PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

I’m in utter awe that an inexperienced socialist that most people know nothing about has gained the following that could hand him the powerful executive branch of the United States government. This is probably more a comment on the effectiveness of public non-education and polemic riddled “entertainment” and journalism than any real perception of issues in a presidential campaign. To be sure, there are always issues of grave importance during any election, but the U.S. on the whole is kind of doing okay (especially when it’s state of affairs are compared with other countries that accept wars, recession, and “crises” as the usual state of affairs. The U.S. unemployment rate is still remarkably low, though critics juggle the numbers in a variety of ways to make things appear to be at their worst. The “war” in Iraq has dwindled in effect to the status of Bill Clinton’s good war involvement In the Balkans.

Gas prices are “sky high” but Obama certainly has nothing in his hat that will alleviate that problem. There are no indications that he plans to change his position on drilling off the Florida Coast (as China and Cuba are currently doing) and a tiny area of Alaska. He also opposes the building of new refineries and the use of nuclear power. (He’s a dedicated follower of the Al Gore sky is falling religion).

B. Hussein Obama certainly has an approach to the matters at hand – though they’ve come under amazingly little scrutiny thus far by the media establishment circus. Virtually everyone in Obama’s list of family and friends have hard-core Marxist backgrounds, affiliations, or sympathies. Many have open hatred for the country Obama seeks to become president of (his wife being a mere footnote to that issue).

In the past Obama has made much of the need for court appointees to be people of compassion and “empathy.” That sounds nice of course, almost like warm milk and cookies (I won’t reference the overused “Kumbaya” analogy). This clown is supposed to be a constitutional scholar!?

The constitution of the U.S. is neither “compassionate” or not compassionate. It’s a document that restrains the powers of government and outlines the rights of individual citizens to (recently extended to non-citizens as well apparently) freedom, and their chosen pursuit of happiness. This has nothing to do with compassion or empathy any more than a good auto mechanic’s ability is enhanced by a sensitivity to small furry animals.

The left in general always seems to want to load “compassion” down our throats with a legislative jackhammer and then paint anyone who sees the folly of it all as a villain in a Dickens novel.

America’s constitution says nothing about state sponsored group hugs. It can be interpreted to allow them of course (though not state-sponsored) and can also defend the rights of individuals to not join in group hugs. This doesn’t mean that the constitution is somehow tragically flawed. It means that its purpose is clearly stated and unrelated to emotional bias regarding the functions and boundaries of government authority. It does what is supposed to do – limit government and preserve individual freedom (yes, it is that simple).

America’s court justices are supposed to consult a very clearly written document to see if laws brought before it are in accord with its clear instructions (and yes, its instructions are very clear for all circumstances and times – note specifically the tenth amendment).

The left has done their best over the last several decades to remold the courts into an auxiliary legislative branch so they can pursue their relentless goal of state imposed “compassion” and “cooperation” (“cooperation” with them).

A court justice’s degree of “empathy or “compassion is completely irrelevant to the task they are entrusted with. Of course, leftists (and so-called “liberals”) claim such a statement of fact is, in itself, lacking empathy and compassion, but that’s just another one of their polemic games. Everyone is supposed to follow the left’s commands for a compliant collective or be branded as lacking “compassion.”

Demanding that the law be used to cram bogus compassion down everyone’s throat does not render anyone more compassionate.

Obama should possess enough intelligence and honesty to know that there are three branches in America’s federal government. Its’ fine to elect (or reject) presidents and legislators based on their moral goodness, capacity for altruism, or empathy. I suppose it would be nice if they have been noted to shed a tear while watching Bambi as well. A judge can certainly be caring and compassionate, and that’s great (I like nice people) – it just has nothing to do with his or her job (!).

Deliberately appointing someone to a court position that will reject the clear outline for a free society as written in America’s constitution, so as to act on personal “empathy,” is pathetic.

Another reason to vote NO on stupid media-clown preference number one.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 7:17 PM