M A I N P A G E


Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Is ignorance the culprit here, or is it ingratitude — or perhaps an unhealthy mix of the two? 

posted by Erik @ 06:02

…shouldn't the fact that a black woman from the south side of Chicago can graduate from two Ivy League schools itself be enough to make Mrs. Obama proud of such a country?
asks Investor's Business Daily as Mrs. Barack Obama demonstrates how ignorance and ingratitude (and resentment) dominate the values of the left (as well as, indeed, the campaign of the Democrats' major front runner) and, indeed, are cultivated there.
Michelle Obama was born in 1964, so her adulthood began in 1982. Is there really nothing about America she could think of to be proud of over the past quarter-century? How about the way firefighters, EMT personnel, police and ordinary people sacrificed to help each other in the aftermath of 9/11?
Maybe she forgot about the billions we gave in charity after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami killed hundreds of thousands and left homeless over a million more, contributions dwarfing those of other countries — including hundreds of millions of dollars from those evil American corporations.

She may have been unaware that the U.S. military mobilized an aircraft carrier battle group and dispatched numerous strategic and tactical airlifters, plus dozens of Navy and Marine Corps helicopters, in efforts that ranged from search-and-rescue to disaster relief. The Navy also deployed the 1,000-bed hospital ship USNS Mercy.

By the way, a quick look at the census life expectancy tables show that American blacks in 1982 could expect to live just 69.4 years. Due to improvements in medicine and greater access to care, today it's 74 years of expected life. She's not proud of that?
In related matters, read about the American president who has done the most for Africa in the article First African President (hint: it's the same one who has brought more minorities into his administration than any other president, although you wouldn't know this from the mainstream media). But don't expect the Democrats to make anything of that (I forgot where I read this and got this hyperlink, but check out what the Democratic Party website's history page has (not) to say about the party's history from the 1850s until the turn of the century)…

The Cap'n points out (thanks to Chris and TIA Daily) the usual double standards as well as "the religion of statism distilled to its essence":
People mocked Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney for their religious backgrounds often during the presidential campaigns, but at least they never claimed to be on a mission to save the souls of Americans through government action. Oh, people accused them of wanting to do so -- to impose Southern Baptist or Mormon theology on an America that wants relentless secularism, but in point of fact both men gave stirring speeches on how their faith informs them personally but not their governance.
Leading Michelle Malkin to conclude:
When Republicans talk about broken souls in the context of civil society, the nutroots start screaming about the obliteration of the church-state line.

When the Obama campaign uses the same rhetoric to get him elected to the White House, everyone swoons.

|

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been pre-authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, social, art, media, and cultural issues. The 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material that may exist on this site is provided for under U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with U.S. Code Title 17, Section 107, material on this site is distributed without profit to persons interested in such information for research and educational purposes. If you want to use any copyrighted material that may exist on this site for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. // AVIS : En vertu de l'article L. 122-5 du Code de Propriété Intellectuelle, ce site Internet peut contenir des citations dont l'usage n'aura pas reçu l'autorisation du détenteur ou de la détentrice du droit d'auteur. La présentation de ces citations se fait dans le but de faciliter la découverte de divers sujets politiques, économiques, scientifiques, sociaux, artistiques, médiatiques ou encore culturels. L'article L. 122-5 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle dispose et autorise « les analyses et courtes citations justifiées par le caractère critique, polémique, pédagogique, scientifique ou d'information de l'oeuvre à laquelle elles sont incorporées ». A contrario, les emprunts qui excéderont les dispositions du « droit de citation », devront obtenir l'autorisation du détenteur ou de la détentrice du droit d'auteur.