June 14, 2010

A Mom Asks: Should We Care What's Wrong with Obama?

By Kyle-Anne Shiver
Robin of Berkeley has provided a great summary of psychological speculation to answer a question now in the minds of some Americans: "What's wrong with Obama?" 
I suppose a few among us are still asking this question, as though the answer will undo a whit of the damage done. As a full-time mom, with 36 years of experience under my belt and a couple of model American adults now on my resume, I've stopped asking that question, however. In fact, from a mom's point of view, I'm much more prone, at this point, to be asking, "Should we care what's wrong with Obama?"

From the Dr. Mom perspective, as opposed to the therapist's paradigm, it's not hard to surmise that the boy, Barry Obama, was victimized by Murphy's Law of Character Development. Every single thing that could go wrong in the development of strong and upright character quite obviously did go wrong in Obama's childhood. To which, I might add, so what? He's a grown-up now. He ain't twelve anymore. And he has more than three hundred million real people to whom he owes a good day's work for a good day's pay. 

We did not go out and recruit Barack Obama to be our president. We did not find him by searching the country over for the most qualified man for this job. No, it was Barack Obama, owing to a character flaw the size of California -- a blaring lack of humility -- who put up his own name in contention for the presidency, when he had never held an executive position (not even a paper route, for crying out loud!) of any kind whatsoever, in the public or private sector. In fact, as I've said before, Barack Obama had a resume that would fit handily upon the back of a postage stamp, and it was pure, unbridled arrogance that prompted his candidacy. Sure, there were lots of giddy sycophants who egged him on, but at the end of the day, Barack Obama should have known better, should have given far more weight to the responsibility he was assuming. And the fact that he didn't know any better is owing to his own lack of character, which he has had every possible opportunity to develop in the years since he left home. 

It is Barack Obama, not his momma or his daddy or his grand-momma or his grand-daddy, who has to answer for the job he is doing now that he has secured the position he sought. 

While it is virtually impossible for anyone -- other than God -- to answer the question, "What's wrong with Obama?", it is completely within the realm of human observance to see that no matter where he came from or what kind of parents he had, Barack Obama's character is nothing short of reprehensible. 

Where he ought to be hardworking and industrious to the nth degree, he shows himself to be lazy. When he ought to be knuckling under, hard at work at his desk, hammering out decent solutions to the vast array of problems before him, he is partying hardy, having a merry ole time, trotting around the globe, playing golf, shooting backyard hoops, and opining on the latest controversial umpire's call in a baseball game. When it comes to actual governance, the only word this president knows is "delegate." When he ought to be consumed with fixing a national disaster in federal waters, which occurred in a federally regulated industry, the best he can come up with to even feign an I-do-really-give-a-darn work ethic is an emotionally contrived use of the A-word. 

Oh, please.  This is the kind of lazy, no-account attitude demonstrated by every panhandling bum on any street corner. His GQ dress code notwithstanding, Barack Obama has the work ethic of the welfare moms for whom he has shown his only real empathy to date. In a president, this character deficit is not only pitiful, but it is also downright despicable.

Does President Obama evince bedrock honesty, integrity, and a moral compass with all-American-value bearings? From every possible ordinary-citizen vantage point, Barack Obama appears to possess character deficits -- again, the size of California -- in every one of these essential-in-a-president qualities. And I'm so sorry for the bad hand Barry Obama was dealt in childhood, but that makes no difference now that he is an adult with the same accountability as every other adult on the planet.      

None of us get to choose our parents. None of us get the perfect childhood to which we all feel somehow entitled. None of us start adult life with all the tools we might wish to have in our little box of life skills. And none of us get to hand over a therapist's excuse-card when we inevitably meet the Big Guy and must account for how we have used the hand we were dealt and made the most of it on earth. 

None of what happened to the president in childhood, in my opinion, lets Barry off the accountability-hook as an adult. Because in spite of anyone's claim to the contrary, human beings do have free will; they can and do change all the time. 

For every therapist's doomsday prediction based on a model that claims some hurdles simply cannot be jumped, there are an infinite number of human beings who somehow do manage to not only jump those horrible-hand-in-life hurdles, but veritably speed to the finish line of life as though it were a walk in the park. History is replete with the inspiring stories of such individuals. We know such people, work with them, sup with them, worship with them. Some of us are those very exceptions to the rule. Many a would-be bum or serial killer or bomb-thrower has become a person of such outstanding character and achievement that it behooves all of us to humble ourselves before the indomitable human spirit. We are endowed by our Creator with abilities so profound that they remain as yet uncharted by modern mankind.

When Robin of Berkeley opines that the president will not change because he is incapable of change, owing to the truly horrible things that probably happened to him in childhood, she is not only ignoring the millions of exceptions to the arbitrary rules of therapists' expectations, but she is also diverting attention from the very real American calamity of this presidency. 

For the past forty years, America has gotten little more than hippie psychiatry from the mental health profession. The tired old flower-child mantras -- "If it feels good, do it," "Our hope is in dope," "All the world needs now is love," and "He just can't help himself" -- simply have not lived up to their cultural hype any more than Barack Obama has lived up to his. Trying to figure out -- from a distance, no less -- what is wrong with Obama is a fool's errand. Can the president change himself?  Of course he can. But we certainly cannot change him. The only person I can change is myself; that's human nature axiom #1. 

On the other hand, we are the parents in this governmental paradigm. We, the voters, hold all the authority under our Constitution. We may not be able to change Obama's character, but we can certainly hold him accountable for what happens on his watch. We can apply a great deal of parental pressure in the form of public demonstrations, letters, phone calls, and hounding the press for more accountability, and in this fashion, we can provide an incentive for the president to change his behavior. President Obama ought to be getting the message about now that he has fooled far too many for far too long, but that the accountability-buck has now landed squarely in his lap. Barack Obama is now beholden to three hundred million Americans, each of us holding an IOU for diligent service -- whether little Barry feels up to the job he took or not.

If Obama voters have any question now, the only one they should be asking is, "What's the matter with me?" Now, that is a question which lies within the power-province of every single man and woman who pulled the lever for this man. As the crises mount, as the president continues to preen and play, as the livelihoods of more and more Americans go up in economic smoke (or oil, as the case may be), I predict that even many liberals will rediscover their collective common sense and take much greater care the next time they cast a vote. 

No, we'll never know all that may be wrong with Obama or what caused his stubborn, willful refusal to acquire the strong character denied him in childhood. But I, for one, have begun to ask my Obama-voter acquaintances, even strangers who admit their vote and want to talk about it, "What were you thinking?" Civil confrontation is one of the best tools, available to every one of us, in helping Obama voters to come to grips with the enormity of their decision in the 2008 election.

Upon such idiotic decisions, great civilizations do indeed fall.

And in this Dr. Mom's opinion, that is the truly consequential lesson of the Obama presidency.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at www.kyleanneshiver.com.

on "A Mom Asks: Should We Care What's Wrong with Obama?"

Views: 23

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Mindy Robinson on November 17, 2012 at 9:17pm

Very well written and the truth!

Comment by joel martin carson on November 1, 2012 at 3:25am
Joel Carson2 minutes ago

The Saudis are behind this whole thing . It's an issue between them and Iran about Iran being Shia islam ( less fundamentalist apostates ) being in a position of strength to resist the Sunni ( very fundamentalist wahabbi / al qauida / jihadist ) hardliners that view Shia muslims as apostates and are preventing the Saudis from taking over the world with an islamic caliphate . The Sauds are fiendishly clever and devious beyond belief . The Saudi money has supported oh'BUMMER all his life through college at Columbia and Harvard since he was connected through Muhammed Hassan Chandu / Chandoo  during the trip to pakistan which an American citizen wouildn;t have been able to visit because of the restriction of Americans going to Pakistan . Chandoo and oh'BUmmer were homosexual lovers when oh'BUMMER lived with him at Chandoo's home in Eagle Rock , CA . oh'Bummer was connected to the Saudi money pipeline by Chandoo and is recieving money to this day . Probably through muslim couriers that "visit " the whitehouse in a never ending stream . oh'BUMMER is OWNED BY THE SAUDIS he is their puppet not Soros's . All this blood and treasure lost in the middle east is for the benefit of the Saudis in the establishment of muslim brotherhood run governments all over the middle east . The Saudis have infiltrated SHARIA into our government intelligence services , into our educational system from elementary school through college and university curriculums , publishers of texbooks . WAKE UP AMERICA AND BECOME ENERGY INDEPENDENT . We must remove all islamic influence from american soil . If oh'BUMMER is re elected American will have made their LAST BIG ASSED MISTAKE . Don;t forget how oh'BUMMER bowed and kissed the hand of the Saudi king . He's going to be taken care of for the rest of his life .

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service