An Epitaph for Obama

When Barack Obama ran for the presidency in 2008, most thinking Americans knew that, not only was he ineligible to serve as president, he was totally unprepared and totally incompetent.  And if he has any real accomplishment during his first six years in office it is that he has proven us right in our assessment.

Combing through the history books, it is difficult to find a national ruler as incompetent and inexperienced as Barack Obama.

History tells us that, in 1995, King Oyo of the Toro Kingdom of southwestern Uganda became the ruling monarch of two million people.  Born on April 16, 1992, he was three years old when he ascended the throne.  It is said that, on the occasion of his coronation, he slid off the throne, ran to his mother, and hid his face in her lap.

Knowing Obama as we do, it is easy to imagine the same thing happening in the White House living quarters each evening as Obama completes another frustrating day, unable to grasp the complexities of governing the greatest nation on Earth and measuring minor successes only by his ability to blame policy failures on George W. Bush, or Republicans, in general.  Like King Oyo, Obama likely seeks motherly solace from his wife whenever he is stymied, called to account, or held up to ridicule.

In the world of Barack Obama, the only “known knowns” are things he knows, except that what he knows is nearly always wrong, while all “known unknowns” are seen as things that someone else attempted to fix but screwed up.  In Obama’s world, there is no such thing as an “unknown unknown” because, always seeing himself as the “smartest guy in the room,” there couldn’t possibly be problems lurking in the shadows that he didn’t know about or hadn’t thought about.

John I, of France, was born on November 15, 1316 and died five days later, on November 20, 1316.  Born a king and dying as a king after reigning for only five days, John I holds the unique distinction of being a king for his entire life and for having the shortest reign in recorded history,

Although we know from the calendar that Obama did not occupy the White House until he was forty-eight years old and that he has governed for only six years, his performance in office has made those six years feel like a lifetime.

 

Mary Queen of Scots, was born on December 8, 1542 and became Queen of Scotland just six days later.  At age five, Mary was sent to France where she was bequeathed to Dauphin Francis, the three-year-old son of French king, Henry II.  The two were wed when Mary was just sixteen and Francis was fourteen, but after only seventeen months on the French throne, at age eighteen, Mary returned to England to assert her claim to the thrones of England and Scotland.  Finally, on February 8, 1587, after more than twenty-five years of back-stabbing and political intrigue, she was sentenced to death and beheaded.  During her much-traveled lifetime, Mary lived in twenty-six different castles and palaces and two prisons.

Historians tell us that the game of golf, played over an 18-hole course, was invented in Scotland sometime around 1450, less than 100 years before Mary became Queen of Scotland.  Given that Mary lived in twenty-eight different castles, palaces, and jails in her lifetime, we can safely assume that Barack Obama has played golf within a stone’s throw of many of them.  Making almost daily use of Air Force One, a $180,000 per hour aircraft, it might be difficult to prove which of the two, Barack Obama or Mary, Queen of Scots, has been the most widely traveled.

King Sobhuza II became King of Swaziland in November 1899 when he was just four months old, and served his country continuously for eighty-two years.  In 1968, Swaziland gained its independence from Great Britain and King Sobhuza oversaw the writing of a new Swazi constitution.  However, Sobhuza discarded the constitution five years later, in 1973, and served as the absolute ruler of his country until his death in 1982.

Like King Sobhuza, Barack Obama has great disdain for constitutional principles and the rule of law.  Instead, he prefers to rule by edict.  If Obama has a secret role model who has served to inform his approach to governance, it is almost certainly King Sobhuza of Swaziland.

In December 1908, Manchurian Henry Pu Yi became the last emperor of China.  He was two years and ten months old.  At his coronation, Pu Yi had to be carried to the throne by his father while kicking, screaming, and clawing.  After just three years on the throne, a revolution toppled the dynasty.

Like Emperor Pu Yi, Barack Obama was reduced to kicking and screaming when he saw the election returns in  November 2014.  It was then he realized that he would have to spend his last two years in office confronted by a Republican-controlled Congress.

If, in the royal dining rooms of the infantile and juvenile rulers mentioned above, the royal chef served a single pie to a group of dinner guests, it is assumed that he would divide the pie into a number of pieces equal to the number of people at the table.  It is highly unlikely that they would have thought to solve the problem by simply having the palace chef bake a larger pie.

This dilemma represents Barack Obama’s view of the U.S. economy.  It has apparently never occurred to him that, if he wants each American to have a larger share of the nation’s prosperity, it might be a good idea to simply grow a larger economy.  Instead, even as he rants and raves about the disparity of income between the rich and the poor, his policies have served only to shrink the size of the economy.  What Obama does appear to understand about economics is that, when it comes time to divide the economic pie, government must always be first in line.

 

Other than economic principles, Obama shares one other major characteristic with these infantile monarchs: like they, he is totally inexperienced and incompetent in office and is forced to rely on the judgment of his principal regent, Valerie Jarrett, whenever he is puzzled or is required to make a decision.  What is most frightening is that, not only is Obama a complete incompetent, he sits at the helm of the wealthiest and most powerful nation on Earth, making him one of the most dangerous political leaders of all time.  The damage he has already done, and hopes to continue, will be difficult if not impossible to repair.

In the epilogue to his epic recounting of World War II, The Guns at Last Light, author Rick Atkinson summarizes Adolph Hitler’s role in world history, saying, “Humanity would require decades, perhaps centuries, to parse the regime’s inhumanity, and to comprehend how a narcissistic beer hall demagogue had wrecked a nation, a continent, and nearly a world.”

He quotes Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw as saying, “Never in history has such ruination – physical and moral – been associated with the name of one man, the chief instigator of the most profound collapse of civilization in modern times.”

To better understand the times we live in and what lies in store for us and for our children and grandchildren, it is only necessary to reread the words of Rick Atkinson and Ian Kershaw, substituting the name Barack Obama for Adolph Hitler and substituting the words “South Chicago community organizer” for the term “narcissistic beer hall demagogue.”

In the event someone might still be in doubt about my feelings for Barack Obama, I would like to endorse the sentiments recently attributed to conservative actor Clint Eastwood, who is quoted as saying:

“There will be a clear, cold morning when there isn’t any ‘more.’    No more hugs, no more special moments to celebrate together, no more phone calls just to chat…  So, just in case I’m gone tomorrow, please know this: I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist, terrorist excusing, bleeding heart, narcissistic, scientific and economic moron currently in the White House!  Participating in a gun buy-back program because you think that criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you think your neighbors have too many kids.”

As Obama’s helicopter departs the south lawn of the White House at noon on January 20, 2017, Ian Kershaw’s suggested epitaph for Adolph Hitler’s gravestone will be running through the minds of many Americans.  Heaving a sigh of relief, they will say, “So – that’s the end of the bastard.”

 

 

 

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Solving the “Muslim Problem”

The recent bloody massacres at the offices of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, and at a kosher grocery store in Paris, have spawned a number of solutions to the “Muslim problem,” some totally useless and pointless and others quite draconian.

Typical of the useless and pointless solution was that offered by Pope Francis as he spoke to reporters aboard a recent flight from Sri Lanka to the Philippines.  Referencing the atrocities in Paris, he first took both sides of the issue, expressing the belief that, while “freedom of religion and freedom of expression are both fundamental human rights,” if someone says something unkind about your mother the normal reaction is to “punch him in the nose.”  He concluded by saying, “You can’t provoke, you can’t insult the faith of others, you can’t make fun of faith.”

In other words, Christians and Jews are not to show disrespect for Islam or Mohammed, but we must accept that Muslims will continue to slaughter Christians and Jews at will.  If such atrocities represent what the Pope might consider akin to an “unkind comment about one’s mother” by radical Islamists, then what would he suggest as a proper “punch in the nose?”

On the opposite end of the spectrum we have the comments of conservative rock star, Ted Nugent, a board member of the National Rifle Association and an outspoken critic of liberals, Democrats, and Barack Obama.  In a January 14, 2015, blog, titled “Save the Planet: Kill the Muslim Third Reich,” Nugent refers to his solution as “anti-rabid dog common sense.”

Setting the stage for his final solution, Nugent tells us, “I personally don’t care if you stand on your head and recite Shakespeare backwards, marry your beagle, stack BBs, French kiss rattlesnakes, or swan dive into a shallow vat of goat urine.  If that’s what turns your religious crank, party on.  Just do it downwind from me, and don’t bill me for your rehab.”  He goes on to say, “But when it comes to the pure demonic evil of murderous savage Islamic terrorists, the line is universally drawn by good people worldwide.  We all know instinctively that there is no virtue in slaughtering innocent people.  No God smiles or rejoices in this.”

Introducing his solution to the problem, Nugent writes, “I’ll admit I’m not opposed to putting hollow points to the back of the heads of human cockroaches and various other vermin who wish to imprison me with their brain-dead, toxic ‘values.’  Truth is, I want to eliminate them from planet Earth and erase them from the history books of the human race… Everyone knows that there is no cure for rabid dogs except a bullet.  The question the free world needs to ask is whether we are going to shoot the rabid dog or have the rabid dog chew our faces off.”

He concludes by saying, “My advice: kill ‘em all and let Satan sort ‘em out… Make no mistake; the world is in a race to the finish with crazed, rabid radical Muslims.  The choice is simple: It’s religious freedom or subjugation, persecution or death…  No more kicking the can down the road for the next generation.  There comes a time for all good men and women to rise up and oppose evil.  That time is now.  It is our time.  Americans must show the world the difference between respecting choices in lifestyle versus bending over and welcoming an evil takeover.  This rabid, voodoo threat is very real and right in front of us.  We must not shoot just one or two rabid dogs, but to save the human race we must kill them all…”

Clearly, the approach recommended by Pope Francis does nothing more than to postpone the ultimate demise of the civilized world, while the approach suggested by Ted Nugent hardly merits discussion.  To think that we could declare open season on Muslims and then proceed to kill more than two million of them is sheer madness.  Instead, we must resolve to find a solution that is doable and effective, in spite of the weaknesses of our national leaders.

In their joint press conference on Friday, January 16, Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron expressed a desire to continue working toward multicultural societies in their respective countries.  The Prime Minister expressed a willingness to spend two generations attempting to fully assimilate their Muslim immigrant population.  Obama agreed, although he was still unable to use the words “Islamic” and “extremist” in the same sentence.

Neither man was willing to recognize that western nations have been attempting to assimilate Muslims for at least seventy years, more than three generations.  Instead, while they continue to speak glowingly about “assimilation,” Muslims view their migration to western nations as “infiltration.”   What Obama and Cameron fail to acknowledge is that they live and work inside security “bubbles.”  Unlike their fellow countrymen, they don’t have to worry about the swarthy-complexioned man in the bulky jacket at the shopping mall, or the burqa-clad Muslim woman seated next to them on a bus.  They don’t have to wonder whether their clothes are just bulky, or if they conceal a suicide vest capable of killing dozens of people.

Hoping to learn a bit more about the motivation for attacks such as those on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish grocery store, Daily Beast reporter Dana Kennedy traveled to several Parisian suburbs heavily populated by French-Algerian Muslims.  She interviewed a cross section of young men who were convinced that the attacks were a conspiracy by Jews designed to make Muslims look bad.  One Muslim told her that the Jews who staged the attacks were not just “regular” Jews, they were “a race of magical Jews, shape-shifting Jews,” who were “master manipulators” and who could be “everywhere at the same time.”

It is fanatics such as these who are motivated, in part, by the promise that they will each receive seventy-two virgins upon entering Heaven.  How does one accommodate such ignorance?  The answer is, we can’t.

If we are to find a middle road between what Pope Francis and Ted Nugent suggest, our first goal must be to reach consensus on who and what the enemy is.  Unlike the opinion of apologists for radical and moderate Muslims, Islam is not a religion as we understand the term.  Rather it is a complete political, legal, economic, military, and cultural system with a religious component.  Its adherents refuse to assimilate into host country cultures, insisting that they be allowed to exist as an independent entity, not subject to the laws of their host countries.  In order to accomplish their ends, they regularly preach the overthrow of their host nations, by violence if necessary.

Accordingly, western democracies must resolve that Islam is incompatible with cultures built on Judeo-Christian principles.  In the United States, we must resolve that, “What is sauce for the (Communist) goose is sauce for the (Islamic) gander.”  In order to neutralize and reverse Islam’s cultural infestation, a good starting point would be to tailor the language of Section 2 of the Communist Control Act of 1954… a law that has not been struck down by the courts and which is still on the books… to read as follows:

The American people are determined to eliminate from their midst organizations which, purporting to be ‘religious,’ in the accepted sense of that term, are conspirators dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by force and violence…

“The Congress hereby finds and declares that Islam, although purportedly a religious sect, is in fact an instrumentality of a foreign conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States.  It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to individuals of other religious denominations, but denying to all others the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution… 

“As a segment of the U.S. population, Islam is relatively small, numerically, and gives scant indication of its capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful means.  The peril inherent in the existence of Islam arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present system of government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence.  Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign ideology renders its existence a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.  It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of Islam, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services.  Therefore, the organization known as Islam shall be outlawed in the United States.”

With that statute on the books, making the practice or the promotion of Islam illegal, we can make it very uncomfortable for radical Islamists.  We can make their presence in our country so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they and their predecessors crawled out of; they will self-repatriate in increasingly large numbers.  With eyes and ears planted in every mosque and every Muslim cultural center in America, radical Imams such as the late Anwar al-Awlaki could be readily identified and FBI agents could quickly make arrests.

Genesis 11: 1-9 tells the story of the Tower of Babel in which God was displeased by efforts of a Hebrew tribe to build a tower that would reach the heavens.  God looked down upon the Earth, and said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.  So the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the Earth, and they ceased building the city.

Inasmuch as radicalized Muslims have let it be known that all non-Muslims must either submit to them or die, and so-called “moderate” Muslims have refused to restrain their murderous brethren, perhaps it is time we reenacted the story of Babel, quarantining all Muslims to a portion of the Earth in which all of the competing tribes of Islam can settle their differences… peacefully or violently.

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

A Hoped for Speech ..

This speech was written to be delivered to a state legislature … hopefully your legislature … It is intended to stir the minds of your legislators onto the path, that our forefathers many of them legislators themselves, that was the proximate cause for the inclusion of the 10th Amendment in the US Constitution and that is:  In the final analysis the Federal government, executive, legislative and judicial cannot be trusted to have the final say … and since the Federal government is the child of the States, the States collectively or individually must have, as a parent to child, the final say when those in the Federal government disregard or distort their clear and simple 17 clause mandate under Article 1 Section 1 ….

——————————————————————————-

Mr. Speaker and Honorable members of the House … I arise today, at the beginning of this session of the Legislature to speak to you about our mission here in the Legislature … to urge you to think about our place in the destiny of this the greatest experiment in human freedom; about our place in the genius of the American system; about that Republic called the United States of America.

Surely, our primary job here is to provide for the protection of the persons and property of the citizens of our great state. To provide a legal environment of mobility, safety, tranquility, and sense of hope and optimism for the future for our children … and a haven of comfort and satisfaction for our elderly and disadvantaged … but we also have a higher duty that has been sorely neglected, that duty of protecting the gift of human freedom bequeathed to us long ago by our Revolutionary Forefathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Today the States our Federal Republic are being attacked from Washington, DC in seemingly the same arbitrary manner that King George III was attacking our forefathers from London in the late 18th century. King George would not tolerate self-government in the colonies and we are now confronted in a similar manner by an incomprehensibly enormous bureaucracy in that far away place, Washington, DC … a government that is clearly, day by day, year by year usurping the Constitutional rights of this state and its people to itself.

We are all familiar with the opening lines of the Declaration which states its intention … “When in the Course of Human Events it becomes necessary”… but how many of us can recall the reasons given for the separation? Let us review some of those reasons … the Declaration states:

  1. In one place, “We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us” … Have you ever given thought to the fact that the US Constitution grants the Federal Government 17 enumerated powers and only those powers alone?
  2. It states in another, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it” … You should be cognizant that most of the Federal Government and its intrusive bureaucracy is not authorized by the Constitution, but has been created by unauthorized laws or by fiat judicial decisions.
  3. In another it states, “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, It is their duty, to throw off such Government” … Our nation is a Federation of small self-governing Republics; when a central government erected to promote peace and harmony among equals and to protect the whole from foreign aggression itself becomes the aggressor of our freedom, it is our right … our duty to stand up to that aggression.
  4. Further it states, “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance” … The bureaucracy to which we are subjected is so large as to be unknowable and is motivated by forces alien to, unresponsive to and un-informed of the exigencies of our State. Is our State subordinate to the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the case of the wolves? Or to the US Department of the Interior in the case of the Sage Grouse?
  5. And further, “He has combined with others (I would say the 3 branches) to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws” … Where in the US Constitution does it say that the Federal Courts have the right to nullify an article in our State Constitution defining marriage?
  6. And finally, “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent” … The socialistic Obamacare outrage was sold to the Congress and us as providing for our healthcare, when in fact, when the 2000 plus unread pages of the bill were finally deciphered, we find it to be a tax.

All in all, the abuses by King George that propelled our forefathers to revolution and the abuses of the Constitution by the present Federal government toward the states are compellingly similar. We certainly do not want to overthrow the Federal government, but as free men, elected representatives in a federated Republic, sworn by solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution, we are honor bound to do as Jefferson so eloquently proclaimed: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter.. it” … We must alter any un-Constitutional infringements on our freedom!

So what does the Constitution say about it? First it is of fundamental importance to understand that our Federal government is not a Democracy, nor are the States Democracies. You will find no reference to democracy in either the Declaration or the Constitution. Our forefathers were uncommonly expert in comparative government. They, to a man, knew that democracies always fail; they fail because the masses cannot understand the issues and are therefore at the mercy of the demagogues… or more insidiously, compelled by the human failings of avarice and greed, they vote themselves largess from the public treasury until the polity is bankrupt. The forefathers also understood that there is a tyranny of the majority that will prove fatal to general government. Can the massive population majority of New York City efficiently govern Rhode Island, Vermont or New Hampshire or for that matter the rest of New York state? Shouldn’t those entities have the final say in their fate? The Revolutionary War had been about human freedom … the freedom of the individual. The writers of the Constitution understood that only a representative form of government would work to preserve human freedom.   A government where the individual picked from among his peers a person who was an exemplar of his ideals with the integrity to represent his views in the next level of government. They understood that democracy only worked where people of good will met face to face and presented their solutions to problems of mutual concern to the judgment of their gathered peers. They knew that this worked in villages, townships, precincts, and legislatures and would work in the new Congress. Small bodies where men of good will meeting face to face presenting their views to their peers.  The Constitution compartmentalized American government, giving due deference to the diversity of the States and to the general populace. That is why the Constitution plainly states in Article 4 Section 4 that the States are guaranteed a “Republican Form of Government.”

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, a scholar of comparative government, initially believed that the Federal government could be given a limited list of duties to circumscribe its powers and because of the propensity of men with power to strive to always take more power have it administered by three branches of government each with checks upon the other. He believed that the bare Constitution to be sufficient in itself. But when Madison took this beautiful handiwork back to his home in Virginia for ratification, he was met with a firestorm of opposition, most ardently personified in the thinking and eloquence of Patrick Henry. Henry objected to the Constitution because he was sure that the “unalienable Rights of Man” were not properly protected from the caprices of the document. He insisted that Rights of Man already codified in the Constitutions of the several States be re-articulated in the Federal Constitution so as to block any attempt by Congress to modify the inherent rights of the Individual so recently won by the blood and toil of the Revolution. Additionally, and the reason why Henry finally supported the Constitution, was his insistence that the States have the final say as to the validity of Federal law should the three branches attempt to overstep their Constitutional mandate. Henry’s amendment was the Tenth Amendment … “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  This powerful amendment allows the States to nullify or disregard actions of the Federal Government that are not granted in the enumerated powers. It may be, in final analysis, the most important of the “Bill of Rights.”   Patrick Henry certainly thought so!

We as Legislators can disregard the mandate of the Tenth Amendment at the peril of our Federal Republic or we can re-affirm our oath to the people this State by standing against the usurpations of the Federal bureaucracy. As we watch the creeping tyranny descending upon our nation, we in this Legislature can, we must take action to preserve our sacred Republic. We must make it clear to the Federal Government, “This far and no further!” This Legislature must provide a vehicle to monitor and act upon the usurpations of the Federal behemoth.

 

 

Posted in Lee's Musings | Leave a comment