
The Audacity of Stupidity |
Politics Brian Cherry,
Associate Editor
March 12, 2008 |
|
Anybody watching the Obama campaign can’t help
but be amazed by what they are seeing. We have a completely inexperienced,
inadequate candidate actively running on the idea that he is going to raise
everyone’s taxes while promoting the fact that he is going to be a foreign
relations disaster. After saying he
would bomb our ally, Pakistan, he stated he would legitimize leaders like
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by engaging in unconditional diplomacy. For those who have
forgotten, Mahmoud is a person who not only has stated that
Israel should be wiped off the map, but honestly believes himself to be the
harbinger of Muslim doom for the western world at the hands of the 12th
Imam.
Intelligent people should be concerned at
Obama’s eagerness to drop a daisy cutter on countries who are helping us in the
war on terror while offering to spoon with leaders of belligerent nations where
the words “Death to America” are printed on everything from tea cozies to those
big foam fingers people wave about at sporting events. Based on recent
statements from both
Barack and his
fishwife, we know the Obamas are not proud of the a nation that has provided
them with Ivy League educations, unbounded opportunity, and a legitimate shot at
the American Dream of becoming President, but there should be limits on the
number of naïve statements and outright stupid proposals that the word “hope” is
allowed to cover like a media deodorant.
If the Democrats want to be intellectually
honest and put forth a minority candidate who inspires legitimate hope in their
voters, they should make Flavor Flav their nominee. Hey, any ex-con crack addict
who can make millions of dollars while dozens of strippers fight for the right
to treat him like a Bill Clinton Cohiba cigar should be a beacon of
overachieving hope to the liberal core constituency of underachieving losers.
When you get past all the fluffy rhetoric that
is supposed to make Barack Hussein Obama look like the political version of
Barney the Dinosaur, and actually do some research on the guy, you find that he
is the most far left senator in Congress today. The
National Review took a look at all the votes cast by the candidate for
change, and found that the only one left of him was Karl Marx, and even that was
a very close race. So, besides offering to split his 72 virgins with Ahmadinejad
as a gesture of healing, and telling the
Canadians that he was just kidding about opposing NAFTA, what else has the
Democrat’s most cuddly Senator have planned for America?
One of the most common anecdotes that both
Obama’s cite as proof that America is unfair, is the fact that they had to pay
back their student loans. First of all, this very complaint is ridiculous on its
face. Michelle Obama went to Princeton while Barack Hussein Obama went to
Columbia. Both of them did their post graduate study and earned degrees from
Harvard as well. These are some of the most insanely expensive schools on the
planet. The cost of being educated at these three institutions is roughly equal
to the price of a really nice, suburban house that is not unlike the one that
crime lord
Tony Rezko helped set Barack and his wife up in.
Nobody forced either Barack or his wife to
choose Ivy League educations. If money was an issue, Community Colleges, State
Universities, and waiting tables could have been part of the equation. These are
options that a lot of very successful people have chosen instead of going to
schools that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Living in the United States
has given the Obamas the opportunity to choose those prestigious institutions,
find employment, and pay off the debt that their choice of schools has left them
with. Living in a free country also gives them the right to publicly complain
about having to pay the bill that was the consequence of their choices.
Regardless of what not wanting to live up to their commitment says about the
character of Michelle and Barack, it also is launching pad for one of their more
insidious plans.
Barack wants to give away money to kids who have
college aspirations. His plan includes a $4000 tax credit, expanded grants, as
well as the elimination of subsidies and guarantees for loans from private
banks; providing a disincentive for banks to stay in the college loan business.
In other words, by expanding government handouts for college while limiting
private sector funding options, the government becomes a major source of college
funding. This all sounds good on the surface, but when somebody is coming from
the far left, there is a rather large problem with this idea. It is one that
stabs directly at the Evangelicals that the liberals loath so much.
In his keynote address at the Call for Renewal,
Barack said the following:
“[Conservative leaders] need to understand
the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in
preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice.
Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the
civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment.
It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland...It was the
forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling
government with religion, because they did not want state-sponsored religion
hindering their ability to practice their faith.”
Apparently that Harvard education didn’t do him
much good when it comes to matters of the Constitution. Like most liberal
Constitutional lawyers he misses the fact that the words “Separation of Church
and State” are not found in the First Amendment. It simply states that “Congress
shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion”.
I will assume that history was not his strong
suit either. If it was he would know that those words were included in our
founding document not as a way to discourage people from putting up a Christmas
nativity scene in view of their atheist neighbor’s front window, but as a
response to the persecution that occurred under the Church of England. Once
England broke from the Catholics and established their own Church, people who
didn’t see things their way were subject to fines, torture, and execution. In
other words that statement in the first amendment means the United States will
never have a law like England’s Uniformity Act of 1559; a decree that made it
illegal not to attend sanctioned Church of England services.
Considering the atmosphere and blatant liberal
conditioning that occurs on the campuses of most State Colleges and
Universities, there has been a significant exodus from these institutions to
private colleges; a large chunk of them are religious in nature. What does
Barack’s program say about Federal grant money going to kids whose parents don’t
want to send them to a school where Ward Churchill can blame George W. Bush for
everything from 9-11 to the cancellation of Baywatch?
We already know the answer to this one. There is
absolutely no chance that Barack will appoint judges who adhere to the
Constitution. Like his Democrat brethren, he prefers people in tasteless black
robes who want to make law, not uphold it. This means that tuition to private
Colleges and Universities that expose evolution correctly as “the science of
things that sort of look alike” will be branded as a separation of church
conflict and probably won’t be eligible for payment with Federal grants and
loans.
Those who doubt this need look no further then
May 22nd of 2007 when a Federal Court ruled in
Colorado Christian University v. Baker that a tuition assistance program for
low-income students violated the separation of Church and State. In a nutshell,
public money could only go to schools that manage to link the combustion engine
to our planets “Snowball Earth” phase, teach that Jesus is just a myth, and
pretend that the questions raised regarding the Pre-Cambrian layer don’t give
aneurisms to uninformed, dogmatic evolutionists.
It is hard to believe that the effects of the
above mentioned lawsuit, and other ones like it would not be a consideration for
somebody as far left as Obama when coming up with his proposals. The argument
could even be made that since his ideas discourage private funding that he is
counting on it. The Barack plan would take many of the private loan programs out
of the mix (because technically that would not be federal money and could be
used at just about any school) and give a huge competitive, state sponsored
advantage to Schools and Universities that tow the “progressive” line; forcing
many students away from colleges that uphold traditional values and true
diversity of thought and into to a “place of learning” that is more interested
in turning them into a liberal convert then teaching them to think for
themselves.
This is consistent
with “Pro-Choice” liberals who want public funding for in utero murders
but don’t believe in options when it conflicts with their message. By
channeling kids away from many private institutions and into the
classrooms of Ward Churchill clones they will help create a generation
that believes capitalism is unfair, socialism is good, competition is
for warmongering Nazis, God is dead, and the Government should take care
of you from birth until that fateful “progressive” day that Washington
has the power to decide when your number is up. In other words they will
come out more dim-witted then when they went in. Being the advocate for
this sort of stupidity is audacious indeed.
|
|
Brian
Cherry is an Associate Editor for The New Media Journal. He was born, raised and lives in the state of MI and from his home in
the far north pursues the two passions that have driven him since his high
school days, writing and the study of Scandinavian history... |
|