• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Editor’s note: Michael Ackley’s columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.

If you’ve read the following story before, please don’t stop me:

One sunny day in Sacramento, Calif., I was assigned to cover a press conference held by Kwame Ture.

The black-power firebrand, formerly known as Stokely Carmichael, had been invited to speak at the capital city’s California State University campus, in keeping with higher education’s commitment to hearing a diversity of (left-wing) viewpoints.

The only thing I clearly remember about the press conference was that I asked a particularly perspicacious question, which momentarily stumped Ture.

After stalling for a moment, he arched an eyebrow wisely and said, “It is possible to be confused by a question, unless you stay with the dialectic. If you stay with the dialectic, there is no confusion.”

Ture’s reply was a total non sequitur, but as he was a Marxist, one could only assume he had to resort to Marxian dialectics and, of course, communism. I inferred that rather than struggle with the question, Ture had chosen to make a profession of faith.

And this brings us to Barack Hussein Obama. President Obama demonstrated, in the wake of Scott Brown’s election to the Senate from Massachusetts, that when confronted with outcomes that run counter to his expectations and desires, he resorts not to logic and realism, but to faith. That would be the faith of an anti-establishment community organizer. Call it what you will in his case: socialism, communism, fascism.

In a democratic republic, unwavering faith in failed systems and failed schemes ought to lead to political failure. This seems to be where Obama is heading, in part because of his wrongheaded determination, in part because he is a true believer, and in more important part because he sees himself as a prophet of his doctrine.

Through the zeal with which he pursues his religious goals – reflected in his oratory – Obama has demonstrated one of our own maxims, to wit: No matter how ridiculous or vacuous one’s ideas may be, their vigorous assertion will gain a following.

The president has taken his following about as far as he can. It is falling away, and mere speech making, no matter how polished, cannot bring it back. Eventually, all that will be left for him is the refuge of false prophets whose people have ceased to listen – raw force.

Obama’s recent meeting with Republican legislators recalled for us an entry in our Blind Partisan’s Dictionary:

bipartisanship – n., in politics, the equal apportionment of credit and blame; e.g., all credit to one’s party and all blame to one’s opponents.

There stood the president in the power position behind the lectern. He spoke like a preacher in a pulpit, rebutting testimonies from a fractious flock. His response to chapter-and-verse citations of his failings was the classic, “That’s just not true.” His definition of compromise was, “You admit you’re wrong and I’ll admit I’m right.” At any point one felt he was on the verge of uttering the Democrats’ post-election exultation: “We won; you lost. Deal with it.”

He evinced no recognition that rejection of such ideas as health-care “reform” and cap-and-trade had been stymied by popular rejection. He may prove to be the most delusional president since Lyndon B. Johnson.


In light of the recent machinations over health-care “reform,” including the exchanges of public monies for votes, we feel we should expand the definition of bipartisanship. It should read:

bipartisanship – n., 1. in politics, the equal apportionment of credit and blame; e.g., all credit to one’s party and all blame to one’s opponents; 2. an alternate spelling of buy-partisanship.


File under “slow learners”: California’s state Senate approved a bill to establish a single-payer health plan in the Golden State. Apparently the bill’s author, state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, forgot California is facing a deficit estimated at anywhere from $20 billion to $35 billion.


Our dear children recommended that we see the trail-blazing epic, “Avatar,” not so much for the story as for its technological marvels. So we saw it, in IMAX 3-D, and found it positively Shakespearean.

To be specific, it put us in mind of “Macbeth,” and you may consider the bard’s words our capsule review: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.