Obama: Americans are stupid

Sophocles, in Antigone 1. 1023, says, "Stubborness and stupidity are twins." How so? Dr. Montague Brown explains as he makes the distinction between tenacity and stubborness: "Tenacity is the dedicated adherence to something we know to be worthwhile. As such, tenacity is positive. It involves a clear purpose - to persevere in what is good - and welcomes new evidence and perspectives that clarify or enrich that good...Tenacity is particularly evident when the adherence required is difficult. If my perseverance requires great effort of body or mind, or if it requires me to face a great deal of peer pressure and perhaps even ridicule, then my holding fast to my good purpose shows strength of mind and courage. In such cases, there may be little to gain in terms of social standing, but much in moral standing. Tenaciously holding to what is true and good not only benefits me in terms of virtue; it also works to ensure the stability of these goods in the community....Stubborness is the uncompromising insistence on having our own way. As such, stubborness is negative. It involves a kind of blindness, along with a willful rejection of evidence and the perspectives of others. Stubborness is particularly evident when the compromise required is easy. If the evidence I need to convince me to change my mind is readily available, or if accepting another's perspective would mean giving up little of importance, then my refusal to yield is not reasonable, but is motivated by stubborness. There is little to lose except my desire to be in control. Such rigid clinging to my own will hurts the community, because I refuse to cooperate with others, and it also prevents me from becoming successful and virtuous." (Dr. Montague Brown, Ph.D, The One-Minute Philosopher, pp. 162-163, Sophia Institute Press).



Rather than addressing the serious and substantive criticisms – or just plain concerns – directed at his policies, Obama has chosen time and again to dismiss his critics by painting them as dishonest, emotionally unstable or simply obstinate.  And now, he is suggesting that the American people are stupid.  In an article which may be found here, we read how Obama told Steve Kroft during a "60 Minutes" interview that, "..leadership isn't just legislation..it's a matter of persuading people..making an argument that people can understand."

How patronizing.  How insulting. If the American people are not convinced of Obama's policies, it is not because they lack understanding, it is because his policies are inane and his ideas lack substance.  Remember when this mental giant suggested that those who oppose homosexuality (because of Divine Revelation and Natural Law) were clinging to "worn out arguments"?  How about when Pope Benedict XVI telephoned Obama after the election to congratulate him on his victory?  The Holy Father brought up the subject of abortion and Obama said simply, "We agree to disagree."  See here.

Authentic leadership also involves acknowledging when one is wrong and not blaming one's failures on other people.  Our president is grossly immature.  And that fact is chilling.

President Obama and the basic incapacity to listen...

It comes as no surprise that President Obama admits to ignoring the Restoring Honor rally (which he refers to as the "Beck Rally." See here. When the President and other liberals aren't dismissing their opponents as being "bigots", they simply ignore them. This is the characteristic sign of irreverence.

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand defines irreverence as, "the basic incapacity to listen..the attitude that already knows everything before being has the opportunity to inform us. Irreverence is the impertinent, arrogant attitude that makes our minds deaf and blind to reality - the more so, the deeper and more sublime the object.." (The Charitable Anathema, p. 112).

Irreverence is not the proper response to value. But what more can one expect from an egocentric opportunist who poses as a statesman? President Obama is not at all interested in meeting the demands of truth or in acknowledging those valid points raised by political opponents. Which is why he dismisses the Restoring Honor rally by implying that "a certain portion of the country" has been stirred up by Mr. Beck - the implication being that those in attendance cannot think for themselves.

As time marches on, it is becoming increasingly clear to the American people that President Obama, the "Yes we can" President, is nothing more than an intellectual fraud. Especially since he now admits he is powerless to fix the economy.

He has proven himself to be most competent in one area: taking vacations. One should stick to what one is good at I suppose.

Senate Bill Will Not Address End-of-Life Care: Will President Obama now apologize to critics of H.R. 3200?

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa said that the Senate Finance Committee "dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly." Could be? It gets better. The Iowa Senator then admits that the House legislation was "so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences."

President Obama, who always seems to be calling for "reason, calm and dialogue," should follow his own advice. Speaking to a crowd of about 1,800 at Portsmouth High School in New Hampshire, Obama was quoted as having said that opponents of H.R. 3200 [and most especially those concerned over Section 1233] "will try to scare the heck out of folks and they'll create bogeymen out there that just aren't real." But this bogeyman was real. Which is why the Senate Finance Committee is dropping the end-of-life provisions.

This isn't the first time the president has attempted to demonize his opponents. Just recently he went on record as saying that Americans who disapprove of homosexuality are clinging to "worn arguments and old attitudes." Clearly no one has ever gifted Obama with a copy of Dale Carnegie's best-selling book.


Sophocles, in Antigone 1. 1023, says, "Stubborness and stupidity are twins." How so? Dr. Montague Brown explains as he makes the distinction between tenacity and stubborness: "Tenacity is the dedicated adherence to something we know to be worthwhile. As such, tenacity is positive. It involves a clear purpose - to persevere in what is good - and welcomes new evidence and perspectives that clarify or enrich that good...Tenacity is particularly evident when the adherence required is difficult. If my perseverance requires great effort of body or mind, or if it requires me to face a great deal of peer pressure and perhaps even ridicule, then my holding fast to my good purpose shows strength of mind and courage. In such cases, there may be little to gain in terms of social standing, but much in moral standing. Tenaciously holding to what is true and good not only benefits me in terms of virtue; it also works to ensure the stability of these goods in the community....Stubborness is the uncompromising insistence on having our own way. As such, stubborness is negative. It involves a kind of blindness, along with a willful rejection of evidence and the perspectives of others. Stubborness is particularly evident when the compromise required is easy. If the evidence I need to convince me to change my mind is readily available, or if accepting another's perspective would mean giving up little of importance, then my refusal to yield is not reasonable, but is motivated by stubborness. There is little to lose except my desire to be in control. Such rigid clinging to my own will hurts the community, because I refuse to cooperate with others, and it also prevents me from becoming successful and virtuous." (Dr. Montague Brown, Ph.D, The One-Minute Philosopher, pp. 162-163, Sophia Institute Press).

Is President Obama tenacious or stubborn? Is he interested in creating real and meaningful dialogue or demonizing his opponents? His track record, thus far, provides us with an answer.

Stubborness and stupidity are twins

Sophocles, in Antigone 1. 1023, says, "Stubborness and stupidity are twins." How so? Dr. Montague Brown explains as he makes the distinction between tenacity and stubborness: "Tenacity is the dedicated adherence to something we know to be worthwhile. As such, tenacity is positive. It involves a clear purpose - to persevere in what is good - and welcomes new evidence and perspectives that clarify or enrich that good...Tenacity is particularly evident when the adherence required is difficult. If my perseverance requires great effort of body or mind, or if it requires me to face a great deal of peer pressure and perhaps even ridicule, then my holding fast to my good purpose shows strength of mind and courage. In such cases, there may be little to gain in terms of social standing, but much in moral standing. Tenaciously holding to what is true and good not only benefits me in terms of virtue; it also works to ensure the stability of these goods in the community....Stubborness is the uncompromising insistence on having our own way. As such, stubborness is negative. It involves a kind of blindness, along with a willful rejection of evidence and the perspectives of others. Stubborness is particularly evident when the compromise required is easy. If the evidence I need to convince me to change my mind is readily available, or if accepting another's perspective would mean giving up little of importance, then my refusal to yield is not reasonable, but is motivated by stubborness. There is little to lose except my desire to be in control. Such rigid clinging to my own will hurts the community, because I refuse to cooperate with others, and it also prevents me from becoming successful and virtuous." (Dr. Montague Brown, Ph.D, The One-Minute Philosopher, pp. 162-163, Sophia Institute Press).

Newsmax is reporting that Pope Benedict XVI telephoned President Obama after the election to congratulate him on his victory. When our Holy Father brought up the subject of abortion, President Obama said simply, "We agree to disagree." How profound. But what exactly is the point on which President Obama disagrees with Pope Benedict XVI? When human life begins? As Dr. & Mrs. J.C. Willke explain in their book "Why can't we love them both: questions and answers about abortion," "Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual's life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father's sperm and his mother's ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization," or "fecundation." This is so because this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing."

In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II said that: "Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and ... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time-a rather lengthy time-to find its place and to be in a position to act". Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?" (No. 60).

Or does President Obama mean to suggest that not all human life has value and is, therefore, disposable?

Is President Obama really interested in truth? Or is he more concerned with power and control? Is he being tenacious or stubborn? As we meditate on this question, let's again consider the words of Dr. Brown, professor of philosophy at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire: "Tenacity is a firm choice of the will guided by objective value; stubborness is a firm choice of the will guided by the subjective desire to be right." (op. cit).