Is Obama Unfit To Serve?
From the title, I know many of you will think I'm going to say yes, Barack Hussein Obama is unfit to serve. But it's not as simple as yes or no. The true, nuanced answer is: Obama may be too young to be President.
I know he meets the age requirement constitutionally, but that only pertains to his chronological age, and as I've said many times, most people today are at least a decade less mature than their actual age would normally indicate.
So Obama's new-age age is borderline, and I don't say that just to be provocative. Some things he said last night and today should give anyone pause – anyone that is who has the maturity to take a pause – anyone who is not sleepwalking to the tune of Hope and Change.- catchy, I know, but is it good to dance to? And really, has anyone ever seen a sleepwalker dance?
During last night's "debate," The Chosen One said that as President, he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."
For one to utter something that astonishing, he'd either have to grossly ill-informed or he'd have to acknowledge that we've been successful in destroying al-Qaida in Iraq, and since he can't say the latter and he's certainly aware of al-Qaida in Iraq now, he's stuck with his absurdity as an indicator that he's not mature enough to deal with reality.
Today, John McCain was quick to reply in typical Republican fashion – he said that he wanted to inform the freshman Senator that al-Qaida was already in Iraq.
Yes, that's considered tough talk for a Republican.
Not content with his initial stupidity, Obama then shot back with: "I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq." That's like SO mature!
Obama then launched into the canned and unproven and unprovable liberal line that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until President Bush made it a rallying point. Uh-huh. Time for my power nap.
In this short example, Obama first demonstrated a fundamental immaturity, and then he followed it with proof positive that he's unfit to be President, and he did it in twenty-five words or less.
What, you don't see it? OK, let's all take Barry's view. He's going to pull the troops and stand by if chaos ensues even if it turns into genocide, and that's not my imagination talking, he has actually said that. Then he would "act" if al-Qaida regrouped in Iraq? Can you imagine the economic and human cost of that scenario?
The war may be expensive now, but if we were to withdraw and then have to go back in, you know it would only be after a major disaster had already taken place in Iraq, and by "disaster," I'm not talking about what liberals call a disaster now, I'm talking the kind of scale that gives "disaster" a good name – massive death in Iraq in the sort of numbers that liberals have already been lying about for five years, where Iran may have established a presence along with al-Qaida, and where the concept of "civil war" seems positively quaint.
Not to mention the rest of the line Obama didn't finish – that the oil, you know, the only reason we went into Iraq in the first place, might have gone up in smoke and the price for what's left of it could leave economies sputtering all over the globe.
Although by then, presumably the Senator will have gained some maturity so it's just the price we'll have to pay for electing the second Democrat Boy-President in a row.
Here's Obama's complete statement: "As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
Then the sensible and mature course involves staying on the present course because that's the one that has a chance for stability. Anything else Obama would do is irresponsible precisely because it's rooted in the immaturity of hope and change.
Oh and speaking of the Boy-President, some feminist recently enumerated several points on which she said that Barack Obama was more feminist than Hillary. This begs the question: will Obama really be our first woman President?