Obama’s rhetoric disguises his bad governance

Obama’s discovery that government bureaucracies don’t do things very well creates a breathtaking disconnect between his transformative ambitions and his detachment from the job itself. How does his Olympian vision coexist with the lassitude of his actual governance, a passivity that verges on absenteeism?

What bridges that gap is rhetoric. Barack Obama is a master rhetorician. It’s allowed him to move crowds, rise inexorably and twice win the most glittering prize of all. Rhetoric has changed his reality. For Obama, it can change the country’s. Hope and change, after all, is a rhetorical device. Of the kind Obama has always imagined can move mountains. That’s why his reaction to the Obamacare Web site’s crash-on-takeoff is so telling.

His remedy? A cross-country campaign-style speaking tour. As if rhetoric could repeal that reality. Managing, governing, negotiating, cajoling, crafting legislation, forging compromise. For these—this stuff of governance—Obama has shown little aptitude and even less interest.

Quote source

Krauthammer, C. (2013). Obama the Oblivious. Washington Post. Available https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obama-the-oblivious/2013/12/12/67acc91c-6363-11e3-a373-0f9f2d1c2b61_story.html. Last accessed 31st Dec 2015.


Liberals and their manipulative name calling

Liberals smear their opponents and then issue hypocritical calls for ‘civility.’  What passes for argument among liberals is the hurling of SIXHRB epithets: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, racist, bigoted (acronym via Dennis Prager).

For example, if you oppose illegal immigration then you are a xenophobe; if you carefully argue against Obamacare then you a racist; if you give reasons why marriage is between a man a woman you are dismissed as a bigot.  If you oppose the slaughter of innocent human beings which is abortion you are waging war against women and interfering with their ‘health’ and ‘reproductive rights.’   If you point out the very real threat of radical Islam, then you are dismissed as an  ‘Islamaphobe’ with a mental illness.

Quote source

Vallicella, B (2012). Ten Reasons Not to Vote Democrat. Maverick Philosopher. Available http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/11/ten-reasons-not-to-be-a-liberal.html. Last accessed 19th Dec 2015.

The discrimination trope is a Trojan Horse

I appreciated this analysis from Ken Ham:

As one opinion piece [from Louise Melling] says,

Religious freedom is integral to this country. It must—and will—be protected. But what is being increasingly recognized is that religious freedom gives us all a right to our beliefs. This right, though, like all our rights, has limits . . . Religious liberty can’t be used by businesses to turn away lesbian and gay couples seeking to celebrate a relationship, or by religiously associated nonprofits who treat women employees like second-class citizens by denying contraceptive coverage.

This writer [Louise Melling], who is discriminating against Christians, also says that no one should be allowed to discriminate because of religious beliefs, “if they want to be true to equality and religious freedom.”

True equality? What about equality for those people who feel that their conscience is being violated when they are being forced to sanction activities with which they disagree? They’re not getting equality! And religious freedom?

Those who stand up for their beliefs are being discriminated against for their religious beliefs! It’s religious discrimination—not religious freedom!

Quote source

Ham, K. (2015). Is Religious Freedom Only Limited to Belief? Available https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/03/13/is-religious-freedom-only-limited-to-belief/. Last accessed 30th Aug 2015.

When “women’s health” is a euphemism

Speaking at the recent Women Deliver conference in Malaysia, Chelsea Clinton lamented that her maternal grandmother was the child of unwed teenage parents who “did not have access to services that are so crucial that Planned Parenthood helps provide” (“Chelsea Clinton Laments,” LifeNews.com, June 20, 2013).

Apparently Chelsea, daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, believes that it would have been fine if her grandmother had aborted her mother, since the major “service” provided by Planned Parenthood is abortion. They perform an average of one abortion every 94 seconds…

Women Deliver is a feminist advocacy organization, one of the goals of which is “universal access to reproductive health,” a euphemism for birth control and abortion…yet it is little girls that bear the brunt of this philosophy, as a disproportion of abortions target females.

Quote source

Cloud, D. (2013). Friday Church News Notes, Vol 14, Issue 26. Way of Life. Available http://www.wayoflife.org/friday_church_news/14_26.php. Last accessed 6th Jul 2015.

The insidious nature of “fair share” rhetoric

Most people who want to redistribute wealth don’t want to talk about how that wealth was produced in the first place.

They just want “the rich” to pay their undefined “fair share” of taxes. This “fair share” must remain undefined because all it really means is “more.”

Quote source

Sowell, T. (2015). ‘Just Asking’. Available http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/just-asking.html. Last accessed 2 Jul 2015.

Note the mutation of sodomite rhetoric

The Evolution of the Gay Mantra….

1970’s “Live and let live.”

1980’s “Tolerance! Tolerance!”

1990’s “Don’t shove your values down my throat!”

2000’s “We expect you to change your lives to honor our lifestyle; we have no tolerance for your beliefs. We’re going to shove our values down your throat.”

2010’s “…and if that doesn’t work, we’re going to get the government to bully you into submission.”

Quote source

OKC_Bill cited in Alessandra (2013). Liberals announce future legislation promoting gay rights – progress to come! Reflections, Reflections by Alessandra. Available https://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/liberals-announce-future-legislation-promoting-gay-rights-progress-to-come/. Last accessed 30th May 2015.

Christine Milne proven wrong on marriage and legislation

As reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in October 2013:

The [Australian] Federal Government has confirmed it will go ahead with a High Court challenge after the ACT [Australian Capital Territory] today became the first Australian jurisdiction to legalise same-sex marriage…

However, Greens leader Christine Milne has repeated her call for the Federal Government to abandon its challenge. “My message to Tony Abbott [Prime Minister] and George Brandis [Attorney-General] is get out of the way. You are on the wrong side of history,” she said.

“The wave of public support in favour of equality is unstoppable. “Equal marriage is going to happen and a High Court challenge won’t stop it.”

Milne’s calls were ignored by the Federal Government, which proceeded to lodge its challenge in the High Court. In December 2013, the court issued this statement:

Today the High Court decided unanimously that the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013, enacted by the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory, cannot operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act 1961

The Marriage Act does not now provide for the formation or recognition of marriage between same sex couples. The Marriage Act provides that a marriage can be solemnised in Australia only between a man and a woman and that a union solemnised in a foreign country between a same sex couple must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia. That Act is a comprehensive and exhaustive statement of the law of marriage…

Because the ACT Act does not validly provide for the formation of same sex marriages, its provisions about the rights of parties to such marriages and the dissolution of such marriages cannot have separate operation and are also of no effect. The Court held that the whole of the ACT Act is of no effect.

Contrary to Milne’s assertions, the High Court challenge did indeed “stop it” (the sodomite political agenda).

Quote sources

  1. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2013). Commonwealth to launch High Court challenge over ACT same-sex marriage laws. Available http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/ommonwealth-to-launch-challenge-over-act-same-sex-marriage-laws/5037674. Last accessed 11th April 2015.
  2. High Court of Australia (2013). THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY [judgement summary]. Available http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2013/hca55-2013-12-12.pdf. Last accessed 11th Apr 2015.