Sometimes, an Obamaism is just one of those short syntactical slips that would be all over the MSM if Bush had said it, but is barely mentioned if said by Obama. It was surprising the
Los Angeles Times actually pointed out Obama's gaffe greeting to Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan: “Bienvenidos. Welcome to Cinco de Cuatro,” which translates as “Welcome to five of four.” (
Los Angeles Times, 4 May 2009)
Then there are those Obamaisms that aren't just a few words or a line, but a speech like the one below (this one not quoted in The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Boston Globe...say, why do we have newspapers again?)
"Mr. President, your visit speaks to a truth of our time in North America and the world. In the Twenty-First Century we are not defined by our borders, but by our bonds. So I say to you and the Mexican people, let us stand together. Let us face the future together. Let us work together. Welcome to the United States" (President Obama, meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, 19 May 2010)
1) How can a visit speak to a truth? It's meaningless. Obama could as easily say, "Mr. President, your entree choice points to a brighter tomorrow" or "Mr. President, your use of floss gives hope to the oppressed."
2) Why is the Twenty-First Century a new era where borders are out and bonds are in? Have our governments agreed to erase our boundaries? Let me check...Nope, borders are still there. And Mr. President, what bonds are you talking about in this "Bonds without Borders" utopia? Is it the bond of Christianity? I could see that as the USA and Mexico are overwhelmingly Christian. Is it the bond of being invaded by drug lords and kidnappers from the South? Yes, we share that unwanted bond. Is it the bond where a minority of liberal elites doesn't like Arizona protecting its citizens (white, brown, black, etc.) from the illegal immigration problem that brings crime and bloated welfare and ghettoization? Sorry, I don't share that bond and neither do 75% of Americans who favor Arizona in this.
3) Let us face the future together...work together. So, does that mean I can go to Mexico and live and work and start a business. It does not. Wolf Blitzer asked Calderon, "Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people who they suspect are illegal?" Calderon didn't even blink, "Of course!" (CNN 20 May 2010). I can't even open a bank account in Mexico because Mexico's laws dealing with foreigners make US immigration policy look like what it is: a porous border with few repercussions for those who make it across. And who can blame people from wanting to come to the United States. President Calderon's government is more corrupt than that of the United States (but we're working on it). Blitzer again (same interview), "If somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job, they can work..."? Calderon sets Blitzer straight, "No, no. If somebody do that without permission, we send back them."
Yet, Calderon comes here and lectures the US...in our congress no less. Naturally, the Democrats gave him a standing O.
Speaking of "O"s, Obama said of his meeting with Calderon, "We also discussed the new law in Arizona which is a misdirected effort, a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system which has raised concerns in both our countries. Today, I want every American to know that my administration has devoted unprecedented resources in personnel and technology to securing our border. Illegal immigration is down, not up, and we will continue to do what’s necessary to secure our shared border."
Translation: nothing has changed. It's business as usual with illegals. Arizona is wrong to defend its borders even though its law for doing so is little different from US federal satute.
I should be on board with this. Next time a cop pulls me over and asks to see not one, not two, but three different papers -- license, registration, proof of insurance -- I'll simply say, "Is this because I'm white?"
Thomas J. Clement