I couldn’t watch the State of the Union address uninterrupted. I felt duty-bound to give it attention but listening to Barack Obama’s political sermons is like swimming underwater. Every now and then I had to surface on another channel to grab a few breaths of reality before diving back into his rabbit hole.
It got easier to listen by imagining his speech as a eulogy for the nation. Of course everything he said wasn’t Kevorkian in nature, but he was definitely promoting poison pills.
One capsule involves raising the minimum wage. As these liberal spasms always do, it’d hurt businesses, increase unemployment and decrease the number of entry-level jobs.
That won’t happen, but liberal politicians often throw this Pavlov red herring to their base just to make them drool. It’s smoke-and-mirror theatrics.
A more serious pill he’s pushing tinkers with the constitution by presidential edict. Obama’s decided to do something about gun violence by restricting those who are obeying the law, which makes perfect liberal sense.
If that crowd really wanted to reduce shootings, there’re simple ways to do it that doesn’t impact law-abiding citizens. "Stop and frisk" initiatives in New York worked wonders and could do the same for Chicago.
In short order, street gangs would be significantly disarmed, but that’s way too simple and effective and doesn’t produce any usable political hay. Also it isn’t the "Chicago way." You remember the Chick-Fil-A war, fought because somebody dared to have a traditional view of marriage.
Insofar as issues swirling around gun and magazine restrictions, I have no problem with debate on the subject; although, I think liberals are focused on the wrong target when they rant about specific pieces of hardware.
They believe the particular weapon idiots carry in their hands is critical. Hardware really doesn’t matter much at all. What is or isn’t between their ears is the real problem.
The most infuriating argument I’ve heard for gun control involves "need." I saw recently somebody making the point that I didn’t "need" an assault weapon or 30-round clip.
Of course I don’t, but what spasm of liberal arrogance deigns to truncate some of my constitutional rights based upon "need?" That’s ridiculous but certainly appropriate of these people.
Did you happen to see Nancy Pelosi’s interview with Chris Wallace? Holy zombie! She’s truly certifiable.
The U.S. Constitution doesn’t bend and sway, furling every which way in the political wind of the moment. It means what it says.
I doubt climate guru Al Gore "needs" a 10,000 square-foot home, but he has every right to own it. That’s as it should be. Good for him.
I didn’t "need" a socialist airbag occupying the Oval Office but I got one. Barack Obama was constitutionally elected, and that’s the way it is. I hate the outcome but love the Constitution.
Eventually I know these liberal pigeon droppings will be scraped away. But while I wait, I definitely don’t want Karl telling me what constitutional freedoms I "need" and which ones he won’t allow.
Otis Gardner’s column appears here weekly. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.