of whom are in the habit of worrying much about reality, nor using it if they happen to run across it.
Character? Nomobama is a proven liar many times over. Is hiding something from Rep.Issa he clearly does not want known. Has wasted billions of dollars(our taxes) on demo special groups to buy votes.
No honor there.
This is a great article but don’t stop…. Harry Reid…. Pelosi…. Please continue
Barack Obama has no character. He does not even possess the concepts of character, honor or morality. He is an empty vessel full of made up ideology and self esteem. As an earier PJM article said, he does not lie or tell truth, he is a lie.
“51. DaveJ ”
Eactly! 1000+
I haven’t read all the posts here, but I gather I am in the small minority of anti-Obama readers who has a problem with this article. I found the author’s casual dismissal of supposedly private character issues to be repellent and dangerous in its reflection on his moral equivalence. He seems quite comfortable accepting as inevitable the presence of personal dishonesty and apparently foolishly believes there is some mythical firewall of protection that prevents a person who is guilty of dishonesty toward some people from being dishonest with others. I don’t know if this jerk excuses certain of Obama’s lies in order to make himself seem more reasonable when exoriating him for other, presumably less forgivable ones.
Sorry, but even though I agree with much of what this guy indicts Obama for, I have to dismiss his credibility, because of his own squishy moral foundation. I halfway expected him to say “it’s ok to steal a little, but if you steal a lot, then you have gone too far and we will have to call you on it.”
@Sandman – I had the same reaction to Klavan’s dismissal of private character as you. I know he is a Christian and so he should know better. One of the foundational truths of Christianity which runs like a thread from Genesis all the way through Revelation is that little things matter and they matter in a big way.
Josh,Josh, JOSH!!!I love it. Spot on Brother! (Funny too!).
Really? Because I could have sworn it was Boortz who this morning said that blacks only give to Obama because of race and that they would be the only group at his Atlanta fund-raiser , that donors to his campaign in Miami would only be rappers and that anyone who supported his is an advocate of the destruction of America. And I think it was Rush who said that the only people who support Obama are the uninformed, the dependent class, blacks and the stupid. And Hannity who beats the drum beat daily about how the supporters of the President don’t have the intelligence to think for themselves and are mostly bought off by welfare.
The Tea Party sat by and let the GOP spend like bad drunks but within days of Obama’s elections we had Fox News covering Tea Party rally on the streets outside of the Gold Dome. The same crowd who questioned the patriotism of any dissent during the Bush years have rescinded that “rule” so that they can call the President a socialist, a Marxist, a fascist, a foreigner, a muslim, none of which are remotely true.
I keep asking but no one can explain to me why these are bad things:
1. Preventing a depression not seen since 1929
2. Positive job growth each month for nearly 3 years.
3. Stock market DOUBLED
4. Prevented the near elimination of American cars from the market
5. Etc etc
Obama kept us out of another Republican Great Depression
What does Adumbs know about character?
As an awesome man said today, “I know damn well that it really bothers my white brethren that a black family is occupying the White House.” Many are already claiming that Fieger is making waves and is the only one courageous enough to say what everybody else has already been thinking.
Much of his argument is based around those who have been constantly fixated on President Obama’s place of birth, the disrespect, and his status as a true American. “Every time I hear someone insinuate that President Obama is Muslim, or a communist, or a radical, or a foreigner all I really hear them say is that he’s Black,”
“If President Obama was white, do you really think there would be people questioning his birth certificate and whether he was born in the United States?”
No.
. You are in no posititon to insult someone’s character!
Obama is not a traitor is a politician and will use immigration laws to get re-
elected. however The republicans don’t care about illegals or the middle class.
If Obama is so bad, why do you have to fabricate so many lies, innuendos and 1/2 truths. If he so unpopular, why not just tell the truth? Not what you want to hear. What are you afraid of – IF he is so dang bad.
Really? Because I could have sworn it was Boortz who this morning said that blacks only give to Obama because of race and that they would be the only group at his Atlanta fund-raiser , that donors to his campaign in Miami would only be rappers and that anyone who supported his is an advocate of the destruction of America. And I think it was Rush who said that the only people who support Obama are the uninformed, the dependent class, blacks and the stupid. And Hannity who beats the drum beat daily about how the supporters of the President don’t have the intelligence to think for themselves and are mostly bought off by welfare.
The Tea Party sat by and let the GOP spend like bad drunks but within days of Obama’s elections we had Fox News covering Tea Party rally on the streets outside of the Gold Dome. The same crowd who questioned the patriotism of any dissent during the Bush years have rescinded that “rule” so that they can call the President a socialist, a Marxist, a fascist, a foreigner, a muslim, none of which are remotely true.
I keep asking but no one can explain to me why these are bad things:
1. Preventing a depression not seen since 1929
2. Positive job growth each month for nearly 3 years.
3. Stock market DOUBLED
4. Prevented the near elimination of American cars from the market
5. Etc etc
Obama kept us out of another Republican Great Depression
What does Adumbs know about character?
As an awesome man said today, “I know damn well that it really bothers my white brethren that a black family is occupying the White House.” Many are already claiming that Fieger is making waves and is the only one courageous enough to say what everybody else has already been thinking.
Much of his argument is based around those who have been constantly fixated on President Obama’s place of birth, the disrespect, and his status as a true American. “Every time I hear someone insinuate that President Obama is Muslim, or a communist, or a radical, or a foreigner all I really hear them say is that he’s Black,”
“If President Obama was white, do you really think there would be people questioning his birth certificate and whether he was born in the United States?”
No.
POS!?!? it’s no coincidence that such derogatory and meaningless epithets are used by racists. He isn’t anti-American, nor any of the other countless things you will hear. All of this talk about communism/socialism/Marxism, etc. is just fear-mongering and irrational rhetoric that is used to cloud the real issues at hand: Namely, some people don’t like the President for personal or subjective (because he’s black) No, its just that some people don’t like him because he’s black but they can’t say that so they make up lies about him instead to ruin his reputation!
Obama is NOT a fraud. Anyone who calls Obama a fraud is without doubt a racist!
Questionman: There was no Tea Party that sat back and watched the Repubs “spend like bad drunks”. The Tea Party was formed “after” and “because” of the excessive spending by the the Govt (both Republicans and Democrats). Get a clue. Your MSNBC talking points are incredibly wrong. To quote a tremoundous black leader, General Honore, “Don’t get stuck on stupid”.
He may be a looney, but his point still stands — why did it take until after Obama was elected for the Tea Party Movement to begin? Where the HELL were these people the last fifteen years? Did they not SEE what was happening, and how both parties were getting away with it? It’s good to see them mad at the government and bringing pressure to bear on Washington NOW, but it smells faintly of hypocrisy… we should always have been mad at the government.
Anyone who calls Obama a fraud is without doubt a racist
no we aren’t. just telling the truth, obama is a dang fraud. deal with it lol
test
Wow Questionman, you make a compelling argument..assuming you were actually talking about real people. Unfortunately your delusional sense of certainty does not negate the fact that everything you stated is either a figment of an easily manipulated imagination or the product of a pathological liar. To submit just one of your whoppers to a fact check: The Dow suffered its worse inauguration day decline EVER the day Obama swore his oath(with fingers crossed, no doubt). The DJIA opened that day at 7,949. Today it closed at 12,535. I don’t know what kind of calculators you people use over at the DNC, but mine says that is an increase of 58%, which is not double as you claim. Take my advise Einstein and stick to unproveable opinion and leave the real world analysis to high school graduates or better.
‘Thankfully, it doesn’t work, which makes the moral issue moot.’
I can’t imagine a more backwards statement than this but it is absolutely typical of a conservative. The truth is exactly the opposite. Socialism is immoral which means whether it works or not is irrelevant.
‘Preventing a depression not seen since 1929’
By what magical means could you possibly know what would have happened if Obama was not elected?
See 10. David Wall above & discussion.
Andrew, the word you missed and left out is the one I knew described him the day I found out he was running for Prez, That word is “GRIFTER”.
Obama and Romney are the same. Do NOT believe the rhetoric, and the simple divisive measures they both use to make you think they each stand for a different way to run OUR government.
Watch these news clips of both of them, see for yourself.
Romney Obama the Same? (you tube)
We have a chance at turning the country around with Romney. We have no chance with Obama.
The only part of this wonderful essay I’d dispute is the assertion that Obama is clueless as to the failure of socialism wherever it’s been tried. I suspect that he intends us to be a failed state as a punishment for our sins.
The only “character” we can know or should care about is the character demonstrated in whether or not these who represent us adhere and are faithful to that law through which our nation was established, our Constitution. That should be enough. When constitutional issues such as these:
1) Abortion
2) 2nd Amendment
3) Patriot Act
4) TARP
5) Socialized Health Care
6) NDAA
7) Undeclared/Unconstitutional War
threaten our liberties it is time to change what we are doing. Unfortunately Mr. Obama has been on the wrong side, the unconstitutional side, of every one of these, thereby demonstrating that his character as far as we can be concerned, is without doubt, compromised. Unfortunately again, Mr. Romney has demonstrated himself to be on that same exact side in every one of these as well. What a conundrum! Maybe it’s time for real change. Maybe it’s time to reconsider what we are doing.
“Character” is only meaningful as a weapon to be used against someone, always in the negative, never in the affirmative.
Even if stipulating everything Klavan says is true [it is], and all the conclusions he reaches are perfectly valid [they are], that doesn’t change the mind of one Obama voter, because they’re not voting for character, they’re voting for what he delivers to them, by whatever means necessary.
What are the safest places to live in NYC? Where are you most comfortable parking a car in the street at night, and walking to a restaurant or a home? It’s the Mob neighborhoods, Bensonhurst or Howard Beach. The people who live there are happy to have a safe neighborhood, and pass no judgment on the way those men make their living. It’s an extraordinarily narrow minded and selfish attitude, and it’s also very human.
And so it is to be an Obama supporter.
Very nicely done, Mr. Klavan. You and Dr. Hanson dissect Obama with the most articulate and precise terminology and phrase.
In my teens I learned about “flim-flam”. The terminology has changed to “shyster”, but the methods are still the same.
Obama has spent more time as a student than as president. His term as student was spent to teach instead of learn. He is still in that mode. He will never attempt to learn anything of value to himself or his constituents.
A more pathetic representative of black America could not have been chosen. And they are becoming aware.
Obama needs to lose by a big margin for the left to get the picture that they are totally out of sync with the mainstream US. If Obama wins however, he will have 4 years to stack the SCOTUS with more liberals which will change the course of the country for decades. The Constitution will be just a piece of paper trampled by him and the left.
When the cover-art is created that will be duplicated for the countless tomes on dysfunctional government that he personifies, it will be Obama, with that strange faraway gaze (giving us the nostril shot aka “heroic man pose”), with the halo effect, and the ’08 campaign symbol as backdrop.
Between putting the Dems in control of Congress in the ’06 election, and Obama into the WH in ’08, we did it to ourselves; and we had best resolve to never do it again – or we can kiss this Republic good-bye!
According to the Left, communist/socialist is fine, and Mormon is beyond the pale.
To the Left, the 100,000,000+ people murdered under communism is more acceptable than is Mormonism.
With such a distorted, malevolent perspective, the Left should be allowed nowhere near the levers of power.
I saw the title about “contents of his character” and expected to see apicture of a tolet…(would’ve been clearer and shorter)
Come on. Obama is acting like an old fashioned moderate Republican. He’s no more a socialist than your right foot.
Go back to the other planet, you know the one Obama describes in his speeches about the state of the economy, and say that.
It won’t fly here.
My favorite, encouraging truism about November 6th, 2012 is that not a single voter who voted against him in 2008 will vote for him in 2012. Not one.