Obama – It’s ALL About RACE in Chapter One

In Chapter One of Dreams From my Father, our president introduces us to his way of thinking about America.  It’s not a pretty picture.  There is no love affair between this 33-year old future president and the nation that rewards him with Air Force One and a famous home address.

I wish more people would read this book.  His condescending tone itself is enough to make a critical reader wonder about his intentions.  His carelessness with facts about his own life story gives pause concerning his veracity.  Chapter One sets the tone for the balance of the president’s story about his search for an identity and a touchstone.

See specific commentary at the link below: (a sizable PDF file – give it a minute to upload)

Obama Dreams – Comments on Chapter One

All About Your President – Did You Read the Book or See the Movie?

Dinesh D’Souza’s recent movie (“2016: Obama’s America”) has been praised by the right and panned by the left.  (Surprised?)  One of the criticisms the President’s defenders attempt to put over on us is that Mr. D’Souza didn’t base his movie on facts.  Those defenders must not have read “Dreams from My Father,” the president’s first autobiography, written when he had reached the wizened age of thirty-three.  All the evidence that supports the theme of the movie is right there, in the President’s own words.

Well, I have read the book.  It reads more like a novel or a screenplay than a biography.  It is a romanticized, beyond belief, revisionist’s version of a man’s early life, yet it reveals a frame of mind and world view that is decidedly unAmerican.  The writing is an overwrought act of arrogance, performance art of a sort, and the book is more about being a ‘good write’ than a good read.

Nonetheless, I suffered through it to get to know this mystery man.  What do we find?  He hates America, he resents white men – including that half of himself – he sees all of life through a racial lens, and he believes that wealth and natural resources are the same thing.

I took a lot of notes.  I’ve cleaned them up and added them to a scanned PDF.  Over the next few days (or weeks?) I will share those margin notes here.  I start with the five-page introduction.  Click below and the PDF will open for your reading pleasure.  More to come; it gets even more fun.

Dreams from My Father – The Introduction

Todd Akin – A Contrarian’s Perspective

Without expressing a view, pro-choice/life/abortion, I’d like to suggest a few people, particularly some outspoken GOP consultants, reconsider their outrage over Todd Akin’s recent kerfuffle.

Congressman Akin made a passing reference to some discredited and outdated research about rape and pregnancy.  He later retracted that part of his comment and disavowed its conclusions.  More importantly, that passing comment is completely irrelevant to his (and the party’s) position on abortion funding [remember, federal money for abortions was/is/should be the topic, not rape].  He and many others in the GOP favor NO EXCEPTIONS to laws that keep federal government money out of the pockets of abortion providers, even in cases involving rape.  So whether or not a pregnancy is the result of a rape (forcible or otherwise) that was proven (“legitimate”) is not germane to his (and the party’s) position.  There is no need to ‘redefine’ rape – the GOP’s stated position is that rape is not pertinent to whether the fetus should be aborted with tax payer dollars.

The Democrat’s misconstruing the congressman’s statement has us talking about rape (as if there is any disagreement about rape laws) instead of the question of federal funding for abortion – an issue about which the GOP is in agreement with about 90% of the country.

“You can’t punish the baby, you must punish the rapist” is the operative part of Congressman Akin’s statement, yet no one is mentioning that point.  Too bad, since the left has no rational response to that position and we could be winning the debate instead of forfeiting.

This is a farce foisted upon the voters by the Democrats.  It is part of their attempt to paint the GOP as woman-haters, and the GOP is falling into the trap.  It’s gender-baiting, it’s divisive, a distraction and coarsens the public discourse by introducing [feigned] outrage when it’s inappropriate and unhelpful.

And the GOP’s effort to throw Akin to the wolves is to fall into the trap and perpetuates the lies being told daily by the left.  As if GOP consultants think that waving a white flag will make the Democrats start telling the truth.

That’s the scandal.  The Romney/Ryan team could have exposed the extreme pro-abortion, pro-killing, anti-life agenda of the left.  Instead we have our candidates taking turns excoriating one of our own.  Good work, Karl Rove.   Now, go away and please don’t tell us that Mr. Akin’s drop in the polls proves you were right.  Had the party and Romney/Ryan supported Mr. Akin, he’d be up 20 points.  His party’s abandoning him, not his statement, is the explanation for his drop in the polls.

“The love of theory is the root of all evil.”

There is a theory that men will work for the common good rather than for their own rational self-interest.

The truth is not a theory.  It abides.  It withstands every assault.  We must live with, for and by the truth.  Death is not a theory, it is the direct result of a governing philosophy based on a theory that history has disproven many times over.

The truth shall prevail despite theories and rumors to the contrary.

Bill Bain and All Capitalists, not Mitt Romney, Killed Joe Soptic’s Wife

Political hacks closely associated with the president of the United States recently associated Mitt Romney and his business partners and practices with the death of a woman.  This follows their unending plea for copies of Mr. Romney’s tax returns, as if knowing how much he pays in taxes is more important than, say, whom he’ll name as Secretary of the Treasury or whether he thinks a trade war with China is a good idea.

The resounding responses from the GOP political hacks and the Romney campaign are “Mitt left to run the Olympics long before his partners killed that woman” and “You’ve offended our pristine political sensibilities with all your lies about murder and tax returns.”  What a crock of crap.

That’s the best they can do?  No defense of business as a vehicle to deploy capital and generate profits.  No explication of the complexity of the decisions that advance that purpose.  No “it’s none of your damn business how much money I have or taxes I pay.”  Instead we get a defense of political campaign boundary lines and “Mr. Reid, put up or shut up.”  These people are not living in our America, they’re in a cocoon called Washington, DC.  They’re shocked and disturbed by a television ad, but comfortable, no enthusiastic about a $3,800,000,000,000 annual budget.  Really!?

Why doesn’t someone say that CANCER KILLED HER after she and her husband had been gainfully employed for years, including some years by a company that was owned for a while by a group that included Mitt Romney.  During his tenure at that company, Mr. Soptic and his employer were parties to a contract pursuant to which he traded his labor for pay and benefits.  In no discussion with his boss would Mr. Soptic, a free man, have been told that he owed his life to the company or vice versa.  He worked, they paid – even trade.

In a free country, Mr. Soptic and his wife were not entitled to have another man or woman toil so they might eat or have health insurance as a shield against cancer, earthquakes or any other acts of God.  Mr. Soptic is a free man, and free men care for themselves by working, sometimes with other free men, to create wealth so as to minimize the suffering and damage caused by tragedies.  A free man doesn’t whine about it being a strangers’ fault that he did not provide for his wife’s medical needs . . . unless he is being used by venal men who covet power over other men.

It’s pretty clear who is in charge – political hacks who care more about their ability to use Mr. Soptic as a prop than they care about the loss of his wife.  They are more concerned about holding political power than they are about preserving and protecting your freedom and mine.

They want you and I to toil so they might eat.  I refuse.

Bill Bain did not kill Mrs. Soptic, nor did I.  I’m going to push back – when will Mitt Romney?

Crime Prevention Can Wait Until After the Crime?

In recent discussions, to seem less racist or regressive, I’ve abstained from expressing a view on the level of voter fraud, the need for new laws or better enforcement of existing laws – except to say that it’s, um, odd to me that anyone would suggest that LESS scrutiny is a good thing, because there doesn’t seem to be any widespread problem.  Do they really mean to say “Let’s not overdo law enforcement, well, unless that particular crime gets really, really bad.”  If so, OK, I’m glad to understand their point, but it makes me wonder.  You?

But, to move along to a more interesting question:  Alleged “voter suppression” is the basis for much of the opposition to new, stricter laws.