Spiritual Leaders Do Not Govern

[Flanders]

Dick Chaney and his daughter Liz sent the Left round the bend with this deadly accurate analysis of Barack Taqiyya’s governing skills:

Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.

Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney: The Collapsing Obama Doctrine - WSJ​

Megyn Kelly gave Dick & Liz a chance to respond to the Left’s outrage:

Megyn Kelly | The Kelly File | Fox News

If you listened to the video you heard Vice President Cheney make the mistake common in every analysis of Barack Taqiyya. Dick Cheney talked about governing, while Taqiyya the Liar’s defenders talk about their guy’s innate goodness. Ergo, invading Iraq was morally wrong so it cannot be compared to the compassion their leader exudes from every pore in his body.

I leave it to you to decide which is better for the country? A president who governs even when you disagree with a policy, or a spiritual leader being forced by reality to make a governing decision. Before you answer the question consider this: When Taqiyya did make governing decisions he always made things worse. Look at conditions in the country and the world before you accuse me of simply disagreeing with Taqiyya’s spiritual-based decisions.

Liz Cheney approaches the elusive bottom line in this response to Megyn:

Megyn Kelly: Do you think that President Obama is dangerous?

Liz Cheney: Yes. I’ll answer that one Megyn. I think there is no question. I think that he is unique in terms of a president who is sitting in the Oval Office who has made very clear that his desire is to weaken the nation. And whether you say it’s his intent; whether it is naivete you can now look at the policies of the last six years.

This is the one and only bottom line

Taqiyya the Liar should never be criticized for his inability to govern. Spiritual leaders do not govern; they set themselves up as moral compasses —— presidents govern and never the twain shall meet. The pope does not govern Roman Catholics. Ministers, pastors, rabbis, monks, and so on do not govern their parishioners. Indeed, a small number of parishioners can fire a church leader who is clearly harming the church. Try firing a president who is deliberately harming the country.

The governing exception

Islam is the only religion where the priesthood governs. Should Taqiyya the Liar succeed in transforming America into a theocracy he will not need executive orders to make more decisions than his loyal admirers can handle.

Nor should anyone question Barack Taqiyya’s lack of leadership. Once again you must separate governing from spiritual leadership. Clearly he cannot govern, but he is a bona fide moral leader to the freaks who follow him in exactly the same way they would follow any cult leader to pitchers of Kool-Aid.

Even Taqiyya the Liar’s “admission” that he learns about this or that scandal from the press is his little joke on fools. The community leader cum president is exactly what he was when he sold himself as a spiritual leader.

NOTE: The media is most responsible for Barack Taqiyya. It was the media in 2008 that transformed community organizing into a noble profession. I, and a few others, saw him for what he is from that day in 2005 when he made this floor speech in the US Senate. As in every speech Taqiyya the Liar ever delivered he double speaks his true meaning:

Obama Speech - Nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown - Complete Text

The media must have thought the speech foretold the Second Coming because from that day forward he was their Messiah.

Then-Senator Barack Obama’s remarks on the Senate floor about Janice Rogers Brown still offer superb insights into his agenda as he gushed the usual Socialist positions. Two of Barack’s critiques of Justice Brown are worth addressing again.

As you’ll see in the excerpts, Obama employs the technique of Mix & Match in his floor speech. In the first excerpts, I am only interested in separating his views on private property from his mix of social engineering and Justice Brown’s judicial view of property Rights. The excerpts are taken from different parts of his speech. I put them together for my convenience. Here are the excerpts about private property mixed in with the usual litany of Socialism’s window dressings:

So when it comes to laws protecting a woman's right to choose or a worker's right to organize, she will claim that the laws that the legislature passed should be interpreted narrowly. Yet when it comes to laws protecting corporations and private property, she has decided that those laws should be interpreted broadly.

XXXXX​

If the claimant is powerful -- if they are a property owner, for example -- then she is willing to use any tool in her judicial arsenal to make sure the outcome is one they like. If it is a worker or a minority claiming discrimination, then she is nowhere to be found.

XXXXX​

Judicial decisions ultimately have to be based on evidence and on fact. They have to be based on precedent and on law.

In the Lochner case, and in a whole series of cases prior to Lochner being overturned, the Supreme Court consistently overturned basic measures like minimum wage laws, child labor safety laws, and rights to organize, deeming those laws as somehow violating a constitutional right to private property. The basic argument in Lochner was you can't regulate the free market because it is going to constrain people's use of their private property. Keep in mind that that same judicial philosophy was the underpinning of Dred Scott, the ruling that overturned the Missouri Compromise and said that it was unconstitutional to forbid slavery from being imported into the free States.

XXXXX​

It is simply intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent to suggest that somehow the Constitution recognizes an unlimited right to do what you want with your private property and yet does not recognize a right to privacy that would forbid the Government from intruding in your bedroom. Yet that seems to be the manner in which Justice Brown would interpret our most cherished document.

Let me first deal with the Dred Scott decision.

Where would American Communists be without it? To American Socialists/Communists Dred Scott is justification for abolishing all private property as Communism demands. If Senator Obama was intellectually honest he would admit that the on-going destruction of real property Rights should have ended after the Civil War ended. I feel confident in saying that those who effectively overturned Dred Scott by freeing the slaves never intended to abolish all property Rights. Instead of the Dred Scott decision’s ultimate irrelevance conveying finality, Communists later seized upon that decision as a wedge they could use in bringing Communism to a free people. Socialists hellbent on abolishing private property never miss an opportunity to bring up Dred Scott. Obama did not show any originality in trotting out that one.

More importantly, Obama plays the Left’s class envy card. He denounces corporations and private property. I took him to mean commercial property. The way he plays the envy card more than implies that he either doesn’t understand, or that he doesn’t recognize, the property Rights of tens of millions of homeowners. The Democrat party’s leaders do not recognize the real property Rights of homeowners. Obama gives no indication that he believes differently on that score.

Obama said that Justice Brown will use any tool in her arsenal on behalf of powerful property owners. He doesn’t say if Ms. Brown will also rule in favor of typical property owners —— homeowners. I can’t speak for Justice Brown. I can pray that she holds everyone’s real property Rights in the same high esteem.

The second topic I want to address is classic Communist misdirection:

Justice Brown believes, as has already been stated in the Chamber, that the New Deal, which helped save our country and get it back on its feet after the Great Depression, was a triumph of our very own "Socialist revolution." She has equated altruism with Communism. She equates even the most modest efforts to level life's playing field with somehow inhibiting our liberty.

Obama falsely claims altruism on behalf of New Deal Socialists while distancing Communism from the Left’s self-proclaimed altruism. That’s one hell of a neat trick. I think he was annoyed by Justice Brown because she dared connect Communism to social engineering. Obama does tentatively agree that Socialism and Communism are the same.

Leading Democrats have always called tax dollar altruism “leveling the playing field” whenever they took away a private sector Right, or transferred resources from one group to another. Either of the two takings most certainly inhibits the liberty of some —— usually the majority. The question is: Who does “our liberty” exclude in Taqiyya-world?

Incidentally, after Democrats blocked Brown’s confirmation for two years she was finally confirmed for the D.C. Court of Appeals.

If you read Taqiyya’s floor speech try this one from Janice Rogers Brown and you’ll see why then-Senator Obama did his intellectual best to derail her confirmation. If you read nothing else for the rest of your life please read this and think SCOTUS:

"A Whiter Shade of Pale": Sense and Nonsense —
The Pursuit of Perfection in Law and Politics

Speech of Janice Rogers Brown,
Associate Justice, California Supreme Court

The Federalist Society
University of Chicago Law School
April 20, 2000, Thursday
12:15 p.m.

Janice Rogers Brown, "A Whiter Shade of Pale"