Congress — you gotta’ love ’em. One of them is a weird woman who claims to be a Native-America (in the old days, aka an American Indian) because she has “high cheek bones.” The more relevant reason may be that it was expedient to be of such extraction because it helped her attain tenure at Harvard. Her claim was, of course, proven false. Disregarding my natural tendency to poke fun at her because of her looks (something liberal commentators always feel compelled to do), even though she raised the issue of her looks, I’ll just say I don’t get the high cheekbones. Isn’t it sort of “racist” to refer to physical characteristics as being specific to certain races? Isn’t “Redskin” beyond the pale now? But, we shouldn’t be surprised when liberals ignore their own tenants and claim special treatment due to their racial heritage, instead of at least pretending to be “racially neutral?”
And Mz. High Cheeks” is just one example of what haunts the hallowed halls of Congress. She lied to the Mass electorate and no one seemed to care. But she lied! There are statutes that allow lawyers to tell a jury in closing argument that they may discount everything a witness testified about if the same witness lied on just one little point. I thought lots of the rules of Evidence were goofy and convoluted when I took Evidence in law school. but, looking back, they make a lot of sense. Americans should be versed on such things.
What if we applied that rule to our Prez? What if the low intelligence … er … I mean … low information voters applied the rule to him during a recent press conference? None of the stuff he said made any sense at all. But let’s assume that it wasn’t boring gibberish. Let’s pick it apart. Parse the whole … interminable … mess. Nawwwww. Maybe not. Too dull.
His clipped strange speaking style hurts some part of my brain after about a minute. I forgot to mention, that rule of Evidence also works the other way around. If a witness gets caught telling a huge lie, the attorney can again tell the trier of fact that the entire testimony may be disregarded because the witness has no credibility, because she is a liar. She lies about big things. So would you doubt she would stint to lie about the little stuff in her testimony?
This makes even more sense than the other way round. Particularly if the witness lied repeatedly about some BIG issue. REPEATEDLY! Some REALLY BIG issue, perhaps. Affecting one sixth of the American economy. Or what happens to a guy in the hospital for life saving care. Or some sap TRYING to GET INTO a hospital for life saving care.
You get my drift.
Besides, is it just me or does Obama’s voice and speech cadence remind you of the actor in Beverly Hills Cop with whom Eddie Murphy’s character remonstrated for saying “Banana in the tail pipe” like a sissy, instead of like cell mate No. 2 in the Eddie Murphy movie, Trading Places, who always seconded cell mate No. 1 by saying “YEAH!” I think the similarity is remarkable. Maybe they teach lawyers at Harvard to mimic such speech. (If so, I think Ted Cruz skipped that class. Like Obama skipped all of Columbia.)
(I think Obama and the Democrats have shoved a giant banana up America’s tail pipe!) (I think I’ll look for a better metaphor than the “Tailpipe” thing. However, maybe not.)
At any rate, I was going to talk about the approval rating of Congress, but what’s the point. All but five or six of those geeks are in lockstep with Obama and Dusty Harry, so it isn’t surprising their ratings have plummeted. Obama’s are being propped up, I’m sure, by his pals in media. His are headed for the tank, too.
I hope you get a chuckle out of the accompanying cartoon. I think it explains a lot. At least it explains why I’m no Republican any more. A little.
