On the 6/26/11 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace inquired if Representative Michelle Bachman was a flake. As justification for this line of interrogation, Wallace pointed out an instance where Bachman insinuated that certain members of Congress were anti-American.
So apparently in the eyes of those considering Bachman a flake on the grounds it is now allegedly a sign of instability to expose those facts that a number of elites would rather gloss over in the hopes that the American people won’t find out about such personalities and instances.
For example, Cynthia McKinney cannot be described in any other way than anti-American. Not only did this Georgia representative appear on Libyan state television. She also praised the Qaddaffi regime.
People of good conscience can disagree as to the propriety and prudence of U.S. and NATO intervention in this north African uprising. However, what cannot be denied is that old Muammar is one of the great scumbags of the 20th and 21st centuries.
For though Al Qaeda and Qaddaffi’s regime have come to blows in this rebellion, it must be remembered that Qaddaffi was, for a lack of a better term, a superstar of world terrorism decades before any of us ever heard of Bin Laden.
If McKinney wants to position herself as a feminist, she must be asked why would she even give this regime the time of day, much less speak favorably of it. It was reported during one point of the conflict that Libyan forces were using rape as a weapon of terror and intimidation.
It could be argued that, despite her ability to grab an occasional headline such as when she tussled with Capitol Hill police when she insisted regulations regarding members of Congress showing identification didn’t apply to her, McKinney’s subversive tendencies do not necessarily epitomize the foremost personalities of America’s national legislative body.
As one of America’s most prominent families and one of the Senate’s longest serving members, Ted Kennedy was such a part of that institution that he was referred to as the lion of the world’s greatest deliberative body because of his forcefulness in speaking out on behalf of Democratic causes. Though one can be a Democrat and a loyal American (despite this combination becoming increasingly elusive), it could be questioned exactly where Ted Kennedy’s ultimate political loyalties were to be found.
For example, one cannot necessarily cast suspicion by default upon the Massachusetts Senator simply for opposing many of the policies of President Ronald Reagan. After all, a hallmark of a free society is the opportunity to express one’s disagreement with ruling authorities without fear of reprisal.
It is a shame, though, that the youngest Kennedy brother felt the propriety of befriending a regime that epitomized the denial of basic human liberty, namely the Soviet Union.
Those still not convinced of this line of argumentation might observe that, unlike Michelle Bachman, none of these figures are currently in contention for the presidential nomination of their respective party. After all, Ted Kennedy quite literally drove his off a bridge when he fled the scene of an accident in Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown. As airheaded as the press might portray her to be, it is doubtful anything that absentminded is to be found in Mrs. Bachman’s track record.
To many that would oppose someone like Michelle Bachman winning the Republican nomination and possibly even the presidency of the United States, Barack Obama represents the pinnacle of what this country has to offer in terms of political leadership. However, if one is able to get over the giddiness that the President is half Black to examine him for what he really is as a human being, one cannot avoid the conclusion that Obama is actually flakier than Michelle Bachman.
A number of her detractors will insist that Michelle Bachman does not have enough experience to be President of the United States. What was it other than emerging from his mother’s birth canal as a baby of mixed pigmentation did Barack Obama do to deserve to have the reigns of the highest elected office in the land handed over to him?
Both Bachman and Obama went on professionally to become attorneys. However, Bachman used her skills to administer her family’s farm and business, adding to the productivity of the United States. Barack Obama used these kinds of skills to become a community organizer in the Alinskyite tradition, meaning he led the downtrodden not into lives of self-sufficiency but rather into dependency on the public welfare roles all for the purposes of overburdening the system in the hopes that it would totter ever closer to the brink of violent revolutionary upheaval as detailed by the Cloward & Piven Hypothesis
Both Bachman and Obama served terms in their respective state legislatures. It was in such an environment that Obama would develop the decisive leadership style he is known for by voting “present” on a variety of issues so he would not be required to take a position one way or the other. One might not that this could be construed as a violation of the injunction in the Gospels of letting your yes be yes and your nay be nay.
The wisdom of the ages holds that you are known by the company that you keep. You can determine a pretty good measure of a man by examining those he surrounds himself with especially in terms of those that he considers advisors.
For example, former White House Director Of Communications Anita Dunn publicly admitted that Chairman Mao was her favorite political philosopher. What all is admirable about one of history’s greatest mass murders?
The affinity of this administration for the most homicidal brands of Communism did not end with that one incident. A Mao ornament was hung from the White House Christmas tree.
Some will laugh this all off. However, would these same fans of Obama be as of a good humor of a presidential underling lauded the political insights of Adolf Hitler or if an Adolf Hitler ornament was spotted dangling from a White House Christmas tree? If anything, wouldn’t a Mao ornament be even more vile since his numbers surpassed the nightmarish atrocities of the Nazi regime, or, since his victims were Chinese rather than predominantly Jewish, these actions weren’t somehow quite as bad?
Granted, somewhere along life’s path we all list among our acquaintances a number of eccentrics and scoundrels. I no doubt fill that role for a number of people. However, for Obama, those closest to him make Dick Tracey’s Rogue’s Gallery look like the Smurf picnic roster in terms of their overall contempt for human liberty.
For example, regulatory advisor Cass Sustein believes those promoting what the government categorizes broadly as “conspiracy theories” should have their freedom of speech curtailed. Sustein also believes that it is the role of the government to implement policies that nudge citizens into certain behaviors. For example, if the government does not want people to rely so much on personal automobiles, increased gasoline taxes might be levied or roads constructed designed in such a way to increase traffic congestion.
Science advisor John Holdren believes sterilants should be put into the public drinking water in order to decrease fertility rates. However, Holdren is not the only Obama minion wanting to do away with what Ebenezer Scrooge dismissed as the “excess population” before this famed miser’s Yuletide change of heart. Obama Healthcare Advisor Ezekiel Emanuel thinks that those below or above a certain age range should be denied medical treatment. Basically put a bullet in granny’s head.
Obama’s Secretary of Energy believes you should be permitted to color your roof any color you want so long as it is white. And speaking of colors, Obama’s FCC appointment Mark Lloyd believes White folks should be denied FCC licenses. Obama’s State Department Legal Advisor Harol Koh believes that Sharia law should be consulted as a source for American jurisprudence.
It could be argued that flake is a designation in the eye of the beholder. Come election day, voters will have to decide what perspective they want steering the national helm.
Do they want someone thinking that at worst you are a worthless lump to be disposed of by the government as bureaucrats or at best a witless clod needing government control in every facet of your existence. Or do they prefer someone that believes that you are better at optimizing these kinds of decisions in your own life on your own.