Founding Ideals

Hilary Rosen’s indictment of Ann Romney was quickly – and rightfully so – disavowed by the left, and condemned by the right. However, when we look past the outrage and at Rosen’s words, she is quite correct: A quick scan of her and Mitt’s Wikipedia biographies show that they were both born to affluent households. (I should add, much like most of the presidential candidates of recent decades.)

So, what of it? Far from revealing any hitherto unknown fact about the Romneys, Rosen has done us the favor of revealing a bit about herself and her impression of the electorate. Rosen and her ilk expect – no, require us to look at the economically privileged with contempt and jealousy. We are to believe that anything that they have achieved beyond the middle-class status quo is ill-gotten and the result of somehow leeching off the great unwashed. That many of us aspire to the ability to have one parent at home is anathema to the left, whose entire agenda is based upon the idea that Americans can’t rise above without intervention from the state.

Most Americans don’t look at Romneys dismissively, or contemptuously, we look at Romneys as inspiration to achieve our own success.

Unfortunately that worldview is not very convenient for the Rosens and Obamas of the world. If we are too busy trying to lift ourselves by the boot-straps to spend any time resenting those who have made it, we will have little use waiting for Washington DC to distribute our next helping of government largesse. And then, what use will we have for elitists from the Capitol?

A large number of Americans would love to be able to have a stay at home parent. Many of us make sacrifices in other areas to make that ideal a reality. Ironically, with a true unemployment rate of 12%, Obama’s failed economic policies have created a lot more stay at home parents that wished they could find work. That’s an economic reality that the Democrats don’t want to talk about and the real reason behind the attack on Ann Romney.

Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what a public figure means when what they say doesn’t match the facts in any way shape or form. In this post I will take a few recent public statements, provide a translation, as well as what they were hoping you’d think. Please note, our translations may not be 100% accurate, but we strive very hard to read the minds of various public figures.

Enjoy!

ABC News Story

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Supreme Court – 03.28.12
An exchange between Justice Kagan and Lead Plaintiff Attorney Clement…

Clement had barely finished his first sentence when Kagan immediately asked him why it was coercive for the federal government to give billions of dollars in additional aid to the states. “There are no matching funds requirements, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare,” she declared. “It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.”

To that, Clement said the government’s money was still coercive because it assumed the states would take the money and that Congress was leveraging their prior participation in the program. Kagan pressed further with a hypothetical asking Clement if he’d accept a lucrative job. He said it would depend on where that money came from.

“Wow! Wow!” Kagan exclaimed in wonderment. “I’m offering you $10 million a year to come work for me and you are saying this is anything but a great choice?” Clement sharply replied, “Sure, if I told you, actually it came from my own bank account.”

Click on image for full sized cartoon