The logic leaping continues.

Here is an example of the conservative logic, the very type of leap to which we are constantly subjected.

I heard it recently on the Laura Ingraham radio show. She was endeavoring to show that President Obama’s saying that those of us who have much should be helpful to those who don’t, a very Biblical, New Testament concept, was hypocritical on his part.

It was Jesus, Himself, who actually told the rich young man that he should sell all that he had and give to the poor, but perhaps I missed the retranslation. So, the idea itself being repugnant to those who want to meld religion into politics, struck me as something to which someone like Laura would object.

Her complaint was that while pushing this idea, President Obama was not doing it.

She explained that the youngest son of President Obama’s father’s fourth wife (that's the third wife after he left Obama's mother) is living in a slum in Nairobi, Kenya, and that obviously the president is doing nothing to help him. So how are we to believe him when he says that the richest Americans should be more willing to help the poorer ones?

The first thing that crossed my mind was that in his statement the President of the United States was talking to Americans about their fellow Americans. So why go looking for some distant relative by the fourth wife, a grown man now living in Kenya in order to prove an imagined hypocrisy? Obama has his own children he needs to support, and he WAS talking to Americans who should be willing to help other Americans.

WE THE PEOPLE after all.

The Kenya connection seems to be a convenient two edged sword. It makes President Obama a questionable American citizen for the birthers, but it obligates him to help his father’s fourth wife’s adult son living there.

So forget any programs that the President of the United States would like to impliment to help those people whose president he is because he does not financially support the fruit of his father’s loins who lives in Kenya.

But somehow to Laura, inspite of anything else he may have done, and may continue to be doing, to help the less fortunate in the counrty of which he is the president is negated because he is not sending money to someone rather distantly related.

The logic to this is the same that it would be if someone actually presented the verifiable fact that noone whose horse had done poorly in Olympic Dressage has ever been elected president, as a way to show that Mitt Romney is unelectable.

Sadly though there will be those who do not question the first leap, and will in all likelihood nod their head in agreement now that I mentioned the second. welcomes thoughtful comments and the varied opinions of our readers. We are in no way obligated to post or allow comments that our moderators deem inappropriate. We reserve the right to delete comments we perceive as profane, vulgar, threatening, offensive, racially-biased, homophobic, slanderous, hateful or just plain rude. Commenters may not attack or insult other commenters, readers or writers. Commenters who persist in posting inappropriate comments will be banned from commenting on