Too Black to Fail

Self Authored | 09/05/2011 | Flotsam Jetsome

[Apparatchik]

You had me nodding all way up to word “ineligible” and it went downhill from there. Nothing destroys a political opinion piece like unfounded allegations. Obama was an ill-advised choice who bamboozled a majority of voters to vote for him, aided by a fawning and predominantly liberal media, despite having the shady past you rightly mention and no demonstrable managerial or leadership skills. His predictably disastrous performance is reason enough to convince the voters that we need someone with a clue to get us out of this fix, but calling him a usurper does nothing to help in that cause. Sorry to be so critical, but flogging the birther line is not in the best interest of the American people.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

I respectfully disagree. Until this “gentleman” demonstrates, unequivocally his eligibility to hold the office he currently occupies, he must be presumed to be a usurper. Since he has not demonstrated said eligibility (and online images of purported “original documents” don’t count), the presumption must be that he has something to hide, and therefore that he is in fact ineligible until proven otherwise. This is not a court of law where there is a presumption of innocence until proven “guilty”.

It is incumbent upon the aspirant to office to establish fitness, both in terms of competence and eligibility, rather than for the electorate to demonstrate to the contrary. Obama has not, ever, shown with any degree of reliability that he is eligible to hold the office he currently occupies.
Otherwise, I appreciate your sentiment.

Warm Regards,
FJ

[nathanbedford]

One need only have watched the Sunday shows yesterday to appreciate the parallel universe inhabited by the elite media. Yes, they understand that the economy is in terrible condition and that people are jobless and suffering and that the people are losing their homes.

But they do not get that Obama is illegitimate. Whether he is constitutionally eligible or not, he is unqualified by experience and biography and, more importantly, by philosophy for governing America. The problem with Obama is not that he is unintelligent, he is intelligent enough. Nor is the problem that he is inarticulate, one need only watch a few of his one-on-one interviews to see that he sounds and looks presidential and has mastered that art. The problem is that Obama is a psychically incapable of governing America properly.

When the talking heads on the Sunday shows, one after the other each in his turn, recite with approval shopworn nostrums for the repair of the economy which are but anemic reprises of the same failed policies already imposed on an unwilling America by Obama, all with the connivance these media elites, one cannot but conclude that there is utterly no disposition on the part of the elite media to change course.

They simply do not get it.

At best, they are tentatively musing about how they could have once again supported the wrong socialist because, if they had chosen the correct socialist, those same policies would surely have succeeded.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

“The problem is that Obama is a psychically incapable of governing America properly.”

This.

The man is in love with the position and the perks that go along with it, and is absolutely down with effecting socialist change via the powers of his office (as long as it’s others that are doing the heavy lifting), he is unwilling or unable to actually take his feet off the Resolute Desk and work to move the country forward. Scandalous is a good descriptor not only for how he gained office, but how he continues to hold it and fails to perform the duties of same.

[asinclair]

We The People have completely forgotten the lessons of our K-12 education years, specifically what we were supposed to learn during Civics class. (For scouts, there is also the Citizenship merit badge lessons, too.) Specifically, what the office of the President of the United States was intended, by our Founding Fathers, to be. And the current election cycle shows the same stigmata of ignorance on the part of the people: the President does not make law, he implements law as passed by Congress.

So there is almost zero discussion in the various fora about the fitness of the candidates running for the office to be an executive. Instead, we care about the views about law that the candidates hold, a discussion that has little relevance to the real job. That's why I was so disappointed in both parties during 2007: one candidate was showing virtually no executive ability, the other a complete mystery.

What the current President has done is make an end run around Congress and the Constitution, and implemented policies that have had a negative effect on the economy using loopholes in the law Congress has passed before. One reason that we are in this mess is that Congress is at war with itself, so that it can't do the right things to pour water on the troubled waters of business environment, particularly to rein in the excesses of the regulatory agencies.

So until the people wake up and realize this is not a popularity contest, but a serious and consequential choice for the right person for the original job, we will continue down the path toward a failed Republic. And the failure can happen with either political party.

Inconceivable, you say? I direct your attention to Robert Heinlein's 1940 short story of Nehemiah Scudder, a fictional character in If This Goes On—, about how a preacher is swept into office of the President in the 2011 election [interesting tie-in!] by intelligent use of mass communications, applied psychology, and helped along by a hysterical populace... and proceeds to convert the United States into a religion-based dictatorship, to the point that there were no elections held from 2015 on.

So, how do the various candidates stack up with successful executive experience? I'm impressed with only two against the criteria. And neither of those people have (D) after their name.

[y6162]

I am a birther. Don’t be dissuaded.

This is the key issue about the Kenyan lizard. Who is he?

[Apparatchik]

You raise some interesting points. It seems that our system of government as intended by the Framers has been so corrupted over the years (by the media through its cynical smear campaign against conservatives of both parties - aka Constitutionalists, by the Congress itself through its passivity in the face of a string of imperial presidents as well as their personal and official behavior and by the American people themselves for their apathy and stupidity in voting for the handsome, confident and pandering candidate) that the Congress no longer wields much political power.

The question is: how do we fix it?

[Venturer]

I believe the Coingres has pretty much shown that they do not have the courage to stand up for America.

Democrats are afraid to leave the fold to do what is right, and Republicans are afraid to challenge them.

Obama has been Resident fot two years and we still have no idea of his background and the media which is using an excavator to dig up every morsel of dirt on Rick Perry will not lift a spoon to dig into Obama’s past.

The Birth Certificate he showed was a joke.

Obama’s term has been destroyed by his Inexperience, his incompetence , his socialism he inherited from his mother and her family,and his liberal education,and his own racial hatred and bias.

This guy is a loser who got elected.

[wastoute]

Simply put, managing a Republic turns out to be just too much effort for most Americans in the end so now they want a tyrant. Hence, “What is Erkel going to do about the economy.”. No one is saying “What am I, or what are we, going to do?”. So there you have. I read somewhere recently that this is how Empires die. Folks just get tired of the effort. It just never occurs to them that the tyrant they begged for will actually do the terrible things tyrants do.

[trebb]

You had me nodding all way up to word “ineligible” and it went downhill from there. Nothing destroys a political opinion piece like unfounded allegations. Obama was an ill-advised choice who bamboozled a majority of voters to vote for him, aided by a fawning and predominantly liberal media, despite having the shady past you rightly mention and no demonstrable managerial or leadership skills. His predictably disastrous performance is reason enough to convince the voters that we need someone with a clue to get us out of this fix, but calling him a usurper does nothing to help in that cause. Sorry to be so critical, but flogging the birther line is not in the best interest of the American people.

I disagree. There have been so many "anomalies" and "questionablke" documents that, along with how well the rest of his history hase been buried, that it is absolutely in the interest of the American People to know the truth, one way or the other. To roll over and ignore something that raises so many questions about the most powerful position in the world is tanamount to selling the People wool cloaks and sending them to the lea to eat grass.

[Usagi_yo]

I agree, a relatively good piece until it castrates itself with the ineligible theory.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

ineligible theory.

Theory?

Hell, according to him he was born British/Kenyan.

[ml/nj]

Who is he?

From Wikipedia:

A confidence artist is an individual working alone or in concert with others who exploits characteristics of the human psyche such as greed, both dishonesty and honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté, and the thought of trying to get something of value for nothing or for something far less valuable.

The confidence trick is also known as a con game, con, scam, grift, hustle, bunko, swindle, flim flam, gaffle or bamboozle. The intended victim(s) are known as marks. The perpetrator of a confidence trick is often referred to as a confidence man/woman, con man/woman, con artist or grifter. When accomplices are employed, they are known as shills.

ML/NJ

[Kleon]

Until this “gentleman” demonstrates, unequivocally his eligibility to hold the office he currently occupies, he must be presumed to be a usurper.

The conspiracy nuts known as "birthers" have repeatedly shown that they will accept nothing as evidence of Obama's eligibility. Every piece of evidence offered becomes more evidence for the conspiracy.

With two valid birth documents produced, along with statements from the State of his birth confirming their legitimacy, Obama's birth is better documented than any President in recent memory.

[kreitzer]

Well written. There are a couple things we can do- 1] ask your congressman what a “natural born citizen” is, and get his answer on tape. They can vote for war, they should clearly demonstrate who is eligible for CIC. 2] attend the Birther Summit.

[Apparatchik]

I am not saying the case of Obama’s ineligibility has no merit- clearly there is something screwy going on in his past that they don’t want us to know about him (hermaphrodyte? Just a hunch). My point is that the overwhelming majority of Americans accept Obama as a natural born citizen of the USA. A much smaller number (almost a majority) think he is worth giving another term to. The evidence for convincing them otherwise for the latter is relatively free at hand (unemployment numbers, gas prices, golf outings, Michelle’s girth - all of which are too higher and getting higher). So let’s fight the battle we can win, with virtually the same result.

[Usagi_yo]

Yes, and that’s being polite.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

At best, they are tentatively musing about how they could have once again supported the wrong socialist because, if they had chosen the correct socialist, those same policies would surely have succeeded.

Their idea of "succeed" is tantamount to death of not only our economy, but also our traditional way of life itself. I have wondered whether Hillary would have been able to push amnesty with a "path to citizenship" through a senate with 60 leftist votes, which of course is what Obama started with.

What if Obama had pushed through amnesty at the start of his term? I tried to think of an appropriate military metaphor, reflecting what a supreme triumph it would have been for the left. The atom bomb in World War II? Not exactly, because 1) "The Bomb" was available for use immediately after they developed it, while naturalization takes years, and 2) the Soviets quickly caught up, while the GOP had no such capability.

But why didn't Obama do it? Was he more concerned with legislation that would have a more immediate effect (since naturalization might take about 10 years to make a give his cause a decisive majority of voters)? Did he think that the recession would go away in his first term, so that he could bring back amnesty when voters were less concerned about the unemployment rate?

Would Hillary have acted and succeeded where Obama waited?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Oops.

since naturalization might take about 10 years to make a give his cause a decisive majority of voters