Apologist-in-Chief Obama & the Lady

Just when one might have suspected that the nadir in political discourse had been reached in the president’s three-page apology to Afghan head honcho Karzai over the burning of some paper alleged to be sacred, as if paper can be ordained these days, Obama has managed to so further trivialize his office that he phoned a woman the other day and apologized not for some dumb thing he had done – like the Karzai apology – but for something talking-head Rush Limbaugh had said. Election years are expected to be silly seasons at best but the prexy gave the term “silly” a brand new elevation.

Even funnier was the question posed to Newt Gingrich by NBC’s resident Obama propagandist David Gregory on Meet the Press 04 March, to wit, how badly had Limbaugh’s remark hurt the republican chances for winning the presidency, whereupon he received a lecture by Gingrich that almost literally cut him off at the knees. People like slack-jawed Gregory never learn.

The question of the latest apology points to the fact that a heretofore-creeping crudity in the nation has advanced to warp speed. The fact that Obama insists on being apologist-in-chief (though not a constitutional responsibility) had to do with the subject of sex, never mind that he would claim it was all about women’s reproductive rights or health care or whatever. It was occasioned by what had to be one of the silliest appearances before a congressional committee (though not an “official” one in which, presumably, a witness is not sworn) that can be imagined.

The witness, a Georgetown Law student, lamented the fact that birth-control vehicles cost a woman $1,000 a year, making it an unseemly expense. Limbaugh approached what she said from the standpoint of sex only…and that is certainly the way most people would take it. The sex-act is necessary for a birth to be inculcated, the obvious way to avoid that catastrophe simply being not to have “unprotected” sex, ergo, have a supply of either pills or condoms at all times.

In passing, it might be noted that the president, while insisting in 2008 that marriage can be defined only as between a man and woman, has changed his mind and now believes that homosexuals should have that privilege. On a widespread basis, that would solve the problem, i.e., women should become lesbians and VOILA! the problem of “unprotected” sex is solved.

The committee members probably lacked the temerity to question the lady witness but a simple check on the Internet alone might have been instructive. From the web-site of Trojan, perhaps the best known conveyor of condoms, one learns that the basic condom costs 43 cents (100-pack) and can be had with free shipping. So… a woman could have sex twice every night (or day, for the frisky ones) for a paltry 86 cents, or less than one-third of the $1,000-per-year cost for fun-and-games. If she’s only interested in once-daily, the saving is obvious, though it must be admitted that the more exotic condoms are more expensive…but these are hard times for everyone and sacrifices have to be made.

It is also learned from the Internet (Cost-helper site) that in most states Walmart, Target and Kroger pharmacies offer a limited selection of generic birth-control pills for $9 a month, or less than that of a burger-and-fries at McDonald’s. That works out to $108 a year, one-tenth of the lady’s claim. If she had been sworn, would the lady have been subject to a perjury charge? Even if the cost were triple this amount, she would have been grossly misleading the panel that sat through that “hearing.”

Predictably, Planned Parenthood, whose chief aim is either obstructing or aborting fetuses, offers discounted birth-control pills to “women who qualify,” presumably only those who are breathing when they apply. So, with the caveat that Limbaugh should have used better language, was he wrong in actually making fun of the whole thing?

The president, showing his disdain for white policemen, put his foot in his mouth when he accounted them as acting stupidly. He showed his disdain for the military when he put his foot in his mouth and apologized for soldiers who probably had no idea about the paper being sacred but were just following orders. It’s a sure bet that they wouldn’t kill an Afghan if they saw him burning Holy Bibles. Obama would have accounted that action as freedom of speech.

In trivializing his office in this latest apology to the lady whose testimony is at least partly sullied with lying, he has reached rock-bottom. Nor did he have any license whatever to apologize for something he didn’t say or to apologize for someone else who was merely using the “freedom of speech” thing, something the president surely believes in.

In the final analysis, one concludes that Obama didn’t give a fig about the lady witness. On his tortured mind was the fact that in an election year he has to appeal to women, notwithstanding that they are already drawn to him like flies to one of those sticky fly-catcher-things people sometimes still use to clear the air of the varmints. To them (the women, not the flies), he is the alpha male “with a heart.” Egad.