Hobgoblins and Community Organizers

For some reason, I don't remember a lot of quotable lines from my college literature classes.  One I do remember is from Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay, Self Reliance.  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."  Today, I think Emerson would add community organizers who become president to his list of those with hobgoblins. 

President Obama has shown a tendency to react from his gut.  From his first month in office when he made his off-teleprompter "it is apparent the police acted stupidly" remark, the president has to use his own words, acted stupidly and then stubbornly stood by those actions.  In the case of this remark, Obama was barely a month into office, and most of us were still giving him the benefit of the doubt.  He had no experience in a position where his every word and action was being watched and scrutinized.  So most of us gave him the chance to retract, or at least soften his remarks, especially since he admitted that he did not have "all the facts."  But, Emerson's hobgoblins got to the president.  He never backed off his comments.

Then we had Arizona passing state legislation making illegal immigration illegal in their state.  When asked for a reaction, President Obama called the legislation "misguided."  Without reading the legislation.  After learning that the law mirrored already existing federal law, the president stuck to his comments and went even further by ordering an investigation of the civil rights ramifications of the law.  A little reflection should lead "the smartest man in the room" to the conclusion that civil rights are applicable to citizens, and illegal immigrants by definition are not citizens, but the hobgoblins have struck again.  The federal government has decided to pursue legal action against the state.  Again, the president has had ample time to adjust his stance as he has learned the facts and learned the opinion of the voters.  But once again, he is remaining "foolishly consistent."

Last week Senator Jon Kyl told a town hall meeting that the president, in a private meeting, told Kyl that he had no reason to close the American borders, as citizens of border states and citizens in general, are begging him to do.  President Obama told Senator Kyl that if he closed the borders and enforced federal immigration laws, Congress would have no motivation to compromise on immigration reform, or amnesty.  Think this is a case of Kyl making up the president's quotes to advance Arizona's view?  Well once again, President Obama's got that hobgoblin issue.
 

More recently, in reaction to the British Petroleum leak in the Gulf of Mexico, the president announced a moratorium on drilling in the gulf.  Upon further review, the moratorium would do nothing but cost the region jobs, not only for the six months announced, but probably forever.  Some estimates of the loss of payroll, and tax revenue, reach the billions.  Those estimates do not include the loss caused by the leak itself.  So when a federal judge suspended the moratorium, the president had the perfect opportunity to adjust his stance and in essence, save both face and jobs.  He could have said something along the lines of "we tried, but a judge overturned our action.  That's the way checks and balances works."  He could then let the drilling continue, especially since this is the first spill in more than 4,000 wells drilled in the Gulf.  Instead of letting the judge's decision stand and moving on, within minutes of the announcement of the judge's decision, the Obama administration announced their decision to appeal the decision.  Not only is the government appealing the decision, but today Secretary of Interior Salazar announced a new moratorium!

Three days after the accident and resulting leak, the Dutch, Norwegians, and British offered to help with the clean up effort with tankers, skimmers, and booms.  The federal government declined the offers, citing the Jones Act.  The Jones Act requires all ships working between U.S. ports be American built, American flagged, and consist of American crews, all to protect unions.  While the Act has been suspended many times, the Obama administration refused to do so.  After more than two months of massive amounts of oil moving to beaches along the Gulf coast, commentators started questioning the application of the Jones Act.  The British and Dutch again offered their help with the clean up.  The president had the opportunity to exorcise his hobgoblins and suspend the Jones Act, but, once again, has acted foolishly consistently and refused the help.

We have been told that President Obama is one of most intelligent people ever to hold the office of president.  So, while is he repeatedly the victim of the hobgoblins of a little mind?  It could be that he knows all the facts, but is working to advance his agenda.  It's either part of his plan, or we were lied to all along and the president's not as intelligent as we were led to believe.  And if that's the case, what is the agenda of those who led us to believe we were electing "the smartest man in the room?"  I think we have more than hobgoblins to worry about.

Barack Hussein Obama is a Jewish Mother??

 A commentary on the average American's response to Arizona's new immigration law quoted poll results from Newsweek illustrating that Americans overwhelmingly support Arizona's position.  The question was phrased in several different ways.  In the different versions of the question, Americans' support of the law ranged from 65% to 78%.  The lowest positive rate was of the question, "would you support your state passing a similar law.  "Only" 58% answered yes.  So, why is everyone in the Obama administration criticizing the law, without ever reading it?  What is their goal?  In an already contentious mid-term election year, when most experts predict Democrats losing control of at least one branch of congress, why fly into the face of such overwhelming public opinion?


At the risk of sounding racist, I'm going to bring up the stereotypical Jewish mother.  You know how they are portrayed as using guilt to get their way with their children?  "No, son, you don't have to visit this Mother's day.  I know you are busy and all.  I wouldn't want to interfere with your hectic schedule.  I'm only 98, I'm sure I'll be around for many more Mother's days that I will be able to celebrate with you."


The president's big stick is our collective guilt over slavery, abolished about 145 years ago, by the way.  That's why he was never criticized or even challenged during his campaign.  Republicans were afraid of being labeled racist.  They couldn't question his choice of religion.  So what if he is a Muslim?  They couldn't question his choice of a pastor.  So what if he was a twenty year member of Jeremiah Wright's church that taught, among other outrages, that the 9/11 attacks were justified and even a message from God?  They couldn't question his relationship with domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers.  His political career started with a meeting in Ayers' basement, but that doesn't mean Obama knew him.  They couldn't question his wife's opinion of America when she said "for the first time in my life, I'm proud of America."  They couldn't even question his habit of voting "present" as a senator.  Any question or challenge was immediately met with charges of racism.  Even now, when Tea Party supporters carry signs with slogans such as "I want my country back," they are charged with using racist "code words."  And like the Jewish son, we get defensive and give in.

Now immigration policy is the hot topic.  Anyone who has read Arizona's law knows that it is only a repeat of current federal law.  The law only empowers local and state law enforcement to aid the federal government in enforcing current law.  It goes to great lengths to make illegal any type of racial profiling, with strictly worded definitions of restrictions of who can be questioned and why, and punishments for violating those restrictions.  So immediately after the law, actually a state bill at the time, was reported on national news, the president publicly called it misguided and requested a department of justice review of its legality.  Without ever reading it!  He was quickly followed with public condemnations of the law by his attorney general, homeland security secretary, and numerous governors and mayors, most of whom still claim not to have read the law!

Now, last week, the president of Mexico was invited to speak on the floor of the House of Representatives.  His topic?  The racist components of the United States immigration policy and specifically the Arizona law.  His speech was followed by a standing ovation by Democratic members of the House!  And remember this is a policy overwhelmingly favored by Americans.  What is the progressives' purpose in making these comments.  The whole guilt over slavery thing is getting a little tired to most Americans, so if that's the plan, it's obviously not working.  Or are they trying to divide the country even further.  It is apparent that many Americans will blindly follow the Democratic party no matter what.  So they are inclined to believe the charges of racism.  Some legal immigrants and minorities are genuinely worried about harassment.  And admittedly some have read the law, know that it mirrors federal law, but believe that the federal law should be changed.  So at the very least, the progressives seem to be trying to widen a gap between the approximately 60% who oppose them and the 40% who support them.  What could be their endgame?  The possibilities are a little scary to think about.

Here's a video of Representative McClintock's, a Republican congressman from California, response to Mexican president Calderon's speech last week.  


Just to be fair, California gets slammed a lot, but it's obviously not all California that is so completely screwed up.  Just the cities, as the case in most of the country.  It's just that the rest of us that have to pay for their stupidity!  Hope that wasn't too racist.  I'm feeling a little guilty.