Obama & TREASON!

Much has been made in the liberal media of the fact that Texas Governor Rick Perry used the term “treasonous” in his remarks about Fed Chairman Bernanke’s continuing to print money, thus devaluing the dollar without solving any problems. Indeed, President Obama, the darling of the liberal media, very condescendingly suggested that Perry was new to the game of presidential politics, did not understand the value of words spoken by those elitist/intelligent enough to engage the game, and that everyone should “cut him some slack.” The president was actually saying that Perry is as dumb as a gourd and that he should be paid no attention because of his stupidity.

The irony, of course, lies in the fact that the media is either so shallow or so agenda-driven as the propaganda arm of Obama’s presidency and now his campaign that it failed to pick up on the fact that the president has practically made it a mantra lately to describe the Congressional republicans as “treasonous.” Treason amounts to the putting of something ahead of the welfare of the country, so when the president accused the republicans of “putting party ahead of the country” he actually accused them of treason. Thus, the question that should be asked is, “Should the citizenry cut the president some slack for being so obviously mentally-challenged that he couldn’t understand what he actually has been saying, especially on his recent tax-paid campaign through three states.”

Words do come back to haunt but in this case regarding what actually amounts to treason regardless of how the words are used, the candidates will do well to express themselves accurately, not as expressions designed to merely “snow” the public. Perry was not out of order simply because neither he nor Bernanke nor anyone else is forced to agree on the meaning of treason as it relates to the economy. Don’t cut him any slack because he misspoke because he didn’t. Also, don’t cut him any slack because he seemed to lack the astuteness or guts to stick by what he said. He had a point. Bernanke DOES seem to be putting politics above country.

While Perry expressed a problem with one man, Bernanke, Obama threw his unspoken but just as obvious accusation of treason at a whole congregation of folks – those treasonous republicans who he claimed put party above country. He didn’t mind putting party and personal privilege above country when he used tax-bought buses, Air Force I and a gaggle of secret service agents and other taxpayer-funded officials for the purpose of campaigning for another term. The ridiculous assertion that he was on a “listening tour” or some such other silly description comprises an insult to the collective intelligence. He made far too many speeches for his effort to be other than blatantly political. The “listening tour” was designed not for him to listen but for the citizens of Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois to listen to him campaign.

Notably, the president while in Illinois was quite near Michigan, where the unemployment rate stands at 10.9%, which is 20% above the national average. He would have gotten an earful in that state if he actually had been interested in listening, but Michigan is automatically democrat and blacks are automatically democrat, so what would have been the point of conducting a “listening tour” in that state? Iowa’s unemployment rate is 6%, so those folks needed badly to instruct the president on their hardships. Iowa’s population is 2.7% black while Michigan’s is 14.2% black, or 426% greater than Iowa’s, so what was the use of preaching to the choir…or listening, for that matter? The white folk in Iowa needed instructions.

By going to Iowa instead of Michigan, did the president put the comparative prosperity of Iowans above the comparative poverty of Michigan, thus committing treason with respect to people who have much greater need to have him “listen?” The president, already providing a shaky administration, is so disconnected with reality that he can’t even see what the citizens can easily see, to wit, that the president has no clothes?

Is it possible for a president to commit treason with respect to his own convictions vis-ŕ-vis the welfare of the country, especially if they are strongly enough held to make a profound issue of them? In 2008 when Obama was vying for the vote, he was adamant and quite publicly so that marriage should only be between a man and woman, which, of course, was/is also the law of the land. However, in 2011 the president believes that marriage should also be between a man and a man, clearly in violation of federal and state laws in nearly all states, not to mention a multiplicity of state Constitutions.

Obama is blatantly putting personal opinion above what the vast majority of the country’s citizens believe is best for the nation and enacted into law. Iowa’s Supreme Court handed down a ruling recently that a man may marry a man, thus committing treason as a state. Obama felt quite at home there, since both he and Iowa share that description – TREASONOUS!

“Listening tour?” BAH…HUMBUG!