The latest letter to the editor in the Coeur d’Alene Press, written by Jim Yates, was definitely one of those the editor should have thrown away in the trash. He has done enough of those, on more than one occasion, when people wrote more thoughtful letters that he would not publish at all. Well, he has certainly done enough of that where certain letters of mine were concerned. And publish a ton of attack letters in response to anything that I had said. But here is Mr. Yates’ letter.
OBAMA: Help him ‘go home’
Recently our Community-Organizer-in-Chief Obama gave a speech to “Murder Inc.,” better known as Planned Parenthood, praising them for what they do. In the same speech, he insulted at least half the population of the country because we are not as enlightened as he is as to why they are so essential to America! Does anyone find him as condescending and arrogant as I do? Royal Presidency is an apt term for him, is it not?
Recently he was whining at his 100-day news conference about not being able to get anything done. In response to a question about the lack of instigating his agenda, he said, “Maybe I should just go home.” On that note I am letting everyone I come into contact with that I am creating the “Obama Travel Fund Home” by donating $5. If you would like to contribute, send what you can to: Obama Travel Fund Home, c/o the Whitehouse, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500 Let’s pull together and help the Obamas out so they can go home.
First of all, I wouldn’t know what the poll numbers are on whether people are stridently against aborticide and birth control measures. Or how many people are actually pro-choice. Polls only take samplings of population. Depending on who does such polls; the polls could in fact be agenda driven, highly politicized, and most likely to be skewed toward one end of the ideological spectrum or the other. So, how would Mr. Yates know if President Obama insulted half the country or not? Unless Mr. Yates actually wants to argue that half the country is filled with political and religious extremists like himself. I highly doubt that. If he actually checked Obama’s poll numbers at the time he was handily re-elected in November of 2012, more than half the voters preferred him to Mitt Romney. And the GOP? Well, they have an ever shrinking base of support and a lot more of a disapproval rating. That must be exactly why Mr. Yates complains so much about Obama’s “Royal Presidency.” Or other people on Face book commenting to “Politico.com” want to sneeringly refer to him as “our Savior.” That letter, transcribed above, was a gush of pure hatred as I have ever seen.
It isn’t Obama’s fault that the GOP behave like two year olds. It isn’t the voters’ fault that the GOP talked just crazy enough and insulted people’s intelligence to the point that Mitt Romney never made it to the White House. Instead of the GOP manning up, they still act like a bunch of punks. What has that to do with Obama’s second term? The news media should in fact be asking the Republicans in Congress why they don’t want to do anything. Why they won’t represent the people who put them back in office. If the news media want to create a “Royal Presidency” by hanging all the credit or the blame on one man, that is the news media’s problem. President Obama represents the executive branch. It is Congress that does the real work of legislating and governing the country. Congress puts forward the bills and budget proposals. Congress provides the funding. If there is anything that Congress wishes to wax outraged over, it is Congress that holds the hearings. The Senate confirms whom President Obama can place in his various cabinet positions. So, I propose that if there is anyone who is condescending and arrogant, for whom the appellation of “Royal” ought to be applied, it would be members of Congress. Also, whether Democrat or Republican; they tend to insult our intelligence well outside their own districts and states. By the way, President Obama has term limits, Congress does not.
As for Yates’ not so “moral” attacks on Planned Parenthood? Bet the guy would be totally opposed to restrictions on the other form of “Murder Inc.” Where crazy guys who can ultimately legally purchase firearms over the Internet and eventually engage in mass shootings. That wouldn’t do. But we can turn around and utilize a politicized “religious” canon to regulate the behavior of women. To what end?