RSS

Tag Archives: President

Mitt Romney, Bullying and a Touch of Amnesia

Mitt Romney, in the face of bullying accusations from his youth, says he has no recollection of the incident in question.

I wonder if he’s telling the truth.

Are there really so many similar acts of cruelty in his past that this particular one- in which he helped chop off tufts of a fellow student’s hair- doesn’t even register on the memory scale?

Either he’s lying, or he’s a sociopath. I tend to believe the latter.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on May 12, 2012 in Life, Politics

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Bill Looman, Georgia Business Owner, Draws Fire For ‘Not Hiring Until Obama Is Gone’

We will not hire until Obama is gone

Sadly, it doesn’t surprise me that this business owner is unwilling to hire anyone while the President is still in office. He’s in good company, and the only thing that makes this particular man unique is his willingnes­s to be upfront about it.

There are many people on the right- including a lot of the elected politician­s- who do not want America to thrive in any way while President Obama is in office. If we, as a country, fail on his watch, they get to blame Obama without having to confront their personal racism against him.

Those same people will claim racism is dead in the US, pointing to our black Commander in Chief as proof, while simultaneo­usly hijacking our country to all-but guarantee his failure.

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Herman Cain, Sinking Ships and the Tea Party Princess

… at the beginning of the day, I hadn’t recalled as much as by the end of the day.”

So said Herman Cain, during a Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto while discussing the allegations of sexual harassment against him. Cain was referring to the fact that when first asked about the allegations, he conveniently remembered nothing- that is, until he realized that those pesky women were not going to disappear.

Suddenly, by his own admission, his memory improved. The more detailed the accusations, the more clear it became that this wasn’t going to go away, the better his recollection.

Convenient.

Since these allegations hit the news waves, Cain has been on a non-stop publicity tour, speaking to any number of media outlets. He says he wants to be as visible as possible, sharing with the world that he “doesn’t have anything to hide”.

Cain wants us to believe he is being upfront about these allegations, but in reality, he spends most of his time piling on slightly hysterical-sounding denials. On the rare occasion that he’s willing to talk about it (only to sympathetic conservative news outlets, ironically) he  peppers his denials with inconsistent statements.

First, he has no recollection of the incidents in question.

Next, he backs away from his assertion of amnesia, instead blaming his unwillingness to answer these accusations on the fact that the women in question were choosing to remain anonymous. How can he answer accusations from people who refuse to come forward and identify themselves?

So Politico provided him with the name of one of his accusers.

He still refused to answer.

Cain did eventually go on to confess that he had vague knowledge of the incidents in question, then later still admitted he was extremely familiar with the investigations and fully recalls them…

… Though he swore he had no idea about the financial settlements.

Some say we owe Cain the benefit of the doubt, as he’s found himself in a “he said, she said” situation in which no solid evidence of his lurid behavior has been brought to light.

Others claim that Cain is being attacked by left-wing liberals who simply hate the fact that a conservative black man is running for office (Cain himself has blamed Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and most recently, liberals). He wants America to believe the allegations against him are simply part of a vast Democrat conspiracy, liberals bent on sending him straight to hell.

Really?

Then how come the sole woman willing to come out and accuse Cain publicly is actually a conservative?

Wait- it gets even better- not only is she a conservative, but she’s a teabagger member of the Tea Party.

Ooh. There goes that whole Liberal-Left-Wing-Conspiracy theory.

That I do not trust nor believe Herman Cain has nothing to do with his politics, and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin. My views instead have everything to do with his own behavior, his tactics in choosing how to (or how not to) address the allegations laid at his feet.

This is not a “he said, she said” situation.

It is a “he said, they said” scenario.

They.

As in plural.

This is not a situation in which some crazy lone-wolf of a woman has come out of the woodwork and made baseless allegations against a man of power. There are women, all of which are saying the exact same thing.

As Cain attempts to convince us that he is not, in fact, a boneheaded sexist pig (anybody see the most recent debate, by the way? Where he calls Rep. Nancy Pelosi “Princess Pelosi”? Oh Sorry. I digress), he puts himself in a situation that invites more questions than answers. His “recollection” of the events in question change and evolve as the women’s allegations become more clear and detailed.

In a single day he goes from having zero memory of these incidents to suddenly remembering them, albeit not clearly.

Next, by his own statements, we learn that actually, his recollection of the events are crystal clear- but only where the investigations are concerned.

Financial settlements?

What financial settlements?

Even on this point, his memory has inexplicably improved, and now remembers that the National Restaurant Association, while under his direction, did pay these women some money.

First he said it was $10,000.

Next, it was $45,000.

But, he says, those were separation agreements, not financial settlements, the funds were paid without his knowledge.

Riiight.

Cain expects people to simply swallow his contention that despite the fact that he was president of the National Restaurant Association during the time the allegations were made against him, he had no knowledge that the organization- people who worked for him- entered into financial settlements with the women who- it bears repeating- were making allegations against him.

Look- I know that was a monster of a run-on sentence, but it was necessary.

Read it again.

Cain simply refuses to give Americans credit for having a brain. He refuses to acknowledge that as individual people we are capable of forming our own opinions based on the evidence- yes, even circumstantial- laid before us. This despite the nonsense he continuously tries to force-feed us.

If it walks like a duck…

The story has completely fallen apart. Cain did that to himself. His own words, his own contradictions, his own back-pedaling has made him unbelievable in the eyes of the public. The Democrats didn’t do it to him, nor did his skin color.

He simply did it to himself.

*Poof!*

And that, my friends, is the sound of a sinking ship.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Last Hurdle: Top Adviser Says Daniels ‘Would Like To’ Run: via HuffPost

Will he run or won’t he?

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels isn’t one of the more talked about GOP potential candidates for President, though he is definitely Obama’s biggest threat, should he choose to run.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Representative Wilson Falsely Claims Obama Lied… Will You Stand With Joe?

Representative Joe Wilson from South Carolina sure did cause a stink Wednesday evening.

Wilson was the guy who famously hollered, “You lie!” in the middle of the President’s speech about health care reform to the Joint Sessions of Congress Wednesday night. Obama was in the process of addressing a pesky falsehood about the health care bill, one stating that should the legislation pass, illegal immigrants will be offered free, government-sponsored health insurance. Mr. Wilson decided he wasn’t going to let the facts deter him, even though this particular myth has already been debunked by just about everybody.

The current legislation, in each and every version that is being debated, states unequivocally that credits for coverage will not be extended to any persons who are not legally residing in this country. According to Politifact’s Bill Adair, the bill (H.R. 3200),  goes to great lengths to make sure that “illegal immigrants do not get the credits for the health care exchange that would allow them to get free care”.

How ironic that in the process of trying to tell the world that President Obama is a liar, Rep. Wilson was, himself, perpetuating one helluva whopper.

Ah, politics at its finest.

The only reason I stop short of calling Joe Wilson a liar is because I am unsure of his motives. Afterall, I have no way of knowing whether he really believes the nonsense he’s spewing. Nor do I know if he’s consciously spreading false claims, caring not the slightest about honesty and decency, all in an effort to simply keep the bill from passing.

I would argue, however, that it doesn’t matter.

The fact remains that one of South Carolina’s elected officials willfully and knowingly openly disrespected the President of the United States during a formal speech.

This was not some informal townhall gathering in local Mayberry, USA. The yahoos who lack the common decency to respect the President when he is speaking were not supposed to be in attendance Wednesday night. That the people who do not know how to temporarily hold their tongues and allow the Leader of the Free World to speak, uninterrupted, have joined the ranks as politicians- Congressional representatives, for God’s sake- is disheartening. I expect them to behave better than this, even as they oppose the subject that is being spoken of.

Representative Wilson certainly has bad manners.

Politicians, pundits, and talk show hosts alike have ample opportunity twenty four hours a day, seven days a week to express their displeasure on anything and everything. Whether that displeasure stems from the recent actions of the President, fellow politicians, celebrities or just some Joe The Plumber type guy they happened to run into one day, there are plenty of appropriate venues in which to express oneself.

This is the age of technology, after all.

Wilson could have taken his grievance public by putting thinking cap on and writing a blog. He could have written an open letter, printed in any number of news publications, to the President to voice his displeasure. He could have called just about anyone over at Fox News and been welcomed on their airwaves and into our living rooms with open arms. He could have called a press conference to discuss his issues. He could have put a scathing statement expressing his displeasure on his website. Or he could have sent out a mass e-mail telling the thousands of folks who are no doubt on his mailing list exactly how he feels.

Actually, now that I’m thinking about it, isn’t that what Twitter and Facebook are for? Those two websites have worked wonders for Sarah Palin, after all.

In fact,  not only could he have done all of these things, he could have done them all simultaneously.

Instead, our esteemed member of Congress, hailing from the great state of South Carolina, chose to make an ass out of himself on national television by rudely interrupting the President in a bizarre outburst that truly accomplished nothing more than making him look unhinged.

He has been forced to apologize- twice now- and while Democrats were predictably outraged by Wilson’s actions, even Republicans have soundly given him the ol’ smack upside the head for using such terrible judgment.

It doesn’t appear that his outburst had any sort of negative effect on the speech itself. In fact, early numbers show that after watching Obama speak Wednesday night, Americans are beginning to change their mind about the health care bill.

While health care support was inching up, the President’s approval ratings were doing the same- the President realized a double digit jump, even as Joe Wilson’s popularity plummeted.

In fact, Wilson’s likely opponent in 2010, Rob Miller, raised an astounding $350,000 for his campaign in less than 24 hours after Mr. Wilson’s unfortunate gaffe.

Stepping neatly into the role of victim, Joe Wilson is claiming that he is being punished for speaking out against the “critical issue of healthcare”. He is begging his supporters to send him money, and “Stand with Joe”.

How sad.

Representative Wilson is not in trouble for speaking his mind. He is in trouble for his appalling lack of manners and respect. He is in trouble for lacking the self-control to keep his temper in check while the President of the United States was speaking. Most importantly, it was his own actions, his own words, his own bad timing that got him into trouble. Had he kept his mouth shut for the short time Obama was speaking, it never would have been necessary for him to apologize, or answer calls for his censure to begin with.

Poor Joe.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and Lame Excuses

Oh, Obama, you’re breakin’ my heart!

To say the least, I am extremely disappointed in Obama’s recent flip-flop on gay rights- most specifically, the military’s discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.

If he keeps this up, he’s gonna become nothing more than just a regular ol’ politician in my eyes.

That’s a heartbreaking thought.

Back in January Obama’s Communications Chief, Robert Gibbs, held a question and answer sessionon YouTube. One of the questions asked was whether or not the President intended to repeal the current policy regarding gays in the military.

Gibbs’ response?

A resounding yes.

Yes, yes and hell yes.

Now, however, we’re hearing something a li’l different, and it’s coming straight from the horse’s mouth.

Obama, it seems, doesn’t think the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is something he can do on his own… he says the legislative branch really needs to tackle this one, not him.

Sigh.

I believe I’m both getting whiplash and smelling some really rank B.S. all at once.

Yuck.

This guy can introduce a health care bill, a huge climate control bill, stimulus packages and everything else…

… But Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is too big a challenge?

Sorry, Mr. Prez.

I’m not buying it.

In fairness to Obama, he makes no bones about the fact that he still supports a change in the law- and that he’d like to see the change sooner, rather than later- but one kinda’ gets the impression that this isn’t the type of hot-button issue he wants to get behind right now…

… And is therefore deciding, not so gracefully, to pass the buck.

I wonder specifically, what “change” he’d like to see take place?

Beyond that, the whole thing just sounds disingenuous.

He certainly didn’t just wait for congress to decide it was time to act when he’s wanted to address other things that have been important to him during his short time in office.

He’s much more of a go-getter than that.

At least when the issue at hand is an important one- to him, at least.

I don’t know…

… Just doesn’t sit right.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Judge Sotomayor, New Haven and Reverse Discrimination

Along with bogus charges of racism, we are now hearing rumblings of discontent regarding Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s ruling in the infamous New Haven firefighters’ reverse discrimination case.

First, a little background.

New Haven, CT adopted a written exam in 2003 for the purpose of determining which of the city’s fire fighters are eligible for promotion to Lieutenant and Captain within the department. The city ended up throwing the test out a year later, after determining that no eligible black workers had passed the exam.

A white fire fighter by the name of Frank Ricci scored exceptionally high on the test, and would have received the promotion, had the test not been deemed inadmissable by the city. Ricci in turn sued the city of New Haven for reverse discrimination, claiming that he was in effect losing his rightful promotion as a result of a policy that catered to blacks and minorities.

The trial court disagreed, and Frank Ricci lost the case.

Ricci appealed the lower court’s decision to the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, where it fell into the lap of Judge Sonia Sotomayor (and 3 other judges, as part of a panel. For the sake of this post, we’ll just talk about Sonia Sotomayor). Sotomayor rejected the appeal, upholding the lower court’s ruling. The case is currently being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, with a ruling expected by late June of this year.

Judge Sotomayor’s decision was a controversial  one, especially among conservatives, who tend to believe she should have sided with the fire fighters.

If one truly understands how the oft-squeaky wheels of justice turn, and the responsibilities of an appeals court judge, the case isn’t quite as controversial after all… and one begins to see it has less to do with Judge Sotomayor and more to do with the legal precedent she had no choice but to utilize in making her decision.

The city of New Haven did not simply throw the written test out because it felt like it, nor was the test deemed inadmissable by a single party, hell-bent on building a blacks-only department.

Hardly.

The test was found to be in violation of Title VII, which is the federal civil rights law that requires employers to consider the racial consequences of any hiring or promotion practice. Whether on purpose or inadvertent, if the practice excludes minorities, it is illegal. The New Haven test, according to the law, was an illegal promotion tool, as eligible black fire fighters were not able to pass it. As a result, the city had no choice but to throw the test out.

If one is to take issue with this situation, the issue must be taken with the law itself- Title VII- not with the city’s actions, nor the judges’ rulings on the case.

The city, as well as the trial court, and most especially the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, were simply following the applicable law.

Most would agree, whenever possible, it is important that a judge apply the already-written law(s) when making a ruling, and follow the constitution to its letter. Generally speaking, it is inappropriate for a judge to disregard current laws in making a decision on a case. The law is the law, no one is above it, and if a law exists when a case is heard, that law must be followed.

This is exactly what Judge Sotomayor did when ruling against Frank Ricci of the New Haven Fire Department. Her ruling was a direct result of her following an already existing law.

Period.

 The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals was not the appropriate venue to fight the merits of Title VII, and whether or not the law lends itself to the creation of reverse discrimination. Judge Sotomayor was charged with making a decision based on the laws that are already in place- and determining whether the original trial court had correctly utilized the applicable law in making its ruling.

So that’s exactly what she did, and did so using the strong legal precedent that had already been set by her court, her jurisdiction- the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals.

As the GOP knows all-too-well, for Judge Sotomayor to have ruled any other way, her decision would have amounted to Judicial Activism.

Ironically enough, many key Republicans have voiced concerns over Sotomayor, claiming that they are worried she may be a Judicial Activist.

Funny, considering how up-in-arms these same people are today as a result of her refusing to do just that in the New Haven case. 

Judicial Activism occurs when a judge legislates from the bench. Typically, it is a judge’s responsibility to apply applicable law- using legal precedent- in making his/her rulings. Creating new laws is the responsibility of Congress- the Legislative Branch of government. When a judge attempts to circumvent written law, he/she is called a Judicial Activist.

Some famous cases involving judicial activism include Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. The Board of Education and Plessy v. Ferguson. While landmark cases for sure, their rulings were the response to scenarios in which no previous legal precedent existed, and so judges had no applicable law to fall back on. Therefore, they had to interpret the Constitution, resulting in a ruling that in effect created its own legal precedent for future cases to utilize.

Generally speaking, I am no fan of Judicial Activism. I think the law is in place for a reason, and if I disagree with a law, the proper venue for me to express my dissatisfaction is with my congressional representatives. They are the people charged with making the laws, while judges are responsible for upholding them, as written.

I don’t know how I feel about the New Haven case. 

I  sympathize with Frank Ricci. I learned, while researching this case, that he is dyslexic, and had to work exceptionally hard to pass the test- let alone score as highly as he did.

However, I also sympathize with any hard-working minority, who as the result of a racially-skewed test, is effectively shut out of a promotion process that he or she deserves to be a part of as much as anyone else.

Overall, I am happy that a law such as Title VII is on the books, and I’m happier that it’s a federal law. To me, any law that makes discrimination illegal in all 50 states certainly has its merits.

If anyone, I fault the city of New Haven in this case. Had they come up with a non-biased test to begin with, both Frank Ricci and any other qualified employee would have been promoted… and everyone would be happy. I applaud the city for taking the steps necessary to correct its error by throwing out the test, but I mourn the casualties such an action created. Sometimes the right thing to do is not the easy thing to do… and sometimes when we make mistakes- even honest ones- it’s the innocent bystanders that are hurt the most.

Frank Ricci, it seems, has suffered quite a bit, as have other hard-working minority fire fighters. Every last one of them deserved a chance at bettering themselves… and yet all of them have suffered greatly.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Supreme Court, Barack Obama and the GOP

Obama has made his decision, nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the new Supreme Court Justice.

From a purely political standpoint, I think this is a genius move on the president’s part.

The GOP, already somewhat hampered due to the stink they made over filibusters during Justices Roberts and Alito’s confirmation hearings, can only complain so much- regardless of whom Obama names- because they don’t want to look like complete hypocrites.

During the Bush Administration, they wanted a simple up-or-down vote for judges… and… well, now they have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.

Normally, especially in politics, hypocrisy would be par for the course- something the Republicans need not think twice about. Currently, however, they stand to lose even more than they can afford to, considering that the GOP’s already critically injured.

Their party is on life-support.

The GOP needs the support of the Latino community… which is exactly Judge Sotomayor’s background. How can they justify fighting to exclude a woman who is Catholic, Latina, and more experienced than either justices Roberts or Alito were at the time of their confirmations?

I don’t think they can.

Gingrich can scream that Judge Sotomayor is racist all he wants to… that seems to be his current plan of attack… but really, no one’s listening to that nonsense.

Personally, the thought of another Catholic on the bench- we currently have 5, not including Sotomayor- makes me a little nervous.

Catholics typically don’t support a woman’s right to choose, gay rights or stem cell research… all things that are very important to me. Sotomayor has not had the opportunity to rule much on those issues, so we don’t really know for sure where she stands.

Hopefully, if confirmed, she will keep her religious beliefs off the bench, ruling instead to preserve the rights of all people- recognizing that the freedom to make individual decisions for ourselves is a bigger priority than exulting her own beliefs from on high.

The greater good and all that.

On the flip side, Catholics tend to be adversaries of the death penalty, and that’s something I would love to see abolished… so who knows…

It would have been nice to see a good lesbian, protestant judge nominated, but I do realize we don’t yet live in a country where such an individual’s confirmation would have been possible.

Still… a person can dream, right?

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Two Cents, Nancy Pelosi and Torture

I was going to hold off a li’l while before posting my opinion on Nancy Pelosi, and whether or not she was briefed by the CIA on the Bush Administration’s use of torture.

Most people seem to have already made up their minds on the matter- even as the majority of the facts remain unknown- and the story is beginning to die out in the news.

Rather than run the risk of posting on an irrelevant topic later (God forbid!), I guess I’ll put my two cents in now.

First of all, I am saddened at how fast so many people- politicians and regular folk alike- jumped to conclusions on this subject, labeling Rep. Pelosi a hypocritical liar before any actual facts could even be substantianted.

I’m not saying she’s not a hypocrite, nor am I saying she isn’t a liar. I’m not even saying she handled herself appropriately with regards to the CIA’s use of waterboarding.

What I’m saying is that we just don’t know.

Not yet, anyway.

I’ve heard Pelosi discussing the CIA briefings she received as a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

These so-called briefings have been a pet peeve of hers for a long time, certainly before this waterboarding controversy ever hit our radar screens.

When Congressional members of the Committee are briefed by Intelligence officials, they are not necessarily given complete or truly accurate information. The CIA (especially, one assumes, during this country’s most dangerous and dishonest administration) simply is not held accountable for briefing Intelligence Committee members with complete information.

Once the oft-incomplete briefing is held, the members of the committee are not allowed to ask questions for clarification purposes or to be given more information. In addition, they are not allowed to discuss the briefing with anyone else- including their own attorneys or staff members.

Pelosi isn’t saying the CIA didn’t “brief” her. She’s simply saying they didn’t give her the details that are now public knowledge, and even if they had, she wasn’t allow to do or say anything at all about any of it.

Pelosi is not the only Representative to level this charge. Bob Graham is another vocal critic of the briefings, and in fact backs Rep. Pelosi’s version of events as well.

Considering the CIA’s use of torture is illegal, are we really to believe that the organization, under the command of the likes of Bush and Cheney, really gave Pelosi all the information she would have needed to be able to determine that they were breaking the law?

Of course not.

They wanted to continue torturing people… they’re not going to give one of their adversaries the rope she needs to hang them.

Beyond all the did-she-know-or-didn’t-she-know nonsense, are we not missing the point entirely?

The point, people, is torture.

The illegal, immoral use of torture, and the lies we were all told by the Bush Administration for years, to justify violating the Geneva Conventions, thus making us less safe.

The GOP, it seems, is using Nancy Pelosi to defend such horrors as waterboarding, in effect saying “Pelosi should have stopped us and because she didn’t, we tortured people over and over again”.

As if George Bush, prior to signing all those executive orders was really looking to Pelosi, screaming, “For the love of God!! PLEASE STOP ME!!!”

Give me a break.

All I can say is, any one of you who believe Nancy Pelosi deserves to go down as a result of these briefings, and her alleged inaction as a result, better be supporters of Bush/Cheney and friends being charged with war crimes.

If you aren’t in support of the Bush Administration being taken to task for its lying, torturous, war-time transgressions, then you really need to shut your mouth where Nancy Pelosi is concerned.

For even if she is guilty of every single one of these allegations against her, they still pale in comparison to what our previous Commander-in-Chief was up to.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pete Sessions, Socialism and Barack Obama

As big a political junkie as I am, one would think I’d be past the point of being shocked when a politician says something stupid.

I’m not.

Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) believes Obama is both driving the stock market down and unemployment up on purpose.

He’s quoted in today’s NY Times as saying that Obama “intended to inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not to kill it.”

Lord have mercy.

Have we been taken over by a power-crazed maniac whose sole purpose is to wipe out all that America holds dear, so that he can take over the entire world, reigning from Capitol Hill as…

… Gasp…

A socialist dictator?!?!

I suppose the fact that Sessions believes Obama to be some sort of socialist terrorist, hell-bent on thoroughly demolishing Capitalism and the free market as we know it is nothing to be surprised at.

Sessions is, after all, someone who likes to use terrorism- specifically the Taliban- as an example when speaking.

What’s surprising is his deviation from the norm

Typically, he’s the one advocating terrorist behavior…

… At least where his own party is concerned.

It was a mere 3 months ago- in February- that he suggested, during an interview with the National Journal, that perhaps the GOP needed a “Taliban-like” insurgency.

His remarks, he claimed, were the result of what he had determined to be a lack of bi-partisan politics in the House of Representatives.

So clearly, strange terror-esque statements are nothing new.

Not from this guy, anyway.

So let me get this straight.

He wants the Republican Party to act in a non-American fashion… actually going as far as to suggest the party adapt the strategy of one of the worst terrorist, anti-American groups in the entire world to survive… and then condemns Obama for non-American behavior… behavior that he not only condoned within his own party, but completely imagined and fabricated where our President is concerned.

Ok, got it.

Truly, this nonsense would be absolutely hilarious if there weren’t several actual, bona-fide yahoos out there taking him seriously.

People do believe President Obama is a closet Socialist.

People do believe that our President hates our country, its governmental structure, its free market economy, our constitution- and all the rights and freedoms we all hold both near and dear.

Never mind that he has yet to take a single fundamental right away from any of us, and in fact has spent his adult life advocating for equal rights- for minorities, women and homosexuals, to name a few.

Never mind that he inherited a real live nightmare of a mess to clean up- and has done more for the average Joe in this country in his first 100 days in office than his predecessor ever did in 8 years.

What is it about him that draws such ire?

Is it jealousy?

Is it the color of his skin?

Is it the fact that he actually cares about people other than the top wealthiest individuals and organizations, and we just don’t know how to accept that kind of compassion?

It’s funny to me how a man who has lived his life trying to protect the dignity of the impoverished and preserve the little things the middle class holds dear, can be painted as the evil villain.

It’s ok, haters.

He hears you…

… And despite your ugliness, he still wants to serve you.

You certainly don’t deserve it.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 482 other followers